This Republican is staying

(Denver Post, Aug. 15) “I don’t know what the future holds,” my biblically-minded friends will say, “but I know Who holds the future.” Thus grounded, they’re able to be calm, courageous, confident, and cheerful in the face of adversity. Amidst a Republican base disheartened over the struggle to pick our nominee for governor, I am of good courage for a similar reason – political rather than theological. Even though I don’t know who will stand for my party this fall, I know what my party stands for. So division or defeatism is not an option for me over the next 11 weeks. Former state Sen. Cliff Dodge resigning as president of the Arapahoe Republican Men’s Club in order to join Tom Tancredo’s third-party bid, the morning after primary voters nominated Dan Maes, wasn’t quite Robert E. Lee choosing gray over blue – but it dramatized the deep fracture in GOP ranks. The kind of year we’re having, Maes and Tancredo may both be out of the race by the time you read this; no matter.

Each is a good man, neither is the next Lincoln, and the point here is bigger than either of them. Simply put, our state needs a unified Republican party to anchor the center-right. Sustaining the vitality and viability of this “grand old” institution of self-government in Colorado, 150 years and counting, is more important than winning any one election for any one office. Far more.

Shattering the state’s only vehicle for conservative governance in a petty power struggle, a summer fit of petulance, pique, and panic – and handing a plurality win to liberal John Hickenlooper as liberal Bill Ritter’s successor, at a time when liberalism is ever more discredited – would be an act of self-destructive folly with few parallels in modern history. My fellow Republicans shouldn’t do it, though many are tempted.

Not me, because I know what my party stands for. To say this is to assert two things. One is about principles. Republicans stand for individual liberty, personal responsibility, economic freedom, limited government, strong defense, traditional morality, recognition of human imperfectibility, and the understanding of rights as God-given, not manmade.

The other assertion is about process. My party stands (as in fact do our opponents, the Democrats) for the proven superiority of two well-established and diversified competitors vying for the consent of the governed, in preference to three or 23 splintered rivals, evanescent and narrow in the European style. Breakaway factions have occasional value if driven by issues; but the current Chicken Little outcry of “not electable,” opportunistically roosting on the Constitution ticket, hardly qualifies.

I voted for rookie-of-the-year Dan Maes in the primary. Barring the unforeseen, you can expect I’ll be for him again in November. He may not win; but nobody expected him to get this far. As noted here on August 1, Maes for Governor 2010 has echoes of Andrews for Governor 1990, another darkhorse nominee. Though I lost that year, the GOP began a decade and a half of dominance – which never could have occurred if someone like, say, Ted Strickland had gone third-party against me and toppled the temple.

Conservatives conserve. We’re the sensible ant to the liberals’ impulsive grasshopper. We don’t eat the seed corn. We don’t burn the house down for firewood. We don’t trash time-tested institutions for transitory whims, as too many Colorado Republicans now seem inclined to do. Think twice, compadres. Stop before it’s too late. Wake up.

Conservatives know, as Thomas Ferril’s poem in the Capitol rotunda has it, that “today is going to be long, long ago.” A single executive term is nothing – a robust and durable two-party system in this state, everything by comparison. Gov. Hickenlooper or no, my Republican devotion is immovable. My faith in Colorado self-government, unsinkable.

America is Calling: Support Ken Buck

ProgressNowColorado.com has Ken Buck in their crosshairs.  The Independent, the left wing newspaper out of Colorado Springs is ridiculing Rasmussen so readers will discredit his polling data. Ken Buck's victory on Tuesday night set off a firestorm that quickly spread beyond Colorado.  As typically occurs, once election results are known, the losing camp sulks off to lick their wounds and pout for a bit.  Buck people would have done the same had Norton won.  It's normal and allowed and with the amount of passion and intensity that went into these campaigns, anything less that heartbreak would be abnormal.

It's Friday now and the sun has continued to rise each morning since Ken Buck was handed the banner of victory.  While Norton supporters have sulked, the progressive Democrats have been busy concocting a game plan to defeat Ken Buck.  Can Ken win in November?  Of course, he can.  He defied all odds by winning the primary.  He habitually ran behind in polling, fundraising, name recognition and high-profile endorsements.  The results should have been different on Tuesday night if all the typical political markers had held strong.

The enormously powerful and well-funded 527, "Grow Our Party" hand-picked Mrs. Norton and funneled millions into Colorado in the way of TV ads and mailers.  Some of their effort worked.  There were voters that changed their mind from Ken to Jane based on the ad campaign from "G.O.P."   It's time for G.O.P. to realize their efforts worked to some degree, so this is no time to pull out of Colorado. They need to mount an attack against the forces that would defeat Ken Buck.

Ken Buck has what it takes to defeat Michael Bennet.  He will be excellent in debates and he does not waiver in his positions.  He is extremely personable and likable and time and again, people he met on the stump would comment that if people actually heard him in person, shook his hand and looked him in the eye, they couldn't help but see his sincerity, integrity and deep commitment to fight for his country.  He has a very appealing demeanor; there is nothing elite or pretentious about him which is why he immediately lead the pack among the grassroots voters that are tired and frustrated with establishment Republicans.  Another common thought that echoed throughout the primary campaign was the fact that many Republicans no longer trust their county chairs and people in higher authority in the party.  After all, it was on their watch that the Republicans suffered defeats in '06 and '08.  Why keep following a game plan that is proven to fail?

Jane Norton needs to come out in a bold way and call upon all her supporters to not just stand with Ken Buck with their vote, but to donate.  This race is going to be all about money.  Ken Buck needs a war chest to strike back when lies are told and attacks are levied toward him. 

Our country is calling.  We need to replace Michael Bennet with the people's choice, Ken Buck.  He won.  He can do the job but he needs the assistance of an entire nation that understands how crucial his conservative vote is in the U.S. Senate. 

Go to www.buckforcolorado.com to donate, volunteer and get involved.  There will be another election in 6 years.  If you aren't happy with Ken Buck at that point, you have another shot at putting someone in Washington that you'd prefer.  But for now, Ken Buck is our candidate.  We can support him 100% and do our best to turn the tide of this Administration, or we can sit it out because we didn't get the candidate we wanted.  If you choose the latter, you've already cast a vote for Michael Bennet and more of Obama's progressive agenda.

I'm for the ticket. Aren't you?

"For Governor of Colorado in these tough times, Dan Maes the Tea Party conservative beats John Hickenlooper the Park Hill liberal hands down. I'm for Dan as every Republican should be." That's the formal statement I have just provided the Maes campaign to use as they see fit. My favorable and unfavorable words about Dan in recent weeks are all on record at this blog for anybody to sort out as desired.

Bottom line, the GOP nominating process has twice endorsed this indomitable Man from Middle America, and my regard for his unlikely achievement, along with my bone-deep party loyalty, prompts me to add my support to that of a couple hundred thousand fellow Coloradans who supported him Tuesday.

In coming aboard with Maes, I'm affirming my belief that he would be a better chief executive for our state, all things considered, than either Hickenlooper or Tancredo -- and my belief that a fractured, embittered Republican Party in Colorado must be avoided at all costs.

It's better avoided if we stand with Dan, even in what may well be a losing cause, than if we bolt and go with Tom in what will surely be his losing cause. These are the times that try men's souls. How will history judge us?

Hiroshima, absent history

August 6^th marked the 65^th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  For the first time since the end of World War II, an American representative attended the official commemoration ceremony of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.  President Obama sent U.S. Ambassador John Roos to “express respect for all the victims of World War II” – a benign sounding olive branch that was designed to convey empathy to the Japanese.  This is consistent with Obama’s desire to “reset” American diplomacy by showing the world that America is not the global bully of the past. Unfortunately, compassion in the absence of context can be meaningful -- in unintended ways.   Sending the U.S. Ambassador to the Hiroshima ceremony as an act of “respect” provides fuel to the revisionist case that the U.S. was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945, and plays into the hands of those who now increasingly believe that America was the aggressor in the Pacific War.  Even actor Tom Hanks – the Executive Producer of the HBO mini-series “The Pacific”, referred in a recent interview to the war against Japan as one of “racism and terror” on both sides, and that the U.S. wanted to annihilate the Japanese simply because “they were different”.

Hanks comments essentially reflect what is fast becoming a lost history among newer generations – particularly as taught by left-wing academics and reported by the left-leaning media.   The reality is that the Japanese war machine was ferocious, fanatical and fought to the death in every major naval and land engagement of the Pacific war.  At the battle for Okinawa in 1945 – the last major land battle of the war when the Japanese empire knew that defeat was inevitable – some 12,000 American soldiers and marines were killed in brutal cave-to-cave fighting that left over 100,000 Japanese soldiers dead.  Only 7,000 soldiers surrendered to U.S. forces.   At sea in Iron Bottom Sound, Okinawa saw the deaths of almost 5,000 navy personnel and the sinking of more than 30 American ships – many at the hands of over 1,500 Japanese suicide “Kamikaze” attacks.  Even more disturbing, the Japanese military actively encouraged the Okinawa civilian population to commit mass suicide rather than be captured by U.S. forces.  Over 100,000 Okinawan civilians are believed to have died during the two month battle.

It was this experience that colored the thinking of President Truman and the American military as they approached the events of August 1945.  The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki avoided tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties that were virtually certain in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The presence of Ambassador Roos at Hiroshima neglects a very important context which the left tends to routinely ignore: Japan was an expansionist imperial power that brutally invaded China and South Asia and attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor without provocation.  By offering respect for “all victims”, Roos gives rise to a moral equivalency of responsibility which only further removes history from the discussion, and will in time lead to more strident requests for a formal U.S. apology – something this administration may be quite predisposed to do.

This anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was a missed opportunity for one of Barack Obama’s “teachable moments”; but rather than being something for America to apologize for, it should provide the basis for an honest discussion of Japan’s actions during the Second World War.  Doing so would put the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in its proper light: as a wise and prudent choice that spared innocent lives on both sides.

Scotch verdict on McInnis-Maes

What is called in the law a Scotch verdict, an agnostic shrug of "not proved," is my sad and reluctant conclusion about next week's Republican primary for Governor of Colorado. At present I cannot support either of the two candidates.

I was intrigued with the businessman-outsider persona of dark horse Dan Maes, and went so far as to float the case for him in my Denver Post column last Sunday, posted below left as "Maes and the Medicine." But as the evidence mounts, I deem the case very insufficient.

Dan Maes is not ready for prime time and seemingly not who he has claimed to be.

Scott McInnis has seen too much prime time, and Colorado is not ready for who we know him to be.

Which is regrettable for two public-spirited Coloradans, fundamentally decent men with devoted families -- and even more regrettable for our state, which so urgently needs the limited-government leadership a qualified Republican could provide right now.

Where does this leave us on the morning of August 11 when one of these two is officially the GOP nominee? Attractive and viable options are slim to none.

A ticket-replacement maneuver is imaginable but unlikely. A plurality victory for Constitution candidate Tom Tancredo is also unlikely; Tom is my friend but won't get my vote.

Are we looking at a handshake from outgoing Gov. Bill Ritter to incoming Gov. John Hickenlooper next January, Democrats retaining power against all odds after botching things so badly the past four years? What a pity if it comes to that.