I’ve intentionally stayed away from commenting on “Super Tuesday” due to the fact that yesterday felt just about as “super” as a nursing a hangover in church.  As many of you know, I have no horse in this race.  I cast a vote for Newt Gingrich yesterday in my home state of Tennessee – not because I’m crazy about the guy – but because I dislike him less than the other candidates.  Hence the Wednesday morning hangover.

I’ve shared my thoughts on each of the candidates in various posts, but I’ve yet to share a summary in one place.  Because of that, at least two readers have accused my of “ducking the issue.”  I can assure all of you that I am in no way ducking this or any other issue or decision regarding November 2012.  I will not be voting for Barack Obama and have every intention of voting for the Republican nominee – save for Hell freezing over between now and the 11th month in this calendar year – and by that I mean Ron Paul claiming the Party nomination.  Then and only then would I have to sort some things out.

That said, I’m anything but enamored with the choices that sit before me.  If given the opportunity, I’d most certainly pass on Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum; but we’re not going to have that opportunity this go round are we?  So here we are.

Before this turns into a miserable rant about how terrible our candidates are, I should probably clear up a few things.  Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Carrot Top, Conan O’Brien, Peyton Manning, fill in the blank… I’d take any of them over the current president; and I genuinely feel sorry for anyone so blind or foolish as to believe this guy’s deserves a second run at things.  What I’m really saying here is I don’t care who wins the Republican nomination.  At this point, how could I?

Three, four, five months ago… I would have told you that the GOP could have marched out any candidate with at least four years of life left on his ticker and the Party would have had a 50/50 chance of reclaiming the White House.  Throw in a guy that knew how to tell a joke and I would have bettered the odds to 55/45 Republican.  But since that time, this B-List slate of candidates has done nothing but chip away at and diminish those odds to the point where I sincerely believe we’re currently looking at a 55/45 for Obama proposition.

So, where do we go from here?

Ron Paul must go.  Anyone that still believes he’s campaigning for a message or serving as the “champion” of anything besides self-indulgence is either delusional or not paying attention.  He’s made his point.  He’s taken his stand.  75% of Americans have Googled “Libertarian”, now let’s just move on with it already.  How or why the other three candidates haven’t publicly pledge to let him (and Rand) speak at the convention is absolutely lost on me.  We all know that’s the prize he covets, so give it to him and call it a day.

What about the other three, you ask?

Pick any of the three and search this site or any other right-leaning blog; and you know what you’ll find?  Countless articles hammering each of them… on a host of issues and topics.  They’re flawed, they’re incomplete… we know this much.  For all of us that do whatever it is we do here on the Internet or elsewhere, we’re merely choosing between the lesser of our past contradictions and hypocrisies.  Before this race began, the vast majority of us would have laughed at any of their selections and we would have cringed at the thought of having to vote for any of them.

That brings me back to my vote.  I voted for the Former Speaker; because when I look at Newt Gingrich, I see a quarterback capable of brilliance.  We’re talking about a six touchdown afternoon.  I also recognize that he’s perfectly capable of turning in a six interception performance at the flip of the switch.  Why gamble?

Because I don’t particularly “like” any of them and I’d much rather shoot for the fences than swing for a single.  Add that to the fact that I believe Newt is also the only candidate capable of motivating the conservative base for a sizable turnout in Congressional elections and you have the answer to why I’d cast a vote for a man that I wouldn’t have put in my top 20 list of people I’d like to be my next president six months ago.

Why not Mitt?  The better question from where I sit is, Why Mitt?

I’ve yet to hear an effective Why Mitt argument that doesn’t include “inevitability, looking presidential, or business experience.”  The first one’s lost on me, the second one matters only on a superficial level and serves as extra credit, and the last one there could apply to every CEO of every Fortune 500 company.  Is that where we’re recruiting now?  If so, how bout we pick a CEO from a company that actually produces something?

But that’s not to say that Governor Romney is all bad.  I actually find myself in the camp of folks that can look past a spotty record as governor of a blue state and see the reality that his shape-shifting tendencies could ultimately lead to a rather conservative presidency.  One would have to be more than inconsistent to accuse him of having evolving principles and not concede that his final destination looks to be on the conservative side of things.  But I suppose that doesn’t really speak to actual governance, but I digress.  I didn’t vote for the guy, so it’s hardly my job to defend him.

As to Rick Santorum… I thought very little of his candidacy when this primary season was in its infant stages.  I thought him to be far too social issues oriented for this election cycle.  While I don’t take my conservatism in piecemeal, I do wholeheartedly understand that the American public tends to have a one-track mind when it comes to political campaigns.  If the focus is on the economy, you want a strong fiscal conservative to compare and contrast with the economic disgrace that currently rides on Pennsylvania Avenue.  What you don’t want is a candidate capable of derailing that conversation by way of being easily distracted or pounced on by the MSM for his social views (personal or otherwise).  I think it’s clear that in Rick Santorum, we have that candidate.

But like Mitt Romney, all is not terrible with Mr. Santorum.  Frankly, I believe he is – without a doubt – the most genuinely conservative candidate in the field.  I thought that when there were twice as many candidates in the field and I still believe it now.  What Rick suffers from is an inability to turn off the tongue.  He’s just far too honest to be a politician.  Terrible, right?  Well I didn’t write the rules and I’ve never been polled so blame someone else.

If you’re looking for someone to blame, I’d choose the media.  I didn’t say “MSM” there because I genuinely believe all media – Left, Right, and Center have reservations about Senator Santorum’s Faith and how it will impact his politics.  Beyond that, I think they all see said Faith as a golden opportunity for a headline, so they take it.  Unlike many in the political world, I refuse to judge a man for his religious beliefs or even lack there of.  Where I do get a bit judgmental is gauging how they choose to share that Faith with potential voters.  If they use it as a campaign tool, I’m typically turned off.  If they seem ashamed of their views, I tend to wonder if there all that genuine.  If they have no particular religious views and try to fool folks into believing that they do, I find it extremely hard to trust them.  What Rick Santorum represents is a man so proud of his faith that he could never be any of the above.  I respect that about him more than anything else – even if I don’t always find myself agreeing with the things he says.

That said, I’m not your average conservative and I’m certainly not your average voter.  People are swayed by headlines and the actions of shock media.  They hear the things he says and has said and they assume his social policy will be reflective of those views.  Fair or foul?  I suppose it doesn’t really matter.  What does matter to me is that his inability to stay on message with fundamental problems presently plaguing our country is more than problematic to his ultimate chances in a general election.  Should he emerge as our Party’s nominee, I would expect a social war of Biblical proportions to break out among competing interests that would completely derail any chance of defeating Barack Obama.

So, what am I saying here?  Are we destined to lose the White House, again?

Absolutely not.

I think we’re sitting 55/45 right now and looking up as the underdog, but the race is nowhere close to being over.  What we need is this primary race to come to an end.  I was once on the bandwagon of the brokered convention line of thinking, but talk of Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie have all but erased those thoughts from my mind.  It’s time to dance with the folks we came with – like’em or not.

Who gets out first?  Newt obviously thinks it should be Rick and Rick clearly thinks it should be Newt.  Either way, one of them has to go.  Romney may ultimately be our Party’s nominee, but Rick and Newt are doing no one any favors by continuing to split the non-Romney vote.  The Party deserves a head to head race or a half dozen before we decide this thing.  One of them is going to have to be the bigger man and “take one for the team.”  

Who said that line?  Rick, there’s your answer.

I wish it could be that simple.

Someone wake me up when it’s convention time.  But don’t even both if there are still four candidates in the race.

The conservative movement has lost one of its most powerful voices as Andrew Breitbart has died at the age of 43.

The terribly sad news of his passing was announced at Big Government.

Like many in the right-wing universe, my path once crossed that of Andrew Breitbart.  I met him at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February of 2010; shared a few drinks with his colleagues and many friends; and took away from the encounter a sense that I’d just met both a rock star and an ideological icon.   In reflecting upon meeting Breitbart and many of the best and brightest of the conservative new media, I characterized Mr. Breitbart as the GodFather; and in a sense, that’s really what he was.  No cause was too minor or insigificant; no obstacle too great to overcome.  When the MSM and the Left brought a knife, Breitbart brought a gun.

I can hardly say I “knew the guy” as I most certainly did not.  I was lucky enough to share a few hours with Mr. Breitbart and his colleagues at a convention I attended only because I opposed the very idea of said convention in the first place.  But what I took away from my time with Mr. Breitbart and those who dined at his table was a sense of urgency – not to complain about the MSM or the Left – but to do something, to create something, to stand for something that would make the efforts of the liberal establishment pale in comparison to the movement from a unified Right.

The conservative movement and the political universe has lost a giant.  He will truly be missed.

—

More news and reactions…

From The Blaze:

From RS McCain:

From Ed Morrissey:

From Datechguy:

Breitbart at CPAC last month via Mediaite and The Lonely Conservative:

Andrew Kaczynski at BuzzFeed has a collection of candidate Obama’s campaign ads from 2008 and they are no doubt going to make the president wish he had never played the $3.50/gallon card on John McCain.  While I’m absolutely certain you won’t be seeing these ads revisited at most mainstream media outlets, I guarantee you that yours truly and many right-wing blogging patriots will continue to feature them between now and November as gas prices continue to rise.

Just a taste.  Head here for more…

I’m particularly fond of the third one here.  ”Serious Plan”?????  Still waiting.

—

Linked at Motor City Times – thanks!

Certainly won’t be his last, but wanted to share with you the first time Marco Rubio took to the floor of the Senate to address his colleagues.  A fine speech by all accounts, and certainly one worth a few minutes of your time.  Enjoy.

“We are still the great American People, and the only thing standing in the way of us solving our problems… is the willingness to do so.”

“Our story, the story of America, is not the story of a nation that never faced problems. Our story is a story of a nation that faced its challenges and solved them.  Our story, the story of the American People, is not a story of a people who always got it right.  It is the story of a People who in the end got it right.”

From his YouTube page…

“On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Senator Marco Rubio delivered his maiden speech on the floor of the United States Senate. Focusing on themes of “The New American Century,” Senator Rubio celebrated the “American miracle” that allows so many to achieve their dreams and resolved that we all continue to fight for America’s role as a shining city on a hill.”

January 11, 1989… The day President Reagan said goodbye to a nation.

I could try to paint a background for this speech or I could shut the heck up, get out of the way, and let you enjoy it.  I will add a few of my favorite lines here – just in case you want to compare notes.

• “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.  And they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow.  They came from the heart of a great nation.  From our experience; our wisdom; and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.”

• “Because we are a great nation, our challenges seem complex.  It will always be this way.  But as long as we remember our First Principles and believe in ourselves; the future will always be ours.”

• “We meant to change a nation; and instead we changed a world.”

• “I went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious… Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words … We The People.”  We the People tell the government what to do.  It doesn’t tell us.  We the People are the driver.  The government is the car.  And we decide where it should go; and by what route; and how fast.  Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are.  Our Constitution is a document in which We The People tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the People are Free.”

• “Man is not free unless government is limited”

• “As government expands, liberty contracts“

• “At first pull your punches.  If they persist, pull the plug.  Its still trust but verify.  Its still play, but cut the cards.  Its still watch closely and don’t be afraid to see what you see.”

• “An informed patriotism is what we want.”

• “Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?”

• “We’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion, but what’s important.”

• “If we forget what we did, we won’t know what we are.”

• “I’m warning of an eradication of that; of the American memory that could result ultimately in an erosion of the American Spirit.  Lets start with some basics:  More attention to American history, and a great emphasis on civic ritual.  And let me offer lesson number one about America… All great change in America begins at the dinner table.  So tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins.  And children… If you’re parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American. Let em know and nail’em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.”

Full text posted below so you can follow along if you would like…

Full Text from the Reagan Foundation

My fellow Americans:

This is the 34th time I’ll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We’ve been together 8 years now, and soon it’ll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I’ve been saving for a long time.

It’s been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the Presidency is that you’re always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass — the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn’t return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, “parting is such sweet sorrow.” The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow — the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that’s the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I’ve been thinking a bit at that window. I’ve been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one — a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn’t get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that’s what it was to be an American in the 1980′s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again — and in a way, we ourselves — rediscovered it.

It’s been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of ’81 to ’82, to the expansion that began in late ’82 and continues to this day, we’ve made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I’m proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people ofAmerica created — and filled — 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, “My name’s Ron.” Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback — cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. “Tell us about the American miracle,” he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that “The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they’re likely to stay that way for years to come.” Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called “radical” was really “right.” What they called “dangerous” was just “desperately needed.”

And in all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people’s tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We’re exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we’d have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons — and hope for even more progress is bright — but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we’re a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there’s no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980′s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you’ve got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn’t my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the People.” “We the People” tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. “We the People” are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the People” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the People” are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I’ve tried to do these past 8 years.

But back in the 1960′s, when I began, it seemed to me that we’d begun reversing the order of things — that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, “Stop.” I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Nothing is less free than pure communism — and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I’ve been asked if this isn’t a gamble, and my answer is no because we’re basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970′s was based not on actions but promises. They’d promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it’s different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I’ve given him every time we’ve met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street – that’s a little street just off Moscow’s main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we’ll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don’t, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It’s still trust but verify. It’s still play, but cut the cards. It’s still watch closely. And don’t be afraid to see what you see.

I’ve been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I’ve been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn’t for arguments, and I’m going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I’ve had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn’t win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan’s regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we’re to finish the job, Reagan’s regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he’ll be the chief, and he’ll need you every bit as much as I did.

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I’ve got one that’s been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I’m proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won’t count for much, and it won’t last unless it’s grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn’t get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea thatAmerica was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we’re about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven’treinstitutionalized it. We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important — why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D – day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, “we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.” Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let’s start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that’s about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We’ve done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

The greatest speech ever delivered.  Period.  I don’t care if we’re talking 1924, 1964, 1994, 2011, or 2024; this speech is as timeless as any speech in American history.  If I could start my every day with a dose of it I would.  Oh wait.  I do.  That’s why its up there in the corner and to the Right.  While I make the rounds of my daily reads, I listen to the Gipper put things in their proper context – some 50 years removed.

–

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson narrates a tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan in honor of what would have been his 100th birthday – February 6, 2011.  The video, just Tweeted by Senator Thompson, was posted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and it is an absolute must see.  Take a look.

(May 19, 2010 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

In an interview with UC Hastings law professor Calvin Massey for the California Lawyer, Justice Antonin Scalia answered a few questions regarding the Nation’s Highest Court and explained with brilliant simplicity his take on Strict Interpretation of the Constitution.

You can read the whole interview here…

A few highlights…

HuffPo wasn’t pleased.  Shocker.

Many of you who frequent this site know that there are at least three subjects that I wish were talked about more frequently and openly in and among Conservative Right Wing media circles – Strict Interpretation of the Constitution, The American Civil Religion, and American Exceptionalism.  The last, and perhaps the most “politically incorrect” of the three, is the subject of a brilliant piece I stumbled upon today over at Heritage.

Matthew Spalding offers an outstanding survey of American Exceptionalism that I would encourage all of you to spend some time with.  After all, if we can’t be proud of this great nation, what is the point folks? Regardless of how hard the Left and our wonderful global apologist President try to tell each of us that the United States has a history that we should be ashamed of, we are part of something special; something transcendent; something remarkable.  This nation was founded on principles of Individual Liberty, and that founding set off a chain reaction the world-over that forever changed the role of governments in relation to the people they serve.

Take a look.

Getty Images

I have long been a Mike Pence supporter.  I think I have made that abundantly clear around here.  I think he is not only a leader in the conventional sense, but also a leader amongst true Conservatives – a man confident in his political philosophy and convictions; unafraid to stand alone and lead the charge rather than waiting for the call to arms to emerge from the reluctant pack.  He is time and time again among the first to speak out on issues important to Conservatives and the American People, and he does so in a resolute fashion that reflects a true and consistent guidepost for his ideology and his methodology toward governance.

I am often asked who I would vote for in future Presidential elections – 2012 or beyond – and the only answer that I can give without equivocation is Representative Mike Pence from Indiana.  I have given that answer for quite some time now knowing that Pence had no desire to seek the nation’s Highest Office.  I have been extremely pleased as I have quietly begun to hear rumblings from others about the prospect of his candidacy and have been nothing short of excited when he has come around to flirting with the idea.  As he has emerged as a leader of his Party, I have become enthusiastic that the day may actually arrive when he will announce his intentions to seek the office he appears so uniquely prepared to hold.  To date, he has not made such an affirmative statement.

That said, he chose not to run for the Indiana Senate seat left vacant by departing Evan Baye – a seat that would have kept him occupied through 2016.  While he never noted the Presidency as a motivating factor, many (including myself) believed it at the very least played a small role.  In a straw poll conducted at last weekend’s Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, Pence claimed 24% of the vote edging out conservative starlet Sarah Palin and presumptive favorites Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney causing many new to the Pence discussion to ask the question “Who is Mike Pence?”

For those of you similarly situated asking yourself “Who is Mike Pence?”; take a look at a speech he gave Monday night at Hillsdale College.  The topic of the speech was the “Presidency.”  He didn’t discuss cap & trade, Obamacare, Iran, Afghanistan, or even renewing the Bush tax cuts.  He didn’t tackle the tough issues of abortion or same-sex marriage.  He didn’t have to.  He simply spoke about the office; the power and the responsibility; and reflected on the respect he has for our nation’s Highest Office; and he told us all everything we needed to know.

It is truly a remarkable speech – among the best I have seen in many a year.  If you can’t answer the question “Who is Mike Pence?” —- You certainly need to find out.

Have a look at some excerpts I pulled or read the full speech here…

—————————–

The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the luminous and passionate Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution, terse, sober, and specific, does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor, but this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and, something seldom seen in history: a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, George III said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions the purpose of which is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except — as planned — by careful amendment. There is no instruction to the president to override the law and, like Justice Marshall, let it catch up to his superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

We, too, have the voices of shades that emerge from the past. We too, have what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called, “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown — and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, every one of us, their descendants. The sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even were it not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history, the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.

Many great generations are gone, but I see them in my mind’s eye, and by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children … who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.

They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late, keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”

——————————————————-

Brilliant stuff Representative Pence.  Brilliant stuff.