Constitutional Revival and the Real Concerns of Conservative Americans

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I was talking to a friend of mine named Gryph last night who lives in South Dakota, and he was asking me about my radio program. I told him how it is growing, and how it is now on three stations across the country. The owner of the mother station has told me I am one of his best hosts, and there are a lot of people pushing to try to get me on during the week to compete against the big boys. I'm a capitalist, so I won't mind that at all.

In the conversation, I told my buddy about how I am tightening the show up, trying to make it more in line with industry standards, and how I am trying to infuse more Constitution talk on the program, using the model I use for my Constitution classes.

My friend responded, revealing great concerns for this country, "I am not holding out much hope for a constitutional revival anymore."

I said, "I am an optimist. Problem is, people usually don't wake up until their face bounces off the bottom of the gutter."

He replied, "So what constitutes that sort of gutter bouncing of which you speak?‎ Nobody gives a greasy brown turd as long as it's not their ox being gored. And when I try to point that out in more polite terms, I'm almost always treated like a lunatic.‎ It's frustrating."

I thought a moment about what he said, then added, "Obama was one of the gutter bounces, hence the reason for the rise of the TEA Party. However, it may need to get worse before it gets better."

My friend is not the same kind of optimist I am, I suppose, but I understand what he is trying to say, and turning this ship around may take a long while.

He said, "Exactly my fear. If Obama was one of the gutter bounces, why are so many self-proclaimed 'conservatives' so afraid of him? Cowardice, I tell you. We're a nation of cowards."

I don't think this is a nation of cowards, but I do think people are swayed way too easily by the media, and the establishment. I told my friend, "They believe the establishment, without understanding that the establishment is damn near as progressive as the Democrats. What is funny is that as liberal as Obama is, there are actually some democrats out there that think he's too conservative. I even had one liberal tell me he thought Obama is more conservative than Bush. It boggles the mind."

He said, "Bush didn't understand the constitution any better than most of the rest of them do, but at least his heart was in the right place."

Not wanting to necessarily defend George W. Bush, I said, "Bush was pretty bad domestically. I disagreed with his pharmaceutical deal, his No Child Left Behind big government intrusion into education, and he was dead wrong buying into TARP. But, on 911, I can think of no other person in politics at that time I would have wanted in the White House."

He replied, "Yeah. He was bad domestically. But I will always believe he was a fundamentally decent person who wanted to do what he believed was good for America (even on those numerous occasions when he was horrendously wrong)."

I reminded him, "That is the big difference between Obama and Bush. Bush made the bad decisions he made based on good intentions, but a bad premise. . . not that I am defending Bush by saying he had good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But in Obama's case, he hates this country as it was founded, and is purposely working to transform this nation into something different, even if it hurts. He is an ideologue. The people be damned, he will do what he wants despite the damage it causes, because he hates capitalism, American style liberty, etc."

He said, "Well here's hoping we can get this Charlie Foxtrat FUBAR figured out soon enough that there will be something left of America worth saving."

I added, "We better, because an Obama win would put a lame duck liberal in the White House, and without anything holding him back, there is no telling what Obama would do to destroy this nation during his second term."

"Please don't misunderstand me, Doug. In asserting my belief that George W. Bush is a fundamentally decent human being, I am in no way attempting to remotely excuse the way he had grossly fumbled on constitutional understanding."

"I agree. But, being a decent human being didn't trump the training he had received from his 'new world order' father, Bush 41."

He responded, "Indeed."

I said, "Reagan chose Bush as a running mate in that second election because Bush was popular in the Northeast, where Reagan was not doing as well in the polls. He picked Bush to pick up those states. Remember, moderate to liberal Republicans tend to be more popular in the Northeast, which should tell you much about Bush 41."

And which should tell you much about Romney as this Florida Primary kicks into high gear.

A little reminder about Florida. First, they lost half their delegates for moving their primary up. Second, there is still 46 States left, so the race is far from over. Don't believe the media and talking heads if they start saying it is done. Third, remember that if no candidate has a majority of delegates by the end, we could very well see a brokered convention. The convention in 1976 was brokered, and this one may very well wind up being one too.

We'll see.

By the way, a brokered convention is not necessarily a bad thing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary