The goal of any poll is to get a general idea of where a respondent stands on issues, not to drill down to minutia. For that reason, polls usually ask broad questions with multiple choice answers that may or may not accurately describe an individual’s exact position. Here’s one example:

This question is designed to draw the reader’s eye toward the fourth answer. Note that each answer provides some commentary (that’s generally a no-no in polling), and that the wording of every other option uses pejoratives. Also, notice the other options invoke a labyrinth of if/then type statements, or strong absolutes designed to direct respondents to other answers.

The goal of this article isn’t to beat up on the Nolan Chart Survey, however. Instead, this article asks you to question your own beliefs. Were it not for a political party constantly yammering on about national security, might you feel differently about foreign policy? If no one identified “green energy” with Democrats would you have a different take on it?

Americans do themselves a huge disservice when they vote a party instead of a person. Here in primary season voters have a critical chance to decide the next crop of Republican leadership in Congress. Instead of listening to candidates blather on about who is more conservative, voters need to decide for themselves which issues really matter, given our current state. That means ignoring issues that simply are not as essential to focus on right now.

The two-party system has been extremely effective at putting voters into two groups and then getting them to declare outright war on each other. So, in effect, we’re taught that anyone who doesn’t vote for a given Democrat is a conservative right-winger. If you voted for Doug Hoffman in NY23, you’re a right-winger. Martha Coakley declared that MA had elected a hard right winger, in Scott Brown.

When the labels are peeled off, and voters are asked where they stand on issues, that’s where we get real answers. The brand name of a political party is simply too powerful for most to resist. Like the 1980′s soft drink taste tests, many are surprised to learn the candidate they would support if they had to vote strictly on issues.

Sadly, we are a two party nation, and that means there is a political reality that conservatives need to get behind less than ideal candidates if they want to keep the “greater evil” from winning in November. That doesn’t mean we need to have mediocre options in November. This season’s primaries could set the stage for a true conservative landslide in November…but only if voters pay close attention.

Entitlement programs in America have a troubled past. Once a ponzi scheme is born, it is nearly impossible to get rid of it, no matter how costly it becomes. However, despite the fact that we’ve shown weakness in removing social spending programs when they threaten to bankrupt us; we have a good history of penalizing leaders that take us in the wrong direction. Obama’s dangerous legacy will be well remembered at the polls.

No one can see the future. It’s possible that Obama will get himself involved in some mess near 2012 that tricks the electorate into giving him another four years. However, the history is clear: Democrats will not get another turn after Obama. If he’d turned out to be the moderate he advertised himself as, this would potentially be avoidable. As it stands, however, the country will happily abandon Democrats. We won’t need to wait for 2012 to see it happen either.

Mid-term elections are usually brutal for the President’s party during the first term. Republicans and Democrats agree that many Democrat seats will be lost in November. What Democrats will deny is the growing tide of resentment at liberals and progressives who simply can’t cut up the country’s credit cards. In a way, it would actually be better for Democrats if Obama gets the boot in 2012, because it might stop the bleeding for their reputations.

Similar to how George Bush became more careless toward the end of his second term, ultimately costing the party a win in 2008, Obama could destroy his party’s image (more than he already has) near the end of his Presidency. March 21st, we witnessed the damage party ideologues can impose on the country with a party-line vote. Now the fate of the country rests in voters’ hands who can no longer assume that voting a party line will lead to predictable results. Republicans rebel against moderates John McCain, Charlie Christ and others. Independent voters who were swayed for Obama in 2008 will think twice before pulling the lever for the “D” again. These voters tend to favor fiscal responsibility over social policy and they gave Obama a chance because Republicans’ spending was out of control. When you take out all the groups Obama has alienated and angered, he’s hardly got any voters left.

Obama has certainly changed the political landscape, but not because he’s an outsider who doesn’t play Washington games. Precisely the opposite is true; Obama is the ultimate Washington insider and he and his party have proven that they won’t stop trying to foist their socialist policies onto America. Indeed, there is no country for Obama.

Of course, some horse-trading (or judgeship trading) to get a vote here and there is to be expected, if not condoned. However, when they come in batches and people are forced to step down (even temporarily), the scandal ridden party has something to be worried about. Now, to go along with political failure on every major party platform, the Dems can add these scandals to the reasons many wonder if they can cling to their majority in November.

Forget not, that the New Yorkers didn’t start the fire. Obama kicked off his administration with a series of tax cheats being appointed to the cabinet. They were generally given the customary forgiveness you and I would never receive. The notable exception being Tom Daschle, who dropped out before his tax woes embarrassed the administration (I think they already did). Then there was NM Governor Bill Richardson, who quietly withdrew his cabinet bid because he was under a grand jury investigation in his home state. Obama’s so-called ‘Green Jobs Czar’ resigned after his affiliation with the 911 Truth project was brought to light. All in all, New York is a little late to the party.

Will voters forgive the jackass party by November? Anything is possible, we’re not an especially moral country these days, and everyone is human. Plus, the GOP has had it’s fair share of scandals…Mark Sanford, anyone? One thing the GOP didn’t do, however, was launch a 2006 campaign offensive on the piety of their candidates, that’s all on the Democrats.

“I think that CPAC has become increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year”

I don’t know if it’s fair to say it has become more Libertarian. Certainly, Dick Cheney (now hospitalized with chest pains), and Jim DeMint are not Libertarians. Although I agree it’s become less GOP centric. That’s a reflection on the GOP, not CPAC. For one, I applaud the CPAC for the energy it gives conservatives, and feel they owe the GOP nothing.

Bill Bennett went a step further:

“To say the GOP and the Democrats are no different, to say the GOP needs to hit a recovery-program-type bottom and hang its head in remorse, is to delay our own country’s recovery from the problems the Democratic left is inflicting.”

Having watched the speech end to end, I can tell you Beck didn’t say there is no difference between the GOP and the Democrats. He did definitely reiterate (more than I thought was necessary), that both the GOP and Democrats have spent too much. Beck’s a Libertarian, though, how surprising is criticism of Republicans, really?

Bennett’s criticism seems to focus on how Beck didn’t help the GOP. To that I say, so what!? Beck is there to speak to the CPAC, not provide more partisan blathering for so-called “moderate” GOP members. To follow Bennett’s advice we ought to simply elect another big spending, socially conservative, nation building President. Frankly, we’ve tried that. While it’s better than what we have now, it’s far from ideal.

There is a need for unity, however. Due to our two-party system, splintering is always a big risk, and we shouldn’t cannibalize our own cause by nitpicking differences. On that, Beck makes another good point:

“It’s not enough to not suck as much as the other side”

Indeed it isn’t. Look at what failure to elect really conservative Republicans has bought us so far. An unfunded, multi-trillion dollar liability called Medicare Part D, an expensive and unnecessary TARP bill, and GM bailouts even Congress decided against.

Did it occur to these criticizers that Beck just wants stronger conservative candidates? We can nitpick the manner in which Beck said that, but I’d rather just work toward the goal.

Like we have come to expect, he wears his heart on his sleeve. The crowd was as enthusiastic as you could imagine, and ate up the truly conservative message.

You can view the live feed we presented on our Twitter page @keene_politics where we documented that tastiest morsels he served up.

CPAC voters are serious about “change we can believe in”, and Ron Paul fits the bill. He is the most conservative independent thinking man I can think of in politics.

Congrats, Ron!

This year we’ll be treated to Glenn Beck at 6pm ET. I expect this to run long too. Glenn’s trajectory has been nothing but upward since his move to Fox News and the 5pm ET slot. The crowd should be very fired up.

We’ll be tweeting during the event for those of you who won’t be in front of your TV, for those who will be home Fox will carry the keynote in its entirety. Viva Beck.

“Where in the Constitution, pray tell, do we find the authority for such crusades? Or for the national restrictions on abortion supported by the fifth signatory, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council?”

Well, there are a couple obvious answers. Since every major country has always banned murder since the beginning of time (yeah, yeah, 6 trillion years ago), I guess the founders didn’t think they needed to single it out. A better question would be: Where do you find in the Constitution some provision that provides an exclusion to a national law banning murders, based upon age?

Here’s another morsel that boggles the [functioning] mind:

“Or for the national regulation of broadcast speech pushed by the seventh guy on the list, Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council?”

Again, the First Amendment provides for free speech, but with several common sense exceptions. We are not free to endanger others with our speech, to incite violence or other unrest, to spew vulgarities or obscenities, or to make death threats. This isn’t news Jesse, and you seem like the kind of guy who would be smart enough to know it. Broadcast television bandwidth is a public resource, and it’s free for consumers. That means just about everyone can view it. Naturally, there are sane limits on what kind of trash the public can be subjected to, in order to access television.

He actually kicked things off by defying logic (I always hated logic, go get ‘em Jesse):

“Ed Meese, who as attorney general during the Reagan administration happily prosecuted national wars on dirty pictures and politically incorrect intoxicants”

Well Jesse, there’s an explanation for that too: He was the attorney general. Your quote even says that. Since child porn and drugs are all illegal, how much sense does it make to bash on the attorney general for prosecuting such cases? We could possibly agree on the “politically incorrect intoxicants”, but how could overlooking child porn peddling be a “good thing”?

I’m saddened that you didn’t choose the one obvious point where conservatives trip all over themselves to screw up: Nation building.

Why would someone want to cheapen a good political platform like the Libertarians with such ridiculous arguments?

“If our leaders cannot agree to the Mount Vernon Statement, they are part of the problem and should be replaced.”

I would tend to agree. As far as small government and limits of government intervention in our lives, the Mt. Vernon Statement would seem to fulfill every conservative’s wildest dreams. However, such agreements aren’t really new. Allegedly conservative politicians know full well what their platform dictates. It’s the threat of losing votes (primarily from senior citizens) that leads them to bad decision making time and again.

With the February 25th meeting with Obama looming, the GOP may just get a chance to prove they can by softening their resistance to Medicare cuts. It’s a $32.4 trillion dollar problem that desperately needs a Mt. Vernon solution.

Liberals feel supporting the 10th amendment is wrong. I just can’t figure out why. Well actually, I can; it gets in the way of statist, progressive types who want a Federal central planning system telling everyone what to do. I always thought that the liberals had enough lies in their arsenal of petty name calling, that they wouldn’t need to resort to using the truth, but I guess I was wrong.

So, to their credit, the liberals are right. I’m a staunch, stuck in the past, supporter of the 10th amendment, call me old fashioned, I guess. I’ve never been assaulted by the 10th amendment like the left has. Of course, I’ve never advocated a Federal takeover of State’s rights. If I had tried that, I too, may have felt the burning sting of those awful, hate-filled words in the 10th amendment. “Enumerated powers”, it’s enough to keep a guy awake at night clinging desperately to his guns and religion.

While you’re at theteapartyisover.org, check out some of these wacky loons listed at the bottom of the page. Especially, this David McAloon character. That guy scares me. Calling abortion, abortion?! What a nut job. To make matters worse, he even supports this right-wing diatribe entitled “the 2nd amendment”, and thinks people should be allowed to own guns. Scary stuff, indeed.

The movement has centered around the patriots of the Revolutionary Period, and a return to the limited Federal Government demanded by our Constitution, and which was in place during that time period.

However, being an opposition force with no elections in sight is a lot easier from being one in an election year. In 2009, simply criticizing those in power was good enough. This year, the Tea Party faces a much bigger challenge. They are going to have to decide who they will support, and what their platform really is.

If the Tea Party was born overnight in a fury over Government waste, excesses, and a lack of listening to its citizens, then those issues would seem to be the base of its platform. However, for the Tea Party to gain real credibility, it needs to differentiate itself from the Republicans.

The GOP has taken a beating in recent years because it didn’t remain true to conservatives. If the Tea Party allows itself to become indistinguishable from the GOP then it, too, risks a similar fate.

Is the Tea Party going to become an arm of the Christian church as the GOP has? Will they dare to separate the social issues from economic and national security issues?

Here are some recommendations the Tea Party should consider:

1) Adopt most of the Constitution Party’s platform.
2) Lay off the opposition to gay rights.
3) Steadfastly refuse to affiliate with any church or the values thereof. (This is Government not church)
4) Take a page from the Libertarian playbook and inject some intellectualism into the discussion.
5) Turn down the hyper emotionalism.
6) Get some serious speakers for their conventions.
7) Stop wearing silly outfits.

As the ruling class with a super majority and the White House under their control, the Dems wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and they could have. They wanted to pass the health care bill, and be able to call the GOP obstructionists. Thankfully, they weren’t even able to get their own house in order.  So much time was spent bad mouthing the GOP for not working with them (which was a lie, too), and the whole time they had a super majority.  Why didn’t they pass it?  Is it because they wanted someone to share the blame with when it all blows up?  It sure seems like it.

Now, in the Scott Brown era, the President has scheduled a number of media friendly events aimed at pretending the left wants to work with the right. Republicans beware: Obama’s premise is wrong. Most Americans do not want the health bill, they do not want cap and tax, and they don’t want virtually any of the Democrat priorities. The best thing Republicans can do is to clearly and publicly articulate that they do not want to talk to Obama, Pelosi, Reid or anyone else in the Democrat party about their left wing plans. If the “media is the message”, then even sitting down to discuss the ideas grants them certain credibility as potentially being good ideas…and they aren’t.

If Obama’s wildest dreams came true and Republicans were won over in these meetings, it would be a banner moment for “bipartisanship”, but Republicans would be dooming themselves by working with leftists on leftist policies. There is no way for the GOP to win by working with Democrats, not with their current lineup of proposals.

People elect their party’s candidates to fight the ideas from the opposing party, not to water those ideas down to where they are acceptable.  The GOP had a plan to deal with this, but it’s irrelevant, because the premise is wrong.  Health care is not broken and that’s why for all the years of Bush and the GOP in Congress nothing was done on this issue, the GOP didn’t feel it’s important.  It still doesn’t.

Republicans can win big in November but only when they learn how to say: “No, I don’t want to sit down and talk with you because my constituents do not believe that your agenda is a priority and I’m not going to play your game”.

If the GOP continues to work with the Dems and try to come to consensus they are doomed to repeat the mistakes that have cost the GOP so much already.