Janet Napolitano has a strong reputation as the moderate Democratic Governor of Arizona, and for the most part, she lives up to it fairly well.  but every once in a while, she slips and allows us to see her more blatantly liberal side.  Recently, she gave us a glimpse of this by sending a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Energy requesting an investigation into the rising gas prices of the last few weeks, according to local radio station KTAR(http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=426804).  In doing this, she reminded us that somewhere underneath, she is a Democrat, just like all other Democrats.

Napolitano is using the same tactic used by the left for decades-empty suggestion.  It is the same tactic being used against Attorney General Gonzales by the United States Congress(http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar27/0,4670,GonzalesTwisting,00.html).  In both cases, it is a stark reminder that Democrats do not have a clear direction when it comes to governing the country.  Or even just Arizona.

Janet is well aware of why gas prices are so high in the state.  Arizona does not have a refinery, and our gas is currently pumped in from Texas and California.  Original attempts to build a refinery in the deserts outside of Phoenix died after being strangulated by bureaucracy(http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16924918&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68555&rfi=6).  Currently, attempts are being made to build a refinery near Yuma, but it doesn't have a source of oil(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0419biz-refinery19.html).  Arizona might very well be in a position to moderate rising prices if Napolitano had put forth a concerted effort to push the project forward.  Instead, she spends her time writing letters that she knows will make no difference to score political points in order to deflect criticism of her own failures.

The situation with Gonzales is almost identical; even Democrats must be aware they have nothing to go on and practically no chance to dethrone Gonzales, even if he was to testify before a House or Senate committee.  And if they don't know that, they must actually be insane.  But Democrats have had a hard time getting the ball rolling in Congress, because the only thing they have in common is the anti-war sentiment voiced among their constituency, and even that unity is on shaky ground in both chambers.  The recent emergency spending bill's narrow victory is a case in point.

So like Janet, they turn to casting aspersions rather than governing.  It is easier to remain in power by casting doubt than by conducting good policy, and neither Janet nor Congressional Democrats could resist taking the low road.  On the surface, it makes them look like they are taking charge(http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar27/0,4670,FiredProsecutors,00.html).  But I predict that in the end, Gonzales will not be forced to resign.

In fact, these moves violate a simple principle of politics; you don't always have to win, but you are required to produce an acceptable level of results, or you may well be replaced like the Republicans in Congress just were.  So why would Democrats go on a witch hunt like this right from the start of regaining power?  The fact that they were unable to resist the temptation to do so tells us much about the continuing Democratic weaknesses.  You can learn much about someone who cannot resist temptation to certain proclivities.

First, it tells us Democrats are not comfortable facing issues head on; they are trying to cover some sort of perceived inadequacy.  True, Republican politicians have gotten bogged down over the issue of Iraq, but they also managed to pass other laws, such as education reform and the faith-based initiative.  But somehow, Democrats still look like a one-trick pony, and they just did the trick.

Second, it tells us that Democrats are not comfortable with their prospects in the next election.  Some of the seats in Congress were won by the slimmest of margins, so Democrats really are playing politics here by continuing to trying to smear the Administration.  Gonzales is such a tempting target because they feel it will give them an opportunity to paint thier opponents in a negative light.  Think of the ongoing drama like an extended political commercial, because that's how the Democrats see it.

All this leads us to our final deduction; Democrats still have the sense that they have not really connected with the American public beyond the issue of the war.  Polls consistently show that Hillary faces stiff resistance from about half of the country, and even strong negatives in her own party.  Among those over 62, a sizable majority are disaffected with her(http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html).  What's a girl to do?

It may very well be that the Democrats find a way to pull the troops out of Iraq.  Republicans are probably going to have to start putting pressure on the White House to begin packing the troops up and bringing them home before long.  But don't let that fool you into thinking liberals are going to overrun the country anytime soon.  There are no refineries in the desert, and there is no popular support for a return to liberalism in America.

Janet should remember that, and so should Hillary.

Recently I ran into an old friend of mine in the university computer lab, someone I hadn't seen in a long time.  The last time I saw her she had just become pregnant, and now she is just a few weeks from giving birth.  The change was disconcerting, to say the least.  But our accidental meeting was far more important to me than that.  She reminded me of why I do what I do.  I do not serve in the military, but the soldiers in Iraq and I have some common goals.  The brave soldiers serving or country kick down doors and take bullets, while I am merely a writer, using words to wrestle for what is right and only take the barbs of scorn from opponents.  What I do is minuscule by comparison.

But like them, I do what I do so that my friend and her currently unborn baby can live their lives in peace.  So that her daughter can grow up without fear.  That she can dream big dreams for her child and see them come to pass.  Right now, there are thousands of men and women in Iraq doing this work far better than I could ever hope too.

But as the old saying goes, "charity begins at home".  We all have a role to play in defending our values, and sometimes the enemy is sitting on the next barstool.  Sometimes he lives in the apartment upstairs.  And while we may not wear a uniform or receive combat pay, it is our duty to carry the responsibility of a free nation on our shoulders wherever we are.  Being a free man is both a privilege and a duty, and it is time for us to tend to our own garden.

The people around me should have the confidence of knowing that I am willing to take my share of responsibility for what goes on around me, that unlike those other men in the bar, I will not slink away.  That I will not be a coward.  They have that right of me.  It is the voluntary actions of a people that determine their destiny, not the minimal functions required by the state.  A nation is great when it is filled with men willing to act upon their morals and values regardless of the cost, and ceases to be great when it is not.

Shame on the men in that video.  Shame on the men who march against duty.  Shame on men who will not get involved out of fear they may become a criminal's target.  Shame on men who run and hide when they are needed.  Shame on us.

There is an old saying about armies; they are like a plate of spaghetti, that you cannot push ahead of you, you must drag it behind.  In my mind, this is the biggest problem facing conservatives in the current political environment.  After all, if you are going to "drag" a any kind of movement behind you, you have to lead.  And that's really where our current problems lie.  Truth is, it's not all about Iraq--it's about a lack of leadership.  And the sooner we see that the better off we'll be.  "Compassionate conservatism" hasn't worked, and for the sake of the conservative movement it must be abandoned.

The core of all leadership seems to be the ability to define what a movement is about; this is particularly true when it comes to political movements.  And this, my friends, is what the conservative movement lacks most at the moment, a defining set of principles, set forth and defended by those who lead, that provide the framework for those in the movement to take concerted action.  When I voted for Reagan in 1984, I knew what he believed.  He believed in limited government, lower taxes, a strong military.  It was pretty simple--I agreed with him(I did) or I didn't, and I voted accordingly.

Fast forward to today, when a Democrat is front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination.  A pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay rights liberal is running for the Republican nomination.  Let's be honest, the only difference between Billary and Guiliani is that the latter is likely to be more conservative on defense and security, and party name.  That's it.  Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

The latest dose of this nonsense involves the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh, as the Governator, hereby referred to as "Arnie", called Rush "irrelevant" during an interview on the Today Show earlier this week.  On Tuesday, according to Limbaugh, Arnie's staff e-mailed Limbaugh requesting an opportunity to appear on his radio show.  The transcript is at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032107/content/01125106.guest.html.

The problem is that the theme of compassionate conservatism is a blithe sort of surrender of those very ideals that separate one party from another, and Arnie represents this trend definitively.  Limbaugh pressed Arnie over his liberal actions as governor, to which Arnie replied, "You know, I have to, ultimately, make decisions that are based on bringing people together, bringing Democrats and Republicans together, and to really working for the people and trying to resolve issues."

Yes, every politician has an office to which he or she is appointed, and indeed ruling is not the same as campaigning.  But Limbaugh had it right when he replied, "The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats are not going to punt their ideology because it defines them...",  and that's the crucial difference.  You are in the party to because you believe in it's values and desire to govern by them.  Or you are a traitor.

Bush is in the position he is in partly because the idea of invading Iraq was a popular one at the time it was made, and he found the temptation of popularity irresistible.  Our enemies had struck at us; we must strike back.  But outside Iraq, the administration has been bumbling and timid.  In doing so, it has set itself up for scorn, because it is human nature to pick on the weak.  Bush promises he will stand his ground on the subpoenas concerning the firing of the federal prosecutors currently working their way through the House.  But this is a Presidency that has so far simply been too nice and suffered too much from attention disorder to resist it's opponents and carry through the process of governing.  It is a weakness we are all suffering for.

I have a confession to make.  I have recently discovered Michael Savage, and I must admit to being taken by him.  From writing books entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" to actually calling liberals names on his radio show, he probably seems a little loony to many.  But he and Ann Coulter have the magic bullet that can renew the Republican party, especially it's conservative base.  Savage and Coulter fight back, call names back, debunk liberal ideas as crazy and a little dangerous.

But that's an important part of politics; not just to promote your own ideas, but to discredit the ideas of your opponent.  Call them diseased, and divide them from the popular support they need to hold power.  Have we really forgotten Reagan holding up the miniature dollar bill and asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago"?  You didn't really think you were going to win by being nice, did you?

What we need is leadership, leaders that will stand up to the other party and refuse to be bullied.  Leadership that is motivated by a central group of principles that it will not surrender for political expediency.  But most important, we need leaders willing to fight for those principles, promote them unwaveringly in the public arena.  We should not be surprised that the two sides are always clawing and pushing at each other-that's the nature of the game.  What we need to do is start playing it.

That's how you win.