There seems to be some controversy brewing regarding the President’s upcoming address to schoolchildren tomorrow. Having read the speech (link below courtesy Yahoo! News), I can honestly say that I don’t understand the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_school_speech_text

Agree with him politically or not, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. That, in itself, deserves our respect, regardless of how vehemently we may disagree with his policies.

The speech, at its most basic, calls on students to work hard and to stay in school. It reminds children that they have a duty to their Nation to work hard and to succeed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, hard work and self-reliance are pillars of conservative philosophy. So why would some criticize this speech?

The answer is simple: there are elements of the Republican Party and of the conservative movement that will fight against absolutely anything the President does, regardless of how benign the action may be. This is dangerous.

For starters, America can’t miss the Republican Party if we’re never really gone. There are times when we should simply nod and give silent support to our President. This is one such time. If we waste our energy balking at every single little move the President makes, then we sound reactionary. We are better than that.

Second, we want leaders to address schoolchildren. It’s important for kids to feel somehow connected to their government, otherwise they will grow up to think that they have no stake in America’s wellbeing.

I, for one, am glad that America’s students will be listening to the President tomorrow. I remember a girl on my high school newspaper remarking to me about how much more she liked then-President Bush when she had a chance to hear him speak, rather than listen to analysts dissect his words. It is a fact that people feel more connected when they have the chance to listen to people like the President tell them that what they’re doing is important.

I fully support this simple decision by the President. And I hope that he—and other elected officials—takes the time to talk to American youth more often.

With the election of a new chairman to the RNC, Republican leadership promised to pay attention and put forth effort into all opportunities to elect Republicans to congress. That means finding viable candidates in all 435 districts.

Job one should have been the Special election taking place this March to replace Rahm Emmanuel in the Illinois 5^th. And yet…nothing.

I’ve looked at the candidates and surveyed the area. The front-runner is Patrick O’Connor, or, as I prefer to call him, Rahm Lite. Just about every lawn and every small business’ window in the district has an “O’Connor for Congress” sign. I’ve also seen a handful of shows of support for Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley, a man who I actually met once. I had to shower for two hours straight and I still couldn’t get his slime off of me.

So I tried to look at how the supposedly revitalized RNC was responding.

There are three “serious”—and I use the term very loosely—candidates on the Republican side. First is our “front runner,” Tom Hanson. Hanson ran against Emmanuel in 2008, but of course, he lost. Can anybody say “Adlai Stevenson?” Looking at his campaign website, I cringed. It looks like it was designed by a high school sophomore and has just about as many grammatical errors on the front page as would be expected from a website designed by a high school student from the Chicago Public School System. He made me want to throw away the State Constitution and run myself. I’m sure I’d do better.

Our second-best is Rosanna Pulido, the State Director of the Minuteman Project. You’re likely thinking what I am: is the Illinois GOP serious? She’s a one-issue candidate with views on immigration that make Ann Coulter look rational and moderate, running in a district where white people are considered a “healthy minority.” If she gets over 4% of the vote, I think I’ll choke on something. But at least her website looks more professional than Hanson’s, so she gets to lose in style. By the way, on her front page, illegal immigration is mentioned in four out of eight of her “headlines,” including sections on “Defending Our Chicago Police Officers,” “Rosanna For Congress,” and two that are actually called “Illegal Immigration.”

There are other candidates on the ballot, but you get the point. The Illinois 5^th should be our first real fight; a symbol that Republicans are prepared to get back on the horse and that we really are more competent than the shamed Blagojevich Democrats. Instead, we are displaying ourselves as a party in ruin; why would Illinoisans vote for the party that can’t run one viable candidate in one special election? This state will vote for Democrats with the logic, “Well, they’re corrupt, but at least they’re smart enough to occasionally accomplish something. These Republicans are boobs, but, OK, honest boobs.” Wake up, Republicans! If this is a sign of things to come, then our party is, indeed, finished. 

Am I concerned about the fairness doctrine? No. It’s blatant censorship, and as dopey as some of the things that Pelosi and her ilk in Washington will throw at us will invariably be, this should not be a big fear for our party. I don’t see any version of the Fairness Doctrine even getting out of committee in Congress. The American people will see it for what it would be: the victorious Party beating on the losers. America won’t like that and won’t stand for it, so I’m not afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine.

I am also not afraid of The Obama Administration governing from the far left, which they will do. It failed with Carter, and it will fail again. We just need to be patient. 2010 will see Democratic power substantially weakened, and 2012 will see the end of The Obama Administration. I’m not afraid because I know that this level of Democratic power is a temporary condition.

So what am I afraid of?

Believe it or not, I’m afraid of Republicans.

It’s true: right now, we stand to become our own worst enemy. With Mike Huckabee, a man I greatly respect, releasing his new book this week—in which he attacks just about anyone who did not support him in the 2008 primary—I see a dangerous possibility of what our Party could become.

Let’s meditate on that for a moment; since when did we become the Party of sore losers? Since when are Republicans the screaming four-year-old who can’t take it when their brother beats them at “Sorry!”? That’s not us, Mike. At the very least, it shouldn’t be.

Huckabee is particularly hard on Governor Mitt Romney, of whom Huckabee says, “[Romney was] anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” That’s just unnecessary, Huckster.

Meanwhile, while we have Romney and Huckabee getting ready to battle like feuding siblings, we have other names being haphazardly tossed about for a 2012 run. It’s four years away, people! When I said, “let’s look to the future” in my last piece, I didn’t mean start campaigning. I meant hold guarded optimism about the Party’s future. Who knows, maybe we will get Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination (a scenario of which I’m a big fan), but it’s too far away for us to allow it to become our primary (sorry) concern.

What we can actually worry about is the concept of having too many conservatives on the stage for the 2012 primary. This past primary, we had Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, among others, all vying for the “Mr. Conservative” mantle. They wound up cancelling each other out, and so we got stuck with John McCain. The true conservative base of the party was too divided, so all of the real conservatives wound up losing. We can’t let that happen again.

Yes, I’ll admit, I want Mitt Romney to run in 2012. And yes, I realize that this may make me seem like a hypocrite for a variety of reasons. But I also know that earlier coalescence around one strong conservative—Sorry, Mike, but Mitt is indeed a conservative—will make for a stronger party in the future.

My point is this: Mike Huckabee has laid out a veritable roadmap on how to allow ourselves to degenerate to infighting, bickering, and inter-partisan civil war. We have to remember that the things that unite us are far greater than anything that might divide us. We are better than sniping at our own allies over who said what and when.

Let’s save some argumentative prowess for the Democrats. And, even then, let’s keep it reasonably civil. OK, Huckster?

We constantly hear about how corrupt the United States Congress is, but national politicians can begin to look like angels when compared to the Illinois General Assembly.

It’s no secret that Illinois politics has been broken for quite some time. Illinois Democrats frequently concern themselves with lining their own pockets with little consideration for their constituency. Meanwhile, Illinois Republican politicians are even worse; they bend to the whims of special interests, without even firm organization. Different Republican districts in Illinois might as well be in different States, as the party no longer has any legitimate unifying base. The Illinois Republican Party has even taken to raising lawsuits against fellow Republican organizations for failure to get the State Party’s “permission” to call themselves “Republicans.” The word “Republican” refers to a system of political beliefs, not necessarily to a group of bureaucrats. It’s no wonder the Democrats hold so much power in this State; they are at least organized.

On August 12 and 13, a special session of the Illinois General Assembly was called. The intended topics: capital spending on drug and alcohol treatment facilities and school funding. Did they ever get around to those topics? No. Rather, the Senate wasted the day bickering about their own pay raises, while the House of Representatives never, to my knowledge, discussed anything. This is the same Springfield machine that failed for several months to solidify a State budget. This is not what our government was created to do.

Obviously, I bear concern for the status of our Federal Government, but we need new leadership right here in the State of Illinois, first. Readers may or may not know that our State holds the National record for the highest number of indicted Governors. That’s not very reassuring to the people of the State.

Also needless to say, elected Illinois Republicans—if they ever do accomplish anything—seem to act more like Democrats, advocating more spending, the State equivalent of big-government solutions, and new laws and regulations that force our party to the center. Or even, dare I say it, to the left.

What we face is a problem similar to what many National Republicans have had since the 1930s; we look too much like our Democratic rivals to warrant voters to switch sides. “At least this one admits he’s a Democrat,” they think. Or even, “Better to stick with the Devil we know, rather than the Devil we don’t.” What good are we, as a party, if we are too corrupt to care, too cowardly to stand up for what we believe in, and too fragmented to present a united set of Republican ideals? What good is the Illinois Republican Party if our last measurable accomplishment was Abraham Lincoln? It’s time to fix these problems. It’s time to put an end to the chaos.

This article is meant to be a stepping stone, a rallying cry, a glaring light on the flaws in Illinois’s political system. More specifically, the flaws and structural breakdowns in the Illinois Republican Party. Without valid leadership and a valid structure of Party unity, Illinois will become a one-Party State. The Land of Lincoln stands to become the Land of Daley and Obama. Illinois Republicans deserve better. Illinois Citizens, in general, deserve better. And, one way or another, we will get better.