In reality, Meghan’s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.

Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely).

Two, Contrasting Perspectives

So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.

In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn’t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I’d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.

This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.

The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it’s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama’s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.

Clinging to the Outer Fringes

Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat’s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That’s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy’s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.

The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn’t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I’d advise against such a move.

If you follow the Democratic model, you’ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy — John Kerry — to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.

A State of Shear Dormancy

When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don’t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we’ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets.

What simply doesn’t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.

As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain’s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn’t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.

To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement’s heart and soul. It’s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America’s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.

Conservatives, for what it’s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America’s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.

It’s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.

In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet.  In no particular order there was Tom Daschle ("was" because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes.  Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):

"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I," Obama said. He added that the "mistake" should not diminish the "many contributions" Daschle has made to the country.

Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of "chief performance officer."  Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it.  And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:

"Obama’s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors."

The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption.  So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions). 

Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes.  The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities.  And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.  Talk about one-upping one’s self.

Clearly, the American people should have some concerns.  One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error.  But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best.  Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people. 

Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats).  Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve. 

Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far.  According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders.  As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions –58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision. 

And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year.  While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).

Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task.  They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle.  At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervently before shipping funding off to other countries.  Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.

Obama needs to get with the program.  Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy.  We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.

Read more from journalist and commentator Billy Hallowell at www.williamhallowell.com.

It can be said without a doubt that many conservatives are still disheartened by the results of the 2008 election. But, as President Obama settles into the White House and begins to govern, our disillusionment cannot overtake us. In 2000 and 2004, we felt a high level of political efficacy as our candidate elevated to serve in the nation’s highest office. Today, this same efficacy is being experienced by American liberals, as Obama embodies the values and virtues this constituency embraces. Though these values often conflict with the notions we hold dear, we are all Americans and no matter how disappointed we are, we must endure.

It would clearly be a blind disservice to history and to this great nation to ignore the historical connotation of Obama’s victory. Ignorance to the historical relevancy of this time is, indeed, (and rightfully) hard to find. Most conservatives are, despite the sting that has come with suffering major defeat in recent elections, prepared to give President Obama the respect that American liberals ardently refused to give to President George W. Bush.

Surely we feel disheartened and anxious as we await the policy maneuvers and advances that are slated to violate our personal values and conservative character, but we cannot allow a difference of ideals to distract us from reformation. Instead of focusing our energies on how horrific we think Obama to be, we must work strenuously to showcase the relevancy of our policies and the potential results of our legislative potentialities.

In the end, the American conservative, though contemporarily subjugated at the polls and in the realm of ideological policy influence, has the advantage. It is our values that work to hold the fabrics of society together; it is our conscious that collectively seeks to bolster America’s most treasured ingenuities. Though we are underrepresented in the near-term, we are not forgotten.

As liberals celebrate their recent victory, we should be thankful for an opportunity to break free from the corruption and distractions that have permeated our party over the past decade. Now is the time to look beyond what has already passed and to focus on refining policy points, bringing the party together and harvesting the young leaders who will, in turn, assist America in sustaining and advancing her global position.

While American liberals have showcased their extreme excitement and awe over Obama’s win, the most inspirational result – aside from the social barriers that our new president has broken, of course — has been the character, spirit and resilience of American conservatives. As we struggle to understand the devastating losses we suffered in the Congressional midterm of 2006 and in the subsequent presidential race of 2008, we remain hopeful and confident that our nation – and political presence — will rebound.

Many of us, including former Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, have wished Obama well. When asked by Glen Beck this week if she considered Barack Obama her president, Palin replied, “Absolutely. Yes, he is. We are all Americans and united we stand.” As can be easily recalled, the left’s often harsh attacks against President Bush have never been particularly fortuitous. As per the New York Times:

In January 2001, when the country was divided over a disputed presidential election, the newest development was security checkpoints along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol to the White House, to minimize the ability of protesters to disrupt the procession. None did, although several people threw eggs and debris at Mr. Bush’s limousine as it left the Capitol grounds.

As conservatives, there is no greater or more patriotic service we can do for our nation than to wish our new president well as he forges ahead into a mountainous terrain. Make no mistake: This is not to say that we should advocate ignorance when processing or addressing Obama’s often radical ideals; rather, as conservative Americans, we should come together to address the issues that are hampering our nation’s progress using clear and rational means. After all, it is in our best interest for Obama to reach some level of success while in office.

Instead of attacking Obama’s presidential vehicle with eggs and tomatoes, let’s prepare our arguments logically and present them with zest; let’s ensure that we support our president to the highest degree possible, while working to ensure our voices are heard. The stage has already been set, but the play is yet to be written.

The jeers that President Bush received this week when he walked onto the inaugural stage served as a confirmation and a distinct reminder of the following ideal: The American conservative must patriotically reject concentrating our efforts on pointless acts of vilification. We must rise to the occasion. We must reject the “not my president” mantra that so many liberals have held dear these past eight years. And finally — we must restructure our party, while making our voices heard loud and clear to the executive and legislative branches.

Surely, we disagree with Obama’s policy assessments, but, we can fight these progressions the fair and rational way: By rebuilding and mobilizing our base, and attempting to bring in leaders who seek true change in future electoral cycles. Whether we wanted him or not, Barack Obama is our president. Now, let’s get to work.

For more information on Billy Hallowell, go to http://www.williamhallowell.com

I often find myself unaware or overlooking the fact that I live and work in a city that has remained a major target of potential terrorist attacks. While it would be foolish to continuously focus on this undeniable fact, it is important to maintain a healthy level of personal awareness and to make occasional consideration of the events and ramifications of the attack that occurred more than seven years ago. During and in the aftermath of last week’s would-be tragedy, it was impossible to avoid this awareness.

At the same time that flight 1549 splashed into the middle of the Hudson River, I was fast at work at my office in Queens. Upon receiving a text message from my father that read: “There is a plane in the Hudson.”  I notified other staff members and went directly to the television, where most of the staff had come to see what was going on. And what a relief it was to see the end result – every man and woman exiting the plane without a single casualty.

Living in the post 9-11 world and sitting in an office with windows that show the Manhattan skyline devoid of the Twin Towers, my first thought prior to turning on the television was “Oh no! Not again.” Luckily, my first reaction was anything but valid. We were truly lucky – as were the inhabitants of flight 1549.

The relief I felt when I saw these men and women being brought to safety was immense. And while I ventured back to my desk, I couldn’t help but think about the horror our nation has gone through this past decade. Had this crash-landing occurred in 2000, the words “act of terrorism” wouldn’t have so readily materialized in my mind. The world has truly changed.

With a new administration coming in, America cannot afford to cut loose when it comes to protecting the homeland. It is these thoughts that have been going through my mind since Thursday afternoon.

Ironically, this morning, I read a short post on The New York Times’ City Room blog entitled, “Sept. 11 Death Toll Rises by One, to 2,752.” The piece read:

Leon Bernard Heyward did not die until last October, at the age of 45. But his name was added Friday to the official list of people who died as a result of the attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

Heyward was exposed to dust while working at Ground Zero. Although his death comes years after the event that has forever changed America, he is yet another hero who is being counted among those murdered by radical Islamic fascists on U.S. soil. His name is not being invoked in this case to create anger in readers; rather, it is being presented to serve as a reminder of the sacrifices our nation was forced to make – sacrifices that continue to plague many of the men and women who volunteered during the aftermath of the attacks.

Thankfully, flight 1549 landed safely and has been slated an accident. Luckily, we have not had to endure another 9-11 and I pray that we will never have to again. The new administration – and most importantly Americans – mustn’t forget what happened in 2001. While it often seems embedded in the past, families, individuals and policy-makers need to remember all that was lost so that our nation does not become complacent again.