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.

While destruction of human life for scientific benefit is surely reprehensible, the newly minted restrictions are paramount in that they represent Obama’s first attempt to remain somewhat neutral on a domestic issue of importance.

From the relatively unpopular bailout, which was pushed into law despite Republican discontent, to incessant acts of misgovernment, this administration has taken somewhat of an anti-conservative stance on a cornucopia of social and political issues.  And while I still remain opposed to tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research, the results of the administration’s stance could be playing out in a much more detrimental way.  According to FOX News,

“Draft guidelines released by the National Institutes of Health reflect rules with broad congressional support, excluding more controversial sources such as cells derived from embryos created just for experiments.”

Despite Obama’s overt attempt at leftist appeasement through the overturning of President Bush’s executive order, it appears the president is considering the rally cries of the opposing party on this issue.

Perhaps this newfound openness to issues associated with the right to life movement is reflective of the synergy many conservatives are creating in their attempt to rally together against those who would seek to pursue looser restrictions on abortion (as if the words “restriction” and “abortion” exist conversantly in Obama’s legislative agenda). 

It is also quite possible that Obama recognizes his need to respect a massive portion of the populace’s rejection to his anti-life stances.  Either way, this is somewhat of a step in the right direction.

Some scientists are, no doubt, disappointed.  While many had hoped for no restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic research, the National Institutes of Health is requiring that all cells used must come from “…clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.”

Aside from Obama’s first, and thus far only, compromise, the most ironic portion of the new regulatory system is as follows (as per FOX News):

“The guidelines also demand that the woman or couple who donate the original embryo give proper informed consent. There are other options for such donors, such as donating the embryo to another infertile woman, and all must be explained. The donation must be voluntary, without pressure from scientists.”

These regulations are surely a step in the right direction.  With many claiming that embryonic stem cells are a hopeless endeavor, and with scientists finding more useful and less controversial methods of using and extracting stem cells (from amniotic fluid, by adapting adult stem cells, from umbilical chords, and without harming a fetus), one wonders why Democrats are behind the times in their incessant urge to pursue this method.

Still, it is encouraging to note that the government is not deregulating to the point of no return.  While I am hopeful that common sense and logic lead the president and Congressional Democrats toward the realization of more optimal and viable options, I’ll take this compromise and pray for more.

And as ironic as it stands, I must congratulate President Obama for making his first attempt at moderate governance.  Now, let’s hope he does the same in other sociopolitical realms.

As Americans cope with immense fiscal challenges, Congressional spending continues to spiral out of control. Living out Rahm Emanuel’s tweaked philosophy of never allowing “a serious crisis to go to waste,” Democrats are spending at an enigmatic rate – and some Republicans are following suite.

According to The Wall Street Journal, back in Nov. 2008 Emanuel told a group of corporate chief executives the following:“Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

These are not the words of a fiscally-conscious lawmaker. “Things” that could not be done before – like what? And if “things” could not be afforded before, how would the nation, in the midst of a financial melt-down, suddenly have the resources to finance said “things?”

Clearly, Emanuel is speaking about ideological policy here, not systematic reform. This is not the time to sacrifice the future by printing money for the purposes of furthering the Democratic perspective. The most recent bailout and the subsequent spending bill that has already cleared the Senate are so poorly comprised and so detrimental that they can only result from such an ill-focused outlook.

And perhaps most preposterous was Emanuel’s assertion that the current climate will foster the hopenchange, bi-partisan rhetoric that Obama thrived on during the campaign: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”

Good news? Silver lining? Despite such talk of bipartisanship, Washington is more divided than its been in decades, as the most recent stimulus had not one of the House’s 178 members voting in its favor. As Republicans and a small group of Democrats rally to control spending and vote down abuses, their colleagues have chosen to continue wasting tax-payer dollars, while abusing the powers that have been bestowed upon them by the American people.

Recent Fiscal Abuses

While most Americans are facing unemployment prospects and struggling to meet their most basic needs, out-of-touch Congressional members have slipped thousands of irrelevant pet projects into the latest spending bill that President Obama promises to sign.

Back in Sep. 2008, Obama said, “…when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely” – a promise he has already broken. One cannot help but wonder what happened to Obama’s campaign pledge to take “a scalpel” to bills that contain pork-barrel spending. Instead, massive spending and fiscal deviance have dominated.

At this rate, it’s becoming difficult to follow just how much money Congress has spent. First, there was the stimulus passed by Bush and the Democratic Congress at the end of 2008 (over $700 billion). Then came Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – cleverly entitled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Now, Congress is slated to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, intended to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is wrought with pork.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, it contains 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion. A mere glimpse at the projects that have been inserted showcases a lack of Congressional responsibility and moral fabric. In this case, both parties are to blame. While Democrats have been leading the charge to irresponsible spending, Republicans who have earmarks in the bill are jumping on board in hopes that their projects will be funded.

The irresponsibility is paramount. At a time when Americans are hurting, Rep. Jerrold Nadler has earmarked $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, with Sen. Lindsay Graham is attempting to filter $950,000 to the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Additionally, $800,000 was earmarked for the purposes of “oyster rehabilitation” – whatever that means. And these are only a few examples (remember, there are nearly 9,000 to choose from). Clearly, these pork-laced projects have little to do with helping the American government meet its operating costs and everything to do with unpatriotic, self-interest.

Now, more than ever, America’s lawmakers need to cut unnecessary costs. As President Obama asks Americans to use less electricity, to trust his administration and to have faith in the system, he must also ask Congress – and his inner conscious – to make similar concessions. Our nation is deep in debt and the longer the people stand idle, the more tattered the country’s future will be. Now is the time for rhetoric-free, action-based fiscal conservation.

For more information about Billy Hallowell, go to www.williamhallowell.com.  For booking information about Billy and other speakers and programs, go to www.pathufindmedia.com. 

The surprisingly peaceful and fair elections were marked by contentious intra-group campaigning as Sunni Awakening Forces challenged the dominant Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, and four Shiia parties (Maliki’s DAWA Party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Sadrists and the Fadhila Party) battled across Southern Iraq for electoral supremacy. Despite a lower than expected turnout of 51 percent, seven million Iraqi’s voted for 14,000 candidates vying for 440 provincial and local offices.

Nouri al Maliki, the once weak Prime Minister who controlled little more than Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and a rump parliament, led the “State of the Law” coalition list to victory in seven provinces in predominantly Shiia southern Iraq. Maliki’s coalition captured a plurality of 38 percent in Baghdad and 37 percent in the strategic oil port city of Basra , where he directed the Iraqi National Army drive to oust Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi army in the summer of 2008. Maliki’s even scored a narrow two point victory in Najaf, the center of Iraq ’s Shiite religious movement and stronghold of Dawa’s rivals, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the Sadrists.

The keys to Maliki’s success are instructive. Eschewing his DAWA Party’s religious themes, Maliki’s coalition ran on a platform of restoring law and order. He played to the Iraqi masses fatigue with sectarian conflict and argued that violence had been reduced to a minimum. Maliki trumpeted his leadership in signing the Status of Forces Agreement requiring all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by 2011, thereby muting the SIIC and Muqtada al Sadr’s rhetoric as the guardians of Iraqi nationalism. Next, Maliki maneuvered to divide his Shiia opponents by teaming with the SIIC and the Iranian government to subdue Muqtada al Sadr’s militias in Basra and Baghdad last July. Then Maliki sided with the weakened Sadr forces in the elections to curb the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s push for a nine-province Shiia super state in Southern Iraq , which runs counter to both their interest in a strong central government. Maliki also took advantage of the splits among Sunni and Sadists forces to secure electoral and military alliances. Finally, as the only major player in Iraq without loyal armed forces to back his writ, Maliki cobbled together a patchwork army. Maliki secured the loyalty of two divisions of the Iraq national army in Bagdad to control the capitol city and began paying tribal chiefs across Iraq to form “tribal council” militias to battle other militias and maintain order.

The big loser in the elections was the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. The SIIC went into the elections with the most seats in parliament and majority control of the nine southern Iraq Shiia provinces. Their party list, Al-Mihrib Martyr List didn’t win a single province, but managed second place finishes in six provinces (Najaf, Qadisiyaya, Basra , Wasit, Muthana, Babil, Maysan and Dhi Qar). The SIIC platform called for more power to the provinces, the formation of Shiia super-state in Southern Iraq and expansion of an Islamic state. Ridiculed by the Sadrists for agreeing to the SOF, falling into disfavor with southern Iraqi Shiia for not delivering essential government services, and labeled as agents of their Iranian sponsors, SIIC will need to retool its organization and message for the upcoming Parliamentary elections to maintain its national power.

One of the most critical election battles took place in Anbar Province . Sunni Awakening forces who led the fight to defeat al Queda, challenged the dominant Sunni parliamentary party, the Islamic Iraqi Party (IIP). The Awakening and National Independent List finished in second place by one-half a percentage point behind the independent Sunni parliamentarian Salih al-Mutalk. The Islamic Iraqi Party came in a close third. The Awakening forces threatened to drown Anbar province in blood if the Islamic Iraqi Party finished first. Although neither the IIP nor the Awakening forces won, the results were so close that a recount was ordered, and the government imposed an immediate curfew in Anbar to impose order. The situation in Anbar remains tense.

While provincial elections in the Kurdish controlled provinces of Dohuk, Suleimaniyah and Erbil were suspended until the Iraqi government and the United Nations agree on a plan on the status of Kirkuk, the Kurds had a great deal at stake in two bordering provinces with large Kurdish populations. The Kurdish Alliance ran second in Ninewah with 25 percent of the vote and second in Diyalah with 17 percent of the vote. The loss in Ninewah to the new Arab nationalist Al Hadbaa List (38% of vote) was a big setback. Although Arabs in Ninewah are the majority the Kurds gained control of the provincial government when Sunni Arabs boycotted the 2005 election. Al Hadbaa has not only launched attacks on the Kurds, but is vehemently opposed to expansion of the Kurdish Region.

As the final results of Iraq ’s provincial elections are sorted out over the next two weeks, the struggles will begin to divide provincial governance assignments, local offices, and expenditure of provincial revenues. With not a single party list winning more than 50 percent of the votes in any of Iraq ’s 14 provinces, the winners will have to divide provincial offices with their adversaries, and the other minor parties. In most cases this will be a fractious process. In Anbar and Ninewah provinces, the potential outbreak of violence is very real. In order to preserve the gains that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki made in the elections and to consolidate order across Iraq , he will need to respond appropriately with prudence to any flashpoints of contention.

Despite the difficult hurdles the Maliki government must clear going forward, the Iraqi provincial elections were a big success for the Obama administration. Had the elections been marred in violence and fraud, Iraq ’s fragile peace could have been plunged in chaos and Maliki’s regime severely undermined. The defeats of the dominant Shiia “Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council” in southern Iraq and the Kurdish setbacks in Ninewah and Diyalah provinces, has significantly slowed the momentum for federalism and a hard partition of Iraq. Moreover, the rising support for secular parties among the Shiia, Sunni and Kurds is an encouraging sign that polarizing sectarian-leaning parties may be on the decline. The parliamentary elections in December will be even more crucial in the re-alignment of national power sharing.

The victories scored by Maliki’s State of the Law list gives President Obama a stronger maximum leader across Iraq and a powerful proponent for approving the Status of Forces Agreement in the June 2009 national referendum. More importantly, these developments open a wider path of relative stability in Iraq that President Obama desperately needs to begin his proposed 16 month troop withdrawal plan.

Not content to have precipitated the current economic crisis with their disgraced supply-side, trickle-down tax cuts obsession, Republicans are pushing the same proposals to fix the economy that created the mess in the first place.

Why anyone — least of all a president who received a huge popular mandate just 90 days ago to abandon those policies — would even LISTEN to Republican ideas about how to stimulate the economy – defies logic. To sacrifice an effective rescue plan on the chimerical altar of “bipartisanship” is at once infuriating and insane.

Republicans have absolutely NO credibility on economic matters. This is the same gang of know-nothings who never opposed any of George W. Bush’s massive spending and tax cut bills that created the current crisis.

Obama should remind them of that, tell them that he’s pushing through a bill heavy in spending and job creation with a minimum of tax cuts, then DARE them to oppose it with a filibuster.

It’s time to call the Republicans’ bluff

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.

Three-fourths of NATO supplies are transited to Afghanistan through Pakistan’s Khyber Pass, located west of the NWFP capital of Peshawar. The Taliban has destroyed hundreds of NATO provision trucks, unleashed deadly attacks against NATO convoys and raided key supply depots. Emboldened by its success, the Taliban is now attempting to choke off the vital port city of Karachi, where the NATA logistics hub begins. The Pakistani military’s inability to drive the Taliban from the Northwest Territory combined with ISI support for the Taliban has made maintaining Pakistani supply routes too risky a proposition to sustain NATO growing operations in Afghanistan. The new Obama administration has continued its devastating Drone aerial attacks against Taliban strongholds on the Afghan-Pakistani border. But civilian deaths associated with the Drone attacks are fueling anger and anti-American sentiment on both sides of the border, while weakening the legitimacy of President Kharzai and President Zardari’s governments. For all these reasons opening a second supply front for U.S. and NATO operations emerged as “mission critical” to push forward President Obama’s Afghanistan surge campaign.

Pakistan’s deepening turmoil and U.S. reliance on a revanchist Russia to ensure its supply lines in Afghanistan are unsettling realities. But dragging the unstable nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan into the equation represents a dangerous expansion of the “Long War” in Central Asia. U.S. negotiations with these countries over transit routes, access to air bases and foreign aid packages started before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion. The regional maneuvering has ebbed and flowed with the intensifying U.S.- Russian rivalry over Central Asian oil exploration, pipeline rights and the volatile internal politics of each country. Given the contention between the U.S. and Russia in Central Asia’s renewed “Great Game” a valid question arises; why has Russia come to the aid of its nemesis, the United States?

Moscow has a strategic interest in preventing the Taliban from toppling the government in Kabul, either directly or by leading a coalition of forces. The Taliban’s return to power would virtually eliminate Russian influence inside Afghanistan, whereas today Moscow has significant ties with Northern Alliance forces, President Kharzai and pro-Iranian forces inside Afghanistan. Furthermore, America’s aggressive efforts in Central Asia have led to the establishment of U.S. military installations in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Moscow and China are deeply troubled by America’s expanded military profile in Central Asia. President Putin moved to facilitate the transit agreements, rather than risking the U.S. cutting deals with Central Asia regimes without Russian input. For his services to the United States, the Obama administration reciprocated by hitting the mute button regarding Putin’s shut down of natural gas flows to European countries in mid-winter; a manufactured crisis that allowed Russia to blame the Ukraine for the shortages while extorting higher gas transit prices from Kiev.

Beyond blocking U.S. encroachment in its security perimeter, Russia has a long-term security imperative of preventing the spread of radical Islam to its neighboring former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. These countries on Russia’s southern border have large Muslim populations and indigenous radical Islamists organizations that threaten Moscow’s national security and hinder its efforts to keep the former Soviet republics within its sphere of influence. Inside Russia, the transformation of Chechnya’s nationalist movement into a jihadist juggernaut supported by its majority Muslim population led to a bloody 12-year succession struggle bordering on ethnic cleansing. There are 20 million self-identified Muslims in Russia, a number that has risen by 40% in the last 15 years. Russian sensitivity to its potential Islamic threat is real, and the destabilization of any of its Central Asian neighbors could be a lightning rod that ignites the fuse.

Obama’s new Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke will undoubtedly tout the benefits of U.S. anti-narcotics initiatives in Afghanistan to curtail the flow of heroin that is devastating Central Asia and Russia. Construction projects, infrastructure development, U.S. dollars and other accoutrements showered on the Central Asian republics will ease the regional economic crisis and revive the failed “Silk Road” strategy of applying American soft power in Central Asia. Of particular concern to Obama’s foreign policy team will be buttressing Tajikistan; the poorest Central Asian country, rife with weapons and narcotics smuggling, and tense ethnic divisions with its Uzbek neighbors that could collapse the nation into a failed state. Such a development would increase the difficulties of stabilizing Afghanistan and heighten US-Russian regional geo-political rivalry.

For the United States and Russia, expanding the War in Afghanistan to the Central Asian steppes, even with a benign act of securing transit routes is a risk they are willing to take to prevent the Taliban from taking power in Kabul. What becomes problematic is the possibility that Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is not to contending for state power, but destabilizing the Kharzai government to the point where the Taliban can maintain control of a limited number of provinces while expanding its sphere of influence. Indeed, what seems more likely is that the Afghan Taliban is working in concert with the newly emerging Pakistan Taliban and al Queda in an effort to establish a rump confederation that consolidates their joint control of Southeastern Afghanistan, Pakistan ’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Provinces. In short, these forces are carving out a failed state of Pushtanistan in the ungoverned territories along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

On January 22, President Obama called Pakistan and Afghanistan “the central front of terrorism,” and spoke of the necessity of eliminating this global threat starting in Afghanistan. By securing Russia’s aid to open new supply lines for NATO and U.S. forces, he just might be falling deeper into al Queda’s deadly trap of extending U.S. forces across Afghanistan, expanding unpopular bombing missions, increasing cross border excursions into Pakistan’s Northwest Territories and exposing more American forces to attack on the Central Asian steppes. The battlefield in Central Asia is being stretched. No one is sure where it will end.

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