Is Harry Reid going to publicly endorse Mr. Cashell, as Cashell has done for Harry? Is Cashell planning to switch party affiliations? And perhaps the most important question, shouldn’t he?

This very public endorsement (and make no mistake about it, this is not just an endorsement, he’s actually raising money for Harry Reid to help him to retain his seat and to defeat any GOP challenger – read here – has me scratching my head and wondering why any real Republican would support this character.

This isn’t the case of support for a non-partisan, non-political position. Governor and U.S. Senator are VERY partisan and VERY political. Unlike endorsements involving non-political jobs, like sheriff, district attorney, or judge, where respect and knowledge of and for the law, judicial philosophy, ability, and temperament should trump any other “political” factor, endorsement for the highly partisan position of governor or senator should take into account SOME adherence to and acknowledgement of one’s partisan philosophy on public policy.

OK, I know some will argue with me on those positions, but at least those are debatable, this one isn’t even a close call.

Does Cashell understand that raising money for Reid is the same thing as supporting the Democratic leadership, and all its liberal positions? By supporting Reid, Cashell is affirmatively stating that he supports the Democratic Party. That’s what Democrats do, so why doesn’t he switch back to being a Democrat?

It was also reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal yesterday that he has received several financial commitments from “well connected” people in Southern Nevada. After I stopped being disgusted with the thought that a guy would publicly declare with such arrogance that big shot “well-connected” people are the most important factor in elections, rather than the support of hard working “regular” folks, I calmed down and decided to wait and see the C & E (Contribution and Expenditure) reports on this one.

By the way, this is a common tactic with crummy candidates – make it sound like you have real support when you really don’t, then people will want to support you. You know, the everyone-wants-to-back-a-winner theory. Most people, I believe, see right through this garbage and don’t give it much thought.

I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that you aren’t going to see any real conservatives supporting him, assuming he stays “Republican.”

Nor should they, in light of the fact that he has turned his back on the party he once lead. A cursory review of his positions over the years reveals this isn’t something he has a problem with doing, or even doing rarely. Furthermore, he switched parties before, according to the reports, so it wouldn’t surprise me if a RINO, such as he, did it again and switched back.

But one thing I am sure of is that there won’t be any “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” coming from the U.S. Senator who believes that income taxes are voluntary. This is especially and obviously true if Reid The Younger is the Democrat’s choice. Can you just see the headlines: “Harry Endorses Cashell, Disses Rory.”

Republicans, the kind that volunteer their time at Republican phone banks, contribute their hard earned $10 or $25 contribution, or otherwise support the GOP and its efforts to make government less intrusive and less onerous on us not-so-“well connected” citizens should make it clear to this character that the days of support for Democrats masquerading as Republicans is over. If you are a RINO, you will be “outed.”

There are a lot more of us who will stand on principle than there are “well connected” types in Southern Nevada. To be sure, conservatives will not stand for a Cashell election. Let’s see if Reid and the well-connected will be sufficient to put him over the top. As mad as conservatives are about the direction of the Republican Party, something tells me it isn’t going to happen.

Chief among the reasons is this silly notion that “the people of my district voted for it” referring to an advisory question on a 3% room tax that was on the ballot in November. I won’t take the time to regurgitate the arguments against this fallacy since many smarter folks than I have picked that one apart pretty easily and thoroughly. I would focus on a greater reason why Republicans should not have voted for the tax increase, why the leader of the Republican Party of Nevada should veto it, and why Republican legislators in Nevada should not vote for tax increases in the future. It all turns on this crazy notion of providing LEADERSHIP.

Here’s the rub. If our Republican leaders buy into this flawed rationale that says, in essence, that “the masses voted for it so I must represent their wishes” then they have misconstrued their duties based upon a flawed understanding of a basic principle of American representative government. Additionally, and perhaps just as important to Republicans, they have abandoned their role as a Republican leaders.

First, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. If our legislators don’t understand their roles, they need only look at Article IV, sect. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, that guarantees the people of every state a “Republican form of government.” That means that our leaders do not look to simply follow what is popularly believed by the masses. So when our legislators say, “it’s what the voters of my district wanted” they don’t understand their roles as legislators in the United States of America.

I didn’t want this piece to be a lesson in American government and history, but alas, ring the bell. School is back in session.

Instead of having the people decide the important issues of the day directly through their own participation in town hall type meetings or initiatives and referendums, our founding fathers decided that such a dangerously flawed system that is “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property” should be dumped in favor of a REPUBLIC (See Federalist #10.)

What does this mean, students? It means that “The Framers” understood that “the constituents of my district” usually do not have the time, astuteness, or issue sensibility to make complex decisions. That’s why the created legislators who are supposed to LEAD.

The truth is, if we wanted our legislators to merely go along with what their constituents wanted, there would be no need to have legislators. In this technological day and age, we could simply log on to our computers and cast our votes on issues that affect us. In fact, to cut down on human error, under this theory there would be no need for humans. No need for political philosophy. No need for a legislature. No need for leadership.

Which brings me to the most important point, and that is that Republicans want LEADERSHIP from our legislators. Ring the bell, again.

Leadership has been defined as “the capacity to establish direction and to influence and align others toward a common goal, motivating and committing them to action and making them responsible for their performance.”

If this is a valid definition of leadership, and it is, then where have our Republican legislators “established direction,” or “influenced” others? Where are the leaders who are supposed to be arguing for smaller government? Where are the Colonel Travis’s of the Republican Party who are willing to draw the proverbial line in the sand, and say to the Democrats who will be pushing several measures that will detrimentally impact the taxpayer, “not on my watch.” Where is the sacrifice? Where is the leadership? Arguing that “my constituents voted for it, and therefore I must follow their direction” is, quite simply, an abdication of leadership. Republicans don’t want that.

Now, more than ever, we need Republicans who are willing to fight for the Republican brand. We need Republicans who will stand and fight for less government intrusion into our daily lives and more fiscal responsibility. We don’t need the kind of leadership that says, “Look, there goes my people, I must find out which way they are heading so that I may lead them.”

It makes sense to have to repeat this mantra to a 5 year old and a 7 year old, but what doesn’t make sense to me is why conservatives have to constantly remind their elected Republican legislators not to violate basic, black letter tenets of Republicanism. As a reminder, these “black letter” (read as: “not open for debate, or interpretation is well settled) rules include limited government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility.

These Republican values are elemental and really are not areas where Republicans ought to be searching for excuses to disagree. They should be ingrained into our Republican leadership, and should not need to be constantly urged and implored in a manner and fashion that one needs to remind children to brush their teeth.

There are some obvious corollaries to these Republican values, like the simple corollary that a Republican should not help Democrats trash the very Republican principles upon which fellow Republican voters used to help elect them in the first place (as I refer to it, the “dance with the one that brung ya” rule; if you doubt the veracity of this rule, show me a Republican that stated to his constituents: “Elect me and I will raise your taxes!”)

If pie-in-the-sky principled reasons, such as offering a little relief from the already heavy burden of taxes, or preserving the free market system, or preserving the “American Way” (as opposed to the “European Way” which is where we appear to be headed under Democratic leadership) are just too corny for Republican legislators, how about finding a legitimate reason for opposing taxes in the practical reality that they ran as Republicans?

Going along with Democratic tax hikes annihilates the branding of the GOP as the party that is for limited government, lower taxes, and minimal intrusion into the free markets.

It bears repeating that these are elemental principles, not fringe issues. They are a substantive part of every county, state, and national Republican platform. It’s kinda like brushing your teeth before you go to bed, or washing your hands before dinner. This is the “meat and potatoes” of membership. So with that in mind, why would one call themselves a Republican if these are not principles one is willing to adhere to during desperate times?

And the question that must follow, if we are to be true to our Republican ideals is, why should Republicans who do adhere to these principles continue to vote for those who call themselves Republicans, but do not subscribe to the very basic, elemental, “black letter” principles of Republicanism?

I am hopeful that our Clark County Nevada Republican Legislators know and understand this concept as they are called to stand for the citizens of their districts. So far this year, they have not been tested, but the time will come very soon, perhaps next week, when they will be, and we urge them to support the Republican brand, at the very least.

I would note with favor that one group of Republican legislators that have been tested, and mightily so, are our neighbors to our west in California. It has been widely reported over the last few weeks that the brave Republican minority is standing firm against a socialist Democratic majority and their tax-raising Republican governor ally. From a great blog that gives up to the minute updates I found this:

Day Five of the California Hostage Crisis grinds on with state legislators no closer to approving a $42 billion plan to close the state’s budget deficit with a mixture of spending trims and higher taxes.

The tax hikes have the support of every Democrat in the legislature, but three Republican votes in the Assembly and three in the Senate are needed to meet the requirement that the budget pass with a two-thirds vote. In the Senate, only two Republican votes have been secured. One of them is Dave Cogdill of Modesto, who was unceremoniously dumped late last night as his party’s leader. Republican senators were unhappy with Mr. Cogdill’s role in negotiating the tax hikes, and replaced him with Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, a fierce opponent of higher taxes. Mr. Hollingsworth is likely to try to renegotiate the budget deal.

KUDOS to our California Republican brethren, who have not only stood strong, but have taken steps of supported strong conservative leadership.

We have strong Republican leadership in Carson City as well. Let’s continue to support Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and the conservative members of the caucus in their fight for Republican principles. Our esteemed Republican Senators from Clark County, like Barbara Cegavske, who is fighting the fight in the Senate, need your support as well. I’m sure they would like to hear from you. Let them know you support them in their endeavors to keep strong the Republican brand.

In our effort to reinforce good Republican habits, we’ll keep urging that our Republican legislators do the right thing.

Now that the so-called “stimulus” bill is reality, a cursory read of the bill to see what it actually contains is in order for all concerned . That would include congressmen and senators, alike, since it has been widely reported that none of them actually read the bill. That would include Dina Titus and Harry Reid.

Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to read that this bill is long on financial support for A.C.O.R.N., but short on dollars earmarked for Nevada’s education. Furthermore, the bill actually discourages businesses from traveling to Las Vegas to stay at our hotels. Given the fact that Harry Reid is Nevada’s Senator, and arguably the most powerful man in the Senate, how is it possible that Nevada will be given a sum in federal dollars that is DEAD LAST in the country per capita for educational spending? How is it possible that Harry Reid would allow a provision to be included in the “stimulus” bill that would prohibit legitimate business travel to strip casinos for their legitimate business meetings?

In Harry Reid’s Nevada, this makes total sense. Remember the raid by law enforcement officials on ACORN’s headquarters? Remember that it was the activities of ACORN that helped put the Democrats over the top in the election? With the help of the Dallas Cowboys football team, Sherwin Williams, and the thousands of other fraudulent voter registrations from Nevada, Harry and Dina are now in a position to reward their benefactors , and reward them handsomely they will. According to a reliable source:

Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam’s largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN’s various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities. . . The current version of the stimulus package would allow nonprofit groups to compete with states and localities for $3.44 billion from the $4.19 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Program allocation. The remaining $750 million from the program plus the $10 million in SHOP funds would be set aside exclusively for nonprofit groups. . . Probably chief among the groups to benefit from stimulus spending will be ACORN, the infamous network of 100-plus left-wing activist groups. (The American Spectator, Matthew Vadum)

Mark my words, Nevada hasn’t seen the last of ACORN’s fraudulent activities. This bill – now law – insures ACORN’s continued viability. Like the mob, which had to expand over time from whiskey running and loan-sharking in the early 20th century to extortion, gambling, prostitution and drug dealing later in it’s history in order to continue to make money, Harry Reid has now given ACORN the ability to expand from fraudulent voter registration into newer and more profitable activities through this “stimulus” bill. Those new rackets now include “neighborhood stabilization activities, which include redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.” (Investors Business Daily; 1/27/09).

Profitable, that is, for Harry Reid, Dina Titus, and the democrats in the form of more money to seed fraudulent voter registration efforts in order to maintain their majority.

And while Tony Romo and Sherwin Williams continue to cast their ballots in Nevada elections for Democrats, public school education in Nevada suffers. The hotel and gaming industry in Nevada suffers. Industry experts say that Harry Reid’s “stimulus” bill will hurt casinos such as the Wynn, Venetian, Bellagio, etc. by discouraging companies that receive bailout funds from having convention and association meetings here in Nevada. ( “[The bill] could make life more difficult for resorts in Las Vegas, which host more than 22,000 business meetings annually that directly sustain about 43,000 jobs.”)

It is time for all of the voters in Nevada to realize what conservative Republicans in Nevada have known all along, and that is that Harry Reid is great for left-wing activist groups that help to ensure his personal power, but when it comes to Nevada’s businesses and education, he is absent. Hopefully, these facts will be understood and remembered when Nevadans are called to elect a Senator next year who will have their best interests in mind.

Our great Senator and rising national star John Ensign has taken a leadership role in fighting this bill by taking to the television news circuit and stating that he will oppose it, noting among other things that it “encourages wasteful spending.” Specter has gained the ire of Republicans from sea to shining sea. Ensign has earned their gratitude.

RINO Specter is up for re-election next year, and already, conservatives are organizing all over the country to ensure that he is not re-elected. Blogs are buzzing, phones are ringing, and fax machines are humming with calls to dump this clown, and not just from his home state of Pennsylvania.

The National Republican Trust PAC is going to provide money for primary challengers to any stimulus supporting Republican in the next election. Similar efforts are underway by many groups across the states. Right here in Nevada, “Republicans Against Arlen Specter” has been formed by CCRP Political Director David McGowan with the aim of raising money to donate to a Republican primary challenger.

Word today from Pennsylvania is that Pittsburgh native (Mt. Lebanon – GO STEELERS!) and conservative former Senator Rick Santorum may throw in against him. The rejoinder has been angry, swift, unified, and decisive.

What can our elected State Republican legislators learn from this?

Given the tremendous and unified response to Specter’s seditious act by conservatives from one end of the country to the other, I am hopeful that similarly situated Republican state legislators will take this opportunity to take note of the response, and plan their votes accordingly.

Indeed, I am hopeful that Republican legislators in our Nevada Senate and Assembly learn from the recent unified action of congressional Republicans who have stood against this action, as well. Two hundred fourteen out of two-hundred seventeen (214-3) Republican Congressmen and Senators stood strong and unified. The praise for their courage is well recorded.

This is certainly not meant as a threat. It is, however, a well considered conclusion based upon clear evidence, from a person whose aim it is to elect conservative Republicans.

I want Republicans to be conservative in their actions. I want the Republican Party to stand behind those who fight for less government, less taxes and overall fiscal responsibility. Republicans will need to have stood for these Republican principles now, in order to convey them in their campaigns in order to win in 2010.

A Republican legislator’s stand on issues of taxation and fiscal responsibility is fundamental, whether at the state or local level.

I am optimistic and encouraged by the responses of Republicans all over America for the principled stand they expect from our elected leaders, as evidenced by the positive response to congressional Republicans for being unified against wasteful government spending, as well as the negative response to the actions of turncoat Arlen Specter. I would expect no less of a response from Nevada Republicans to the future actions of our own state Republican legislators.

Let’s hope that we can be appreciative of and grateful for their votes.

Which is exactly what Gov. Gibbons has been saying for more than a year now.

The difference, of course, is that Gov. Gibbons has presented a written budget proposal outlining specific areas to cut, specific programs to scale back, and specific things which must be funded. Sen. Horsford, on the other hand, has offered no alternatives himself while criticizing the governor’s plan.

Later in the interview, Sen. Horsford had this to say:

“Um, now, that said, you’re gonna have to figure out a way to work with less ‘cause you’re not gonna have all of what you need. But there are some things that have to be a priority and we’re gonna fight like hell to make them a priority. Some other things, non-essential areas, things that maybe government shouldn’t be involved in right now, we’ve got to scale back, we’ve got to review it, we’ve got to possibly even eliminate some of those things in order to fund the things that matter most.”

If you didn’t know better, you’d swear that was Gov. Gibbons and not Sen. Horsford talking. After all, Gov. Gibbons has been saying all along that government needs to tighten its belt and do more with less; that we need to set spending priorities; that non-essential areas and things the government shouldn’t be doing in the first place need to be scaled back and maybe even eliminated in order to fund truly essential areas which matter most.

So the governor and the Senate Majority Leader are in complete agreement on what has to be done. The difference is in the details. The governor has responsibly put a detailed plan on the table. The Majority Leader, however, continues to bob, weave, spin and duck the specifics.

One final note, Sen. Horsford also said, “I believe that there has to be new revenue identified in a way that makes sense.” Of course, “new revenue” is Democrat code for “higher taxes.” But again, as with spending cuts, the Majority Leader refused to say exactly whose taxes should be increased and by how much.

So much for the Leader providing “leadership.”

Reporter Michael Mishak sat down with Nevada Democrat, labor union resource coordinator, and elected Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce to get her answers to “Six Questions” that are just dogging the minds of readers. We thank Mr. Mishak for this fantastic interview because it served as a great window into the political and philosophical “mind” of the woman who represents the citizens of Assembly District 3.

After reading this interview, I was stunned. Not by her senseless ramblings and inability to string two thoughts together in a sentence, which was stunning in itself. But more so by the philosophy of the woman. I quickly came to the conclusion that Ms. Pierce isn’t just a Democrat, she is a card carrying socialist. If you doubt it, here are a few excerpts of her interview:

* Raising taxes “is the responsible thing to do” and “low taxes” and a “tiny government” has been an “utter failure.” (“Tiny” government??? More on that idea later.)

* “The old Nevada fetish for tiny government and low taxes is a minority point of view today.” (That’s right, she said “FETISH.”)

* “Americans have realized that this idea of tiny government isn’t working in the 21s century global economy”

* “Budget cuts are irresponsible.”

* “. . . a lot of things over the years that were called fiscally conservative were just stupid.”

My personal favorite was this one: “it’s not morally acceptable in a society as rich as ours to tell low-income people, ‘Too bad you got cancer, good luck with that.’

No interview of an illiterate socialist is ever complete without the vilification of conservatives through the use of argumentum ad hominem as heartless people who don’t care about the sick, elderly, and children. That one I expected.

Perhaps most shocking was her statement regarding the current condition of having a “tiny” government and low taxes. She stated that it was time to pursue “something COMPLETELY new.”

That’s right, she’s not talking about “tweaking” the system. She wants a “completely” new system. Apparently CAPITALISM and granting Americans the freedom to pursue their economic dreams unencumbered by overly-burdensome government taxation and regulation hasn’t produced a successful America. She has made it very clear that the philosophy that BUILT the United States of America, made the business industry model the envy of the entire world, and in the process gave Americans the freedom to pursue their dreams, has been, in her words, “an utter failure” and that it is now time to pursue a “completely” different path.

By the way, where did she get this idea that our government is currently “tiny?” Lord, I would hate to see what would be considered even “modest” in her eyes!

I asked Eric for his response to these bizarre and wacky statements by Ms. Pierce. Here, partially, is his well-reasoned response:

“Raising taxes ‘is not the responsible thing to do.’ Allowing the government to come in at time when the economy is not at its best at all, and then preying on its citizens by burdening them with more taxes and telling them that ‘it is the responsible thing to do’ is downright unacceptable.

“Why is it that Assemblywoman Pierce can only say that raising taxes and creating a larger governing body will be the answer? Where are the people who do not have jobs going to come up with this extra money for taxes? Where are the people who are every day working Joe’s going to come up with MORE taxes when so much of their paycheck already goes to the government, on top of their trying to put food on their tables for their families?

“I understand that she wants to raise taxes for businesses and that it will not directly affect the individual. The thing is this. There are going to be consumers for the services that these businesses will provide. It is those consumers that will suffer the brunt of the tax increases. Businesses are not going to compromise the profit margin for taxes. They will pass this on to the consumer who will then have to pay more for their goods and services.

“Furthermore, the fact remains today that people move here because it has always been a cheap place to live, and the government is not at my door telling me how to live my life. I hold dearly to the fact that Nevada is one of the few states that the government is not putting the Big Brother hand in my cookie jar.”

Well stated Eric. Assembly District 3 sure could use you in the legislature right now!

It was an easy bill to unify against, given that it was heavy with garbage that even not-so-conservative Republicans found obnoxious and could rail against.

For example, the criminals over at ACORN stand to get 4.19 billion in bailout funds for “neighborhood stabilization activities” from the bill. Translation: “Pay- felons- to- register -dead -people, football –stars –living-in-other-states, and- Disney- characters – so –that –Republicans- can’t -win –elections” activities.

Condoms for the poor, sex education programs without parental involvement, staples in any Democratic bill, were included as well. Those should come as no surprise to anyone since we all know that no Democratic legislation is ever complete without an effort to take decisions away from families and give them to the government.

In the end, Republicans found a way to be united for principle sake, and in doing so, gained the respect of Republicans all over the country. They may have lost the vote, but they sent an important message about fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and smaller government that will be well-remembered.

Our own state assemblymen and senators should study the actions of their federal counterparts and stand united against any efforts by the Democrats to increase government spending when they head to Carson City next week.

Nevadans are facing tough economic times just like the rest of the country, perhaps even worse. Therefore, now is not the time to be saddling the backs of Nevada families with more tax burden. Even the democrats in Congress recognized that their own “stimulus” package had to contain tax breaks. If they could understand this, surely our Republican state legislators will as well.

Standing united for core Republican economic values resonates with the base of the Republican party. That’s an important message to remind Nevada Republican legislators who are not committed to holding the line on no new taxes.

Our great Senator John Ensign has shown resolve and has previously pledged to not raise taxes. Dean Heller, Nevada’s courageous lone Republican in the house has as well. Following their lead, and the example set by a unified Republican Congressional delegation will send the message to Nevadans that our state legislators, too, are prepared to stand up for core Republican values.

Nevada families will be thankful that they voted to help with their already heavy tax burden. Let’s tell our Republican legislators that we hope to be able to celebrate at the end of the legislative session, regardless of the outcome, their unified stand for Republican values and posterity.

Among his many blunders and disappointing stances, he insulted and abandoned our heroic fighting men and women by declaring that we lost the war. He united with San Fran Grand Nan Pelosi to fight offshore drilling. He has been on the wrong side of immigration reform, the estate tax, and the government bailout.

The debacles and blunders would be comical, but for the fact that it is we, Nevadans, who are hurt by his buffoonery. He is bad for Nevada, and he is vulnerable as recent polling indicates. The price of his fame should be his defeat.

Having said that, he will be difficult to beat, and we are going to have to find the perfect candidate if we are to prevail. It limits the field, but I believe that the perfect candidate will have to be a known quantity.

That someone will need an already recognizable name (recognizable for the right reasons) so that he/she does not have to spend a big wad of cash “introducing” him/herself to the voters of Nevada. They will need a personality and philosophy that is already respected by and acceptable to the conservative base of the party. And if not already in command of a sizeable bank account, someone with the ability to raise lots of cash.

Did I mention that they will need to have to raise lots of cash?

Let’s compare the John Thune/Tom Daschle race of a few years ago to the effort to oust Reid today.

When Sen. John Thune beat then-Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, Thune had great statewide name recognition, having just run a skillful but losing campaign against the other South Dakota Senator. He had previously served as South Dakota’s lone congressman, and prior to that was the executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party. He had money in the bank, having raised a whopping 9.5 million dollars during his campaign. Great name recognition. Great appeal. Great background. Great money.

With regard to his solid appeal to conservatives, Thune had something that I believe is overlooked or discounted by far too many people. He gave conservative talkers and bloggers something to get behind and actually work for. Through their yapping and pecking, they went to bat for him. If you doubt the importance of these folks and their efforts, check out this great piece: “ Year of the Bog: Open Source Journalism Changes the Face of Journalism . . . “ by Gene Veith and Lynn Vincent.

The lesson to be learned is this: Harry Reid has continued to give us big sticks to proverbially beat him like a piñata, but Republicans will not prevail against him in 2010 if we don’t play this one perfectly.

So, who fits the bill?

In my mind, there are two obvious choices. Sue Lowden or Dean Heller. Both have the right mix of the needed qualities. If Republicans are really serious about teaching Harry Reid the lesson he deserves, which is that he ought not to have abandoned Nevada values in favor of pimping for the left, then we Republicans have to learn to play the name game.

Ring the bell, school is back in session.

My parish tends to be, more or less, slightly to the right of the rest of The Church. For better or worse, right or wrong, legal or illegal, the Catholic Church in America does not officially get involved in choosing one political candidate over another.

Note that I said “officially.” We all know, however, that if there is an illegal immigrant that has committed felonies in the United States who is on the brink of deportation, or a transgendered prisoner in need of a sex change operation at taxpayer expense, you can be certain that a priest or nun in good standing with the Catholic Church will be there right next to the ACLU lawyer, advocating for the candidate who is going to fight for their rights.

Ask if a Republican candidate can come to a women’s guild meeting or simply say “hello” to parishioners in the parking lot after Mass and watch the Church administrator suddenly become a deputized IRS agent. Having run for political office, I know of which I speak.

With regard to issues, such as abortion, however, some leaders in The Church can be quite vocal. Indeed, some brave and courageous church leaders have even gone on record to oppose a particular political candidate because of their beliefs.

Take for example The Most Reverend Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton, PA, or Archbishop Chaput of Denver, CO. These men actually had the stones to tell then-Vice Presidential candidate and renowned plagiarist Joe Biden that he would be refused Holy Communion in his diocese because of his consistent pro-abortion positions.

I remember a few years ago reading about Rev. Ed Kavanaugh, who ran St. Patrick’s orphanage somewhere in California. Rev. Kavanaugh refused to allow then-Governor Gray Davis distribute gifts to children at Christmas because of his public stance on abortion. When asked what he would do if a pro-abortion politician would come to his church, he would not allow them in, but politely tell them to “get lost.”

These men stand in stark contrast to the majority of priests and bishops in The Church who claim that they don’t want to “politicize” these issues, or “alienate” their elected politicians, or that there are other important “social justice” issues that are equally important (if not more important,) like union workers rights, so they demand nothing at all from their politicians. They say nothing, except for the occasional limp-wristed request by a liberal bishop to a rogue, fellow- liberal priest to “tone it down” lest they make the hierarchy of the Church appear too leftist.

Point of proof – The Rev. Michael Pfleger is still at his job, still in vocal support of his friend Louis Farrakhan, as pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church. His comment to his supervisor and bishop after an embarrassingly pathetic two week suspension was, “I’m not going to change.” If you don’t understand his reply, let me clear it up for you. His statement to his supervisor had the same effect as lifting his arm and extending his middle finger to the Church.

Real men in positions of authority in the Church who speak out publicly on the correct side of moral issues, and who aren’t afraid to publicly stand against candidates who support them are rare, and usually end up getting shipped to do mission work in the Sahara desert. Don’t be surprised to see Pfleger in the running for Archbishop of Chicago.

It is rarer, still, to have The Church pushed into a church-wide, organized, and unified action over proposed legislation. Yesterday at Mass, as I attempted to listen to the homily over the distractions of my 5 and 7 year-olds, a sense of disappointment and sullenness came over me. Not because my kids were fighting over a pen and a tithe envelope during the Ordo Missae, but because I couldn’t help but think about how much of this effort to block evil and despicable legislation could have been avoided had more church leaders simply taken a stand on this issue during the campaign season when it really mattered.

Of course, I am talking about the “Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)” which will codify a woman’s right to kill an unborn child and which would forbid, under criminal penalty, any group or individual’s interference with that right. Not only was the priest at St.Elizabeth Ann Seton railing against it yesterday, I read today that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was publicly speaking against it. Every where you look, The Church appears to have been awakened. Unfortunately, it is about three months too late.

By the way, there’s real hope for this Ratzinger fellow, look for more good things to come as long as he leads The Church. But I digress.

How much easier would the battle have been BEFORE ELECTION DAY if the leaders of the Catholic Church had been able to cut through all the empty and meaningless rhetoric of “Yes We Can” at a time when it really could have made a difference?

It was and remains no secret that during the campaign season, then-candidate Barak Obama promised, before God and all, that one of the first things he would do as president would be to remove all present restrictions on abortion and to dramatically increase funding for it. How many Catholics, leaders and lay alike, bought into this nonsense and supported the pro-death Obama candidacy anyway, erroneously believing that his bogus message of “social justice” and support for social and economic programs that help the poor was more important?

The Church has finally felt the stab to its back, thrust there by the sweetheart whom brought it to this dance. It hurts. It especially hurts me to say, “I told you so.” Well, it hurts a little, anyway.

Nationally, fifty-three percent (53%) of so-called Catholics voted for Obama. Staggeringly, forty- four percent (44%) of those who identify themselves as weekly church-going Catholics voted for him, and in so doing, gave tacit approval to this immoral nonsense we are having to fight today.

To those who sat in the pew the Sunday last and listened to the plea by their priest to help fight the pro-death left (of which Obama is their leader) I have to ask you, wasn’t the protection of an unborn human being the most important aspect of “social justice” one could have stood for on election day? Why didn’t you see this coming? Didn’t we tell you so? Now, do you realize that you get what you asked for? Saint Joan of Arc, we need you!

Depressingly, I sat there at the end of Mass, shook my head thinking “to little too late,” and wondered quietly how many Catholics understood that the real opportunity to fight FOCA was at the ballot box in November. Sadly, 53% of the sheep in the pews on Sunday chanted “Yes We Can” in November , but are now symbolically chanting “No You Shouldn’t.” I wonder if they are now thinking about a different slogan, perhaps “No We Shouldn’t Have” with regard to pulling the lever for BHO. I prefer the slogan, “How dumb were we.”

To those who fought the good fight then as well as now, I say Deo Gratias. Our letters to our Senators probably won’t do any good, but maybe our prayers from the pew will.