I've provided my analysis of a couple of the CPAC speeches from earlier this month. A quick touch on Mike Pence (per Rebecca Haglelein's commentary), and more recently Rick Perry, and I'm finally ready for the crowning jewel: George Allen.

Allen's rhetoric is VERY persuasive, thus making him an excellent candidate for president. Here are the key points he made:

Tonight, our All-Star team of conservative leaders is gathered in a team meeting, and they come in many different shapes, sizes, and stripes. We have social conservatives, constitutional conservatives, economic conservatives, compassionate conservatives, neoconservatives, libertarian conservatives...

There's so many labels to choose from, but I've always described myself as a common sense Jeffersonian conservative, which means I trust free people and free enterprise more than a meddlesome, burdensome government.

In his 1801 Inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson defined "the sum of good government as a wise and frugal government"..."which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but otherwise shall leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

I trust you all agree that's still the sum of good government today!

Sign me up as most of the above, but Mr. Allen's quotes from Jefferson's inaugural address would easily embarrass any Democrat claiming Jefferson as his own. He almost sounds like one of Sage's commercials for the Libertarian Party. Is George Allen REALLY that conservative?

First, Security, and that starts with this War on Terror - fighting the terrorists abroad, developing stronger, respectful alliances and providing our troops with the most technologically advanced armaments and equipment. Protecting our homeland includes securing our borders, and reducing our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil through increased American energy production, biofuels, clean coal, and advanced nuclear technology.

Well, he's DEFINITELY not a Libertarian. He's got to be somewhat to the left of the isolationist Libertarian philosophy.

Second, Competitiveness. I want America to be a Land of Opportunity for All and the World Capital of Innovation, and that starts with less taxation, less regulation, less litigation, and better education, expanding Internet access by keeping it not in the hands of governments or the U.N., but in the hands of the private sector and keeping it tax-free. (my emphasis)

All of the highlighted portions of this quote are CONSERVATIVE ideas. I did not highlight "better education", because when a Washington politician talks about "better education", he's not talking about doing the right thing and letting the States handle it, as the Constitution requires, but rather reaching into your back pocket and spending your money on a federal program that will never properly succeed in its real mission.

The other points are all quite refreshing. Competitiveness, to liberals, means having the federal government dole out just as much as their socialist buddies in Europe and Canada. To conservatives, it means getting the government out of the way so that people can succeed on their own. To conservatives, it means less taxation, less regulation, and less litigation than anyone else in the world. To conservatives, it means we people managing our own affairs, not trusting them to outside entities such as the government or the United Nincompoops.

Third, Values, and that starts with bringing fiscal accountability to Washington and nominating and confirming judges that apply the law, not invent the law, and putting a stop to judicial activism.

Make no mistake about it - if not for the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, the concept of the "balanced budget" would have been a mere pipe-dream. If the liberals want to claim that their lovey-dovey President Clinton "balanced the budget" on his own, they can go right ahead. The truth is that the Congress FORCED him to agree to it. Of course, the budget never really balanced, as there was never any significant reduction in the national debt.

On security, Allen supports the troops and the mission. We are fighting an enemy that will eventually be coming after us as a much more powerful entity if we ignore him now. This is a fact that cannot be avoided. Better to confront him now and defeat him before he becomes that more powerful entity. Allen calls upon us to draw on President Reagan's example and inspiration in dealing with this enemy. Reagan's inspiration won the Cold War, and if Allen's got the same, his can win the War on Terror.

On Competitiveness, Allen makes two points, one good and one not so good.

Here in America, we need to make sure that anybody who is qualified - regardless of their race or their ethnicity or their gender - is encouraged and incented to enter into engineering and technology and sciences.

Translation: Other people's engineering education is YOUR responsibility, anbd the US government will expect you to pay for it. Hitlery would be positively salivating over this.

Make no mistake, the tax relief package we passed is the main reason we've had such great economic growth over the past several years. More than 4.7 million new jobs, created not by the government but by private businesses all across this country. And I'd also point out to the liberals and those who opposed our tax cuts, we've also generated the largest tax revenue increase in U.S. history!

Tax relief - excellent point, Mr. Allen. Americans are over-taxed, and it's time someone put a stop to that once and for all.

On values, Allen makes several points, all very important and good.

Fiscal Accountability - Another key issue that relates to taxes and economic competitiveness - but for me is a values issue - is fiscal responsibility and accountability.

We need to remember: We have a deficit NOT because we have a revenue problem, it's because the federal government has a spending problem! Government doesn't tax too little; it spends too much!

REAL spending cuts will be necessary to bring the government back to within its means. Not these mamby-pamby "cuts" that we used to hear about that were merely cuts in the rate of increase in spending. We need to cut out every unconstitutional program ever created, and cut taxes to the point of maximum revenue so that we can work to retire the national debt, even while we are at war. Once the debt is retired, it is important that taxes are again cut so that the people can invest in the booming American economy.

Balancing the budget is not just a matter of making sure that expenditures are equal to revenue; it's about making sure that the Federal Government fulfills its proper, focused constitutional role - and not expanding into everything including matters reserved to the people or the States! Because we all know that a big, bloated federal government stifles innovation, saps initiative and reduces personal responsibility.

I believe that one of the best ways to limit the size and scope of government is to wrestle it down with the chains of the Constitution.

With the exception, of course, of forcing Americans to pay for other people's education.

Of course, I've been talking about making sure the government "fulfills its proper, focused constitutional role - and not expanding into everything including matters reserved to the people or the States" since I started blogging last year. If this guy is serious, he's definitely got my vote. He even suggests that we should withhold the paychecks of all Washington lawmakers until they present a balanced budget each year, including ALL appropriations. I would make that a balanced constitutional budget, but Allen's definitely on the right track, and in a BIG WAY.

Allen continues with some commentary on the subject of judges.

But we have activist judges who don't care if people in certain school districts would like to have the Pledge of Allegiance recited in their schools. Instead of obeying the will of the people, they banned the Pledge because of the words "Under God."

They knock out - for example - bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws for minors who want to have an abortion.

They allow the Boy Scouts to be attacked even though, as a private organization they should be free to set their own standards for their own members, without government interference.

They weaken our sovereignty by striking down state laws using international standards.

You see judges - including the Supreme Court of the United States - allowing these lords in New London, Connecticut to take people's homes - the American Dream - not for a school, not for a road, but because they want to derive more tax revenue from that property.

Now that's why we need judges in the United States - especially these federal judges who are appointed for life, who understand that the role of a judge is to apply the law, not invent the law, and not to amend our Bill of Rights by judicial decree.

And amend it by judicial decree they have, and for far too long. More judges who will follow the Constitution can only make things better for everyone in America that doesn't want outright socialism, and, quite frankly, it's better for them, too. Let them complain about calling the greatest country God ever gave the world (a little Sean Hannity lingo, there) home and show everyone just how big a bunch of idiots they are. Life would be soooo boring without them to kick around.

Anyway, with the exception of his position on "Science and engineering education", I'm really beginning to like this guy. So ... check out his voting record and see what you think. I've just started. More later, I guess. He's voted on a lot of shit!

If his voting record matches his rhetoric, it will be hard to find a better candidate for President in 2008.

RWR