Teachers unions and other left wing pressure groups cite disappointing American educational statistics and call for sharp increases in school spending—ignoring the fact that we already count among world leaders in per pupil expenditures.

The education establishment prefers to ignore the most obvious explanation for poor school performance in the U.S.—irresponsibly high levels of television viewing. According to 2007 figures from the International Telecommunication Union of the OECD, Americans are in front of the tube more than 8 hours a day—by far the highest of any society, and nearly three times the figures for nations such as Norway, South Korea, Switzerland and New Zealand—all of which achieve far better educational outcomes. Rather than wasting more taxpayer money, we need a concerted national effort to reduce TV addiction and the wasted hours that result.

A new survey of 510 students at five geographically-diverse campuses reported in The Journal of American College Health says coed dorms dramatically increase the likelihood of collegiate binge-drinking and sex. As reported in USA Today, pupils in coed housing are 2 1/2 times as likely to binge-drink weekly, and nearly a third more likely to admit having at least one sexual partner in the last year.

Budget deficits set new records every day, but Democrats claim they can't cut spending. The deficit for 2009 exceeds $1.4 trillion-three times the worst yearly deficit for President Bush. October alone showed a $176 billion deficit-more than the deficit for the whole year in 2007!

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress increased spending for the National Endowment for the Arts by 8%-granting $6.5 million more than the president even requested. NEA chairman Rocco Landesman looks forward to providing extra funding for hip-hop music and other questionable endeavors. "Mural painting and graffiti are art," he told the Wall Street Journal. "There are popular aspects of all the arts that I think shouldn't be ignored."

When government lavishes millions on graffiti and hip hop, it's ridiculous to claim that we can't trim the budget.

Which presidential candidate drew stronger support from conservatives-Reagan in 1980, or McCain in 2008? The answer is shocking and enlightening, as exit polls show McCain got 78 percent of self-described conservatives, while Reagan drew only 73 percent.

How, then, could Reagan win a 40-state landslide, while McCain lost decisively to Obama? The answer is that McCain-despite his strong showing among conservatives-did much worse among moderates, losing their votes by 21 percentage points, while Reagan carried moderates by 6.

These numbers should settle stupid arguments about the GOP seeking moderate support: no Republican has ever come close to national victory while losing the moderate vote badly. In no state-in no election in history-have conservatives ever constituted an absolute majority, so victory requires at least splitting ballots of those who call themselves "moderate."

The recent GOP triumphs in gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey provide a resounding rebuttal to those who claim Republicans can win simply by mobilizing their conservative base.

In New Jersey, self-described conservatives amounted to just 30 percent of the electorate and in Virginia only 39 percent. Obviously, if the two candidates appealed solely to those who considered themselves conservative, they would have lost in twin landslides. Instead, they reached out to self-identified moderates—the biggest group in both states. Chris Christie, newly elected Republican governor of New Jersey got 48 percent of the moderate vote, and Bob McDonnell, the big winner in Virginia, got 46 percent of the mod squad. When Republican candidates rally their fellow conservatives, and supplement those votes by at least splitting those who see themselves as moderate, it’s a can’t-miss formula for victory.

Signs of Republican revival in Tuesday’s election will leave some conservatives cheering, and others sneering; cynics insist that it doesn’t matter which half of the two-party power structure controls the levers of power. This world-weary lament has become familiar to anyone who listens to the angry callers who often jam the lines on talk radio. The conventional complaint suggests that Republicans came to power in 1994 with grand promises and great hopes, but proceeded to abandon their principles and to betray their base. Even after the Bush election in 2000, with complete control of all branches of government, they achieved nothing – displaying the same corrupt, free-spending, budget-busting tendencies that they decry in the Democrats now. According to the arguments of disillusioned defeatists, a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 (or even of the presidency in 2012) will do nothing to stop the march toward socialism, globalism and apocalypse.

This smug summary of past, present and future sounds informed and sophisticated but it actually distorts and ignores several aspects of recent history. Obviously, Republican leadership fell short in many ways (enabling the Dems to score big wins in 2006 and 2008) but on balance the real record gives more reason for pride and hope than for regret and despair.

Consider:

The Gingrich Revolution of 1994 failed to realize all its goals (like every other political movement) but still managed to achieve its most important priority: cutting the deficit and bringing the budget into balance. When Newt and his conservative cadres took control of both Houses of Congress, the federal deficit stood at 2.87% of the Gross Domestic Product. (It had reached all the way to 4.58% in the worst year for the first President Bush –1992). The deficit fell steadily for the next six years, culminating in a federal surplus of 2.41% in 2000. Bill Clinton claims credit for this achievement, of course, but it was actually the Republicans who fought ferociously to bring new restraints to wasteful federal spending: Gingrich and company even defied polls and precedent to bring about a partial government shutdown in 1995. They eventually compromised with Clinton, but their focus and pressure on the Democratic president brought historic progress in reducing federal red ink.

The Republican Revolutionaries also succeeded in their second top domestic priority: welfare reform. With two prior attempts vetoed by Clinton, they passed “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” in the election year of 1996 and the president felt compelled to sign it. The radical reform not only eliminated welfare as a federal entitlement, but required recipients to begin working after two years of benefits and imposed a five year lifetime limit on drawing benefits from Washington. The bill also eliminated welfare for non-citizen immigrants (both legal and illegal) while limiting eligibility for unmarried mothers below age 18. Though decried by Democrats (of course), the sweeping restructuring of the welfare state worked far better than even its backers had predicted, cutting the welfare rolls by more than half within three years. In the year 2000, federal figures showed a decline of 53% in the number of individuals receiving benefits, together with an overall reduction in the rate of poverty. The Republicans deserve credit for the fateful transformation: over passionate objections by most Democrats and nearly all liberals, they shifted literally millions of Americans from dependence and idleness to productive labor.

Critics of Republican rule may grudgingly acknowledge some of the achievements of the “Contract with America” Congresses but insist that in the era of George W. Bush the GOP lost its way. With Republicans finally in control of both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time in fifty years (since Eisenhower’s first term, in fact) they allegedly blew their big chance to achieve great things and squandered their precious mandate in the process. This ubiquitous argument ignores the unpleasant realities of the election that brought Bush to the White House: he had no mandate at all, having lost the popular vote by 444,000 votes to Al Gore and won the Electoral College under circumstances that many Americans never accepted. What’s more, the GOP lost seats in both houses of Congress in November of 2000 and controlled only 50 Senators (in a flat-out tie with Democrats) and 221 members of the House. To put these numbers in perspective, President Obama and his party today control 35 more House seats and 10 more Senate seats than the Republicans did when President Bush took command. These shaky majorities don’t excuse W.’s mistakes but they do make his successes all the more remarkable: in a situation where the defection of a single Senator or just four House members would tilt either chamber to the Democrats, Bush still managed to push through major tax cuts (slashing rates across the board) and his signature “No Child Left Behind” education bill (for better and worse). Less than five months after the beginning of the Bush first term, however, Senator James (“Jumpin’ Jim”) Jeffords of Vermont switched his allegiance to the Democrats, giving them control of the Senate and making Tom Daschle majority leader. It’s true that the President’s personal popularity (particularly following the attacks of 9/11) helped him gain Congressional seats in both of the next two election cycles but Republicans never controlled more than 232 House seats and 55 seats in the Senate. As a point of reference, Jimmy Carter (who no one remembers as a potent, accomplished party leader credited with dazzling achievements) came to office with 292 House seats (!) and 61 Democratic Senators. Yes, President Bush should have used his veto pen more frequently and aggressively to fight back against irresponsible Congressional spending, but it’s simply inaccurate to say that he and the Republicans in Congress wasted their moment of great power, since their actual power never counted as that great. Without the cooperation of a handful of unreliable GOP moderates in both House and Senate, the Republicans would have lost (and ultimately did lose) their fragile majorities.

In this context, the Bush record looks bold, and perhaps even foolhardy. He famously grabbed the notorious “third rail” of American politics and tried valiantly (but unsuccessfully) to give his fellow citizens more personal control of the money they poured into the Social Security system. In 2007, even after losing his Congressional majorities, he fought for a sweeping, free-market health care reform to expand Health Savings Accounts and create a new personal health insurance tax exemption. Earlier, he succeeded in passing two rounds of major tax cuts, appointing and confirming two brilliant Constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, enacting a ban on partial birth abortion, getting rid of useless firearms restrictions, and keeping the budget under relative control (despite the perpetual Congressional appetite for pork). The worst year for Bush deficits came in 2004 (3.53% of GDP) but still amounted to far less than the dangerous spending under all four years of his father’s presidency or five of eight years of President Reagan (who ran deficits of nearly 5% from 1983-86). What’s more, George W. Bush had begun to restore fiscal sanity (with deficits of 1.88% in 2006, and 1.16% in 2007) before the recession brought his concluding number up to 3.21%. Now, in Obama’s first year, the deficit amounts to more than 10% of the GDP – three times the rate of Bush at his absolute worst. What’s more, there’s no prediction or possibility of serious cuts in that deficit for the next eight years.

An honest examination of recent politics shows plenty of examples of GOP hypocrisy, blundering, and sheer cluelessness, but the oft-repeated claim that the Republican record is indistinguishable from that of the Democrats is unsupportable. Naturally, some of the most ardent GOP partisans felt disappointed by the mixed results following great victories in ’94 or 2004, but that’s a factor for every faction in U.S. politics. Listen to some heartbroken liberals express their sense of betrayal at the empty list of Obama accomplishments in his first ten months!
GOP victories, in off year elections like those on Tuesday, and especially in the fateful Congressional elections of 2010, can save the country from Obama’s most radical and destructive schemes. Imagine how the dynamics in Washington would change if voters cut down the Democratic majorities to equal W’s skimpy majorities in 2001! Or better yet, why not dream of gains like ’94 (54 House seats) and ’80 (12 Senate seats) that would put Republicans back in control of both houses?

Given the imperfections of individual leaders and the contradictions even within a preferable party, this sort of sweeping GOP success wouldn’t bring a messianic age, or turn political Washington into the “best of all possible worlds.” There would still be disappointment, duplicity and stupidity but there would also be a more conservative and constructive tone. In building for more triumphs for the Grand Old Party, its members should never allow the impossibility of “best” to mask the desirability of “better.”

From 1980 (Reagan's first victory) to 2008 (Obama's first--and we hope last--victory).

The figures gathered below contain several crucial revelations:

1- Republicans always win big majorities of self-described conservatives--even losing Republicans like Dole and McCain.

2- The ONLY Republicans who win are those who manage to split moderate voters. For instance, Ronald Reagan got 54% of the moderate vote in 1984 and earned a 49 state landslide. Meanwhile, even those Republican nominees who win big among "conservatives" don't necessarily win elections. McCain did better among self-described conservatives in 2008 (78%) than Reagan did in 1980 (73%), but he still lost the election. In fact, McCain beat Obama by 58 points among conservatives, but lost among moderates by 21 points, and so lost the election.

(Graph prepared by Karmen Frisvold)

When Michael Jackson died in June, I commented that he had always blurred distinctions—between black and white, gay and straight, grown up and child. Now he’s erasing the most important dividing line of them all: between alive and dead. Four months after his sudden death, Jackson’s the star of a big new movie, “This is It,” assembled from rehearsal footage for the final concert tour he never got to begin.

For the most part, the late “King of Pop” looks unexpectedly healthy, strong and agile. Despite reports of his suffering and illness, he showed that he was still a phenomenally graceful and expressive dancer. But the “Thriller” segment—as he emerges from a grave yard surrounded by opened tombs, full of ghosts and zombies with rotting flesh—is, under the circumstances, creepy and deeply disturbing.

A third party vote is almost always an idiotic gesture that promotes enemies and punishes allies, but in next Tuesdays elections two strong independent candidates deserve serious consideration. One of them Doug Hoffman in New Yorks 23rd Congressional District could actually win his race and send a powerful message to the GOP and the country. A political party isnt a family, or a church, or an army, so the strategic support of an independent contender with a real chance of victory isnt a betrayal and may offer a common sense means to advance a conservative agenda.
The most recent polling for a special election in this strongly Republican district shows a three way race between the Democratic nominee, Bill Owens, the moderate-liberal Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, and the candidate of New Yorks Conservative Party, Hoffman. According to poll numbers and to observers on the district, the Democrat currently enjoys a slight lead (with 35%) over the Republican (at 30%) , but Conservative challenger Hoffman is within striking distance of both of them at 23%. Moreover, all the momentum in fundraising and endorsements seems to be going in Hoffmans direction: I began talking up his campaign two weeks ago on my radio show, and many of my talk radio colleagues have taken up his cause. More significantly, hes won endorsements from an impressive array of national Republican leaders, including Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson, and Michelle Bachman, with Minnesota governor Pawlenty on the verge of adding his support.

Its not that Hoffman is an extraordinary or inspirational candidate unfortunately, hes not. But he has unequivocally committed himself to the conservative principles that most Republicans share, while the partys nominee in the district has spent ten years in the legislature, compiling a moderate-to-liberal voting record, including enthusiastic support for gay marriage and abortion rights. If GOP loyalists get the message that she cant win, they will conclude that the only way to deny the seat to the Democrats (and to prevent Obama from gaining an upset win in a district considered solidly Republican) will be to shift support to the Conservative Party contender. This makes sense because Hoffman has promised that if hes elected, he will caucus with the GOP in the House of Representatives (adding one more vote against Nancy Pelosis return as Speaker) and will seek re-election in 2010 on the Republican line.

The other independent on Tuesdays ballot is Chris Daggett whos running for Governor of New Jersey. Hes a bright, well-informed candidate whos worked in the past for both Republican and Democratic governors and who performed well in recent televised debates. Those broadcasts, and an endorsement from the states leading newspaper, caused a spike in his polling numbers: the latest average from Real Clear Politics shows Daggett at 15.3% --- but still with less than half the support of Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine (39.3%) and GOP challenger Chris Christie (39.2%) in a breathlessly close contest that looks as if its headed to a photo finish. Daggett claims he can still win if a snow ball effect kicks in during the campaigns final days, but for several reasons a vote for him represents a terrible choice for conservatives while backing Hoffman is appropriate and sensible.

In fact, the differences between these two independent contenders actually provide some general guidelines on the crucial distinction between destructive and constructive third party candidacies. Before supporting a campaign outside the two party system, there are four major questions responsible voters ought to answer:

1- Is the independent contender more ideologically forthright and consistent than the major party contenders, or less so? Some third party candidates think Ross Perot or Jesse Venturarun as mushy, eccentric hybrids. They insist that they are neither more conservative nor more liberal than their rivals, just different fresh and independent. Supporting such non-ideological candidates in no way advances conservative principles. Chris Daggett is precisely that sort of candidate, trying to appeal simultaneously to right and left. Doug Hoffman, on the other hand, is without question the most conservative alternative in his race, and so lays logical claim to conservative support.

2- Could the third party contender do a successful job in the office for which hes running? Jesse Ventura proved a pathetic bust as Governor of Minnesota because he wasnt able to work with either party in the legislature he was just a lonely publicity hound who reacted (occasionally) and never led. Arnold Schwarzenegger in California has also tried to govern as an independent (though elected as a Republican) and has met with similarly disappointing results: with scant backing from either party in the legislature, hes become almost irrelevant in Sacramento. Even in the hugely unlikely event that Chris Daggett became New Jerseys next governor, hed never be able to put through his sweeping tax reform (that actually features a big expansion of the sales tax) or other elements of an ambitious agenda. Both Republicans and Democrats in Trenton would work to undermine him, and seize power for a legislature in which the governor enjoyed no support. Doug Hoffman, on the other hand, would never be isolated or irrelevant in Washington: hes committed to caucusing with the GOP, and would add one more clearly conservative voice to the beleaguered Republicans in the House.

3- Whats the message that the election of an independent candidate would send the country? A Hoffman victory would reassure press and public that voters in a conservative upstate district (they gave GOP Congressman Paul McHugh 65.3% of the vote in 2008) are still conservative, and that they want a clear-cut alternative to Obamanism, not a split-the-difference moderate. A Daggett victory in New Jersey, on the other hand, would undermine the impression of a conservative tidal wave next Tuesdaya tidal wave that could easily materialize with likely GOP victories in Virginia, and in New York City (where Mayor Bloomberg is running as the official GOP nominee). If Chris Christie brings the GOP back to power in heavily Democratic New Jersey, the media will identify a Republican sweep; if Daggett (or, heaven-forbid, Corzine) wins, theyll talk only of a split decision, denying conservatives the momentum and encouragement we need.

4- Is there a legitimate reason to bolt from the major parties in this particular race? In the Doug Hoffmans Congressional race, there definitely is a solid case for walking away from the GOP nominee. Most importantly, she wasnt chosen in a primary but was selected in an idiotic decision by local party bosses. Because of the special election calendar (necessitated because previous Congressman Paul McHugh was appointed by President Obama as the new Secretary of the Army) there wasnt a chance for voters to express their preferences. In New Jersey, 330,000 voters cast ballots in the Republican primary, and Chris Christie won decisively (55% to 42%) against a more conservative rival, Steve Lonergan. Unlike Dede Sozzafava in New Yorks 23rd district, Christie is definitely within the mainstream of the Republican Party which is why no nationally prominent conservative leaders are supporting the independent (in stark contrast to the New York Congressional race).

Finally, theres the question of making your vote count for advancing your idealswhich means voting for one of the major parties unless an independent demonstrates a real chance of victory.
In most races, of course, third and fourth and fifth party candidates gain no traction and achieve nothing beyond enriching their own egos. In many cases, those fringe party contenders only serve to elect the candidate who disagrees with them most thereby pushing the nation away from their ideals, not toward them. Consider the celebrated Minnesota Senate race in 2008. The ultra-conservative Constitution Party fielded a candidate named James Niemacki, who attracted 8,907 votes. This represented a pathetic 0.308% of the Minnesota electorate. But if just one third of these voters had decided that Republican Senator Norm Coleman was vastly preferable for true conservatives to flaming liberal Al Franken, then Coleman would have won the race with a relatively comfortable margin of 2,657 votes. (In the final official recount Franken won by only 312 votes). This would have denied Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the Democrats their filibuster proof 60 vote Senate majority. Yet with this fateful vote switch, the impact on the Constitution Party would have been minimal: would it have made this political fringe group any more of a joke, had it earned 0.203% of the vote rather than 0.308%?

If voting matters (and as the most meaningful resistance to Obamas big government schemes it certainly does) then conservatives should use their precious votes to elect candidates who will move American politics back toward the right and away from the leftist fringe of the president and his true believers. They should also use elections to send a message to the political class, the media and their fellow citizens about new directions for the country. We can send that message next Tuesday with smashing victories for Republican candidates in New Jersey and Virginia, and for an independent Conservative (who will work with Republicans when elected) in the 23rd District of New York.

Oscar-winning actress Nicole Kidman recently made headlines with her testimony to a subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Under questioning from GOP Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, she admitted that violent Hollywood movies may have contributed to abusive and misogynistic attitudes toward women in other countries, but defensively and misleadingly insisted that she herself always avoided such parts. Meanwhile her testimony raises two bigger questions. First, why are our elected representatives wasting their time and our money by taking testimony on foreign policy from an Australian movie star with nothing to offer beside glamour? Politicians should resist the temptation of giving platforms to irrelevant celebrities. And, even more fundamentally, why is the House of Representatives considering new legislation to “tackle violence against women overseas”? Wouldn’t their time be invested more constructively in dealing with more pressing problems here at home?