This got me to thinking about what it would take for me to start taking the Republican Party more seriously.  My initial observation is that I’m suddenly taken much more seriously by conservatives at the grassroots level.  A lot of these folks are equally upset with the senior leadership in the GOP.  The problems seems to be at the top.  Here’s the example du jour:

For the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s recruitment list for 2010 reads like a roster of some of the party’s best-known RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and squishes — the derisive terms applied to centrists by movement conservatives.

The party’s top choice for Florida’s open Senate seat is popular Gov. Charlie Crist, who raised eyebrows earlier this year with his vigorous advocacy of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package — he even went so far as to appear with Obama at a Florida rally in February. In Connecticut, the national GOP has lobbied former Rep. Rob Simmons — who holds a higher lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action group than Specter does — to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd.

Then there’s last week’s example:

Republican House Whip Eric Cantor has just announced the formation of the National Council for a New America, which is described as “a forward-looking, grassroots caucus intended to bring together Congressional leaders with a national panel of experts.”

In reality, the National Council for a New America looks like another top-down organization which will be conducting forums and town hall meetings to push an agenda which looks just like the same-old agenda we’ve been seeing from Republicans.

The Republican leadership has had plenty of chances.  2006 election results should have been a clear kick upside the head.  After the 2008 results came in, it was time to start CPR.  And now they are going back to the same old practices which put them in this boat in the first place.

For the Republican Party to survive, the grassroots are going to have to take over the GOP or Republican leaders will need to learn a new vocabulary very quickly. This vocabulary will require a lot more than simply saying “I’m sorry.” It will have to be a serious and heartfelt apology to the American people.  If I was tasked to write an apology speech for some senior elected Republican, it might go something like this:

I come before you today to ask — no, to beg — for your forgiveness.

For years, I’ve disregarded my priorities and placed being in power ahead of my duty to you and to the Constitution of the United States.

For years, I’ve been voting for bloated budgets and increased deficit spending because I placed party loyalty above fiscal stewardship.

For years, I’ve been listening to lobbyists, as opposed to my you, my constituents.

For years, I’ve disregarded the Tenth Amendment and placed undo burdens on the states.

For years, I’ve voted for law after law which invades personal privacy and stifles individual liberty.

For years, I’ve placed my personal social agenda above the basic concepts of federalism and the Republic.  Especially with my vote on the Internet Gambling Ban and the Terri Schiavo case, I was truly wrong.

When President Bush wanted a bailout package, I succumbed to pressure and voted for it.  There is no excuse for this deplorable action of mine.

When Senator McCain won the presidential nomination, I stood with him on the campaign trail.  There is no excuse for this deplorable action of mine.

There is no apology I can make which will begin to make up for the financial and freedom losses you have suffered due to my irresponsibility.  I can only humbly ask your forgiveness and for your help to bring this country back on track again.

There is no excuse for many of my votes and actions since the Republican Revolution.  However, I’ve been reading a lot and talking with some very bright people over the last few months.   I’ve read about laissez-faire economic policy, the true free market.  I’ve read our founding fathers and learned why they wrote the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation the way they did.  I’ve read about natural law and libertarian theory.  I now carry a copy of the Constitution with me — and consult it before voting on any questionable bill.  I no longer vote on any bill which I haven’t first read.

I’ve sold your rights down the river, but I’m willing to do everything I can to buy back your freedom. I promise that I’ll work much harder than I ever have in the past to restore as much of your money and as many of your rights as possible.  It’s the very least I should do.

I know you will be watching each and every one of my votes between now and Election Day, as well you should.  I’d like to announce that the door to my office is once again open to the public. I hope you will take the time to call, e-mail or stop by to tell me how I’m doing.

While I may not deserve it, I’m now on the road to recovery.  With your help, America can be, too.

The only problem is that the speech would be coming from my keyboard — not from the heart of the RINO who would be delivering it.

The Denver Post article goes on to explain how the rewrite puts the death penalty repeal in doubt:

Sponsor Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, blamed the amendment on some colleagues’ anxieties over the controversial topic of repealing the death penalty and said the maneuver leaves little time to work out compromises and no time for public hearings or fiscal analysis of the new draft.

“Some people are looking for ways to avoid voting on the core issue,” Carroll said. “This is a totally different bill that’s not had a public hearing. It’s gamesmanship that makes a mess of public policy.”

Carroll had the backing of a broad coalition of groups — including the families of victims of unsolved murders, whose painful stories helped push the idea that ending the death penalty could be used as a funding source for cold-case investigations.

With their needs potentially met, however, the remaining death-penalty foes in the coalition could lose one of their most poignant and persuasive voices.

I think Sen. Carroll is mostly right. Her colleagues in the Senate are probably thinking more about the 2010 election than any principle regarding the death penalty. With the rewritten provisions to fund the cold case unit and taking the death penalty off the table, her friends in the Senate can avoid making a controversial vote and not have to worry about angering voters.

I’m sure that Gov. Bill Ritter (D) who is also up for re-election in 2010 is most relieved of all about these developments. So far, Gov. Ritter has managed to remain on the fence on the issue with his finger firmly in the air to determine which way the political winds are blowing. Perhaps the only clue as to where he stands – when Ritter was the Denver D.A. he unsuccessfully pursued the death penalty in 7 cases.

Perhaps the “limited resources” and economic arguments was not the best strategy to pursue after all. While these are, in my view, persuasive arguments they should be secondary considerations to the real moral and legal question: should the state have the right to kill? This is the question that far too many politicians do not have the courage to answer.

The article continues:

Carroll said there is too great a risk of wrongful conviction to chance an irreversible penalty such as death.

“How many colleagues do we have in the Senate who believe the state or the government is infallible?” she asked.

As I have written on many occasions, infallible the government is not. This is especially true for our broken criminal justice system.

Is it Barack Obama’s latest “stimulus” plan? Is it Harry Reid? Is this Ed Rendell or some other big state Democratic governor? Could it be even Charlie Crist or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

If you guessed any of the above, you’re wrong. The person proposing to give the government 50% ownership of certain chicken processing plants is none other the guy who came in second in the CPAC straw poll, Louisiana Governor and Republican Party savior, Bobby Jindal.

From the Monroe News Star

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s chief of staff said the state has found a buyer for Pilgrim’s Pride’s northeastern Louisiana operations and that an offer was expected to be made to the bankrupt company Tuesday night.

Timmy Teepell said the buyer will put up $20 million and the state will match it for a $40 million offer.

“(Jindal) has agreed to match it dollar for dollar with the stipulation that the company must keep the work force intact for five years,” Teepell said.

Pilgrim’s chief executive Don Jackson said at 7 p.m. Tuesday that he had not yet received an offer.

“I stated from the beginning that we would be receptive to any meaningful offer,” Jackson said.

The company announced Feb. 27 that it will close the Farmerville processing plants and the support infrastructure in April because of a glut of chicken on the market.

So the man who railed in a boring, self-centered speech against Barack Obama’s big government agenda plans to have the State of Louisiana own 50% of chicken processing plants. At least Obama in his takeover of Citigroup is only buying 36% of it. Maybe Rush Limbaugh can see if this is what Reagan would’ve done.

One other disturbing aspect of this proposal:

Teepell would not identify the company that made the offer to Pilgrim’s Pride, but he did say the company’s chief executive contacted Jackson before deciding to make the offer.

Bobby Jindal likes to talk about he cleaned up the most corrupt state in the country and how he reformed Louisiana’s ethics laws and improved transparency. Well, he passed some unenforceable new ethics laws while at the same time fought any attempts to bring transparency to the governor’s office. This secretive way of conducting business is the norm for the Jindal regime.

America, if you elect Bobby Jindal president in 2012, you can expect more socialism and more of the shadow government. If this is what the Republican Party has to offer, they won’t be returning to power anytime soon.

UPDATE:Pilgrim’s Pride rejected the offer from the State of Louisiana to buy the plant.

“Gov. Jindal and (Pilgrim’s chief executive Don) Jackson spoke by phone (on Tuesday night),” Pilgrim’s spokesman Ray Atkinson said in a written statement. “Dr. Jackson explained to the governor that the offer for the Farmerville complex was below our requirements.

“It would essentially put Foster (Farms) in business at a cost of entry of $20 million, well below the real cost and at a level with which neither Pilgrim’s Pride nor the rest of the industry could effectively compete.

“Dr. Jackson did not rule out a possible sale, but noted that it would have to be at a price well beyond $40 million. He also reiterated that selling the facility would not address the fundamental problem facing our industry: an oversupply of low-value commodity chicken.”

Now, The American Conservative is asking whether South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford will run for president.  In a rather flattering-to-Sanford profile, Michael Brendan Dougherty outlines why the former congressman and current governor is certainly the fiscal conservative’s conservative while describing some distinctly libertarian traits about the man.

After eight years of Bush and presumably four or more of Obama, we could certainly do much worse.  The AmCon article is located here and is well worth the read.

UPDATE: Over at The American Spectator, James Antle seems to agree with my general sentiment on the topic.

But I was immediately struck with the same sort of vibe I get from watching a Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, or to a lesser extent, Ron Paul type. It didn’t take long. I didn’t watch for more than a few minutes, but it was as clear as watching one of Pelosi’s responses to Bush’s SOTU speeches. It was a forgotten address before Jindal even stopped speaking.

There is a level to which candidates need charisma to succeed. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama have it in spades. Both Bushes 41 and 43 had a little bit of it, but by far had more than Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry. Bobby Jindal doesn’t have any of it.

It’s a sad statement on politics, but even if he had the best and most impressive ideological beliefs of any person in the country, he simply won’t be President, because he can’t own the stage.