The nation’s largest, most influential gathering of conservatives --- the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) --- was recently held in Washington.  Based on the sheer number of attendees (over 11,000, up from just over 100 when CPAC started in 1973) and the level of palpable energy exuding from the ranks, the conference was a huge success.

Speakers ranged from media pundits to elected officials, including most of the Republicans mentioned as Presidential candidates.

The attendees had every right to feel proud: their side had just re-taken control of the U.S. House, made significant gains in the Senate, and added numerous governorships and state legislatures to the “R” column.

Several themes were common throughout the conference: repeal Obamacare, reign in spending, and reduce the size and scope of government.  But sometimes, the most noteworthy thing is not what is said, but what isn’t.

Not heard nearly as often was what the Party was for.

If that perception becomes commonplace among the electorate, and the GOP becomes the “Party of No,” their recent gains will shrink, jeopardizing the nation’s recovery in the process.

They can certainly be against the liberal agenda, but that will only get them so far.  Ultimately, they have to articulate their vision for America by advocating real solutions to float the sinking economy. 

By far, the two areas where effective communication is needed most, but is noticeably absent, are health care and energy.

Health Care

It’s no secret that the majority of Americans oppose the health care plan passed by Obama and the Democratic Congress last year. But an even greater number agree on something else --- the system before Obamacare didn’t come close to cutting it.  The message is simple: reform is absolutely essential, but national health care isn’t the answer. Pushing to repeal Obamacare, but not articulating a solution to replace it, is a recipe for disaster. 

And like everything else, it’s not what you say, but how you say it.

For example, if Republicans argue for “tort” reform, it will result in a mad dash to find out what’s wrong with our nation’s desserts.  Instead, a spokesman needs to explain, in everyday language, that health care costs are skyrocketing because doctors routinely order five or six tests when one or two would suffice. That practice of “defensive medicine” stems from the fear of frivolous lawsuits initiated by trial lawyers, who, not coincidentally, are one of the Democratic Party’s largest donors. Illustrating such unchecked greed would make winning the legal reform battle infinitely easier, but it’s rarely done.

Likewise, the GOP needs to question why one can buy auto insurance from any company in any state, but it remains illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.  Communicating why that system must be dismantled --- one which allows the big boys to push out their smaller competitors, thus dominating the market and holding citizens and businesses hostage --- is a winning issue.

Advocating these common sense solutions in a populist manner takes the stigma out of discussing the complexities of health care.  If positioned properly, a few of these reforms would solve the bulk of the nation’s health care problems.

Yet that did not occur when George W. Bush occupied the White House with substantial Republican majorities in Congress.  And despite the GOP’s recent electoral gains, the lesson has not yet been learned.

Cutting Cannot Be The Sole Answer

There are two aspects of cutting which play a vital role in any economic recovery, but by themselves will never be the answer.

Cutting corporate income taxes and excessive regulations are crucial first steps. The United States has the second-highest corporate tax in the world --- 40 percent.  After states tack on their taxes, it becomes clear why companies close their doors, often shipping their operations overseas.

Articulating the results of that policy--- padlocked gates, lost jobs, rising unemployment and welfare rolls, and declining revenue --- cuts down the class warfare tactics of the Left who think taxing companies and their “rich” executives will solve the nation’s problems.  Instead, the average worker, union and non-union alike, would begin to understand why lowering taxes benefits everyone. Closed factories equal lost jobs.  It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

But hearing that explained is rare, because it’s much easier to blame the Chinese for our economic situation. 

Perhaps the point Republicans miss most is that cutting budgets and bureaucracy, while important, will not provide the spark necessary for growth. Just as you cannot tax your way out of a recession, you can’t slash your way into prosperity.

What is needed is a policy that makes growth the centerpiece of any Administration, and nowhere is that goal more obtainable than by instituting energy independence.

Not only will this create millions of sustainable jobs, but it will also significantly decrease the transportation costs of importing goods from across the world.  And common sense tells us reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, especially from the increasingly volatile Middle East, will yield positive results.  America has more than enough resources to achieve energy independence, including some of the largest natural gas deposits in the world, but virtually nothing has been done to take advantage of this.

Republicans efforts in this area have only been rhetoric, despite the numerous opportunities afforded them:

There was no action taken after the September 11 attacks, when the President Bush would have faced virtually no opposition in responsibly opening up the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.  Nor after gasoline spiked to $4.25/gallon and oil to $150/barrel in 2008.  And none after President Obama pushed for offshore drilling and nuclear power in his 2010 State of the Union address --- traditionally Republican concepts adamantly opposed by his biggest constituencies.

                                                                           *****

Having the best ideas are meaningless if you don’t sell them.  The Republicans have time to heed that message, both in advancing their agenda and choosing a nominee to oppose Obama.  But if they don’t, there will be two losers: the Party and the nation.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The time has come.  We must ban the musical Caberet.

To be consistent, we must also censor Gone With The Wind, Sound Of Music, Hogan’s Heroes and every other movie about war.

Despite entertaining countless people, these productions must cease in the name of Political Correctness. 

For that, we extend our thanks to Congressman Eric Cantor.

A Republican. 

No, that’s not a misprint.  Cantor is one of the GOP’s national leaders, poised to become Majority Leader should the Republicans win back the House.

There’s a far more appropriate term for Cantor: garden-variety political hack.

And that’s being kind.

*****

Cantor has helped create a sensationalistic story where there shouldn’t be one. In doing so, he has shown his true colors as a politician seeking power for the sake of power, with no regard for principles or people.

At issue is Ohio GOP congressional candidate Rich Iott, who had a hobby of reenacting historical events.  As part of a tremendously popular activity, Iott has participated in re-enactments of the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.

In accurately portraying the Second World War, he donned the garb of a Nazi soldier.

And therein lies the firestorm.

Iott dressed as a German, so therefore must believe in the Nazi ideology.

So goes the insane logic of Cantor.

The Republican whip betrayed his ally on national television, stating that he, “would absolutely repudiate that, and not support an individual to do something like that.... I don’t support anything like that.”

Under that rationale, we should pretend the United States didn’t fight real enemies in any war.

If anyone should be repudiated, it’s Cantor for stripping away the dignity of millions of veterans who actually fought the bad guys.

Re-writing history in order not to “offend” is the greatest injustice that could be heaped on America’s greatest heroes.

Burying your head by pretending there weren’t atrocities committed is ridiculous.  Iott wasn’t glorifying Nazis, but educating on one of the world’s darkest moments. The only way we can prevent history from repeating itself is by understanding what really happened.

And what better way to make history come alive, in a way that students of all ages can easily understand, than historical re-enactments? 

Of course, depicting war requires two sides.  You can’t exactly educate if you’re missing half the pieces.

But that is lost on Cantor.

Bowing to the altar of political correctness is inexcusable behavior from anyone, but for a leader of the Republican Party, who should be held to a higher standard, it’s a disgrace.

*****

Where does this warped thinking end?

Do we chastise actors who portray Nazis, Japanese --- or British Redcoats?  How about a Southern slave owner or even…a Democrat?

Are we to believe that, should one reprise these roles, that he has assumed membership in, and adopted the ideology of, that character?

Of course not.  Doing so insults everyone’s intelligence.  Which is why Cantor’s real motivation is so easily discerned.

He wasn’t “offended” at all.  If he was, he has no business serving in Congress, let alone being one of its leaders.

Instead, he made a deliberate decision to throw one of his own under the bus to appease the loud Left.  Cantor wants to show that the new Republican Party is tolerant and unoffensive --- codespeak for “politically correct.”

Not coincidentally, every poll shows Iott trailing his opponent by a substantial margin, which means Cantor sees the race as unwinnable.

So who better to make an “example” of than someone who will lose anyway?  Put another way, if the race were a nail-biter, or the Republican was ahead, what are the chances Cantor would have assassinated the character of that candidate?

Slim to none.

 If that’s not putting politics ahead of principle, nothing is.

And that’s exactly the problem Republicans will face should they win power.  GOP Leadership has learned nothing from 2006 and 2008, when the Party lost its way.  Politicians like Cantor don’t understand that selling out your own for political expediency puts the Party on a very slippery slope, from which it is difficult to reverse course.

And he gets the worst of both worlds.  He won’t win anyone in the middle, since Americans see his position as lunacy, yet he has alienated much of the Republican base.

There’s a big difference between winning elections and effectively governing.  Cantor may succeed in the first, but the latter is in serious doubt.

*****

Will those who criticize Cantor receive flak from a small but vocal minority, being accused of insensitivity to the plight of those victimized by the Nazis?  Sure, and it’ll be spitballs off a battleship, because anyone of sound mind --- most of all, those still with us who experienced Nazi evil --- inherently knows that history must be told accurately. 

And you can’t tell it right if you don’t tell the truth.

And by the way, we won.  The Nazis were crushed, and freedom ruled the day.

Kind of ironic, then, that Cantor is trying to rain on the parade of someone fighting to keep freedom and liberty from dying in this country.

There’s an old saying that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

And in this case, Cantor IS the problem.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

If you’re wondering why race relations in America haven’t improved at all, look no farther than the recent comments of state Senator Anthony Williams.

Shortly before Williams jumped into the governor’s race, he ranted that none of the other Democratic candidates was giving any attention to the black community and the issues faced by that constituency.

In other words, since they are all Caucasian, they were just catering to Whitey and ignoring everyone else.

Gee, and I thought campaigns were supposed to be color-blind.