The Berlin Wall came down because Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to tear it down. That was 20 years ago. Hard to believe. They are commemorating it today at the Reagan Library.

We fired up the mics for a new WynnCast tonight, wherein we were joined by Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore, OK, tax-day TEA party and then Kristin Hoover, also known as The Redneck Diva. Some great President Reagan audio opened the show, and we talked about everything from tea parties to Twitter to tornadoes and trailer parks. Give a listen…

Click Here for WynnCast Goodness

As I reflected on today’s inaugural events, I went back and watched some clips of inaugurations past, thanks to the folks at Hulu.

It’s very instructive to listen to President Reagan’s first inaugural address. He took office as the nation was facing a far more drastic economic situation that the present, and his words serve to warn us that if we try the tired, old, failed policies of the past, things can—and will—get worse.

Reagan’s plans stood in stark contradistinction to those we are about to embark upon.

See video from past inaugurations, from President McKinley, whose was the first to be filmed, at Hulu.

The day after the big election, there is some good commentary about the future of conservatism.

Michael Bates posts comments from Tom Coburn, who said in part:

The failure of the Republican Party in this election does not represent the failure of conservatism, but of the big government Republicanism that took over our party in 1996. Had the Republican Party not governed as the party of socialism-lite for the past 12 years, our candidates’ concerns about the excessive spending on the other side would have had more relevance.

Republican efforts to build a governing majority through spending and earmarks have ended in disgrace. The Republican Party can either restore its identity as the party of limited government or go the way of the Whigs. When Republicans decide to come home to the timeless conservatism present at our founding, the conservatism of Abraham Lincoln – which our president-elect graciously acknowledged last night – and the conservatism of Ronald Reagan that won the Cold War and led to unprecedented prosperity, they know where to find us.

Further, Philip Klein, writes at the American Spectator:

John McCain is an honorable man who sacrificed more for this nation than most of us can imagine, but he’s also eccentric and idiosyncratic. During the campaign, he railed against Wall Street greed and excessive CEO pay on the one hand and against his opponent’s plans to redistribute wealth on the other; he called for a spending freeze while proposing that government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to freeze home foreclosures by partially socializing the housing market.

Of all the ways to put these election results in broader historical context, it’s quite a stretch to equate the defeat of John McCain with the end of conservatism.

***

The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it won’t be impossible.

Although Obama has radical liberal roots, he was elected president by papering over his past, and convincing Americans that he was a pragmatic moderate who would cut their taxes and be more fiscally responsible than President Bush. Democrats won Congressional races in traditionally conservative districts in much the same way. If, once in power, Obama and his Democratic allies cater to their liberal base, it will be jarring to Americans who had something different in mind when they voted for the abstract concept of change.

Conservatives won’t thwart Democrats by name-calling, but by articulating to the country why liberal proposals will have disastrous implications, and emphasizing that there is little room left to expand social programs when the government has to fund a $700 billion bailout — just as tax revenue falls as a result of the shrinking economy.

***

Some of those who identify themselves as conservatives would have us believe that the conclusion to draw from this is that the era of small government conservatism is over, and that the only option is to fight for a conservative welfare state to replace a liberal welfare state. But that was the driving force behind President Bush’s brand of “compassionate conservatism,” which led us to a fiscal disaster that critics now want to blame on traditional conservatism.

Those of us who still believe in fighting for limited government cannot allow this to happen. It’s one thing for the Republican Party to embrace statism, but once the conservative movement does so at the philosophical level, it will no longer have a reason to exist. If people want big government, they’ll support liberalism — conservatives simply cannot beat the real thing.

There are millions of Americans who do not remember the 1970s or the Soviet Union, nor have they been effectively taught about the historical damage of liberalism. It’s time for us to begin the education process. The natural results of liberalism—which manifest themselves every time it is tried—will make for an attentive audience very soon.

There were those who called Reganomics stupid before it worked. One would have to be an utter fool to look back on the prosperity ushered in by Reagan’s policies and regard them as dumb and ineffective, but that’s just what many Democrats – especially many in Congress – tend to do. Reagan economic advisor Larry Kramer has this to say:

Democrats want to tax the rich, redistribute the wealth and spend our way out of the economic doldrums. It won’t work. Sens. Barack Obama and Harry Reid, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, disdain supply-side tax incentives. But Sen. John McCain wants to reemploy them as a recovery tool.

McCain is right, and now is the time for the Republican Party to call for sweeping tax cuts that would reduce marginal rates by half for businesses, individuals and investors. Yes, it would be bold. But no bolder than Reagan in the 1980s, Kennedy in the 1960s or Mellon in the 1920s.

The corporate tax rate should be slashed from 35 percent to less than 25 percent, including capital gains. (Corporations, let’s not forget, don’t pay taxes. Only individuals do, since business costs are passed along to consumers.) The top individual rate should similarly be lowered, with fewer income brackets to clutter up the tax code. And investment taxes on capital gains and dividends should be cut from 15 percent to 7.5 percent to revive the dormant animal spirit of investors.

Hear, hear! In absence of the Fair Tax (fat chance with a Democrat Congress), I’ll take it.

We’re in the midst of the most hectic part of our year. We just had the church’s 80th anniversary homecoming last week, business is busier than ever, and we have some other obligations that have us swamped. We, however, took a little break tonight to catch the late showing of An American Carol. All I can say is, “Wow!”

The movie is side-splittingly funny; people were still laughing as we exited the theater (not our individual theater, but the entire building). Yet, while being decidedly slapstick throughout, the movie was also beautifully poignant in parts. Some scenes tell profound truths (e.g., the Columbia professors’ musical number and the ACLU undead courtroom scene) with such whimsy that the entire theater was gasping for air from the laughs. And then, at the end, when we see the generations of soldiers standing among the crowd at a concert, it might just invoke a little tear.

The cast, and it was a star-studded one, did a superb job. Extra kudos to Kelsey Grammer for his Patton.

It’s a movie you should definitely see. We need more light-hearted commentary about who and what we are as Americans. This movie will undoubtedly resonate with us real Americans out here in fly-over country. It certainly hit home with me.

My primary choice this year, Fred Thompson, writes in a piece at The Politico:

…an issue McCain has asked me to help his campaign with — the federal judiciary — is one that disturbs voters to the point of having enormous electoral possibilities. The federal judiciary is the Democratic Party’s vehicle of choice to enact policies that could never see the light of day if they were required to go through the democratic process. And that party now talks about electing a supermajority in the Congress that, along with the most liberal president in our lifetime, would allow them to change the face of America without enacting one piece of legislation — a change that would take us a generation to rectify, if we ever could.

McCain has chosen to make this issue a priority because he thinks the public worries about a Supreme Court lost to liberalism for our lifetime, and that it cares about the appointment of federal judges who will follow the law and the Constitution and not remake it along the lines of their own policy preferences. (emphasis added)

I’m thrilled that Fred! is aiding the McCain campaign (and McCain administration) with this huge task. The judiciary is one of the highest ranking issues in this election. President Bush has done an excellent job with his Supreme Court nominees, with the exception of the Harriet Myers fiasco. He recovered well, and we got an excellent Justice out of it.

The appointment power of the president cannot be misunderestimated. With a closely divided Court, the next President can make an extremely long-term impact on the nation and the world (not to mention the impact other federal courts nominees will have). Very little from a president’s term lives on as a legacy with as much permanence as his or her Supreme Court picks. The Court is currently composed of some good, mediocre, and awful Justices.The current roster (and who nominated them).

• C. J. John Roberts (G. W. Bush)
• J. John Paul Stevens (Ford)
• J. Antonin Scalia (Reagan)
• J. Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
• J. David Souter (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Clarence Thomas (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
• J. Stephen Breyer (Clinton)
• J. Samuel Alito (G. W. Bush)

Those appointed by Democrats – Ginsburg and Breyer, both by Clinton – have been disasters. Some appointed by Republican presidents – Stevens, Kennedy, Souter – have been huge disappointments, too. Great justices – Scalia, Thomas, Alito – were all appointed by Republicans. In sum: you’re guaranteed a disaster with Democrat picks or you take a gamble with a Republican pick. The next president will likely get to choose two justices. Stevens is 88. Ginsburg is not well. Those are two of the most liberal justices the Court has ever seen. I cannot hand the choice of their successors to B. Obama. I trust McCain to make better choices, and if Palin succeeds him, we’re really set!

(In closing, I also note that it’s convenient for some of us that our own policy preferences line up with the law and Constitution – see Fred’s last paragraph above.)

They called it Star Wars as a term of derision. It led to the defeat of the Soviets. Tonight, it shot down a dead satellite because of the toxic fuel attached to it. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Toxic fuel, that’s what it was…

The main point is the shoot-down was successful. I miss President Reagan, especially in this election year.