It seems strange at first, but it’s true. Now that Fred Thompson has left the race, most conservatives are now cheering for Barack Obama – but not for why you think.

Let’s look back to understand this twist. Conservatives got genuinely excited twice in this campaign season. The first time was back last summer, when Thompson spoke out a conservative message eloquently and with new media. This was a breath of fresh air that the Republican party needed. A true small government conservative that could explain conservatism in a way that made sense average Americans. AND he was able to tap into the new media – something Democrats have been doing much better than Republicans.

Conservatives waited with bated breath for their candidate. But after perhaps too much delay, Thompson entered the race with a whimper instead of a sizzle. Fred finally seemed to find his footing a few days before the South Carolina primary, coming out swinging in a debate a several speeches. Again conservatives got excited, but again it ended up being too little too late.

So now they wait and cheer for Obama to come and rescue them. Why? Because a race against Obama would require conservatism to win. A race against Hillary would require something completely different: Running against the Clintons, most of your time is spent fighting and trying to say ahead of the Clinton Machine. (Just look at the Hillary Obama race for proof of this). And a Republican candidate would try to win by focusing on Hillary’s negatives (which are quite high).

Running against Obama you can’t simply get people to vote against him – he’s too likeable. And running liberalism lite against liberalism is a fools errand. Even if you capture the middle, you will lose your base and therefore the election. If Hillary gets the nomination it will be a fight between political machinery. If Obama wins it can be a fight of policies and ideas. And conservatism wins in the arena of ideas – when it actually gets a chance to be considered. So for the third time conservatives wait – and hope for a chance let conservative ideas be on the table.

Say good bye to the incandescent light bulb. Congress has banned them staring in 2012. Congress defends this blatant attack on consumer choice and the home is castle concept by sighting energy savings. Everyone talks about how much money and power everyone will save. Wrong!

• Save Money? Nope. You’ll spend it all on the more expensive bulbs. So instead of a check to the utility it goes to the lighting industry. Same mothballs in the wallet for the consumer.
• Save Power? Nope. If the fuel efficiency of cars is any indication, no power will be saved. Consumers will simply care less about turning off their lights. As cars have gotten better mpg, American’s simply drive more. The economic impact not some love of the planet is what drives these things. If making sure you turn off your lights only impacts your power bill $5 instead of $50… no one will bother. Increasing the power consumption back to the pre-meddling point. Sorry congress, market forces don’t change with your wims.

Sadly, when I first heard about this a few weeks ago, I asked “What’s next? Are they going to make it illegal to set my thermostat to low?” Little did I know just how quickly I would be proven right. California is trying to pass a bill to require radio controlled thermostats for “peak times” and “emergencies”. So what happens when California declares a “global warming emergency”? Wal-mart will sell out of window AC units that day. Though I probably shouldn’t point that out, or those will be banned before the emergency declaration.

• Bye Bye, Light Bulb – If only Microsoft could argue its competitors hurt the environment.
• Senate Votes on Bulb Bill
• House Votes on Bulb Bill
• Who Will Control Your Thermostat?

UPDATE: Indications are that too many voters have taken noticed of this incantation of the bill. So expect a repeat of the immigration strategy – table the issue and then bring it back in a few months buried deeper in another bill.