during the election.

I figure it will take about 10% of Obama voters to come around
by 2010 and 2012 to make a difference. That should be easy because
more than 10% of them will be unemployed. Soon the magic bus of hope & change crashes will into the ditch. Obama won’t create jobs,
he cannot create jobs. Private enterprise creates jobs. Right now private enterprise is going underground until the rainbows & unicorns disappear. You might get a check now in 2009 but that will all be gone and replaced by HUGE tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. That $500 or $1000 will be peanuts and not match the HUGE price increase in energy & food.

It looks as though the ballots were marked R and D thus adding mass confusion during the Nov.4,2008 vote. They should have all been marked with a D.

We do need 2 parties in this country. Right now I only see one.

Sarah seems to stand alone.

is not my idea of a conservative or a Republican. He’s a Democrat who pretended for expediency to be a Republican for a while.

Sarah Palin was respectful of Obama, but she has clearly stated her disagreements with his administration unlike most of Washington’s GOP.

Thank goodness for Rush and Sean who are carrying the torch of conservatism while the GOP flirts with socialism.

If you catch it, it is deadly. It saps your motivation & desire to work. It robs you of all free thinking.

Has he been doing or saying anything lately?

Just think of it. It would attract only the toughest, most principled conservatives.

Regarding elected republican officials with a national voice, Gov. Palin is it.

Great write-up. She gets ‘kitchen table’ economics. While Wash., D.C. democrats, Obama and wayward GOPers seek to grow government despite public fears**, she is leading by cutting back, just as most Americans are.

** http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/january_2009/59_fear_too_much_government_spending_is_coming

It should be enough that kissing Democratic keesters has NEVER been a winning strategy. The Reps were thrown out in 2006 because they had been acting like Democrats. The American public on the whole, when times are relatively easy to live in, don’t pay sufficient attention to politics to know the difference between liberals and conservatives. They just knew they didn’t like the way Congress was acting. They really didn’t know that Democrats would do the same obnoxious things if elected, only much worse.

Conservatism WILL come back. It will because of the fundamental truth of it. I think of Reagan as a voice in the wilderness when Johnson was elected. Like communism, liberalism will eventually collapse of its own weight.

My concern, is that we don’t end up having to have a WWIII to rescue us in the manner that WWII rescued the economy in the first half of the last century.

I have to say I was throughly disturbed at her interview with Beck the other day….suffice it to say it was reminicent of Huckabee’s interviews ie: can’t we all just get along? I looked at my husband and I said if she keeps talking like that she will not be the next candidate for President. WE DON’T NEED SQUISHES…..WE need people who oppose this socialist President at every turn WE need a Hannity a Rush and NO I am not saying for them to run for President I mean we NEED someone who tells the truth and calls out The Messiah and minions on the BS they are shoving down the American peoples throats each and every day!

Governor Palin is speaking it. 2012 may be her year, we shall see. I like Sanford & Jindal, Barbour & others. Gov. Palin is back to doing a great job for the state of Alaska & still on the national scene. I pray to see her campaigning across the country for Republican candidates – no one energized the base as well as she did & still does.

with each passing day…and each capitulation of the Republican Party to the Democrats whether it be a $350 Billion Farm Bill a $750 Billion Tarp bill, a $300 billion bailout of the auto industry, Pelosi’s $850 Billion “Stimulous”, Capitulation on the Clinton nomination to State despite the billions going to her husband and his library, the vapid surrender on Timothy F. Geithner despite his status as a tax evader…their silence in the face of Obama’s new lobbying rules and then his immediate waiver of those rules for his nominee as secretary of defense…and on and on…

As someone who has been temporary precinct chair for two different precincts, a Delegate to the Senate Convention for the last three presidential elections, a Delegate to the 2000 and 2004 State conventions, a longstanding member of the RNC, the NRCC, the NRSC, etc. I’m seriously shaking my head right now and asking myself why I’m even a Republican any more!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Watch for people in the GOP to try to destroy Sarah Palin. David Frum may be among the first with his newmajority.com. His basic goal is to win elections by moving the party to the left.

What’s their greatest obstacle? A petite brunette from Wasilla. They saw what she has done in Alaska and can only imagine the havoc Sarah Palin could create in DC.

I love that woman.

…keep in mind that Alaska has a nice fat surplus precisely because Governor Palin implemented a windfall profits tax against the oil companies. (A progressive tax pegged directly to the market price of a commodity IS a windfall profits tax.)

I’m still waiting for a conservative-principled defense of that budgetary tactic…give her props for not wasting that surplus with new spending, sure, but we have to acknowledge its origin in higher taxes.

Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, Tom Coburn, all dunces?

Just for example, DeMint’s comments before being one of only 2 Senators to vote against Hillary’s nomination to SecState.

Full Remarks by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) on the Nomination of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State

JANUARY 21, 2009

Mr. President, Senator Clinton is uniquely and highly qualified for the job of Secretary of State. She has been very open and forthright in her answers to questions at the Committee hearings and to my questions asked in private conversations and in the dozens of questions I submitted to her for written responses.

I believe she honestly wants what is best for our nation, and I will do my best to support her in that endeavor.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, I voted to send her nomination to the full Senate, because I believe she has earned the right to an up-or-down vote.

Senator Clinton will be confirmed today. There is not much doubt about that.

She will be sworn in and when she does she will have my prayers for her success.

At the Committee level, I said she not only had the potential to be a good Secretary of State, but a great Secretary of State.

But, her success will be determined by more than just her considerable intellect and experience.

It will also be determined by the policies she pursues.

This is one area that concerns me. Based on her testimony, her answers to questions, and her public statements, I believe she will take our foreign policy in a direction that erodes our national independence and surrenders sovereignty to international powers.

I am deeply concerned that she will take aim at decades-old policies intended to protect the sanctity of human life. These policies ensure that our foreign assistance money do not fund abortion, and are not used to lobby foreign nations to repeal laws that protect unborn children.

The United States is certainly an economic, political, and military superpower. But, we have also strived to be more — to be a moral superpower. Our unwavering adherence to principles of freedom and human dignity set us apart, and these pro-life regulations contribute to that moral leadership.

Some will argue that we should expect these policies from Senator Clinton, given that President Obama has very strong views supporting unrestricted abortion. I understand that. And to some degree, I believe he should be allowed to surround himself with individuals who share his views, even if they are misguided. Within reason, I may even support a nominee who has certain views I disagree with.

I do not plan to slow up this nomination, but I do find it difficult to support a nominee who I know will pursue policies so contrary to American sovereignty and the dignity of the human person. I will continue to try to persuade Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama to modify their positions. That obviously won’t happen before the vote today.

But, one matter I had hoped would be resolved before the vote today is the Clinton Foundation and its initiatives. I urged Senator Clinton at the hearing, as others did, to do whatever she could to eliminate any doubt about the foundation’s fundraising and the potential conflict of interest with foreign nations. I believe this problem can be very easily fixed, if the foundation agrees to refuse all foreign donations and fully disclose all contribution online immediately as long as Sen. Clinton is Secretary of State. To date, Senator Clinton has not agreed to do this.

Let’s be clear. Senator Clinton does not have to provide this disclosure to be confirmed — she already has the votes. As far as I know, the law does not require any of this disclosure. In fairness, the foundation plans to provide disclosure far beyond what it is required to do legally. But we are in new waters here, the first time the spouse of a former president is stepping into such an important role. In a world where bribes, kickbacks, and pay to play are all too often the normal way of doing business, the United States must stand apart. As President Obama said yesterday, “those of us who manage the public’s dollar will be held to account… and [we must] do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

That’s why, I believe, additional steps should be taken to eliminate this potential conflict. This will help her be a Secretary of State that is above reproach. It is essential that our Secretary be seen as treating nations fairly. I have every belief that Sen. Clinton can be a fair Secretary of State. But, it is not enough that we treat other nations fairly. They must know they are being treated fairly.

If there is suspicion that certain nations or international players are gaining advantage by virtue of contributions to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives that will compromise our new Secretary’s effectiveness. This is why I believe only full and immediate public disclosure, and refusal of all foreign donations, is the only solution.

The memorandum of understanding signed by the foundation leaves a lot of discretion to Senator Clinton. During her confirmation hearing, Sen Lugar presented a request for more acceptable disclosures, and Sen Kerry, as chairman, supported these recommendations. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has not agreed to follow even these modest recommendations.

For these reasons, I will be voting against the nomination, but I will do so with nothing but sincere hope and goodwill toward our new Secretary of State, and pray for her success as she takes the helm of the State Department.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

So, which part of this is ‘not making any sense’?

It’s not a bad diary, but you should choose your titles with a bit more thought.

I was speaking from a general disappointment with the congress in general. There are a few bright spots here and there but all in all they have caved in to Obamania. The conservative governors might be our only hope…

She’s gonna have to politely disagree or Alaskans may suffer. It’s frankly her job to be civil and protect her people from political party that needs to destroy her. You’ve already had the case of the “Missing custom officals” which she had to step in and stop. Now you’ve got those 80 year old vets who lost part of their retirement all of a sudden.

Sarah’s smart so don’t expect her to slam Obama too hard. It could cost her politically and cost Alaskans.

Oh and my governor is Charlie Crist…if you Alaskans aren’t happy with Sarah, I’ll trade you.

I have thought long and hard about this. The GOP did such a lousy job of governing and spending when it controlled that few people are listening to them right now. The Obama euphoria will take time to wear off. Most of the Dem proposals will pass without GOP support anyway. I think the GOP should oppose Obama on all issues without appearing obstructionist for the time being, The Dems must be allowed to govern and fail. Until such failure there is not much we can do. We have a hostile media where twits like Andrea Mitchell interview Susan Collins as if she were the Chairmen of the DNC.

I think statements like DeMints or Orin Hatch on Geithner are very damaging, They should simply shut up. If they are going to vote for a Marxist or tax cheat they should simply do it quietly. Suddenly this new term has surfaces ” Uniquely qualfied”. Reminds me of Hubris, Gravitas, Guilt by Association, Disproportionate response and of course the latest word for the Inexperienced Leon Panetta ” He is a ” Serious” man. What makes Hillary uniquely qualifed for Sec of State? Her resume is laugable when compared to Condi Rice or Henry Kissingger or even George Mitchell.

Not yet. She needs to replace Lisa Murkowski as Senator from Alaska by defeating her in the next primary and getting elected.

For also making some sense this morning. I saw him on Fox News criticizing the Obama spending spree New Deal 2: Expanded Socialism Edition dressed up as a stimulus package. He did a nice job of being the opposition. Sadly Sen. McConnell and Rep Boehner are not nearly as effective in that regard.