said he will pursue the congressional district in Arlington I think the one Joe Barton is in.  Unless Barton is retiring I don’t see him defeating Barton.  Anyway this is great news for Ted Cruz and the conservatives can all rally behind him now as he has a clear path to victory.  Leppert is a force and would have had a good chance with Williams in, but now I think Cruz is the favorite.

I’m not a big Rick Perry fan, even if he gets in he won’t be in my top 3.  I doubt his leadership ability.  I think Pawlenty is clearly the best choice for us to pursue.  But having said that, I’m not some mindless cheerleader who turns off my mind and ears to any other choice other than mine.  And in this day and age, Perry brings the best toys to the game, that being he gets to trump the Texas economic numbers in stark contrast to Obama’s national numbers.  It may not be fair, but both men own those numbers.

Perry is also a talented politician, and I mean that in the positive and negative sense.  He has a Clintonian ability to see the issues ahead of time and position himself so he wont take the fall for it.  He has shown great skill in fundraising and has the ability to unite the right with fervor by simply giving a speech.  He exudes credibility even if its not earned.  Simply put, I think with the numbers he gets to own, combined with his political abilities I think he will be a force that Obama can’t take down.

Perry will also be an unstoppable force in the GOP primary.  His state’s numbers blows Pawlenty’s away, for those of us who want to go behind the scenes and see what really happened will find Pawlenty to be the better choice but alas the voting population isn’t in to details (case in point Obama).  He will be able to appeal to moderates but still can draw from a rock solid conservative base (this is what Romney has been trying to do for a nearly a decade now).

I guess my point here is that while I’m a Pawlenty guy, and I’m not going to waiver from that, but I still do recognize that goal number uno is to defeat Obama and I can clearly see how a poorly educated electorate is going to gravitate to Perry against Obama assuming the economic numbers don’t drastically improve.

I think for me, and for many of us, the thing that is so frustrating for us conservatives is that we can’t seem to find our Paul Revere.  The message is simple, the message is applicable and it does correlate to today’s problems.  First the British taxed our sugar, then forced us to quarter British soldiers, then forced us to be taxed under the stamp act, then the raising revenue tax and finally they even went for our damn tea until we stood up and said ENOUGH!!!!

I think Palin’s bus tour was an attempt to go back and show Americans what it was that made this country become a country in the first place, and then show how those principles are needed again today.  But wheather its Palin, Bachmann or the tea party (or some other personality) that message never seems to get through to the entire town.  Paul Revere is known throughout history because he focused on his mission.  He didn’t fall of his horse, he didn’t get lost in town, he didn’t quit until everyone in that town have heard the warning and were able to prepare.  Even though Revere, like all our other founders, exhibited great courage and bravery to ride out that night, the ride itself was not about him.  The phrase “give me liberty or give me death” was not about Patrick Henry, it was about the message itself and it served as a rallying cry to all the citizens that now was the time to rise against a government that was no longer serving the people, just as Revere’s ride was.

What conservatism, and indeed this Country, needs is our Paul Revere.  Someone who not only knows what the message is, can say the message, and loves the message but someone that will carry the message on to everyone in this country in a way that we understand it and will use it to rise up.  Right now, I don’t see that person, and I think that is what is most frustrating to all of us.

When it comes to the tax code, we all hate it.  Its either the complexity of the code itself, the amount you must pay, or both that will rally every American to that cause.  But as much as I like the idea of a flat tax (or national consumption tax) I don’t think our society is ready to accept it.  It has become the American way for the lower class to not pay taxes and this is not the time to talk about changing that.

So Tim Pawlenty is coming out with a very reasonable proposal that I think could be the grounds for a good strong and successful campaign.  Pawlenty is going to propose a 3 tiered tax bracket with the bottom one not paying any (as they are now) the middle at 10% and the top at 25%.  He will also cut the punitive corporate rate from 35% to 15% while eliminating “special interest handouts, carve-outs,subsidies, and loopholes that should be eliminated”.  Now that second part is key to selling this idea to the public.  No one likes the “special handouts and loopholes” that some corporations enjoy while others don’t.  This idea will sell to your average joe especially if Pawlenty can demonstrate that the revenues gained by eliminating the loopholes will offset the tax rate reduction.  This will also blunt the Obama charge that he is just trying to make corporate America rich at the expense of the middle class if he can fire back that “no, I”m eliminating special interests corporations from being able to buy tax deductions from washington lawmakers, remember the kind of thing you promised to end”.

I think this is going to be a very smartly worded proposal with plenty of room in between in which to negotiate on, but the most important aspect is that he can make the political argument to the voters and I think it has a strong chance to resonate.

As Obama continues to roll out his WTF slogan that will no doubt carry over as his re-election slogan, I think it needs to be pointed out that Obama must look to the future because the present is a sour note for him on ALL accounts. 

Unemployment, really the only main economic measure that matters politically, remains at its high of 9%.  Jobs have not yet come back to this country, and the few that are trickling in here and there are not having much of an impact.  Thank you stimulus.  Obviously this is an F.

Health Care was Obama’s big push towards hope and change.  Well he got it, and the American people got it too….huge increases in their medical insurance.  All of Obama’s buddies are trying to opt out and most people have not seen any tangible benefit to this groundbreaking and unconstitutional legislation.  Another F

Energy is perhaps where Obama is the most vulnerable.  We all know that oil prices are spiking once again, and Obama has plenty of oil on his hands.  He was unable to mitigate the BP spill, but his moratorium on new drilling permits after the spill has left us way behind on exploration and production in this country.  Obama’s dithering on this issue has directly cost American jobs and everyone feels the pain at the pump. 

We were led to believe that Obama was going to restore America’s standing in the world.  Yeah that’s not going to well either as the Middle East falls apart in chaos, our Ditherer in Chief not only cant figure out what to do, he doesn’t even know which side he is on.  Now France and Great Briton are having to fill in the huge void in leadership this world is experiencing as a result of Obama.

Obviously I could go on and on with other issues, but those I believe are the main ones that will dominate this election cycle.  We must have a candidate who can keep the spotlight on Obama, because this is about him and that’s where he is the most weak.  Obama will talk about winning the future, but we need to point out that if we can’t save the present, there wont be much of a future left to win (just look at our current debt).

As the news today spreads that Bachmann is forming an exploratory committee to consider a Presidential run, I would like to pause and take a moment to make a plea to her.  I know she posts on Redstate and I think she may even read the stuff on here.  I like Michele, she has been on the front lines on the fight against abortion, more government, and waste her whole life.  She has selflessly given of her time to foster 23 children as well as raising her own 5.  Her background as an IRS lawyer will give her invaluable insight in to just how convoluted and unfair the tax code system is, and hopefully she can find a solution to change it.

There are a lot of reasons to really want to get excited and get behind Bachmann for a run at the presidency, but every time I watch her on any of the news outlets, she has a very annoying habit of completely ignoring the question that was asked.  Yes the MSM is out to get her, they despise her.  I have no problem if she were to choose to talk down to them, but you MUST at least give a cursory answer to the question the interviewer asks you.  The more she ignores their question the more they reiterate it and the average person watching comes away with the impression that she is hiding something.  So if you are listening out there Michele, please try and do a better job of addressing whatever question is asked of you, no matter how idiotic it may be.  It will add to your credibility in the eyes of the undecided.

I’m not trying to call for a truce, I’m not trying to belittle the social conservative issues.  But I am saying from just a simple factual basis that clearly the 2012 Presidential Election will be dominated by economic issues.  I am going to operate under the premise that our number one goal in this election is to defeat Obama, and as such we need the best candidate that can articulate the conservative position on fiscal issues.

Unemployment will be high in 2012, energy prices will be higher than Americans are comfortable with.  The debt will be too much to sustain.  ObamaCare will be unpopular.  The middle east will be unstable and a threat to our national security.  These are the variables I’m going to assume will be dominate next year.  Abortion, gay rights, gun control, illegal immigration (except for the drug war problem), and public displays of religion will not be polling high on any of the key issues.  Now that is not to say that we don’t want a candidate who is supportive of those social conservative issues, but it is to say that the most important thing is that our candidate be strongest on the economic issues.

So with that in mind, lets look at the potential candidates out there.  I think that when it comes to economic issues, governors are going to have a huge advantage over senators or house representatives in that they will have a clear history of economic policies and then the results to judge them on.  Its going to be very hard for any senator or rep to be able to make their case over one of the current or former governors when it comes to arguing that their theories will work while the governors will say I have the results to prove it.  So now lets take a look at the governors themselves. 

Romney is the front runner and should be strong on fiscal issues.  Obviously the one dark cloud hovering over him is his health care program in Massachusetts and the similarities it has to Obamacare, this could be the kiss of death for his candidacy in the GOP primary.

Huckabee will once again get strong support from the social base.  But his record on economic issues is very disturbing to most fi-cons and with those issues being the dominant factor I see him fading away much quicker this cycle than he did in 08.

Haley Barbour is someone that is underestimated.  He is from the south with the southern draw, he was a career lobbyist.  The MSM will eat up his comments on civil rights.  He has some vulnerabilities in a GOP primary with his support for farm subsidies and use of Eminent Domain.  But that being said, Barbour is a brilliant political tactician, he is very likable and he has a strong history of budget reform in Mississippi including medicaid and medicare.  His Katrina response was seen as one of a great leader.  In my mind he is the dark horse in this primary and is not to be forgotten.

Mitch Daniels has the resume that might send him to the front of the line.  He, like Romney, has the private sector CEO experience and accomplishments that I think we are looking for.  His heading of the office of management and budget under Bush will give him the inside knowledge and understanding of the budget process to offer something that can work.  He is immensely popular in Indiana and has a history of conservative accomplishments.  His downside is he made the truce statement, angering the so-cons.  His leadership on the AWOL Indiana democrats can be questioned and he may prove to be a little bit too quirky to hold up in a long gruelling primary.

Tim Pawlenty has been flying under the radar, and that might be a good thing at this point.  The MSM has not be able to nail him with a foot in mouth moment, at least not yet.  He has a strong history of budget reform with results in a decidedly blue state.  He is acceptable to all the different legs of the conservative movement.  His record has some holes (who doesn’t) and he is not seen as a dynamic candidate but after getting Obama I’m not sure a great speech-maker is going to be what everyone is after again in 2012 so I think Pawlenty has a great shot at winning the nomination.

I think this is going to boil down to a Pawlenty, Daniels and Barbour race.  Romeny and Huckabee have clear wounds that will be exploited and eventually the governors with results will be the ones I think that will rise to the top.  Which ever one is able to best articulate his accomplishments and explain his perceived weaknesses will be the winner in 2012.

On the campaign trail, Captain Hindsight (Barack Obama) wowed audiences with his uncanny ability to point out what the Bush Administration should have or should not have done based on the results that followed.  He incorrectly inferred that Bush made decisions on the fly without thinking through the consequences.

Now as President, Obama is finding he doesn’t have the superhero ability of hindsight to make decisions going forward.  He is famous for giving rousing speeches in places like Cairo about the need to work together and work towards democracy.  But when the people actually rise up, shed blood, fight, and call on the leader of the free world for support, he is stuck in the conference room overwhelmed with the complexity of the issue.  We saw this in the first month of the BP oil spill, Obama was unable to lead on the issue because he quickly found out that he wasn’t an expert on the issue therefore he had no clue what to do.

Obama, Clinton, and the helpless UN issue condemnation after condemnation on Libya for Gaddafi’s use of military force on this own people.  They even refer him to the committee on crimes against humanity, fyi to the UN:  he has much bigger pressing concerns right now and doesn’t really care what resolution you issue, or even a trade embargo.  Obama would probably like to at least use the idea of a no-fly zone over the country to give the rebels some form of protection, but as it appearedhe was nearing the issuance of the order, his generals had to give him a quick lesson in rules of engagement and how this no-fly zone could lead to war.  War is a four letter word to Obama and the mere thought sent him back into his bunker in DC, hudded around his advisers as they weed through the complexity of the issues while those who are fighting for freedom wish for the days of the cowboy.

The media, the left, and the word police are after a new target this morning as the express “outrage” that newly sworn in Alabama Governor Robert Bentley said to a Church that you are not my brothers and sisters if you have not accepted Jesus as your savior.  They say its ok to be a professing Christian and be a legislator, but make sure you practice your faith on your own time.

The ironic thing about this is Bentley was on his own time, he was speaking to a Church, and it was not a political pep rally.  Most democrats would assume that the only possible reason for ever setting foot into a Church would be for political gain, but maybe, just maybe Governor Bentley not only professes to be a Christian but he actually believes it.  Quick cue the Anti-Defamation league (they are the ones outraged).  Can he be fair to everyone if he believes this, they say?  The answer if of course he can, he is simply stating a well known fact from the Bible, something which I guess he not only says for political reasons but also actually believes in and adheres to.

The Apostle Paul must be considered a malcontent is this time, as he was in his time, since he wrote to his “brothers in Christ” over and over.  The Bible is very clear that those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are brothers and sisters in Christ.  It is not something that Bentley is saying that somehow says we are better than everyone else.  He is not saying that Christians deserve preferential treatment nor is he even stating something that is condescending and arrogant to non-believers (those that believe know that their is nothing in that to find self pride in).  He is simply stating that he is part of a very special family and would invite anyone who would want to join to come.  I applaud Governor Bentley for saying what he believes in without being afraid, this should be a rallying call for all of us to practice what we believe in.

Today, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert announced that he will not seek re-election to his Mayoral post in Dallas, this being a clear signal that he intends to run for Kay Baily Hutchison’s seat in the Senate.  Tom will be a very formidable state-wide candidate with his background as both mayor and CEO of a large construction firm.

I know Tom, and I truly admire him but I’m not sure I can vote for him.  Leppert has a history of advocating both social and fiscally liberal ideas.  The man has a bleeding heart when it comes to helping the poor and homeless, of which is admirable but once you translate that into taxpayer funded assistance you have crossed the line in my mind.  Leppert’s most controversial move was supporting a $500 million dollar hotel project in the heart of the City and financed by the taxpayers.  HIs reasoning is that it would be a revenue producer for the City over the long haul and to a degree he might be right.  But my problem with this is that at its core it shares a fundamental trust in government that I dont have.  Finally, and this one burns me up (pardon the stupid pun) he supported a large increase in the city-wide banning of indoor smoking.  I have never had a cigarette in my life but nothing angers me more than politicians trying to legislate their own morality on others simply for aesthetic reasons.

Again, that all being said, Tom is going to be a major force when it comes to fund raising and general statewide appeal.  He will be particularly formidable if Hutchison decides not to run.  As Mayor, Leppert has been a knowledgeable, fair and principled leader (and by principled I mean right and wrong, not left or right).  He is a great communicator and will have a strong shot at winning the nomination.  I am holding out my judgement till we get a good look at Michael Williams.

Over a month ago, it was rolled out on here by Erick that Redstate was going to put their political muscles behind ousting Joe Straus as the Texas speaker of the house.  It was said that this was a necessary war because Strauss had a 100% rating from NARAL and he was a compromise choice the last session when the party split was 77-75.  With the new republican majority being now 99, it was assumed that we can only support those that pass our purity tests and therefore they announced a war on Strauss.  I said back then, and I was vilified for not drinking the koolaid, that this was a very stupid idea mainly because it wouldn’t work.

Today, the Republican, and thats GOP mind you, caucus overwhelmingly supported Strauss for a second term effectively ending what was a very weak, sloppy, and feeble attempt by Chisim and Taylor for Speaker of the House.  Strauss got 70 of the 100 republican reps vote in the party caucus.  I am a lifelong conservative and Texas Republican also active in my parties politics down here, I will be long after this little drive-by RINOIng is forgotten.  But I can only hope that somewhere, somehow there will be a lesson to learn from this.  And that is, instead of crucifying and angering the Speaker of the Texas house, why not support buy persuade him instead?  It seems that Redstate is taking a turn from the motto of fighting to win, and now it being that it isnt whether we win or lose its IF why fight that counts.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011111dntexspeakerstraus.9fa48f1f.html

I’m not a Palin fan, as many of you on here know.  I can’t stand her brand of hooky politics (you betcha, mama grizzlies, heck ya).  But this Arizona shooting has completely exposed the MSM and who they are and this has gone way to far.  This latest yahoo article is appalling http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110110/ts_yblog_theticket/giffords-tragedy-could-be-a-defining-moment-for-palin

The entire story has been created out of thin twitter air.  They are trying to sucker Sarah into responding to the attack because the twitter world is ablaze with the question of is Sarah to blame?  With the news leaking out about how this kid was a paranoid conspiracy theorists and a pot smoking lefty, he most likely despises Palin, but dont let facts get in a the way of the MSM going with their pre-written story that conservatives are trying to incite violence.

At issue is Sarah’s target list of 20 democrat seats that were targeted for a change to the GOP.  As I stated I’m not a fan of the hooky bullseye symbol she put up there, I think its tacky and unbecoming of person seeking the highest office, but nevertheless this is her shtick.  She uses words, phrases, symbols and sayings to rally her troops around the cause.  How they can even infer that this list she made has anything to do with the shooting only proves that the lamestream media, is in fact not only lame but completely divorced from the idea of actually covering the news as it breaks.  They only want to cover “their news” as it breaks, or at least gets posted on someones twitter blog.

I like Joe Biden because he seems to be missing the basic liberal filter that most liberals have.  By that, I mean he really tells us what he, and they are thinking.  Sunday on “Meet the Press”, Biden shows us how we don’t even share the same dictionary with liberals when he said that the tax cuts to the rich are “morally troubling”.  The last time I heard that phrase used in a way foreign to my thinking was during the health care debate when the liberals argued that heath care coverage is a moral right everyone should have.

So lets look at this vast canyon between what conservatives and liberals mean when they use the word morality.  The simplest and clearest definition I can think of for morals is the distinction between right and wrong.

1.  Abortion-  Conservatives would say that since your heart must stop beating in order for you to be officially deceased, so then would it follow that once you heart begins to beat, even in the womb, you are officially a human being.  Therefore, terminating our most innocent of life (that which hasn’t even been born) is morally reprehensible and your conscience deep down screams this to you.

-Liberals will say no, the real moral argument should be framed around weather or not the woman should endure the physical and financial pain of bearing this child as her free choice.  If the child is going to be born into a single parent home with little to no income, its better off if that child never sees the light of day than endure the hardships of life that await it.

2.  Social acceptance-Conservatives argue that everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religious creed, or sexually orientation.  We understand that certain groups of people face a tougher hill to climb in their trek for life/liberty/ and happiness, but its not the government’s role to even the playing field with regulations.

-Liberals believe that equality does not mean everyone should be treated equally, but rather that everyone has the same equal chance at success that someone else has.  In that, its the governments moral role to even out the playing field.

3.  Taxes-Conservatives believe that you should keep as much as possible from what you earn regardless of the total amount you take home. 

-Liberals would say that this country was one of the main reasons a rich person became rich, so because of that he is morally obligated to give back to government in a much higher proportion than those who are lower than his income class.  This enables the government to further level the playing field for everyone.

4.  Foreign Policy-Conservatives believe that the USA should promote its version of democracy throughout the world wherever possible.  Its also a moral obligation on the part of the USA to defend itself from all enemies that may want to harm it.

-Liberals say that who are we to push our form of government on other countries?  They should choose as they like even if its dictatorship or theocracy.  For those enemies that want to harm us, our moral obligation is to figure out what it was that we did to anger them and to strive to rectify that wrong for them and avoid any kind of conflict.

With such a vast difference on the basic tenets of morality as it relates to our government, no wonder we see them as perverse in their view of morality and vise-versa.  The media wants to make us believe that this country is pretty close when its all said an done, but that ideologues on the right and left are the ones causing this country to be so divided, but when one simply looks at each side’s definition of morality, its clear why we are divided.

As the loony left and Senate Democrats are in a mad scramble to get the votes to pass a repeal of DADT, I and I think many Conservatives and Independents ask rhetorically…”who cares?”  If you were to really press me for an answer I would say what is wrong with the system as it is now?  The social liberals who are simply out for blood think this is a landmark deal.  They literally loose sleep over this at night.  They are ready to cast out Obama from “one of them” if he doesn’t follow through with his promise and repeal it.

So what would happen if they repeal it?  I don’t think much would happen.  A recent survey of the troops indicated they thought the same.  This issue isn’t about whether or not gays should serve in the military, they already are, but it is about how “out” they can be while still serving.  I’m sure there will be some isolated cases of some rather flamboyant members flaunting this new ruling and causing a scene, but other than that what could possibly change?

My solution on this is to use it as a big bargaining chip for legislation that we really do want.  Obama is right in the midst of the left’s furry right now and he needs something like this to get him out of it.  As such, he may be willing to compromise on other legislation that is curial to the Conservative movement if he can get a quick passage of DADT.  I think we should use this legislation, and the left’s hysteria over it, to further our cause on other points that we do feel strongly about.

In an effort to show everyone that the GOP is open to working with the President and to avoid even a temporary increase in taxes on Jan. 1st, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders brokered a deal with the President.  No one can say that the GOP is just sitting in the corner saying no to everything and causing a recessionary crisis, ok check.  But now the liberal wing of the Democrat party is striking back at Obama and this could give the GOP a chance to get out of this ever growing porkulus and keep the high ground of sticking to the original deal.

The communist inside the democrat party are outraged at the estate tax deal.  They want a much higher rate and lower exemption.  It appears that this is something that they are going to force as a change to the original deal.  If they do this, the primary framework of the deal brokered with Obama has been changed and the Republicans can get out of this ever growing porkulus deal that Reid and Pelosi are not done feasting on.

We could say that they should vote this down right now as is, and there is a point to that.  But the GOP leaders gave their word to Obama when this was brokered and while that might not mean anything to the Dems, it is important for the Republicans to stick to their word and ethics.  But I call on all Republicans to go against this deal as soon as any of the primary principles are changed.

The word liberal has become toxic as evidenced by liberals preferring to be called “progressives” instead of liberals.  Conservatives are proud of their name and see it as a compliment when someone calls them a conservative.

With this latest tax policy fight, these new “progressives” have unveiled themselves as regressives with their class warfare.  There is nothing new or different about what they are saying, history has a name for these people and its called Bolsheviks.  They are the elite, they are the wealthy, yet they have decided that since they can’t win on debating ideas and policies, they must stoop to the lowest form of political debate, the “us vs them” mentality of class warfare.  This is the same old tired playbook dictators and tyrants have used for thousands of years now to gain power.  Divide and conquer, the evil rich are trying to steal your fair share and if you don’t vote for us, they will win.

I’m looking for our GOP leaders to stand up to this regressive thinking and be unafraid to call it what it is and put it in its historical perspective.  These snake-oil salesmen are frauds and they are showing their cards at this point, but in order to vanquish them we need someone to stand up and articulate exactly what they are doing and why.  They have put the ball on the tee, its adjusted to just the right height, now its time for us to swing and hit it out of the park, but we must swing or the opportunity will pass.

Contrary to the liberal narrative that this economic recession is all Bushes fault for easing regulation, bank regulators all had jobs this last decade and they reviewed and examined in great detail all of the banks in the US. They were charged with pouring over each asset, asking questions about the current value and validity of each asset, and prescribing a recommended course of action through what they ask of the banks and don’t ask of them (reserve requirements and loan classification).

The regulators didn’t seem to be bothered too much about these mortgage-backed securities that were being traded bank to bank. They didn’t seem too bothered nor did they prescribe caution as the biggest banks in the country continued to buy up mortgages with shoddy valuation and paperwork (if any). No, very simply they were asleep at the wheel as the US economy began to fail. They collect a taxpayer funded paycheck every month to go out and protect the country from the very practices these banks were engaging in.

Well all of that is ancient history, water under the bridge right? Right, except for one problem. These clueless bureaucrats have become activated and are now unleashing a Nazi-like atmosphere on this nation’s small community banks. While the banks that got bailouts continue to operate with record profits, the small community banks are feeling the brunt of the overreaction from the Federal Regulators. This year has seen 150 banks, mostly community banks, go under at the hands of the Feds. So what is happening behind the curtain?

Community banks are operating under intense fear of regulation. Just go ask your local bank when their next examination is to be conducted and you will see a bank that is delaying its loans until that process is over. Why is this? Well, in this economy, you would think these small businesses that have capital loans and such, if they could at least stay current with their interest payments well at least thats a “good” loan right? No, the regulators, like vultures smelling a wounded body, demand that all loans not only be current with their interest payments but also do principal reductions annually as well. Now how can these small business, who have cut everything to the bone and who are simply trying to buy time to survive in hopes that maybe the market will turn around, how can they be reducing their principal on their loans? They can’t, and when they don’t the community banks get a red mark on them, and if they get enough, they are shut down (and those all those loans are foreclosed on and the business go under).

So I ask, how is that stimulating the economy? We all know how we got in this mess and we certainly know who not to count on to do their jobs, but at this point, with Bernake doing everything he can think of to get the money to the banks, doesn’t it make sense to review the process of what is going on between those banks and the business community? There is a clear snag in the money flow, and I think our overzealous bank regulators share the most blame on this. Its time for the GOP to go after these clowns and try and save these small business that are dropping by the day, many of which are having their hands forced for reasons that are not prudent.