Rush Limbaugh is not my savior. He is neither my savior for my personal spiritual needs, nor the savior of the Republican party of modern conservatism. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Period. He often says things I agree with, but he is driven by ratings. In order to ensure these ratings, he must incite and inflame. It is his job to keep “the base” irritated and agitated. And in doing so, he very often turns off those in the squishy middle that so many here are willing to purify from the party. The problem is, we need their votes to return from minority status.

Semantics about comparing Peter’s denial of Christ to Republican’s criticizing Limbaugh aside, the larger point of Erickson’s commentary is the suggestion that we should not be attacking our own, but instead be attacking “the left”. Using various references to scripture, he chides those of us who would criticize these modern day apostles:

Their typical means of ostracism is to condemn the rest of us for daring to say nice things about them. Reasons abound for this. Many of these weak minded fools are not really fellow travelers. Like a vulture flying in flock with swans, they benefit from the work the rest of us are doing to gain themselves credibility. The media plays along calling the vultures swans so others, they hope, see ugly ducklings around the vultures instead of swans.

Some mean well. Unfortunately, their high mindedness fractures and divides the rest.

I’ll answer with some scripture of my own, starting with Mathew 7:3-5 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” As Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has so aptly stated, we were “fired for cause” in 2006 and 2008. Yet we have much of the same party and Congressional leadership. We are, in a sense, doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. The American people are a forgiving one, with one exception: Hypocrisy. Yet we have these same “leaders” that took us through the fiscal, ethical, personal, and lobbyist driven scandals that led us to deep minority status.

The subtitle of Erick’s piece is the quote “We Hang Together Or Hang Separately”. We hung together through the K-Street Project, where Jack Abramoff was able to get you legislation for Redskins tickets. We hung together while Ted Stevens gave us bridges to nowhere. We hung together when “deficits don’t matter” gave us Medicare Part D, and frankly, we’re hanging together now without a real assertion of what we’ll do differently if restored to power, clinging to the hope that Obama will fail, and the voters will have no other choice than to fire the other guys for cause, too. For these transgressions, we all were hung together on the gallows of 2006 and 2008. Fired. For. Cause.

Mathew 7:15 advises us that we should Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. We have endured our share of false profits, all the while we stood by and did nothing. If we attempted to speak out against expansion of government, hypocrisy of social conservatives, or trading K-Street dollars for legislation, we were told we were either aiding and abetting Democrats, or even worse, The Terrorists.

The last year of the Bush administration laid the perfect groundwork for Obama to accomplish all of his 100 day goals. We honestly have no one to blame but ourselves. I vowed then to no longer let party affiliation stop me from calling B.S. on our own. Before we can have credibility, we must be credible.

I have spent my time as part of Republican grass roots enabling candidates who have failed to walk the walk. I refuse to do so any longer. Nothing I can say or do in criticism of paid talking heads will do more damage to our cause than those who profit from inflaming the base in an effort to divide rather than unite us. I will judge them on their fruits, and will no longer continue to pretend that the spoiled is still ripe.

John 2: 14-15 gives us my final thoughts on those who have earned our criticism. “In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.” We, as a party, have become beholden to the money changers. Be they lobbyists, large corporations, or broadcast talking heads and authors, we are spending too much time following the money, and not our principles. Rush, Levin, and Coulter do just fine when we’re in the minority party, and I would argue, probably prosper more when we are.

We need a new generation of Conservative leaders. We also need to be a majority party. Our new leaders need to stand firm on principles of smaller, cheaper, and more limited government. But they also must recognize that to become a majority party, they must reach out to the sinners among us, and change their hearts and minds.

We, as Republicans, have too many Pharisees among us. We will never become a majority party again if we seek to only surround ourselves with the pure and self-righteous. We’ll need the votes of a few Zacheouses, Mary Magdalen’s, and Samaritan’s, to go along with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s vote.

Erick and I generally have the same goal, and that is to again achieve majority party status at the national level. But on our approach, and on this issue specifically, we disagree whole heartedly. I certainly believe that Rush, Levin, and Coulter have the right to say whatever they want to say, and in no way wish to infringe or limit that right. But I do not believe that they are helpful in the long run to us reaching those centrist voters we must have to be a majority. They are entertainers. They are not our savior.

Today’s New York Times features Paul Krugman continuing his role in Obama propaganda machine while pretending to be an Economist. In today’s installment of “I have a Nobel, so I must know Economics”, Krugman lashes out at “The Destructive Center”.

Before I spend a few paragraphs taking issue with Krugman’s direct points, I think we first have to reflect on how far we’ve come as a country. Just one decade ago, it was a “vast right wing conspiracy” that was the enemy of the left, the only thing holding them back from a collectivist utopia. Today, the “destructive center” is thwarting their attainment of nirvana. These poor guys just can’t seem to catch a break.

Krugman first frames the stimulus bill as a bill that “eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, (and) undermines schools”. It’s usually rich enough when the government can’t spend enough crowd calls a reduction in the growth of next year’s trendline a “cut”, but seriously, we’re now resulting to calling trimming $900 Billion in off-budget, new spending to a pittance under $800 Billion a cut? Really? Spending $800 Million on pet projects of the democratic machine is depriving millions of adequate healthcare? Blowing almost $1 Trillion “undermines schools”? Why exactly must we pass this bill today if it will “eliminate hundreds of thousands of American jobs”?

As usual, these guys would be hysterically humorous if they weren’t trying to see how fast they could crater what’s left of our economic system.

But Krugman’s real fire is aimed at one of the few, common sense oriented and market based solutions in the bill – A $15,000 tax cut for those willing to wade into this ultra-risky housing market and buy. He refers to it as “a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses” and the “flip your house to your brother” provision.

As usual, Krugman doesn’t let actual facts get in the way of his “compelling” arguments. There is both a 2 year holding provision for someone to be eligible for this credit. Most home flippers are out of business if they can’t unload inventory in 3 to 6 months. And as for family members, they aren’t eligible, as the tax credit does not apply if the purchase is from a family member.

Krugman apparently has never had a job in the real world, or at least not one at a for profit entity. But the man behind this provision has. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) had a long and distinguished career as one of Georgia’s premier real estate brokers before entering the U.S. Congress. He remembers firsthand how a similar incentive in the early 1970’s cleared up an oversupply of residential real estate similar in magnitude to the one that we have today. It is from his practical experience that he understands that nudging an unsure market with temporary incentives can pull unsure buyers off the sidelines, and restore faith in a market that currently has none.

Despite not supporting the overall stimulus package, Isakson has worked tirelessly to get this amendment he authored added to the current bill, along with co-sponsors Lieberman, Enzi, Corker, and Chambliss. While maintaining one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate, Isakson does not believe there is a “destructive center”. Instead, he remains a steadfast conservative with an uncommon gift of pragmatism.

Isakson hasn’t forgotten the “real world” that he lives in outside of Washington. One where real people understand the value of $15,000, He understands that as vacant neighborhoods become populated, jobs are created, taxes are paid, and economic life returns to normal. But I wouldn’t expect Paul Krugman to understand this. He thinks not printing an extra $100 Billion and have it fall from the sky is a “cut”.

Someone should look into whether or not the Nobel Committee can be sued for incompetence.

Southern Regional Medical Center is not the only hospital on Atlanta’s South side dealing with the credit crisis and slow economy.   Piedmont Healthcare, operators of Piedmont Hospital in Buckhead, Piedmont Fayette in Fayetteville, Piedmont Mountainside in Jasper, and Piedmont Newan Hospital in Newnan, has halted the construction of their new Newnan campus to replace the aging facilities they currently operate.

Piedmont officials blamed the “current instability of the debt market” in its decision to “pause” the project for the next few months.

“We had planned to go to the bond market to finance most of the project, and there’s just not a market out there now,” Piedmont spokeswoman Nina Montanaro said Thursday. Financing the hospital now “would cost us millions more,” she said.

An update in today’s AJC outlines the problems faced by Southern Regional Medical Center that I posted about earlier.

Without the county’s help, the hospital will likely have to write a $40 million check to SunTrust at the end of the month. The hospital has $48 million in reserves, Bonn said.

But note that while Southern Regional is operating at a small operating loss, the current crisis is their inability to renew existing financing, even though they have enough cash to pay both the existing note, and fund two years of losses at the current burn rate:

The hospital ended the 2008 fiscal year with a $7.07 million loss, $3.76 million of it on hospital operations and the rest from investments, hospital officials said.

These are not two new “Grady” problems of hospitals who have had financial issues for decades without any form of accountability.  Quite the contrary.  Piedmont Healthcare is probalby among the most financially sound organizations in the South.   Given the size of its organization and the community that Southern Regional serves, an operating deficit of less than $4 Million is hardly a signal to pull a panic button, much less shut down the entity.

Both of the above problems stem directly from the on-going credit crisis.   Southern Regional is having its financing pulled from a bank that has received one round of TARP funds for $3.5 Billion, and has decided to go back for an additional $1.4 Billion.   Southern Regional clearly has both the cash available and reserves to service the debt, and yet they can’t get their financing renewed from a bank that the feds are giving $49 Billion in additional borrowing ability.   So, anyone want to say the TARP program is working thus far?

Piedmont’s decision, however, illustrates another angle to the credit crisis.  While headlines abound about interest rates being “near or at zero” this week, the hospital has decided that the cost of borrowed funds would be prohibitively expensive to continue at this time.  Where is the disconnect?  It is in the risk premium.  Banks and other lenders are still afraid that when they lend money, even to the absolute safest customers like a Piedmont Hospital, they still are so afraid that they will not be repaid that they are putting a huge premium on money that they are getting for almost nothing before they will lend it.

While there are many problems facing healthcare providers today, the problems experienced by these two entities are not best illustrated by uninsured patients or by low medicare reimbursements.  They are just two organizations like many others caught in the current credit crisis.

When Piedmont Hospital can not find a lender that will loan them money at an acceptable interest rate in this “low rate” environment, imagine what an average small business must be facing.   Regular posters like UMustBeKidding (auto body) and DrJay (Dentistry) have already presented some issues their businesses are facing.  And available credit to all but the best individuals has essentially disappeared as well.

Fear has replaced rational expectations in today’s credit market.  Stories like the above will become more common in the weeks ahead without a change in direction.  I remain convinced that the federal goverment must get behind some plan to get consumers and businesses the credit they are able to prove they can handle.

Obama is, as he should be, building his team to manage the country through a set of unprecedented crisis. In addition, he may not want to unnecessarily risk capital on a race that is probably a loser for his side. The contrarian in me tells me there is one possible other good reason: Obama doesn’t want Jim Martin in the Senate.

Despite Martin’s snub in the primary, I don’t believe it is anything personal. It’s just business. Obama is already taking heat from the Netroots, those left of the left, who created him. They aren’t happy with some of his early appointments, and believe they are too centrist. They are beginning to fear that Obama may actually try to govern from the center, instead of the lurch to the left that they believe they were promised in the primary.

The Dems picked up Senate seat 58 yesterday. There’s a very good chance that they’ll pick up seat 59 in Minnesota when the recount, or the recount of the recount, or the court interpretation of the recount, gives the Dems the numbers they want there.

If Saxby loses, and the Dems have their 60 seats, they have no excuses on why the far left can’t be placated. All the looney fringe stuff that the Dems use to fire up their base will either have to be voted on, or the Dems will have to explain to the base that they were just being used, and they’ll have to settle for far less “progress” than they were promised.

Fessing up to the base isn’t easy. Just ask the pro-lifers in the Georgia General Assembly who refuse to vote on the “Human Life Amendment”.

As long as the filibuster remains a technical possibility, Republicans can continue to be the official excuse why the democrats aren’t able to pass their “progressive” agenda.

I believe Barack Obama is an intelligent man, and can make political calculations with the best of them. I also believe he learned from the first two Clinton years that if you over-reach, your majority status can easily become a memory. And I believe that, while there will be some serious moves to the left under President Obama, he will want to carefully pick and choose those issues, and pepper them with some center or center right initiatives to give him proper cover.

As such, Jim Martin may have to be a sacrificial lamb. Saxby Chambliss may need to remain in the Senate to provide the Obama administration the excuse to not do all the things the netroots believe must be done to make the world an eco/vegan/carbon-free/peta-friendly paradise.

And I’m fine with that.

Defense is good, but you have to score points to win the game. It’s time to go on offense.

The average voter still has difficulty understanding the complexity of the bailout and its implications. They seem to understand that the direct benefit is a select few, while homeowners remain saddled with property that is declining in value, often with payments they can’t afford. I believe the Republicans should attack the problem from the other side, with a government guaranteed mortgage refinance program. The benefit to Wall Street should be as great or greater, but market forces, rather than a new bureaucracy, will force the fix.

Instead of buying “toxic” portfolios with dubious value, the Fed should create an RTC type entity to refinance and hold mortgages. Anyone with a mortgage currently on the books would be allowed an automatic refinance into the new fed pool of mortgages, at a rate of 5%. The loans would be subject to a limit of 105% of current appraised value. If the current mortgage amount is higher than 105% of the new appraisal, the lender would be given two choices. They could either accept 50% of the difference between 100% and payoff, which would be rolled into the first mortgage, or be forced into a subordinate position with any amount above 105%. Given the nature of the current market, and the number of lenders that are begging for “short sales”, it is presumed that most lenders would take the write down and get the note off their books.

With the low doc nature of these refis, it would seem that closing costs could be minimized to appraisal, title search, origination fee capped at .25% of the loan amount, and attorney’s fees. Closing costs would be allowed to be rolled into the loan in addition to the 105% of principal.

As an incentive to the homeowner, the loans would be assumable. This would encourage people who are at or near 100% loan to value to stick with their mortgage, knowing that when interest rates go up, (and they will), their home will have additional value because it has a 30 year fixed rate loan at 5%. This will help create equity in existing homes, while not encouraging additional new construction (oversupply) because new construction will not qualify for this program.

This would have much of the same effect as the proposed bailout. Capital would be freed up overnight on Wall Street. Homeowners would see relief across the board, not just the ones who borrowed over their ability to pay. Wall Street would be able to sort out its own winners and losers based on who has the most loan exposure to loans over 100% LTV, but wouldn’t have Congress dictating how to run their business. (After all, Congress has yet to prove they can run Congress).

The relief felt on Main street would free up additional money for consumer spending that will be sorely needed over the next 12 months with the uncertain fundamentals of the economy. The plan should stem the tide of foreclosures, which should allow real estate prices to stabilize and hopefully begin increasing again. Most importantly, the burden to the taxpayer is only in the form of mortgage guarantees, which we have acknowledged with the takeover of Freddie/Fannie already exists.

It’s not a small program, but much simpler and easier to understand than the Bush/Paulson proposal. It targets the main street middle class. And the irony of Pelosi demanding a $700 Billion wealth transfer to Wall Street while Republicans push for direct aid to Main Street is too rich of an opportunity to pass up.

So, it’s an idea. I’m throwing it out there. Clearly would need additional details to be legislation, but let’s get some conversation started.

The problems of Joe Biden as a candidate have already been well documented at RedState. He is the sound bite that doesn’t stop giving. Ads are already prepared with Biden pointing out the need for Obama to have on the job training.

But for a candidate that has generally followed Bill Clinton’s 1992 election playbook very well, he seems to have whiffed pretty badly with this pick. Clinton kept to one simple message: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Over the last couple of weeks, Obama’s campaign message has seemed to drift, and with the Russian’s invading and occupying Georgia, the distant threat of a new cold war has become reality. Mugging for cameras on foreign soil proclaiming that all the world would have a collective hug if only he were elected president suddenly seemed to expose a lack of depth in Obama’s foreign policy, and that the world really is a complex and dangerous place.

McCain reacted quickly upon hearing about the Russian actions. Obama continued his beach vacation, indicating that he needed to say nothing about the atrocity and escalation of worldwide tensions. After all, he had only been playing president in Europe a couple of week’s prior. There was an actual President who had to deal with the icky stuff, one whom Obama could then surely criticize for whatever actions he did or did not take.

Thus, Obama sat on the beach, and did nothing.

The polls, however, didn’t react well. And much like the Clintons of the 1990′s, Obama is a poll driven animal. He had just had a 3 a.m. call, and he slept through it.

So, Obama had to pick a V.P. that could shore up and take care of this whole “foreign policy” nonsense. Biden will do. He’s clean and articulate. He can add some fancy words like “partition” to our surrender now, surrender everywhere strategy. Besides, he can help with other minority voters at home, since he seems to hang out with some of these folks down at the 7-11.

So in choosing Joe Biden, Obama is over-reacting to his failure to react to a crisis that occurred during his vacation. In doing so, he has changed the debate from “It’s the economy, stupid” to “Foreign Policy Matters”. The only problem with that is, both Obama and Biden have been consistently wrong on all the major issues of the day. Their continued refusal to admit that the surge has worked demonstrates that these would be emperors have no clothes. More importantly, it puts the debate back into the realm that McCain has the advantage.

Advantage, McCain