Full disclosure:  The author is a Mitt Romney 2008 (and current) supporter ready and willing to switch to Newt if he ever gets his act together.

An open letter to Newt Gingrich:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I’ll cut to the chase.  You need help now.  Yes, you were victimized by some unfair ads.  And yes, what you’re doing with Bain Capital and the other nonsense isn’t working.

But there IS a way to bring Mitt down to his knees.  And I’m not talking about bringing him down into the low 20s, but I mean actually breaking his campaign.  And it isn’t a theory.  This can actually work, because it’s already worked this year and it took out Governor Perry.  Oh, and don’t forget about the one silver lining of being in this deep a pickle is that you can now afford to take all sorts of unconventional risks.

Accept a few premises:

1.  You can’t do it alone.  You’re going to need help.  The only one I see out there that would be both able and willing to help you on this is Rick Santorum.  He seems to have a decent amount of respect for you going back to the GOPAC days of the early 1990s.  I’d suggest you pick up the phone and call him tomorrow.  If you have to offer him the VP slot if you get the nomination, do it.  You’re WAAAY past the “Panic Button” stages anyways.

2.  The only way you’re going to be able to recover is at the debates.  You don’t have the money for enough TV ads anyways.

3.  At this point, you’re going to have to take some serious chances, even if it somewhat damages your prospects for the general election.  There’s time enough to clean that up after you’re the presumptive nominee.

4.  Your only way out of this mess is to challenge Mitt from the Right.  I’m sure you’ve picked up on this by now, given how much you’ve been beaten up on talk radio today, and I noticed you made a major point to emphasize your love of the free enterprise system during your speech tonight.

5.  Challenging him from the Right isn’t enough.  You need to find an issue that has sufficient juice, stake out a position to the Right of Romney (even if it’s far-right), successfully bait Mr. Romney into responding (and more importantly) defending his position from the Left.  If (and it’s a tall order, but it IS possible) you can pull all those items off, you can drive Romney into the low teens and eventually, single digits.

6.  Look at the debate that brought Perry down.  He was challenged by Mitt from the Left on Social Security.  (Sound familiar?)  it made little impact among the GOP Primary electorate.   He was then challenged by Bachmann on the HPV vaccination policy in Texas and went nowhere.  But then something very interesting happened.

7.  Later on, Bachmann switched gears and attacked Perry on the issue of in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children in Texas.  Romney only mildly went along.  Gov. Perry at first took the calm approach, arguing that even Republicans in the Texas Legislature thought it was a good idea.  But then Rick Santorum jumped in and reinforced the point and made it clear that nobody was saying that illegal immigrant children shouldn’t go to college, just that they should take out larger loans and pay out-of-state tuition.  Fortunately for the rest of the field, Perry got so tired and exasperated of the argument, that he fell back to the main liberal argument that it would be “heartless” to deny those children out-of-state tuition.  Game. Set. Match.  Perry instantly crashed in the polls and never recovered.  Go back to the tape of that debate.  Look at the polls afterwards.  You can see a direct and unquestioned correlation from that debate and Perry’s immediate decline.

8.  So how to capitalize (no pun)?  Never forget that your strongest applause line is when you demand that new immigrants take a test for American history in English.  Think about that.  For all the ideas on issues you crank out, that one always draws the strongest support.  Illegal immigration (and more importantly, being on the wrong side of that issue) in a Republican primary can destroy even the strongest candidates.   Here’s what you need to do.  Call Rick.  Ask him if he’ll join you in reinforcing a line of attack on illegal immigration against Romney.  I think he’ll agree to help.  Next, dig long and dig hard at Romney’s years in Massachusetts.  I believe Boston was a sanctuary city.  Did Romney do anything to stop that?  I believe not.  Check and see if there were any conservatives in the Mass. Legislature that brought up any anti-illegal immigration legislation, and see if the Romney Administration did anything to help support it.  I believe not.  It really doesn’t matter.  Even if you have to change YOUR position and move even further to the Right on immigration, do it.  Demand “English-only” on all immigrant issues.  Insist on signing an Executive Order for a fence on Day 1.  I really don’t care – just make sure you can stake out a position (which Santorum is willing to also support) on immigration that you just KNOW Romney can’t back.  (After all, Mitt is going to start believing he’s the nominee now and is going to start getting guarded about going too far Right on ANYTHING.  Exploit this.)

9.  Bait him.  You know the moderators are going to open the debate again with “Explain why Romney is unelectable.”  Respond with “On paper, Gov. Romney does seem the most electable.  On all the typical qualities – raising money, presents himself well, doesn’t take too many risks – he does well.  But when you really think about it, the real test of electability is his willingness to take truly conservative positions, even when it’s not popular.  Or will he cut and run or agree with Obama?”  Lay the groundwork there.  Later on say something like “On immigration, I believe we need to do <insert somewhat “extreme” immigration position here> and he neglected to bring the fight on this issue in Massachusetts and he still refuses to say whether he’d agrees with that position.”  Have Rick join in.  At first, Romney will simply re-iterate his existing position.  But keep pounding away on this relentlessly.  Eventually, even the moderators will confront Romney on it, and he will do what he always does, and get extra-cautious thinking about the general election, and will almost certainly bring up a Leftist defense for not going any further to the right on immigration than his existing position.

And once that happens, Mr. Speaker, you and Rick Santorum will be able to compete with each other.  It’s always good to have a political future beyond South Carolina and Florida.

Sincerely,

A Concerned American

I’ll do something bipartisan since we’re in Crunch Time [tm] right now and
everyone is understandably at their partisan maximum at the moment.

And with that I give you my Favorite Four:

Republican who deserves the most to win Tuesday:  Sharron Angle (NV).  It’s not
easy winning a nomination, facing the Senate Majority Leader, and having a
sizable slice of your party telling you they blew it by nominating you.  Still,
she withstood over a month of negative ads from Harry Reid until she could
gather enough money to fight back, and won her only debate against him.  That
the Reid campaign only agreed to 1 debate especially if they thought she was so
weak will go down as the greatest act of political malpractice this year.

Republican who deserves the most to lose Tuesday:  Meg Whitman (CA).  Spending
over $150 million or so of her own money and winning the nomination in a
Republican year should’ve given her at least a 50/50 shot in an open seat, even
in a state as Democratic as California.  And indeed, it did.  She then
proceeded to squandor it quickly against an old liberal guy like Jerry Brown,
by refusing to take any responsibility for hiring an illegal alien and then
engaging in selective outrage when the Brown campaign called her a whore, but
then claiming it was an “entirely different story” when her own campaign
manager, Former Gov. Pete Wilson had used that term in the past.  Don’t get me
wrong – I want Whitman to win, but she deserves it the least.

Democrat who deserves the most to win Tuesday:  Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD).  Sure,
he lives in a safe House district, but part of why it’s always safe is because
Hoyer, who votes a typically liberal line, isn’t blindly partisan.  He’s also
had to deal with playing #2 to Nancy Pelosi after losing a Leadership race to
him and assuming the Dems lose control next year and the remaining Caucus
doesn’t decide to completely clean house in their Leadership, he should be the
#1 House Democrat.  And unlike Pelosi, he has shown a willingness to at least
listen to Republicans.  For that reason alone, I actually kinda fear the guy,
because he strikes me as the most personally likeable Democrat in a leadership
role today.  Could be rather formidable if he ever had the Speaker’s Gavel.

Democrat who deserves the most to lose Tuesday:  Rep. Alan Greyson (FL).  He
represents the worst of what political debate in America is today.  While he
does give voice to the liberal blogosphere, I’m still not convinced they are
mainstream enough to deserve even a single House seat.  Fortunately, after
Tuesday, they won’t have one.  I have no problems with the Far Left wanting a
“fighter” in Congress.  They already have Barbara Boxer for that.  (Of course,
she might lose, too.)  At least Boxer hasn’t resorted to calling Republicans
murderers, storming into GOP meetings and berating them, and referring to a GOP
lobbyist as a “K Street whore”.  I’m glad he’s showing every sign of being a
“one-and-done”, but I fear we’ll continue to see the likes of candidates like
him again.  And that’s not a pleasant prospect for either party.

My take on “Going Rogue”:

The first thing anyone who is considering purchasing this book seeking to learn about Sarah Palin is that this is 400+ pages.  Fundamentally, this book is an autobiography.  It discusses politics, but it’s not a “political book”.  It is an autobiography, yet it is NOTHING like a traditional political autobiography, in terms of frankness and breadth of topics.  I believe it should be reviewed in this light and context.

As an autobiography, it’s a damn good one.  It takes you on a chronological ride straight from her earliest childhood memories straight through to today.  I have to give Governor Palin credit — she gives you the good, bad, and ugly of her early life, her decision to marry Todd, and the roller-coaster ride of raising her children while trying to pursue a political career.  She isn’t the least bit afraid to discuss some of the most intimate family matters of her life and the struggles they have gone through.  I have NEVER seen a politician open up like this, except for those who have truly retired from political life, and it’s clear Palin has left the door open for a future run.

I can’t stress enough how much detail she goes into in all aspects of her life.  For example, her discussion of her tenure as Governor of Alaska doesn’t begin until page 124.  Her discussion of the McCain campaign and life on the road as part of the McCain-Palin ticket doesn’t begin until page 209.  If you’re a hardcore political junkie just wanting to get the inside dirt on the campaign, you might as well start there, but you’re doing yourself a disservice.

The greatest insight you will get out of “Going Rogue” is the first 124 pages.  Palin tells you in her own words the psychology of her family’s decision to move to Alaska, what life in Alaska was like in those years, how huge outdoor life and physical fitness is to her (it practically defines her).  If you want to understand who Palin really is beyond what the lamestream media or even a cursory review of her life on sites such as Wikipedia’s or the occasional TV interview, you really need to read pages 1-124.

Self-reliance and faith are tenets that ring throughout the book.  One thing that strikes you throughout the book is that she has lived a unique life.  It’s down-to-earth, rugged, and Alaskan.  If you don’t get what “Alaskan” is, you will after reading this book.  It IS a very different state from the other 49, and it was widely denigrated during the campaign.  If nothing else, her explanation of what life is like there, and it how helps shape and mold people who live there, is a real gift to readers in the lower 48.

One surprise I learned is that she was recruited to run for local office.  This was not something she initially sought.  Further, and this is truly an ironic part, she was recruited by a group looking for young, progressive (though not in the purely ideological sense of the word) prospects to seek seats on the Wasilla City Council.  Reading between the lines, it seems clear that this group that was ostensibly seeking “reform” candidates for the Council were actually looking for a group of young, naive individuals that, once elected, could be pressured to support “the way things have always been done” by the Mayor and his allies on the Council.  Electing Palin backfired on them.  She proceeded to go against the grain — a key aspect of her political career that helped boost her meteoric rise in politics.  If you want to know the real dirt on local politics, this is a must-read book.  For all the differences in Alaska, I suspect the challenges Palin faced in Wasilla are no different than those that could be found anywhere else in small-town America.

As far as policy goes:  This is a woman we need to be listening to on energy issues.  It would not be hyperbole in the least to state that Sarah Palin is an expert on energy matters.  Her tenure as Governor of Alaska was as successful as any I’ve seen, but particularly in energy.  Palin takes you on a step-by-step journey of how she managed to take on Big Oil and actually push them to the Righton production matters.  Palin and her team devised a methodology to force major oil executives to drill on areas they had rights to, but had wanted to sit on those lands for investment purposes.  She also helped lead an effort to more fairly help the state of Alaska share in the domestic oil revenues it produced, while at the same time giving incentives to boost production.  Against many skeptics, she succeeded in these goals beyond some of her own Administration’s predictions.

For conservatives, one of the most frustrating elements of following politics is watching our own leaders always attempt to find at least one issue (sometimes more) try to carve out a position that deviates from traditional Conservatism, in some effort to demonstrate their “independence” from ideology.  Palin does this, as well, but only in such a way that she ends up being to the Right  of where standard Conservatism is today.  Her taking on of Big Oil is exactly such a way.  By the time Palin left office, the people of Alaska were getting more money out of that industry, yet oil industries were producing more than ever before and generating greater revenue.  She is a real problem solver, and we certainly need more of those in Washington, DC.

Rush Limbaugh caught much heat for saying “This is the most substantive policy book I’ve read in a long time.”  This was as much a “media tweak” as anything else, because the standard line on Palin (and this book) is that its devoid in “substance”.  “Substance”, of course, is defined by the mainstream media as “stating one’s disagreement with conservatives”.

Make no mistake:  The real reason Palin is hated so much by the press and the Left (is there a difference?) today is that she IS the Real Deal.  She does NOT deviate from the conservative line.  Ever.  She really DID carry a baby to term with Down’s Syndrome.  She really DOES potentially provide a powerful role model to young girls today.  She really DOES send a message that you CAN raise a family, have a successful career, adhere to traditional family values, AND believe in conservatism and the pro-life position.  She really DOES have a strong husband that fully supports her career and she’s content and happy with just being his loyal and faithful wife and raising their children, if her political career is over.

Palin is as real as it gets.  She walks the walk, as well as talks the talk.  To this extent, she reminds me alot of then-President Bush and the criticism he received about discussing his faith so openly in 2000 and 2004.

Is Palin an ideologue?  Yes, but she may be one of the few (perhaps only) politician who can turn that into an advantage.  She believes in using EVERY aspect of conservatism to find solutions.  When thinking through policy, she analyzes based on fact, but uses conservatism from start to finish in finding the methodology towards a solution.  I mean, you really do have to love a politician with the balls guts to say (paraphrasing) “Emergency rooms can’t turn poor people away.” (This actually is federal law) when asked about what to do with providing poor people health care.  Of course, we don’t want poor people using the ER for basic health care needs as they do now, but Palin isn’t afraid to accept the status quo over a government-run solution. 

It really is a pity that we do not have enough politicians that don’t carve out a “starting point”, when trying to solve problems, by using a firm, principled conservative stance.  Palin does.  Thus, combining that fact and her telegenic appearance, her down-home folksy style, and genuine American life, she is a threat.  “Going Rogue” explains why, in a deeper level than we’ve ever seen before.

The political end of the book is as “tell-all” as any book I’ve ever read.  Nothing is spared and you get her straight views on every aspect of the McCain campaign, as she lived it.  The Couric interview, Palin’s personal emails being hacked, her debate with Joe Biden, and the final chaotic weeks of the campaign are all hashed out in an unvarnished, “don’t give a damn what anyone thinks” manner.  It satisfies those of you who are dying to know all the juicy details of what went on.  It is truly striking how much centralized control there was from McCain headquarters in DC over the campaign, yet how chaotic and and at times, stupid, the McCain campaign looked over late September and all of October.  If nothing else, I believe this book exposes how, from 2012, the “top-down, classical, centralized” style of a Presidential campaign is now gone forever.

Does Sarah Palin have a political future?  As I said at the beginning of this review, she has left the door open.  If you were to force a prediction from me as of the time stamp of this review, my deepest hunch is that she will never seek elective office again, but will ultimately launch an effort to selectively endorse candidates that she believes are as genuinely conservative as herself.

In summary, buy this book.  There’s really something in it for everyone from the diehard Palin fan, to those curious about her, and even to those Palin opponents who THINK they know what she’s all about.  Like Sarah Palin herself, this book breaks all the rules of the modern-day political autobiography.  Dare I say the book itself has gone rogue?

(Editor’s Note:  Since Sonia Sotomayor will almost certainly NOT be answering questions next week about future cases likely to face SCOTUS, I’m leaving them out of my list of 10.  Below are a list of questions phrased softly enough and hypothetical enough that she’ll likely feel safe answering.  Hopefully, she’ll like to hear herself talk and get into enough detail to hang herself expose her judicial mindset to America.)

1. What role should public opinion play, if any, in Constitutional adjudication?  (Followup:  Why do you believe that?)
2. Thinking back about the neighborhood you grew up in, are you still proud of it even today?  (She’ll obviously answer ‘Yes’.)  Followup:  Even though its economically lacking?  (She’ll get defensive and answer ‘Yes’ again, likely more emphatically, perhaps even defending the Puerto Rican cultural background of her ‘hood.)  Followup:  Why not replace some of the more run-down, albeit cultural, areas of your neighborhood with new businesses, like a shopping center?  (It’d be nice to see if she takes the bait or not.  If she does, it’d be a great way in front of the cameras to force her to rethink Kelo vs. New London)
3. If there are minor areas of the Constitution which seem arcane, but Congress hasn’t gotten around to amending, is it OK in extraordinary instances for SCOTUS to ignore them?  (If she asks for specific examples, cite the Saxbe fix or even better, the Exceptions clause.)  (The purpose of this question is really designed to see how much of an activist she truly is.  If she actually answers “Yes” to this, alarm bells should be going off across the Fox Nation!)
4. Are Constitutional privacy rights ever absolute?   (I’d be stunned if she takes the bait here, but if she’s dumb enough to, and extreme enough to answer ‘Yes’, ask for her to cite some broad examples.  This will be an excellent way to determine if she’s gonna crush any War on Terror efforts.)
5. Is the Interstate Commerce clause being manipulated by Congress?  (She’s way too smart to answer this, I would imagine.  Nothing, though, would sink her nomination faster than for her to say ‘Yes’, but that’s why you have to ask.)
6. What are your tiebreakers?  (She’ll say ‘I don’t follow.’)  Well, certainly, there must have been times in your career when deciding on a case was extraordinarily difficult and the facts and Constitutional issues were about even for both sides, right?  (Her answer here oughta be entertaining.)  Well, in those cases, certainly you had a list of tiebreakers you used to determine your outcome?  Was public opinion one of those?
7. What does it say about America in 2009 that we’re still arguing about affirmative action?
8. Does the Court ever have a right to try to stop a war, especially if it was started on clearly false grounds?  (Again, she likely won’t take the bait, but who knows?  If she says Yes, she’s going to be a gift to Code Pink.)
9. Should the Court, in an effort to reduce itself as a lightning rod and perhaps to reduce the number of cases it faces, start getting into the business of issuing advisory opinions to let all potential parties to a case know upfron the Court’s thoughts on issues?  (If she says Yes, alarm bells.)
10. Do you find the term “activist judge” offensive?  (If she says Yes, alarm bells.)

Well, those are my 10.  I think at least 8 of them she’ll answer.  If they’re asked in a soft tone and done right, I think she’ll realise she’s not being asked to prejudge a future case.  We desperately need to know upfront, in the one democratic moment we have with her next week, to realise just how bad a justice we’re facing.

With a minority as small as ours right now, that may be the best we can do.  Expose her for the radical she is to the public, and hope that it places some pressure on Senate Dems up for election in 2010.

I’ve decided to go in a radically different direction with this latest post.  Instead of spouting off opinions, which you can all get anywhere else on here (or any other blog), I’m going to get bold and actually offer predictions here that I’m willing to be held to.  Today, in early June, I think we have enough information now to safely make predictions for the rest of the calendar year.

Also, on most blogs, political predictions tend to have the unfortunate quality of reflecting the desires of the predictor.  As you can see below, most of what I predict below is NOT what I’d like to see, but what I expect reality to be.  Keep in mind, I’m NOT rooting for what’s going to happen below, nor am I being unnecessarily pessimistic to offset whatever biases I may have.  I’m just calling it as I see it.

Important Note:  All predictions are based on the premise that there are no dramatic surprises in 2009 (ie:  new terrorist attacks in USA, shocking events in Iraq/Afghanistan, economy completely collapsing, major White House scandal, etc).  If any of these things occur, all bets are off.

With that in mind, here goes:

Economy:  Continues to underperform economists’ expectations.  Stock market plummets to mid-5000s before ending 2009 in high-6000s.  Unemployment surpasses WWII-high at 11.2% in late 2009 before it drops a notch to 10.9%.  A second, smaller stimulus ($250-$300 billion) bill is passed in late autumn in response to this.  More tea parties follow, but bill passes regardless.

Iraq/Afghanistan:  Very little news.  Higher than expected casualties in Afghanistan as a variety of secret operations unfold there.  Difficult to get any decent news reported on exactly what’s going on there.  In Iraq, small uptick in dramatic terror attacks in Baghdad, while ironically small-scale attacks in Baghdad and throughout the country decrease.  Plans stay, more or less, on course for major US withdrawal in 2010.

Future of Gitmo:  White House decision is finally made to build major expansion to Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado, where Gitmo detainees will be moved to.  Colorado congressional delegation goes apesh*t and vows to fight it tooth-and-nail, but Obama will cut secret deal with Reid & Pelosi to rush thru a late-night vote on funding it in an amendment to a major appropriations bill.  Colorado delegation votes “No” unanimously, but is ultimately powerless to stop it.  Obama announces Gitmo will stay open several extra months beyond original Jan 2010 deadline to wait for construction in Colorado to finish, and will amend his original Executive Order accordingly.  Despite enormous White House pressure, less than 50 of the 240 current detainees are accepted by foreign nations before the rest are moved to Colorado.

Health Care:  Obama offers up surprisingly center-right health care plan…on the surface.  In an effort to get something passed quickly, Obama will appear to eschew single-payer, and offer something similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan, which makes health care a responsibility for all individuals to purchase.  Obama will actually team up with the Blue Dogs in the House to get a bill drafted, which will pass.  Devil is in the details which will include hidden aspects, such that if the plan is underfunded at all, federal government will pick up the tab, which sets in motion the conversion of the entire plan to a single-payer-like system in several years.

Republicans will expose these flaws, which will scare off some Blue Dogs, which will ultimately result in a grand compromise bill which removes some, but not all, “poison pill” aspects.  Reid threatens to use reconciliation process to pass a very leftist health care plan as leveage, and Republicans fold.  Ultimately, a wierd hybrid center-left bill which has both personal responsibility (for young, healthy, above-poverty individuals) AND single-payer aspects (for very poor individuals) passes.  Bogus CBO and OMB numbers show plan to be relatively cheap, but real numbers come out soon after Obama signs it.  Nobody is particularly happy, but Obama gets his health care plan passed in 2009, and Congress vows to revisit the issue in 2010.

Sotomayor:  Only Jon Kyl & Jeff Sessions on Republican side go after her during her hearings.  Kyl presses a little too hard, and Sotomayor snaps back quite viciously, exposing her Latina temper.  Republicans sense a chance to make hay about her temperment, but only conservatives are outrraged.  Democrats, especially Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on committee, who attempts to make a name for herself as primary Sotomayor defender, are rattled but remain unanimously behind her.  Sotomayor’s snapping does galvonize most Republicans against her, though.  No committee Republican is willing to support her, so Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), as Chair, is forced to embarassingly change the committee rules in a straight party-line vote to get her out of committee.   Once on the floor, no filibuster is even attempted and Sotomayor is confirmed in a near-party-line vote by the Senate, 62-38.  The only Republicans who vote for her are the two female Senators from Maine.  All Democrats support her.

2009 Midterm elections:  Democrats hold the Governor seats in both VA & NJ by the narrowest of margins (less than 2% in both), with NJ actually being closer and going to an automatic recount, because Corzine bombs badly in his two debates with Christie.  Republicans are happy they made small gains in both houses of both legislatures in each state.  Both parties, predictably, claim victory with the results.  Obama stays out of both races, for the most part, only doing radio ads and/or lending his voice to robo-calls.

Obama approval rating:  President Obama ends 2009 with a 58-39 approval-disapproval number.  Obama never goes over 67 or under 55 in approval for the rest of the year.  His disapproval is at its highest (39) at the end of the year.  The poor economy ever so slowly (for Republicans’ taste) keeps slowly bleeding away support 1% point at a time, but he does recover 5 points the day after he signs health care reform in mid-October, but the drain restarts.  Internal White House polling (never released to the public, but is leaked) shows that public still blames Bush for bad economy, but is unlikely to accept that as an excuse starting in 2010, forcing Obama’s political team to shift strategies and find new scapegoats, which will include references to “Wall Street” among other unpopular groups.

Overall:  2009 just isn’t a good year for the GOP, no matter how you slice it.  Yet there’s reason for hope.  The public still finds Reid & Pelosi distasteful, and Reid enters 2010 in real danger of defeat in Nevada.  Dick Cheney continues to aggressively defend the Bush Administration on all fronts, and in shocks of shocks, manages to boost his approval rating to 45 and Bush’s to 47, which is far higher than they are today.  It also helps the Republican brand bounce back several points, which was desperately needed.  Obama is still widely popular, but not as widely.  Weak economy is still the #1 issue headed into 2010 and forces both parties to shift their entire political strategies based on that.

1. 5% across-the-board tax cut.  You gotta hit all the income brackets if you’re serious about recovery.

2. 5% corporate tax cut.  If you have to ask why, you probably voted for President Obama.

3. No more Great American Treasury Raid Acts of 2009.  Sorry…I mean, “economic stimulus” packages from Congress.  From this point onward, every major piece of spending needs to be voted on individually in Congress and signed by President Obama.  I fully understand their great desire to pass a “Democratic Agenda” with health care, education, and energy, etc.  But guys, don’t lump it into these massive bills that nobody has read.  Seriously.  This is getting embarassing.

4.  Any future bank bailouts and absorption of “toxic assets” must be tied to a fixed amount of additional lending by these very institutions.  It’s time to be results-oriented.  Gone are the days when banks can have their stock purchased by the government and they hold on to the additional investments.  Gone also are the days when banks get taxpayer dollars but don’t lend.

5.  A renewed focus and commitment from President Obama that recovery comes first, above anything else.  A little less CYA from him mentioning that the recession could go on past 2009.  I think he’s made that clear.  How about also making clear that you know it will end, it will end in your first term (a risk-free promise, since you won’t be re-elected if it’s continuing in 2012), and that recovery policies take precedence over any other campaign promises.  It might just provide the confidence to investors that has been sorely lacking in our stock market as of late.

While I may agree with those who say he’s baiting us, I think we need to engage Attorney General Eric Holder on this and not let this pass. This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone -THIS- high up on the political food chain use words this strong before.

My view on how conservatives should approach this:

1. Offer strong initial public support for Holder on these comments. Intrepret them as a good faith effort to initiate public dialogue on racial issues.  Follow me on this one.

2. Since Holder has kicked off the conversation by applying the label “cowards” to certain segments of America (I presume primarily white Americans), ask him who the “bullies” are? After all, if there are “cowards”, something or some group must be intimidating them. Who are the “bullies”?

3. When Holder refuses to respond, answer the question for him. Without going into a Keith Olbermann-esque rant, one could state the issue like this: “Excuse me, sir, but did it ever occur to you that there are large racially-based groups in this nation, including the NAACP, which seem to exist primarily for the purpose of blunting any difficult racial discussions? Have you ever noticed that certain groups seem to exist, indeed THRIVE, off of being offended by any comment that may lead America down a tough, but necessary, path of discussion? Have you not witnessed, sir, entire careers destroyed by anyone who publicly challenges certain racial concepts in this country? Do you not think it’d be useful, indeed necessary, to put a muzzle on these attack dog-style pressure groups if we, as a nation, are truly going to stop being cowardly on these issues?”

4. Suggest a few topics that need to be addressed if, hypothetically, such groups could be restrained first. Examples: “Is it not true, Mr. Attorney General, that anytime statistics are discussed, the first thing raised is that blacks tend to be at the bottom of these stats? Whenever something bad in America is discussed, be it economic standings, health issues like heart disease, or crime rates, there is always an obligatory “Africa-Americans hit hardest” by-line?” From there, “Why is it always presumed that whites need to correct this, as if the constant underperformance of blacks must always be attributed to racial segregation and problems in the South from 50+ years ago?” “Mr. Attorney General, when blacks constantly underperform, why is it never looked at as primarily an internal problem within the black community?” “Also, Mr. Attorney General, in the few select areas where African Americans seemed to be making real strides, like home ownership prior to the subprime crisis, nobody ever touted it? Do you deny, Mr. Attorney General, that the entire modern civil rights leadership structure benefits and profits from both the real AND perceived inferior status of black progress? Would these same groups be harmed, and indeed have their very existence threatened, by real equality being acheived by African Americans? If so, what are the plans to deal with this?”

That oughta get the ball rolling.

This is all my admittedly “amateur hour” attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge about the course of events in November.  I’m not saying its perfect, but I think it’s rather close to the truth.

Keep in mind this is all speculation, but it is consistent with the Fitzgerald
timeline of events, and more importantly, explains why there’s such a
hyperactive effort to deny there was any communication between the two of them
after Obama became President-Elect.

I chewed this over and did some Google researching.  It’s only a matter of time
before it comes out that Obama met with Blagojevich on Nov 5th (CBS in Chicago
already reported it) for the EXPRESS purpose of pushing the Governor into
appointing Valerie Jarrett.  It is my speculation (and I freely concede it is
speculation) that either at that meeting directly to Obama or VERY shortly
thereafter to an Obama surrogate, Blagojevich communicated to Obama the “cost”
for appointing Jarrett.  It is likely, based on the timeline that Fitzgerald
released, that Team Obama seriously considered the request, but ultimately
rejected it.  It was only at THAT point that the Governor started referring to
Obama as an MF’er.  It is also likely that Jarrett was made aware of the
Governor’s demands and how this put Obama is a difficult position, and that’s
why Jarrett withdrew.

• Why did Obama (or his team) take the time to consider the request?

Barack Obama “owes” Jarrett, in the sense that she helped Michelle Obama get a
key job way back in the day, shortly before the Obamas married.  It is VERY
naive to think that once Obama had a clear lead in the polls heading into
Election Day, there was not already a decision made on whom Obama would
reccomend to Blagojevich as his successor.  Remember, it’s already a matter of
public record that most of Obama’s major Cabinet appointment decisions were
made 2 weeks before the Election.  I can’t believe the issue of who would fill
Obama’s U.S. Senate seat would go untouched in that timeframe.  Ultimately,
Obama appointed Jarrett to a sub-cabinet position and appointed a Blagojevich
aide to be her personal Chief of Staff.

• Why didn’t Obama immediately report the solicitation to the authorities?

Well, first of all, they took their time considering the request.  Secondly,
Obama has been around Illinois long enough to know that its a bit of a cesspool
and that the sort of things Blagojevich were requesting were too high a price
to be paid, but that also it was just the game that was commonly played.  I
can’t believe this is the first time Obama has encountered corruption in
Illionois.  Plus, I’m sure there was some of the whole “Democrats don’t squeal
on fellow Democrats.” philosophy that has been around IL for ages.

I know that may come as a stunner to those of you who believed Obama was “post
-partisan.”  Hah!

• Why did Obama deny speaking with Blagojevich way back in early November during
  his first major press conference as President-Elect?

Honestly, I don’t believe it was because Obama felt worried about exposing the
encounter or were worried about illegalities.  I believe Team Obama was in
“serious consideration” mode at the time about paying off Blagojevich for
Jarrett.  I think Obama was FAR more worried about it coming out that he had an
interest in making his personal friend become a U.S. Senator and being hit with
a “cronyism” argument from Republicans.

Okay. That’s my story.  If anyone feels like I’m wrong on my theory, feel
free to tear it apart, but please at least state WHY you’re doing so and
try to provide an alternative scenario that matches Fitzgerald’s timeline, as
well as political reality in Illinois.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually understand better now how Michelle Obama felt with the whole “for the first time in my life, I’m really proud of my country” moment.

I remember the week after Election Day 2004, and just feeling so incredibly proud of the country, and particularly Ohio, for re-electing President Bush. I knew I could count on the Buckeye State to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, which would most certainly come if John Kerry had won. I will also confess I did think that while there was an outside chance that the media might REALLY crank up the volume on their hostility towards Bush, I also started openly musing about the possibility that perhaps there was an electoral BASE of 270 electoral votes for the GOP, and even if we got edged in the popular vote again, we couldn’t lose the White House. Demographics had shifted so well in our favor…

Wow. Alot can go down in 4 years. So, I suggest that we tear a page out of the Dems’ playbook, and copy their template for driving Obama’s approval ratings into the toilet and inflicting massive damage to the “Democratic” brand.

Well, here goes.

Read More →

When Barack Obama says that “It’s true that both of us want to cut taxes, but I want to target my tax cuts to those who need it the most.”, I have just one question for you:

After raising taxes on capital gains, investment income, and Social Security taxes…

After raising import duties, raising taxes on the most successful business and Americans in the middle of a recession…

After raising taxes on small businesses, and preventing businesses from expanding and creating jobs, like Joe The Plumber’s….

After being ADDICTED to tax increases, and never once voting for a tax cut in the United States Senate…

Can you really trust a chronic tax raiser to cut your taxes?

Or do you trust the one candidate and one party in this race to cut taxes…for everyone…when they need it the most?

I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

I remember after the ’92 election when we were facing a Democratic President, 57 Democratic Senators, and a ridiculously large Democratic majority in the House, we were devastated.

Major newspapers across the nation were running story after story with one of two major angles analyzing the results. The first was that the GOP needed to kick out the Christian Coalition and shun social conservatives. The second was one questioning whether the Republican Party was even relevant heading into the next century, and should be replaced by a more centrist party to challenge the Democrats.

Into this void stepped Bill Kristol and the Project for a Republican Future. Kristol refused to accept the mainstream media’s take on the politics of the day, and quickly began organizing an anti-Clinton coalition. This helped ease the way for a resistance to the Clinton agenda and led to the 1994 midterms and GOP re-capture of Congress.

Should 2008 get bowling-shoe ugly in its results, I think it’s time to seriously consider another project. Obviously, an anti-Obama coalition will need to be assembled, and I have no doubt there will be. I also do not doubt that the GOP will take whatever steps it needs to dust itself off and move forward. That’s all well and good, but I do think we need to face something clearly.

Read More →

We all know that unprotected sex is a risky, dangerous thing, in most contexts. Usually, it leads to bad things happening.

As of late, I’ve come to discover a new phenomonon that seems even more dangerous: Unprotected Debating.

For some reason, John McCain has been engaging in too much of it recently and the results have been as expected.

What is unprotected debating, you ask? It is the act of debating an opponent, whom you allow to take unresponded shots to your party and its leader over and over again, and either doing nothing about it or even worse, joining in on the act yourself.

As I have said repeatedly, SOME defense of the last 8 years is going to be necessary, as distasteful and scary as that may seem to the McCain campaign.

Read More →

Dear Senator McCain,

Hi there. I’m a supporter and donor to your campaign.

I want to win on November 4th. I presume you do as well. Let’s quickly recap where we’re at here on the night of October 2nd.

As you probably know by now, you’re losing this race. You lost the 1st Presidential debate and as I’m currently typing, you’re well on your way to losing the Vice Presidential debate. You’re not terribly behind in the polls, and the 2 debate losses so far haven’t been total defeats, but they were solid defeats. Let us be under no illusions about that, sir.

Read More →

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t been that thrilled with the tagline “Barack Obama is not ready for President.” or “Is he ready to help your family?”

Mostly because it implies that perhaps 4 years from now, when he gets some more Senate experience under his belt, Obama WOULD be ready.

The truth is, as we all know, is that Obama isn’t ready now and most likely never will. Obama is not a radical liberal because he’s inexperienced, he’s a radical liberal because he lacks good judgment. If time was the cure for liberalism, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden wouldn’t exist.

If experience is off the table, then that’s a GOOD thing. You might think why? It’s because it now crystalizes the race on judgment. And on issues. And on arguments that we need to win. Arugments that President Bush has essentially punted on in the 2nd term, and allowed Democrats to beat him down, while he coasted.

Yeah, it might be a tougher road to climb, but we can’t avoid it any longer. Let’s face it, in 2004, we didn’t score an ideological win. We were able to coast by on accusing Kerry of flip-flopping, rather than actually tearing apart the arguments he made everyday across the country. There is a reason one of the most liberal Senators received 48% of the popular vote. That alone should be alarming.

Sarah Palin makes a better Vice President than Joe Biden, DESPITE experience, because Palin is right on foreign policy, and Biden is wrong. Consistently wrong.

For those of you who fear us getting into these arguments because you think they’re not winnable, just remember that foreign policy judgment still has juice to it. Despite how badly Bush has coasted. Remember they were forced to drop the Mark Foley bomb on us EARLY, because in September 2006, Bush was gaining ground using the Patriot Act and other issues to our advantage. Even with a 40% (at that time) approval rating, those issues had juice.

They still have juice today. Despite the constant Bush beatdown, it still has juice even today. And the Democrats know that. Otherwise, Biden would’ve never been selected. We’ve got juice. Use it.

It’s the only way to get a viable win. And it’s likely to help our House and Senate colleagues, as well. Running the “experience” route was just fancy triangulation that could’ve well resulted in McCain edging Obama electorally, and losing the national popular vote, and watching Dems gain in both houses.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why we never hear anything about Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) as a possible McCain Vice Presidential nominee.

On paper, he looks excellent. He’s a solid conservative, excellent speaker, popular in his home state, so much so that he came within 401 votes of defeating Harry Reid in 1998. He was right on the Iraq War, the McCain Surge, 100% pro-life, and isn’t afraid to be the “attack bulldog” for McCain that he desparately needs. His selection I think would push Nevada out of the “swing state” category into a “safe state”.

Oh, and as a bonus, he’s a veternarian that’s big into animal rights – I know that we as a party are always want to do outreach to non-traditional Republican voters, well…here’s a guy we can do it with on an issue that really doesn’t compromise any of our conservative principles.

Yeah, I know it’s not compelling to risk losing a Senate seat, but NV does have a Republican Governor who would appoint his successor, should he win. He’s running the NRSC right now, but they can always pick someone else.

I’m just seeing an AWFUL LOT of upside to this guy and not a lot of downside to this pick.

So why isn’t he a viable option?

Recently, [Robert Novak] (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27630) has come out with a developing story that the McCain campaign is seriously considering naming a VP pick this week. Presumably, this is being done to help counter the overwhelming pro-Obama coverage that is likely to take place this week with his overseas trip.

Until now, I had ignored the rumors I’ve heard from multiple sources that the Obama campaign had moles at some of the highest levels at McCain headquarters. Now, I have to give it some credence. To blow your VP pick (one of the only major unplayed Aces remaining in McCain’s hand) in order to win the media news cycle for a week in mid-JULY seems an act of political sabotage. It goes above and beyond the mere incompetance we’ve come to expect from Team McCain as of late.

Read More →

Hi all.

I was just brainstorming recently on ideas to help boost McCain’s campaign. I
noticed recently he reshuffled his campaign management, mostly due to pressure
from the RNC (even though he de facto runs the RNC right now!) and from this
idea that he’s essentially wasted the last 3 months when Obama and Hillary have
been sparring with each other.

Anyways, what follows are my 9 thoughts:

Read More →