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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The first thing we need to do is find a leading conservative professor to write a book called “What’s the matter with Vermont?” and spend months touring the country verbally agonizing over why seemingly sensable rural/suburban white voters consistently vote for candidates pushing higher taxes on them, simply because they love social liberalism. Imply that these voters are stupid. Very stupid.

We then need to find most rabidly conservative ex-elected official possible and immediately install him or her as RNC Chairperson. I’m thinking Pat Buchanan, but since he flirted with the Reform Party awhile back, we’ll go with Newt Gingrich. Newt will then embark with our OWN “50 state” strategy. This will consist of finding the most far-right candidates we can find to run in the red states, and then to run candidates who look like, act and sound just like centrists to run in blue states, and then have them vote exactly like Mitch McConnell when they arrive in the Senate or John Boehner in the House. If their consistuents get pissed at them back home for misleading them, just have them say “Hey, I’m just distancing myself from Obama.”

Naturally, we’ll have to change RedState from being a thoughtful site for conservative ideas, and change it into a dual purpose site. One part of it will be for hate-filled invective attacking anything President Obama says or does (bonus points for cussing, kiddos!), any Congresscritter of either party who supports him on ANY issue, and advocating the immediate primary challenging of ANY Congressional Republican which shows ANYTHING but blind opposition to any issue President-elect Obama supports, even if he were to sincerely reach out to conservatives and promise to form a “New Tone” of civility in Washington, DC. Oh, and naturally, we need to constantly drive home the point that Barack Obama is the worst President in American History.

We’ll just explain it all away by saying “We need more and better Republicans.”

The 2nd new purpose of RedState will be to become a virtual ATM machine for all Congressional candidates we support. We’ll call it ActRed. Again, this will consist of the most far-right candidates we can find to run in safe Republican districts, as well as far-right candidates (who look and sound like centrists) to run in Democratic districts and states, including states and districts we have no chance in holy hell of winning. Hey, you never know.

From there, we need to pressure the mainstream media into running story after story about “What do Republicans need to do to get back in power?” Have this be a weekly angle. Kill ANY story out there that suggests this was anything other than a fluke defeat. Push ANY story we can find about how Obama’s support is slowly slipping away and breaking apart. Highlight any story about Democratic discontent about Obama’s lack of leadership.

Start chatter about how there’s a new “secular right” movement growing in the Northeast, Northwest, and California. This (imaginary) movement consists of all non-blacks in these regions who voted for Obama having “buyer’s remorse” and are now far more interested in voting Republican than ever before, and can look past the GOP’s social conservatism. See if the mainsteam media will pick up on it.

While that story is going on, start chatter about how Hispanics are utterly shocked by how wild Barack Obama is going with the social liberalism. Mention that Hispanic Catholics, in particular, are dismayed by how President Obama is looking to push abortion rights, including partial-birth abortion rights, down the nation’s throat. Get the Mainstream media to go out and find 1 Hispanic that feels that way and build an entire series of exposes on this.

Alright…that’s a good start. Hey, it worked for the Left. Let’s give it a whirl.

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.

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.

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all have the same vital phenomonon at play and that is the mainstream media fell in love with each of them very early on in their campaigns and placed each of them on their back and carried them to victory. In Obama’s case, he hasn’t won yet, but he is leading.

When you consider how ridiculously low President Bush’s approval ratings are and you realise just how close we are to electing the most radical and unqualified President ever, it’s clear this is all the doing of the mainstream media. Neither of these scenarios would be taking place without MSM support.

It has been incredibly frustrating watching this take place in front of our very eyes. I remember in 1992 how slanted and biased the coverage was for Bill Clinton during the general election campaign. Watching 2008 is giving me ugly flashbacks. The thing that disturbs me the most, and should disturb you, is that Obama’s media push is successful DESPITE Fox News, the Internet, talk radio, etc. So-called “new media” by itself is not enough to cancel out a concerted mainsteam media push. Can you imagine where Obama would be if he received even 10% of the media scrutiny/criticism that Sarah Palin has received?

It has become painfully clear that if we’re EVER going to, as a movement, get to where we need to be, there’s going to need to be a sustained, concerted effort to change the mainstream media from within.

How? I personally believe we need to fight fire with fire.

A new generation of activist conservatives need to be recruited in college to consider journalism as a career. This will neither be easy, nor overnight. True conservatism, at its roots, doesn’t typically lend itself well to personal activism. Beyond that, you generally won’t find a long list of young conservatives seeking to “change the world” via journalism. Young conservatives simply go out and change the world on their own.

Still, it is difficult for me to believe that we’ll ever achieve an electoral victory like we did any stronger than in 2004 until and unless we change the mainstream media. I’m tired of us constantly complaining about them, and yet they only seem to get hardened in their liberalism. You’d think that in the year 2008, they couldn’t carry an empty suit from the streets of Chicago all the way to the White House. Yet, that’s what we’re facing.

The only way out of this nightmare (and to keep it from re-occuring) is to take on the long, hard slog of reforming APCNNABCCBSNBC. There’s simply no other way.

PS: If McCain wins somehow, we can sleep comfortably knowing that the MSM has truly been broken. But if he loses, this project must be initiated at once.

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.

You absolutely can NOT allow the recent financial crisis to be pinned on the President of the United States. Period. It must be shifted to the Democratic party and Obama. The tricky part is this must be explained to the American people in quick, easy-to-understand terms, and WITHOUT the use of statistics.

I’ll provide an example:

“My friends, once again, Senator Obama claims the latest crisis is the final verdict of the economic policies of the last 8 years. I hate the blame game as much as you, and while it’s well-known I’ve had some disagreements with President Bush, but I have to tell you, I don’t see it that way. This crisis has almost nothing to do with the President. Why? We all know the catalyst of this crisis has been the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This do-nothing Democratic Congress has repeatedly rejected efforts to rein in these out-of-control institutions. Anyone, like myself, who questioned these organizations were told by Democrats that they opposed affordable housing for the poor and minorities.
So-called community organizations and pressure groups, such as ACORN, demanded banks give out loans to those who couldn’t afford them. Not to help lift them up, my friends, but to saddle them down with impossible debt that they weren’t ready for. The President and our party tried to stop this, but were told “No” by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.
Look, my friends, if this crisis was really the cause of the last 8 years, how come we haven’t had a major problem with foreclosures until 2007? And further, if this was really Bush’s crisis, why did a greater percentage of Democrats vote for this bailout than Republicans? Especially a party that has always claimed to be for the “little guy” and has never before shown any interest in helping President Bush or Wall Street? Because they knew that if the economy did tank, you would demand to know the full history of what happened and the very existence of the Democratic party would be in doubt.”

It would also be helpful if you did not allow Barack Obama to counter the argument about the surge by saying he doesn’t understand the Iraq War to begin with.

Seriously, Senator McCain, the argument about pre-emption still needs to be made.

A thought…

“Senator, I know you don’t understand why we invaded a country who didn’t attack us on 9/11. I’d expect as much from someone with such a limited foreign policy background. Allow me to explain. After 9/11, it became clear to the President and many of us that we could no longer sit back and allow catastrophic events to dictate our policy. We could no longer allow a nation in the heart of the Middle East, ran by Saddam Hussein, which had assisted terrorists like Abu Nidal, and who’d attacked our own pilots over the No Fly Zone and was not cooperating with the UN Security Council, much less our own agreement to end the 1st Gulf War…”

Senator, these aren’t difficult arguments to make, but they must be made.

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.

You were losing prior to the GOP Convention, but only by a few points, so there was wisely no need to hit the panic button. You had an incredibly successful Vice Presidential pick, a fantastic GOP Convention, and you took the lead for the first time and held it for about a week to 10 days. Since then, the lead slipped away and you found yourself down by a few points. Now you’ve lost 2 debates and are losing by about 8 points. Not insurmountable by a long shot. But a problem that needs to be dealt with. You’ve been behind most of this race, so this appears to be a position you’re comfortable in. After all, leads come and go. You had one before, surely you’ll get one again, right?

May I humbly point out that it is now early October! Politically, now would be a really good time to consider hitting, what would surely be for you, a real-life “Panic” button. You might want to hit it with a sledgehammer. And you might want to consider hitting it NOW. And what would be this “Panic” button?

You might note that there’s an online dating service that is currently using a slogan of “It’s OK to look.” I have a slogan for you called “It’s OK to fight.” Really. It’s OK to fight, John. I know you crave bipartisanship and have sought to use your “Country First” theme to win and are committed to what you call an “honorable campaign”. It’s not working. At all. I don’t care if the media has been unfair, after years of you cultivating a good relationship with them. I don’t care if its unfair that moderates and independants have betrayed you, after years spent trying to establish yourself as a Maverick. The bottom line is that they have and absent a radical change in campaign strategy NOW, you will surely lose and possibly at a level that will make Bob Dole’s 1996 defeat seem mild, by contrast.

It’s OK to fight. Really. You see, it’s funny, the American people love their bipartisanship and hate see politicians fight all the time when they should be governing. Yet here’s where it gets odd, John. I’ll let you in on a dirty secret. During a Presidential General Election campaign, they EXPECT fighting. In fact, they WANT it. See, the American people have this strange desire to see SHARP DIFFERENCES be drawn between the 2 Presidential nominees. And because there’s only 2 real choices for President, they actually, well, expect a fight. It’s called competition. Without one, we effectively don’t have a democracy.

Sadly for all of us, most Americans right now are choosing or are very close to choosing Barack Obama to be our President. The American people have been fed a steady diet of Democratic talking points from the mainstream media. You’d be surprised how receptive many undecided voters would be to hearing a true opposing viewpoint, instead of one that tries to half-agree with them and acts scared all the time of being a Republican.

Looking back, what are the ONLY events in this race when you’ve actually been winning? Your selection of Sarah Palin, her partisan speech at the GOP Convention, and to a lesser extent, your semi-partisan speech as well. Everything before and after has sucked. You know it, and I know it. Everything before and after has been an abject unwillingness to fight and fight hard. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity on issues, mostly because they’d require SOME defense of the President and SOME severe criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party. Piling on by the mainstream media. Effort after effort to position yourself as a better “change agent” than Barack Obama, and failing miserably at it. Isn’t it funny how Barack Obama has no fear of being as negative as he wants to be and no fear of offending moderates in the process? And he gets away with it, too. Something to ponder…

So if partisanship is the only common denominator in your entire campaign where you’ve experienced anything resembling success, you may wish to consider returning to that in the next 2 debates. And on the campaign trail every single day until Election Day.

You can NOT peel off enough “change” voters to win, no matter how hard you try. Period. If voters truly want change more than anything else, their candidate is Obama. There’s little you can do to fool them otherwise. You’d be FAR stronger and better off in minimizing the number of folks who think “Change” is the #1 thing necessary. Your best bet is to persuade the undecided voters that you are a good choice and Obama is a bad choice.

Here’s how:

Some defense of the President is going to be necessary. Some! SOME! I know this is anathema to you, as you’re terrified of being linked to the President, but you already are. Get over it. There are some positives to be found here. I’ll spell them out below. You don’t have to even say Bush’s name if you don’t want to. Just say “The President”. Obama has won the day on making Bush a central issue. So let’s face it squarely.

I know you still want to be that Maverick, so be one. But do it wisely.

Have you ever stopped to think why the word “Liberal” is so feared by Obama and Biden that they never use it themselves? Do you know WHY it’s STILL such a dirty word even in 2008, with Bush at 27% approval?

At it’s core, most sane Americans realise that “Liberal” is synonymous with “Irresponsible”. That is what Obama is. This is why he’s not beating you by 20 points yet!

You represent Responsible Change. Barack Obama represents Radical Change.

And dammit, there’s SOME things in the USA that do NOT need to change. It’s time to draw a line in the sand. Build a separate webpage. Call it www.johnmccain.com/BetterChange or whatever.

Make it crystal clear on the areas you disagree with President Bush, but also show areas where you AGREE with the President. And don’t be afraid of this. The people need to know.

I’m sorry, but even if this requires a few sudden policy flip-flops, do it. You don’t have a choice, at this point.

We haven’t had an attack on American soil since 9/11. Barack Obama would put that in jeopardy. Obama wants to end domestic spying, radically change or repeal the Patriot Act, and wants full habeus for captured Al Qaeda. Joe Biden actually said tonight that Obama will end pre-emption as a strategy. Is that change we need?

We received checks in 2001 thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Obama thinks that was a mistake and would repeal that, effectively forcing us to return those checks. Is that change we can believe in?

Bush wants to drill for oil first and foremost, to bring energy independance to America. Obama thinks alternative fuels are more important. Is that change that will lower gas prices now and help your family?

We want to continue the surge and kill as much remaining Al Qaeda as possible, and Obama has been obsessed with forfeiting in Iraq from the beginning. Do we need that change?

Obama’s chief housing advisor helped oversee the destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was more responsible for this mess than anything on Wall Street. Might it help to point this out? Is this change that protects the taxpayer?

President Bush has appointed outstanding jurists like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and you would too. Barack Obama would appoint jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, which oppose gun rights and believe that infanticide and partial birth abortion are Constitutional. Is that change that will help our families?

It might be nice to say something like “The Democratic Party hasn’t had a new idea in 40 years and a good idea in 60 years.” But that might be asking too much.

Consider linking Obama to the current do-nothing, failed Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

Define EXACTLY what liberalism is. Don’t let Obama get away with winning this election by default, and defining liberalism as “That’s mostly just me opposing George Bush’s wrong-headed policies.” Obama has used “George Bush” as a smokescreen to coverup and avoid defending his views. No, it’s a HELL of alot more than that. It’s a series of destructive agenda items that weaken our nation financially and morally.

One last thing, Senator. The best thing I can say about conservatism, in an period of widespread dissatisfaction of the status quo, is that it has never really be implemented.

We’ve never had any serious limits on abortion. We’ve never had a major tax cut that wasn’t later undermined by more spending or higher taxes. We’ve never had widespread drilling for oil. We’ve never had, until recently, an effort to push democracy and remove destructive dictatorships. We’ve never had vouchers. We’ve never had market-based health care reform. We’ve never given young people better alternatives to Social Security. Ever consider pushing for THOSE solutions and calling it “Responsible Change”?

Obama has opposed ALL of that. Vigorously. He HAS called for tired old, failed “solutions” that waste money and undermine our basic values, including gun rights, respect for life, and being truly tough on crime.

Again, you represent “Responsible Change”. Obama is “Radical Change”.

In closing, Senator. You can close the next debate by telling America that even if you don’t like President Bush, remember that on January 20th, he will be gone forever. As will Cheney and all the members of his Cabinet. They will be replaced by new people with new ideas. The only question left is who will fill those slots and what kind of change they will bring with them.

We’ve seen the people who have surrounded Obama most of his life and in this campaign. Is that the sort of change we need? Or would you rather have myself and Sarah Palin, who understand Middle America and will push for the needed changes America wants and leave alone what America has liked for not just the last 8 years, but since the beginning of our country.

I think that will win far more votes from the American people than, “Doggone it, Barack. There you go again talking about the past instead of keeping your eye on the future.” after Obama lays out a verbal beatdown of the last 8 years.

Sincerely,

One of the millions of your supporters who have been banging their heads against the wall watching the last 2 debates and seeing the White House slip away from us everyday.

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.

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?

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.

Assuming that Obama campaign moles did NOT plant this seed into the idea of our nominee, we can only believe that utter panic has ensued. This is somewhat understandable given the runup to the trip, and the fact that CBS, NBC, and ABC anchors are all traveling to be with Obama over there. It does seem incredibly unfair, but what would be most unfair is to allow this fear to overtake your senses.

Even if Obama were to receive wall-to-wall favorable press all week from the Drive-By Media, just how much of a ‘bounce’ would Obama receive from it? I can’t think it’d be much. If Drive-By Media support alone was enough to move Undecideds over to Obama, I’ve got news for you. They’re already solidly behind the Illinois Senator. So stop panicking.

Any turnaround for McCain needs to start at the Republican Convention. I predict that Obama will hit his apex of support right after the Democratic Convention. Ours begins just one week later.

Team McCain really needs to start envisioning what late August/early September will look like. Obama is likely to wait to announce his VP pick under right before the Democratic Convention. There is no doubt his convention, complete with the surreal acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium and the excitement generated from his VP selection will give him a nice bounce.

Our job is to counter that. Well, announcing your pick NOW is ridiculous. You lose a key element of surprise (even if you pick Romney, who seems to be the favorite at the moment), your known announced pick will be skewered at the Democratic Convention and made to sound like the second coming of Cheney. There’s just so little upside.

More than most years, we need a very strong Convention to begin the path towards victory in November. Everything we do should be geared towards November. Just like in 2004, we have every ability to structure a solid Convention that guides us on our way. Holding your fire now makes all the sense in the world.

Don’t disregard the very real idea of “Obama Fatigue” kicking in at the end of August. The media has been so obsessed with Obama and McCain was effectively drowned out during the Obama-Hillary race. I have no problem with 80% of the coverage dedicated to Obama. Let him have his Mass on the last day of their convention. There’s going to be more than a few Independants who are going to realise that this is just getting ridiculous. They will be very open to at least hearing what McCain has to say, because they will have heard so little from him. Announcing your VP pick at THAT time will be a “force multiplier” and will force renewed media attention on McCain, when he needs it the most.

In an earlier blog, I mentioned the need for McCain to win the weekly media spin cycles. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer. What matters most is winning them in September and October, not July. If you want to make up your mind about your VP now and get it off your radar screen, by all means, do so. But for the love of God, keep the announcement of it to yourself until the Republican Convention!

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:

1. Develop a campaign slogan. We know Obama’s is “Change We Can Believe In”, at least during the primaries.
I have NO idea what McCain’s slogan is, and I’m an active supporter and contributor. Something is VERY wrong here. And to McCain’s people: If you don’t think a slogan is important, remember there will be up to 20 Million voters this November who will have spent a grand total of 3 days or less focused on the Presidential campaign. It MIGHT just be handy to have 4 or 5 easy-to-remember words to describe your campaign.

1. Have a few catch-phrases to describe yourself. I remember Bush in 2000 had “Compassionate Conservative”, “Reformer With Results”, and “Uniter, Not A Divider”. Say what you want about them, I gotta believe they helped him immensely vs. Gore. Where are McCain’s? He needs to move quickly on this, before Obama paints a picture of him that he won’t be able to erase.

2. Figure out if you are going to defend Bush at all on anything, or completely seek a divorce from anything his Administration accomplished. Also, figure out if you intend to revive/boost the Republican brand (which has been severely damaged in the last 4 years), or to try and seek only independant/Democratic votes. I’m convinced one of the reasons my items #1 and #2 exist is because an overall strategy is yet to be developed. McCain is understandably petrified of being painted as essentially Bush’s 3rd term, yet at the same time if he completely cuts ties and tries to run as some sort of independant character, he simply does further damage to the GOP and gives plausability to the rationale of a Barack Obama campaign.

3. Figure out if you want to run some sort of nationalized campaign with GOP House & Senate candidates. The chances are pretty low, but I actually think in a year like this, it may actually be a great idea. I believe McCain at least has to try and assert SOME leadership over the Republican Party and try to resurrect the brand. Don’t be approaching a Presidential campaign from a position of weakness, especially when you still need, more than ever, to have a kickin’ convention, is going to require firing up the troops and activists in your party.

4. Focus group the HELL out of certain demographics you need to win over. Be smart. Go beyond just the obvious swing groups like Hispanics, married women, etc. In many states, in what is supposed to be a wildly Democratic year, McCain is running even or only slightly behind Obama in states like Colorado and New Mexico, while the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in both states is up by 15-20 points over his Republican rival. FIND OUT EXACTLY WHY. It may be more than just serious concerns about Obama; they may actually see something in McCain that they like. Focus group the voters in those states who are supporting both their Dem. Senate candidate AND McCain simultaneously. When you find out the reasons, exploit those reasons. Run TV ads playing up whatever it is that’s causing them to support you.

5. Consider “Framing the race” in your favor. What I mean by this is, take control of this race, even if you’re behind. Don’t go too overboard, but play aggessively not defensively. Don’t be afraid to slip a few lines into your everyday stump speech that you KNOW will force Obama to react. Odds are the media will then focus on those arguments. YOU should initiate these arguments. Keep forcing Obama to react to you. I am absolutely convinced everyday that Barack Obama has to spend talking about why John McCain is wrong about Issue X is actually a GOOD thing for McCain. Keep the focus on you and less on Obama. You’ll win the media cycle that way. He’s already done some of this by embarassing Obama into visiting Iraq later this year by making the wise argument that he’s willing to meet with Ahmadinejad in Iran if elected, but doesn’t have to time to meet with Gen. Petraeus.

6. Run a disciplined TV ad campaign. Have a common look, a common theme to each. ALWAYS remind the voters that this is a race for the Presidency of the United States of America. This race has real consequences. It isn’t just about who has the best rhetoric or bumper sticker. It’s not just about who makes you feel good the best or even about who you agree with on the majority of the issues. The Presidency is the ultimate management position. It’s about war and peace, it’s about the Supreme Court, it’s about the economy and the deficit. This is for who sits in the Oval Office. Never let the voters forget that. When you get the voters thinking about the gravity of their decision, I think it only benefits McCain and only hurts Obama. Obama may be a far superior campaigner and politician, but I sincerely believe a majority of Americans know he’d be an inferior President to McCain.

7. Stress the idea of “Mistakes” and how devastating they can be if you’re President. I’ll admit this requires a degree of subtlety and sophistication to pull off, but if done, could reap ENORMOUS benefits to McCain. Figure out a way to link the mistakes that Bush made in the Iraq War to the potential mistakes Obama is likely to make in foreign policy if elected. Obama, like Bush, has no military combat experience. Neither had any foreign policy experience when elected. And Obama is “arguably” worse than Bush in the sense, that he really has no plan to deal with Iran or N. Korea, other than to meet with them. He backs the idea of habeus corpus for battlefield combatants captured in Afghanistan. In short, he wants to treat terrorists as common criminals. We tried that in the 90s and it failed miserably, and arguably laid the groundwork for 9/11 to go down. “Mistakes: We can’t afford them.” It’s going to require some real talent to pull off, but that’s why you pay you highest paid staffers the Big Bucks. Get it done. But you simply MUST try to hammer home the idea that if you think Bush is a foreign policy screwup, Obama takes it to a whole higher level.

8. Lastly, pick a word or catchphrase to constantly link to Obama. If it was up to me, I’d use the word “Irresponsible” or “Irresponsible Change”. Whenever you talk about Obama, call him “Irresponsibly wrong” or an “Irresponsible Change Agent”. This is where your focus-grouping comes in handy. Obama should ideally be up by 20 points right now, and he’s not. Some of it is a perception of McCain as a different type of Republican, but mostly it is concerns about Obama’s qualifications or readiness for the job. Slam that home. Pick a word, stick to it. Even build your theme around it. For example, consider using something along the lines of “McCain: Responsible Change in an Uncertain World”.

Hey…it’s a start. And it’s a WHOLE lot better than this hodge-podge of nonsense I’ve seen so far from the McCain camp that they claim is their message.