And so begins the decline of the presidency of Barack H. Obama.

President Obama would be best served if he were an octopus. He needs that many hands considering how many boiling pots he it tending. Now it appears he has struck up the fire on yet another burner. In the time of a paralyzing recession, President Obama has staggered the public with massive spending and soaring deficits. And what his rebuttal to the concern from the squeamish? Why, free healthcare, energy overhauls, and bigger government towards better education should erase any worries along with the deficits by the end of his first term. There is that hope thing again. In fact, he has showed that he will be very proactive in the process even if that means finding creative ways to indentify "wasteful spending" in other parts of the government to cover his plans and vision for America.


He has shown early that he intends to be a domestic-oriented President. He just doesn’t want to reform and start new initiatives; he wants to change the very system of government in key areas that will, in parts, drastically change America. But, herein lies the problem when a president undertakes sweeping and substantial changes in domestic policies. There are often unintended consequences and blowback. LBJ’s “Great Society” initiatives harkens to mind as the "Gibraltar" of America’s experiment with the Welfare State. America is a big place, with different regions, occupied by different kinds of people. Some regions are older, more populated, less religious, more prosperous, less educated, more diverse, more conservative, or transient and metropolitan. In other words, finding an agenda that suits the entire country is rarely achievable. That is why some issues, are like sleeping dogs; it’s best if you let them lie, especially considering the tough economic times in which we are experiencing. That may sound irresponsible at first, but part of being a leader is having wisdom to change the things that are achievable, first, with the most benefit towards overall success. At the moment, people are having a hard time providing for their families, paying bills, saving for the future, and simply paying their taxes. Too much, well, is sometimes too much.

All of that leads me to here: President Obama may soon experience how quickly America can become complicated and downright forceful when too many things are dropped into their laps. The president has announced that he intends fully to push the hairy issue of amnesty. In other words, open up a path to legalize the millions of “undocumented” illegal immigrants in the country. The president has identified his priorities as mentioned to an already skeptical country. He is fighting off concerns of America’s spiraling debt during a full blown recession by reinforcing his vision only. Now, he is seriously pushing the envelope by forcing the polarizing issue of amnesty to the front that could implode his popularity and place his party in dangerous territory just in time for mid-term elections.

Rather it is true or not, Americans, as any people for that matter, see illegal immigrants as competition for jobs, a liability to taxpayers, and a burden to inner cities schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Throw bad economic times and high unemployment in the mix and you quickly could have a revolt on your hands. If responsible and legal immigration were the case, which is what America's laws call for on paper, then there would hardly be those kinds of reactions. But, America has shown it is anything but responsible, or enforces a law and order immigration policy. That is what the people want, first. In fact, the clear majority demand it be that way. Amnesty is a spineless political move to build patronage at the expense of the law abiding American citizen and taxpayer.

The president is unwittingly forcing the majority of the American people to bear another burden for the sake of his presidency. It didn’t work in 2007 when Congress tried to cram through a bipartisan immigration bill, and it won’t work now. I believe President Obama is getting ready to receive his first lesson in the dynamics of American opinion. And it will be his popularity and political capital that will pay the cost.

Continue reading ...

Raging Bull: GOP Leader Boehner Floor Speech Against Stimulus

Wondering if the Repubs are a little pissed off about the "stimulus package?" Well maybe this video of GOP Leader Boehner might answer that question for you.


GOP Leader GOP Leader Boehner Floor Speech Opposing Democrats' Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill



Boehner, has grown a pair and they are made of brass.

Continue reading ...

The Dead Center, Revisited

Listening to conservative pundit upon conservative pundit espousing a script that seems to have been revisited like a bad rerun, I could not help but feel a certain familiarity with the message. Then it occurred to me, liberal Professor, Robert Reich's article in the New York Times from January of 2004.

From back in the day, when conservatives ruled the roost,

The Dead Center

By ROBERT B. REICH
Published: January 29, 2004

New York Times-The dismal fifth-place showing by Senator Joseph Lieberman in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday serves as both reminder and motivator to the other Democratic presidential candidates on what it will take to win in November. For so long now, everyone has assumed that recapturing the presidency depends on who triumphs in the battle between liberals and moderates within the party. Such thinking, though, is inherently flawed. The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement -- one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics.

Senator Lieberman's defeat on Tuesday could be a good indicator of which side is ahead. To their detriment, Mr. Lieberman and the perennially dour Democratic Leadership Council have been deeply wary of any hint of a progressive movement, preferring instead an uninspired centrist message that echoes Republican themes.

On the other extreme is Howard Dean, who could be called the quintessential ''movement'' Democrat. His campaign is both grass-roots and reformist, and is based on the proposition that ordinary people must be empowered to ''take back America.'' Similar threads can also be seen in the campaigns of Senators John Edwards and John Kerry. (Full disclosure: I've been helping Senator Kerry.) It was no accident after last week's caucuses in Iowa that a beaming Senator Edwards told supporters they had ''started a movement to change America.''

I hope that Mr. Edwards and the others will stay on message -- and movement. After all, Democrats have seen what the Republican Party has been able to accomplish over the years. The conservative movement has developed dedicated sources of money and legions of ground troops who not only get out the vote, but also spend the time between elections persuading others to join their ranks. It has devised frames of reference that are used repeatedly in policy debates (among them: it's your money, tax and spend, political correctness, class warfare).

It has a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same world view and who will vote accordingly. And it has a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business -- an ideology in which foreign enemies, domestic poverty and crime, and homosexuality all must be met with strict punishment and religious orthodoxy.

In contrast, the Democratic Party has had no analogous movement to animate it. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide. After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats have involved themselves in single-issue politics -- the environment, campaign finance, the war in Iraq and so on -- but these battles have failed to build a political movement. Issues rise and fall, depending on which interests are threatened and when. They can even divide Democrats, as each advocacy group scrambles after the same set of liberal donors and competes for the limited attention of the news media.

As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just plain silent. They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no ground troops. The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle. One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity. In addition, there is no consistent Democratic world view or ideology. Most Congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them.

Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party's difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America's giant middle and working classes -- especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century. read more...

Replace the Democrat with Republican and Liberal with Conservative and it is representative of today. History does have a way repeating itself and our memories are often short, so short in fact, that 4 years ago seems like 40. Sometimes all of this is comical. :)

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Hillary Confirmed as Secretary of State

The Senate has overwhelmingly approved Senator Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State. Opposition was meek and the final vote was 94-2 with Senator Vitter (C-La.) and Senator Demint (C-SC) standing in opposition.

From the AP, via Yahoo,

The Associated Press – The Senate confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state Wednesday as President Barack Obama moved to make his imprint on U.S. foreign policy, mobilizing a fresh team of veteran advisers and reaching out to world leaders.

The Senate voted 94-2, with Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina opposing.

Republicans and Democrats alike said her swift confirmation was necessary so that Obama could begin tackling the major foreign policy issues at hand, including two wars, increased violence in the Middle East and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. read more...

This is fantastic, minus the conflict of interests Bill provides. Far Lefties are going to be dying when Clinton starts her diatribes with foreign leaders. She doesn't exactly possess what one would call diplomatic abilities. Just think back to yesterday and her assailment of Conryn because of his opposition to her appointment. What is she going to do when a foreign despot opposes her will?

I see a lot of embarrassment for the administration in the near future. They are going to have to create a whole new wing of government dedicated to cleaning up HRC's messes. I give her about 2-3 years before she "quits." Besides, that would giver her enough time to start her run against Obama in 12' if the political atmosphere is inviting enough.


Update: Liberal reaction to her confirmation, from my favorite band of loons, Firedog Lake.

Firedog Lake-I would have preferred her for a domestic slot like health, but it's still amusing to see Clinton confirmed with only 2 votes against (Vitter and DeMint), if only to keep janitors employed cleaning up after wingnut head explosions for the duration of her stay at Foggy Bottom. (Hey it's nasty work, but it's work).

Clinton's got a lot of name recognition and is generally (but not universally) liked overseas. Her husband is, likewise, still very popular. Added to the goodwill Obama starts with, I hope she'll be able to do some good in repairing America's damaged reputation, and the source of that damaged reputation, America's foreign policy.

Here is a little pragmatic observation; saying HRC will return us to an era of American diplomatic preeminence and fix our damaged reputation is like saying that George Custer was on a benevolent mission of charity to Little Big Horn and was woefully misunderstood. I love Firedog Lake, they keep me entertained, lol.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

GOP, The Way

While stumbling around in the wilderness, often mumbling incoherently to itself, the GOP has possibly been shown the way to reunify itself, and maybe pick up a few unintended allies along the way. Enter the inspiration, Far Left crazed-spending into oblivion.

In an article on the heavily conservative American Thinker, author Larry Anderson takes a poignant look at the lies and exploitation the GOP has perpetrated on conservatives.

As Mr Anderson points out, most of the rhetoric attached to the Republican "big tent" speeches promise of returns to free markets, tax cuts, government reform, and fiscal responsibility are just that, rhetoric. Exactly the message to get a group of conservatives fired up and ready to retake Washington. Ironically, most of the funding and time for the GOP is provided by these very same conservative activists, who in the end get rampant spending, socialist lite policies, and government expansion for their trouble. Not exactly delivering on what was promised.

There are many reasons we have a President Obama today; DNC mastering of tech, tapping into a younger voting base, 50 state strategy, Latino voters, ACORN, Iraq, etc., take your pick. While all of these were obvious factors, the one that is barely talked about is the mandate against President Bush and those who recklessly supported his bad spending habits. Unfortunately, we are still getting more of the same old same old.

Right now we stand on the brink of an $800 billion plus "stimulus package" to get the economy off life support. What American wouldn't be ecstatic about getting a nice little hunk of change from their Uncle Sam. The problem is these checks will be passed out, hopefully, to make you start spending, not paying bills or saving for the leaner times. Furthermore, this solution fails to address the long term ramifications of the economic downturn and inevitable fiscal constriction.

This brings up the obvious question, "How are we going to pay for all of this?" Are we going keep printing money to the point of making it valueless. Are we going to keep borrowing from the Chinese till Beijing owns every home in America? No, they will have to raise taxes, and raise them they will. If this doesn't prove to be enough, then what? The government will then have to find alternative ways to generate more capital to pay the bill. The only answer is a profitable return on a government investment, better known as the nationalization of domestic companies. This is not saying Obama is a socialist, it is an observation that he is not leaving himself or future administrations much choice.

This path leaves the constituency of America with few options. Overt taxation will be levied to God knows what level, leaving many with little or no earning, spending, savings, or investment potential. An expanded government, possibly doubled in its size, and only adding to its already horrible mismanagement. And nationalized businesses and companies which have to answer to the very same broken bureaucracy that got us into this mess in the first place. How can we expect our technocrats to manage and provide sound services within a larger government, when they can't take care of the one they have now?

With all this in mind, triangulation on a message that can bind together the factious movements in the GOP, as well as garner some allies (i.e. Blue Dogs), should be top priority to the RNC. That message is fiscal responsibility and reform of the present process of government spending. If the weak-minded GOP Congressional leaders could get this through their thick skulls and start practicing it, they could become a positive force to be reckoned with. However, they won't due to fear of the President's approval rating.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, shows his true colors when it comes to being the leader of the opposition.

"I think it's important not to be in a hurry," Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, said in an interview in his office in the U.S. Capitol last week. "The new president has high approval ratings. Polls indicate that both Republicans and Democrats want him to be successful. We want to be a respectful, loyal opposition."

Let's not forget our conservative leaning experts either.

From D. R. Tucker of Human Events,

Frum’s “Diary” blog at National Review Online has been a must-read for the past few years and, unfortunately, a target of much unfair criticism. Frum has been smeared by the talk-radio world for allegedly being a RINO or a faux-conservative, largely because he a) didn’t buy the right’s effort to position Sarah Palin as the new Queen of Conservatism and b) believed that merely recycling old lines from the Reagan ‘80s would not lead to a new era of Republican dominance.

He of course goes on in his post to show the backlash against Sarah Palin as obvious proof that the 80's style Reagan message is dead. Tucker, in all of his myopia, is overlooking two important points: message is one thing, actually practicing it is another and we tried running a moderate Republican in John McCain, it didn't work.

Tucker's point about the death Reagan conservatism is very important, though. But not for the reasons he intended. How can you put forth the message of fiscal responsibility when you haven't been practicing it? The American people don't trust the GOP anymore because of their wanton disregard for America's prosperity. It's time to rebuild that trust by standing up for them through opposition of stupidity,like the stimulus package, communicating to the people directly, offering viable fiscal solutions, and why they work. As far as McCain, I think the answer to that is painfully obvious.

Finally, all is not lost, from Senator David Vitter's (R-La.) attempted opposition to the release of the second half of the TARP funds, to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin's, Roadmap for America’s Future, to gentlemen like Senator Demint who offers some sound advice,

"We have to have a remnant of the Republican Party who are recognizable as freedom fighters," Mr. DeMint said. "What I'm looking to do as a conservative leader in the Senate is to identify those Republicans, and even some Democrats, and put together a consensus of people who can help stop this slide toward socialism."

Freedom in America is inexorably connected to the economy and its prosperity. It is what our country was founded on and the more the government controls the less you have. You don't even have to use critical thinking to figure that out.


Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Kennedy and the Klansmen

Not long after BHO's swearing in, Senator Ted Kennedy was reportedly stricken with a seizure and collapsed. Less reported, however, was that 91 year old, ex-Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd fell ill also.

From USAToday's Obama blog, the Oval,

Senator Edward Kennedy, who continues to battle brain cancer, suffered a seizure today at the Capitol luncheon where President Obama and Vice President Biden were being honored. Another Senate veteran, Robert Byrd, was also helped from the room by medical personnel. read more...

According to a commenter on the Libertarian blog Hit & Run, in 1964, Byrd was quoted as saying, "I'll drop dead the day a black man can be president." If this is true can you say "comical irony?"

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Perspective on the Bush Presidency, from the Right and the Left

There are many takes on why President Bush was either a bad President or one of the best ever. Here is an offering of two of the fairest assessments I have found on the Left and the Right.

From Dissenting Justice, an open minded Progressive weblog that is actually a very good read. The author, Professor Darren Hutchinson, usually gives a poignant and well thought analysis on politics and current events. You don't have to agree him, but at the least, his writings are not full of vitriol and hubris, as can be seen in his opening statement.

Get a Grip People: Bush Is not the Worst President in U.S. History

I have always found surveys that ask people to rank presidents a little silly. People who complete these surveys often fail to look beyond their own reality and consider figures from the past. Also, even when people look to the past, they usually employ contemporary standards to judge historical conduct. But many political positions that are suicidal today, were perfectly acceptable in the past (and vice versa). Not taking this into account can cloud our assessment of historical actors. Finally, in order to determine a president's place in history, we might have to wait until long after the person leaves office before we can accurately ascertain the longterm impact of the individual's term in office. read more...

WithBias, is a little spitfire of an online Conservative activist. BiasedGirl, the author, tends to use great sourcing to back up her posts and opinions. Links are abundant to viable sources, and her conclusions, sometimes with a populist draw, follow a reasoned line of logic that she ferociously backs up with hard evidence. At the bare minimum, all she can be accused of is being passionate about her movement. Definitely a good read if you want some great debate.

Presently, she has an ongoing series about the Bush II years versus the Clinton years.

Shocker! Bush Not the Worst US President

With Tuesday's looming immaculate inauguration, we will see the conclusion of the Presidency of George W. Bush. A man maligned by the media from the beginning of his first term when they demanded recounts until he won then called it a "stolen election". To the final days of his second term, when Everyone is trying to define the Presidency of W as one of, if not 'the worst in history'. read more..

Facts Reveal: Bush Actually A Good President!

In yesterday's post I revealed why George W Bush has been a superior President to the Liberal hero Bill Clinton, on matters of Civil Rights, Protecting us from Terrorists, and the Military, regardless of what you might have heard. Today I'm taking a look at what Karl Rove would call the "kitchen table" issues. read more...

While I may not personally agree with the totality of either of their conclusions, they're at least making an attempt to think about their positions. In turn, hopefully their readership will draw the proper judgments about the out-going President and the historical ramifications of his governance. Judgments that are based on reality and not mired down with ignorant memes and talking points.

Both blogs are highly recommended.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Czarina Pelosi's Power Grab

In early January, the "Madame Speaker" and House Democrats changed the 100-year old rule of "motion to recommit" sequestering Republicans to the sidelines of the political game. Now, it seems she has further consolidated her power by cornering her own party. Ensuring the Pelosi Progressive agenda is just about a fact of reality.

The motion to recommit basically gave the minority party the ability to force a bill back to the committee it originated from.

There are two types of motion to recommit; 1) The minority could call for a bill or resolution to be sent back to its committee of origination without instructions for changes or amendments to the legislation. Hence, saying to the committee,"We don't want it in its present form, change it." Also, this makes the bill non-debatable if it does not provide an instructions for changes. 2) In this scenario, the minority party can call for the legislation to be returned to the originating committee with instructions for amendment.

These instructions have to be relevant and appropriate to the bill or resolution. Once amended, the legislation is then returned to the House floor and debated, voted on, and if approved, passed by by the House.

Here are some examples, provided by the House Means and Ways Committee, of how using the MTR actually provided tax relief for the American people.

H.R. 3648 Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Strike the tax increases.
H.R. 2419 Farm Bill Strike the tax increases (offered by Mr. Goodlatte).
H.R. 5351 Renewable Energy Bill Strike objectionable tax increases and other objectionable provisions, including one identified by the Joint Tax Committee as a tax earmark; provide additional tax relief by extending marriage penalty relief and the enhanced child tax credit.
H.R. 5719 Taxpayer Assistance Act Direct IRS to ensure illegal aliens do not receive Earned Income Tax Credit and prevent self-declared “sanctuary cities” from issuing debt exempt from federal tax.
H.R. 6049 Energy Tax Incentives Strike the tax increases and provide additional tax relief, including the AMT patch and a longer extension of other expiring tax provisions.
H.R. 6275 AMT Patch Strike the tax increases and provide for additional tax relief for the charitable use of a vehicle.

By forgoing the "motion to recommit," Pelosi and Progressives in Congress have eliminated the last remaining bit of Democratic balance on the Hill. This fundamentally renders Republicans to the sidelines and takes away an opportunity for legislative opposition they could have provided.

While Pelosi moved to consolidate her power away from the Republicans, she now seems to be doing the same to her own party. With the Democrats on the Hill taking the lead on economic crisis, committee and even some sub-committee chairman, have been frozen out of the process of writing legislation. Most of the major bills are now being written by the Madame Speaker's office, with only limited input from other democratic legislators.

Frustration is developing, in the Democratic ranks, over this truncated process and there are calls for a return to the regular order of writing bills in the appropriate committees.

From The Hill,

“This is really set to come to a head soon,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee. “The question is: Are we actually going to get a chance to legislate? There’s an opportunity to turn this corner, but we have not done that yet.”

In the opening volleys of the 111th Congress, Pelosi has created her own personal fiefdom. Her aristocratic entitlement attitude towards power is setting a dangerous precedent in creating a dictatorial role for the Speaker. "Arcane rules," as the Democrats call them, like the motion to recommit, were set into place to avoid situations like this and with her power grab against her own party there are no denying Pelosi's tyrannical intentions now. In 2010, this power crazed lunatic needs to be removed from her position.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

The Loyal Opposition has spoken for the first time.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA.) introduced legislation on the floor of the Senate to block the release of the second half of the TARP money on Thursday. Of course, the bill was defeated, but at least some took a stand against this reckless fiscal behavior.

S.J.RES.5, was a joint resolution which would have blocked the release of the second half of the TARP funds. It was summarily defeated 42-52, with two Senators voting present, and three abstaining.

This is a list of the Senators, who voted for and against the legislation, taken from the United States Senate official roll-call list.


















The list of opposition is quite surprising; eight Democrats, one Socialist, and Mac the RINO, make that nine Democrats, sided with the GOP. Ironically, among the Republicans to vote in favor of releasing the funds was Senator Kyl (R-AZ), the Senate Minority Whip.

Initially, the passage of this bill caused a minor shakeup for Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Reid had some words of wisdom for Congress and the American people, prior to the vote.

From The Hill,

“Barack Obama has made it clear that he understands the mistakes of the prior administration and will not repeat them,” Reid said minutes before the vote. “I believe this is the road to a recovery for our country. Let’s just trust Barack Obama.”

It was reported that Reid's eyes glossed over and he appeared to be in an almost catatonic and zombie like state while uttering the last sentence of his speech.

Republicans face and almost certain defeat at trying to stop the upcoming Obastimulus package. However, if they can muster enough support from Fiscal Dems, in the House and Senate, and maintain control over their own ranks, they "might" be able to effect some positive change to the legislation. As it stands now,though, their chances for anything are slim-to-none, and Slim already left town.

Related Articles-A Senate in flux backs Obama, barely

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Obama: The Anti-Reagan

President-elect Obama's claims of bipartisanship rang deeply through the campaign. Presenting himself as a unifier, his message was supposed to soften the hearts of even the most raucous partisan hacks. Since the election, he has caused chagrin amongst the Hill's most stalwart Progressives and confounded the beleaguered GOP. All the while, taking his case about big government to the American people. Seemingly bypassing Congress and Washington insiders all together. Much the same strategy which Ronald Reagan was famous for.

A comparison of President-elect Obama to legendary Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, might seem blasphemous within the halls of conservatism. However, their congruency of taking issues to the public and the situations which they both entered their Presidencies under are where the comparisons end.

Obama, much like Reagan did, is walking into a landscape where there is economic turmoil, as faced in the late 70's and early 80's, massive distrust in the government fostered by scandal after scandal, a previously inept administration, and an unpopular war.

The differences are that Reagan sought to capitalize on the mistrust in the government to shrink it. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to reassert its effectiveness to the American people and expand it.

Take for instance the President-elect's prepping for his massive trillion dollar stimulus package. He has made the unprecedented move of campaigning for his recovery plan, not on the Hill, but with the people. This is all being done with focus groups, linguistical changes primarily directed at what makes the electorate more comfortable, and using vast online media resources at his disposal. Taking advantage of the fact that the people, as a majority, trust him and not the Congress. Obama is attempting to become the face of "big government." Saying, "If you trust me, then you trust the government."

From the Christian Science Monitor,

In many ways, Mr. Obama’s push is unprecedented. He hasn’t yet made a single phone call from the Oval Office. But he’s hard at work trying to build voters’ trust, not just in his administration but in the capabilities of government itself.

“The American people are deeply ambivalent at this moment,” says William Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“On the one hand, they broadly support the new administration and want it to succeed. On the other hand, there is deep skepticism about the ability of government to do the right thing and to do it effectively.”

At this point, Team Obama's motivations are getting easier to decipher. His distancing himself away from Congress can be seen through one of two lenses. Either he is displaying a political naivety or absolute genius. The latter seems to be the more plausible, based on his almost flawless campaign which they ran.

He has already made major concessions in his recovery plan, since its inception, which includes fairly hefty tax cuts. A very distinct message to the GOP and the American people that he is willing to move away from Pelosi, Reid, and their brood. Already, major opposition is already starting to develop against his plan, and more than likely, this will lead to the Democratic controlled Congress dismantling it.

From Rasmussen Reports,

Meanwhile, polls now say the public favors Obama's plan by 55 percent to 65 percent. His personal approval rating is even higher. And he's being politically astute by reaching out to Republicans. He has virtually removed partisan rhetoric. Simply put, Obama is in the driver's seat right now.

Sure, the Democratic Congress may mangle Obama's plan. They might even repeal the Bush tax cuts this year. So there is considerable uncertainty about the details of the final package. But I must say, a crafty Obama is doing his best top employ his version of the Reagan tax-cut plan. Obama talks big government. But so far his program actually reduces the government-spending share and increases the private tax-cut share.

The odds are, as pointed out, that the stimulus tax cuts will not survive and Bush's tax plan will be repealed. This puts Obama in an interesting position. By presenting a plan that the American people want and then having the Hill tear it apart, he is protected politically speaking. He still gets his over-the-top, big government, spending spree and Congress gets the blame. Obama knows that Congress will then bear the brunt of American anger, when it comes time to pay, and they will remove his Progressive pals (Reid, Pelosi, etc.) in 10'.

A Republican controlled Congress and a hyper-Liberal President would be a repeat of the Clinton years. One in which Clinton rode the wave of the successes of the GOP and even today gets credit for the fairly decent economy the Republicans ushered in. It seems he is trying to repeat that same scenario.

Some conservative pundits, seem unable or unwilling to give him credit for such a plan. This attitude and lack of understanding could be a grievous error on their part.

From Human Events,

Not consulting with Feinstein, Bond (and their House counterparts) is a rookie mistake Obama can’t afford to repeat. But the economic stimulus bill appears to be suffering the same sort of mishandling.

Obama -- by not spending the last two months cultivating Congress -- has put himself at a great disadvantage in shaping the legislative agenda. Unless his leadership skills prove much better than we’ve seen, it may be Congress leading the White House rather than the other way around.

If the Republicans are going to start gaining advantages on Obama, they need to start understanding his psychology and using it against him. Concentrating on painting him as "stupid" or "inexperienced" will cost them heavily when the time comes. This tactic did not work against Reagan, nor did it work against Bush. Conservatives are supposed to own the moniker of "learning from history." A short exploration into the past can show that Obama is nothing new and can provide strategies for using him to their advantages for the sake of America.

Continue reading ...

Haley Barbour on the GOP resurgence

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal , Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi, former Washington lobbyist, and RNC Chairman, offers some interesting analysis on the "nuts and bolts" of rebuilding the GOP.

Barbour, is now presently serving as Governor of Mississippi and has led legislation leading to some of the nation's toughest tort reform, balanced Ms.'s budget, and jump started their failed educational system.

From the Wall Street Journal,

WSJ-Haley Barbour has a message for Republicans still dispirited by the November elections: "We've been in a lot worse shape than this. . . . read more...

Governor Barbour is actually correct and as he points out after the Watergate debacle only 16% of Americans identified with the GOP brand. This, Vietnam, the economy, and even possibly Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon were all factors which led to Jimmy Carter taking the White House in 1976.

Barbour goes on to diagnose what resulted in the GOP massacre of 08'.

WSJ-One of his biggest worries is that voters have lost confidence in Reaganite free-market principles. "The last few times that we've lost elections, it has not been because voters changed their mind about our policies, it's been because they changed their mind about us," he explains. "They decided that we hadn't adhered to the policies and principles that they had thought they were voting for during that election.

With the bailout and government dependence mentality sweeping through America like wildfire, fiscal conservatism can serve as the main platform for the GOP. Especially when this mess gets even worse over the next few years. No one has even answered the question as to how these stimulus and bailouts are going to be paid for. Unfortunately, in the back of our minds we all know the answer, "much higher taxes." Whether you are a Neocon, Evangelical, Paulinite, Paleocon, Libertarian, etc. the issue of fiscal responsibility is the unifying link between all of these factions.

In a sense, the Liberal spend, spend, spend philosophy could potentially breath life back into the GOP. When people start seeing that their spending and saving power is becoming drastically reduced, they will be looking for leadership which will assist in returning this to them. This is a grand opportunity for Republicans not to reinvent themselves, but return to fiscal conservatism. However, if the Repubs wants to remain in power, they will need to stick to this core principal and never abandon it again.

Barbour then talked about the 20-somethings, who assisted Obama sweeping into office, and engaging the electorate.

WSJ-"Now is our chance when we're out of power to build back up from the bottom, to have a participatory, inclusive process for letting people get involved in our party. Barack Obama proved something that I've seen time and time again: if you'll give people a chance to participate in politics they'll knock your door down. And the Democrats did a whole lot better job of that than us this time."

Another worrisome trend he mentions is the youth vote. "We've got young people who voted for Obama by better than a 2-to-1 margin.

As these naive 20 somethings, pissed off moderates, disenfranchised Republicans, and Independents start to realize the "change" they were promised is more expensive than what they saw under the Bush years. Mind sets will more than likely change towards what people want out of government. It is easy for a college kid, who pays little to nothing on taxes, to fall prey to the hypnotic message of "hope and change you can believe in." As well as the politically tired and older electorate. Nevertheless, what you can believe in is that they will be broke.

Another point is engaging the voters and making them think about your message. With Rebuild the Party and other similar organizations popping up, the GOP is slowly learning to manipulate technology to its advantage. Generating voter databases, using social rings like Twitter, blogs, and opening up dialogue between constituents and candidates might prove to be the best strategies.

The pool of Republican talent is another venue to look at. The best chance the GOP has is selecting candidates from its pool of fairly impressive Governors who embrace the new technologies and support the message of fiscal conservatism. Not failed RINO Senators who have been waiting in line for their turn to run for the POTUS.

How these Governor's states perform over the next few years might be indicative of their potential as a strong GOP candidate for 12' or 16'. Running candidates who have ties to a Congress with approval ratings in the single digits is foolish. Moreover, a governor tends to have a more definable record when it comes to their political activities, the results of their successes or failures are easier to see than a Senator or Representative.

There have been some very harsh and painful lessons the GOP has had to learn since the bloodbath began in 06'. Nevertheless, pain can sometimes be a very enlightening path to follow, especially when it teaches you about your mistakes.

Related Articles:

KATC.com-Analysis: La. is GOP's lonely victory state

A analysis of the only major GOP victory in the US, the state of Louisiana.

Continue reading ...

Democrat, John McCain, says seat Burris

Sen. John McCain (D-Arz.), in an interview with Neil Cavuto, stated he did not have a problem with Roland Burris being seated. The highly Progressive Liberal Senator from Arizona admitted he is no constitutional scholar of the Illinois state constitution, but, this appointment seems legal.

McCain is attempting to return to his Liberal roots, after a brief foray into Conservative territory, by getting on the Dianne Feinstein bandwagon.

Excerpt from the Cavuto interview, via ABC's, The Note;

The Note-Cavuto: "Let me ask you, because you have this side soap opera going with Blagojevich and whether Burris is going to be seated. Do you think it should be resolved quickly so, as Barack Obama seems to be saying, move on with the people's business?"

McCain: "Well, I hope so and it's not my business, either one. But in the case of Sen. Burris, I don't see what grounds you deny him being seated."

Cavuto: "So, you would seat him?"

McCain: "Certainly, because I think he has been legally appointed by a governor who has not been ... "

Cavuto: "But the governor might be impeached, thereby negating his appointments."

McCain: "I don't know if you can negate it that way. I'm not the constitutional scholar of the Illinois state constitution but it seems to me that the individual was chosen in a legal manner, who I have never met, by the way." read more...

Well, dear Senator, you are right, you are no scholar on the law and your ignorance is shining through like the sun. So, let's go to the experts and see what they have to say about the legalities of Illinois State law versus Federal law, concerning the seating of Burris.

SCOTUS Blog-Thus, the commentary was only related to state law. In any event, it [Illinois State Court] could not bind the Senate because (1) the Senate’s refusal to seat Burris up to now was not before the state court, (2) the state court’s authority to command the Senate to seat Burris is doubtful at best, and (3) its musings about what the Seventeenth Amendment required was unnecessary for it to resolve the purely state issue that was technically before it. read more...

Maybe it is time for McCain to just defect. This "maverick" garbage is just getting wearisome and quite frankly, so is the Senator. It's a sad day in hell when Obama will probably govern closer to center-right than McCain, had he won the Presidency.

Continue reading ...

Harry Reid: Leader of Leaders

Harry Reid, is at times, a painful person to try and watch; he is ineffectual, bungling, and a sham of a leader. He is the perfect face-man for the progressive side of the Senate leadership. Embodying all of their negative attributes which will eventually lead to more feeble and clueless decision making.

Recently, Reid was contemplating using armed guards to prevent Roland Burris from being seated as the Senate replacement for Obama. It did nothing to strengthen him as a leader. Quite the contrary, he showed his fear and uselessness by allowing this to be spoken about in a public forum. Rather than taking control and meeting with Burris himself, he chose a craven and cowardly approach and hid behind his authority.

Then there is the question of Reid’s flunkies in the Senate and their disregard for him. He is in command of an overwhelming majority of the chambers in the Senate. However, his troops are undisciplined and have very little respect for their officer in charge.

While attempting to give the impression of a unified front against the Burris appointment. Reid was back-doored by other senior Senators who have protested over Burris not being allowed to take his position. This has caused Reid to do a 180 degree turn around, concerning a very serious situation. One which he should remain steadfast on.

Let’s not forget Reid's feeble attempts to portray himself as a Senate tough guy. An approach which is humorous and pathetic, all at the same time. His latest chest-beating, against President-elect Obama, is a perfect example. In flawed Pelosi fashion, he has claimed that he does not work for the President-elect, however he will work with him. Or trying to convince the electorate, and himself, that Burris has not out-foxed the supposed "wily" Washington veteran. I am sure both the President-elect and Burris are sleeping more soundly with these proclamations.

Reid is a horrible example of what a leader should be. He has none of the characteristics that were displayed by wise and prominent legislators of the past. Hopefully, he will be removed from his post by the voters of Nevada, the country has suffered enough of his failed political leadership.

Continue reading ...

Burris and Senate Plan B: Police Intervetion

If and when Roland Burris, the Senator-designate for Illinois, shows up to take his seat in the Senate he might just be met with some opposition. It seems that Congress has a rather disturbing plan to use armed guards to prevent him from entering the chambers and taking his position.

Via the LA Times,

LA Times-Reporting from Washington -- Should Roland Burris show up for duty in the Senate on Tuesday, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the floor.

This cinematic showdown is among an elaborate set of contingencies that Democratic leaders are planning if, as expected, the former Illinois attorney general appointed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich shows up with newly elected senators to press his claim that he is the legitimate replacement for President-elect Barack Obama. read more...

Impressive, the herd on the Hill sinking to armed force to stop something they don't like. The pertinent question is," Why are we even discussing a tactic like this?" Personally I think the Burris appointment is tainted-beyond all belief-and if the Senate seats him they are foolish. However, armed police force on the Hill?

We have already seen Progressive Democratic abuse of the power with the illegal investigation into Joe Wurzelbacher's record in Ohio. Now this? Let's not forget the overt use of force in Waco and Elian Gonzales. It seems the new Congress is tearing a page from the Clinton DOJ and are hitting the ground running on abusing their legal powers with antics like this.

Nevertheless, Burris is now challenging the Illinois Secretary of State's decision not to certify his appointment letter. If Burris should be be successful in forcing the Illinois SoS to ratify his appointment, this still does not ensure him being seated in Congress. Although, if he is granted certification, the Senate seems out of bounds using armed force to prevent him from appearing at the swearing in ceremony.

However, according the SCOTUS blog (H/T TalkLeft) any decisions made by the state have little effect on the Senate's actual ability to seat him.

SCOTUS Blog-A house of Congress’s authority to judge an election (and, perhaps, an appointment) would appear to take precedence over any state method of selection, under the Supremacy Clause and the specific grant of authority under Article I, Section 5.

The Senate has to be careful about drawing a distinct line between "tainting" of the process, not the appointee. In other words, the Senate has the power to judge the the suitableness of the appointing official, Blagojevich. As long as they do not add a challenge to Burris's actual personal qualifications for the office.

Either way, all of this is a slippery slope of legality. It is safe to garner that the Judicial Branch will uphold any decision made by the Legislative, regarding their treatment of Burris. It would be difficult to fathom that the Supreme Court, or any other federal judge, wants to be brought into the Blagojevich scandal and be perceived as stepping on Senate toes.

With all this in mind, why would something so puerile and demagogic like police intervention even be considered? The Senate is supposed to be in control, not Blagojevich. But when fractious ideas like this start appearing you have to wonder if fear isn't getting the better of our "leaders" on the Hill.

Update: The progressives at FiredogLake are having a very rare kumbyah fest with Harry Reid, concerning Burris. Usually, Reid is the target of their disdain and contempt. I share their usual feelings, only for different reasons.

FiredogLake-I've had my problems with Reid over the years, but he's not in the wrong on Blagojevich and Burris. This is not a racial issue. Long before Burris, a black man, was appointed by a corrupt governor, Reid said he wouldn't allow anyone, anyone, appointed by Blagojevich, to be seated. There is no reason to believe Reid and the Democratic caucus are opposing Burris for racial reasons: all of them signed a letter saying they wouldn't seat anyone. Do you know how hard it is to get every Democratic Senator to agree on anything? read more...

Related Articles:

ProPublica-In 90’s, Burris Sought Death Penalty for Innocent Man

Chicago Sun Times-Burris has long history of brazenness

Continue reading ...

The Pelosi Prerogative

Obama's strange retreat to the left-of-center and moderate cabinet appointments, has caused some speculation on the Left that he will not govern as a pure Progressive. Many, with a California agenda in mind for the rest of the country, do not seem to thrilled with this prospect.

In an interview with The Hill.com, former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan (Nev.)said, “Because the Democratic caucus is itself diverse, reflecting many different points of view, it will be a challenge for the leadership to keep that coalition of interests together on the priorities established.”

In no uncertain terms, have either Nancy Pelsoi or Harry Reid given any indication that they will relinquish control of their fiefdoms to a central authority like the White House. In fact it is quite to the contrary.

Reid has stated, according to The Hill.com, that Biden will not be welcomed to the weekly Democratic Senate luncheons, except on a few occasions. A stark contrast to their Republican counterparts who had an open door policy with VP Cheney.

According to GregLewis.org, Pelosi has already made it clear to Emanuel that there will be no back door dealings with individual Democratic members of the House and all attempts at contact will be made through her. She has even gone as far as to demand the she has knowledge of contact between Emanuel's staff and the Senate.

Pelosi, unlike Reid, actually may have the clout to be dictatorial with the Obama administration. The Democratic caucus from California has 34 members, the largest from any other state. There are many key Obama administration positions also held by California natives. And Rep. Henry Waxman is serving as the White House liaison to Congress. This makes the California delegation fairly powerful and influential throughout Congress and the White House.

There are other problems facing the Obama administrationas well. Even in the past, when Democrats controlled Congress, there was never this amount of segregation within the party. Right now you have; the Hispanic caucus, the Black caucus, the progressive caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Coalition.

Obama might look forward to dealing with such problems as India and Pakistan, Israel and Hamas, and Russia. These situations might prove far easier to tame than Pelosi and the rest of the Democratically controlled Congress. Who knows, Republicans might end up being the best friends Obama has ever had.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Blagojevich Files (Blag's Lawyer Wants to Subpoena Obama Staff)

Blagojevich's attorney, Ed Genson, is doing a full court press with the state panel overseeing the Governor's impeachment process. Genson is requesting more than a dozen Obama staffers to be subpoenaed, they include; Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, more than a dozen others, and including Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

Video from MSNBC,

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Odds are that this would somehow interfere with ongoing prosecution of Blagojevich. Or, it could be a test run, by Genson, to see what will work once Blag is indicted. Unlikely that much will come of it.


Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

America's Liberal Shift?

The GOP was unarguably massacred in 2008 on several fronts; in the Presidential election, the House, and the Senate races. At first glance, there seems to have been a shift in the paradigm of thought within the American voter’s mind. But the question remains, was it against conservative principles and a movement towards a more modern progressive-left philosophy? Or was it a repudiation for the betrayal voters felt that the Bush administration, enabled by a Republican held Congress, had perpetrated on them?

President Bush has been accused on numerous occasions of floating in the waters of the Liberal Left and abandoning the more conservative ways of the GOP’s Reagan Revolution. With President Bush, we received a bill of goods that was not what was promised. In the NRO piece, Bush the Hall Monitor, authors Frederick M. Hess & Michael J. Petrillita take note of this.

At a recent speaking engagement at the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush spoke about his main domestic accomplishment, the No Child Left Behind Act.

NRO-“The basic principle inherent in No Child Left Behind, the philosophy of it, remained very much intact in the bill — and it’s working,” he said." You can compromise points, but don’t sell out the principle that is inherent in the bill.”

Originally presented as conservative styled reform which, in principal, sought to increase the successes of output while downsizing the interference of legislators. However, after numerous compromises with the Left the face of NCLB, was quite different. What was reached was a increase in federal micromanagement, race based accountability for schools, and an increase of federal spending on education with little effort to enforce transparency on how the money is being spent.

Then we have the bailouts; the biggest Bush shot at fiscal conservatism was the highly controversial $700 billion reactionary TARP. The main problem with the TARP was that no one took a breath and at least tried to figure out how to do it properly. Fear was motivating a solution.

From the Brookings Institute,

Brookings-What went wrong with TARP? The GAO audit observes that Treasury has failed to track how banks are deploying their TARP dollars. Legislators argue that Treasury has undermined congressional intent by failing to use TARP funds to help stem the tide of residential foreclosures and by being too lenient on banks receiving taxpayer capital.

Not many people argued against a shot of liquidity for banks, but what has been questioned is the amount of power given to Secretary Paulson, the amount of taxpayer money being spent, and how deployment of these loans was never regulated. The Bush economic doctrine has been spend, spend, spend, and when the economy tanked, it was spend some more. Only this time the largess has pushed free-market capitalism to the brink of socialism.

The second volley was the Auto Bailout and the administration’s betrayal of Senate Republicans, who blocked the measure, by possibly allocating funds to the UAW and Big 3 without any real stipulations (Ford, as of now, has not chosen to partake in TARP assistance.).

As G. Tracy Mehan, III points out in his article on the American Spectator, Compassionate Conservatism for Detroit,

AmSpec-What the Bush administration has essentially done is hand out many billions of dollars with essentially zero leverage over the final restructuring of the companies including the product lines and platforms, dealerships, UAW wages, benefits and work rules. The so-called conditions are so much hot air. Absent a pre-arranged or "orderly bankruptcy," the Big Two will most assuredly become perpetual wards of the federal government with two of three branches firmly in control of the Democratic Party and, pari passu, the UAW. There will be no true reform or accountability. It is the same old same-old.

Many Republican constituents have felt duped by actions that the Bush administration has carried out over eight years. The particular situations only highlight the administration’ s sinking into a sea of government expansion and Republican Socialism. Many of the President’s policies have deviated from the tenets of conservatism thus alienating a large segment of the GOP’s voting base.

Kristin Soltis of Pollster. com showed that the Democratic increase in the electorate was only up 2%, from 37% to 39%. An aggregate increase of 3.6 million more Democratic voters in 08' over 04'. Whereas 5 million fewer Republican voters came out, or switched their party affiliation to Independent. Turnout among Independents was up by about 4.5 million voters. It seems that some people no longer identified with the present GOP brand that President Bush represents and wanted something different. Not talked about in Ms. Soltis’s article is the inclusion of Hillary voters (PUMA’s) who have switched to Independent.

It seems plausible that many former GOP’ers simply stayed home, either due to their dislike of Palin, or more evident, their dislike John McCain. In conclusion the Progressive hype about the changing mentality in America to Center-Left is just that, hype.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Obama's Snubbing of the South

President Obama has conceivably put together one of the more diverse cabinets since President Bush’s choices in 2001. Presently, his picks range from five women, four blacks, three Hispanics, and two Asians. As diverse as his cabinet is, does it really represent the face of America?

Obama’s cabinet choices might be ethnically representative of the US as a whole, however, regionally there is much left to be desired. So far the only pick from below the Mason-Dixon line is the Southern-lite US Trade Rep. and former Dallas mayor, Ron Kirk.

Why could this possible attitude be a hindrance to Obama and the Democrats in the future?

The South is traditionally painted as rural rednecks, totting Confederate flags, draped in sheets, carrying shotguns, bellowing, “The South shall rise again!” While this caricature may have applied some fifty odd years ago. The face of the New South is quite different than what our brethren on the West Coast and in the North East might have you believe.

Population growth is one reason. Back in July CNN reported that 7 out of the 10 fastest growing cities were in the South or South-lite regions.

City State Population Growth
New Orleans La. 239,124 13.8%
Victorville Calif. 107,221 9.5%
McKinney Texas 115,620 8.0%
N. Las Vegas Nev. 212,114 7.4%
Cary N.C. 121,796 7.3%
Killeen Texas 112,434 6.5%
Port St. Lucie Fla. 151,391 6.3%
Gilbert Ariz. 207,550 5.8%
Clarksville Tenn. 119,284 4.8%
Denton Texas 115,506 4.7%

There is also the demographic shift in South that is contributing to massive change in identity. Most still stereotype Southerners as “traditional agrarian whites.” The South is actually home to almost 50% of the nation’ s American-African community, also, there is a migration of Hispanics into the region as well.

US Census Bureau,

Census Bureau-(Hispanics) This ethnic group was the most mobile of the four discussed here as 56 percent changed residence during the five-year period; the South and the Midwest recorded net gains while the West and the Northeast showed net losses; Florida recorded the largest net gain among states (92,000) while Clark County, Nev. (56,000), led all counties.

The South is also growing economically, maintaining its viability through the housing bust into the credit crunch. Although, not immune from its effects, the Southern economy has proven a certain amount of resiliency from the present economic turmoil. Almost two-thirds of the fastest growing counties were in the Southern United States.

Despite the a vast shift in the economic, demographic, and sociological makeup in the South these simple facts seem to allude to the pundits and political scientists. There is almost a blatant relishment, on their part, that the South has somehow faltered in its political power.

From the NY Times,

NY Times-That could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixon in which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics — which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South — appears to have ended.

“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.

Furthermore, there is the stereotypical argument that voters in the South are ignorant Confederates, who will only vote Republican due to racist views and lack of education.

NY Times-One reason for that is that the South is no longer a solid voting bloc. Along the Atlantic Coast, parts of the “suburban South,” notably Virginia and North Carolina, made history last week in breaking from their Confederate past and supporting Mr. Obama. Those states have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years, pointing them in a different political direction than states farther west, like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and Appalachian sections of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Of course an analysis done by the Public Policy Polling shed a little more light on why Obama received his increased support among White constituents in Southern states. The abandonment "Confederate mindset," which had been done many years earlier, had little or nothing do with it. Some in the South, like many portions of the US, succumbed to fears concerning the future of the economy.

Public Policy Polling-Economy, Economy, Economy. Among white voters in North Carolina who list it as their top issue Obama is actually up 48-46. In Florida Obama has the same 48-46 lead with whites most concerned about the economy. In Virginia it’s a 49-46 advantage.

With these factors in mind it would behoove the President-elect to look towards the South for future political gains. Alienating this region with its growing demographic support and approaching it with a West Coast or North East frame of mind could be a severe mistake.

With states such as California and New York suffering major blows to their economies. It is feasible to assume that an increased number of people holding hourly wage jobs could potentially migrate to states with more stable economic situations (i.e. The South). Coupling this migration with the large representation of minorities in this area, there will inevitably be an increase in the number of electoral votes allocated to each Southern state. Eroding the Democratic lock on California and New York, which contributes a significant number of electoral votes to their cause.

By ignoring this region, Democrats are offering a grand opportunity for GOP strategists to capitalize on. Republicans, as of now, are shifting the dynamic of the GOP and an outreach to minority communities is high on the priority list and they are already firmly rooted in the South. Combining this with white support could solidify the base of the GOP even further and represent a return to a "New Southern Strategy," which could work in favor of conservatives.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

On the Hill (Markos Moulitsas, KOS, on Harry Reid)

Moulitsas is often a mired in foolishness and seldom makes any sense. I guess this can be expected of a Juris Doctor. On this one, like his rants at the KOS, he doesn't disappoint.

From The Hill.com,

The Hill.com-Sure, Senate Republicans are in the minority for at least one more cycle. And it’s true that their conference is over 10 percent smaller than it was in the last Congress. But the GOP has retained its ace in the hole: Harry Reid is still majority leader.

Reid (Nev.) took the helm in 2006 after his Democrats overcame a 10-seat deficit in the Senate, but the new majority immediately began frittering away its mandate through embarrassing displays of obsequiousness to George W. Bush and the Republican minority in Congress. From Iraq to the FISA battle to the financial-industry bailout, Democratic promises of effective governance were sacrificed to the capricious whims of an incompetent president and his congressional enablers.

His first mistake was expecting effective governance from the Democrats. The second was expecting effecting governance from a caucus whose leadership includes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The Senate’s handling of the $700 billion financial giveaway prior to the election was pathetic, with the majority handing Bush a blank check for his pals on Wall Street. Yet just a few weeks later, Senate Republicans were able to block approval of a $14 billion loan to the Big Three Detroit automakers — a bid to break the back of the United Auto Workers that recklessly threatened the health of the broader American economy.

Did Reid blast Republicans for playing chicken with the millions of jobs dependent on our domestic auto industry? Of course not. He responded by praising Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, leader of the union-busting effort.

Union busting effort? This whole deal, as pointed out here about 20 times was hinged on $3/hour less in wage until the Big 3 become financially stable. How's about a middle-class protection effort? Nary a mention of any of that in any publication I have so far read concerning this particular issue. The only talking point you hear about is how a Detroit failure will cause the loss of millions of jobs. Another government scare tactic playing upon people's uncertainties to protect organized labor.

What is glossed over is how people's taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for the Stimulus Package I, the $700 billion bailout for the robber barons, and the Stimulus Package II being proposed by the President-elect. They don't want you thinking about that now do they?

Moulitsas, like many of his fellow Progressive colleagues, are being intellectually disingenuous by leaving out this little fact. All they see is the opportunity provided by votes from big labor to further their agendas. Although, that comes with a price. After all, how can the government forget about a $1billion lobbying campaign by the likes of the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win Federation and not pay that back?

Yet Reid’s acquiescence flows in one direction only. When Democratic activists pleaded that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) be stripped of a committee chairmanship after campaigning for John McCain and other Republicans in 2008, Reid refused in the name of “unity.” But “unity” was easily cast aside when Reid applauded Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-Ind.) plan for a Blue Dog-style caucus in the Senate. Both moves are great news for Republicans — they keep their mole inside Democratic ranks, while Democrats fragment their majority.

What a balance in the political spectrum of the Democratic Party? Oh no the horror!! God forbid that anyone would dare step in the way of the Progressive juggernaut. Of course it would be "disingenuous" of me if I did not point out that the GOP is afflicted, at times, with the same problems. Its Far-Right has demonstrated this towards RINO's.

Harry Reid to put it mildly, is a twit. But based on this read his acquiescence is not the only one who flows in one direction.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

California AG Reverses Personal Opposition to Prop 8

The California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, is urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the ban on gay marriage. This is actually a reversal of position for the AG who originally supported the ban.

From Yahoo News,

SAN FRANCISCO – The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
Jerry Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.

After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative in his role as attorney general, even though he personally voted against it. read more...

Being a hate-mongering, homophobic, red-neck, Right-Winger, I am against gay marriage. However, what I find more disheartening, is the California AG caving to pressure and reversing his position. The voters of Cali. spoke, they don't want it. Let it be until the next opportunity for ballots to be presented to the public.

In the mean time the Homosexual community should continue its campaign to attempt to sway the voters consciousness. Vandalizing Mormon churches is not going to help their cause though.

Peaceful protest and presenting your case to the constituency is the way to go. It may take a little more time. Nevertheless, in the long run, the rulings would be more respected than incisive whining, badgering, and feet stamping. This makes this gay community look like children, which they are acting like.

UPDATE: Just minutes after posting this article I came upon an interesting post by Trig Palin Twoofer, Andrew Sullivan. It seems that Ole' Sullie is on his meds and had a moment of serene clarity. Unknowing to me, I was echoing his sentiments. Ugh, scary world we live in sometimes. Here is his thought.

The Atlantic-The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.

It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way. read more...

Still doesn't change my mind, but, I can at least respect the sentiment for honest dialogue. Too bad, Sullivan is usually loopier than an inmate in an asylum.

Continue reading ...