This is a problem for the White House, and it’s why President Obama uses every opportunity to tell Americans, “If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.”

Unfortunately for Obama, Americans don’t believe him. Why? Maybe because he’s done nothing to back it up. Propaganda czar Linda Douglass’ “reality check” video is comical in that her defense of “You can keep your own insurance” cites nothing but Obama’s own statements as evidence — as if he’s an independent arbiter.

The Heritage Foundation (where I work) last month asked The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact of H.R. 3200 on private insurance. Lewin reported 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. The chart below reveals the consequences for people living in Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

As you can see, Obama’s rhetoric simply doesn’t add up when the numbers are crunched. It’ll take more than repetition from White House to sway the American people on this one.

Politicians are usually known for kissing babies. But not R. Creigh Deeds. The Democrat candidate for Virginia governor is attacking Republican Bob McDonnell’s pro-life views in a desperate attempt to woo female voters and excite his liberal base. Tomorrow he will rally with NARAL to promote his pro-abortion position.

Deeds previewed his attack for the Washington Post, telling the newspaper, “I think it’s an area that shows a clear distinction between us.”

At a time when McDonnell is talking about Virginia’s ailing economy, transportation problems and education, it’s somewhat surprising that Deeds is embracing a divisive issue. It’s a gamble that even the liberal Post dubbed “risky.”

The previous two Democrat candidates for governor largely ignored social issues to focus on the economy and transportation. But neither Mark Warner nor current Gov. Tim Kaine faced the same kind of lackluster support that Deeds seems to be experiencing. A recent SurveyUSA poll put McDonnell ahead with a commanding 15-point advantage, including a 60% to 35% edge among self-described political independents.

McDonnell dismissed the abortion attack. His campaign circulated a memo from campaign chairman Ed Gillespie that said McDonnell’s “views on life are consistent with his faith and his belief that innocent life should be protected.” The memo also criticized Deeds for failing to put forward solutions on bread-and-butter issues:

Perhaps that’s because Creigh Deeds’ polices would destroy jobs in Virginia, while Bob McDonnell’s would create them. Perhaps it’s because Deeds has a 94% lifetime rating from big labor unions and has promised to make them a “partner” in governing Virginia, while Bob has a 91% rating from Virginia’s small business owners. Perhaps it’s because Deeds can’t come up with a funding plan for new and better roads and dances around the reality that he’s going to raise taxes if he gets elected, while Bob has a detailed plan to improve transportation without raising taxes. Or perhaps it’s because he’s having a hard time getting his supporters off their duffs, while Bob has thousands of energetic volunteers rallying friends and neighbors to his positive agenda for Virginia.

Deeds came from behind to win the Democrat nomination over better-funded Terry McAuliffe and better-connected Brian Moran, proving that no deficit is too big for him to overcome.

Democrats, however, could be suffering from fatigue after flipping the state to Barack Obama last year. In local elections this year in Northern Virginia, a Republican candidate won a county board seat in Democrat-leaning Fairfax County, and two Republicans were elected in liberal Alexandria. Republicans nearly toppled heavily favored Democrats in two other Northern Virginia elections. The two victories and two close elections appear to have energized the GOP base.

Call it Barack Obama backlash. Yesterday, as I knocked on doors for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, I encountered a variety of interesting folks. Many were willing to listen, some were desperately seeking alternatives to the Democrat Party, and, in a handful of cases, a few were eager to share their astonishment at the leftward direction of America.

How this bodes for McDonnell’s campaign in November will depend on how well he motivates these voters to pull the lever in an off-year election. One woman, who told me she was a Republican, confessed she doesn’t vote in non-presidential years, reflecting one of the challenges for McDonnell. Yesterday, however, she was in the minority. Obama seems to have angered so many people that even his supporters are having second thoughts just 200 days into his presidency.

I was knocking on the doors of voters in a Fairfax County community who have voted in Republican primaries or who lack of clear party identification. That meant I ran into a sizable number of individuals who told me they supported Obama last November, including one female Obama voter who was eager to learn more about the GOP ticket of McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli, who is running for attorney general.

Three people I met yesterday were so excited to talk they came outside and had my ear for 10 minutes each. One was a state employee who said morale under Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine is at an all-time low among his colleagues. Another said she immigrated from Eastern Europe more than 50 years ago and now fears for America’s drift toward socialism. A third said he was frustrated that no Republicans are making a convincing case in opposition to Obama — but he hopes McDonnell emerges as one.

In this Democrat-leaning suburb of Fairfax County, I was surprised by the reaction. Having gone door-to-door for a county-wide race in February, the attitude of voters has shifted markedly since then. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Just look at what the Washington Post reported last week in an amazing front-page article:

Stephanie Slater, 44, a neighbor of [Chris Ann] Cleland’s who leans Republican, voted for Obama on the strength of his character and because of his positions on education, energy and health care. She recalled brimming with confidence after Obama’s historic inaugural address.

“When he gave that speech that day, I was in awe. I was really inspired and thought, ‘Wow, this is a guy who can do it,’ ” said Slater, a medical transcriptionist and mother of three.

But she has been disturbed by the large Wall Street bonuses that Obama doesn’t seem to be able to halt and his inability to rein in credit card companies that raise rates even on those with good credit. Although she is trying to be patient, she said she is losing faith in the Democrats running Washington.

“Honestly, at this point, I have to say I’m worried. I haven’t come across one person that seems to have been helped,” she said. “If I don’t see a spark, a light at the end of the tunnel, I may be voting Republican [for governor].”

It’s people like Slater who will determine the outcome on Election Day. But we can’t count on Obama anxiety alone to result in GOP victories.

There are still 80-some days until Nov. 3 and much work to be done in Virginia. If you’re like me and want to bring change to Richmond, get involved by signing up for McDonnell Action.

President Obama today hailed passage of a Democrat-sponsored bill in the Senate HELP Committee as a positive development in his quest to impose government-run health care on America. He even had the gall to suggest it was a bipartisan bill — despite the fact not a single Republican voted for it.

It’s a plan that was debated for more than 50 hours and that, by the way, includes 160 Republican amendments — a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product, if people are serious about bipartisanship.

Obama’s claim about the 160 mostly technical amendments is easily discredited. Amendments that fixed missing commas and misspelled words do not adequately reflect Republican ideas. But because Obama is so hell-bent on producing a bill before his own arbitrary August deadline, the White House has resorted to stretching the truth and manipulating the facts.

Obama conveniently forgot to mention that today’s 13-10 vote didn’t include a single Republican supporter. But in this White House, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is literally redefining the meaning of “bipartisanship” to suit Obama’s goal. Last time I checked the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or even Wikipedia, bipartisan meant something that reflected agreement from both political parities. Apparently for Emanuel, it’s something entirely different.

Emanuel, making a theoretical case for a party-line vote, offered a definition of bipartisanship based not on roll-call votes but on whether Democrats have accepted Republican ideas during the process of negotiations.

He said Democrats already have passed that test, pointing to Republican amendments that the Democratic-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has adopted.

“That’s a test of bipartisanship — whether you took ideas from both parties,” Emanuel said. “At the end of the day, the test isn’t whether they voted for it,” he said, referring to Republicans. “The test is whether the final product represented some of their ideas. And I think it will.”

Anyone who objectively looks at the debate in the Senate HELP Committee is unlikely to side with Obama and Emanuel despite their best attempts to alter the definition. Here are the facts about your “bipartisan” bill, Mr. President:

• 13 days of markup.
• 53 total roll call votes.
• Of the 53 roll call votes, 45 were on Republican amendments.
• 2 of the 45 roll call votes on Republican amendments were successful: 1) allowing biologic drugs derived from living cells, and 2) mandating members of Congress and congressional staff enroll in the government-run plan.
• Total amendments filed: 788
• Of those, 67 were Democrat amendments and 721 were Republican amendments.
• Total amendments agreed to: 197
• Of those, 36 were Democrat amendments and 161 were Republican amendments.
• Of the 161 Republican amendments, 132 were technical.
• Of the 36 Democrat amendments, 9 were technical.
• Total amendments failed: 51
• Of those, 2 were Democrat amendments and 49 were Republican amendments.

Why so many amendments from the Republicans? They never saw the nearly 700-page bill before it was introduced. And at the end of the day, most of the 160 amendments were technical — hardly something Obama can chalk up as bipartisanship.

Is the White House’s well-oiled communications machine coming undone less than six months after President Obama took office?

Based on the past few days of mounting criticism regarding Obama’s top achievement — passage of the $787 billion stimulus — it appears that cracks are beginning to form. The administration wants to avoid distractions from its quest for government-run health care, but the mismanaged stimulus, combined with 9.5% unemployment, make it difficult.

Conservatives should not let this opportunity go to waste.

It started last Thursday with news that unemployment reached its highest level in 26 years. Vice President Joe Biden’s admission Sunday that the administration “misread the economy” prompted Obama to interrupt his scripted Russia trip to clarify Biden’s gaffe. “Rather than say ‘misread,’ we had incomplete information,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

There was more bad news today with a Government Accountability Report that contradicted Obama’s own statements about the stimulus. The GAO report even prompted the president’s die-hard supporters at the Center for American Progress to disagree with Obama whether the stimulus should be used to prevent layoffs or pay for longer-term projects to boost the economy.

Perhaps the strongest signal that the administration is nervous came yesterday afternoon when Biden’s office announced a panicked trip to Ohio in the wake of new polling from Quinnipiac University. Obama’s approval rating in Ohio over the past two months dropped from 62% to 49%. It took an even bigger dip among Ohio independents, falling from 59 percent to 38 percent. The president’s ratings on the economy are even worse.

Meanwhile, Republicans are capitalizing on the administration’s missteps by directing their fire at the stimulus.

“This is the greatest fabrication I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said of Obama’s claim that he had “incomplete information” about the economy. Boehner has made a mockery of the stimulus by enlisting a bloodhound to track down jobs.

At a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) accused the administration of having “rigged the game in its own favor” by repeatedly citing the “jobs saved” claim Obama loves to trumpet.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), chairman of the House Republican Conference, attacked Obama’s July 1 claim that the stimulus had “done its job” in a new web video that promotes a GOP alternative.

Unlike other issues where Republicans capitulated, the stimulus passed the House without a single GOP vote. Now is the time to hang this around Obama’s neck and watch him sink.

All it took was a video camera, 10,000 pennies and a little creativity. The result was a viral video that earned 28-year-old Matthias Shapiro of Utah the first-ever “Grassroots Logic Award” from the Republican National Committee.

Shapiro’s videos, which use pennies to put into context President Obama’s spending, earned him a trip to Washington, D.C., today. His most popular video, which is nearing 1 million views on YouTube, was released April 24 and mocked Obama’s measly $100 million budget cuts in comparison to the $3.5 trillion budget. A link from National Review’s Jonah Goldberg helped propel the self-described “math geek” to stardom — at least in the eyes of conservatives and libertarians frustrated by Obama’s appetite for government spending.

Last month Republican National Chairman Michael Steele released a video praising Shapiro’s work. He invited him to Washington so he could honor him.

Steele made good on his promise at a ceremony this morning at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill. Shapiro traveled to Washington to collect the award and brief Senate Republicans about his work. (Not bad for someone who was completely unknown to the political world a few months ago.) There’s more coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Today’s event might very well be a turning point for the notoriously stodgy RNC. I’ve been a tough critic of Steele, but I give him credit for opening his arms and embracing Shapiro.

“When I first saw his 10,000 Pennies video, I thought to myself, ‘Damn, that’s good. That’s really good,’” Steele said today. “I thought it was important to bring him and his wife to Washington so they could teach some of our friends on the Hill exactly what it’s like in the real world and exactly how the real world is understanding and appreciating what all of the spending means, what the deficits mean, and what a penny as a representation of that really adds up to.”

By embracing Shapiro, the RNC is clearly hoping to inspire others to engage in the same kind of entrepreneurial grassroots activism that will revitalize the GOP. Steele deserves credit for recognizing the potential and rewarding good work.

Now comes the hard part: Who’s next?

Check out all of Matthias Shapiro’s videos on his 10,000 Pennies channel on YouTube. A video of today’s ceremony is below.

The following 11 slides should be a staple of conservative efforts to counter Obama’s budget. As you can see, 95% of Americans will not get a tax cut. Families will actually have a net tax increase of $800 after they pay for Obama’s cap-and-trade program. But perhaps the most dramatic chart from Ryan is the depiction showing the doubling of the national debt and the pace at which it increases compared to President Bush’s tenure.

This weekend when Obama’s troops mobilize by going door-to-door in support of his budget proposal, make sure you’re armed with this set of charts to rebut their rhetoric.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who attended a private high school and sent his kids to private school, inserted a provision in the $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill that puts the program in jeopardy. An amendment offered by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) would have stripped the language, but the Senate defeated it tonight, 58-39.

The 58 senators included four Republicans: Mike Crapo (R-ID), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Their action tonight doesn’t end the program, but makes it much more difficult for 1,700 mostly poor black students to achieve the educational dreams that these scholarships offer.

Remember the names of the 58 senators below. Tonight they voted against 9-year-olds Breanna and De’Andre, 11-year-old Paul, 12-year-olds Fransoir and Sakeithia, 14-year-old Dominique, and 16-year-old Rashawn. Shame on them.

Democrat leaders tried in vain to prevent amendments to the omnibus. But it was ultimately three of their own — Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) — who put Reid in the awkward position of canceling tomorrow’s vote.

The delay opens the door for a fight to preserve the Opportunity Scholarship Program for more than 1,700 low-income students in Washington, D.C. Democrat-drafted language in the omnibus would abruptly end the scholarships by requiring reauthorization by the D.C. Council, sending the mostly poor, black students back to underperforming public schools.

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has introduced an amendment, set to be debated and voted on Monday evening, to strike the killer language. Early today, Ensign joined other Republicans and D.C. scholarship recipients to voice support for the scholarships:

The $7,500 scholarships are the best thing that’s happened for District of Columbia students in the past decade — and one of the best investments Congress has made in education reform. Demand for the scholarships is so high that there are four applicants for each voucher, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the words of scholarship recipients, who have turned their attention to President Barack Obama in hopes he will rebuff the congressional Democrats’ vote to kill the $14 million program yesterday.

Leave it to liberals to pull the rug out from these struggling families. Without a scholarship, these students — 99% of whom are minorities — won’t be able to afford the private schools where President Barack Obama and members of Congress send their children. Scholarship recipients come from families with mere $23,000 annual income on average.

The threat posed to the Opportunity Scholarship Program is also an attack on the broader school choice movement — one that Obama spoke favorably of Tuesday when he promised to “open doors of opportunity for our children.” Failing to save the D.C. program will give liberals the impetus to attack successful school choice efforts elsewhere.

The scholarship program has the support of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who is trying to reform city’s notorious public school system, plagued by years of poor performance.

Not only is the program giving poor families hope for the future, it’s also a good value. As Andrew J. Coulson of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, explains in today’s New York Post:

The vouchers are worth an average of $6,000; last year, the District was spending $24,600 per student. If you could save 75 percent on a purchase, get the same or better quality of service, and know you’d be happier with the result, wouldn’t you do it? … It seems congressional Democrats would not.

For a party that claims to look out for the little guy, this is a clear sign that well-funded teachers’ unions (a major source of Democrat campaign cash) are really running the show. Putting this provision in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill without a single congressional hearing and no debate is an outrage.

The 1,800 students who participate in the program deserve the same educational opportunities as Sasha and Malia. How their father reacts will indicate if he’s going to kowtow to union politics or fulfill his promise to “open doors of opportunity for our children.”

Wall Street’s negative reaction to Obama is nothing new. Ever since Election Day, Obama’s words have failed to inspire investors. “When the President speaks, the market listens … and crumbles,” said Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins, who outlined the following pattern of the Dow’s drop after notable Obama addresses:

• Nov. 5, 2008 (Wednesday after Election Day): -486 (5.0%)
• Jan. 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on “need” for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)
• Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)
• Feb. 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, “an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe”): -382 (4.6%)
• Feb. 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on Feb. 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, “The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny.”): -298 (3.8%)
• Feb. 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)
• Feb. 25, 2009 (one day after Obama’s first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%)

The Sunlight Foundation is spearheading an effort to convince Congress it should put the legislation online for public review at least 72 hours before its final consideration. Sunlight also wants President Barack Obama to keep his campaign promise of posting the bill five days before he signs it into law.

It is unclear when Obama will begin fulfilling his pledge for the five-day public comment period. Two pieces of legislation — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and State Children’s Health Insurance Program — weren’t considered emergencies, yet Obama failed to wait the five days he promised. Spokesman Tommy Vietor gave this lame excuse: “We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.”

The only emergency facing the stimulus is the public’s growing dislike for it. Obama and his liberal cohorts know the longer it faces scrutiny, the more likely it is to sink under its own weight.

From the start of the stimulus debate, conservatives have challenged Obama to live up to his transparency talk. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor secured an early pledge from the president to track the stimulus spending in real time. Given the size and scope of the bill, Americans should demand time to scrutinize its contents — before Congress votes and before Obama signs it into law.

Few issues unite conservatives and liberals like government transparency. Obama’s failure to deliver will disappoint not just his harshest critics but also his staunchest allies. Send the White House an email reminding Obama of his promise.

The nominee, James B. Steinberg, was defending Obama’s repeal of the Mexico City Policy in response to a question from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The answer, which DeMint posted on his blog, is fresh evidence that Obama is stocking his administration with left-wing ideologues whose views contrast with the tone Obama has sought to portray during his first week in office.

Here’s a transcript of the written exchange (emphasis added):

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

DeMint maintains that Steinberg’s stance conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991, which concluded: “The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion.”

Despite a promise from President-elect Barack Obama to listen to Republican ideas, the plan distributed by House Democrats today includes not a single GOP proposal. House Republican Leader John Boehner wasn’t even consulted:

This is the first time Republicans and the American people have seen any specifics on the proposal congressional Democrats intend to pass, and what we’re seeing is disappointing. The plan released this morning by congressional Democrats was developed with no Republican input and appears to be grounded in the flawed notion that we can simply borrow and spend our way back to prosperity. It calls for more than half a trillion dollars in questionable new government spending on programs and projects, while providing less tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses than President-elect Obama has proposed.

An initial review of the “stimulus” by Boehner’s office found these spending proposals:

• $600 million for new cars for the federal government
• $1 billion “to minimize undercounting of minority groups” in the 2010 census
• $400 million for NASA for global warming
• $400 million for “National Treasures”
• $6 billion for colleges/universities, many of which have massive billion dollar endowments
• $166 billion in direct aid to states, many of which have failed to budget wisely
• $650 million more for digital television conversation coupons

Liberals like to say the New Deal programs of their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression. All of that government spending, they argue, gave Americans jobs and boosted the economy.

The numbers don’t tell the same story. As I explained last week, unemployment data from the 1930s — during FDR’s first two terms — remained above 20% despite New Deal spending. Liberals criticized the data used by my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation, arguing we didn’t account for the entire workforce.

As the new chart clearly shows, even when prisoners, government relief workers and the institutionalized are accounted for, unemployment follows the same pattern — and remains much higher than the normal unemployment rate of 5.5%. Conservatives shouldn’t shy away from this fight. Government spending alone will not revive the economy.

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is bringing together a star-studded cast for Thursday’s testimony. The hearing comes a week after Democrats held their own gathering on Capitol Hill with five sympathetic witnesses who promoted an economic stimulus package focused on government spending.

Cantor called the hearing at 10 a.m. Thursday at Obama’s invitation to present alternative viewpoints about promoting economic growth. He has also opened his website to public comments and encouraged citizens to submit questions via YouTube. (In addition to posting on YouTube, you can send the raw video file to gopwhip@gmail.com.)

Conservatives are becoming increasingly skeptical about Obama’s plan given its large price tag. My colleagues at The Heritage Foundation have outlined an alternative proposal that would create or save 3.6 million jobs — nearly as many as Obama has outlined under his plan. The difference, however, would be its approach. Rather than boosting government spending for infrastructure projects, Congress would reduce tax rates on individuals, small businesses and corporations through 2013 and extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Here’s an explanation from Heritage economist Bill Beach:

A week ago I laid out the case against Michael Steele for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Tonight the candidate himself called me to talk about my criticism and his vision for the GOP.

As I said last week, Steele is an articulate spokesman who is the most recognized candidate in the race. Those are much-needed qualities. However, his actions and associations made me very skeptical. Our conversation certainly made me less concerned, but it hasn’t change my mind about the race. I support Ken Blackwell for chairman.

“The Republican Party is running away from conservatism,” Steele told me today. He explained that Republicans talk fondly about Ronald Reagan, but they have failed to translate his principles for a new generation. He also criticized GOP leaders for not fighting back against a biased press corps that portrays the party as racist and opposed to middle-class values.

Steele addressed his work with liberal Republican Christie Todd Whitman to create the Republican Leadership Council. He said he resigned his post when the organization began targeting Republicans in primaries. “I was trying to bring moderates and conservatives together on areas of agreement,” Steele said.

I questioned him about his decision not to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge during his U.S. Senate race in 2006. He stood by the decision, but said he would be the last person to support a tax hike. “I’ve walked the walk,” he told me, citing his conservative credentials and pro-life views. (Contrary to published reports, Steele opposes an exemption in cases of rape and incest and danger to the life of the mother.)

Steele also clarified his role in former Rep. Wayne Gilchrist’s (R-Md.) primary fight against conservative Andy Harris. Steele appeared at a Gilchrist fundraiser with Newt Gingrich, but was adamant he did not endorse the congressman. After Harris won the primary, Gilchrist played sore loser and backed Harris’ Democrat opponent. Steele called the move “cheap, embarrassing and unbecoming.”

Reflecting on our conversation today, I came to the conclusion that Steele sees himself as the inclusive candidate in the race for chairman. His past behavior, his endorsements and his willingness to reach out to me signal that he wants to broaden the reach of the Republican Party.

One other thing occurred to me. Steele is only 50-years-old and would make an excellent candidate for office in Maryland in years to come. Although things didn’t work out for him in 2006, he was hardly the only Republican to face an uphill battle. He might be better suited to run for Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s seat should she decided to retire or challenge Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The first major policy battle of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration will set the tone for the next year for the Republican minority. With that in mind, House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is pulling out the big guns.

Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will testify at 10 a.m. Thursday at a hearing on Obama’s economic stimulus ideas. Romney brings to the table business experience from his days at Bain Capital. He’s also known for his effective management of the Salt Lake City Olympics, which he rescued from scandal and disarray.

Cantor has put together the hearing at Obama’s invitation for Republicans to offer their ideas for stimulating economic growth. Democrats held their own hearing last week open only to committee chairman and five sympathetic witnesses.

Republicans want to take the conversation a step further. Cantor has invited citizens to submit their suggestions for promoting economic growth. He’s opened his website for public comments and asked Americans to use YouTube to record videos with their ideas. (In addition to posting on YouTube, you can send the raw video file to gopwhip@gmail.com.)

Cantor cannot fight this battle alone. For conservatives to have any chance of stopping Obama’s shovel-ready stimulus, they will need to engage in this battle. Sending your video submissions is a critical component. If you need need ideas, I’d strongly encourage you to read the work of my Heritage Foundation colleagues about tax relief and budget reform.

Cantor has made transparency an important factor in the economic stimulus debate. Earlier in the week, he challenged Obama to create a real-time online ledger of the stimulus spending.

For conservatives to successfully fight the bad ideas in Obama’s plan, they will need alternative ideas of their own. My colleagues at The Heritage Foundation have identified tax relief and budget reform as two places to start. Now Cantor wants to know what you have to say. Send him a comment or record your own video.