There is a big call that will happen tonight among Pennsylvania Republican Party Executive Committee members. I’m hearing there will probably be over 100 people involved.

If you know your local party chair, I encourage you to call that person and tell them to get behind Pat Toomey.

The Politico is running a story today that suggests the PAGOP establishment and the NRSC are trying to get Jim Gerlach to run against Toomey (Ridge is not interested in running). Gerlach could hurt Toomey in the primary, but he cannot win the primary.

Call your Pennsylvania GOP representatives and demand they unite behind Toomey.

The tea party movement is in danger of imploding.

Go re-read that first sentence again please.

The implosion is not because there is no momentum. It is not because there is no desire for more. It is not because of a lack of enthusiasm. To be clear, there is plenty of enthusiasm, plenty of desire for more, and plenty of momentum.

The tea party movement is in danger of implosion because like many truly grassroots movements, there are a host of competing egos and entities all claiming the title of “leader” and in the desire to be leader, they are not willing to work with each other. Some are using it to advance their own agendas. Some entities, which otherwise are known for nothing, have tried to claim the tea party movement as their own. Other groups, which do massively good work and just want to help, are being shut out by the so called grassroots leaders who want all the glory and are deeply suspicious of credible organizations willing to help.

The tea party movement was and is a truly organic movement. The moment the left started screaming that they were astroturf, however, some of the new organizers ran as far away from the professional organizations willing to help out as they possibly could. That was a mistake. As I mentioned, there are some organizations out to establish themselves on the backs of the tea party activists. But there are many established organizations that are simply willing to help out with forms, insurance, technology, etc.

At the same time, a number of the individuals involved in the movement have deemed themselves indispensable to the effort. No one is indispensable and those who think they are should be driven off the stage. The indispensable people are those who showed up to the protests, giving up hours on the job or time with families. And the so called leaders of the movement will fail the movement when they begin to think this effort is about them and not about the people and the passion.

I would suggest all the players sit down and see if they can get some focus. If not, the movement will be hijacked. It should not come to that when there is as much passion as there is. So what is my suggestion?

Stop having tea parties and launch a coup. Go below the fold to find out what I mean.

Read More →

Not waiting for the RNC to lead, House, Senate, and Gubernatorial Republicans have decided to unite and form a new organization to speak with one message. It is very similar to that which Haley Barbour did in 1993-1994. In fact, Haley Barbour is involved in this effort.

Called the National Council For A New America, Congressional Republicans tell me they “hope that it will form the foundation of a concerted, policy-based forum to listen to, partner with, and empower the American people with ideas and solutions that speak directly to the needs of our great nation.” It is not, interestingly enough, a fund raising vehicle.

More importantly, the major players intend to get all the big players and big egos in the same room and on the same page to combat Obama with one voice. Hopefully that will last. While they are trying to cast it as bipartisan, I don’t think anyone is going to treat it that way. What people should see is Republicans recognizing the precariousness of their position and that they are committed to doing something about it.

That Bobby JIndal, Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush have all signed on should be very encouraging to very many people.

Below the fold, you can be the first to read the letter that will be going out tomorrow.

Read More →

My friend Erik Telford sent this on to me and I want to make sure you all see it. It is definitely worth participating in if you can:

New York Senator Chuck Schumer recently said that “the American people don’t really care” about the wasteful pork-barrel spending that is sinking us dangerously into debt, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has told critics to “get a life!”

It’s time to send a message to Senators Schumer and Reid that enough is enough! American citizens DO care, we DO have lives and families, and we’re fed up with policies that mortgage our futures and rob us of our economic liberties.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Heritage Foundation have launched a joint project called Stop Spending Our Future to provide average Americans with the opportunity to speak up and make their voices heard over the widespread outrage to record-breaking debt spending.

Visit www.StopSpendingOurFuture.org to speak up, make a difference, and maybe even stimulate your own economy by participating in one of our four contests with $5,000 in prize money.

As a result of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid so-called “stimulus,” your portion of the national debt increased by $9,400. All three have stated that they want the money spent as quickly as possible; creating a situation that is ripe for waste, fraud and abuse.

The government has already pledged more than $3.8 trillion in its attempt to solve this economic crisis, that’s more than the cost of World War II. As though that’s not enough, the government has committed to spend trillions more over the next few years, which will bring the grand total to a staggering $11.6 trillion in new spending. That’s more than 26 times the size of the New Deal.

We will not stop this spending spree with policy wonks and talking heads. It takes average Americans – just like you – to tell the stories of how this record spending and erosion of individual economic liberty will impact you, your family, and your children’s future. 

Visit www.StopSpendingOurFuture.org and speak out!  

P.S. The four contests include:

• Make a Video| What’s your biggest frustration about the government’s appetite for more spending in the midst of the tough economic climate? The top 5 submissions will each receive a prize in the amount of $500.

• Write a Letter | Explain how you feel about the debt via a letter that your child, grandchild, or great-grandchild will open 30 years from now? The top 5 submissions will each receive a prize in the amount of $250.

• Give It a Name| Convey the threat of government over-spending and/or excessive debt using 10 words or less. The single best idea-as voted on by visitors to this website-will receive $250 and be the basis for a new video.

• Spread the Word| Tell the story of the historic Taxpayer Tea Parties by submitting pictures or video from a Tea Party that you attended. The best entry will be selected for a prise of $1,000.

We should not be surprised.

Goldman Sachs’ new top lobbyist was recently the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. Michael Paese, a registered lobbyist for the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association since he left Frank’s committee in September, will join Goldman as director of government affairs, a role held last year by former Tom Daschle intimate, Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department.

The incestuous relationship between Goldman Sachs and government is as bipartisan as it is seedy, but it is particularly noxious that GS would hire the former staffer of a man committed to destroying the free market.

I wonder if, like General Electric, Goldman has decided if it whores itself enough to the Democrats, the Democrats might keep it in bed with them.

In what I can only believe is coordination with the Senate GOP Leadership because everyone is on the exact same talking point, I am more than a little disappointed with the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the Republican commentariat.

The other day, Senator Jim DeMint told Arlen Specter that DeMint would be backing Toomey. Somehow he is to blame for Specter jumping to his natural party. Nevermind that Specter’s staff says it is because Specter can’t win a Republican primary.

And it is not just that. Everyone from Ramesh Ponnuru to Michael Barone to the Wall Street Journal is collectively wringing their hands about the selfish conservatives and Club for Growth wanting to remain an ideologically pure minority party that can’t win the majority because it shuts out squishes.

That’s garbage and they should know it.

Read More →

Will the NRSC staff push former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to get into the Pennsylvania primary against Pat Toomey?

It would not surprise me to learn that they are leaning that way, convinced that Pat Toomey cannot win, but someone a close friend of George W. Bush and a pro-abort candidate can win.

People seem to forget that Pat Toomey, while in Congress, regularly won a district that leaned Democrat.

Ridge is the only Republican who makes Specter appear conservative. He is pro-abortion, anti-school choice, and pro-tax. He was also not exactly stellar as Secretary of Homeland Security, though the present Secretary there makes him look sharp in contrast.

If the NRSC were to come out in favor of a pro-choice Bushie in Pennsylvania, it would be suicide for their fundraising efforts among conservatives.

If so, and you want a refund, call him at (202) 224-4254 and demand your money back.

Why don’t you do the same?

Courtesy of the House Republican Conference.

I’ve polled readers. It seems the best date for a RedState get together in Georgia will be August 1, 2009.

I have no details and have made no plans. I have no idea how many people will wind up coming. I’ll work on some way for people to register. If we have a lot, we’ll make it a full day affair with some productive people coming to speak — that’s my hope.

But mark your calendar for August 1, 2009. Let’s get the RedState Army together in Atlanta on that day — and yes, let’s do Atlanta because some folks want to fly in and Atlanta is more convenient as a result.

I’ll find a hotel with a good bar or a good bar within walking distance.

Consider this an open thread.

We know, because Joe Biden told us, that the Obama administration expects us to get attacked again domestically.

That’s the working M.O. of this administration: no matter what we do, we’re going to eventually get hit again. The Obama administration views the seven years after 9/11 as more a fluke than a successful strategy by George Bush to prevent domestic terror attacks.

So if the working theory is that we’re going to get hit again, what is the best response? After all, the public does credit George Bush with keeping us safe at 9/11.

The best strategy would look something like taking a band-aid off quickly. Get the pain over fast. And if an attack happens quickly enough into the new administration, they can blame Bush.

So the Obama administration is working hard to release all the memos on interrogations, change all the policies Bush implemented, and clear out the old as fast as possible. Never mind that if it were done slowly over time, our terrorist enemies might not be so incited to attack.

If your working premise is that they are going to attack anyway, get them incited quickly, get it over with, and blame Bush.

There is no other justification for so quickly making us less safe.

On January 10, 2009, Barack Obama delivered his Weekly Address to the Nation as the then President-Elect.

He said

We start this new year in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime. We learned yesterday that in the past month alone, we lost more than half a million jobs – a total of nearly 2.6 million in the year 2008. Another 3.4 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. And families across America are feeling the pinch as they watch debts mount, bills pile up and savings disappear.

Then he went on to say

It’s not too late to change course – but only if we take immediate and dramatic action. Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge, which is why I’ve taken the extraordinary step of working – even before I take office – with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will call for major investments to revive our economy, create jobs, and lay a solid foundation for future growth.

Eight days later, Larry Summers, Barack Obama’s head of the National Economic Council, told the world that Barack Obama would keep unemployment below ten percent.

Incumbent on keeping unemployment below ten percent was Obama’s stimulus plan.

Read More →

Ladies and gentlemen, when Barack Obama succeeds, the country fails. Look no further than this interview with Charlie Gibson:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

There you have it. Barack Obama is not interested in raising revenue to fund the government. He is interested in to keep people from making money — because it is fair.

What’s worse is Obama goes on to prove how terrifically academic he is and has no grounding in real world economics. Gibson challenges him again:

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Put it to you this way Barry: business won’t be going on at all on Wall Street if you jack up the capital gains tax.

The only refreshing thing in this whole exchange is Obama admitting he is not using tax policy to raise revenue, but rather to distribute fairness across socio-economically divergent pools of people.

Other than that, though, it is scary that the guy just over half the nation thought was qualified to be President has zero sense when it comes to fostering a healthy economy.

The U.S. House of Representatives is bogged down in dealing with leftist hate crimes legislation.

Let’s get straight to the punch line:

Congressman Rooney offered an amendment to include veterans as a protected class in hate crimes legislation, but the Democrats voted down the amendment. Here’s Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz denying veterans need any protection:

The Democrats were, however, more willing to consider extending hate crimes protection to pedophiles. That’s not a punch line. That’s just sick.

The other day I asked a very serious question: How Many Americans Will Die Because of Barack Obama’s Weak National Security Leadership?

As I noted at the time and have noted previously,

That Obama is sweeping out career intelligence officers is a clear sign he intends to clear out the policies these intelligence officers advocated and implemented — the very same policies that kept us safe for eight years.

But there is an additional, very serious issue at stake here.

The low level guys, the Jack Bauers if you will, are seeing all of this. They see a President right now who made tough decisions in secret and stood by those decisions when they became public, even though those decisions were hugely unpopular. The low level guys intrinsically knew they could kill bad men in undisclosed locations and be supported if the lights came on.

These same men see the incoming President unwilling to stand behind one of their own — a career CIA officer in John O. Brennan. It is an unspoken message to all of them that should they take the bold action needed to keep freedom secure, they may not be backed up by President Obama should the actions come to light.

They will therefore return to their state of being prior to 9/11. And darkness will again start creeping from the shadows.

Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost. Jake Tapper notes today that people inside the CIA are beginning to bristle at Barack Obama throwing them under the bus.

But some experts say the move could have a chilling effect on the CIA even beyond President Obama’s decision last week to release the so-called “torture memos.”

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs “prurient” and “reprehensible,” Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court. . . .

Lowenthal said the president’s moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on “the undercurrent I’ve been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago.”

“We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they’ve been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong,” Lowenthal says. “They don’t believe they have that cover anymore.”

That is exactly what I have been saying. Compare the left’s treatment of the present information and memoranda to Valerie Plame. She had not been an active spy for some time and the left demanded Bush administration heads for her name coming out.

On the other hand, here we have present employees of the CIA and those who, up until January 20, 2009, were making life and death decisions in the war on terror being publicly outed by the Obama administration and their compatriots in the media.

One can wonder if Obama just hopes these guys get offed by terrorists so he does not have to actually take a bold stand against the Democrats’ intended witch hunt.

The Obama Administration could do no better than it is presently doing to aid and abet our terrorist enemies without actually, you know, supporting them. When CIA agents and our military are no longer willing to do the deeds in darkness that keep us safe domestically, the terrorists will slowly start testing for weaknesses again.

Remember the scene in Jurassic Park where the raptors kept testing the electric fence to see if the power was still on? Barack Obama just turned the power off and issued a press release to tell the world.

How many Americans will die because Barack Obama just can’t help but undermine our national security?

One of our correspondents sent a link to this post on the DC voucher program with a very brilliant idea:

if the Republican Party is serious about doing something to reach out to the black community by making a gesture on behalf of the 1,700 minority kids Obama has consigned to the worst public schools in America, they’d spearhead an effort to revive the DC voucher program using private funds. $15 million is not a tremendous amount of money to raise if RNC chair Michael Steele would throw his weight behind an effort to get it done, and I would suggest every GOP Senator and Congressman could use their fundraising prowess to fill the coffers of a private program replacing the one Obama killed to great effect.

There are 219 Republican members of Congress (House and Senate); raising $15 million if all of them were to get behind the program would require $68,000 or so from each. These guys do that in one dinner on a good night; and raising money for a private charity to fund a DC voucher program wouldn’t be restricted by campaign fundraising limits.

If raising the money could keep the program going, I think the GOP should do it. It’s for a very worth cause.

Pat Toomey is beating Arlen Specter by 21% among Republican Primary voters in Pennsylvania according to Rasmussen.

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

SOURCE

Though I was told I could take credit for this, I really can’t. A friend put it together and I’m going to recirculate it.

When you start vetting Republican candidates, you will inevitably hear some sweet nothing coming from the mouth of one of the candidates attempting to woo you over to side. That candidate might even sound conservative. Want to figure out if the person is or is not a real conservative? Look at the consultants:

Over the last four election cycles, there have been many hotly contested Republican primary contests for the House, Senate, and Governorships. Most of these have been personality-driven contests for open seats, rather than ideological battles for the soul of the party. However, there have been a number of primaries which were contested mainly on ideological grounds – between a liberal or moderate candidate and one or more conservatives.

We looked at eighteen key primary contests from 2002 to 2008 in order to determine whether any Republican consulting firms were very likely to consistently work for the more liberal candidate. The eighteen contests were chosen based on there being a clear ideological division between a liberal or moderate and one or more credible conservative opponents. These races include challenges to incumbents, such as the Pat Toomey vs. Arlen Specter in the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary and open seats such as Doug Ose vs. Tom McClintock for CA CD 4 in 2008.

In examining these races, we found a clear pattern of certain political consulting firms tending to nearly always side with the liberal or moderate candidate rather than with the conservative.

Read More →