Over the past week or two, we political junkies have seen a lot of comments from the pundits agreeing that Bob McDonnell won in VA because he ran as a moderate in a purple state, and asserting that his moderate approach should be the template for conservatives across the country.  (Translation:  He only won because he hid what he really is, and conservatives would be well advised to hide their true colors).  Any time such a large number of pundits converge on essentially the same line, it is usually because they have found partisan spin.  Here, it is partisan spin and sour grapes. 

One year ago, Obama won VA 53-46, a seven point margin.  Now, McDonnell lead the GOP with an 18 point victory, which marks a 25 point swing in one short year.  Whereas the independents were reliable Democrat votes a year ago, McDonnell dominated this demographic.  Obviously, this is a victory worthy of examination in developing a blueprint. 

But, it is erroneous to posit that the reason for that swing was any shying away from conservative principles.  Indeed, McDonnell stated he was proudly Pro-Life.  Thanks to Creigh Deeds and the tens of millions of dollars the DGA and others poured into the race, VA voteres were daily, and perhaps even more frequently, reminded he was an unabashed social conservative.  McDonnell never denied this, only denying the weak assertions that he was anti-woman.  McDonnell’s ground game was superb, precisely because he managed to rally social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.  A “moderate” approach would have failed on that score, and he may never have risen above the “thesis” attacks that at one point made it a 3 point race, just a few months ago. 

So without further ado, here are my top ten lessons from the recent elections:

1. Independents (and others) responded extremely well to McDonnell’s articulate, specific plans.  Having a policy wonk at the top of the ticket helped downballot as well.  McDonnell’s greatest victory was in capturing the mantle of the “ideas” candidate.  Conversely, he successfully painted Deeds as a shallow candidate who was short on ideas.
2. McDonnell ran a very positive campaign.  Even his critics in the Washington Post and other liberal media had to concede he was focused on a positive, idea-centered campaign.  There was a lot to attack with a candidate like Creigh Deeds.  But McDonnell did not go there.  The negatives of the opposing candidate got out without the negativity from a GOP candidate.
3. National headwinds favor the GOP.  McDonnell successfully tapped in to national issues discontenting VA voters, again with specifics.  He made it clear how VA jobs would be destroyed by cap and trade, etc.  He attacked Pelosi’s plans but not the (still) popular President.
4. McDonnell ran a disciplined campaign with a credible focus on job creation.  His focus was on bread and butter issues every day.  More, perhaps, than anything else, this resonated with voters.  I believe selecting candidates with a credible history of such focus and campaigns’ ability to stay on a job creation message when unemployment is at double digits is key.
5. VA may have trended blue in recent years, but it also trended into higher unemployment and higher taxes.  Democrats here, as everywhere else, promise many great things, but governed terribly in the final analysis.  In some parts of the state, unemployment was at depression era levels of 20-25%.
6. McDonnell avoided the pitfalls many VA GOP statewide candidates have fallen into.  The media constantly were on the lookout for a “macaca” moment (George Allen), but he did not give them one because he was wary of his audience.  He did not focus on “pet issue” with which he could be caricaturized like the car tax (Jim Gilmore, and now a running joke of an issue) or the death penalty (Jerry Kilgore, a former prosecutor who came across as a bit bloodthirsty).
7. The ground game was superb.  McDonnell won this on a number of fronts.  He was an unapologetic conservative.  This rallied the conservatives who could not bring themselves to volunteer for a John McCain.  I saw far more youths and McDonell campaign workers in an “off year election” than I ever did for McCain.  By contrast, Deeds’ efforts to run hard left failed miserably.
8. McDonnell built a meaningful coalition.  He had endorsements from key Democrats, business leaders, and virtually every job creating organization in the state.  With this he was able to credibly assert over and over his candidacy meant more jobs.  At the end, this lead to newspapers lining up to endorse him (except of course the Washington Post).  McDonnell took the time to woo key Democrats as well as Republicans.
9. He weathered the attacks on him well.  McDonnell was villified for his thesis in national media, and the Washington Post ran several front page stories on it for a while.  McDonnell and other key conservatives (Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner) called the Post out on its daily hack jobs, and they stopped in time.  He ran a few ads to show he was not anti-working woman, defending himself without getting personal and negative.  And, all the while, he continued to utilize the attacks as an opportunity to be the candidate to “refocus” the issues on matters that mattered to VA voters.
10. He never rested on his laurels.  His campaign frequently touted that even though they had a lead, they would run “like they were 10 points behind.”  They maintained the energy level needed.

Other reasons will be found, but those are the lessons I would commend to anyone looking to the VA landslide for a blueprint for conservative victories.

I cannot think of a more poignant argument for returning power of Congress to the GOP than the data below. When Pelosi and crew took over power from the GOP in January 2007, we were riding a 12 year GOP streak of controlling the Congress with an average unemployment rate of less than 5%.  Yet when Pelosi and the Democrats took over in January of 2007, they immediately set to work with policies destroying American jobs.  Failed energy policies, ballooning trade deficits, business unfriendly policies and rhetoric, etc have all led to an average increase of over 5,000 unemployed Americans per day for nearly 3 years.  That’s one job every 3 seconds.

Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over

Now, here’s a look at the unemployment numbers from the preceding era of when the GOP took over from the Democrats in the 1994 revolution.  This chart is easy to read, and perhaps bland, but that downward unemployment trend means about a 4% difference in unemployment, it means a nation rich with opportunities, it means parents being able to take care of their children, it means pride and dignity for all with a half decent work ethic.  The story of GOP Congressional rule was one of continued job creation (as well as budget surplus) with a brief surge in unemployment after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.  Then again, the GOP Congressional majority achieved job creation and lowered American unemployment, until the Democrats took over in January of 2007.

Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over

First, before getting into the analysis of how the White House are miscounting job numbers, a few brief observations are in order:

1. One, approximately 80% of the stimulus money that was an “emergency” to pass 9 months ago has still not come to term and been spent.  Since they apparently have all the sweet time in the world to spend this money, Congress owes it to the American people to cancel the remaining funds that are largely being used to fund liberal special interests and as a political war chest slush fund.  They can take the appropriate amount of time to debate the issue, in the public eye, with public debate, as they promised, and they should.
2. When the White House starts accusing ABC, the same network which refused to broadcast any opposition to the White House health care push despite significant public interest and concerns on the issue of “calculator abuse” in the number of jobs created/saved, you know they are desperate.  That’d be like the New York Yankees accusing those in the Bronx of cheering for the Phillies in the World Series.  See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/160000-per-stimulus-job-white-house-calls-that-calculator-abuse.html.
3. Even if you were to accept the administration figure that it is $92,000 per job created, how exactly is that a good use of taxpayer funds?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average cost to an employer per job across the American economy is less than half of that.  See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
4. The Obama campaign promise was that this would CREATE five million jobs.  Then it was create or save five million.  Then it was create or save three million.  That’s in addition to those five million green jobs we were promised but seem to never have materialized.
5. The White House method of counting these jobs seems to be to have the recipients of the money (who indicate on their applications for free money how many jobs will be saved) self-report the number of jobs created unless publicly challenged.  They assert we have to just trust the honesty of our public officials.  Besides the obvious problem of no objective measuring criteria and no transparency, it is not even public officials who are making these representations.  How could they not know that?  I mean, how many trillion dollar boondoggles do they have to keep track of?  (Okay, so maybe they do have a few others).
6. Some of the jobs “created or saved” are temporary projects lasting not more than a month.  Some are not new jobs but 3% pay raises.  Some are rather low paying.  These stats should not continue to be ignored by those tracking the process.
7. Its not too complicated to enter a line or two in a database and have a little bit of follow up each time we fork over millions or billions of taxpayer dollars.

Now, here are my proposed criteria for how stimulus jobs “created or saved” should be calculated to bring some objectivity to the process:

1. Jobs that are of an inherently temporary nature should not be counted as a whole job created or saved.  If a job does not seem to have the prospect to last as a job in the economy for at least 10 years, it should be reduced to a pro rata value.  For example, if there are 240 construction positions they claim that each last an average of one month, that should be reduced to count as 2 jobs, not 240.  If they want to come back and say, hey, there’s value in even just temporary jobs, then let them have two measures - one on lasting economic impact and one for temporary impact.
2. A second reduction needed in the figures is for jobs saved.  “Jobs saved” should be counted separately than “jobs created.”  Jobs saved should not be accepted merely on the representation of he/she who filled out the application for free federal money.  Rather, if a 3% raise is being applied towards 100 jobs, as it was in one instance, that should not count as more than 3 jobs being funded by the stimulus.  Even then, it should only count at all if it can be demonstrated those jobs would be lost otherwise. 
3. In each instance where there are multiple sources of funding (including a business’s own cash flow) besides stimulus funds that are funding jobs, the number of jobs “created or saved” should be reduced to the pro rata amount funded by porkulus.

I read an article the other day which revived my interest in an idea I had a few months ago, where the article noted a rise in conservative blogs and books since this administration took power. 

My idea was to see if there are other conservative bloggers who might be interested here in joining our time and talents to co-author a conservative book detailing the failings of this administration and this Congress with each chapter focused on a different topic (i.e. fiscal responsibility, ethics and corruption, transparency, health care, abortion, foreign policy, etc).  My thought was if people could volunteer to lead the authorship on one or more chapters, or contribute to one or more chapters, they could, by searching the tags that match the topic on this site alone draw a great deal of information.  With the permission of the authors who posted the original material, it could be reorganized into perhaps a powerful persuasive piece. 

This may be one way by which we can take our hard work detailing the day to day matters showing where this country is headed and put it into a form in which more people will read it, hopefully be persuaded, and help build the GOP brand versus the Dem brand in this country.

If you think you might be interested, please just post a comment noting your interest.  If there is enough interest, then we can push forward with the project.

Okay, not likely.  Maybe impossible.  But though very improbable, there are at least 10 seats we could take back to even this out:

1.  NV - Even the liberal Daily Kos polling outfit notes Reid as trailing both of his challengers - Danny Tarkanian, son of Jerry Tarkanian by 45-40, and Sue Lowden by 44-40.  As Obama continues to press Reid into pushing a crazy liberal agenda, the generally conservative Nevada may throw him out.  Reid has moved significantly left over the past two years.

2.  CT - Dodd has been hit hard over sweetheart mortgage deals and lobbyist ties and Quinnipiac’s most recent poll (in mid-July, which means its probably worse for Dodd now) has him trailing Simmons 48-39.

3.  DE - Though I’ve seen several forecasts rating this as a safe hold for Democrats, the PPP (D) has Mike Castle defeating Biden 44-36, and Susquehanna has Castle over Biden 55-34.  Both polls were done in the spring, and I have not seen more recent polling data, but I would think the summer has made things worse for the junior Biden.

4.  IL - Kirk (R) leads Giannoulias 41-38 in Rasmussen Reports.  PPP and Daily Kos have it a tie and plus 8 (D) respectively, but they are partisan polling outfits generally polling several points left of actual results.  The Burris scandal and Blagojevich scandal have the Dems in Illinois in worse shape than usual, and a strong challenger like Kirk stands a shot.

5.  NH - Hodes is only polling a couple points ahead of Bass, again with no polling since mid-July, and over 20% are undecided.  This would not be a pick up, but as most people thought the Dems would take it, its worth mentioning.

6.  PA - Toomey has been on and off ahead of Specter and Specter has a bruising primary set up with Joe Sestak.

7.  NY - If Pataki runs, this could be competitive.  Gillibrand runs behind him in the most recent Siena and Marist polls.

8.  AR - Blanche Lincoln is running behind multiple opponents who have name recognition in single digits in a red state with tough votes ahead of her.

9.  ND - If popular Governor Hoeven enters the fray, Dorgan could be finished.  Particularly if his health care co-op plan becomes unpopular.

10.  HI - Yes, Inouye could coast to reelection.  But the guy is about 90 and Gov. Lingle could present a strong challenger, defeat any younger replacement, and maybe even give him a run for his money.

11. KY, OH, and MO should be competitive but the GOP should be able to hold at least KY, probably MO, and have a very strong candidate in Portman in OH.  All 3 GOP candidates have polled ahead at various points, and never more than a couple points behind.

12.  The tenth seat to take from the Dems could be Colorado as Bennet is considered vulnerable and some forecasts have it as a toss up or just lean dem. 

10 seats gets us to 50-48.  If Lieberman does not choose to support the Dems for majority of the Senate, we could retake control.  Given how Obama and crew are proceeding in Iraq, Afghanistan, the broader middle East and Israel, its all very possible.

A dream?  Yes.  A pipe dream?  Yes.  Still, its nice to think about it.

Our hypocritical President rode to power on a white horse, promising transparency, ethics, and bipartisanship / postpartisanship.  He took on the mantle most importantly of an economic expert, promising to turn around the economy.  Some points to consider and discuss with anyone who says the Democrats know better how to manage the economy:

1. When unemployment surpassed 6.0% on the campaign trail, Obama declared the fundamentals of our economy were not sound.  When it dipped ever so slightly from 9.5% to 9.4%, he declared we had turned the corner and the stimulus worked.
2. Today, unemployment numbers went unexpectedly up
3. Today, retail sales were declared to be down
4. Car makers who have clunkers have not been given the promised cash in many places
5. The so-called “recovery” has failed to increase real wages. 
6. All in all, 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Porkulus was enacted without opportunity for either public debate, public review of the law, or even Congressional review of 1400 pages added over night.  That’s 5-7 million less jobs than promised by Obama who sold us on the representation the bill would save 3-5 million jobs. 
7. Throw on top of that another 5 million jobs that have not materialized that Obama promised us through a “green” energy plan that would focus on “solar, wind, and tide.”  I’m not sure he’s achieved 5 jobs there, much less 5 million.  All in all, we’re looking at over 10 million less jobs than advertised.  Heck, at this rate, one doesn’t even have to look at his failed promise to create those jobs.  Just look at the jobs he’s lost. 
8. His administration is on a pace to lose more jobs than any administration in history.  (I guess the Democrats were right when they said we were witnessing history after all)!
9. Our currency continues to lose weight against foreign currencies. 
10. We are driving up our foreign trade deficit to unprecedented levels. 
11. The deficit and debt are at unprecedented levels. 
12. Multiple members of his chief economics team are talking about the necessity of raising taxes.  Obama himself has tried to sell us on the idea we must be open to “sacrifice” for the liberal programs.
13. It is important also to not overlook the fact it was the Democrats who created the mess in the first place.  It was Democrats, and Obama economics advisor Larry Summers (same genious who brought us cash for clunkers) who pushed the plan to put more people into homes they could not afford, thereby creating the housing bubble that started the domino effect producing the recession.
14. After announcing that we were “out of money” Obama went on to propose a huge expansion to the largest drain on our federal budget by attempting to universalize health care, even for those who do not wish to purchase it.  The Congressional Budget Office noted Obama’s plan is not budget neutral and would cost over a trillion dollars.  (Austin Powers, anyone?)
15. A majority of Americans, according to Rasmussen Reports, now trust Republicans more on the economy than Democrats.
16. While Democrats will assert ad nauseam that we are recovering from 8 years of Bush administration policies, none seem to be able to point to which policies created as much deficit or market bubbles as the Democrat policies.  Indeed, until 2006 when the Democrats rode into a sweeping victory in Congress on promises to end the Iraq war (they didn’t and we are now losing soldiers and money in Afghanistan at an increasing rate), transparency (does anyone know what porkulus contains?), ethics reform (when was the last time Pelosi’s Congress followed through on investigation of a Democrat?), that the economy went bad. 
17. Before the Dems takeover of Congress, unemployment under Bush and the GOP Congress hit rock bottom, the stock market was around 14,000, home prices were high, taxes were low, and trade agreements expanded our share of foreign markets, creating jobs and wealth in America.  It was far from perfect, but who wouldn’t trade where we are now for where we were then?
18. The Democrats’ cap and trade bill is costing American jobs while not translating into any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
19. The health care bill, besides raising taxes, would cost many American jobs.  The reason is simple - since employers will be required to provide “adequate” health care or pay a 7% surtax, they will be paying into the public system because rising health care costs will make that the cheaper option.  Since employers will not magically have more money, that means the extra money they are either paying for health care or a surtax will cause them to hire less workers, layoff workers, or reduce wages.  The bill has a provision to prevent wage reduction which means simply less jobs created and more jobs eliminated.  My best guess is these losses will mount well into the millions as 7% of payroll is not small sum. 
20. That also means Americans will be forced to lose their private health care.  While Obama supporters are quick to point out the law still allows people to buy their own health care, the truth is most people will have to fall under the public system, getting rationed care, while some, and perhaps increasingly many, people will not be allowed treatments, operations, or explorative options they need / would choose under their current plans, all while forced to subsidize taxpayer funded abortions through the same public plan. 
21. The health care plan does not control costs, as noted above by the CBO, which means the “cost saving” rationale put forth by Obama’s team is a lie. 

Since the #1 issue on nearly every poll is “the economy” and perhaps the leading indicator, or at least one of the top few indicators, of how well the economy is doing is the unemployment rate, I believe a historical analysis of which party and which policies have led to higher or lower unemployment rates is in order. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here is a snapshot of average unemployment rates by year for the past 50 years:

1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8

See http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Now, in 2009, it stands at a whopping 9.5. Only two years, (1982 and 1983) had higher rates since the Great Depression at 9.6 and 9.7, respectively. Now consider who controlled Congress in the relevant corresponding periods of time:

111th (2008) Dems 257, GOP 178 Dems add 20 seats, unemployment skyrockets above 7, 8, and 9
110th (2006) Dems 236, GOP 199 Dems win in landslide, unemployment goes above 5 and 6
109th (2004) GOP 225, Dems 207 GOP majority, unemployment goes down again, below 5
108th (2002) GOP 232, Dems 201 GOP majority, unemployment stays low, (below 6) despite 9/11
107th (2000) GOP 222, Dems 209 GOP majority, unemployment remains very low
106th (1998) GOP 223, Dems 211 GOP majority, unemployment hits all time low
105th (1996) GOP 228, Dems 206 GOP majority, unemployment remains low
104th (1994) GOP 230, Dems 204 GOP landslide, unemployment plummets below 7, 6, and 5
103rd (1992) Dems 258, GOP 176 Unemployment averages over 7
102nd (1990) Dems 270, GOP 164 Unemployment returns to over six and seven
101st (1988) Dems 261, GOP 174 Unemployment has a temporary dip below six
100th (1986) Dems 258, GOP 177 Unemployment remains high
99th (1984) Dems 253, GOP 182 GOP gains 19 seats, unemployments goes down 2 points
98th (1982) Dems 272, GOP 163 Unemployment hits highest since depression
97th (1980) Dems 244, GOP 191 Unemployment remains high
96th (1978) Dems 277, GOP 158 Unemployment remains high
95th (1976) Dems 292, GOP 143 Unemployment remains between 6.1 and 7.8
94th (1974) Dems 291, GOP 144 Dems gain supermajority in wake of Watergate, unemployment rises from 5.6 to 8.5
93rd (1972) Dems 240, GOP 192 Unemployments remains steady
92nd (1970) Dems 255, GOP 180 Unemployment rises from record lows to above 4, 5, and 6

Bear in mind that though elected in 1970 or 2004, those Congresses begin their reign the following January, thus, 1971 or 2005, respectively.

Any reasonably minded person looking at this snapshot of the past 40 years or so would have to recongnize the obvious correlation between GOP Congressional success and a healthy economy.  When conservatives are in charge, the economy does well.  As unemployment creeps toward 10, this may be worth remembering.  And it may be worth reminding the voters. 

It was not Clinton but the GOP Congress that voted on legislative proposals that expanded U.S. markets and helped small businesses grow and thrive leading to record low unemployment.  The Bush years under a GOP Congress were happy times with record low unemployment.  The Bush years under Dems Congressional majorities were unhappy times with rising unemployment.  The Obama era thus far has been a veritable nightmare under Dems congressional majorities.  With a brief blip in 1988-1990, the story is a steady Dems = high unemployment and GOP = low unemployment for the past 40 years. 

Don’t ever let anyone tell you the Dems are better for the economy.

The journalistic integrity of the Washington Post has been suspect at best through the election cycles of late, offering frequent puff pieces for Obama, hit pieces on Republicans, and generally echoing in lockstep Democrat party talking points while ignoring newsworthy matters that would benefit the GOP. It is a blatantly partisan paper with a thin veneer of journalistic integrity in its editorial decision making. More recently, they have thrown themselves behind Creigh Deeds in an effort to put him over the top of Bob McDonell in the VA gubernatorial race.

They may never drop the pretense of neutrality. But the veneer continue to wear ever thinner. Like many newspapers, the dawn of the internet as a news source has caused genuine competition for news providers that has affected the WP financially. After all, if you can get an internet connection for less than the monthly cost of your newspaper, why wouldn’t you? The internet provides a far more diverse array of viewpoints and far more thorough coverage of every issue. You can get the news you are interested in hearing about when you are interested in hearing about it at no additional cost versus having to buy a paper that is usually pushing its own agenda.

We have seen newspapers go under in the past year in Seattle, Colorado, and elsewhere. We have seen the NYT leverage its other assets to keep the financial blackhole of its partisan newspaper alive. The WP has a new approach, which, if unchecked, could undermine the free press in this country. Their approach is to make newspapers something of a power broker, collecting fees to bring together high payers, administration and/or congressional figures, and editorial staff. Conflict of interest, anyone?

The marketing department put a flier out stating:

“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders.”

The WP stated they are not going to compromise their journalistic integrity, and this plan, “as written” would do so.  But they still admit planning to bring together powerful political figures, business leaders willing to shell out cash to the WP, and their editorial staff as a revenue source.

Their check and balance? They would only have employees on the “business side — not the newsroom — would have been responsible for seeking participants for this event. Reporters, he said, would not solicit sources or administration officials. Brauchli said that he did not know who was invited or who accepted.”

Nice iron wall of separation.  Completely credible.  So in an atmosphere where reporters are being laid off and their very livelihood depends on the WP’s financial well being, we are to believe that the meetings set up between the administration officials, business leaders and the reporters will not lead to reporters giving a rose colored reporting of those, in the Post’s own words “underwriting,” business leaders’ interests?  I don’t think so.  Fail to give the point of view of those literally buying their quote into the paper, and next time they won’t underwrite it.  

I wonder how many more people can be convinced to drop their subscriptions to the WP upon seeing that someone else is literally buying what they will read.  It is time for the liberal media to hold the mirror up to its own face.  How much money will they be able to charge with an ever dwindling membership and perhaps a little bit of exposure as to who is “underwriting” their stories?  We’ll be following that one closely.

[Pigs fly: Someone on RedState says "Well done, Helen Thomas." - Moe Lane]

h/t Drudge, Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/

See the attached video with CBS news and Helen Thomas taking Robert Gibbs to the woodshed on Obama and co.’s attempts to control the press. Thomas called this a pattern of planting questions as both denounced the process. Gibbs’ reaction was to belittle and ridicule the rep from CBS and Thomas both, which produced some interesting reactions from the surrounding press corps members. Hmm, maybe the usual m.o. of ridiculing those who criticize you and expecting that to end the issue for the press doesn’t work here Mr. Gibbs.

Much has been made of the “honeymoon” or “lovefest” between Obama and the press. This seems to be the part where the press’s eyes are finally opening a bit to who they got into bed with. Underneath their liberal instincts, the MSM is still on some level fiercely protective of their trust to protect the integrity and freedom of the press. Obama and co effectively here cheated on them and then blamed the victim. And belittling Helen Thomas, a veritable icon for what a White House press corps member would aspire to be is akin to the Obama and co. love team striking the beloved grandmother of the profession.

Perhaps the Obama team thinks other matters are more important now than their relationship with the press and that the press’s goodwill at this time doesn’t matter. Perhaps they think everything they read on Kos and agree amongst themselves and their supermajority is beyond question. They have become infatuated with their perceived mandate and believe they are not accountable to the press. Maybe, just maybe they are about to find out they are wrong.

Okay, not a very innovate title for a post, but sometimes going into detail on every single abysmal failure and bad judgment is not enough, (although it is necessary to do that as well).  But sometimes, taking stock and stepping back a pace or two to see the whole landscape of messes Obama and the Democrats have created is important.  With that, here’s a very short list (due to time constraints) of what the Dems have done to most piss me off, in no particular order: 

1.  By moving to abolish conscience clause protection for nurses (along with doctors and pharmacists) for those who do not wish to have to choose between their job and participating in an abortion they deem to be murder, the Obama administration has coerced people into killing fellow citizens.  And, more directly for my family, it has given my wife, who is a nurse, pause about whether she works in a hospital again or not.  At the very least she now has to be more careful about who to work with and for since the law does not protect her.

2.  In a short 5 months, Obama has managed to quadruple the highest record deficit to a staggering and utterly unsustainable 1,800,000,000,000.00 per year.  That means they spend about as much in a minute as I’ll earn in my career.  They are utterly pillaging, and there is no other word for it, pillaging our Republic.  My children and grandchildren will be paying for it.

3.  People seem to forget the average unemployment rate was barely over half during the Bush years as it has been for Obama.  And, more importantly, the economy had a stock market soaring about 70% higher when the GOP controlled Congress.  It was only after a short 16 months of Democratic rule that the downfall began, after 12 years of comparatively more responsible budget handling by the GOP.  The GOP was not perfect, but by God, we should not be apologizing as if we are on the same level of culpability as the Democrats.

4.  Obama’s foreign policy has been a complete disaster.  There is nothing to show he has improved America’s relationships.  He bows to Saudi Kings, snubs our greatest ally in Israel while selling them out in his two state solution to pacify the violence of the terrorists in a way that would make Neville Chamerlain seem like a hawk.  He has extended lifelines to Cuba and Iran at precisely the wrong times.  He has screwed up by supporting Chavez, not taking on North Korea, and acting befuddled with equivocating, relativistic statements on the Russia-Georgia dispute. 

5.  The Obama auto policy is a disaster.  Now the government is firing private sector CEOs, leveraging taxes against successful businesses to prop up failed ones, dragging down the entire economy. 

6.  The promised 5 million private sector jobs has not only not come to pass, he has lost jobs at a higher rate than any other President in history, barring none, not even Hoover.  This, despite massive stimulus spending which was the real “no special interest left behind” bill that left families with a peasly $400/yr tax cut.  Then even that they screwed up because if you have a double income family, you wind up having to pay an extra $400 come tax time. 

7.  The constant double speak and backtracking drives me crazy.  Case in point - “we’ll create 5 million new jobs” then it was “we will create 3-5 million new jobs” then it was “we’ll create or save 3-5 million new jobs” and recently it was that the stimulus “could” create as many as “600,000 jobs.”  Most of those, by the way, are temporary jobs for building projects and not part of any sustainable infrastructure.

8.  Obama has opened up no new markets.   While America has and will continue to bleed out from its manufacturing sector due to the impossibility of competing with the pennies on the dollar comparative labor advantage of developing third world nations, most people don’t realize how much Bush helped our economy by leveraging our position as the world’s largest market to open up foreign markets for our goods.  Obama, by steep contrast, has failed to do so and has even angered our trade partners with his repeated unwise comments.

9.  Obama has been a complete disaster on energy.  The Democratic Congress and Obama care more for the environmentalist lobby than our energy interests.  We have no new drilling.  They have halted offshore drilling.  There is no new wind, solar, or other alternative energy as promised.  There is no talk on the horizon of investing in such energies.  Rather, he one day states we’re out of money and must stop spending and the next talks about another unsustainable huge entitlement program in health care.  Speaking of which, that will also result in more American deaths as the government will inevitably start managing what health care people will or will not be rationed.

10.  The Democrats and Obama, probably even if you put them all together for a month, do not know everything they have spent money on.  They are now floating all sorts of new tax ideas for everything from a national sales tax to a internet tax to a cell phone tax on government cell phone use.  They are out of control and this administration is full of eggheads who do not seem to have a clue about how the actions they are taking adversely affect people on a day to day basis.

Let’s take this tax season as an opportunity to introduce a “Taxpayer Protection Bill.”  This would be very newsworthy at this time of year, and would help the GOP image as a party who cares more than the Democrats.  Let’s draft up a five or six point plan designed to protect taxpayers and force a vote on it.   Other minds might have better ideas for what we could include among those 5 or 6 points, but here are a few that come to my mind:

1.  Lower the cap on FICA taxes. Let’s ask everyone to note what they are paying to “FICA.” I believe the median income earner in America will pay more FICA taxes then the federal taxes he/she will spend hours calculating.

FICA is a tax. In fact, FICA is one of the first reasons I first realized I was Republican. When I got my first paycheck at the age of 16, and I noticed FICA was taking more money than the state and federal governments combined, I was pissed. Now, I am an attorney, and when I look at the FICA line, I am still pissed. If that tax is continuing to rise on people, Obama is breaking his promise not to raise any taxes on those making less than $250,000/year.

2. How about a family friendly provision in the bill? Perhaps we could eliminate the “marriage penalty” inherent in the tax code. Or, how about revising McCain’s popular proposal to double the exemption amount for dependents?

3. How about creating a deduction for the fair market value of volunteer hours spent working for tax-exempt charitable organizations?

4. How about lowering the 7.5% of AGI threshhold needed to deduct medical and dental expenses? I believe this would put a lot more money in the pockets of the middle class (in turn stimulating both the economy and Republican party membership).

5. How about introducing an “alternative maximum tax?” While the alternative minimum tax is gaining notoriety for increasing more and more people’s taxes beyond what it was originally intended to do, we could replace it with an alternative maximum tax.

The new “AMT” could provide a cap on the combined FICA, Social Security, Income, Investment, State and Local, etc. taxes. How about saying your combined taxes cannot exceed the greater of what you pay either on: a) annual mortgage payments on a primary residence; b) annual rental payments on a primary residence; or c) your highest tax burden of the prior 3 years.

Hey, if the Dems knock it down, we can point out every single year how much people would be saving if the GOP were in power. We could make it very easy for people to see they would be better off financially with the GOP in power. And that is what being “more trusted on the economy” is all about.

Rasmussen’s recently released poll on top issues to voters, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues, reveals some interesting shifts. 

One of the most profound shifts was in which party is more trusted on the issue of abortion.  Obama’s recent actions between embryonic stem cell federal funding (for which the Catholic hierarchy is taking him to task), denying conscientious objecting medical professionals the right to not participate in an abortion, and spending federal funds during a crisis to fund overseas abortions are all taking a toll.  But we can further push this issue to the fore as he is currently taking probably the most ridiculous pro-choice measures he will take in his whole term.

Two, the Democrats are fading on Social Security and taxes.  We are now tied on the issue.  Let’s call on Obama to come up with a plan to address the rising spiraling costs of Social Security and Medicare.  Force him to the third rail.  Now is a great time to highlight it.  Three, the Dems continue to hold big leads on education and health care.  But health care was an issue on which their party was deeply divided during the primary season.

Rasmussen Reports published today that for the 3rd straight month, Democrats have a 16 point edge among non-investors on the question which party is better at handling the economy.  The GOP continues to have a lead that is about half that among investors.  See www.Rasmussenreports.com.  That’s about a 20-25 point gap at any time, and the simple lesson to make more Republicans here is get more middle class folks to invest in the market.

My idea is simple:  Let’s grow the investor class by creating incentives for more people to invest in the economy.  There are probably a thousand ways to achieve this aim, but here are a few concrete measures that may work (others may generate more effective measures, but this is a start):

1.  Provide tax incentives for investing that make sense for those in lower income brackets.  

2.  Provide an across the board tax credit equal to a fourth of the money people invest in the market up to a thousand dollars.  This would be huge to get middle class folks not yet in the market into the market.  Once they’re there, its a lot harder to ignore the Democrats nonsensical positions on capital gains taxes and general antipathy to “big business.”  This would also be a great way to direct stimulus funds towards successful businesses that just need investment rather than failed businesses being kept on life support by utilizing the wisdom of the market.

3.  Reward successful investing by lowering the capital gains tax on the first $3,000/yr to 0%.  This should also help move a lot of middle class folks into the market.

4.  Make investment losses fully deductible with no exceptions up to $3,000/yr.

Its no secret that President Obama relies on his teleprompter to guide him through his speeches and stay on message.  When he’s been without it, he’s let his real opinions slip through to his political detriment.  This week, he’s been reading off the teleprompter while exhibiting anger at AIG executives.  If ever there was an occasion to put aside the teleprompter, it should be an occasion where you are purporting to speak from the heart. 

But there is a stronger reason to doubt his authenticity and genuineness in the display of anger at AIG.  Its the overwhelming evidence of apathy and/or incompetence that led him and his team to give a third bailout of 30,000,000,000.00 to AIG just two weeks ago.  For those doing the math at home, that’s about 60-65 times the amount he recently decided to cut from funding medical care for our veterans.  Surely a sum of this magnitude, of this purported necessity, and in the context of the other deprioritized programs such as veterans’ medical care would require close attention, no? 

The issue of bonuses for execs was one he promised on the campaign trail to disallow.  Its been in the news that AIG and banks receiving monies were still giving bonuses and special compensation packages to execs and throwing extravagant parties, so why the surprise?  They are either liars for having promised to address the matter and then ignoring it, or they are liars for not knowing how to structure a piece of legislation for the supplicant lending institutions who had ZERO bargaining power to leverage bonuses for their execs.

The bottom line is that this feigned anger at exec bonuses is nothing more than a transparent attempt to hide the truth that Obama et al screwed up.  Maybe they should spend less time worrying about pushing pet liberal spending projects, seeking to demonize conservative journalists/media, and strawmanninng the Congressional Republicans as not having ideas when they put forth a comprehensive alternative stimulus bill the Democrats promptly ignored.   Maybe their focus should be on the economic crisis that chicken-little-in-chief has been so fond of saying could degenerate into a Depression (which I’m sure has done wonders for consumer confidence since he started that routine in August). 

Get focused Mr. President.  In the words of Democratic strategist James Carville, “its the economy, stupid.”

As Russia expands to build air bases in both Cuba and Venezuela, Obama’s foreign policy ineptitude begins to show just how very different from JFK he really is.  The Monroe Doctrine, which is about 188 years old, has been a longstanding pillar of American foreign policy that disallows any major European power, including Russia, from building up military power in our hemisphere.  It has led to one of the longest periods of stability and peace on our soil from any hostile European power for centuries.  Now, Obama and his team of idiot savants are letting the Russians waltz in and take it. 

Less than a month ago, Obama and his incompetent foreign policy team offered to step down our missile defense program for reasons best known to themselves in exchange for certain concessions from Russia.  Russia rejected the request, but now that we have signalled that we no longer feel the missile defense shield is necessary for our defense, they can pressure us to get rid of it through other means.  And, our allies in NATO are left wondering where that leaves them.

After Georgia was gutted by Russia less than 6 months ago, Obama had a weak and uncertain response, equivocating as to whether it was Russia or Georgia to blame.  After 3 days (and reflection upon public opinion polls and media analysis) Obama in typical fashion assured us that it was always clear he condemned Russia’s action, even though he did nothing of the sort until well after McCain.  Obama had wanted to get the UN Security Council to condemn Russia’s action, apparently ignorant of the fact that would be impossible as Russia has the right at the UN to veto any proposed condemnation of its own actions.  That could never happen. 

Obama has signalled he is slow to action, uncertain as to what acts deserve condemnation, susceptible to pressure, inept at negotiating and protecting our foreign policy interests, and does not understand the basics about international pressure.  Russia knows this.

Now Russia has taken the next logical step.  They consolidated their hold and influence in Georgia.  They have teamed with socialists and communists in our hemisphere in order to limit our ability to respond in their part of the world.  What now will stop them from overrunning the Ukraine to seize their oil supplies as they did in Georgia? 

When not liquidating our economy, funding life destroying research, crapping all over the Constitution, and undermining national security, I hope Obama has something positive he can do in his free time.

Now before anybody starts in with “haven’t you heard about Roe v. Wade” or “I wish it were so, but the Court would never go for it,” recall that the hated Roe v. Wade decision never declared there is no right to life.  It engrafted a cancerous right to abortion in our Constitutional jurisprudence, but that is easily read as limiting the right to life, not abolishing it. 

In fact, there is no abortion case law on the Supreme Court level that affirmatively denies the personhood of the human being.  In Doe v. Bolton, the right to destroy babies in utero was expanded by defining the “health” of the mother as anything down to a whim.

1.  The 14th Amendment to our Constitution is somewhat unusual compared to most of the other Amendments because it not only restricts government action, but it actively obligates government to take action to ensure equal application of the law at every level of government, on both the federal and state level.  This would include the right to life.  As a matter of preclusion, the federal government should not be allowed to fund the life destroying research under the Constitution.  As an affirmative matter, equal protection under the 14th Amendment should obligate states to disallow such life-destroying research. 

Embryonic stem cell research, (as well as in vitro fertilization and cloning) involve the destruction of human life without having abortion on the opposite side of the scale to counterbalance that.  With in vitro and cloning, there would be a somewhat stronger extension of the abortionists’ argument of right to control one’s body, but it would be an extension of the law.  With embryonic stem cell, however, we pit the right to life against a research, (an unproven research which is less effective than its counterpart in adult stem cell research).  The former (right to life) is a Constitutional right, and the latter (research) is not.

Perhaps most importantly, I believe such a claim would win 5-4 if taken to the Supreme Court.  Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy I believe would agree with me.  Kennedy let us down in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992, but on the dubious basis of stare decisis, which gave extra Constitutional weight to Roe, despite being wrongly decided, because it had long been accepted by the Court, (let’s be thankful he wasn’t the swing vote on Brown v. Board of education in light of Dred Scot).  But, to Kennedy’s credit, he has ruled with the Right to Life movement on upholding the partial birth abortion ban where stare decisis was not an issue.  So unlike the 4 liberal justices on the court, he is not in the abortionists’ pocket.  Now I am not comparing the government banning partial birth abortions with Kennedy affirming government action as Constitutional versus Kennedy potentially finding embryonic stem cell unconstitutional.  I am just saying stare decisis is not an issue on embryonic stem cell.

2.  Some protection may also be found under the 13th Amendment, which declares slavery illegal.  If people cannot be treated as property, then it is a logical extension to suggest they cannot be used and destroyed for research.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that “Congress shall pass no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

The gross misnomer that is the “Fairness Doctrine” directly undercuts a major media source in our country, striking at the core of the Constitution and the free press.  It directly limits people’s access to the media they would choose without government interference. 

I do not expect the duplicitous and hypocritical ACLU to stand up for this violation of the core of the 1st Amendment, though they should.   Tthey routinely ignore Constitutional violations by liberals and even supported going after peaceful protesters in front of abortion clinics, a core political speech right, while supporting dubious and tangential “commercial speech” such as porno as necessary to prevent the slippery slope that could lead to violating real political speech.

The Democrats will say that radio media will continue.  It will, with more liberal programming.  But what if we did the same with print media?  What if we abolished the New York Times or forced it to run conservative content?  Print media would still continue, but we know that would be just as wrong.  If willing dupes wish to purchase the partisan rag, they have the right to do so, and our Constitution preserves their right to be as blatantly partisan as they are.

The notion that we must legislate that via radio all hear both sides of an issue also is lamentably wanting in intellectual rigor and syllogistic competence.  First, why limit it to one form of media?  Second, who is to decide which issues are bilateral?  Or what constitutes each “side” of an issue being adequately represented and heard?  For the government to define the public debate and control media, especially so directly, is the very fatal sin the Founders sought to protect against in adopting the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

So liberals, if any of you are reading this, consider:  What is to stop your political opposition from abridging the freedom of the press in ways damaging your own partisan interests?  What recourse will there be for you once you have gutted out a foundational check and balance to our democracy?  Is it worth undermining the Republic for which we stand for a potential short term political benefit?  History will record what the powers of unchecked liberalism pursues in this matter, so choose carefully.

Never have I been so convinced that Obama is so unready for the Presidency of this country. His crackpot team have announced that they plan to run a 1,000,000,000,000.00 deficit each year, (that’s an even trillion), but that’s before the massive bailout package(s) and stimulus packages, so even more so than most such projections, this trillion is likely a gross underestimate. The worst record deficit prior to this was $423 billion. Obama is likely at such a pace to destroy the financial well being of this country in less than 4 years. Even I, who have no love for or confidence in, Obama was stunned by this figure. Mere words cannot state the unprecedented astronomical irresponsibility.

Here’s a stat. There are roughly 300,000,000 people in this country. At a trillion a year for 4 years, plus another trillion in bailouts and underestimated costs, we will be adding a debt of approximately $16,667 for every person living in this country, plus interest to the debt. This could cause collapse of the dollar and trigger a depression.

Then there are the ethics escapades. Chicago corruption has not been so exposed since the era of Eliot Ness. Funny how all these corrupt officials have a (D) next to their name. We’ve got multiple people trying to barnstorm their way into the Senate without proper certification. We’ve got the Hsu connections, elected Democrats peeing off balconies onto people, etc. And get ready, I’m sure, for the biggest wave of lobbying and corrupt quid pro quo deals the world has ever known.

Now is the time to remind folks that the Democrats have no excuses. They control both chambers and the White House. When the proverbial you know what hits the fan, it will be you know who’s fault. Perhaps a final verdict is coming on liberalism.

Barack Obama recently announced that he will implement a policy to have a “nuclear umbrella” over Israel. At first, that sounds good. You almost imagine a forcefield like protection against our closest Middle East ally with nuclear bombs bouncing off it. But, as a foreign policy matter, this is a terrible idea with negative consequences for both the United States and Israel.

First, Obama is implicitly recognizing and legitimizing a nuclear Iran, which goes contrary to what is perhaps Israel’s top foreign policy goal.

Second, by unilaterally and unnecessarily ratcheting up the rhetoric to the nuclear level, Obama may be the efficient cause of a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East, in which Israel will be financially drained and physically threatened with nuclear annihilation.

Third, it undermines all the hard international diplomacy Israel has been laying the groundwork on to justify an airstrike against Iranian nuclear sites. By the United States presuming to have an effective nuclear deterrent against Iran, the international community will now likely blame Israel for unnecessary aggression against Iran if it strikes.

Fourth, if Iran does strike, it will already be too late. It will do no good to Israel if we strike them then, so we probably won’t. Its not really “mutually assured destruction” deterrent like we had in the cold war when the United States is effectively a third party thousands of miles away. Iran will not be deterred.

Fifth, as Iran continues with its nuclear program, we can expect that any nuclear attempt against Israel would not come from the state of Iran but from state-supported terrorists. This has been Iran’s modus operandi in Iraq and elsewhere. To effect its foreign policy goals by force and deny the connection to the militants they finance, train and supply.

Sixth, this makes Israel look weak. If they need a “nuclear umbrella” what would that say about their predicament and capacity to defend themselves. A half century pillar of Israeli defense has been the perception of their military strength. That has always included U.S. support, yes, but this rings of dependence. In truth, Israel did not ask for this.

Seventh, Obama made this move without consulting Israel and without Israel’s solicitation. This means Israel can count on a chaotic relationship with the Obama administration where he will make his middle-East policy with less than the appropriate amount of consultation and collaboration.

For all the complaints Americans have about Bush being a foreign policy cowboy prone to make decisions without consulting allies and being prone to misjudgment, it seems like we now have the Democrat embodiment of the same vices.

Barack Obama recently announced that his policy of a “nuclear umbrella” protection for Israel.  Basically, if someone attacks Israel, such as Iran, the United States will retaliate with a nuclear strike.  Wow!

So here’s why this is bad for Israel:

1.  First, by ratcheting up the rhetoric to the nuclear level, Barack Obama is implicitly accepting a nuclear Iran.  This is a major foreign policy change by the United States that has a direct and detrimental impact upon Israel.

2.  Another good reason Israel did not and never would have asked for this is the potential that this may trigger a Middle East nuclear arms race. 

3.  Further, Israel already had military plans in place to airstrike Iran’s nuclear development sites.  We know this because Israel has been busy laying the 4.  By the United States acting

4.