Some here have criticized the Church for not doing more – http://www.redstate.com/csbadeaux/2012/02/04/excommunicate-the-bishops/

At times in my life where my faith was most challenged, I never had any doubt that killing the unborn was wrong.  And one thing that always made me admire the Church is it has unquestionably been the strongest advocate for the unborn.  Have some of her members and leaders been less than sufficiently vocal at times?  Perhaps.  But there has never been any doubt about what the Church teaches, where she stands, or her solidarity with the unborn.

And now that Obama is attacking, frankly, all Christendom, the bulk of conversation on this site regarding the matter seems to focus on how shall we blame our Christian leaders.  It is beyond absurd.  For those who can see it, one of the largest swing groups in American politics could be mobilized against Obama like never before.  But instead, some wish to take the opportunity, on this blog – which is here to promote conservatism, to spend this moment on yet another circular firing squad, cutting on those doing the most to advance the cause of the unborn – just not enough.

Give me a break.  Wake up.  Obama is violating the 1st Amendment.  The cost of religious freedom, as the Founders knew, was incalculable for social cohesion and the stability of the Republic.

What also of the other costs we could be talking about?  About the fact Catholic schools alone are being asked to cooperate with evil or shut down?  They will shut down.  At a cost to the taxpayers of $18 billion a year.  Catholic hospitals, again, will shut down.  At a cost of tens of billions a year to taxpayers.  Catholic Charities, again, will be forced to shut down.  I would not even know where to begin to calculate the costs.  These monies will be reappropriated via Obamacare fines to the government.  Similarly, other Christian and religious denominations will be forced to make the same choice.  To face the same moment of truth.

This is, to me, the worst thing this administration has yet done.  Peggy Noonan, who to my mind is remarkably insightful, writes that this will cost Obama his presidency – if we stand together.  So, as conservatives, we must not let the discussion degenerate into who is to blame who for not having done more in the past, but rather must focus on the need to fight now.

But, please, please, please, for the sake of beating Barack Obama and putting the GOP back in the White House, can we all please remember that those at RedState are not the enemy?  Dissenting opinions regarding which candidate is best are rapidly pounced on here and squashed, with the foolish soul who ventured the thought electronically tarred and feathered.  Its ridiculous.  For every troll being shot down, we’re shooting down 10 conservatives here.  In nearly every single thread, strikingly disrespectful or insulting comments are being made.

This is remarkably counter-productive.  Calling someone an idiot or otherwise insulting them does not persuade them or those who agreed with their point that you are right.  They may stop arguing with you, but only because they don’t have to put up with you.  You have not persuaded anyone of anything, you have shut them out.  This is supposed to be a community of conservative thought.  If you would not say something to the other person’s face, you shouldn’t type it.  If you would not say it to a friend, then find another way to make your point.

To win this general election, we are going to have one hell of a fight.    If candidate X is no good as a nominee but has a sizable group of supporters, maybe we should be focused on how do we bring those folks into the fold when the time comes?  The Dems did not make these mistakes in 2008 like we are now.  Its got to stop, or we are going to lose.

1.  We have a field that nobody is rallying around.  The Dem division between Clinton and Obama in 2008 was really all about excitement.  Our division now is not going to have the same galvanizing, increased voter registration, all one happy family in the end type effect.  There are major problems with all 7 candidates we have left in the field.  So, its not just that we have a field nobody is rallying around.  Its looking like we have a field from whom there is nobody the GOP can rally around.

2.  A candidate who cannot unite the factions of the base equals 4 more years of Obama.  Our party has such leaders, but not in the current crop of 7 candidates.

3.  A more rapid organization around a convention candidate is possible now than in the technological stone age era of brokered conventions past.

4.  The Obama super funded reelection albatross will go extraordinarily negative on all these guys, and particularly on leaders for 6 months, but coming out with a “clean” candidate closer to the election could prevent all that damage whereby Obama moves up by tearing the other guy down.  Sure, he could still do it closer to the election, but the right candidate’s teflon and armor might not be pierced by then because they might not be able to pin the right narrative on them with such a short time.

5.  Ron Paul – he cannot win – he will not endorse the other 6.  And, like it or not, his supporters need to be part of our coalition to win too.  There are probably some guys out there his folks could get on board with.

I’ve had it with each candidate, given them a second look, and had it with them again.  I’ll still vote for whomever is our nominee against Obama, but I’d sure like to be able to do it with a little bit of hope.

I recommend these two clips to those open to considering him:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/newt_rebukes_piers_morgan_for_trying_to_educate_him_on_politics.html

And:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/special_report_center_seat_panel_with_newt_gingrich.html

Here is a candidate well-versed in just about any issue that is raised.  He handles the hard questions in stride.  He looks Presidential.  I’ll say that again – more than any other candidate, he looks Presidential.

Everyone knows Gingrich’s personal history has some baggage.  He was dismissed early as “unelectable” because of that and his corresponding unfavorable rating.  But, in 2011, we have no perfect candidate.  And personal baggage of a decades old divorce matter where no laws were broken should not preclude Gingrich from being strongly considered if he is in fact the smartest or most qualified candidate.

In two days, he squares off against Cain in a long debate.  Let’s assume he wins the debate, just as Cain’s alleged scandals get more attention.  Cain’s numbers would then go down and Cain supporters, many of whom will watch the debate, are most likely to flow to Gingrich.  Undecideds watching the debate are also most likely to flow to the winner who gets much much more air time than any of the 6 candidates who will not even be there.

Then what happens?  Rasmussen Reports had Gingrich in 3rd today at 14%.  If he beats Cain and Cain returns to his pre-surge numbers, Gingrich could easily hit 20% or more possibly.  If he gets close to or passes 20%, he becomes the new “anti-Romney.”  If that happens, Romney is finished.

Why would Romney be finished?  Basically because this whole primary season, Romney has been coasting as the “electable and competent” candidate.  Romney has his own glass ceiling in the polls because he has failed to resolve questions as to his conservative bona fides and sincerity.  The field has seen one candidate after another be the “anti-Romney” for this reason (Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain).  Unlike these others though, Gingrich has actual potential to eat into Romney’s share of the vote because like Romney, Gingrich has the same assets they value in Romney.  Gingrich is competent, experienced, free from any perception of radicalism among the moderate wing of the party.

The 2012 election should be a competence election.  Having our smartest guy who can boast credibly of a capacity to balance the budget could unite the tea party behind him as well.  Gingrich is a social conservative and a fiscal conservative with a proven track record on both, and his foreign policy bona fides might be the best in the field.

If I had to vote today, I would lean to Gingrich.

The other was an article talking about nurses’ jobs which are on the chopping block because they are being forced by some pro-abortion boss to either perform an abortion or lose their job.  They don’t work in an abortuary, they work in a hospital.  In hospitals, nurses and even doctors can get floated between units, so nobody is really safe.  With Obamacare, staff shortages have become worse, increasing the necessity of such “floats” often.  Nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc. are all at risk of losing their jobs now as Obama by executive order has stripped them of their legal protections.  See http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/01/hospital-told-nurses-assist-abortions-or-lose-your-job/ for the story.

I guess they are not content with destroying the jobs they have already destroyed with their poor management of the economy.  Their ideological commitment to abortion trumps any lip service they proffer for Americans’ job security, Americans’ religious liberty, America’s commitment to helping sex trafficking victims, having quality nurses and doctors in hospitals.

On a personal note, this directly affects my family.  As my wife is a nurse (though not one of the nurses in this story) the legal protections in place during the Bush years have been stripped away by Obama and his ilk. This damages everything we stand for, not to mention potentially the financial security of our family.  And, as she is a great nurse, it deprives the community of a quality health care professional.

Election day is 53 weeks away.  371 days and counting.

First, I don’t even count the Bloomberg projection of lost revenue.  I would be willing to concede the plan has the potential to create growth, which over 2-3 years, would aggregate past the needed 10% growth to cover the discrepancy in revenue creation.  Plus, I don’t really trust Bloomberg projections to begin with.

Lowering the corporate tax rate is a no-brainer.  I’m not sure 9% is the optimal number, nor that it’s not.  Cain has not made that case though.  It’s more likely 9% was chosen though because when paired with 9% sales tax and 9% income tax, he’s got a catchy slogan.

The 9% sales tax is unconstitutional.  The commerce clause of the Constitution gives the federal government only that authority to regulate those parts of commerce with sufficient interstate impact.  Conservatives have long tried to put the brakes on liberal expansion of government and regulation into areas of the market by defending this limit on federal power.  Cain’s plan obliterates this line of defense by seeking to tax all manners of commerce and spending.

The 9% sales tax is also going to be rather unpopular in practice.  Again, I do not ascribe to the liberal criticism that food and medicine would go up 9%.  It’s understood that as business taxes go down, that hidden cost passed along to consumers goes down.  Even after a 9% sales tax, the end price of products, such as food and medicine, may go down.  But people will still dislike it for two reasons.  One, every time they pay that 9%, they will identify it as a Republican tax or Cain tax.  Two, where market competition is insufficient to optimize prices, product costs will actually increase 9% thereby lending credence and leaving popular belief with the liberal criticism of the plan.

Finally, the 9% income tax is problematic.  Gone is the child tax credit.  Gone is the home mortgage interest deduction.  Gone is the charitable giving deduction.  This is a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class.  For those making under X, they will be worse off.  And “X” probably includes more than 50% of voters.

Some of Cain’s defenses of the plan are bogus. 

One fair criticism is that 9-9-9 can become 10-10-10.  Or 12-12-12.  Liberals love to spend and as they seek more revenues, these rates may climb.  Cain’s retort was in the last debate that he’d require a 2/3 vote to increase the rate from 9-9-9, that he would veto an increase.  Short of a presidential veto (which is only good while he’s in office), the only way to have such a prohibition on increasing the 9-9-9 rate is to amend the Constitution.  Why?  Because it’s, again, unconstitutional to try to alter the legislative requirements for enacting, modifying or repealing laws away from the majoritarian rule under the Constitution without a Constitutional amendment.

Cain selling the plan as simple and bold is really a non-seller to me.  The economy is not simple, so why should simple be an optimal approach?  The economy is incredibly complex.  When Cain criticized Romney for having a complex approach to dealing with the economy, I thought that incredibly naive.  First off, as Romney rightly pointed out, Cain’s 9-9-9 is not an economics plan.  It’s a tax reform plan.  That may be an important piece of an economic plan, but there are literally hundreds of issues other than tax reform.  Second, “bold” does not buy any more points with me than “hope and change.”  I don’t care if its “change” or “bold change.”  How about whether it’s effective change.  Obamacare was “bold” too, but that boldness does not make it good policy.

I like the pro-growth aspects of the proposal, but not any pro-growth plan will suffice.  I wish more folks who wanted health care would have ascribed to not any health care reform plan would suffice.  As always, the devil is in the details.

At this point, there’s a lot to like about Cain, but his plan has some serious flaws that need further development.  Besides 9-9-9, his dubious regulatory repeal plan, and his interesting “Chilean” model for social security reform, Cain does not have a lot of plans on the table.  As a candidate, he needs to articulate clear positions on a host of other issues before I could support him.

To my mind, the cornerstones of conservative job creation are growth policies that enable private sector job creators to create and sustain employment.  Certainly low taxes are part of this.  Every dollar a business has to give to the government is a dollar it does not have for spending on its business development.

Here is my alternative plan for conservative job creation.  Call it “trickle up economics,” or call it what you will, but I believe it gets money to businesses with successful business models in a more meaningful way reasonably calculated towards job growth.

1.  Establish a $1,000 investment credit for every taxpaying citizen.  There are an estimated 138 million tax paying citizens, so this comes out to a cost of $138 billion dollars, per year.  Every taxpaying citizen would be empowered to invest $1000 in one or more businesses that they believe are worthy of investment.  They could put the money in the New York Stock Exchange, a mutual fund, or that new bagel shop with a good location down the street.  They could invest in a friend or family member’s start up business idea, and aspiring entrepreneurs will by word of mouth have brand new sources of revenue and investors.   The only parameters are that the business must employ American workers, pay corporate taxes to the United States, and they must invest the money in a business for a reasonable minimum amount of time to be set by statute (i.e. three years, perhaps) before withdrawing their funds.

This is essentially a tax break with incentives for civic participation.  Job creation is everyone’s responsibility.  I call it “trickle up” economics, because the most successful new entrepreneurs will be those who can network effectively through start up plans that appeal to the common sense of the American people and navigate the free market successfully.

Further, it is anticipated that this investment program will create new waves of solicitation for investment through an army of new investors that will reach every sector of our populace.  Once citizens realize the financial benefits to investment, they may also choose to invest their own dollars, thereby multiplying the amount of revenue available.  As interest rates are frankly unreasonably low for investors, this new wave of opportunities will likely increase investment.  The truth of the matter is now that most Americans do not invest because they have either no means, or no knowledge of how to do so.  This will fundamentally change that.  (It is also worth noting that those who do hold investments in the market overwhelmingly tend to be more conservative than their non-investing fellow citizens).  Banks will be able to share the load of investing in businesses that can meet reasonable investment benchmarks, providing another multiplying effect.

2.  Establish tax breaks for small businesses that increase as they hit certain benchmarks of employing American citizens.  For example, if you hire at least one American citizen, perhaps that is worth a tax break of $1,000.  If you have at least 5 full time employees (FTE), that may be worth $10,000.  If you hit 12 FTE then that is worth $25,000.  If you hit at least 50, perhaps that is worth $100,000.  This should incentivize small businesses to hire more workers to reach threshholds.  It also provides tax relief so growing companies that dare to hire American workers are rewarded for doing so.  It incentivizes American hiring, and it disincentivizes outsourcing.

3.  Reorganize government to establish more small business technical support and basic management training.  Too many people have good ideas but no management know how on basic things such as handling payroll, providing for liability exposure, how to attract investors, how to market, etc.  To be sure, the best quality on all these points necessarily and naturally will come in the private sector itself.  These industries will grow though only as more businesses grow and survive.  Otherwise they have no client base.  The government support need not be as sophisticated as what such private support companies provide, but establishing such support enables the free market to compete by allowing entrants to the market through removal of overhead driven by ignorance.

We have the most educated people in the world.  We have the most freedom loving people in the world.  We have a national history richly steeped in the notion this is a land of opportunity.  But we have no system which really taps into all of this.  138,000,000 heads are better than 535 Congressman and their aides.  138,000,000 investors each driven by their own interest to realize an investment with a worthy return are going to be less influenced by connected, corrupting lobbyists that have permeated and ruined too many of those 535.

Last, it makes good political sense.  Democrats cannot feasibly oppose such opportunity for the middle class in particular or for the poor to whom such money could mean so much.  It provides a cheaper alternative to Obama’s stimulus while more reasonably calculated to establish business models that last beyond shovel ready projects.  It puts money in the hands of the American people for the sole purpose of business investment and job creation.

Right now, the trajectory we are on is unsustainable.  The rate of new spending and entitlement programs is out of control.  Right now, we can get X amount in cuts.  If the U.S. defaults, it is a catastrophe for the fiscal well-being of the country.  If we raise the debt limit without meaningful cuts, we merely postpone and crystallize the certainty of eventual default and fiscal catastrophe.  Our BATNA as such cannot be confused with our goals though.  If we get no deal, and there is default, we may still have bargaining power to enforce cuts, but the cost may be too high.  The cuts themselves are instrumental to the intrinsic good of our country’s fiscal health.  That intrinsic good is shot to hell by a default.  Not a good BATNA.

The Dems’ BATNA is equally bad.  If we default, then our country takes a huge hit and so do a lot of their cherished spending programs, particularly social security and other non vested “entitltements.”  They cannot let that happen.

Best scenario to my mind given the short timeline is get a short term (3-6 months) deal in place so the issue can be revisited while securing substantial cuts now.  The amount of increase in the debt limit should be less than the amount cut from spending (speculative spending not included).

If we set a $.50 on the dollar bar or even a $.75 on the dollar bar, that parties can agree to, the rest is working out the math on how much has already been agreed in cuts now, and the rate of spending will dictate how quickly we revisit the issue.  That’s a simple line in the sand the public can understand and support, and it is a path to fiscal solvency.

1.  We have a good talking point that Obama and Senate Democrats found funding PP more important than funding the government, and Senate Democrats will be put on record on this.  Since they have 24 of 34 seats up for reelection next year, this hurts them far more than it could hurt us.

2.  There is still the debt limit.  We can focus on peeling off Nelson and Casey for starters, who campaigned as Pro-Life.  If they support PP anyways, they’re completely done.  Next, Manchin is in a position where he must take positions against Obama, and he knows WV voters would reward him for doing so, so I think he could easily be peeled off as well, even though he takes PP’s money.  VA Senators Warner and Webb are going to be highly accountable in a government shutdown as they have large constituencies in a purplish-red state.  True Webb is retiring, but he too is not terribly close to the administration or PP.  Peel off the 5, force Obama into electoral suicide of a shutdown or to sign it into law.

3.  This has become a platform issue.  If we gain the White House and can win the Senate in 2012, then PP funding is gone by 2013.  These are goals within our reach.

4.  Highlighting PP’s abuses will increasingly become an indefensible point Democrats will be held to account for.  The issue finally has public attention, and perhaps Democrats (and liberal RINOs) should be forced to explain why they are taking money from such an organization.

5.  Social and fiscal conservatives have a campaign issue they are united on.  It is also an issue where our base’s strength is significantly stronger than theirs.

Ending abortion is going to take swinging public opinion in this country as well as changing the law.  Changing the law takes changing the Court.  Changing the Court takes changing the White House and the Senate.  Changing those elected bodies and others at state and local levels in large measure takes defanging PP by defunding them.  They give millions of dollars every year, all to liberals.

Shutting down PP’s funding, and not just at the federal level, but at every level of government, must be our objective. By doing so, we rid ourselves of liberal politicians, of abortion clinics, decrease the percentage of the population who will have abortions, we achieve a greater measure of fiscal responsibility, we get rid of a corrupting influence on our youth, and we get rid of a corrupting influence on our elected officials.

The way forward demands that we continue our focus and passion on this issue, that we continue to highlight the constant abuses of this organization, that we promote competitors who can take the social service and family funds PP leeches where governments insist on providing some funding for such issues, and challenge every abortion clinic’s presence in any of our communities.

A balanced budget, 12.6% growth, a strong social conservative, and great pro-growth policies. If he keeps this up, I say he’s Presidential or Veep material.

2. Use the VA model for cutting government costs. Governor Bob McDonnell effectively cut costs in his first year in office, turning an enormous budget shortfall into a surplus. One of the methods by which government costs were trimmed were by incentivizing public employees in positions of leadership to trim their budgets. By tying bonuses and future years’ department budgets to effective budget cuts, the orientation of such leaders was changed from attempting to spend as much money as possible so their budgets would not decrease in the following year, to an actual hard look at how to trim costs. No political leader, no matter how smart, can possibly get down in the weeds enough to know where all the hidden dollars and waste go. By changing the playing field though, McDonnell achieved effective cost cutting.

3. Cap our imports of foreign oil, develop domestic resources. This should involve offshore drilling, coal mining, natural gas, and more domestic oil exploration, including ANWR.

4. Deal with China. Is there anyone reading this who does not see almost everything they look at here in the United States have a “Made in China” or “Hecho en China” note on it? There’s a reason their country is experiencing about 15% growth with over a billion people while ours is struggling along. We are literally giving them our jobs and money. And these are things we could be and historically have produced ourselves. With the right tax incentives for domestic production and job creation (which countries like China and India already have in place), we can retain and recapture some of our manufacturing base.

5. Move beyond symbolic stuff. Reading the Constitution and cutting Capitol Hill discretionary spending budgets are a good step symbolically, and symbols do matter. But its time to move beyond that.

6. Defund Obamacare, Porkulus, and other spending abominations of the Pelosi congress. We control spending now, and everything is negotiable. Period. Democrats may not like it, but there is our means and our leverage for getting things done.

7. Follow GAO report recommendations for spending cuts and identification of wasteful and extraneous programs. We have a lot of smart people studying this stuff in detail, but somehow it fails to make its way from the objective 3rd party detailed reports into legislative action.

It’s not going to be Palin, Romney, Fred Thompson, or Huckabee.

It’s definitely not going to be Gingrich, Giuliani, Pataki, Santorum, Bloomberg, Dobbs, Tommy Thompson, or Paul.

Most, and perhaps all, of those dozen mentioned may run for POTUS. But for various reasons, I don’t see them as viable candidates for that particular office. All great conservatives (except Bloomberg), but not our strongest POTUS material, at least at this time.

My criteria are having a positive record to run on, strong conservative social and fiscal values, a credible figure on economic growth and job creation, gravitas persona, ability to bring in all major elements of the GOP coalition, and no major drawbacks. So without further ado, here is my list of potentials:

1. Governor Bob McDonnell, VA
2. Governor Mitch Daniels, IN
3. Ambassador to China, and ex-Governor John Huntsman, UT
4. ex-Governor Tim Pawlenty, MN
5. Governor Bobby Jindal, LA
6. Rep. Paul Ryan, WI

And for the VP ticket mate I would add:

1. Senator Marco Rubio, FL
2. Governor Chris Christie, NJ (but for his lack of a strong stance against abortion and his declaration he will not run for President, I would put him on the top of the list)
3. Rep. Mike Pence, IN
4. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, MN
5. Senator Rob Portman, OH
Or One of the 6 above listed for POTUS

My roundabout point though is that repeatedly we see new GOP female all stars like Palin and O’Donnell being incorrectly decried as ignorant or stupid. We see similar, “she’s stupid” type attacks against female conservatives across the country in Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, etc. SNL seems compulsively driven to attack intelligent and conservative women. They do it in a way that is not just for fun, but to assassinate their character and persona. So why is the left hell bent on such portrayals? Why do they convince themselves that a Governor who ran a 0% tax rate state effectively, or a Senate candidate whose every answer was more thoughtful than her marxist opponent, is stupid? Its because conservative, intelligent women make liberals feel threatened.

Conservative women are becoming increasingly involved. First it was Palin. Now is the new wave of “Mama Grizzlies.” But this country is about to see a wave of women elected into office, many of whom will be very successful. After that, the Pandora’s Box is open, and there will be no stopping conservative women. They will become increasingly involved in the political process. The stay at home mother who keeps apprised of issues will see she too has a place in the civic discourse in a way that has been less common than the past. New heroes and leaders will emerge, faster than a liberal media can play whack-a-mole. Feminism is being redefined.

Whereas the left has wanted to use the euphemism of “women’s issues” (meaning pro-choice) to claim an edge with female voters, the majority of American women are now Pro-Life. And nobody is more threatened by this development than liberal feminists. They feel an instinctive need to justify their own decisions and worldview by belittling conservative women. To them, its your either with us and enlightened, or you’re a stupid and unsavvy boob. But this great lie of liberalism is failing. Young girls today will see that intelligent and successful women are often Pro-Life and conservative, admired leaders of their party.

The liberal ad hominem attacks and politics of personal destruction is failing. You can see it in the monies raised by Christine O’ Donnell, Sarah Palin, Kristi Noem, Sharon Angle, and others. These women are setting shattering fundraising expectations and sometimes even records because what they stand for is striking a chord. Its overdue, but its time has come. This new rising constituency of conservative women is coming alive in a way different than the past. Its a new, lasting bastion of strength with its own untapped genius will strengthen conservativism for years to come. And its still growing.

In a blue state, Dems and independents are willing to overlook that to a large degree. There is not a huge veteran vote in CT. She did not serve at all, so its not as thought veterans are going to just go for because Blumenthal exaggerated/lied.

More importantly, such attacks can be run by surrogates. When you surrender the high ground, you lose ground. Did Brown attack Coakley at stupid? No. Did McDonnell attack Deeds on his various gaffes? No. But the info still got out there. And those Republicans won their races after being deemed to run a positive campaign. Christie got out there and talked about taxes and cost of living, which resonated along the same chords.

She can do this in several ways. She should run ads talking about her job creation experience as an executive and how that will help her as a Senator craft/support legislation that will help CT employers increase their payrolls. She can contrast that with Blumenthal’s legalistic experience as Attorney General, noting even generously that he may be a fine attorney, but he has no idea how to create jobs. She needs to hammer this contrast every day from now until November 2nd. When people in CT here McMahon’s name by Nov. 2nd, they should be thinking, “oh yeah, that savvy lady who’s going to help lower unemployment in CT and make things better here.” When they hear Blumenthal’s name, they should think “yeah, I may agree with him on some issues, and he may even be in my party, but he’s not the same kind of serious candidate when it comes to job creation as McMahon.”

Your average voter watching the debate probably thought McMahon’s debate answer is good, but guess what? The average voter in CT does not get what creates jobs any better than Blumenthal. Where is her job creation plan? What is she going to do to lower unemployment versus what Blumenthal will do to hurt unemployment numbers? That’s got to be the focus. Or she will lose a winnable race.

No more attack ads that are not directly tied to the economy.

SAFE GOP PICK UPS:

1. ND – Gov. Hoeven is so far ahead it is ridiculous.

2. AR – A solid lock in a year when the GOP will not only begin to take over the state’s Senate seats, but the House seats should flip from 3-1 Dem to 3-1 GOP. The governor’s mansion will have to wait, but this state is trending from blue to red in a strong way. Prior is probably more strongly considering retirement around now as well.

3. IN – Once again, Senator Coats.

LIKELY GOP PICK UPS

4. PA – At last, Senator Toomey will arrive. A pro-growth fiscal conservative and a strong social conservative is up 5-10 points.

5. WI – Goodbye Feingold, who trails the soon Senator Johnson by about 5-10 points.

6. CO – the unelected Sen. Bennett said he would vote for health care even if it cost him his seat. He did. And it will. He know trails tea party and RedState backed Ken Buck by 51-43 on Rasmussen.

LEANS GOP PICK UP

7. NV – Harry Reid has run a disgustingly dirty campaign. But in the end, this is still the same guy who has lead the country to disaster and had approval ratings in the 30s. He has become anathema, a symbol of what is wrong with politicians, selling out the beliefs he professed which landed him in office. While Rasmussen has Sharon Angle at a 48-47 disadvantage, and similarly the RCP average has Reid up a point or two, the late breakers will give advantage to Angle. Plus, I think we will witness a high performance on election day for the grassroots based tea party candidates like Angle that will surprise everyone by beating their poll numbers by a few points.

8. IL – Though I’ve had my doubts about Kirk, he looks like he is a slight favorite to win in the heavily Democratic stronghold of the midwest.

9. WV – Raese has an edge over Gov. Manchin and is running a good campaign by running against Obama.

Leans Democratic

10. WA – While the numbers bounce back and forth, this is still very winnable against Sen. Murray. Dino Rossi is a strong candidate for the state of WA and is within a few points in the RCP average.

11. CT – I had serious doubts about McMahon at first, but she has made this race very close. If her momentum continues much longer, she could pull this out.

12. CA – Fiorina seems to be slipping further behind Babs Boxer but is only 4-6 points behind. She’s got some work to do to right the ship, but there is time.

Likely Democrat

13. NY-S – Gillibrand is probably still an odds on favorite to win in NY, but the numbers have her with only a 5-10 points lead lately. Its hers to lose.

14. DE – Once a safe GOP pick up, its now looking likely Dem hold, but I can’t say I’ll mourn the loss of Mike Castle. This is really like losing half a GOP seat, not a whole one. Still Christine O’ Donnell has tea party support and time. This nonsense about her missing taxes is such a manufactured issue to portray her as irresponsible. But if she can refocus the attention on how her opponent is too liberal for the seat, she could pull this off. Don’t forget, she overcame long odds to topple Castle, and Coons is a piss poor candidate in his own right. If she starts to narrow the race, I fully expect an outpouring of support for her.

GOP Holds

15. FL – Rubio is running away with it. A huge political star rising for our party, a poster child for outreach to the Hispanic community for conservatism, and an outstanding conservative on top of it all.

16. OH – This was once a close race, but if its not a safe GOP seat yet, its still a highly likely GOP hold. This is a state that has said it would vote for Bush ahead of Obama by about 9 points according to one poll.

17. MO – This race leans GOP by about 5-10 points with Blunt over Carnahan.

18. NH – The state GOP is united and firmly behind Ayotte. Both House seats look likely to flip to GOP and the tea party has cultivated an excellent candidate for a few years down the road on the bench in Lamontagne.

19. NC – Once a Dem target, this seat is now a safe GOP hold.

20. CT again – If the GOP picks up 9 seats, look possibly for Lieberman to switch parties.

Gov. McDonnell did the unthinkable and turned a multi-billion dollar deficit into a huge surplus with deep budget cuts and brilliant cost saving measures. One I would like to highlight is the way he incentivized public employees to save taxpayer dollars. Usually, public employees in leadership positions are pressured to spend all the money in their budgets, even if they don’t need to, because if they have money left over, it goes for naught. They may even face budget cuts as a result and are thought ineffective or poor planners by their own leadership and subordinates. McDonnell changed that fundamental dynamic by setting specific cost saving goals for public employees and incentivizing them to reach those cost savings with a percentage of the savings going to pay bonuses. At every level, those same smart people who found ways to spend money figured out ways to cut it instead. That is how you cut the fat. That is good governance. I call on all conservative governors and legislatures across the nation to imitate this common sense approach at all levels of government. It could be taken one step further as well – instead of merely increasing public employee salaries, the budget could include a “carryover” provision so that a percentage of unspent monies can go into the following year’s budget.

And in New Jersey, Governor Christie has also achieved the impossible. Despite a hostile spend-happy Democratic majority in the state legislature, he has found ways to cut the fat and reform education in New Jersey. He has taken his case for financial responsibility to the people and won. He is leading the way towards meaningful change in New Jersey. One measure I want to highlight is his recent, successful defunding of the abortionists. Instead of spending fungible, taxpayer dollars subsidizing abortion clinics and those who fund them, that money now returns to the people. Abortion sympathizers now have to close abortion clinics in New Jersey, have less money to spend against Pro-Life Republicans, and most importantly, lives are saved in the process. Christie is not a Pro-Life governor, but this is a great example of how fiscal and social conservatives can come together to stop leftist ideologues by preventing the waste of taxpayer dollars on their leftist agenda. This should be immediately imitated by conservative governors and legislatures across the country. Similarly, states like CA, MI, NY, WI, and IL, as well as the federal government, should stop funding liberal bad science like embryonic stem cell research, which despite not leading to a single cure despite billions in research, they push forward for its political wedge issue value.

Images on YouTube of union paid protesters who were supposed to be supporting Coakley waving Scott Brown signs, and the shock of the NJ teachers union that it needed to spend time and effort persuading its own members to oppose Christie are reflective of a strong new, political undercurrent.  Tapping into that undercurrent could be a key to the GOP political prospects moving forward.

Nevertheless, with union leadership plotting to spend over a hundred million dollars on this election, have over 1,500 paid full time operatives, and plan to make over 10 million phone calls, unions remain one of the most powerful forces in our nation. Even though they now represent perhaps only 8% of the workforce, where once it was 35%, their clout remains strong. Depsite all this commitment from union brass, however, their voters only broke for Obama in 2008 by 63-37. That 26 point gap was almost certainly smaller in 2009 and looks to be smaller in 2010.

So why is that? I offer three key reasons:

1. The Democrats have failed to advance the economy in the ways that matter to union members. According to this article – poverty is higher than it has been since 1994. (Interesting to me that the last time poverty rates were so high was when the Democrats last lost the House to the GOP, and also that the poverty rates did not climb upwards again until after Democrats retook the House in 2006. If the GOP is smart, they could make an issue of this). A similar pattern can be found in unemployment numbers. Cost of living has increased under the Democratic regime, liberal trade policies have hurt union members, poverty has increased, and liberal social programs have made the marginal tax rate and upward climb steeper than ever. The job security, empowerment to create a better life for one’s children, and economic self-determination that had fueled union growth 75 years ago has been stripped from the movement. The lesson – the more the GOP can emphasize its ability to provide a stable economy with job growth, upward potential mobility for the average working man, and the American dream that one who works hard here can make it, the more inroads the GOP will make with this electorate.

2. Union leadership has become increasingly disconnected and ideological. In the landmark Beck case before the NLRB, an industrial compromise was decreed whereby union members would be forced to pay dues but they could object to paying dues for a union’s political activities. The unions, in principle, were supposed to use political dues to advance politics which inured to their members’ benefit. Now though, union leaders use those funds as their own political blank check. The safeguards, checks and balances have failed. The lesson – conservatives have an opening I believe to seek to reach out to union populations and make the argument their monies could be better spent on candidates that advance their interests – which do not necessarily coincide with increasing unionization or whatever liberal agenda the Democrats are currently pushing (i.e. Obamacare).

3. The tea party influence New and eclectic tea party grassroots movements offer alternative, common-sense outlets for political action. Their frequent themes of holding government accountable to the people, returning to original Constitutional principles, and to stop wasteful spending appeal on a basic level to your average working man. As such, they are competing for the same hearts and minds the unions are. Lesson – GOP should embrace tea partiers’ and emphasize how conservative policies do a better job of governing in a financially responsible fashion and upholding original Constitutional principles.

In the primaries, there have been winners and losers on both sides:

Winners:

1.  Tea party activists.  The success of the fledgling tea party at the November polls remains to be seen, but they have had a lot of success in the primaries.  Toppling incumbent Senators Bill Bennett in Utah and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska were a shared victory between online conservative activists and the tea party movement who helped propel lesser known candidates to the fore, knocking off  Republican senators deemed too liberal for their states.  Establishment candidates such as Charlie Crist in Florida was similarly overcome by a similar political coalition in Florida by rising star Marc Rubio, Sue Lowden was defeated in Nevada by Sharon Angle, and Ken Buck managed to surpass Jane Norton in Colorado.  In each of these high profile primaries, the GOP went to war with itself, with the same faction coming out on top time after time.  Similarly, the first pebbles in this avalanche may date back to this spring when Pat Toomey’s outpolling of then GOP Senator Arlen Specter precipitated Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party.

2. Online activists - The conservative and liberal blogosphere continue to expand as a power player in politics.  Increasingly they push their respective parties to the left or right, serve as the primary news source for the base, and flex their fundraising and volunteer muscles.  The liberal blogosphere is still a world ahead of the conservative blogosphere, but the gap is narrowing, and their handpicked and/or endorsed candidates seem to do far better, even in stunning surprises at times, than the establishment candidates.

3.  GOP - Obviously, this looks to be a good year for the GOP.  It remains to be seen how good a year.  While electoral prospects in 2010 look bright, however, party identification and party brand are still down from 5-10 years ago.

4.  Independents – Paralleling the rise in partisanship has been an increase in independent candidates and those voters who self-describe as independent.  It is an interesting time in that respect, but thus far, independent candidates have only prevailed by having long established their name brand as a party candidate or by running to the extreme left or right.  It is a dynamic which appears unlikely to change soon, but more moderate candidates of both stripes may abandon party affiliation in the days ahead to save their political skins just as Joe Lieberman did and Charlie Crist is trying to do.

Losers:

1.  Barack Obama – The current GOP wave is probably most broadly interpreted as a rejection of Democratic policies under the leadership of President Obama.  Besides Obama’s unsuccessful campaign efforts on behalf of gubernatorial candidates last fall in NJ and VA, his unsuccessful late intervention in a Massachussetts senate race, and the fact that many candidates in conservative states and districts are shunning him, there will be an impact on his agenda for the remainder of his term.  The only real questions is how many seats will the GOP pick up.  At best, he will need to learn to do a much better job of achieving bipartisan legislation, and at worst, he could be rendered a lame duck president.  Further, given the upcoming redistricting in 2010, the fact the GOP is poised to capture a majority, perhaps even a supermajority of governorships will help whoever is the GOP 2012 nominee against Obama when he runs for another term.  It will also hurt the Democrats’ chances at retaining the White House in 2016 and 2020 if the GOP captures a vast majority of the Governorships.

2.  Unions – Organized labor is taking a huge hit this fall.  They put a lot of chips down on Bill Halter to topple incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln in the primary in Arkansas, but narrowly lost.  Now Lincoln looks as though she will be slaughtered in the general election as well.  Further, an emerging tenet of the tea party movement seems to be an opposition against government spending and public unions.

3.  Moderates – It is perhaps a sad, but perhaps also inevitable, development that the parties are becoming increasingly polarized and unable to reach compromises in a bipartisan fashion.  GOP moderates have lost in recent cycles with their New England contingent more or less completely obliterated.  The few survivors are bona fide conservatives.  Moderate GOP Senators and Senatorial candidates such as Sen. Bob Bennett, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Gov. Charlie Crist, and others have lost their base.  Similarly, blue dog Democrats are getting wiped out in large numbers this fall, and I expect that trend to continue over the next few cycles.  Moderates like Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln have met their demise as the liberal wing of the Democratic party refused to rally around them, preferring to back primary opponents instead.  Online liberal activists are committed to eliminating or pulling to the left their moderate caucus members.  Then again, primary season is never a great time to be a moderate.  It remains to be seen if those moderates who did win out (Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore in CA Sen GOP primary,  Linda McMahon in CT) and those moderates running as party annointed candidates (Dem Gov Manchin in WV, GOP candidate Dino Rossi in WA).

Some questions remaining down the stretch:

1.  How big will the GOP wave be?  Will it stay at 5 points, expand to a higher margin, or will the Dems make up some ground to mitigate their losses?

2.  If the GOP manages huge gains, even if they don’t take over the House, will the Dems suffer defections from Blue Dogs and conservative Dems such as Ben Nelson from Nebraska or Joe Lieberman, independent from CT?

3.  Will Obama, like Clinton did after the 1994 elections, be able to shift gears and reinvent himself as having a bipartisan approach?  People liked that image of him during the 2008 election, but it seems few who pay attention believe that about him anymore.

4.  Will the GOP develop a Contract for America type approach to nationalize races and effectively expand their margin?  If so, from what quarter will such leadership materialize given the diminished stature of de facto leaders (Michael Steele as RNC chair has had abysmal fundraising, Sarah Palin is a constant media target loathed by the left, Newt Gingrich is not well-liked and mostly removed from the public eye).  Will an Eric Cantor, a Jim DeMint, a John Boehner, a Mike Pence, or a Paul Ryan emerge or team up to take the helm?

5.  What impact will the tea party have after the election?  Will they continue to evolve into a more organized political force?  Will they take steps to avoid splitting tickets unnecessarily in order to gain a seat at the table?  Will the GOP reach out to include them more in their candidate recruitment efforts and grassroots support?  How much clout will the GOP have to help advance their agenda?

Last, even if the GOP does not take the majority this year, anything close to it puts the Dems in a horrible position as they have twice as many seats up for reelection over the next two cycles, in 2012 and 2014.

1.  ND – Gov. Hoeven is poised to slaughter whatever scrub the Dems put up, bringing the total to GOP +1.

2.  DE – Rep. Mike Castle is poised to take over Biden’s old seat, bringing the total to GOP+2.

3.  AR – Rep. Boozman is outpolling Sen. Lincoln in a year where, except for the Governor’s office, the entire state is trending to the GOP.  Total = GOP +3

4.  PA -  Club for Growth’s Pat Toomey has opened up a respectable lead over Rep. Sestak, where the GOP looks likely not only to win the Senate seat but Sestak’s formerly secure seat in the House.  Total = GOP+4

5.  NH – Kelly Ayotte has opened up a 5-10 point lead in the polls and it appears the entire NH delegation which is running this year is looking to come back to the GOP.  GOP HOLD

6.  IL – In a mudslinging election and a Democrat state in a GOP year, this continues to be a tough race to handicap, but the polls are close.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP.

7.  OH – Recent Democrat donor scandal in the Buckeye state probably do not help their Sen and Gov candidates who are trailing in the polls already.  GOP HOLD

8.  WA – Patty Murray is neck and neck with GOP contender Dino Rossi.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP.

9.  WI – Russ Feingold is trailing GOP’s Ron Johnson.  I rate this as leaning GOP and GOP Pick Up = GOP +5

10.  NC – Though there was formerly noise about the Dems making a run at Sen Burr’s seat, it looks very unlikely now as he holds a double digit lead in a GOP state in a GOP year.  GOP HOLD.

11.  NV – Sen Reid’s mudslinging has given him a slight edge over Sharon Angle.  That said, he had been polling in the 30s against 4 different candidates for a long time, so its probably not that Nevadans like him.  His entire campaign is the politics of personal destruction and demonization of Angle.  The tea party needs Angle to win and have broad grassroots support.  While she needs to do a better job campaigning, this is still likely to turnaround and become a GOP Pick up, which = GOP +6

12.  FL – Charlie Crist has taken a small lead over Marc Rubio by running as an independent.  At some point, Crist needs to be forced to choose between being either a Democrat or a Republican.  He cannot continue to march forward as a centrist when all the major issues are so polarized.  Either he runs to the left and loses his old GOP support (which is still a significant portion of his eclectic backing) or he runs to the right and the GOP holds the seat in the caucus even if he wins.  I think Rubio has some hard work to do, but still think its his race to win or lose based upon what strategy he moves forward with.  I’m rating this as a GOP HOLD.

13.  CO – Sen Bennett acknowledged his health care vote might cost him his seat, and he appears to be true to his word.  The GOP looks ready to propel Ken Buck into the Senate, who holds a commanding 48-39 lead over the freshman Senator.  GOP Pick Up = +7

14.  MO – The Blunt and Carnahan dynasties square off again, with the polls giving a 5-10 point advantage to Blunt.  GOP HOLD.

15.  CA – Sen. Boxer is in trouble in CA.  Though I never would have thought it possible, CA just might start electing more Republicans now that its Democrat led spending policies have reduced their credit status to junk, led to deep cuts in public services, and nothing but more spending cuts, less services, and higher taxes on the horizon.  The polls are close.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP

16.  KY – Rand Paul looks like he will hold on to Sen. Bunning’s old seat for the GOP.  GOP HOLD.

17.  WV – While Gov. Manchin is very popular in WV, his positions are not.  He starts this race a 15 point favorite, but Obama’s health care bill, energy policy, and other positions have made him very unpopular in this state.  Challenger John Raese is still relatively unknown, but has a warchest of millions with which he could reap the ample harvest of issues to take to the good people of the Mountain state.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP.

18.  HI – Though I would not wish harm to anybody, it cannot exactly be taken for granted that Sen. Inouye, despite a 68-20 lead in the polls, is in pristine health at the age of 86.  In a year that has seen the passing of Senators Byrd and Kennedy, here is another Senator approaching 50 years of service in the Senate.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP.

19.  IN – Looks like a sure pick up for the GOP, which = GOP +8.

20.   CT – Lieberman – Though not up for reelection, there is a chance he may caucus with the GOP if he is frustrated enough with his poor treatment by the Democrats and their new, less than friendly, approach toward Israel.  If there is 50-50 chamber split, he could give control to the GOP.  POSSIBLE GOP PICK UP.