When the left felt Rumsfeld, a civilian, was too involved in running the war, they attacked Bush.  But the top U.S. Commander says the same, and they go up in arms.  When Chinseki criticized the President’s handling of the war, the left praised him as an American hero.  But from McChrystal they call it treason and insubordination.  At least Bush listened to the commanders on the ground.  At least Bush would not have waited months and months and months to make a decision as to strategy during war while he pursued a radical domestic agenda.  At least Bush seemed to actually care about the troops.  At least Bush did not lie about when the troops would be coming home.

Where are the anti-war protestors now?  Why does CNN and MSNBC and other networks no longer give the same level of prominence to bad news and soldier deaths from the war as when Bush was President?  Where is the criticism of Obama’s administration for flying in the bodies of our fallen soldiers in the middle of the night to avoid press coverage?  Where are the protests now that Obama has missed his many various deadlines for troop withdrawal?  Where is the scrutiny of Obama’s decisions in the public sphere regarding his mishandling of this war, effectively snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory?  Why does Obama get a pass on his utterly incompetent take on the surge, and his continued incompetence in leading our country once he was asked to make the big decisions?  How long does this double standard continue?  Doesn’t anyone on the left look at these same issues they were up in arms about and have the guts to call out the President?  Is one man really worth sacrificing passion on these important issues just to protect a political party?

We can argue about whether McChrystal should have made the comments he made.  That is not the point.  The point is Obama believed he was the best one – the best military mind to lead our troops and our country to victory.  The stakes are American lives, the lives of our allies, our international standing, and ultimately our national security and way of life.  But he sacrificed that by firing McChrystal.  And for what?  For pride?  To send a message that you cannot criticize him and get away with it?  What century and what country does he think this is?  How will Obama explain this to the parents, to the spouse, to the children, of the soldiers who die as a result of his decision to let McChrystal go?  He had one purpose in bringing McChrystal in, and that was to get rid of him.

And you know what?  McChrystal is right. The administration deserves to be criticized.  As one of the few people who could possibly jump start that conversation, that public conversation the MSM and Obama administration have been complicit in avoiding, he did what he had to do.  One thing is very clear.  McChrystal did not slip.  This was not something that accidentally came out after a few drinks.  This is not a political debutante.  A general in his position does not get to where he is without political savvy.  He said what he did to call this to America’s attention.

This administration is disinterested in ultimate victory.  They have never been about that.  The truth is the left, and especially the so-called progressives, in this country have always been more interested in manipulating and exploiting public opinion on this war then in properly managing it.  If this incident and the current reactions from the left do not demonstrate that, then I do not know what will.

What exactly was so outrageous that McChrystal said?  That Obama was unprepared and disengaged from the word go?  No surprise there.  He always is on any major issue bereft of the needed leadership in just such a way (stimulus bill, health care bill, oil spill, months to make a decision on the war strategy, allowing his Congress to say they cannot even pass a budget even though they control both houses).  That an aide made fun of Biden’s name in a play on words?  That the failure of Obama to forge necessary alliances was alluded to?  That Obama’s political appointee was criticized for caring more about his political career and political dogmas than the troops and American success?

It is so emotionally draining to witness the incompetence and liberal bull of this administration and their roughshod tactics and their incompetence day after day.  In every significant way, the Obama administration has been a complete failure and has weakened the country.  We MUST take this country back in 2010 and 2012.

Today’s poll at Rasmussen Reports had Obama at 45% approve, 54% disapprove.  24% strongly approve, and 41% strongly disapprove.

Bush, as of recent polling on June 14th had 45% approve and 53% disapprove.

The more time goes by, the better Bush is looking and the worse Obama is coming off.

Obama’s and co.’s handling of the gulf oil spill crisis has been the worst example of crisis management and incompetence in environmental history.  Before he could even be bothered to visit the Gulf Coast, our tepid president took not one, but two vacations, went campaigning for a left wing senator in danger of losing her seat six months from now, conducted hearings to produce a political theater so he could ride his political hobby horse.  Obama’s “apology” over the matter is yet again an exercise in pointing fingers at everyone but himself.

This time, though, his efforts at excuses are aimed at justifying yet another terrible national policy.  Against reason, against polls of where the American people stand, against job creation, against sound fiscal policy, and against our national security interests, Obama believes the answer to this problem is stopping American offshore drilling.  In typical Obama fashion, he seeks to blame the minority party which controls no branch of the federal government whatsoever for the disaster.  He blames Cheney (must be the tenuous Haliburton – oil – oil spill free association of White House spin doctors).  He blames our shortsightedness for drilling at all, at which point he crosses the line from incoherent babbling to actually exacerbating the disaster for the American people.  He wants to blame Sarah Palin and those who had the refrain of “Drill, baby, drill” which he apparently considers more flippant than “Plug the damn hole.”  (Side note, between his use of sexual slurs such as “teabagger” and foul language such as “damn” he gives parents every good reason to keep their children from listening to his unpredictably foul mouth).

Now, an oil spill is an accident.  Such things are both going to happen and are the eventual occurrence of a spill is foreseeable.  Having a plan to deal with such eventualities is the responsibility of the administration.  In fact, a top burn strategy that would have saved 95% of the oil and ended the crisis months ago could have been developed and utilized.

A President is supposed to respond and display leadership during a national crisis, whereas Obama seems to consistently reflect the instinct to sit on the sidelines and wait for the test polls to help him craft a position before coming out of his usual state of paralytic blithering and non-action.  And apologies that accept no responsibility are not apologies.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard him take responsibility for anything.  He always points the finger somewhere else.

His apology should have gone something like this – “I’m sorry for not taking this oil spill seriously when it first occurred.  I’m sorry my administration took a do nothing approach.  I’m sorry my administration did not take the steps to be prepared for such an occurrence.  I’m sorry I decided to ignore this disaster and not focus my efforts on resolving the incident before it developed into a tragedy.  I’m sorry I took multiple vacations and focused on partisan political campaigning before I could be bothered to even visit the Gulf Coast.  My administration has projected incompetence and indifference in the worst environmental disaster in American history.  I’m sorry for trying to blame everyone else.  I’m sorry for the fake apologies.  And I’m sorry that I even thought of using this tragedy to justify a misguided domestic policy which would make us more dependent on foreign oil, destroy American jobs and the American economy, increase prices at the pump for every American, and undermine American markets while doing nothing to protect the global environment.”

I’ve got other apologies he should issue on other topics as well, but that ought to cover his incompetence on this oil spill.  Bottom line is though:

1. If we don’t drill offshore, other countries still will, and we will have no control over the regulatory process.
2. We still will have the same market demand for oil with a lower supply so gas prices go up.
3. Since prices go up, our market is damaged and American businesses, and therefore American employment, suffers across the board.
4. Those Americans who could be employed actually working in the offshore drilling business would lose their jobs as he engages in outsourcing their work to other countries even more likely to have further spills.  He wants to destroy (another) entire American industry he has deemed evil.
5. The foreign nations we will be forced to be more dependent on for oil have policies that directly undermine our national interest and national security.  This breaks another campaign pledge for energy independence.  (Whatever happened to those 5,000,000 jobs he promised in solar, wind and tide that were going to lead to our energy independence anyways?)
6. We will be propping up those foreign powers adverse to America with American money even as we drive a deeper hole into debt.
7. Obama and his crack team are showing themselves entirely incapable of problem solving.  They should be dedicating themselves to coming up with a plan to rectify this problem and handling future ones, should they occur.
8. Why are they at least not taking the opportunity to open up the possibility of nuclear plant development – a safe, efficient, and cost-effective energy source used in Europe (apparently he only wants European style socialism, high public debt, and high public unemployment).
9. Or how about developing our coal production and natural gas industries (which the Vice President, even on the campaign trail, demonized as yet another evil American industry).
10. America does not own the Gulf of Mexico.  There is oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  Oil is valuable.  Other countries want valuable commodities.  If we don’t drill, they will.

I’ve long been tired of Obama’s incompetence and his systematic destruction of our economy, fiscal stability, national security, cost of living for average Americans, coercive policies, hyper-partisanship, dishonesty, and refusal to accept responsibility.  His instincts are taking him and his administration in precisely the wrong direction, again. Always the wrong conclusions and short-sightedness.

Drill, stupid, drill.

According to ABC News, President Obama uses the term “teabagger” to refer to his political opponents.  See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/06/gibbs_evades_question_about_obamas_use_of_teabagger.html

This is outrageous.  Its one thing when an off the wall idiot like Olbermann or Matthews uses a sexual slur on a third rate news channel.  Its one thing when those in the liberal blogosphere who seem to have no decency in the language they use on a regular basis use the term.  But when the President of the United States of America uses it, and in a book no less that would have likely been vetted through senior political advisors, it is beyond both comprehension and forgiveness.

Obama promised to be a uniter, to create a post-partisan, post-racial society of bipartisanship.  Instead, we’ve seen him demean those who are religious as ignorant people clinging to religion, political protestors are branded with demeaning sexual slurs, and a cop who is accused of racial discrimination is automatically and publicly pronounced by the admittedly uninformed President to obviously be the one in the wrong. Obama seeks to use race to divide us, and he uses crude slurs to demean political protesters.  He may not be as reprehensible as McGovern was, but his propensity to prey upon racial divisions puts him in the same category.  His is an uncivil discourse.

I will not forget this, and I will not let those whom I engage in conversations about his disingenuous nature forget it either.

Passions have been high lately regarding the push in AZ and TX legislating state enforcement of immigration law.  On the one hand, every country, especially one facing hard economic times, has a right to reasonable immigration laws and to enforce them. Its simple and straightforward, and the economic impact on those who lose jobs they would have but for the illegal immigration are unjustly being wronged by non-enforcement.

On the other hand, though the recent measures enjoy broad public support, the intensity and duration of the opposition bears a terrible political risk of driving Hispanics, (and given inartful criticisms such as the usually much more savvy Malkin’s column this morning attacking Catholic bishops as “grievance mongers”) perhaps Catholics as well away from the GOP.  The social conservative values of these groups should make them prime groups to add to the conservative column for years.  But this plays right into the race-baiting Democrats hands, who already are chomping at the bit to attempt to use race to divide this country, just as they have been doing for the past 150 years.  They see their golden opportunity and they will pursue it.  Obama, the greatest race baiter of them all has already explicitly stated his plan to go after youths, blacks, and Hispanics to help soften the midterm blow.

So the big political question is how will the law be enforced?  If it is seen as dividing families, or as Gestappo treatment and neighbors turning each other in, that will destroy, yes destroy a large portion of the GOP future, of the conservative future, as Hispanics will be driven to the Progressives.

Last, if you read the anecdotes of illegal immigrants talking about the Arizona law, it is striking how many plan to simply move to another state.  This does not solve illegal immigration, it simply punts the issue elsewhere.  So a more effective solution is needed.

So here are my keys for effective conservative tackling of the immigration issue – whereby we enforce our immigration laws, but do not commit political suicide:

1.  If someone is arrested and scheduled for deportation, they must be allowed to take their family with them.  Anything short of that is a PR nightmare and morally wrong.

2.  Enforcement should be done with a race neutral implementation scheme, with clear criteria.  Where the criteria are not met, deportation should not occur.  Where legal immigrants are pulled over or stopped by police, there must be a credible implementation scheme justifying police action.  Without this, the whole effort will be killed in the courts and come to a PR nightmare.  These criteria must be clear to the public.  The liberals will not be able to paint the worst pictures of the police and the state if they can show their actions in checking immigration status relates back to clear criteria and not arbitrary selections.

3.  Conservatives must be ready, willing and able to rectify improper applications of the law.  If a law enforcement officer abuses the law, or a business, or any party for a purpose of extortion or racism or some other insidious purpose, conservatives must be the first to call them on it, the first to explain why that is improper and how it differs from the intent and purpose of the law.  We all know liberals paint with a broad brush, and unless we police those who would misuse and taint immigration reform, it will fail.

4.  A national I.D. system is needed that cannot be easily cheated.  This requires a database be created of all American citizens, all documented workers, and legal immigrants.  A national I.D. card would be required to get a job, any job.  Each person’s I.D. number would have to be verified against the database.  Why would this work better than the current system?  An ID that is difficult to forge would add an extra cost, at a minimum to those who sought to work illegally, and an actual financial deterrent to illegal immigration.  It would facilitate enforcement of immigration law.  It would facilitate implementation of the market based solutions discussed below.

5.  As conservatives, we should have more focus on market-based solutions.  The root of illegal immigration is more want than out and out vice.  It is more profitable for immigrants to come here illegally than not, just as it is more profitable for those who employ them illegally to do so.  When it no longer becomes profitable, the illegal immigration will stop.  Enforcement is but a small piece of the puzzle.  WIthout a market based solution, all such efforts will be like trying to throw buckets of water back into the ocean that keeps crashing on the shore.  Some examples of such efforts include:

• Create a tax incentive to pay documented workers for the jobs that most frequently are worked by illegal immigrants.  The system could be paid for by the taxes, in part, paid by the legal workers who would then be employed.  Once it is more profitable to pay American workers, via tax credits or some other incentives, then illegal immigration will stop.  This program could be paid for by the reduction in social services to undocumented workers and the tax revenue increase to the state of employing legal workers.
• By law, create a statutory right of even illegal immigrants to sue employers who do not pay minimum wage or other benefits afforded to American workers under the law.  This may seem counter-intuitive to some, but the basic premise is you take away the incentive for people to employ illegal immigrants instead of Americans if the costs are at least as high.  If the market dries up, so does illegal immigration.  This has the added benefit of giving the conservatives a much stronger claim to the moral high road among the Hispanic population and those who are concerned about the humanitarian side of the equation.  And, this will give Americans who want those jobs an equal economic footing to obtain that employment without being handicapped by the impossible competition of illegal immigrants’ willing to work for less than minimum wage or reluctant to call employers out on OSHA or other employee rights under American law.
• Generate economic incentives for those who immigrate legally that will weigh heavily on their cost-benefit analysis when trying to decide whether to risk an illegal immigration or follow the law.    This could be done by either tax benefits, a faster path to citizenship, or access to social services unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Its no secret that Obama has been rather cold toward Israel, our greatest and most dependable ally in the middle East.  From snubbing Israel on middle East trips, to condemning Israel’s right to zone its own territory, to actively undermining Israel’s defensive posture against Iran, Obama has been no friend to Israel.

To conservatives, it comes as little surprise.  His cold attitude towards Israel was on full display before his election.  The new development, which Drudge is hinting will appear in the New York Times tomorrow, is that Obama will state “support of Israel must be balanced against other interests.”  Having seen Obama 180 on a slew of issues already, ranging from Iraq withdrawal timelines and numbers, to job creation promises, to energy independence promises, to netroot pandering on FISA and wire-tapping, to “no preconditions” before meeting with enemies, and any other issue he wants to about face on, this looks like the first step towards breaking that alliance.

Next, I would anticipate the U.S. will significantly, and detrimentally, scale back its support of Israel in the inevitable conflicts that are to come.  Without U.S. support, they will be forced to turn to Russia, or China, or will fail to present the same bold face against their regional enemies.  This will embolden their enemies, and by proxy, America’s prestige will also be undermined.

In the same month as Obama weakens our nuclear deterrent policy which has kept us safe for over 50 years, the Unicorn Express that is this administration goes once more with its antithesis to Teddy Roosevelt in their approach of “speak like a hippie, but carry a small stick.”

One of the prime targets for the GOP this year should be the 4th District of Connecticut.  After many long years Chris Shays was defeated by Rep. Himes by a narrow 2 point margin.  Himes’ voting record does not reflect the conservative views of this District, and as the Democratic tide recedes, this District should be among the first to come back above the water line. 

Merkle is a businessman, a former Notre Dame football player, and most importantly – an across the board solid conservative.  He is also to my mind the most likely candidate to unseat Himes.  Merkle is unapologetically Pro-Life, describing himself as “Pro-Life, across the board.”  He is a strong fiscal conservative as well. Some other quotes of his that caught my eye include:

• “We need to return to a constitutionally limited Federal Government, reduce spending and taxes, and create private sector jobs for American workers, not perpetuate governmental dependency.”

• “The people of Connecticut and the 4th District are proud Americans, and they believe in the principles our country was founded on: Limited Government, Individual Liberty, including the Rights to own property and bear arms, Strong National Defense and Strong Family Values.”

• In talking about his experience as a businessman, ”I put people to work.  I know how hard the employment picture is and how difficult it is for small businesses out there.”

You can check out his website – here.

Or, make a donation – here.

This is a very bad year to be a Democrat in the Senate whose term is expiring.  We have seen polls showing all but 3 of the Democrats in the Senate polling under 50%, (MD, VT, and HI). 

Consider:

1.  Dodd won in CT in 2004 with 66.4% of the vote.  His poll numbers were so low his own party forced him out 9 months before the election as he was unsalvageable this year.

2.  Of course, the easiest election of the year should have been MA.  Scott Brown took Kennedy’s the people’s seat back for the GOP.

3.  Blanche Lincoln, elected by a comfortable 56-44 margin in 04 is now having trouble cracking 40 in any poll against unknown candidates.  Her own party wants her to retire (which, along with 2 of the state’s 3 House reps would make a majority of the state’s Congressional delegation).

4.  Barbara Boxer, elected by a 57.7-37.8 margin last time, is within 5 points of 3 different challengers, polling well below 50.

5.  In Colorado, Ken Salazar won a tight election, stealing a GOP seat by a narrow margin, only to move on to take a post in the Obama administration, with an appointed putz unlikely to win reelection replacing him.

6.  In Illinois, Obama won against a dubious candidate in Alan Keyes by a 70-27 margin, replacing the disgraced ex-Sen. Fitzgerald.  This year, Giannoulis trails the Republican Mark Kirk in his bid for reelection.  And, this was after the state’s appointed Senator was forced into retirement due to his dubious connections with disgraced ex. Gov Rod Blagovich.  (Connection, anyone?)

7.  In Indiana, Evan Bayh won handily by a 62-37 margin.  He had a warchest exceeding the entire amount left in the DSCC coffers for all the other Democrats combined.  And he’s retiring.  And, the GOP’s candidates each slaughter each of the Democratic potential candidates, and that’s if the Democrats can even convince one of their House reps to give up their seat (which would mean also a GOP pick up in the House).  The Democrats are so desperate they are turning perhaps to a singer guitarist for a celebrity candidacy.

8.  In Hawaii, the Democrats have one of three Senators on whom I have not seen any polls, who is generally considered safe for reelection – Sen Inouye.  While I respect the war hero and Medal of Honor recipient for his service, he would be 92 by the end of this term, should he be reelected.  Given the wave of retirements, he might have trouble mounting much of a campaign effort at all should a conservative get in the race.  What if we could get a Laura Lingle to run for the seat?

9.  Barbara Mikulski – elected in 04 with 64.8% of the vote would be 80 years old at the end of the term should she be reelected.  And, she was a big supporter of the NASA program that Obama just axed.  Its gotta sting if your pet program is the only program cut in the midst of the largest spending binge in history by your own party’s President.  Though I cannot find any credible sources substantiating rumors she is considering retirement, it may not be so far fetched to see her pull an Evan Bayh.  And, while 64.8% is good, and it is MD, 64.8% is not untouchable, especially in a year like this. 

10.  NV – Harry Reid was elected with 61.1% in 04 and now is trailing by double digits against two strong conservatives.  He is not breaking 40 in polls, even though he is the Senate Majority leader.  His best hope at this point looks to be hoping a Tea Party candidate may split the conservative vote.  Fairly shaky ground.

11.  NY – Chuck Schumer, elected by a 71-24 margin last time is now polling under 50% and may draw an excellent opposition candidate in Larry Kudlow.

12.  Also in NY, the appointed Gillibrand runs for reelection first in what promises to be a bruising primary with Harold Ford and then against a yet unknown GOP candidate, with several promising options.  She too is polling below 50%.

13.  In ND, Byron Dorgan was reelected with a whopping 68% of the vote, and was polling so badly he refused to run for reelection.  Even Democrats concede that Gov. Hoeven has a cakewalk to the seat.

14.  In OR, Ron Wyden was reelected with 63.4% of the vote, but is now polling under 50% and looks potentially vulnerable.

15.  Turncoat Arlen Specter, after a bruising primary with Joe Sestak, looks poised to get slaughtered by Pat Toomey.

16.  In Washington, Patty Murray looks like she would lose if Dino Rossi runs against her, and she is polling below 50% anyways.

17.  In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is polling below 50% and looks particularly vulnerable to a Tommy Thompson candidacy, should it materialize.

18.  Last, in VT, Patrick Leahy won with 70.6% of the vote.  He appears safe at the moment, but he borders the state where Scott Brown just won.  His electorate in VT seem an awful lot like Scott Brown’s base.  He’s not running against Scott Brown, but whose to say a similar candidate supported by Brown there would not succeed?  Brown might feel a bit more secure not being the only individual in the region with a (R) next to his name.

The GOP should by all rights be winning the Latino vote in a landslide.  Our party’s platforms that are more family friendly, small business friendly and economic policies that lead to better opportunities outshine the Democrats.  But in recent years this important and rising demographic has been sliding away from our party.  The Democrats think they own any demographic that is not white, and they play their racial politics without remorse.  I do not believe we should mirror their nefarious methods, but I think we do need to do more or pay the price down the road.  In 2010, there are three things that we could be doing:

1.  Broadening our outreach efforts into the Hispanic community to sign up new Republicans and appeal to commonsense conservative principles.

2.  Magnify our efforts to recruit exceptional candidates from the Hispanic community, perhaps have some of our leading Hispanic Republicans headline the efforts.

3.  Point out the failure of the Democrats to deliver positive results that have hurt Hispanic communities in America, as well as the damaging trade policies to Latin and South American nations.

Reading some of the online and viewing some of the media pundits projections of Senate races leaves me thinking that they are way off right now.  As such, I’ve compiled my own projections:

Highly likely pickups:

1.  ND – Gov. Hoeven is a shoo-in for Senate.  There is no credible opponent. 

2.  AR – Sen. Lincoln badly trails not 1, but 5 potential candidates.  She polls anywhere from 10-15 down and in the mid-30s.  They hate her in AR and she is finished. 

3.  NV - Sen. Reid may have a war chest and connections, but both Lowden and Tarkanian are in the  RealClearPolitics.com average double ahead of him.

4.  DE – Castle is running and Biden is not. 

Fairly likely pick-up:

1.  CO – Freshman appointee Sen. Bennett is unpopular on health care and not well liked.  Norton is polling 45-36 ahead of Bennett on Rasmussen Reports’ most recent poll (12/8).

2.  PA – Snarlin Arlen faces a bruising primary which he is likely to survive, but two recent polls put him at 49-40 and 45-31 behind Pat Toomey.  Toomey’s Club for Growth and social conservative bona fides put him in good shape in PA to unseat the turncoat Specter.

Other vulnerable Dems:

1.  IN – Yes, Bayh has a warchest and high name recognition, but he’s polling below 50, has pissed off the liberal base, and IN is a conservative state in a conservative year.  If Hostettler gets in this, I think he’s got a great chance to pull it out. 

2.  WI – Feingold polled recently 47-43 behind Tommy Thompson.  He is vulnerable.

3.  WA – Murray recently polled 45-43 behind Rossi. 

4.  NY – Gillibrand is polling behind Pataki.

Outside chance:

1.  NY – Schumer has never been a huge electoral success despite huge numbers. While Gillibrand is an easier target than that windbag Schumer, I think with a good opposition candidate, we could have something going on Schumer.

2. IL – Not too enthused about Kirk. He’s trending in the wrong direction, the Dems are still solidifying behind Giannoulis, and I’m just not seeing his base.

3. CA – Boxer is easily one of the worst 5 Senators in the country, maybe the worst. But, again, opposition candidates matter. Campbell is not impressing me, Fiorina has issues with both the base and her business profile is not going to be a big sale in CA. I like Devore best, but unless he’s the GOP’s nod, this seat is an unlikely target for takeaway.

4. CT – Blumenthal is cruising, right now anyways. We’ve got a great candidate there, but at least right now, no momentum.

Final tally:

Highly likely pick ups +4 (out of 4)
Fairly likely pick ups +2 (out of 2)
Other vulnerable dems +2 (out of 4)
Outside chance +0 (out of 4)

I believe that if we get at least +9, Lieberman will caucus with us and we’ll seize control of the Senate.

McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli in VA, Christie in NJ, and now Brown in MA.  All huge GOP wins for important seats.  All victories in states that went for Obama and had a Democratic trend and/or domination.  In all three states, our GOP candidate outperformed McCain’s numbers against Obama by 25-33 points.  That’s great news.

In the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot, the Democrats had as high as an 18 point lead a few years ago.  The past three weeks, the GOP has posted a consistent 8-9 point edge, which is about 15 points better than what our candidates were up against in 2008.  The largest swing group in that time has been Independent voters, which means the same seats where Dems edged our folks out in 2006 and 2008 are in trouble.  As are longstanding Democrats from moderate districts.

The Dems rhetoric over the past few days has made it clear they intend to double down on healthcare and continue this Pickett’s charge.  They proposed today to raise the debt limit almost another two trillion dollars.  The unemployment rate is 10%, and when underemployment and discouraged job seekers are counted in its 17%.  Even if the economy turns around now, the unemployment rate is still likely to climb as folks try to come back into the job market.  Despite this enormous failing by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, they still are not focused on the economy.  They are spendaholics looking back at Bush.  Taxes are going up.  Inflation is getting worse.  The energy crisis is deepening.  The deficit is increasing, and the debt is scary.  Corruption is rampant and the stimulus dollars are not being well spent.  The Democrats have more job killing pieces of legislation on their priority list.

The common elements of our successful victories were that we nationalized the races by tapping into these issues.  None of them ran against Obama, but they all ran against the Obama agenda.  They all ran positive campaigns in the face of negative campaigns.  They all focused on bread and butter issues.  They defined themselves by their focus on job creation.  None of them apologized for being as socially conservative as they were or tried to run away from it.  Even Brown, who is pro-Choice, comes down as Pro-Life on almost every issue that is likely to come before the Senate. 

This model has a lot of mileage of its own.  But a GOP nationalized platform with a clear job creation plan, one endorsed and crafted by our best minds, and I’m thinking of Jindal, Daniels, Ryan, McDonnell, Gingrich, and a few others could accentuate this conservative wave.  We are not the party of no, we are the party of responsibility.  Being responsible means being able to say no, unlike our liberal counterparts who want to spend every dime we have and a fair few that we do not have. 

The next 9-10 months must be about claiming the mantle of fiscal responsibility and defining the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible.  We should be crushing them on the question of which party do voters trust more to handle the economy.  And then we should campaign on those bread and butter issues that voters will readily connect to the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility.  The Democrats are a reckless party lacking focus on these issues with an incompetent administration to boot.

Their worn out refrain of 8 years of failed Bush policies must be countered.  It was primarily the very same poor regulations that encourage and enabled predatory lending that ACORN and the Democrats fought for which created the bubble.  It was after the Democrats seized Congress that unemployment shot up, the stock market tanked, the housing bubble popped, the culture of corruption worsened, lobbyists grew more powerful, echoes of promises for transparency faded into backroom deals, partisan polarization became more marked, and socialist policies prevailed.

Okay, it may be a bit early yet, but in a week of bad legislative news, where health care is socialized purportedly to save our economy with more deficit spending, despite strong public opposition, and Obama plows his way through a blizzard to decry global warming, there is a silver lining.  The silver lining is that in America, elected officials are still accountable, and we can give them an electoral smackdown that will have pundits start talking about the 2010 landslides and forget about 1994.  By my count, there are about 20 Senate seats of interest in this go around.  Without further ado:

1.  CT – Senator Dodd (D) is down 48-35 in the latest (12/7) Rasmussen Reports poll to Simmons (R).  This would be pick up number 1.

2.  DE – Rep Castle (R) outpolls Beau Biden (D) in nearly every poll, including the recent Democrat run PPP poll, (11/30-12/2), by 45-39 margin.  This would be pick up number 2.

3.  FL – While Marc Rubio is gaining, and perhaps has already caught fellow Republican Gov. Crist in the primary polls, both Republicans outpoll likely Dem nominee Rep. Kendrick Meeks.  See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_florida_senate_race.html. Rubio is likely to increase in support in the primaries as momentum is on his side, and while he is not currently polling as high as Crist in the general, his momentum is moving in the right direction and he has a broad base of support. This hold be a GOP hold.

4. IL – Giannoulis (D) leads Kirk (R) by a few points, and although this is too close to call, I doubt Kirk would be able to pull this out without some luck in the electoral tides. This would be a Democrat hold.

5. MO – Carnahan v. Blunt – Two political dynasties in MO square off once again. This is a toss-up, with the most recent Rasmussen poll putting it at 43-41 in favor of Carnahan. In the spirit of well-founded optimism given recent elections and unpopular Democrat party moves, I am going to rate this as a GOP hold.

6. NH – Kelly Ayotte (R) has a tough one to hold the NH Senate seat against Paul Hodes (D), but I am rating it as a toss up.

7. NY – Giuliani would apparently slaughter Sen. Gillibrand’s reelection bid, which would be GOP pick up number 3.

8. OH – Rob Portman is running strong against multiple Democratic challengers, with Rasmussen putting his lead at anywhere from 2-7 points depending on the opponent. Perhaps the strongest candidate from either party in terms of fiscal sense, I put this as likely Republican, and I rate it another GOP hold.

9. PA – Turncoat Specter (D, former RINO) faces a tough primary challenge from Joe Sestak, and I am not so sure he will survive it. Having lost over a quarter century of seniority after Democrats broke yet another promise that he could keep it, Specter is a forgotten and ill-loved stepchild of the Democratic party, a rented vote for health care and cap & trade. Republican Pat Toomey (R), favorite son of the Club for Growth, should be well positioned to take the seat as fiscal issues come to dominate down the stretch. He is currently polling ahead of both Specter and Sestak, and I rate this GOP pick up number 4.

10. NV – Majority Leader Reid (D) looks to be going the way of Tom Daschle. Multiple GOP candidates are running ahead of him with Reid’s polling lagging anywhere from the high 30s to low 40s. I rate this as GOP pick up number 5.

11. ND – Senator Dorgan, long one of my favorite Democrat Senators for his passion regarding deficit reduction, seems to have caved on his principles on the monstrosity health care bill, deeply unpopular in his deep red state. Gov. Hoeven (R) has a huge 20+ point lead, which, if Hoeven enters the race, makes this challenger campaign a “Safe (R)” and GOP pick up number 6.

12. CT – Senator Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut, is not up for reelection until 2014. Nevertheless, he has got to be pissed as all get out by his treatment by the Democrats, and if the GOP are close enough to 50, he may caucus with us. If he does, that would be GOP pick up number 7.

13. NE – Senator Nelson, though he caved on abortion rights legislation, was again at odds with the Democratic party. He held out long, (longer I dare say than certain Republicans would have in his shoes) and with the cover of GOP membership, I am confident he would have voted against the health care monstrosity. He is not likely to win another election as a Democrat, and if the GOP gets close to Senate control, he is another possible party switcher. If this plays out, he would be GOP pick up number 8.

14. AR – Senator Lincoln polls behind 4 relatively unknown challengers and looks to be toast if her challenger’s campaign is adequately funded. This could be GOP pick up number 9.

15. CO – Freshman appointee Sen. Bennett (D) has publicly commented he would vote for health care even if it costs him his seat. He has done so, and now he might pay that very price. Polls show him in trouble, and he could be GOP pick up number 10.

16. CA – Senator Boxer (D), whose crazy comments range from calling for prosecution of the climategate whistleblowers rather than investigation into frauds, to saying the right to life does not begin until a mother brings a baby home from the hospital (one wonders about the car ride home), is facing a tough reelection from either Chuck Devore or Carly Fiorina. This is a likely Democratic hold, but again, like Kirk in IL, favorable circumstances could push the GOP nominee over the top.

17. KY – Sen Bunning (R)’s retirement leaves open a seat in a red state, which in a likley dominant GOP year should remain as another GOP hold. I would have been more worried had he not retired.

18. NC – Senator Burr faces reelection against a yet unknown Democratic challenger, but polls show him leading all challengers. I rate this as another GOP hold.

19. HI – Sen. Inouye is running for reelection at the age of 86. Though I wish him no ill, at that age health concerns are inevitable and Gov Lingle (R) could affect this seat in two ways. One, she could appoint a GOP replacement should health concerns require him to step down or should he pass away. Two, she is term limited and her gubernatorial reign ends in 2010. She would be a formidable candidate. Still, this is a likely Dem hold, and perhaps the longest shot of any of the 20 mentioned here for the GOP.

20. IN – Sen Bayh is a Reid-Pelosi pawn who won last election cycle with 64% of the vote. With the right challenger, he could be vulnerable in the red state of Indiana, especially after the health care vote. Nobody is polling this race right now, but I am convinced the opportunity is there, should the right candidate emerge, perhaps a nationally known Republican willing to locate to Indiana. At this stage, however, in the absence of such a known candidate or polls, I rate this as a likely Dem hold.

In summary, I predict the GOP has 8 seats it could easily win away from Democrats this cycle, another 3 which could become more interesting for the GOP (CA, IN, IL), 2 incumbent Senators who could switch to the GOP if a landslide occurs, and 6 likely GOP holds. If the election were today, I think the GOP would pick up 5 or 6 seats, which would force bipartisanship or at least stall the socialist drive of the Democrat leaders. Further, while 18 GOP and 18 Dem Senators are up for reelection in 2010, only 22 GOP and 42 Democrats are up in 2012 and 2014. Anything close to 50 portends a future GOP Senate majority in 5 years time.

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.