A quick P.R. tactic for any Republican candidate who believes gay marriage should not be allowed, operative answer going forward: “I AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND THINK GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

This will stop the media questions on this subject.

Huge tactical blunder being committed by President Obama right now – announcing he will unveil his “new” economic plan after his Martha’s Vineyard vacay. I know, ho-hum, right? Wrong. Because the mainstream media is now pimping this for him, making it sound like it will, finally, offer some leadership (after, like, 2 1/2 years – wow!).

Hint to Obama: Tipping your pitches is asked to get raked.

Enter, the big stick waiting for the hanging curveball: Speaker John Boehner. He should step up to the plate and announce his own economic proposal while Obama is on vacation.

If Boehner is smart – and he is – he will keep it very simple, something like: Our plan is to freeze all taxes in place and return spending to 2006 levels.

If Boehner advocates 2006 federal spending levels he can say, “Look, I think we can all agree, it’s not like government services were threadbare in 2006, so no one can argue with a straight face we are cutting vital services. At the same time it is a cut, and a significant one. Why, well if you look at what we were spending then – at the height of two wars – and the Trillions of Dollars more we are spending now, it gives votes a good idea of just how much the Democratically-controlled Senate and House under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi increased spending. In 2009, President Obama took this approach and put it on steroids.”

This does two things: 1) Boehner will steal the initiative from Obama, who will still be on vacation, while the speaker has obviously – obviously – been working very hard. 2) It’s rumored Obama is considering a government spending freeze at 2011 levels – and calling it a CUT as part of his spending plan. If this is true, Boehner can pre-empt this move by point out how the President is mired in Washington-thinking by saying spending the same amount of money you’re spending now – but not as much as you want to spend next year – is NO CUT. No American company or individual thinks that way. Only government.

Mr. Boehner, please, wait until the President is out on the beach with a cool one and his very important friends then DROP THIS HOT SPLASH IN HIS LAP. Added bonus visuals: The media swarming the President on Martha’s Vineyard and ask him for his response on Mr. Boehner’s proposal – while on yet another vacation. (“We’ll have our own plan later this week. Ok, gotta go. Got a late tee time…”)

During his press conference today, President Obama said the following, which reveals exactly what he thinks of your income and the government’s right to it:

“I will not accept a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need…”

So to translate – the government decides how much you “should” make, what you “need” from the money you earn, and what is “additional.” All the rest is for them to keep or re-distribute as they see fit.

If anyone ever had any doubt that this man believes in the redistribution of wealth, confiscatory government, or both (i.e. moderates who voted for him thinking he was a moderate), this statement should pretty much clear that misconception right up. You can also tell he hasn’t had a real job in a long, long time (if ever).

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE – Someone who has the eye of Mr. Boehner, the RNC, Citizens United, Eric Erikson, or anyone with with more juice than me (which is pretty much anyone) PLEASE pass this along. It is TV Gold!

How hard is this? I mean really, simple is better – and in this case it’s accurate.

When President Obama says: “We want a balanced approach to fixing the debt ceiling,” the ONLY answer the Republicans/Boehner should be giving is:

“It wasn’t a balanced approach that got us here. It was the government spending far more than it took in.”

If you want to add something, you point out:

1) They are looking to increase more spending while advancing their lie about “balancing.”

2) We believe that the best way to stop over spending is to cut spending.

3) We refuse to raise taxes because the working people of America need all the money they can get in their paychecks right now.”

If you want to get snarky you can add:

“Their idea of ‘balance’ is like a gambling addict asking for you to pay off his debts, but to also give him more money so he go back to the casinos and keep gambling.”

Really, Mr. Speaker, RNC, this is not rocket-science. It’s the sad reality we’re living in.

“We passed a budget. It is the President/Harry Reid who is shutting down the government by ignoring it.”

Put the shutdown on them for NOT acting when the House has acted (or for issuing a veto if somehow the Senate comes along).

If you want to add a talking point, then:

“The country voted in November to stop this runaway spending. We listened to votes. Harry Reid and President Obama continue to ignore the voters.”

Really what more is there to the messaging here? Keep it short, to the point and repeat, over and over and over. Period.

And let’s not forget the nationalization of GM and Chrysler, repeated increases in spending during the first full year in government, including Stimulus 1 (which was supposed to keep unemployment from cresting above 8%), Stimulus 2 (which was supposed to create as many as “3 million jobs this year”), and of course, the installation 43 unelected Czars who were not vetted by Congressional inquiry. And the there’s the that tripling of the U.S. debt.

All in 14 months.

Now that’s Change!

Meanwhile on the 15th, remember to say it loud and proud, like cheers at the biggest game of the year:

“CUT FEDERAL SPENDING! CUT FEDERAL SPENDING! CUT FEDERAL SPENDING!”

It goes well with:

“REPEAL THE BILL! REPEAL THE BILL! REPEAL THE BILL!”

Keep it safe and civil. Bring your videocams or have your cells ready to document knuckleheads. And don’t fall prey to the baiting from the left.

Take it back the same way they took it over. And once we do, never let go.

I just couldn’t help but notice the Democrats’ current “offensive” (hey, I’m offended) against the Tea Party participants painting them as extreme, right-wing fringe outsiders is nearly identical to the playbook used by the Obama Administration against Fox News during much of 2009. In fact, if you take any Tea Party talking point being marshaled by the Democrats right now and substitute “Fox News” for “Tea Party” it’s pretty apparent that this is the same, “demonize the competition rather than debate them” strategy.

How did that turn out, by the way?

Because as I recall, during that storied stroke of strategic genius, Fox News’ ratings steadily increased while the ratings of more sympathetic outlets (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, Air America) continued to decline.

As if shouting how evil those people who don’t think like me will make them go away in shame and chagrinned fear. Maybe on college campuses, but not here in the real world.

So, yeah – bring it on.

They always telegraph it towards the end, but for New York Times columnist, the “end” has lasted a good four to five years. But it’s been a bad charade at best, and at this point even the most moderate Greenwich Republican could tell you that the only thing conservative remaining about Mr. David Brooks’ columns and on-air commentary is his affinity for dark business suits and bland neckties. The rest, for quite some time, has been posturing at best – and his best has been really not very good.

But today, all of David Brooks’ obfuscation and pretending, his calculated public pairings with real conservatives in restaurants, bars and trendy addresses, and his often-repeated uses of self-identifying conservative phrases such as “belief in personal freedom,” “fiscal sanity,” and “the real conservative narrative on this” have been cast off in a bold and colorful flourish of “I am who I am and I don’t care who sees me!” self-revelation.

Today, David Brooks came out as a liberal.

Of course, he may still deny this to some of his Conservative friends. Tell them with a too quick smile and rushed, red-faced explanation that this is all such “nonsense” and “poppycock” and “pure extremist drivel” (you can tell when they are getting close to dropping the pretense; the word “extremist” gets used to identify any one of your postured affiliation whose prominent authenticity is making you sweat – and not in a good way),

And let’s remember, Dave may even be deluding himself on some level that his is still a Conservative. Sort of. OK, so he’s had a few indiscreet bipartisan moments – more, and more frequently over the last, I don’t know, three, maybe four years or so. So what? And most of those happened only after copious amounts of well-aged, single-blend scotch and some really hot liberal rhetoric. And after all, he is in New York City and working for The Times, so some part of his brain can convincingly (at least in the heat of the moment) rationalize that he is their real live pet Conservative – at least in comparison to Paul Krugman, or Charles Blow, or Frank Rich, or Mo Dowd! (OK, maybe he’s a little closer to MoDo, but just the part that still gives it up for ‘The West Wing’ – god why couldn’t President Bartlet have been real!? Or even President David Palmer from 24. Oh the agony of it all! ).

But to the rest of us great unwashed out here, it is quite clear Brooksy old boy that you’re a lot closer to Krugman, Blow, Rich and Dowd than say, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Laura Ingraham or Liz Cheney (although you do respect Liz’s spunk).

So it was finally time to tell the truth Dave. Your lips may still be saying, “Oh, come on!” but me thinks your keyboard doth protest not at all. Especially in this last one, pal.

I’m not talking about the part in the column where the Brookster admits he had a Hubert Humphrey poster on the wall (I know, Dave, all the kids in the 60s had that one – right next to their posters of Yaz, Namath, Wilt and Barry Goldwater).

I’m not talking about the part where Grandmaster Davey B. admits growing up in a family of Democratic activists, or that he was “raised with the faith in the grand liberal project” (which he spurned in college years of rebellion for the pop culture kabbalah of self-determination and entrepreneurialism – Wow, ok, that feels kind of different, uncomfortable at first but sort of eye-opening. But we can still play Springsteen albums, right? Cool!).

Brooks even dances around outing himself as he pays drooling homage to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi when he says they “were fit to play the leading roles. They both embody the two great wings of the party, the high-minded aspirations of the educated class and the machinelike toughness of the party apparatus.” (Damn, they are flaming lefties but I do so admire the style, panache, elan and esprit de corp that they bring to us elitist everywhere! – OK, so maybe he sticks both feet and a knee out there).

But the true self-basting, self-outting moment – arms flung wide, face held Obama high as he shouts “I am liberal hear me roar, growl and meow really, really big!” – part in Brooks’ petite ouvre outré is otay with me column was the paragraph he wrote toward the end of the piece. The part that came after the meandering caveating of his conservative bona fides and loud asserting his disaffection with the Democrats of the now (despite their moments of swellness and the likable parts of Obama, who Brooks thinks is genuinely trying to do good, and Pelosi who Brooks implies is just genuinely trying). Then, standing there wearing his full beard of “New York Times Conservative Guy of reason,” Brooks matter-of-factly informs his fellow conservatives that:

“The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will have to raise a consumption tax. We will have to preserve benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper classes. We will have to invest more in innovation and human capital.”

Or as they spell it in what’s left of the Times News Room: O-U-T.

You did get the first part right, Dave. The task at hand is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. The task is also to recapture lost liberties and ensure the freedoms as framed for our republic by the constitution (i.e. not try to emulate the framework being used in say Europe or some other more oppressive dwelling where, last I checked, the shackles of which all of us and our grandparents and possibly their grandparents have CAST OFF. And the task is to do what we can for the truly less fortunate, and help the others who have fallen on hard luck or hard times relearn (or learn for the first time) to do some things for themselves.

To perform these tasks, Davey, one does not do as the New Yorkers do when in New York (or Albany or D.C., even) and advocate wearily, “I guess we’ll have to impose another tax to save us from ourselves and those who screwed us again.” At least, one does not propose this if one is a actually…a Conservative.

In such a case Mr. Hubert-Humphrey-sat-on-a-wall-my-activist-parents-just-knew-it-all BROOKS, a Conservative would actually advocate tackling the problem by first cutting federal spending on things which are bloated and inefficient and don’t keep us safe or ensure general commerce. Specifically, the would look at everything “federal government” in this country and hew out the chaff. Cut profligate spending at places like the Department of Education, The Department of The Interior, the Judicial Branch, and all the other branches and departments that some how need to increase their spending annually at rates above the rate of inflation. You eliminate backroom deals and their wakes of chummy waste. You prohibit lobbyists from writing bills and tailoring laws to their clients bottom lines. You ban kickbacks, purchases, and aid in exchange for votes. You do all that, and then you squash a few more roaches that scurried out when you started shining lights around.

And THEN you cut taxes.

Oh, and in any health care “reform” legislation, I gotta tell you Davido B., Conservatives would enact tort reform on medical malpractice cases, allow the purchasing of FDA certified drugs from the international free market and not extend patent lengths on pharmaceuticals in sweat heart deals so the people who really have fewer amounts of cash to spend on the upper east side, say, can spend those fewer dollars to get more generic drugs to treat their chronic pre-existing conditions. There would be no mandate to buy, but there would be rewards to save for your own care. That, and if Conservatives saw some bloated 2,700+ “health care” bill without this stuff in it they’d be too busy talking about outrage and legislative malfeasance to have time to even think of something so squishily liberal as a national consumption tax.

This is not to say Conservatives wouldn’t consider enacting a tax or two. But may only be for a crisis – not one that’s sold to you as a crisis where people are dying daily but with our new plan will start to get them access to what they need in four years or so. No, crisis like, if we don’t do something now, cataclysmic consequences will occur that could possibly preclude us from ever recovering from the crisis at hand.

That or maybe a tax that would gain approval and buy-in of more than, say, 37-41% percent of the citizenry. Shore up the power grid perhaps, or build more nuclear plants. Or even, say, a reasonable tax aimed at health care – if it could be shown that such a tax would create lower costs or better care in a sustainable way for all. Oh, and if said tax came with a lock-tight punishable by imprisonment promise that skeevy politicians won’t steal from the trust we set up with that tax like they did with, say, Social Security or Medicare.

But you don’t get any of that, Dave. At least, not on the Hubert Humphrey poster on the wall emotional level. It doesn’t resonate with you. And it probably never did, even when you somehow got some of it inside you. You tried it. You understood the allure. But it never really felt natural, did it Dave? It never was who you are.

No worries and no judgements here. It’s nice to see a man finally be man enough to embrace his true beliefs, no matter how ill-guided they are at their intellectual core. No, Mr. Brooks, coming out and embracing who and what you are inside – a good old fashion moderate liberal – is a big step for you, and for all of us. Finally we can stop explaining to our friends, “Well, he says he’s Conservative but just watch his eyes every time he see Obama, even on a TV screen, you know what’s in his heart.”

And now we all know too, Dave. Not like we haven’t for years big guy! Congratulations! I’m sure this is a big moment of catharsis and relief for you. And for us as, too as long as you promise from henceforth to stop pretending forever that any single shred of you is a conservative. It was really getting embarrassing. I mean no one – and I mean no one – was covering for you anymore.

Definitely keep the dark suits and unremarkable ties, though. They are great lingering souvenir of one of those moments in life (and hey, what’s America if we can’t share a little of each other’s style. Did you know Dick Cheney has a pair of birkenstocks? OK, he doesn’t but he probably has a Springsteen song or five in his iPod. We all do.

Last thing, say high to the fellow travelers for us. Just tell them not to get too comfortable. They’re be going on a collective trip outta D.C. in November via the polls. Ditto for 2012, all the mainstream media spin to the contrary (and hey, with the way the papers aren’t selling and the people aren’t watching you think there will be any main stream media in 2012? Just sayin…) Despite what y’all are hoping we won’t forget. (dude, we’re the elephant party for a reason).

Ok, McConnell, Boehner – how hard is this one? It’s what they should have been saying from the outset once it became evident the Senate bill was going to reconciliation. Then tick through each one – including the added 3.9% tax on investment income (how’s your 401k doing?).

The electorate will hear this message. It’s visceral and it’s true.

How about Harry Reid or Barack Obama? It’s that simple, and I can’t believe the Republicans and advocacy groups haven’t been hitting this point as the Democrats have pushed this ‘momentum’ propaganda all week and the mainstream media has fallen in lock step. If anyone is on the fence, the operative question is in the headline. Every voter should ask themselves, “Is this the person I trust with my life, my family’s lives, my kids’ lives?” Or is this just a person trying to “win,” or “save the presidency for Barack Obama” or “pass this deal”? The answer you get equals the vote you want your congress person to cast.

It’s that simple. And it should have been the sole talking point for the last four weeks. 20 hours to go before this possible travesty occurs.

And you though Bernie Madoff was a thief. Passing this bill will make him look like Santa Claus.

God save us all.