After the deranged Jared Loughner was subdued in Tucson, it took virtually no time at all for Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dubnik to start blaming rhetoric on the right to have driven Loughner to his deed. As the story unfolded, there was no such evidence to support the sheriff’s claim. If anything, Loughner’s leanings were leftward.

When Nancy Pelosi led a group of fellow congressmen through a crowd of protesters, it wasn’t long before cries of racism were bandied about including the use of the “N” word no less than fifteen times. Andrew Breitbart offered a reward of $100,000 if anyone could provide audio or video proof of such a charge. Despite hundreds of cameras, video recorders, news organizations throughout the crowd, the reward remains unclaimed.

At several rallies hosted by Tea Parties and Glenn Beck numbering in the hundreds of thousands of attendees, this correspondent is not aware of any arrests. Protests outside of a private meeting hosted by conservative supporters the Koch brothers resulted in about twenty-five arrests out of a group of estimated at 800-1000. Here is an example of some of the civil discourse that the left is demanding.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG8znz8z

Lynching Clarence Thomas? Calling for killing members of the Supreme Court while giggling into the camera? This is the civil discourse that the left is demanding?

It seems pretty clear that the cry for civility emanating from the left is really a call to muzzle what the right has to say. The targets on that map on Sarah Palin’s website, were just like the targets on the Daily Kos website, both targeting, metaphorically speaking, Congresswoman Giffords. You probably heard about the one on Sarah Palin’s website all day long. How deep did you have to dig to hear that the far left website Daily Kos had a similar map utilizing targets? What about the website that identified the home address of a Walmart executive so that union protesters could go to his house to protest. Oh, and did I mention that the site included a target on the Walmart trademark “smiley.”

Instead of issuing a bogus call for civil discourse, why not put a ban on hypocrisy? Don’t ask those on the right to do one thing while the left has free rein. But then again if they banned hypocrisy, they would have precious little to say.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

I for one must say it’s about time.  Representative Robert Brady (D-Pa.) is planning to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.  On Fox News he said emphatically that “you can’t put a bull’s-eye or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official.”  He also said, “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down.”  Amen, brother.  But let’s not stop at just bull’s-eyes or crosshairs.  We need to make sure nothing triggers another individual like this.  After all, we don’t know for sure he even saw the map on Sarah Palin’s web site.  Maybe he’s was a basketball fan.

Let’s not forget all the dangerous terminology from basketball that can set someone off.  Did you ever see how excited a basketball fan can get?  After all, fan is short for fanatic.  It’s just rife with shooting terminology.  There ‘s the jump shot, the set shot, and let’s not forget the foul shot.  Leave the basketball arena after a tough loss and come across someone with garlic on their breath and who knows who might get shot.

What about football?  The blitz and the bomb?  Did anyone check to see if the Times Square bomber was a football fan?  It could prove very interesting.  Tennis anyone?  Watch out for the smash and the grand slam.  And don’t let a fat guy jump in the pool and yell, “CANNONBALL!!!”  He could set someone off.

What about the more subtle threats that could be put on a map?  We know what you’re up to.  A pair of ruby red lips could easily imply the “kiss of death.”  How about a fish on Harry Reid’s state, you don’t have to ask Rahm “dead fish” Emmanuel what that means, just watch The Godfather.  Publishing a map with fishes and kisses could be a shot across the bow, uh check that, a warning.

What about Joe Manchin’s famous commercial that won the election for him, he put a bullet through the Cap and Trade bill that was nailed to a tree.  If you voted for Cap and Trade, you might want to know where old Joe is at any given moment.

Congress Shall Make No Law…Abridging the Freedom of Speech

We use metaphors to drive home a point.  Politics is adversarial.  Adversarial relationships lend themselves to war like metaphors.  To even suggest that someone would listen to political rhetoric and then literally translate that into action of the same form such that we need to pass laws limiting speech is to lose grip on reality.  On his own website, Congressman Brady is shown with boxing gloves on.  Does he think he is inciting someone to beat a public official to death?  When all manner of death threats were launched against President Bush including a movie depicting his assassination and a book on how to assassinate him, I don’t remember Congressman’s Brady’s outrage.

Congresswoman Giffords was shot by someone who was deranged.  We all pray for her speedy recovery.  She was shot from behind.  Perhaps if Loughner approached her from the front she may have dropped him herself with her own Glock semiautomatic.  She is reported to be a good shot.

Where the attention needs to focus is not on making our language as bland as Congressman Brady’s speeches, but to ask Sheriff Clarence Dupnik what he knew and when he knew it.  It appears that Sheriff Dupnik was well aware of Jared Loughner and a number of threats he made against a number of people. This is a very disturbed man and perhaps if some action were taken to either monitor him closely, or to have his mental condition a matter of public record, he may not have been able to buy a gun in the first place.  Does Sheriff Dupnik really believe this act was triggered by political speech or it is a red herring to hide his own culpability?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”  – President Obama commenting on a police incident in Cambridge, Mass. involving Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates

“We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions,” – President Obama speaking about Major Nidal Hasan after he killed 13 at Fort Hood.

“There is no credible evidence so far that this attack was more than at least one person, the driver,” said Mayor Mike Bloomberg. “After that there is no evidence that anyone else was involved. It may be, but we can’t say that it is.”…“If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg commenting on the Times Square bomber

“You know, at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off,” – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano commenting on the Times Square bomber

“The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf.” – New York Senator Charles Schumer commenting on the Times Square bomber

“Rep. Andre Carson said he and Rep. John Lewis had racial slurs yelled at them as they left the Cannon House Office Building, with protesters chanting what he referred to as “the N-word” fifteen times.” – CBS News report on the Health Care Vote.  Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who came forward with video or audio proof of Carson’s accusations.  To date, no one has come forward.

If it involves a black and a white, don’t wait for facts, blame the white guy; if it involves a Muslim, not so fast.  If involves an act of violence, it’s probably because of ObamaCare and since the Tea Party opposed ObamaCare, ceteris paribus, they are responsible for the violence.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, instead of focusing on the victims and their well being, and for those killed, on their families, the left wasted no time trying, once again, to play their insipid game of Pin the Tail on the Tea Party.  But like perpetual guests on the reality show “Jackass” they seem to always end up sticking the pin in their own eye.

It is almost as if they believe if they say it first, if they say it loud, if they say it often, it will finally stick.  But as the quotes above show, they are rapidly approaching the point reached by the boy who cried wolf, where no one will believe what they say at all.

This is not about political rhetoric.  This is about a mentally ill person.  A demented person with many, many witnesses to his mental illness long before he pointed a loaded gun at nineteen people at a political meeting.  And yet our society has seemed to succumb to the left’s version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Don’t blame the victim, they tell us, it’s not his fault.  Maybe so, but whose fault is it for not seeing something and saying something?

There were many opportunities to stop what happened before it happened.  His friends noticed his mental state deteriorating beginning in the tenth grade.  He turned from those friends and turned instead to drugs.  He had an encounter with Representative Giffords back in 2007, before the Tea Parties existed, that a friend noticed really bothered the shooter, Loughner.

[At] Mr. Loughner’s first meeting with Ms. Giffords in 2007. Mr. Loughner said he asked the lawmaker, “How do you know words mean anything?” recalled Mr. Montanaro. He said Mr. Loughner was “aggravated” when Ms. Giffords, after pausing for a couple of seconds, “responded to him in Spanish and moved on with the meeting.”

“I really can’t understand why Jared was so interested in Giffords,” Mr. Montanaro said. “I imagine it was simply because she was the most accessible.”

There is no mention of Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, or anything else setting off an otherwise normal person to start shooting people.  In looking at his background, his politics appeared to be decidedly left wing (click on links to see Tweets).

One of Loughner’s classmates in high school and community college, Caitie Parker, voided much of the baseless media speculation with a few Twitter messages Saturday afternoon. Parker, herself a liberal, said Loughner was “a really good friend,” whom she described as having been “left wing,” ”a political radical” and “quite liberal” when she knew him, although she lost touch with him after 2007 when he “became very reclusive.” Loughner was a “loner” and a “pot head,” Parker said in a Twitter colloquy with Anthony De Rosa of Reuters.

His classmates and teacher in community college were also terrified of him and feared for their lives.  At the first Walmart that Loughner went into looking to purchase ammunition, he scared the clerk so much that the clerk went in the back of the store and stalled before returning to say the store was out of ammunition.  If anyone should have had a target on them it was Loughner.  There were numerous red flags raised over  a six year period that someone who cared about this individual or cared for the public’s safety should have said something.  I am all for individual freedom and less government intrusion, but when someone sufficiently loses their grip that they are no longer rationally in control of their actions, it is time to get them the help they need.

Congressional Knee Jerk Reactions

Several Democratic members of Congress leapt into action to craft new legislation to prevent this from happening again.  Anti-gun stalwart, Carolyn McCarthy proposed legislation banning a part of the gun that was used.  One of the heroes who helped subdue Loughner, Joe Zamudio, carries a gun and because of that when he heard the shooting he ran towards the sounds of the shots rather than running for safety.  The left likes to paint gun owners as crazed fanatics.  Judge for yourself if this is fanatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8

Let Cooler Heads Prevail

Now is not the time for action.  It is the time for investigation and reflection.  Let us pray for those who died and pray for the speedy recovery of those still alive.  Let the facts come out about this case and not jump to conclusions over what set him off.  For anyone to use this to promote their political agenda is despicable.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

When 300,000-500,000 of your closest friends, depending on who is doing the estimating, show up for a rally on the Washington Mall you would think it was somewhat newsworthy, no?  Of course it is, that’s why the New York Times published the story on page fifteen.  If you were walking by a newsstand and glanced at the front page, you wouldn’t have know that a half million of your fellow citizens got together with Glenn Beck to restore honor in America.  The front page would entice you with:

• Graft-Fighting Prosecutor Fired in Afghanistan
• For Obama, Steep Learning Curve as Chief in Time of War
• Upstarts Chip Away at Power of Feudal Pakistani Landlords
• Years Later, No Magic Bullet Against Alzheimer’s Disease
• In Hard Times, One New Ban (Double-Wide)

I guess our friends at the times couldn’t find any fabricated stories of someone shouting the “N-word” at Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King, who was one of the featured speakers, to elevate the story to the front page.  Perhaps it would have been too embarrassing to mention on the front page that Al Sharpton’s counter-demonstration where “several hundred people packed a football field at Paul Laurance Dunbar High School to stage a rally commemorating Dr. King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.”  Yesterday, you would have thought both rallies were the same size with crowd estimates of several thousand for each.  Perhaps this shows the true value of racial politics today.  America is tired of the race baiting and the false charges.   President Obama was elected with hope and change to become the post-racial leader of the country.  It appears the country has moved on without his leadership.

In another piece in the Times two Progressive women pine for a “Palin of Our Own”, to win the hearts and minds of America.  The problem is America doesn’t want to listen to Janeane Garofalo or Joy Behar sneeringly spouting off about Sarah Palin.  As far as any women Progressive politicians, who is there other than Hillary Clinton and we’ve seen that act and passed on it.

In another piece titled “Party Down”, Marc Ambinder tells us about the anti-incumbent mood, “Unlike parties, which often recruit candidates who would appeal to the average voter in a general election, these activists care only about nominating the person who accurately represents their own views and frustrations.”  Appeal to the average voter?  The problem with the Republican Party in the past is that they have been listening to the main stream media reports about who the “average voter” is.  So they have elected so called “moderates” who get their clocks cleaned by real Progressives in the election.  The left snickered in their sleeves while growing the government into the bloated, ineffective, couch potato that it is.  It alarms those on the left that the Tea Party movement has changed all this and tone deaf incumbents are getting tossed left and right.  They have unmasked the average voter to be conservative and by measuring candidates against a conservative yardstick, they have struck a chord with the voters who have long felt ignored and disenfranchised.  Now those voters are energized and can’t wait to get to the polls.  Reason for panic on the left, indeed.

I do not like to throw around a charge of mendacity without good reason particularly after listening to the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere accuse Bush of this all day long.  But the more I listen to what comes out of this administration and the actions they take it is getting harder to hold my fire.

Take for example the brouhaha over the immigration law that hasn’t even gone into effect yet in Arizona.  From the start the administration has falsely portrayed the law as racial profiling, but when asked if they had actually read the ten page law, both Attorney General Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said they had not.  How do people in such senior positions in any administration make such a bold claim without reading what they are opposing?  It begs the question, do they know they are talking about?

The federal government has gone forward and is suing Arizona over the law claiming that it preempts federal law.  But here are some interesting questions:

• If the Arizona law preempts federal law and that is a bad thing, why does the federal government not sue San Francisco and other cities who have openly professed that they are Sanctuary Cities and immigration law will not be enforced therein?
• A recent news report is that there is a law on the books in Rhode Island that is virtually identical to the law in Arizona and it has withstood judicial challenge?  Why isn’t the federal government suing Rhode Island?
• The thrust of the federal government’s pique with the Arizona law is their claim that it is discriminatory.  But this same administration has just ordered that a case be dropped against a radical hate group, the Black Panthers, for putting armed thugs outside a polling place in Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.  According to six career Civil Rights attorneys in the Justice Department, the case was a slam dunk and they had already gotten a default judgment from the court, but this administration chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The Justice Department’s claim is that the facts did not fit the law.  Anyone who has seen the video of the incident knows that is a bald faced lie.  Is this administration for discrimination or against it?

The latest move by this administration against the rest of us is the recess appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare.  The lie in this case, is that the Republicans were stalling the appointment for “political purposes.”  Now other presidents have used recess appointments.  Both Clinton and Bush used them many times, however it was typically when they could not get the Senate to act on their nominee.  In this case, Max Baucus (D – MT), had not even scheduled hearings and eleven weeks after the nomination, the administration had not yet completed the nominating paperwork.  So was this action taken because of inaction on the part of the Senate or was the administration lying because they really didn’t want a public debate on Dr. Berwick?

Dr. Berwick has said he is, “Romantic about the National Health Service,” of Britain.  For all the false claims by the Obama Administration that if you are happy with your current health insurance you will be able to keep it, they stealthily appoint a socialized medicine disciple.  Dr. Berwick has also famously said:

 “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Let’s see, the Obama Administration appoints Dr. Berwick head of Medicare.  Medicare is the health care program for the elderly.  Dr. Berwick is plain about health care rationing and suggests the way to do it is with our eyes open.  While the term “death panel” may have been used by Sarah Palin partially for its shock value to drive home her point, changing the name to a “rationing” panel would make it different in what way?

Here is the key distinction.  In the hands of the individual and their family, they can decide what kind of care they want to provide their loved ones.  They can decide when enough is enough or whether to press on.  In a free market, insurance policies would be true insurance not medical payment plans.  But regardless you would have the liberty to decide.  In this administration’s world, some bureaucrat makes the decision and after they have driven all the alternatives out of business, other than those available to the wealthy, you will have no choice but to succumb to the will of Big Brother.

We are currently surrounded by news of massive government failures in regulation in the areas of finance and the oil industry and we are to believe that they will be superb in running one-sixth of the economy.  Do you believe the lies?

The Democrats are currently trying to roll out that old war horse, “class warfare” in a desperate attempt to arrest their freefall in the polls.  The myth is that they are for the little guy when they are the party of big government.  Businesses, once they get big, are hardly fans of the free market as they would much prefer to settle into a profitable market niche and not have to keep battling against upstarts.

Show Me the Money

An organization known as OpenSecrets.org, has a website that has information on contributions to the 2008 presidential campaign.  The list of top contributors is not a list of contributions by corporations but by contributions from those company’s Political Action Committees, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families, but it does give you a sense of where the people who make up these companies see their bread buttered.

If you look at the top 20 donors to Obama compared to the top 20 donors to McCain, the 20th donor on Obama’s list gave 32% more to Obama than the top donor to McCain.  As with any large organization there will be individuals who support Republicans and individuals who support Democrats, as well as their PACs wanting hedge bets by giving to both.  But the amounts are telling.

What is particularly illuminating is with regard to Wall Street and the Banks.  The Democrats are latching onto the sound bite that they want more regulation to protect the little guy, while the Republicans want less regulation so that Wall Street and the banks can get rich at the expense of the little guy.

Who’s Dumber Wall Street or the Democrats?

Does anyone believe that the leaders of Wall Street would give money to a candidate or party without expecting their point of view to be heard?  Does anyone believe that the Democrats would take contributions and then turn around and burn those who contributed so generously, particularly before a very tough election?  Okay, now that we have that settled let’s look at the numbers.

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to Obama’s election were as follows:

1. Goldman Sachs — $994,795
2. Citigroup — $701,290
3. JP Morgan Chase — $695,132
4. UBS AG — $543,219
5. Morgan Stanley — $514,881

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to McCain’s election were as follows:

1. Merrill Lynch — $373, 595 (subsequently sold to Bank of America)
2. Citigroup — $322,051
3. Morgan Stanley — $273,452
4. Goldman Sachs — $230,095
5. JP Morgan Chase — $228,107
6. Wachovia — $195,063 (acquired by Wells Fargo)
7. UBS AG — $192,493
8. Credit Suisse — $183,353
9. Bank of America — $166,026
10. Bear Stearns — $117,498 (subsequently sold to JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale)
11. Lehman Brothers — $114,357 (Bankrupt)

It looks like four of the companies with people who gave to McCain didn’t survive the meltdown and either disappeared or were swallowed up by the winners.  If you look as people from companies that gave to both candidates, the amounts are significantly different:

1. Goldman Sachs associates gave $764,700 more to Obama than McCain
2. Citigroup associates gave $379,239 more to Obama than McCain
3. JP Morgan associates gave $467,025 more to Obama than McCain
4. UBS associates gave $350,726 more to Obama than McCain
5. Morgan Stanley gave $241,429 more to Obama than McCain

I am not suggesting any quid pro quo for the contributions, but people do things for a reason.  Who do you think will be more sensitive to the needs of Wall Street, Obama or the Republicans? 

So look for a Financial Reform package that is a lot of smoke and mirrors that actually does nothing constructive.  Republicans will oppose it, and Democrats will try to flog them as being for Wall Street and the Banks and against the little guy, but facts are facts.  Remember, after passing ObamaCare Democrats tried to paint the picture that they stood up to the insurance companies, when they passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to become customers of those same insurance companies.  Do you think that is why the opposition from the insurance companies was muted?

It’s time to drive home the point that this Administration is allied with Wall Street, GE, health insurance companies against us.  It should not be hard to do.  People are listening closely like never before.

The other day George Stephanopoulos of ABC News had the temerity to ask President Obama his response to criticism from Sarah Palin on his new nuclear policy.  In his typical haughty way he said:

“Because last I checked,” he added, “Sarah Palin’s not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”

A child on the playground, as Ms. Palin explained, understands nuclear deterrence better than this president.  Tell a child that you can punch me in the nose and I won’t strike back and you’re asking for trouble.  How far along has President Obama’s “let’s all be friends” initiative gotten us?  He is reduced to scolding Iran and saying “this time we really, really mean it,” while Ahmadinejad snickers in his sleeve.

The Turning Tide

Rasmussen has added a feature to go along with their Daily Presidential poll that measures favorability of media reports on President Obama.  What struck me when I looked at them today was that the favorable had dropped below 50%.  Uh-oh, Mr. President, call your office.  If he loses the lame stream media, stick a fork in his presidency, it’s done.

The left is gathering a circular firing squad and first up is Mr. Stephanopoulos himself, as indicated by this account:

“In effect,” wrote Steven Benen of The Washington Monthly, “the ‘GMA’ host was saying, “Some conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality said something stupid about a subject she knows nothing about. Mr. President, how do you respond?”

However, Stephanopoulos was having none of it, responding:

“Whatever Steve thinks of Sarah Palin,” he wrote, “she’s a former VP candidate — and potential challenger to President Obama — with a strong following in the GOP. She made a pointed critique of a new Presidential policy. By asking the President for his response, I was doing my job.”

Wow, impertinent questions for President Obama and respect for Sarah Palin, coming from the lame stream media.  This could get very interesting.

President Obama has just created a panel to figure out how to get our debt under control.  Even when he makes a decision, such as this one, it is to pass the buck to someone else to do the heavy lifting.  His attempt to overhaul health care turned into the Harry and Nancy Show.  Obama campaigned and gave speeches while Pelosi and Reid shut out the Republicans and created the bill that could not be passed.  Obama is now trying to put lipstick on that pig, by calling for a bipartisan meeting.  But instead of starting over and getting ideas from everyone, they are basically going to pick over the stinking corpse of the bill that the Democrats could not get passed.  It is obvious that the real objective is to either get some Republicans to sign on or to use the meeting as a club to beat the Republicans as the “party of No.”

Stop Me Before I Spend

This president can’t seem to control himself and he finds that he painted himself into a corner.  If he tries to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 per year he will be breaking a major campaign promise.  If he stops spending on his own, he will lose the left which is about the only support he has remaining.  So he calls in Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to co-chair a committee charged with making the president a tailor made fig leaf, to allow him to cut spending and raise taxes, while shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I can’t go against the excellent advice of this august commission.”

If he wants to cut spending, he can just cut spending.  He doesn’t need a commission to do so.  How about an across the board spending freeze, except for national defense, until the economy grows enough to balance the budget and not with gimmicks like increasing discretionary spending now 24% and then saying you will freeze that same spending for the next three years?  How about freezing government hiring?  How about returning $500 billion in unspent stimulus money and $400 billion in repaid TARP money, plus interest, to the Treasury?  Don’t hold your breath.  That would require someone with executive experience who knows how to make a decision, rather than deliberating, like a legislator.  Sarah Palin comes to mind, as does George Bush (I & II), Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.  These experienced executives knew how to put together a budget and make decisions.  Chris Christie in New Jersey was just sworn in last month as governor and he immediately identified the problem as too much spending and got to work cutting it back.  All that President Obama seems to know how to do is talk. 

If we start advertising now, we may get enough resumes to review to find a replacement by 2012.

Reading one of the liberal pundit’s pan of Sarah Palin’s new book and how the reviewer harps on her inexperience, anyone with a room temperature IQ cannot help but ask, what about the guy who won?  You can say she had little executive experience, only two years as governor of Alaska and two terms as mayor of 7,000 resident Wasilla.  But while one may argue she had little executive experience, he had none.  For that matter, neither did McCain or Biden.  Legislative experience?  Sure.  Executive experience? No, and it shows.

Decisions, Decisions

What has he actually made a decision on?  The economy?  The porkulus package that is “saving” so many jobs, was put together by Pelosi.  It was as if she brought it to him and said, “Here, sign,” and he did.  Health care?  He talked a great deal about it, but five or more proposals sprouted from different committees and like a demolition derby, banged around until there was one left, dented, but still moving.

Guantanamo?  Iraq? Afghanistan?  A decision, no, no, no, we need to ponder and confer more. Despite putting the commander, McChrystal, in place, Obama can’t seem to agree or disagree with his recommendation.  And now, the granddaddy of them all, trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York.

Who’s the Boss?

This is what Barack Obama said:

“‘This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision.”

Er, no.  This is a decision for the Commander in Chief.  Don’t slough it off on some underling, no matter how lofty his title, so that at some future date you can put the blame on him.  As Harry Truman (D) said, “The buck stops here.”  It’s time, Mr. President, to step in, assert your constitutional authority and put a stop to this.  The military tribunals were set up and authorized by Congress for just this purpose.  It’s time to do the right thing.  You took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to bow to your left wing base. 

 After 9/11, President Bush kept us safe  for seven and half years.  Less than a year into your presidency, we have had the worst terrorist attack on our soil since then.  This was preventable.  But we are already starting down the slippery slope of liberal happy talk and putting all Americans in harm’s way.  Consider this, if the jihadists had their way and actually defeated us and took over, the first place they would go to slaughter the devils would be Hollywood.  If you don’t want to protect America because it’s what you took an oath to do, then do it to save your Hollywood friends from themselves.

Conservatives, do not lose heart.  Tea Party people, stand firm.  Like many great turning points in history, they often involve an historic battle that is lost.  The Alamo. Remember the Maine. Dunkirk.  Pearl Harbor.  9/11.  What they do instead is rally the troops, get them fired up and motivated.

The Battle

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the aloofness of the professional pols came to a head.  It was the epitome of a recent Rasmussen poll that said 74% of Republicans said their elected leaders were out of touch with the base.  On the Democratic side, the opposite was the case were most Democrats felt their elected leaders held similar views to their own.  So what happened in the special election in New York’s 23rd district?

Republican party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava to defend a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-”reform in workers ability to organize”, pro-gay marriage,  pro-Obama stimulus package, and endorsed by the Working Families Party, an ACORN front group.  That was more than conservatives could stand.  Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring, conservatives from around the country rallied to him, and Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race and threw her support behind…the Democrat!!

So the race was between a Democrat and a Conservative, with the Republican candidate a footnote.  The Democrat prevailed by about 5% and picked up a seat for Nancy Pelosi.

The Talking Heads

The liberals started rubbing their hands and crowing over the Republican party self-destructing.  I see it differently.

In a Gallup poll, 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative, 20% described themselves as liberals.  That leaves 40% in the middle.  The prevailing wisdom among the Republican Party leadership is that we need to run “moderates” and have a big tent to win elections.  I say, do the math. 

If you need 50% to win the election, and many times you don’t, then run a conservative candidate.  You will start off with the 40% that call themselves conservative, and then you only need to win 25% of the middle to put you over the top.  (40% in the middle x 25% = 10%; 40% conservative base plus this 10% = 50%). 

Liberals have the tougher job.  Starting out with only a base of 20% self-described liberals, they need to win 3/4 of the middle to get to 50% and win.  It’s even tougher for them because they typically have to go hard left to win the primary and then try to swim upstream to get back in the middle without anyone noticing.

Putting Elections on a Platter

So what has been the strategy of the Republican Party leadership?  Run moderates, because “we can’t win elections with the conservative base alone.”  That’s true but neither can the Democrats win with just their liberal base and as I just proved, theirs is the tougher job.  But when you run moderates, here’s what happens.  A good portion of the conservative base stays home, disgusted.  So from starting with 40%, you maybe now have a 20% base.  You just let the Democrats pull even.  Now you have to win not 25% of the middle but half of the middle.  Let’s say the middle is a continuum from almost conservative to almost liberal.  If Republicans keep their base, then they can just go after the middle group that is “almost” conservative.  If they alienate their base then they have to get every vote in the middle that is the least bit conservative and maybe some liberals.  On the flip side, if they keep their base by running conservative candidates, that forces the Democrat to get all the liberals, all moderates, and some who lean conservative, to capture 3/4 of the middle.  After going hard left to get nominated, that is an almost impossible task.

Don’t Let Obama Fool You

Obama’s election had an historical element to it that we are not likely to see again.  He is an incredibly good speaker, that is, until you realize that is all he is.  Put up a moderate like McCain, and it was no contest.  The only time it became interesting was when McCain picked Palin, which got the base energized.  But the McCain campaign completely mismanaged bringing Palin on board, and the moment was lost.

Remember the 23rd!

So, conservatives have to rally and the Republican leadership has to pay attention.  As Margaret Thatcher used to say, “Don’t go wobbly.”  Start putting conservatives on the field and turn the tide of the battle. 

The next battle is Florida where Charlie Crist…better update his resume, there is a new kid in town, named Marco Rubio and he’s a conservative.