Red State

I wrote a brief little something about the appointment of former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle as the next Health and Human Services Secretary. But I really wish that prior to writing what I wrote, I had the chance to read this article first. Evidently, Daschle comes replete with conflicts thanks to past lobbying efforts and puts the incoming Administration--with its jeremiads against the lobbying culture fresh in the minds of voters--in an awkward spot. What exactly is going to be the use of having an HHS Secretary whose past work in the health care industry is going to cause him to recuse himself from addressing a whole host of important health care related issues?

Oh, and Tom Daschle is yet another un-fresh face with close associations with the Clintons. I keep waiting for Change I Can Believe In to kick in at some point, but thus far, that hope appears to be forlorn.

Let's turn the microphone over to Amity Shlaes, who discusses Obamaian plans for an economic stimulus by bringing up the inconvenient facts about the stimulus plan passed earlier this year:

The limits start showing up with the tiniest of stimuli, those government checks Americans received in the mail last spring. The idea was that having the cash would cheer up consumers so that they would start shopping again, helping retailers. That in turn would revive wholesalers, shippers, suppliers -- on up the production line.

But that stimulus failed, as the University of Michigan's Joel Slemrod and Matthew Shapiro noted. Interviews with consumers showed that only a fifth said they would spend their cash.

Savings rates tracked by the Bureau of Economic Analysis seemed to confirm that, with personal savings rates rising about the time the checks were mailed. Slemrod and Shapiro weren't surprised. They have spent much of their careers documenting failed stimulus plans. Their study of the effects of the 2001 Bush stimulus was so damning you might think that Washington would never repeat it. But Washington did.

One reason consumers don't want to spend is that they don't react instantaneously, as Keynes posited they would. They follow, rather, the theory of an economist oft-presented as the anti-hero of the moment, Milton Friedman. Friedman's permanent- income hypothesis said that consumers consider their entire future, and not just their mood, when they shop. If expectations of lifetime earnings drop, then so will spending. That too tracks reality. Many of us are beginning to wonder if we will ever get back the price we paid for our houses.

Shall I mention again how Shlaes is right?

That Mr. Obama had been sent by history to assuage the insecurities of the middle class with a "New" New Deal was always a tad detached from reality anyway. The reason is those giant legacies of existing New Dealism known as Social Security and Medicare, about which he was careful to say nothing intelligible during the campaign. These programs worked for a while too, but now their expected revenues are (in present value) about $99.2 trillion short of the expected outlays required to assure present and future workers their promised comfort in retirement.

Then again, Mr. Obama did say something in his campaign about tax rebates for all these payroll taxpayers. He also said something about government matching contributions to incentivize today's low- and middle-income workers to save for their own retirement.

Voilà, personal accounts funded by payroll-tax givebacks -- strangely similar to the solution our current president promoted to help workers escape the impending insolvency of the government retirement programs. Mr. Obama envisioned himself extending FDR's work. He may end up finishing George Bush's.

--Holman Jenkins.

To the victors may go the spoils, but misinterpreting the results of an election is always a danger. For example, in 1994 Republicans gained a majority in the Congress for two principal reasons: 1) the public was fed up with excesses of the Democratic Congress such as the Post Office Scandal and 2) Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, proposed ten popular items called the Contract With America. Sadly, after the proposals contained within the Contract were dealt with, the GOP drifted away from the ideals that helped them get elected and by 2006 their majority was gone.

Democrats face a similar problem this year. Did the public endorse a radical left agenda that would include the Fairness Doctrine, the Employee Free Choice Act, the Freedom of Choice Act, and endless investigations of George Bush? I don't think they did and if Democrats place these items at the top of their agenda they will suffer for it.

Danger of misinterpretation is at the doorstep of the Republican party as well. Why did the GOP lose in 2008? The debate rages within the Party. Some think the main cause of recent GOP losses flows from giving Big Business free reign in Congress and the abandonment of fiscally conservative principles such as controlling government spending. Others blame the Party's social conservatives for forcing unpopular topics such as gay marriage and abortion onto the front pages.

Aligning herself with the later group is columnist Kathleen Parker who today wrote this:

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth - as long as we're setting ourselves free - is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it. But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

Setting aside the sneering aspects of her column, I think she flat out wrong about why the GOP lost.

If there is one reason McCain and the GOP lost it wasn't Sarah Palin or "G-O-D" it was the credit market collapse. Fair or unfair the Republican Party in general, and John McCain in particular, were punished by the voters for the economic problems we currently endure. Additionally, were religion or social issues really an issue pushed by McCain? I don't think so. In fact, Barack Obama spent more time talking about his respect for religion and seeking common ground on social issues than McCain did.

Another major problem for Parker comes from this report in the Wall Street Journal:

Down the campaign homestretch, Mr. Obama's tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that a President Obama would cut their taxes. Only 11% expected a tax cut from a McCain administration.

The last Democratic candidate to win the tax issue was also the last Democratic president -- Bill Clinton. In fact, the candidate who most credibly promises the lowest level of taxes has won every presidential election in at least the last 40 years.

Am I saying the GOP should just carry on as they have for the past few years? Absolutely not. There are many problems we must deal with from a failure to embrace social media and other technological forms of communicating with voter, to a failure to adhere to fiscally conservative principles. In short, we must get back to the Contract With America model; one of seeking to enact policies which enjoy the broad support of the American people.

However, if a majority of my fellow Republicans side with Parker's view and seek to drive social conservatives from the GOP, the wilderness to which we been exiled will remain our home for a very long time.

Dear Leader has given his first national address on November 15 2008.

In it he talks about the gathering of the G20 nations and the effort they are making to fix the world economic recession. The recession that resulted from President Clinton and his changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995. It is amazing how such a small social engineering regulation can nearly destroy the worlds banking system after just 13 years. A lesson for anyone who doesn't run far when the government comes saying they want to help you.

He also continues to bash Bush's economy, as bad as any we have had since the Great Depression, even though it is not nearly as bad as Carter's 1970's. The current economy is suffering from Democratic blockage of Republican efforts to reign in the damage of the CRA. We would not be in this mess if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been reigned in 5 years ago when republicans wanted to. The money Dear Leader got from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are talking there.

And he decries the loss of 1.2 million jobs. As in the struggling Auto industry. His Union money is talking now. The Unions have caused too many of our industries to become uncompetitive in the Global economy. Factories are closing and going overseas where Unions won't nickel and dime them to death.

He talks about $15 Billion a year for 5 million clean energy jobs. That's $3,000 a year per job. Pretty good wages for government work I guess. The free market will have to pony up the living wages and material. Nothing about spending the $700 Billion a year we spend for overseas oil that we could spend on oil drilling and the support jobs here, now. Hmm... $15 Billion a year, $700 Billion a year. I wonder which would be a better economic stimulus package.

Dear Leader's health care plan should be great for American productivity, as we all spend a entire day waiting at the doctor's office for a 15 minute visit. Then wait 2 months to get an appointment for a screening biopsy for a cancer that will kill us in 3 months.

His speech deconstructed.

This is his speech on the California Climate Symposium, deconstructed.

Is our Constitution really not important to them?

This is a very strange issue. It could be put to rest so easily by BO by just producing the original and the issue is over. The only reason I can think of not to produce it, is it does not exist. This, by itself, does not mean he is not qualified to be president it just means like many of us he has lost or misplaced his original birth certificate.

But either way, he needs to offer some definitive proof that he is constitutionally qualified before the Electoral College meets. Why does he need to stall and evade? Just admit the truth and prove his citizenship some other way – unless maybe, just maybe, he can’t.

I cannot fathom why the media will not report on this subject – last I heard that were dozens of lawsuits going on yet no mainstream media coverage. Go figure.

BO may rewrite the Constitution before he ever takes office. Frightening.

If we've finally learned to cool our heels and drop the fingers, conservatives are beginning to realize that we have sucked it up this decade. But one thing is certain. The accumulation of frustration that has been building up since '07 was pretty clear in the loud of chorus of boos during John's concession speech on the night of the fourth. But wait. Are we quick to say who they were booing? Sure, the mention of 'The One' probably triggered an instinctive backlash of muddled curse words and vocal boos and hisses. Yet, who's to say there weren't those in the crowd who were just a teensy peeved at McCain? A pretty common diagnosis of our failure was an unpopular incumbent, a messianic challenger, yada yada yada. They say Obama's timing was right; that he would have won regardless our chosen candidate. But oh no! It was the BUSH factor! It must have been the President's fault! But... has anyone bothered to realize that it was in McCain's full capacity to kick Georgie out of the picture?

"I am not President Bush."

In theory, if all Americans knew what we conservatives know, that sentence alone would have been enough for there to have been an ah-ha! for the voters, let alone the grassroots. But as we know, Americans don't know that and tend to be attracted to very long coattails.

The President's ideological platform (and no, I'm not talking about the Bush doctrine) was for certain sound enough (or we wouldn't have reelected him in '04). Sure, W didn't run as conservative a campaign as HW did, but did that kick us in the arse? The very vast majority of the perceived dissatisfaction of our President has been induced by arbitrary incidences of alien origin. In other words, the platform didn't screw Bush; we know that much. Black Tuesday screwed Hoover. Watergate screwed Nix. The Iranian hostage crisis screwed Carter (well, he was already screwed). But in this case, like Obama's uncanny power to do magic, it seemed as if the real Bush "doctrine" disappeared. If at all, the President's domestic prowess seemed to be nonexistent this election cycle.

McCain had an open kill here. He really only had two options: renounce George completely, or strengthen his principles while defending the President in subtlety. It's evident he didn't choose the latter. The smart thing for John to have done would have been to tell the voters that he would not run a campaign of 'what-ifs'. They really are nothing new, but politicians these days seem unwilling to detach these 'what-ifs' from core party platforms.

To sum things up, an ideological campaign would have given John a win. His arbitrary one cost him it.

So yes, I just said it. It was not Bush's fault.

• • *Kowalski: Only two passengers unaccounted for, Skipper.
• • Skipper: That’s a number I can live with! Good landing, boys. Who says a penguin can’t fly?
• • [all slap flippers]
• • Alex: Hey! Happy slappers! Is there any reason to celebrate? Look at the plane!
• • Skipper: We’ll fix it!
• • Alex: Fix this? How you gonna fix this?
• • Skipper: Grit, spit, and a whole lotta duct tape. *
• • ~Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

Grit. Spit. Duct tape.

…yes, we’re going to need a lot of all three.

Leave it to me to be inspired with political commentary while watching a movie about dancing lions and psychotic penguins. I guess it’s not completely surprising, considering all the references to unions, ideological tyranny, and African blood treasure, coupled with the fact that Alec “I’m freakin’ moving to CANADA” Baldwin provided the voice of an evil, treacherous lion with really great hair. But still—could be I’m thinking too hard about things.

Anyway—back to the grit, spit, and duct tape.

I think most reasonable people have, by this time, accepted the fact that Barack Obama won the election. (If you haven’t, step one is to put the AK back in the gun safe and emerge from the bunker.) Furthermore, the aforementioned reasonable people have realized that Barack Obama is going to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—not president of the FRAT.

I call for an end to the nonsense.

There's been a lot of back and forth about whether or not those of us banished to 4 years of pain and suffering should stand behind Barack Obama. I myself have been pounced on about hundred times for saying that yes, we as a country need to stand behind our new president. Now, before you scream with rage and fire off an incendiary comment, let me explain. I will not stand behind the majority of Barack Obama's agenda. I will not condone policies supporting abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research, and I certainly don't want the handout he's ready to give me. Support for this would be a complete violation of every religious and moral belief I hold. I think those policies, if passed, will send our country right down the toilet.

When I say I will stand behind Barack Obama, I mean that I will not condone the petty ignorance that seems to have come into vogue as of late. I didn't vote for the guy, but I sure as hell am not going to listen to some idiot jaw about grape drink and fish fries in the rose garden, or allow ANYONE to call the President of the United States a "house negro". Saying things like this doesn't make you look smart or witty--it makes you look stupid. I believe America needs to treat Barack Obama like a human being, instead of a commodity, or fodder for late night soundbites.

Remember how galling it was to hear people call President Bush a retarded cowboy, or to witness fellow Americans turn up their noses and declare, "Bush isn't MY president!" IT SUCKED, and if you say it didn't, you're a dirty liar. This kind of behavior is rude and mean and definitely not something I want to associate myself with. Back where I come from, you get your ass beat for running your mouth about America--and that includes slinging mud at the president. I'm not saying I haven't let a few good ones fly about the future administration--nobody's innocent here. But what I will say is that everything I've said is completely forgivable compared to some of the garbage I've had to wade through as of late. If everything we fear might happen actually happens, the next four years are going to be hard enough without having to wade through mountains of conservative drama to find the viable arguments against what Obama is doing.

This is where the grit, spit, and duct tape all come in to play. It's time to quit whining and man up. Support Barack Obama's policies when they are consistent with your ideas of right. Oppose them when they fall short of your expectations. Never ever compromise who you are and what you believe, but don't condone ignorant slander aimed at your President. When things fall apart, be right there with the duct tape, and do your best to not grin as you help patch things back together.

NPR's Morning Edition featured a very interesting interview with Chairman Barney Frank this morning. In it he asserted that the $25 billion that the Big 3 is now seeking is definitely not enough to keep the companies going, and it will be followed by tens of billions more if the companies come up with a 'plan' that seems promising. Although if you listen to the interview, he gets awfully agitated at the NPR host for trying to hone in on this point:

Steve Inskeep: I want to ask you about something mentioned in that report from an economist from the University of Maryland. What makes you think the $25 billion would even be enough?

Rep. Barney Frank: We don't think it would be enough. The way we have this structured, they will get $25 billion if the bill passes, with a lot of conditions. No dividends can be paid, no bonuses for people over $200,000, and some other things. But they would have to prepare and file by March 31 a plan that shows how they plan to get much more efficient and to get cars that can be marketed.

But let me ask you about the first thing you said, Congressman, because you said you don't think $25 billion is enough.

Right, I'm trying to explain to you how it works.

OK.

They get $25 billion — the federal government would be in the first position to be repaid. We will come ahead of the debt holders, the shareholders, etc. They file this plan on March 31. If, on March 31, the president does not believe that this is going to get them the viability with energy efficiency cars, they have to repay the loan; they get no more money. If they can show by March 31 a plausible way to go forward, then we would consider giving more money, again, under equally stringent conditions.

So this could be $50 billion, $75 billion, $100 billion?

Well, [insurance company] AIG, which I don't think anyone would think was as important to the American economy as the auto industry ... got $40 billion just now to make it up over $100 billion. To some extent, let's not have a white-collar/blue-collar bias in our public policy. You know, those who say, hey, go bankrupt so you can cut back on what the unions have won — the unions have already made some concessions. But, you know, we've had enough anti-union activity, and enough increase in income inequality in this country. I don't want to set a precedent that bankruptcy now is a way in which you undo what gains unions have been able to hold on to.

Notice Frank is already retreating from a debate on the merits of the proposal. For him, a decision on whether or not to bail out the automakers is really a decision on whether unions are good things. And of course, given the information that Rob Bluey provides about average wages for unionized auto workers, it's easy to see that the competitiveness of the Big 3 is not helped by the UAW.

Beyond that, is Frank willing to speak honestly about his plan for hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? How much is he willing to spend? And what does he expect the Big 3 'plan' to look like, in order to convince him to loosen the purse strings. Lastly, he should stop pretending that the automakers will pay back the first $25 billion in April if their plans are found wanting. That money will be spent relatively quickly, and if more federal dollars are not forthcoming, the Big 3 won't have any revenue with which to pay back.

On a related note, let's remember that the real reason for all this bailout talk is that Democrats in Washington want to run a car company. They believe the team in Detroit failed at the job, and they want to take a shot themselves. If you have any doubt of that, look at Frank's bill:

• Long-Term Restructuring Plan – Not later than 3/31/09, loan recipients must submit to Treasury acceptable restructuring plan for long-term viability and international competitiveness, including fuel efficiency standards and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing, rationalization of costs, and proposals for restructuring existing debt.

• Oversight Board The Financial Stability Oversight Board (Oversight Board) established under EESA will provide oversight of the loan program, and will have four additional members for purposes of the loan program (Secretaries of Energy, Labor and Transportation and the EPA Administrator) in addition to the five existing members (Fed Chairman, Treasury Secretary, FHFA Director, SEC Chairman, and HUD Secretary).

[snip]

• Warrants – Treasury must obtain warrants from each loan recipient (or economic equivalent in the case of a privately held firm) equal to 20% of the loan or such greater percentage as may be determined by Treasury in consultation with the Oversight Board.

• Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance – All executive compensation restrictions from EESA apply to loan recipients for the duration of the loan plus the following additional restrictions:
no bonuses to employees making more than $200,000 (which Treasury will adjust for inflation). no golden parachutes under any circumstances. no compensation plan that could encourage manipulation of reported earnings to enhance compensation.

• Ability to Prohibit Transactions, Oversight of Financial Condition – For duration of the loan, Treasury in consultation with the Oversight Board will have the authority to review and prohibit any asset sale, investment, contract, or commitment proposed to be entered into by the recipient valued in excess of $25 million.

So Barney Frank's plan is for the federal government to acquire a stake in the car companies, approve their operating plans going forward, and to have veto power over any business decision costing more than $25 million. He might as well appoint himself CEO.

The management in Detroit has not done a great job. Do you think Barney Frank and Barack Obama's Cabinet are likely to do better? Because Barney Frank's plan is to switch the latter for the former -- with the taxpayer donating untold billions for the privilege to make the switch.

Bankruptcy sounds better by the day.

Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Shelby Steele has it right about the supposed "post-racial" character both of today's electorate and of the Obama election and presidency.

He says:

Everywhere I went on my book tour, young people would come up. "We're beyond your generation," they would tell me. "We grew up differently than you did." No, I tell them, you didn't. You did not. You are now obsessed with race. Race is the only thing that's driving your interest in Barack Obama.

You couldn't even tell me what his policies are. You're never critical of him in any way. If you were free of race you would not judge him culturally. You would judge him politically.

You just—you are consumed by race.

More here.

Zombietime.com has decided to declare this Saturday, November 22, 2008 to be Victory in Iraq Day:

We won. The Iraq War is over.

I declare November 22, 2008 to be "Victory in Iraq Day." (Hereafter known as "VI Day.")

By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It's not gonna happen. An announcement from the incoming Obama administration? That's really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don't make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.

There's not much I can add to this other than to give it my complete and whole-hearted support. After all, if we don't celebrate this victory, who will?

There is an unsubstantiated rumor floating around Washington today that last night, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) called President-Elect Barack Obama and asked that Obama appoint Senator John Kerry (D-EU) Secretary of State so that Governor Deval Patrick could appoint former Congressman Joe Kennedy (D-Venezuela) to Kerry's seat. The assumption is that then Senator Kennedy's wife, Victoria Reggie, would be appointed to his seat should he be forced to step down due to ill health.

It is in a way refreshing to see the Kennedys dispense with that boring and pointless exercise called "elections" in their fiefdom of Massachusetts. But if this is true, it would be too bad that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has to follow in the footsteps of the many women shoved to the side in the name of the Kennedy family's entitlement to do whatever they want.

After Washington Post Music Critic Paul Hume wrote that Margaret Truman “cannot sing very well,” the singer’s father, President Harry Truman, sent Hume a letter. “Some day I hope to meet you,” Truman wrote. “When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!”

According to William F. Buckley, Jr. in “Up From Liberalism,” “A few years ago a witty observer indulged in a little wishful thinking. ‘If only,’ he said, ‘Mao Tse-tung, back in 1946 or 1947, had criticized Margaret Truman’s singing! China might have been saved!”

I am also indulging in a little wishful thinking after al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, al-Zawahri, called Barack Obama a “house negro.” I’m hoping that that insult will finally inspire liberals to support the war on terrorism.

Via GetLiberty.org

For those pundits who assured us that Barack Obama would postpone rewarding his supporters in the powerful environmental lobby, at least until the nation's ailing economy can be taken off of life support, guess again. From his triage center known as the Office of the President-Elect, Doc Obama has determined that the planet's condition is more critically in need of attention than the nation's economic health.

In a taped address delivered to the Governors' Global Climate Summit meeting in Beverly Hills Tuesday, the Green Lightworker told the audience, which included a delighted Arnold Schwarzenegger, that it's time to set tight limits on greenhouse emissions:

"Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious."

Showing determination to keep his campaign promise to heal the planet, Obamessiah wants to go ahead with his cap and trade plan to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and make companies pay for the right to emit CO2. He says that the scheme will generate wealth, $15 billion of which he wants to redistribute to various alternative energy projects.

If this doesn't sound like a tax on energy to you, then welcome to The Club for Freefall. At a time when the economy is in the tank and the domestic automakers are holding out their hats in hopes of a big bailout, critics say that this sort of radical environmentalism could lead to an economic collapse.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if the Morton Kondracke's of the punditocracy are at long last beginning to get the slightest clue that perhaps Obama is not the man that they hoped he was.

- JP

I want to suggest a three part program aimed at restored sanity:

1. Deny Obama the halo of election.

   Attack, attack, attack: on electoral fraud, on financial fraud, on cronies, on abortion, on contacts with Hamas, on media bias, on eligibility, anything and everything.

   Do what McCain wouldn't: get down and dirty and make it clear that he will be impeached and removed from office the day after Republicans elected to the House and Senate in 2010 are sworn in.

2. Focus on 2010.

   Commit every party resource, every effort, to sweeping the House, the Senate races, and the governor's mansions in 2010.

   In particular, fight every action taken in congress to limit human and economic freedom: make repeal in 2011 the automatic corollary to anything that gets past the defenders in both the house and senate.

3. Use the Office of the Presidency to protect the United States from Obama's extremism.

   Mr. Bush has to act and can act - against tradition, but for the United States: on defense, on the economy, on appointments, and on electoral reform. In each case he can both do the right thing, and create situations in which the idealogues in the House and Senate will be forced to antagonize their "blue dog" colleagues while publically choosing to support Obama over their country and their constituents.

   Some examples:

   • Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Obama's campaign finances. There's no reasonable doubt that he received illegal contributions and did not reject them, there is no reasonable question about whether this was against the law. He should not get away with it simply because he appears to have won election.
   • Appoint a special prosecutor to look into vote fraud - from ACORN through to counting process issues in the various states. A federal investigation co-ordinated with the various states attorney's general is needed to ensure the integrity of the voting result.
   • Appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges, particularly with respect to executives and legislators acting on payoffs, against those involved in the Fannie/Freddie frauds.
   • On energy, the President can cite a national economic emergency to directly issue permits for drilling, recovery operations, and both nuclear and coal plant construction.
   • On the economy, the President can suspend the CAFE standards, suspend Sarbanes-Oxley (at a minimum suspend FASB 157), and direct that the mortgage bailout funds be spent entirely, or as nearly so as may now be possible, to support a new federal mortgage authority whose job it is to bet on Americans: through a leveraged buy up of home mortgage risk.

     A simple announcement now: "we will do this, hold foreclosures" and the credit crunch goes away - without another penny for bailouts to institutions and with a good chance that virtually all of the money can be recovered over time.

   • On defense, the President can order a number of purchases and deployments. For example, he could order that the tankers be purchased from Boeing, that SDI be allocated more funds, and that all forces personnel now stationed in Germany be brought home as quickly as possible.
   • On foreign affairs the President can order full recognition, including support for its membership in the United Nations, of Taiwan.
   • On show trials for Republicans, the President can issue a general pardon - allowing for prosecution only when clear criminal code violations have been proven to exist before this President's term expires.

Each one of these actions will enrage the press, enrage opposed interest groups, and draw the harshest possible condemnations from congressional democrats. But so what? Once they're done, they're done - and in both the House and the Senate there are enough sane democrats to make them almost impossible for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to reverse.

And what of 2010 and beyond? Beyond 2010 we have the big issues - the ones Republicans like to fight about: God, Country, personal freedom, and community - but lets take care of the little things first: things like restoring the economy, restoring electoral fairness, and reversing whatever damage he's done in international affairs and defense.

Two questions for you, class;

Raise your hand if you thought Al Queda wanted Bambi to win the election over the fighter pilot. Yes, I see, pretty much everybody has a hand up. Some of you wise guys with two hands.

Hands down now. OK, second question. How many of you thought that Al Queda's endorsement of Bambi signified that Bambi's 'Surrender First' policy would lead to peace or at least a cease-fire with dedicated America-hating Islamist terrorist groups? Hmmmmmm. Anyone? Anyone at all? Beuller? Anyone?

Just great. Just dandy.

Now if I might address 52 for a moment.

Hey, 52, remember what you wrought, when you elected a weak, effete, surrender-first appeaser to office. The terrorists just LOVE weak leaders. You did notice, didn't you, that they called your guy a house slave? Actually the English subtitles used an even less flattering term.

Just so you know, 52. In 2012, MY new name will be 57, and YOUR new name will be 43. So during these 4 years while you are occupying my house, eating my groceries and camped out in front of my TV watching the cable I paid for, just keep your damned feet off my furniture.

Hugs and kisses,
48

His campaign mantra was ,"change." He claimed for 20 months that he was going to shake up the Washington establishment and it would no longer be business as usual. He talked about removing the influence of Washington insiders and becoming the ultimate Washington outsider with his message of ,"hope and change."

Yet first candidate and now President Elect Barack Obama has shown that he favors the Washington insiders and has no intentions of bringing ,"change." First he selects the ultimate Washington insider to be his Vice President and now as he works on his transition into the White House making appointments and hiring staff, Obama is creating the third Clinton Administration.

Throughout the campaign Obama attacked John McCain being tied to President Bush and that if elected a McCain Administration would be nothing more that a third, "Bush term." So Obama is elected and what does he do ? He begins creating a third Clinton Administration. First he selects former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta as head of his transition team.

Another Clinton carry over is Obama's choice for Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel who was a Senior Advisor to Bill Clinton and a leading strategist for the failed Universal Health Care initiative early in the Clinton Administration. Last Friday came the next Clinton member as a possible appointment to the Obama Administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton the top candidate for Secretary of State.

Breaking news hit the airways yesterday concerning Obama chosen nominee for Attorney General. Former deputy Attorney General during the Clinton years Eric Holder. Already a part of the Obama campaign as co-chief of his Vice Presidential selection team, Holder served as deputy AG under Janet Reno and was involved with the decision to seek a pardon for then fugitive financier Marc Rich who fled the country while being prosecuted for tax fraud and illegal oil deals with Iran. The most controversial of the more than 200 pardons at the end of Clinton's Administration.

The list of former Clintonites at the Justice Department does not end with the AG. In addition to Holder, Obama is looking at appointing Elena Kagan former Clinton White House Council as Deputy AG. Also former Janet Reno Chief of Staff David Ogden currently heading Obama’s Justice Department transition team will be another Justice Department appointee. It is quickly becoming the reincarnation of the Janet Reno Justice Department.

Adding to the mix is Ron Klain who has been appointed as Vice Presidential Chief of Staff. Klain served in the same position during the Clinton years as Chief of Staff for Al Gore. A full 31 of the 47 transition and White House staff appointees or two thirds of the team Obama is taking with him to Washington are former Clinton aides and officials who served in top and lower staff levels under the former President.

This is the , "change," that Obama promised throughout his campaign ? Hiring a group of the ultimate Washington insiders who also have ties and loyalties to the Clinton Administration and the former President. These are the same advisers and staff that created the debacle during the first two Clinton years that resulted in the GOP becoming the majority in Congress after a forty year drought of Republican legislative leadership.

Come to think of it with advise like that and the obvious liberal agenda of Obama along with Pelosi and Reid on Capital Hill, this could be the making of the ousting of the Democrats in 2010. So that being the possible case then I say have at Barack, bring back the Clintonites. But to the GOP this warning, be prepared for 2010 with a new strategy that brings back true conservatism and candidates who will govern as conservatives or else the possible Majority status will be short lived and 2012 could be a disaster comparable to 2008.

Ken Taylor

"The problem with elections is that anybody who wants an office badly enough to run for it probably shouldn’t have it. And anybody who does not want an office badly enough to run for it probably shouldn’t have it, either. Government office should be received like a child’s Christmas present, with surprise and delight. Instead it is usually received like a diploma, an anticlimax that never seems worth the struggle to earn it." -From "Empire" by Orson Scott Card

Congratulations on your expensive, calculated win on election day, Professor Obama. It took an amazing amount of effort to put you in the White House, and you did a great job mobilizing people for your cause. After all the hype- will you ever be able to live up to your supporters' expectations?

I was at the Dailykos today reading a blog about the outrage from the left over Joe Lieberman. The lefty red headed stepchildren are pissed off and railing against, way for it, way for it, their prodigal son Barack Obama. They're saying thins like, "I voted for change, I didn't vote for this" it's so funny to see them squirm and throw temper tantrums like kids in a department store. Well, we tried to tell them their obsession and wholehearted dedication to Obama's "journey" to Washington might result in disillusionment and the feeling of being lost and without meaning. But did they listen? Of course not.

Here's the link, oh and my comments are on there as well. My user name is Independent113

Link:Dailykos