Constructive criticism of Obama on Egypt

President Obama appeared effete and indecisive when it came to the uprising in Iran.  The result - the hard-line regime is still in place. Contrast that with President Reagan on the uprisings across Europe, from Gdansk Poland (where there is a park named after the former President) to East Berlin.  Remember the words "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"?

Remember President Kennedy's "Ich Ben Ein Berliner"?

The point is that both men understood the importance of history and not being caught like a deer in the headlights.  President Obama was non-existent in the Iran crisis, and he seemed extremely slow or disinterested in the Gulf oil spill.  Now, something potentially game-changing is going on in Egypt, and from the White House?  Crickets.

Here's some constructive criticism for the President.  On Egypt - do something.  Anything.  At this point it is abundantly clear to most that if something doesn't fit into your agenda (especially when it comes to international affairs) then it's a trivial matter for you.  But if you do something, anything, even if you get it wrong, you can't be accused of voting 'present' for what could be one of the biggest international events in your presidency.  You'll probably get it wrong, but you'll get more respect at home for doing something than for doing nothing.  Rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before you choose a side, stand up for something.  If you really believed in freedom, democracy and human rights, the choice would be pretty simple.  If an ally who isn't as democratic as you'd like is more important to you than democracy in Egypt, there's a rationale for that too. Except that it would prove a certain hypocrisy on your part when you make decisions as a matter of national interest rather than principle (say for example when it comes to something like keeping the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay open).

Whatever you do it won't change most people's opinion of you, so what's the harm in taking a side?

The Kennedy rally has begun

Democratic Representative Carol Shea-Porter arguing that the Constitution doesn't cover health care, misses the point - the Constitution doesn't cover a lot of stuff but there are some basic concepts it does cover that should not be cast aside.



And Howard Dean goes on the offensive; the health care bill WILL contain a government paid option. Oh yes, it will.



This is just the start of the Democrat blowback, and they still have the overall numbers. Not to mention the legislative option of reconciliation.  Don't let the Town Hall momentum slide or this boondoggle will still get passed.

Rally 'round the Kennedy

Let me start by offering condolenses to the Kennedy family. A loss of a family member is always a sorrowful event.

Democrats are looking to revive Obamacare KennedyCare around the memory and the greatest wish of Ted Kennedy.  It's awfully difficult to not look at it as opportunism.  It's awfully difficult to not to mention some of the less than stellar Ted Kennedy initiatives.  And it's awfully difficult to not think of Mary Jo Kopechne.

But before the end of the first day, there's a rally cry around Ted.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.

Inappropriate. Opportunistic. Desperate.

If Democrats believe that all it takes to rally support for a bad idea is a death of a liberal stalwart, then no wonder they find themselves in the shape they are in with this health care debacle.  It won't change the minds of those with legitimate concerns.  And it won't rally the faithful who have been M.I.A. in this battle.  Youths don't care too much about health care.  Blue Dog Democrats don't care about Kennedy's legacy - they care about re-election.

While it might generate some temporary sympathy, it likely won't move any poll numbers.  Nor should it.  A death is a death.  Kennedy is not a martyr for the cause - to try to turn him into one is cheap, tawdry and disrespectful - even if it was Ted's wish, this is simply not respectable.

Kennedy versus Obama (round 2)

Back in late February, I pointed out that JFK would be stunned by the views President Obama and many in his party now take on the economy.  Now, whether he realizes it or not, the second need for comparison is about to happen. Just Joe Biden predicted, some foreign leaders have a test prepared for President Obama.

It's actually the second test.  The first test happened recently when Chinese boats harassed a navy oceanographic mapping ship in the South China Sea.  The administration responded by protesting the incident.  Not exactly an over the top reaction.  The test was similar to the the Chinese test of President Bush early in his term.

It almost seems as if the Biden comment during the campaign was an open invitation to foreign leaders.

Of course Wolf Blitzer and CNN tried to downplay the fact that Biden was talking specifically about Obama, running cover for their guy if you will.  But Biden clearly was talking about Obama, mot McCain. He was clearly talking about a different test than most others faced.  How do we know that?  Here's the full uncensored quote:

Taking advantage of that invitation, Russia  is pushing the envelop to see how far they can get away with things under the Obama administration.  This test will carry far more serious consequences than the Chinese test.

MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax new agency reported.

The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. AnatolyZhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.

The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.

"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said.

A potential future military base in Cuba or Venezuela? What was previously unthinkable may be coming one step closer to a frightening reality.  John Kennedy stared down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis.  Barack Obama is highly unlikely to do the same.  He is far more likely to accommodate and discuss.  There are some situations where a bold approach is necessary and this would certainly be one.

Further on in the point Biden was making, was the fact that Obama's decision would be an unpopular one and that the Democrat faithful would need to stand united behind him and his unconventional approach to the crisis.  That doesn't inspire confidence, which was never Joe Biden's strong suit.  

This situation is nowhere near a crisis point.  However, in order to ensure that it does not, the President needs to take a tough stand and do so immediately, or the alternative will be a path back towards the days of the mutually assured destruction days of the Cold War.  If you'll recall America won that war, and Kennedy did his part. Do your part Mr. President - there's no need for a re-match.

Obama: What would JFK have said?

President Obama's approach to the current economic woes of the country - Crisis? What crisis? - is in stark comparison to the approach taken by then President Kennedy. Below are excerpts from President John F. Kennedy's address to the Economic Club of New York delivered on December 14th of December, 1962. The speech could have been delivered in large part by President Reagan.

If Kennedy were to see the direction President Obama is taking the country, I'm sure he would not be disappointed - he would be horrified. Pay attention to the principles Kennedy espouses and contrast it with Obama, or Pelosi or Reid. Kennedy himself would be attending a Tea Party if he were alive today.

I feel tonight somewhat like I felt when I addressed in 1960 the Houston Ministers Conference on the separation of church and state. But I am glad to have a chance to talk to you tonight about the advantages of the free enterprise system.

Less than a month ago, this nation reminded the world that it possessed both the will and the weapons to meet any threat to the security of free men. The gains we have made will not be given up and the course that we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the decisions of finance ministers, as well as by the decisions of Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense; by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons, as well as by military weapons; and, above all, by the strength of this nation's economy, as well as by the strength of our defenses.

…

America's rise to world leadership in the century since the Civil War has reflected more than anything else our unprecedented economic growth. Interrupted during the decade of the 30s, the vigorous expansion of our economy was resumed in 1940 and continued for more than 15 years thereafter. It demonstrated for all to see the power of freedom and the efficiency of free institutions. The economic health of this nation has been, and is now, fundamentally sound.

…

There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great bottlenecks for this country's economic growth in this decade will be the shortages of doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics — a serious shortage with a great demand and an undersupply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the development of our natural resources.

But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.
These various exclusions and concessions have been justified [in the past] as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets, and a sharp reduction in those rates — accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures — would properly make the new rates not only lower, but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts.

Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet — and I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved, and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth.

…

It will not, I'm confident, revive an inflationary spiral or adversely affect our balance of payments. If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and inflationary — and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase, if that were necessary. But our resources and manpower are not being fully utilized, the general level of prices has been remarkably stable, and increased competition — both at home and abroad — along with increased productivity, will help keep both prices and wages within appropriate limits.

…

We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival, and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. And I think we must do both.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
Nevertheless, as Chairman Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out this week, the size of the deficit is to be regarded with concern, and tax reduction must be accompanied, in his words, by "increased control of the rises in expenditures." This is precisely the course we intend to follow in 1963.

…

In addition, I have directed all heads of government departments and agencies to hold federal employment under the levels authorized by congressional appropriations, to absorb through greater efficiency a substantial part of this year's federal pay increase, to achieve an increase in productivity which will enable the same amount of work to be done by less people, and to refrain from spending any unnecessary funds that were appropriated by the Congress.

…

This nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can afford a temporary deficit — but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope — for free men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail. Thank you.

Princess Caroline taps out

Caroline Kennedy is opting not to seek the vacated senate seat of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

My take? Yawn.

Kennedy Dynasty continues?

So Caroline Kennedy wants to be a US Senator. One has to wonder why. But as Republican's should we care? Should we not welcome, vapid uninformed opposition? Yes and no.

Yes, for obvious reasons. Weak opposition makes for easier victory in debates, in political maneuvering, in every respect. She is less likely to carry any weight in her position and therefore could not be counted on to sponsor any meaningful yet egregiously bad legislation. Maybe one or the other but not both. Let's face it, she'd be a lightweight. And that's a plus for Republicans. Other reasons to be happy include the fact that if ever a Kennedy could be beaten, she'd be the one to present the opportunity to us.

On the other hand - she does have the name recognition. She could skate through on that alone, which would be unfortunate. It bodes poorly for America that celebrity and star power play so well to so much of the population. It's a portent of a failing superpower if celebrity equates to relevance in other spheres. The gladiators in Rome were revered, but they weren't meant to be Senators there. In modern America, Paris Hilton is not meant to lead, by election or by example. Yet the freedom that makes it possible is the same freedom that makes it significantly possible. You don't have to be smart to vote. You don't have to understand economics, or civics or trade, or ecology or morality. And as such, to quote a Roman dictum, caveat emptor. You get what you pay for (If you're in Illinois, apparently that means a Senate seat).

You'd think the country would learn from history (oops, don't need that to vote either) that dynasties aren't the ideal. Yet two mediocre Bush presidencies, two Clintonian agonies, and myriad Kennedy runs have not yet squashed the idea that all members of a particular dynasty are created equally, and that genetics doesn't determine quality when it comes to politics. Perhaps the biggest plus that can come out of a Caroline Kennedy seat, would be a miserable failure that puts the last nail in the Kennedy mystique (after the 40 or so Ted put in) once and for all. I think we have to hope so because any success and 30 years from now somebody named Skip Kennedy with the IQ of a football helmet might be a serious contender for the Presidency and live gladiator shows will be being broadcast 24/7 on MTV.

The litany of McCain errors - Part 5

John McCain always had an uphill battle to beat Barack Obama. But he didn't do himself any favors. In fact he made mistakes that ensured Obama would win the election. Money, strategy, demographics and branding all were areas the McCain team contributed to Obama's win. There's one more area to look at; communication.


Communication

Communication is a tricky beast. John McCain started off with a charisma deficit versus Barack Obama. Charisma makes effective communication a simpler task, so it's a good place to start analyzing. Charisma and celebrity are tactical assets Democrats have relied on often in recent times; Obama, Franken, Caroline Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even John F. Kennedy are examples that the Democratic party relies on charisma and/or celebrity to sell it's agenda. It's obvious the agenda doesn't sell as well without those assets. The Democrat agenda is a flawed agenda, so minus the packaging, it just doesn't sell. Some very uncharismatic examples prove the point - Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry .

On the other hand Republicans since Reagan have typically suffered a charisma deficit. Neither Bush president was particularly charismatic, and Dole and McCain were as charismatic as, well, Gerald Ford. Reagan, the Great Communicator, was the exception of the last 40 years. He had charisma, he had wit, and he had celebrity. On top of which, he had the conservative agenda to back him up. It's no wonder he had electoral landslides twice. But all executive nominees since Reagan have suffered for the lack of these traits. Even Bush 43 - he had other assets - Karl Rove, an energized base wanting to end the Clinton era, a war mandate (in 2004).

Charisma does not make for a great President. But it does make the opportunity to overcome a hostile legislative branch more feasible. It does make communicating to the American people easier. It does make election easier. In 2008 charisma is not something McCain did wrong. You can't fake charisma and to have expected that of McCain would have been an unfair expectation.

But it was something Republicans did wrong in the nominating process. Every candidate in the field from Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney to Fred Thompson to Ron Paul had more charisma than McCain. He did try to manufacture some personality based charisma in the video during the convention, but it wasn't enough. The error here was primary voters getting stuck on Iraq and not looking at the nominee overall, including his lack of ability to connect. Next time we need to be sure that we nominate a communicator. We kept hearing about his salesmanship at town hall meetings, but it didn't materialize, and if it ever was there, they should have played that game much harder with or without Obama joining him.

So in part, McCain was to blame in communication because he did not play to his own supposed strength enough. A big part of communication involves having vision. This is where conservative principles come into play. Our principles guide us. McCain did not have a vision outside of energy independence. That may have been a good vision but it was partial and it was beaten out by hope and change. Vision goes beyond policy considerations. It needs to be something as broad as Obama's message. For us it means American strength at home (economically and socially) and abroad (national security).

But further it needs to be distilled down into something as simple as hope and change (which was actually pretty weak) or restoring American pride or being a shining city on a hill. McCain embodied none of that. He didn't need to embody it but he failed to project any of it. Nuclear power might be a good policy position but it is not a vision. America being the Great Bastion of Freedom, now that's a vision.

Beyond that, there were a number of communication problems McCain could not afford. In early July an article appeared on Politico that summed up a good deal of the McCain problems. The numerous references to the article below are a tribute to how precise it was in detailing the McCain issues. At the time there was sufficient hope for conservatives that the mistakes through June were ones that could be overcome. But the issues that existed through June represent issues that existed through the entire campaign, or were lost opportunities that could not be regained.

“It’s not just message or not having just one single meta-theme to compete
with Obama,” said a veteran Republican strategist with close ties to McCain’s
top advisers. “It’s not just fundraising, which is mediocre. And it’s not even
just organization, which is [just] starting or nonexistent in many states.”

“McCain’s campaign seems not to have a game plan. I don’t see a consistent
message,” said Ed Rollins, a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. “As
someone who has run campaigns, this campaign is not running smoothly. But none
of this matters if they get their act together.”

Whether its strategy or communication, not having a game plan is a serious, serious flaw. In a hostile environment McCain had to be prepared to overcome obstacles that Obama was given a pass on. The Mainstream Media were willing to give Obama a pass on questionable statements. Remember George Stephanopoulos helping Obama out on his mistaken statement about his 'Muslim faith'? An innocent mistake, but it shows the lengths to which a partisan press corp would go for Obama. Obama had a home court advantage, and McCain had to have a plan, and some guiding principles to navigate in that environment because the same passes would in fact become points of critique for McCain.

The absence of an overall communication strategy was a problem, but so was internal communication with the 'teams'.

“...I think [campaign manager] Rick Davis and his team did not have
an understanding of how the grass-roots, organizational part of the party works.
They did not use what the [Republican National Committee] had done, or how
groups like the [National Rifle Association] could have helped the McCain
campaign locally. “They are just now opening up campaign operations in most
states. The RNC was ready to go in most states in March,” the state chairman
continued, listing off grievances ranging from the campaign's “dictating” the
members of various RNC committees to the state party's having been “threatened”
that, though McCain “couldn’t afford not to play in our state,” the campaign
would not “recommend us for resources” if the state party did not abide by its
requests. "

and this;

The McCain campaign had not included some key state chairmen in
political planning, and a few were anxious over what they said
were lax swing state preparations. “Rather than trying to pull me in and
make me an intricate part of the team they just told me what they wanted
done, and said if you don’t play ball we won’t play ball,” one state
chairman said.

Communication is a two way street - not listening to feedback, not leveraging groups that want to help, and dictating direction, especially without a clear strategy guiding it, is not an optimal way to operate. In fact, it's stupid.

The July article also mentions the lack of attack communications.

One frequent criticism surrounds the widely held perception that the campaign has failed to define or convey a consistent narrative against Obama — something that many Republicans insist should have begun right after Obama captured the nomination. “What’s the political strategy when you allow your opponent, who has just had a grueling four months, time to catch their breath, regroup, fundraise and start to define himself?” asked a Republican strategist who helped lead a past presidential campaign. “It’s politics 101.”

Several consultants from past GOP campaigns were even more frustrated by
what they viewed as a reluctance to attack — textbook strategy for an underdog.
One GOP consultant said that if McCain wanted to define Obama as “too
inexperienced, too liberal and too risky” then “why wouldn’t your message every
day have something to do with these three problems?”

Whether attacking Obama was right or not is a matter for much debate. But the reluctance to attack was palpable and frustrating. Leading up to the third debate, followers were imploring McCain to attack Obama. He wanted to remain above the fray. That's no way to win an election. Case in point; November 4th, 2008.

And of course, Politico mentions consistency of message;

Other insiders expressed frustration that there is a lack of consistency in
defining McCain as well, pointing to the recent launch of an ad touting his
challenge to the president’s position on global warming — at the same time that
McCain traveled to Texas to advocate lifting the federal moratorium on offshore
oil drilling. “It’s hard to see a thematic message,” said another GOP strategist
who has worked on past presidential races. Several Republicans said it remains
unclear whether McCain will run on experience or attempt to redefine Obama’s
message of change. Some critics cite a litany of minor but nevertheless
maddening incidents as evidence that the McCain campaign is failing to execute
the basic blocking and tackling maneuvers that mark successful teams.

A litany. I thought that was my word. Apparently others have seen the same thing. It had to be one of the worst run campaigns I've seen in my lifetime. Obama, for all his supposed genius, did not run a brilliant campaign. He ran an adequate general election campaign. Granted his primary victory was very well conceived and executed, and it was against a much tougher political opponent. McCain ran a campaign that was poorly planned or executed or both. It speaks to his potential as a Commander in Chief. Yes he would have been better than Obama because of his philosophical near-alignment with conservatives. But he would not have been a great president. He was, and is, not a great conservative. He is barely conservative and he would have been an adequate President, certainly better than the alternative.

But his campaign failings serve as a reminder, a warning to future GOP campaigns. Campaigning is war. It is better to follow Sun Tsu's teachings than McCain's campaign. Particularly some specific points;

• If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
• Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
• the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
• Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans, the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces, the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field, and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
• If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Liberal Captions

Below are some movie quotes that you could associate with various liberals. Please add your own in the comments section. I don't get too many comments, but any feedback is appreciated, especially when it pokes fun at Democrats.

Added bonus, I can't recall which website I read this on, but it might have been Protein Wisdom. [Sorry, let me know and I'll update the link]. "The Secret To Being A Liberal Hysteric? No secret: just treat adults like children, and treat children like adults."

My precious.

Say hello to my little friend. (Okay, little kid)

You don't understand! I coulda had class. I
coulda been a contender. I could've been
somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.

You talking to me?

A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his
liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

You can't handle the truth!

Mama always said life was like a box of
chocolates.

I'll be back.

I see dead people.

We rob banks.

I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse.

E.T. phone home.

"I just want to say one word to you - just one word.... 'plastics.'"

"Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!" (That's just wrong)

"Surely you can't be serious."

"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."

Show me the money!

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Democrats drunk with power

Caroline Kennedy wants to be a Senator. That's her Christmas wish I guess the Democrats will deliver. No special election for Obama's vacant Senate seat seems likely. President-elect Obama is Man of the Year. Media bias is in high gear. What else could go wrong for conservatives? Plenty. President Bush has abandon any pretense of capitalism. Conservatives both moderate and real conservatives are eating their own. There's potential for a declaration of an Al Franken victory in Minnesota. There's going to be a Democratic Senator from Alaska (yes, Steven's could have let it stay Republican, had he stayed clean). A massive infrastructure spending is being proposed. Abortion legislation is going to be changed. New SCOTUS appointees are likely in the next few years, at least maintaining the status quo there, but possibly also pushing it left. And reporters are apparently being instructed on what to not ask of Mr. Obama;



The newly elected Executive and Legislative victors have not even been sworn in yet. How are things going to look in 2 months time? Or 12 months time. Different I expect. But how different is the real question. The fact that Obama has selected a good number of Clintonistas, and appears to be headed to the middle of the road, is no comfort. The Democrats have solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. They will want to push their own far left agendas. Obama will likely fall in line with them more often than not. Just like the Illinois go-along-to-get-along approach that served him so well in the past. And Obama himself is still has all of those radical associations in his closet.

Democrats are not likely to look for bi-partisanship now. They have no need to build bridges to conservatives. nor are they so inclined. Democrats are now where they were for a good portion of the 20th century - in power in at least 2 (in this case 3) of the 3 non-judicial pillars of government. In solid control in both legislative houses, and complete control of the executive. What do conservatives have to oppose them? The filibuster. Well you can't break that out on every single issue. It can't be part of every debate. We've got to pick and choose where to resist.

And in doing so I'd argue that where it is most needed are things that alter the playing field for time lines beyond 2010 and 2012. For example the Fairness Doctrine has far-reaching implications to Republicans. And the public probably doesn't care too much about it. It needs to be stopped if put forward. Illegal immigration and paths to citizenship - illegal immigrants are more likely to support Democrats than legal immigrants. That's another game changer. And that could be a positive one if framed right by the GOP and then the reasons for the position disseminated quickly, broadly and effectively.

As for the Democrats, they are likely to become more drunk with power over the next 12-16 months. What we can try to do to stop them, or hold them at bay, is not going to influence their decision to plow forward with every radical legislative idea they think they can get away with. The GOP has to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and be resolute in defending that line in any legal way possible. The battles are coming, we'd better be prepared with our resolve and get some tactics in place to support the strategic battles we need to fight.

We're on defence - it's not a pretty picture, but it needs to sink in that it's a siege and we have to hold the fort until the cavalry starts to arrive in 2010. Then again, we'd better get the cavalry suited up and armed PDQ as well.

I'm just saying.