The Right Angle take on the congressional goings-on

Bill Whittle et al. discuss the GOP house speaker voting (Kevin McCarthy inside-the-beltway vs. fresher, non-insider Republicans).

The status quo is not the answer, and this is why I'm truly disappointed with the likes of Fox and Sean Hannity who are promising that this time McCarthy will live up to his commitments and everyone with concerns should just shut up.

After 15 rounds of voting however, McCarthy has won. Color me skeptical concerning positive change.

Murkowski - leading but not a leader

Murkowski was on with Katie Couric and as expected, she trashed Sarah Palin as not profound and a deep enough a  thinker to be President. Specifically it was Palin's lack of "intellectual curiosity" she was concerned about. Palin backed Miller in the Alaska senate race, so you'd expect there to be some bad blood there. But while the Alaska results aren't in yet, the voting and campaigning is over. The rule of not bad mouthing other Republicans or conservatives, is smart. If ever there was a time for it, it would be now. 

But as if that weren't enough of a violation of Reagan's first rule, Murkowski went on to commit a number of other conservative faux pas that clearly show why she lost the primary and why she probably will beat Miller by sucking in Democrat votes.  She's just a bit liberal. 

Hey, GOP Establishment, there's no 'RINO' in TEAM.

I respect people like Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove. They have brilliant minds and are right about various topics most every time. But as establishment conservatives, they are wrong on O'Donnell to a point of excess. Karl Rove on Sean Hannity's show the other day reiterated that he was for the Republican (hey, how about using her name in that context Mr. Rove?) and then followed it with the biggest BUT in politics.  Krauthammer gave O'Donnell a 1 in 10 chance of winning the Senate seat. If you think that, fine but don't say it in public. You back the Republican and if she loses you have a real weight behind your I-told-you-so. In the meantime you don't run your own play because you don't like the play the coach called on third down. You run the play the coach called. 

Delaware Republican Civil War

In Delaware the GOP seems poised to rip itself apart over the Mike Castle versus Christine O'Donnell Republican primary for the Senate. The issue distilled, is that Castle, the GOP establishment preference is a bit too RINO (Republican in name only) for Delaware conservatives. His opponent O'Donnell has been endorsed by a number of Tea Party favorites, including no less than Sarah Palin herself.

Grassroots goes electoral: T-1 and counting

Tomorrow the grassroots conservative movement that was awakened by the radical policies of the current radical liberal Obama regime, will taste it's first bit of REAL victory since last November. The victories of awakening Democrats and RINO Republicans via Tea Parties and boisterous town hall meetings have been fine, but that have translated to 0 electoral difference. Tomorrow will change that.  It's T-1 days to the next, albeit finite set of elections.

What is going to happen?

The GOP should win in Virginia handily, with Creigh Deeds becoming the new Governor.  But for goodness sake, don't listen to prognosticators and stay home!  That's how surprises occur.  Furthermore, a win of 69% to 31% is more of a statement than a win of 59% to 41%.  Every point counts because Virginia is a statement to the Democrats that the country is not happy with the over-the-top liberalism coming out of Washington these days.  President Obama carried Virginia in 2008.  Virginia needs to take some bold steps back towards being a red state, to force Washington to take note.

New Jersey is a tougher one but it certainly looks like Democrat Governor Jon Corzine is up against it.  Late polls show momentum shifting back towards his Republican opponent Chris Christie.  Late polling (note  - without sample sizing information as far as I have seen) have shown momentum headed back to the GOP candidate.  A GOP win would be a huge statement to the House Democrats that people are unhappy.  Blue Dog Democrats would take note.

Combined with a Conservative Party candidate win by Doug Hoffman in NY23 district special election, the Democrats would get the message loud and clear.  Whether they choose to listen is a different question.  One can hope that a sweep of those three would derail the radical, foolish health care changes being proposed, perhaps cap and trade as well.  The NY23 district has a solid Republican history but the current sellout GOP candidate bowed out and threw her support behind the Democrat instead of the conservative candidate.  It's no surprise to anyone except perhaps the RNC and Newt Gingrich.  Will it sway her supporters away from Hoffman? Some perhaps.  But Hoffman can win this.

The real message from a Hoffman win is not for the Democrats though, but rather the GOP to stop pandering to moderates and liberals by being more like Democrats.  Conservatism offers an alternative to liberalism.  It's needed.  Two left parties is not a democracy, and conservatism, if embraced and extolled, sells.  Or can sell, with the right sellers.  The message of a Conservative Party victory after a GOP implosion that resulted from backing a liberal horse in a conservative district should smarten up the RNC and the likes of Newt Gingrich, or at least get them to back off their position that conservatism can't win.  It can, and if supported properly, does.

None of these races change the balance of power anywhere in Washington D.C. (Congress, the Senate or the White House). But power is often directly a result of perception. A sweep of these three high profile races for conservatism, means that Congressional Representatives will have to take notice.  Even two of three can be viewed as a repudiation of Obama-ism.  At there very least it will also re-charge the batteries for the right. Will it happen?  It's hard to say.  I think 3/3 is possible and 2/3 is very probable for conservatives.  Virginia will go to the GOP, the other two are leaning GOP and very well should go as predicted to the GOP and Conservative Party respectively. Conservatives, will be in a better mood on Wednesday morning, but still have just as many hard battles to fight and win.

Conservatives against Palin

Understand this, everyone has their own horse in the race. Therefore either overtly, or covertly, everyone on the right is not desirous of seeing Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee in 2012. And therefore some have a vested interest in tearing her apart at every opportunity. Perhaps even a desire to do so.

Keep the pedal to the metal.

My two cents on where the conservative movement and the GOP should go now that the pressure to remove the public pay option from the table has apparently worked:

1. Don't let up - watered down manure is still manure. You've got to look at the revised details and see what's left on the table.

2. Offer an alternative - health care needs attention, but it needs solutions. The GOP needs to move from being the party of 'no', which has been successful, to the party of alternative solutions.

3. Pressure RINO's not to cave or deal. The Gang of 14 who brokered a deal with Democrats still sticks in the craw of conservatives. It's something that should not be allowed to happen again.

4. Enjoy the success, allow it to generate optimism in yourself. But don't allow it to generate complacency in yourself or in the moment.

5. Look for what results from this change in stance from the White house, and be prepared to counter the next move.

As Alinsky pointed out to his socialist followers - never let up, be relentless. If you let up, you allow your gains to be lost.

Note to Birthers - Ix-nay

I haven't written about this topic before. I've been hesitant to wade into these waters. A good number of people are what has been termed 'birthers'; people who doubt the veracity of President Obama's American birth. The reason to care about it is that if the President isn't a natural born citizen of the United States, he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President. In other words, he'd have to be impeached or resign.

This post is not an indictment of your beliefs if you are a birther, rather an indictment of your approach to opposing President Obama. Don't take offense. I'll leave the conspiracy theory debunkers and yourselves to battle that out. I don't know if the President is in office ineligibly, though I suspect not. Even if he isn't a natural born citizen of the United States, the discussion is pointless. Worse in fact, it poses a negative to conservative views.

The man is President. Fair or not, trying to convince the public he isn't legitimate, seems dangerously like the truthers' "9/11 was an inside job" refrain. In other words, it sounds nuts. Even if you are right, continuing on your quest seems to be counter-productive. Yes, upholding the law is important, but the lack of definitive evidence makes you continue seem like a kooky fringe element.

And that's where the issue I have with birthers starts. You do nothing to lend an air of intellectual legitimacy to the party if you are effectively portrayed as kooks. The ultimate objective as I understand it is to remove President Obama from his role. The most legitimate way to do that is via the electoral process.

With respect to conservative viewpoints, the way to go is to follow a political variation of the Hippocratic oath - specifically; first, do no harm. You are lending comfort to the enemy by making conservatives as a whole seem as the fringe. And that doesn't help in the health care debate. Democrats are already armed with hyperbole and lies about town hall outrage, we don't need to give them more ammunition to challenge the right with.

My concern about the birthers is not that you want to know the truth, that you demand proof, or that you suspect malfeasance in the electoral process. My concern is that you are, in your zeal, doing more harm than good. I've had the same issue in the past with anyone who is putting ideological purity ahead of political pragmatism. You need to get a dirty to win in politics, so you have to be willing to do so. You need to be willing to suck it up and vote for a GOP member in the general election, even if he/she has RINO leanings and isn't as ideologically pure as you'd like or as the guy you voted for in the primaries. This is true because the alternative is far worse. Anyone skittish about voting for John McCain in November I'm sure would rather have him now rather than what the country ended up with.

My point is I'm not trashing birthers, nor am I singling them out for constructive criticism (I've criticized RINO's, purists, and other conservatives in the past on this blog). That's not my style, I'd rather remember who my friends are and find common ground. I'd ask that birthers do the same. The common ground is this, Obama is not a good President (so far, he's terrible). The common ground should also extend to how to overcome the problem. My take is that it requires convincing people that he's a bad leader rather than trying to convince them he's an illegitimate one. Doing the latter is convincing many that the party is full of kooks. So stop it, for the good of conservatism.

What's good for the goose

Democrats over the last 6 months have really played up the internal divisions within the Republican party. Moderate Republicans versus the conservative wing of the party played out in so many forms. And it hasn't abated much. They taunt that if the Republicans allow the conservative wing of the party to take over, they'll be in the minority forever.

It makes sense strategically to do this. It keeps the GOP off balance and reactionary and divided. But the GOP seems to be finally moving beyond this and getting it's legs back. Now that we've reached that point, let me point out the obvious, and the real reason WHY the obvious is obvious.

WE ABSOLUTELY MUST MOVE THE GOP BACK TO THE RIGHT.

Why? Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The left is basking in the glory of the first ever black President who also happens to be the most liberal President ever. They moved far left and they still won. And now they are bleeding supporters. And they are doing so because the country is still a center-right country. This is the same country that elected Ronald Reagan in a major landslide twice. They called him uber-conservative. This is the country that in 2004 marshalled record turnout for George Bush (he's no ultra-conservative but he was portrayed as that and more before, during and after the election). This is the country that embraced the Contract With America and turned it's back on Clinton's attempt to impose health care reform. This is the same country that turned on Bush 41 - for raising taxes and breaking his conservative pledge.

Why did the country swing away from the GOP in 2006 and 2008? Many didn't like the war, but more importantly, the country was not impressed with the lip service the GOP were paying to conservatives.

Why are liberals still going after Sarah Palin? They fear her and her common sense approach to fiscal reality. Sure they ridicule her as incompetent but only because that's the only way they know how to deal with their enemies. It's what Alinsky said to do.

If they can win the country with Obama and Biden, conservatives can win with a conservative. But that's not what liberals want you to believe so they just keep hammering. Settling for a moderate Republican is a win for liberals because America won't see any progress back towards fiscal sanity and common sense government. For them a moderate Republican is like a holding pattern. It's not a loss, it's a delay.

After 4 years of Obama and 2 to 4 years of a double majority in the Congress and Senate, the country will be ripe for an alternative. Giving it Democrat-lite is just a loss for conservatism, and pointless for the GOP. Similarly defining yourself as NOT Obama is not an alternative, it's just another placeholder - for the country.

The country is going to need a reversal of direction. It's going to need a conservative to fix things. A RINO will try to find common ground (unlike Obama who just said he would). But the reality is you can't negotiate with a grizzly bear when you come face-to-face with it in the woods. You kill it or you run away...or you die. You can't offer to share your arm with it if it leaves the rest of you alone. Even if it were to agree to that, it wouldn't honor the agreement once you started bleeding to death. America is deep in the woods now. And a socialist bear is staring down the nation. The only to options are to defeat it politically or let it kill you politically.

Does this really still need to be spelled out at this point?

Have your own goals

This post isn't about politics, it's about personal responsibility. It's from a personal perspective about the growth of my blog and my focus and the lessons that can be taken from my mistakes and used for anyone's personal journeys. For that matter it can be applied to politics and to the recovery of the American economy and the recovery of conservatism as well.

I started blogging on Nonsensible Shoes back in November 2008, after spending much of the primary season in 2008 updating and educating friends on the American electoral process. The blog had been set up for months but I never used it until I started thinking about codifying my beliefs. Of course when I started doing it, it wasn't even for my friends, it was just a place for me to write down my thoughts and link to the sites I frequently visit - Right Wing News, National Review, Hot Air etc. I didn't really have any goals associated with it other than to use it as a sort of personal home page.

But two of my friends whom I was keeping updated during the election cycle, independently suggested I should teach politics or write about it. It got me thinking about rather than writing for myself I should write for a slightly broader audience. I still didn't have any goals for this blog.

Of course I started playing with widgets and layouts after I realized other people might be looking at my blog. Few were, but within a week I had 62 unique visits in one day. I'm no artist, and my blog is still fairly ugly today, but at least I had a goal - get it prettier.

The I discovered Google AdSense. I figured if I had visitors, it wouldn't hurt to make a few bucks while I blogged. And visitorship was growing, so it might turn out well. But I hadn't established a real goal yet, and by default the goal became about getting revenue. Revenue is a good thing. But it's not the reason to blog. I wanted to make a difference - explain political workings to those who were curious, and perhaps capture some hearts and minds for the conservative cause along the way. Revenue as a goal is at best a distraction.

I've always been interested in American politics and history. As far back as I remember I've been a conservative. I've been interested in economics since high school. My real goal was to add insight into the debate around America's politics, it's economy, it's role in the world, it's history and it's future. Hopefully it would contribute to an overall dialogue about these topics and not end up being a monologue.

But as my site visits slowly grew, and I discovered Twitter and #tcot my goals changed and started to develop. I read about SEO (search engine optimization) and articles and books on how to grow your blog. Many of them indicated that you should state your goals up front. Of course it's pretty easy to state a goal about spreading conservatism, but if it's merely a platitude then it's a meaningless goal.

Of course with the lost focus my blog readership started to slide a bit. It is now half of what it was in April. Some of that may be due in part to reports that overall blog readership has fallen 40% since the November election. But I view that as an excuse. I preach taking ownership of your own situation. It's a core value of conservatism and of liberty. So I can't blame others and wait for a fix from someone else.

The Lesson

Therein lies the twofold lesson for me - clear, specific objectives are crucially important and personal responsibility is the biggest key to achieving them. You need to understand where you want to go, and you need to stay focused on getting there or you won't get there. Everyone probably knows this to be true in a theoretical sense, but it really does apply to achieving something. It's true whether it's a personal blog or as big as achieving victory in Afghanistan and versus Al Qaida.

I've established a new goal. It's pretty aggressive. According to my web counter I now have had over 13,800 visitors in 9 months. It's far more than what I'd have expected 8 months ago, but far less than what I could have achieved if I'd been focused on writing quality instead of where to put the gadgets and how to squeeze my ad revenues as best I could. For the record, 13,800 visits has translated to not $30 in revenue so far.

So what's my new goal? Well it's specific, and measurable. I want that counter over 20,000 visits by the end of my first full year of blogging. That's 6,200 visits over 88 days. It's about 70 visits per day, which is roughly double where it's been for the last couple of months. The obvious question is why have I taken a goal like that instead of creating conservative value?

Because the latter goal is too ethereal. You can't quantify that so you can't claim to have achieved it at any point. Ever. Most blog advice has as it's number one rule, CREATE QUALITY CONTENT. In order to get to 20,000 visits, I have to create conservative value anyways.

And instead of being discouraged by a slow day next week, it will cause me to double my efforts the following day. Blogging isn't my day job, it's a hobby. For now. I do have a longer term goal to make it my day job, but that requires the small steps and the focus to be there every single day. That focus has to be on articulating conservatism in well written posts every day.

Getting distracted over the past couple of months was pretty easy. Admitting that was a little tougher. But I never considered blaming overall Internet traffic levels for it. I just took a while to realize that I had to soldier on, but in a smarter way.

The GOP has faced numerous distractions (think Rush's 'I want him to fail' quote). The GOP has been busy focusing on the moderate RINOs versus conservative wing of the party. Libertarians versus social conservatives.

These are distractions, the GOP needs to be soldiering on too. They need to remember their original goals as espoused by Goldwater and Reagan for example. It needs to be prepared for daily setbacks, but it needs to remember to be relentless just like the Alinsky-inspired leftists who never give up and are willing to win the battle inch by inch, year by year with slow, dripping, liberal attrition of the center. If they can do it, so can the right. Perhaps in a far less sinister fashion, but with equal fervor.

The final point - if you don't have your own goals, they will be defined for you by someone else or by circumstances. If that were a ship you'd be considered adrift. And if your goals are vague you are pretty much adrift anyway, which is no better.

Political ju-jitsu - Palin style?

Political ju-jitsu is an art form - taking the strength of your opponent and using it to your own advantage, and their own detriment or weakness. Conversely, the same can be said for understanding your own weakness and turning it into your own strength or to your own advantage. It's a beautiful concept, but it's something that neither Republicans nor Democrats generally are very adept at doing.

But there are exceptions. And we just might be seeing a brilliant ju-jitsu style play by Sarah Palin and the RNCC. Whether you think Sarah Palin is ready to be VP or not, her political instincts and personality can overcome a lot. Back prior to the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, his supporters were regarded as 'yahoos', now he is revered on the right as a visionary President and admitted by many on the left to be a likable guy and a great communicator. He rode his vision and charm to victory and his leadership and character insured a repeat victory of electoral landslide proportions. What did he have that Sarah Palin doesn't?

Well there were some things - he was the most effective elected communicator the Republicans have ever produced. To compare anyone to Reagan's ability to connect is unfair. But it's not necessary - conservatives can win without Reaganesque aplomb - witness George W. Bush. Even the conservatives who liked him couldn't mount a credible argument that he wasn't rhetorically challenged. So he must have had something other than that working for him.

Reagan had an abysmal Jimmy Carter incumbency working for him pre-1980. While Obama's media worshippers may prevent his approval ratings from combing Carterian or Bushian depths, he will not be sitting at 58% approval in 2 or 3 years. Guaranteed. But again, advantage Reagan.

Perhaps Reagan's greatest advantage over Palin was the fact that while he was unfairly portrayed as an unknowing 'cowboy', he did have some intellectual bona fides he could charge back with; for example his televised debate with William F. Buckley over the Panama Canal issue lends credence that he can carry on intelligent conversations. While Sarah Palin doesn't have that to lean on because she simple is much closer to the early part of a political career than Reagan was in 1980 or even 1976, she does have some opportunities to challenge the conventional thinking over the next two plus years. And that's where the political ju-jitsu starts to become apparent in one of two ways. It turns out, contrary to the current conventional wisdom, that the resigning as Governor is a brilliant strategic maneuver for Palin.

Political Ju-Jitsu Item #1

As Governor, Palin was bound to get bogged down both agenda-wise and politically as well. The Democrats and the MSM had her exactly here they wanted her - on the defensive, back on her heels fending off personal attacks (e.g. David Letterman style), fending off personal lawsuits, and trying to explain herself in the face of countless unwarranted and baseless criticisms that were compounding her image as an intellectual lightweight.

If she'd stayed on, the cycle would continue until she had no credibility left in America or even Alaska. In other words, the Democrats smelled blood and they would not have let up until Palin was destroyed. Even if they had not destroyed her, they would have been able to prevent her from doing what she needed to do to improve her image - go on the offensive.

It wouldn't matter if between now and 2012 Sarah Palin learned, understood and memorized every political, economic and foreign relations theory, concept and essay ever put to paper from The Art of War to The Road To Serfdom and beyond. Image is everything. As Marshall McLuhan said, 'the medium is the message', and the medium right now is a pervasive liberal press. It's so bad that many conservatives got into the act of Palin-bashing too. How do you overcome that with out a paradigm shift? You don't.

So what did Governor Palin do? She took that political advantage away from liberals by doing the one thing they had over her - her elected office. Bam - No more frivolous lawsuits. Bam - no more daily news cycle opportunities. She's free to concentrate on fundraising and getting together a game plan and a team for 2012 or whatever her aim is, without the constant filter light of a Yellow Dog Democrat media. Yes, she's still be visible, but the press will be forced to primarily move on to the likes of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (oh look, it's started). Why? Because on the surface it would appear she's made herself yesterday's news.

Was she honest about her reasons for quitting? Likely - the hounding became a detriment to her family and and her state. And she did mention that she would move on to bigger and better things for the conservative movement. Did she tip her hand at all by hinting moving on? I don't think so - I think she counted on the press doing exactly what they did and it works perfectly if this is as calculated a move as I suspect.

The press was surprised (along with most everyone else). Likely many in the liberal media were full of themselves for destroying a potentially iconic conservative figure before she had the chance to develop into just that. The liberal press mindset: disaster averted, Palin is no longer a credible threat to President Obama in 2012.

Even some of the press on the right forgot to remember who friends were and got into the act. Why did she give up. She's weak. Maybe women really can't compete in the political arena because they're too sensitive to handle it. Tell that to Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Meir. Or the other argument that by giving up Alaska's governorship, she's simply bowing out of politics altogether, and who could blame her after all the savagery from the left. Blindness to reality is pretty easy in a 24 hour news cycle. The big picture often gets lost in the rush to report.

Perhaps many on the right were seduced by the stick-to-it-ivness of President Bush. He stuck to his guns and kept the country safe from September 12th 2001 to his last day in office. Noble. But that same mentality can become a weakness if it strays into stubborn refusal to deal with reality. Palin avoided exactly that - she saw the political reality for her in Alaska for what it was - a flaming wreck of a car crash - and decided to not let that happen.

Because the media primarily followed their anti-Palin playbook, something she no doubt counted on, she liberated herself from a great deal of scrutiny and gave herself room to maneuver over the next few years. That's an important step in changing from a defensive posture to one that's designed to move towards taking a turn on the offensive.

Which brings us to the second tactical advantage she's afforded herself, and the GOP.

Political Ju-Jitsu Item #2

There has been a perceived weakness since last November within the GOP -infighting. And to be fair, a lot of it is deserved. Evidence of the moderate versus conservative conservative wings of the Republican party abounds - Rush versus Powell, Meghan McCain versus most of the party, the RNCC versus Sarah Palin or Rush versus Steele for example. But despite the undercurrent of differing views simmering a potential on-going soul search for the GOP, the infighting has started, mercifully, to die down. Yes differing views exist. That's actually a good thing. We don't need a party that marches lockstep to oblivion the way the Democrats seem to be doing with The One. A party devoid of divergent ideas is a party devoid of thinking. And a party devoid of thought is a party of fools.

Back to Palin. The infighting is a huge weakness for Republicans. They should be focusing on the real opponent - liberals. Even perceived infighting diminishes the party as a credible source of leadership. If they can't get their act together, amongst themselves, how can the public trust them to lead? But the infighting lends itself to a huge opportunity for both Palin and the Republican National Conservative Caucus.

Apparently they've considered the opportunity and are possibly already acting on it. Under the cover of discord, the RNCC and Palin could be divvying up duties and concentrating their respective efforts based on their respective strengths. Palin will work on turnout and fundraising country-wide for congressional representatives for 2010. Meanwhile the RNCC can focus on recruitment and development of quality candidates in districts that don't overlap with the efforts of Palin. Meanwhile, the MSM continues the infighting narrative and loses focus on what's really going on; a developing and co-ordinated effort to affect a massive Congressional change in 2010.

If that's the case, honestly, it's a brilliant stroke. Perhaps the ju-jitsu goes even deeper than that. Back in early June when Palin was invited and then snubbed by the RNCC as a speaker at a fundraiser, there was a lot of finger pointing. What if the supposed miscommunication and/or snubbing was planned? What if the whole thing was a ruse to throw off the press?

After all, as conservatives we know how the press will portray all things conservative. Why not, instead of just fuming about it, pre-determine the what the media spin will be to a given bit of news (in this case political conservative news), and decide how to use it to your own advantage?

Dirty politics? Maybe a little. My question is 'so what'? If you don't get dirty at that level (and this really isn't all that dirty so much as it is sneaky), you're going to lose.

Is it political ju-jitsu on the part of Palin and the RNCC? I hope so. It would be absolutely delicious to catch the media and the Democrats completely flat footed staring into the spin/hype of their own creation.

Arlen Specter, Cautionary Tale

When Arlen Specter switch from the Republican party to the Democratic party in exchange for a few shiny trinkets and a chance to avoid facing Pat Toomey in the next primary for his Senate seat, he had hoped that in exchange for the changed allegiance he could extend his own political career.

Now it looks like he will likely be defeated in the next Democrat primary for the same seat. Ironic. Some would say short-sighted and moronic.

But he sold out his party. The one that threw a lot of financial support behind him in the last election for his Senate seat. Now, with the confirmation of Al Franken as the Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. And the Republicans have no option for a filibuster. Meanwhile Specter looks to have no additional life in his career. Maybe it's too soon to be sure, but if things hold up the way they are now, it looks like that would be the case.

Arlen Specter serves as a cautionary tale. Two in fact.

The first and most obvious for Specter - don't sell out your allies for personal gain. It will harm you in the end.

The second cautionary tale is for the GOP - don't back weak allies so fiercely without strings attached. Better yet, you can't trust RINOs, so if they make it into the GOP past the primaries, then leave them to fend for themselves and use your war chest to back close races with quality candidates instead.

Republican Congressional Sellouts on Cap & Trade

The following Republican Congressional Representatives voted in favor of the Cap and Trade bill known as HR2454;

Bono Mack (let's call him Freddie Mac from now on)
Castle (apparently not)
Kirk (definitely no Captain)
Lance (More like Knife - as in 'in the back')
Lo Biondo (No Crompendo)
McHugh (McFool)
Reichert
Smith [New Jersey]


Additionally Flake (no kidding) and Sullivan (Is that Andrew or a different traitor?) did not vote.

This with 44 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against the bill. Damning. I just thought you should know.