Ummm...WTF Newt?

Newt Gingrich is going to rally with a Democrat? Yes.

As he fights for the Republican presidential nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will appear with one of the South Carolina’s most prominent Democrats.

Gingrich is scheduled to speak at a homeownership rally on Thursday in front of the State House along with U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, South Carolina’s lone Democratic congressman.

Other speakers include state Treasurer Curtis Loftis, who has endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

Clyburn's not just a Democrat he's a far left liberal demagogue .  That's not going to help in South Carolina Newt.  It might have made sense in New Hampshire.  Is Newt's strategy just pure randomness?  Or does he see Romney's wins as the GOP electorate as being more centrist than he thought?  And all this just after I questioned Rush Limbaugh on why he would say that Newt is in line with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  He's not, but this is a terribly ill-conceived idea.

I had assumed all of Newt's overtures to the left were part of his playing to the center voters.  Maybe they are. Nevertheless, this is the Republican primary and he's not going to win it with moves like this.  It serves to reinforce the idea Newt is in the race just to torpedo Mitt Romney.  He probably isn't in it for that reason, but if this story is true, that no longer will matter.

Jon Huntsman back peddling faster than the evolutionary process

Via Politico,

Jon Huntsman earned a spate of positive headlines recently when he took aim at Rick Perry's skepticism about evolution and global warming, tweeting: "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

But that doesn't mean Huntsman thinks evolution is a purely scientific process. In fact, Monday morning he suggested it has divine underpinnings.

During a "Fox and Friends" appearance, Huntsman reiterated that he trusts evolutionary science, but explained: "I believe in evolution. I think it’s part of God’s plan."

Yep, that'll help.  Way to quietly and creatively try to backtrack Jon.  

The real question about this is: who cares?  At under 1% approval the question has been asked whether he's campaigning for 2016 instead of 2012.  My supposition is that at the rate he's attracting new followers, he might be campaigning for 2112, because that's how long it will take him to get to double digits in the GOP primaries because let's face it, he's a liberal. 

It turns out 2112 is an ironic year - if you are a Rush fan you know the album of that name talks about a time when;

By 2112, the world is controlled by the "Priests of the Temples of Syrinx", who determine the content of all reading matter, songs, pictures - every facet of life.

Sounds like a progressive's paradise to me.

All of this is my roundabout way of saying today appears to be a slow news day.

Glenn Beck's Keynote Speech at CPAC

Last year Rush addressed the CPAC convention as the keynote speaker. Despite the negative press coverage, he was the right speaker at the time, and he's a hard act to follow. This year, another great choice - Glenn Beck - manages to once again be the right speaker at the right time.

Videos courtesy of TheRightScoop

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



Part 6:



Way to go Glenn!

Rush Thrown Under The Team Bus

The NFL has not had a record of being kind to Rush Limbaugh. While experimenting with the role of, pardon the wording, color commentary persona, rush made some comments about what he felt was the reason behind the media's kid gloves coverage of quarterback Donovan McNabb. He alleged it was because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. He was not long for the job after that.

The left gleefully went after him for race baiting or being racist, despite the facts. If you look at the thrust of his comments, they were not about race but about the disingenuous nature of the media on the issue. He, and others, have drawn the same conclusion in the case Barack Obama and his candidacy in 2008 and his Presidency now. Those who have done so are being tarred as racists. Those who oppose the President on any basis have by many on the left had racism assigned as their only possible motivation. Its been used in an Alinsky-like manner to discredit credible concerns - probably because its easier than arguing the real merits of the issue. So liberals are just following a play book or they are lazy.

But with Rush it gets worse. Yesterday he was dropped from a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team. It appears the bid was destined to fail if he remained part of it. Why? Because of who Rush Limbaugh is - an effective and powerful voice for conservatism. Rush was having quotes attributed him that he did not say.

Rush is not a racist. He is a rugged individualist. He believes, as do I and many others, that any person deserves equal opportunity to succeed, but no one deserves to have forced upon them the burden of enforced equality of outcome. For that reason the unequal treatment of someone because of race (either denial of freedom or opportunity or favoritism of freedom or opportunity) is anathema to fairness. Quotas are unfair. Appointing judges who have racial sensitivities is unfair - isn't justice supposed to be blind?

Because of his views, Rush has been societally excluded from pursuing his own dream of being involved with football. It seems that because of his views (some real and some imagined of him) he has had that equality of opportunity removed. This is not the America conservatives have strove to achieve. I doubt it is an America most liberals if they are honest with themselves and not consumed with hatred for all things Rush would want either. Only those who truly espouse political correctness could argue any other point of view. But those people would have to value political correctness above the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That just seems completely un-American.

At first I took issue with Rush's statement that this was about liberals out to destroy America. I thought it unfair, but really it was just about Rush. Be it accidentally or not though, this does go to a deeper issue and once again Rush is right. This is another one of the thousand cuts that will lead to the death of America.

If I were Rush I would seriously consider at the very least discontinuing talking about the NFL on his show. Whether or not the pressure to remove him came from the players, the left or wherever, ultimately the owners and the league definitely want to shy away from controversy. It's just not their style. They are a status quo group. Some would classify that as conservative, not me.

In any case - they did him no favors by not coming out and saying he has as much right to team ownership as any other non-criminal citizen who has the money to consider investing in a team. They didn't help Rush so they must not want his business. So why should he promote theirs?

Knowing what I do of Rush, which is no more than anyone who listens to his radio show, he will not be so petty. It is not his nature and furthermore, football is a passion for him. He cannot simply turn that off. He enjoys talking football and will continue to do so I suspect. At least he still has that freedom left.

What have we learned?

So what have we learned?  That depends on who you ask.  The ideal answer would be that millions of previously entranced people have realized that Obama is not The One.  He is a socialist and out of control and must be stopped by any legal means possible.  That hasn't been learned yet.  There are those who know this already, but that's not really a learning, is it.

So what have we learned then? Well, let's limit the scope of the question to make it more answerable.  As conservatives, what have we learned since November 4th, 2008.  We've learned a few things. This is not a comprehensive list, but it highlights some important things.

• We've learned that President Obama is definitely  the tax-and-spend liberal we always knew he was.
  
• We've learned he does not care about deficits at all though he will spin that he does care more than anyone else in the room.
• We've learned his team is "blunderific" when it comes to foreign policy gaffes.  This extends from the weak-kneed response to North Korea to the talking with Iran, to not knowing international gift-giving protocol to not knowing the protocol of interacting with the Queen of England. The latter two, international grade-school stuff, clearly shows a lack of comprehension and homework.
  
• We've learned the American Main Stream Media will continue to overlook Obama's gaffes and short-comings because they are deeply invested in his success.
  
• We've learned liberals from the President on down are already in re-election mode, from the blame Bush Obama speeches to the JournoList cabal of reporting plotting, to the back room Carville-esque divide-and-conquer Rush-is-the-bogeyman memes.  Who knows what else they have planned.
  
• We've learned that we collectively fall for the liberal distractions and we'd better stop it and get our act together
  
• We've learned that Michael Steele is not as great as we'd hoped he would be after the RNC chair election.
• We've learned that corruption runs deep in the Democrat upper echelons but we don't know how far or where it extends yet.
• We've learned that we can organize Tea Parties but we haven't learned yet if we can get them to gather sufficient political momentum.
• We've learned the real meaning of change as espoused by the President.

And while we never really loved John McCain, because he wasn't conservative enough, we learned that he would have been a better choice than what we got.  And that's where the learnings start to fragment into camps.

We still haven't learned if we are willing to settle for a weakly conservative Republican or if we want to push for a real leader with conservative principles.  Individually we have learned where we stand on that issue, and I suspect most readers would fall into the same camp.  But collectively we haven't yet learned where as a GOP 'constituency' we stand. And the GOP hasn't learned to remember core requirements as a conservative party.

But some of us have learned that while we need to come to a position on that we simply CANNOT stand still on spreading the conservative message while we dither on candidates.  The message needs to be brought to those who can be brought into the light of understanding that underneath the labels they apply to themselves, they are actually conservatives in their beliefs, actions and day-to-day lives.  If we don't learn to bypass the  MSM and connect with the American people directly, we will have learned nothing that will benefit conservatism in the next 4 to 8 years.

A chink in the Democrat armor

According to Politico, it seems the White House has realized that their decision on attacking Rush Limbaugh was perhaps counterproductive. Lesson learned - attack the best and you lose ground. While some were undoubtedly hoping that they'd keep up the attack, thereby promoting Rush and building his audience - the audience listening to an alternative message - it could not go on forever. Still, longer would have been more helpful. Yet, having called off the hounds, the Democrats or the White House, have revealed a chink in the Democrat armor that perhaps otherwise would not have come to light.

One of the greatest strengths of the liberal media machine has been to march in lock-step with the same message at the same time. This has allowed them to get a message out clearly and widely very quickly and effectively. Many on the right have lamented the fact that we do not have the same assets at our disposal to accomplish the same thing. But there's a downside to this as well. Every strength can be used as a weakness. Every threat is also an opportunity. And political ju-jitsu has never been more appropriate to use than in situations like this.

The stopping of the attacks on Rush revealed that sometimes that quick-to-market approach leads to bad decisions. Obviously liberal talking points can still be thought out before being disseminated amongst a compliant press and liberal side of the blogosphere, but not always. Not when they need to respond quickly to an event. That talking points machinery has never been stress tested. If there were to be a co-ordinated flood of things they had to respond to, not only would they likely respond in ways that, in hindsight weren't the smartest response, they would also have very divergent and sometimes repugnant responses. Think of all the opportunities it would provide for reasoned responses from the right.

At the very least, it would require that Democrats be more honest in their responses rather than reacting politically expedient and opportunistic way. Democrats during the Blagojevich scandal were fairly quick to respond with disgust much like conservatives, simply because to do otherwise would have appeared partisan, hypocritical, and corrupt. Of course later on they allowed his appointee into the Senate - after they figured the worst of the storm was over.

It seems counter-productive to attack what is perceived as the enemies strength head-on, but their over-confidence in the get-the-word-out machinery showed in the Limbaugh situation and it worked to the advantage of Rush, and ultimately conservatives. It just might be worth the frontal assault.

Omnibus bill vote Friday?

The $410 Billion omnibus spending bill is set to be voted on this Friday. Another drop in the bucket of endless spending that will drive America into federal bankruptcy.


But Democrats don't want you looking at it, or hearing about it. They'd rather you focus on Rush Limbaugh. They're still thinking distraction, they're still thinking triangulation. James Carville is involved.



Don't bite on this. Keep focused on the real issue - bankruptcy level spending, the Dow Jones continuing to nosedive.

Don't fall for the distraction.

Inside the Carville phone call on Rush

The Democrat attack on Rush Limbaugh, according to Politico, was a contrived plot.

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Democrats are all over this - not just those mentioned above, but Rahm Emanuel, Americans United for Change, David Plouffe, the Democratic National Committee, and Media Matters are all involved according to the Politico article. And they can't contain their glee - with Bush gone, they've got their new villain.

But the Democrats have got this wrong, and judging by the initial knee-jerk reaction of Michael Steele, so do some Republicans. Attacking Rush will provide the Democrats some short term gain but long term pain. This is the very danger that Rush spoke about years ago talking about governing by polls. In this case it's politicking by polls.

Governing means leading not following the direction of the wind. Even President Obama apparently understood this concept when he said something to the effect, referring to the economy, that you can't lose sight of the long term by following the fluctuations of the daily market . Rush pointed out the directionless drift a government can take on by leading by polls. They should instead lead and allow the polls to follow their success or failure. Triangulation, being all things to all people) has seemingly been perfected by President Obama. And in an election, apparently it can be used very effectively. But when you apply it demonizing an opponent based on a poll you risk long term problems to achieve short term success.

What have the Democrats gained by demonizing Rush Limbaugh? It was a tactical win because it provides a great distraction from the economic meltdown that continues unabated. But how long can it remain a distraction? If they keep at it people will wonder why the Democrats aren't focused on the pressing issue of economic collapse. The alternative is to let it die down and then its really only bought them a few days.

Moreover Rush isn't the demon the far left see in him. Its been easy to make him a bogeyman when people who have never heard him think he's a lunatic. He scores badly in younger demographics. Guess what, 90% of those people who have a negative impression of him have probably never before heard him speak a word. But now he has exposure. Now he can communicate with them at least fleetingly and has a chance to allow them to develop an honest opinion rather than a soundbite impression. Rush knows this. He can serve two purposes here in the same effort - grow his audience and expound conservatism's virtue and benefits. He has to be careful how he does it but there is huge conservative upside here.

This was a classic over-reach. They thought they were on such a roll they could tar and feather Rush whom they despise while tying him to the GOP direction. Perhaps they thought it might sew a longer-term discord in the conservative ranks - the Rush camp vs. the Steele camp is an extension of conservatives versus moderates in the fermenting GOP debate. That too will abate. While there may be some in-fighting short term it will subside. It has to - the party will coalesce around a new contender by 2012 because it has to do so. The alternative is 4 more frightening years of Obama.

Unless of course the Democrats keep poking the wound with a stick and keeping the carnage fresh but appearing to take their eyes off the real problems. Or perhaps they think they can balance both.

But here's where this becomes a strategic level blunder. Rush won't lose any listeners by continuing and he may in fact gain gain some. He knows that. So he will continue to invite the President to a debate. He will exercise his broadcast muscle and stir the pot himself. It's in his own best interest to do so. And with the added exposure it gives him the microphone for a relatively uncontested 3 hours a day with new listeners listening in. Any percentage that listens more than cursorily will realize he is not a lunatic, but rather that while passionate, he makes reasonable, reasoned arguments. Against Democrats. How much impact that has is debatable. But it certainly is worth more than 2-4 news cycles of distraction.

If the Democrats ploy adds 10% more listeners to Rush that's an extra 2 million people. If 50% of them end up staying on board, that's 1 million and of those, at least 75% will be swayed to conservatism. Rush IS that good. That means a 750,000 voter switch from 2008. And that's on top of whatever happens to the Obama popularity ratings during the same time. And four years is a long time. That number could grow even more.

What looks like bad news for the Republicans and great news for the Democrats, I predict, will get turned on it's ear. Whether Rush is the de facto leader of the Republican party is irrelevant. What he can do for them by taking advantage of this opportunity is very relevant. Good luck Rush.

Rush Limbaugh versus Insanity

While some things might be above President Obama's pay grade, apparently he's not above petty attacks of those who disagree with him philosophically. Never mind that the President elevates Rush Limbaugh by personally dissing him to the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such foolhardy behavior is not surprising - President Obama has already made some declarative statements that defy the understanding of the weight his words now carry.

In addition to a hostile President, a possible re-visiting of his position on the Fairness Doctrine, Rush now also has to deal with a Congressional Democrat petition and worse still, a spineless GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey complain about Rush in his showdown with Obama.

I've got news for you Rep. Gingrey, Rush is doing your job for you - he's carrying your water. You should be conserving your energy to stand up to the Democrat stinkulus package rather than telling Rush he's not helping. You know what -he's helping and you are too blind to realize it. Your political opponents are the Democrats. If Obama wants Rush to pipe down, don't you think it's helpful to your cause if he pipes up instead? This is so simple it's kindergarten stuff Representative.

We've come to expect anti-conservative venom from the Democrats, and the media, and in the schools. But when the GOP starts focusing it's efforts on Rush instead of standing up for it's principles, well, you have to give yourself a shake.

To paraphrase the youtube video "Leave Rush alone!" He's doing his job, you do yours.

First salvo in Fairness Doctrine fight

January 23rd - mark it down. President Obama referenced Rush Limbaugh in a debate with Congressional Republicans about the $1 trillion economic stinkulus package. While it's not directly related to the Fairness Doctrine and more concerned about the debate at hand, specifically the Republican approach to the stinkulus package. But there is subtext with the specific reference that cannot be ignored.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.

His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in
socialism.

The first part of the subtext is that there is either Obama's way or the highway. Clearly the bi-partisan facade is already starting to drop. If that continues, there will be some public waning in his approval numbers, which for conservatives is a positive though not as much as being in the minority is a powerful negative.

More importantly though, is that while it has in the past appeared as if President Obama might be resistant to a Democratic Congressional push to re-instate the unfair Fairness Doctrine, it might represent a turning point in either his thinking or his centrist facade. In the battle over the Fairness Doctrine , Rush Limbaugh is front and center with respect to the potential impact.

Tying the two points together it's easy to see the temptation for President Obama to change his stance - don't listen to Rush, I won so we do it my way, and silencing Rush because he's an obstacle to bi-partisanship. Hmmm, maybe the Fairness Doctrine makes some sense to him now.

Rush thankfully, doesn't take things lying down.

Implicit in the the Fairness Doctrine argument is that it promotes bi-partisanship, something that has been sorely lacking in America and is strictly the fault of conservatives. And now, given the sudden need for long overdue bi-partisanship (i.e. getting conservatives to shut up and knuckle under to Democrats because they have all the power and want to remove every speed bump possible), the Fairness Doctrine can only help America, right?

It's enough to make your ears bleed listening to the arrogance, and hypocrisy so blatantly on display, and yet so under-reported because the supposed fairness in media is so firmly rooted in backing the Democrat agenda.

Compassionate Conservatism was a great soundbyte

But a bad idea. Conservatism is conservatism. Adding an adjective does not change what conservatism is. You can add any adjective to it and it doesn't change real conservatism. It changes how you adhere to conservatism, but not what conservatism is. Think about it why not call it Sweet Conservatism? Or Flowery Conservatism, or Puppy Conservatism, or Cookie Breath Conservatism? Or Neo-, Delicious, speedy, tensile, brown, or unpatterned? The words are essentially meaningless. Any adjective can be added, but the meaning of real conservatism doesn't change. The gradation of adherence to basic conservative principles determines the level of conservatism and not some new type of conservatism.

Both Bush Presidents were in the so-called compassionate conservative mode. But conservatism itself is compassion. It's just not marketed that way. Is welfare compassion? Not really, you are encouraging both dependence and subsistence existence (look, I went all Jesse Jackson there for a second). Teaching people to be self reliant, that's compassionate. Being a safety net instead of a permanent sleeping bag - that's compassionate. Teaching people they can achieve things on their own is compassionate - it empowers people to be free.

Sending money to starving African children is that compassionate? Yes, but you know what's more compassionate - allowing their nations to develop using fossil fuels so that they can have industries and pay for their own food and not rely on your handouts.

Giving more taxes to government to hand out - compassionate? On the surface of it. But giving them less and allowing the free market to better allocate those resources and thereby giving more people more jobs and thereby generating more money some of which can be used for charitable donations has a bigger impact on jobs and charities, that's more compassionate.

Is helping mother earth fight off the evils of man made global warming compassionate? No, it's stupid and without compassion. If you look into it, there's a huge discrepancy between the hyperbolic hysteria and the reality of climate change. We're possibly going to spend and also negate trillions of dollars in GNP for a myth. The myth is that climate change is man made and that there is anything we self righteous humans could possibly do to change it. Those trillions of dollars are being taken out of the pockets of those who earned it. I don't call that compassion, I call it theft, based on a flawed lie. It's not compassionate, it's just plain wrong.

And if you still think climate change is an inarguable truth, tell that to these people. Open your mind and don't be a mindless liberal robot. You liberals like to talk about Bush taking away people's freedoms (again, based on inaccurate hearsay), but the real problem is that your mind is so closed, you've revoked your own freedom of though a long time ago.

As Rush Limbaugh put it (and I'm paraphrasing here) liberalism is about feeling good, and feeling like you are doing good. Conservatism is about understanding what's the best good and working towards that goal. Liberalism is predicated on emotion, conservatism on logic. Therefore liberalism is an easier sell to someone who doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics. But that means conservatives have to educate before they can sell their ideas and visions. And that in turn means that for 2012 they have to start now. For 2010 they probably should have started 6 months ago, and for 2008, Bush should have started defending himself better back in 2005.

Republican Response Team

Rush Limbaugh years ago was pointing out Democrat talking points getting out to the MSM with stunning consistency and effectiveness. The example I recall is his reel of quotes on the word 'gravitas' suddenly appearing in the lexicon of the MSM. It's kind of scary.

In Nazi Germany, the methods for controlling the population came down to a few simple ideas. This model included propaganda and censorship;

As Minister of National Enlightenment and Propaganda, Dr. Josef Goebbels believed it was his job to win people over to Nazi ideas and make them totally loyal to Hitler. To do this he controlled the media. No book could be published without his permission. Newspapers were told what to print – any that did not comply were closed down. All Germany's radio stations were controlled and were used to hammer home the Nazi message. Goebbels even made cheap radio sets available and put up loudspeaker systems in the street. The mass rallies at
Nuremberg were possibly the single most impressive displays of Nazi propaganda
and the staging of the 1936 Olympics was also used to promote the regime in a
similar way.

Music and the cinema were also closely controlled. Jazz was banned because it was the music of black Americans and all films – factual or fictional, thrillers or comedies – had to carry a pro-Nazi message. Newsreels in the cinema were designed to trumpet the achievements of the regime. The control of young people by means of education and youth movements was also important and is part of the next section. However, exactly how effective propaganda and
censorship were cannot be accurately measured.

Let's see, the Fairness Doctrine to control radio-based Democrat detractors, newspapers and television don't need to be told what to print since they are onside with Obama anyway (and those that aren't are told to get off the plane). Mass rallies. Music and cinema controlled (in the case of Obama, sympathetic). News trumpeting achievements remains to be seen but is to be expected. Indoctrination of youth, especially through education. All of these Nazi themes seem to be oddly familiar in the progressive approach to domination of political thought in America. And they called Bush 'Hitler'. Look in the mirror liberals.

That's not the point though. The point is about conservatives combating that highly tilted playing field. How does that happen? What's needed is a quick-thinking rapid response team with talking points readied for both reactive and proactive situations. They need to have the responsibility and means of messaging. In other words, they need to know what to say, ho to say it, and equally importantly, where to say it so that it gets heard by as many people as possible. We need our own Navy Seals of conservative political thinking.

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.

Saturday Night Live bailout skit

Still MIA. The election is over guys, you can put the video back up now, you won.

Is that video going to be stricken from every possible public record? Or has it already?

Well, at least we have this;