Whole Cloth Trump-Russia Dossier used to manipulate voter emotions

Mark Twain once made the observation that it is easier to manufacture seven facts out of whole cloth than one emotion.  Seven 'facts' or even fewer, are being used though, to manufacture emotions it seems.   Byron York has a great summary of the history of the phony Trump-Russia dossier in the Washington Examiner.   There's a trail of cause and effect that stems from the events surrounding the phony dossier.  The article is worth a thorough read.  But here are some interesting points.

The dossier (cause) kicked off an FBI investigation (effect).

So the timeline is: The first dossier report was June 20, Steele approached the FBI near the start of July, and the FBI began its investigation in late July.

The work made it's way from Steele to Fusion GPS to the Hillary Clinton campaign which commissioned the ongoing work.

Steele continued to file dossier reports to the Clinton campaign and, apparently, to the FBI during the July-August-September-October time frame -- in other words, the period leading up to the November 8 presidential election. There were reports dated July 30; August 5, 10, and 22; September 14; and October 12, 18, 19, and 20.

This can only be considered dirty politics and not a national security issue, given the purchaser and the on-going nature of the data flow beyond the informing of the FBI. This is especially true in light of what happened next:

As the election approached, the Clinton campaign, through Fusion GPS, directed Steele to give the dossier information to a few journalists. At the "end of September," and again in October, according to British court papers, Steele personally briefed reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the New Yorker, and Yahoo.

...The Clinton campaign tried to publicize the report, but the dossier news did not really catch on. So in late October, according to those British court papers, with election day fast approaching and the allegations still not out, Fusion, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, directed Steele to brief Mother Jones. David Corn's article, which stayed away from the most incendiary parts of the dossier, was published on October 31, 2016.

One day earlier, on October 30, Harry Reid tried again to push the information into public view with a letter to Comey stating that the FBI possessed "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his advisors, and the Russian government."

Of course, Comey knew what the FBI possessed. The point of Reid's letter was to get it out in public as the election approached.

The cause is purely political no doubt. But until we know if the dossier is fabricated of of whole cloth, or speculation based on some known facts, or partially or wholly true (which is not likely) we cannot know what the ultimate effect will be. Certainly even if the document is exposed to be an entirely politically motivated, fabricated document, the U.S. political landscape may have already become so polarized since 2000 that everyone will probably continue to believe what they already believe, on either side, that the truth won't even matter at that point.

What is Steele logic?

Michael Steele seems to be suffering from a logic deficit.  Calling off a get out the vote effort (GOTV) in the run-up to a critical election for the GOP seems so self-defeating as to raise a number of serious questions.  First and foremost, why? 

It's a Good News Day for the GOP

Rasmussen Reports has a number of good news items today - the generic Congressional ballot of likely voters has the GOP up 10 points, and the Obama approval index is at -20.  But the good news doesn't stop there.

Invisible Steele

About a month ago I was thinking Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee, was conspicuous by his absence from the national stage.  Now I wish he really was. Here he is trying to do some damage control:

At least he got one thing right

David Frum, a CINM (conservative in name mostly) had an interesting article in Canada's National Post yesterday discussing the implications of a shadow Republican National Committee that aims to raise comparable amounts to the RNC itself, and act as an independent 527 group (which it is, no subterfuge involved).  The group has some big names on board.  What is interesting, is Frum's assessment of the implications of this group.  I hate to say it, but the fact is they mostly make sense.

GOP Ready To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

Not all of the GOP sees things this way, but Michael Steele seems ready to throw in the towel on Republican victory in 2010 and the ability to govern in Congress if they win.

This post from Hotline on Call;

RNC chair Michael Steele doesn't think his party can take back the House in '10, and even if they do, he doesn't know if the GOP is ready.

Appearing on Sean Hannity's nationally syndicated show the same day his new book, "Right Now," hit store shelves, Steele said the GOP is set for "nice pick-ups" in the House. But, he said, at the moment there aren't enough candidates to take out enough Dems.

"I can't give a number [of seats the GOP will win] yet, because like I said, we're just now beginning to look at the races," Steele said. Asked if GOPers will take back the House, Steele confessed: "Not this year."

"I don't know all the candidates yet," Steele continued, according to a transcript of the show. "We still have some vacancies that need to get filled, but then the question we need to ask ourselves is: If we do that, are we ready?"

Michael Steele has got to go.

If he's trying to lower expectations so he can play up victory in 2010, or to try to lull the Democrats into a false sense of security (the alternative is he's insane or his heart's just not in this GOP thing) he's picked a bad strategy.

Why?

1) The Democrats aren't buying it.
2) 2010 is going to be won or lost on Republican and Independent turnout not on tricking the Democrats. And talk like that is going to turn off those who would be prepared to vote to conservative.

Fantastic.

The clock is ticking - the elections are in 10 months. The i's should have already be dotted and the t's crossed. The party should be financially ready and in the plotting strategy stage. He's saying they aren't ready for anything. Michael Steele has got to go.

Michael Steele is facing the wrong way

What has Michael Steele been up to since his win as Chairman of the RNC? Apparently too much of the wrong things. AP News has a story about trouble brewing for House Democrats in 2010 (welcome to reality AP, late as usual). There's no reason to lend any credence to the article, especially since it truly tries to spin the reality. After explaining some of the challenges the Democrats face, it parrots Democrat spin ("But Van Hollen said voters will make their choices on the strength of the national economy and will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.") and is even written seemingly as if it were a Democrat political planning document ("At least one Republican is considered extremely vulnerable: Joseph Cao of Louisiana").

The real story for conservatives is buried in the middle of the page, and while it doesn't mention Steele directly, there are some important factors to consider. Throwing out all of the spin, there's some meat to what the article says - starting with this;

Democrats have gotten off to a much faster start than Republicans in fundraising for 2010. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $10.2 million in the bank at the end of July, with debts of $5.3 million. The National Republican Congressional Committee had just $4 million in cash and owed $2.75 million.

With all of the Tea Party momentum, there's been a goldmine of opportunity for Republicans. In an environment where conservatives have actually started to protest, perhaps for the first time in recorded history, there has been ample opportunity to start raising cash. Being so far out of power, it should have been at LEAST an even money race, and that's without the lightning rods of discontent in Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd and Frank. There's still time to recover, but a lot of time has now been squandered. I honestly couldn't tell you what Steele has been up to on a day to day basis, but I know this - winning costs money. Money is there if you position the GOP alignment with discontent. Instead of going on the talk show circuit or arguing with Rush Limbaugh, Steele should have been focusing on raising cash. Steele is facing the wrong way.

The formula is pretty simple:

(1) raise cash early so you don't need to while you are fighting the election war

(2) recruit and vet quality candidates early on

(3) align the message

(4) practice, practice, practice

(5) start the voter outreach process and run hard

(6) January 1, 2010 arrives.

Steele looks as if he left at least step 1 alone for too long. That will have a cascade effect on the election. This is a golden opportunity not only for cash but for the GOP to win back control of at least the House. They need about 40 seats to do so. Failure to act on step 1 will have a ripple effect on everything else. Where were the quality candidates (Step 2) speaking about better government (Step 3) at the 9/12 rallies (Step 5)?

The article points out some of the opportunity being missed;

Democrats must defend as many as 60 marginal seats next year, as opposed to about 40 for Republicans. Among those, about 27 Democratic and just 13 Republican seats are seen as especially ripe for a party switch.

...most of the closest races involve Democrats who rode the Obama tide in 2008.

Indeed, the "cap and trade" bill that narrowly passed the House last spring is creating headaches for several Democrats. The legislation, which would cap carbon emissions and tax industries that exceed the cap as a way to reduce global warming, is largely unpopular in areas of the country where jobs rely on oil, gas or coal production.

One Democrat most affected is New Mexico Democrat Harry Teague. His district, which McCain carried last year, is one of the largest oil and gas producing areas in the country, and Teague has faced angry crowds back home ever since voting yes.
Teague will face Republican Steve Pearce, who held the seat for three terms before giving it up to run unsuccessfully for the Senate last year.

Without Obama on the ticket, a lower predicted black turnout in 2010 could also affect Democrats in several tight races in the South. These include Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, Travis Childers of Mississippi, and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who won by just 745 votes last year in a district that is 24 percent black.

Talk about squandering opportunity!!! I have no personal quarrel with Michael Steele. He seemed like a reasonable candidate, but it's turning out that he doesn't seem to be nearly proactive or aggressive enough, or at the very least, his priorities with respect to his role are way off base.

The GOP is meant to be the conservative voice of America. Steele has seemingly had the RNC sitting on the sidelines during all of this resistance to the health care bill and cap & trade bill. Maybe there's been a bunch of behind the scenes action that no one outside the RNC sees. But if the money is any indication things could be problematic.

It would certainly be interesting if the grassroots conservatives decided to start raising their own money and doling it out as 527 operations, running advertisements in support of the right candidates. It might bring the grassroots views directly to the candidates, cutting out the middlemen. It might just create a more responsive political class.

Steele's RNC seems to be all wrong

This should scare you if you are a conservative, hoping that the GOP has got the gears back on it's RNC machine. Over at the Horse Race Blog on RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost made three good points back on May 29th about measuring Michael Steele as chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

The problem is that, while many of us were willing to be patient, there really isn't a lot of time to get this role right, and there isn't a lot of room to get things wrong. Steele had to hit the ground running, in a full on sprint, because while the DNC and the Democrats may be short on meaningful and sound policy, they are proving to be expert at the politics of winning.

Point 1: Focus

For those of you who, like me, think a party chairman has better things to do than host a radio show - you'll be interested to know that Steele is still doing that. He again guest-hosted Bill Bennett's radio show this morning.

Absolutely! Like his job. What's his job supposed to be? I've discussed it on Twitter before - he needs to get candidates. He needs to raise vast sums of cash for a GOP war chest. He needs to make inroads into untapped constituencies by organizing community outreach efforts to conservative minded groups of Hispanics, African Americans and manufacturing workers that have no voice for their conservatism - other than to do things like vote against California's Proposition 8. If they can do that, they can vote conservative. Reaching them is more important than being a talking head. He's not great at it anyway. He comes across as an apologist. Stay focused Mr.Steele.

Point 2: Stop being an apologist and pandering

In what seemed like an effort to distance the party from claims that Sotomayor is "racist" and an "Affirmative Action" pick, Steele repeatedly said that Republicans should be hailing the historic nature of Obama's pick.

"I'm excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position," Steele said. He added that instead of "slammin' and rammin'" on Sotomayor, Republicans should "acknowledge" the "historic aspect" of the pick and make a "cogent, articulate argument" against her for purely substantive reasons.

Grow some backbone Michael Steele. There's a reason the base is up in arms over what looks to be a racist pick. The reason? IT'S A BAD IDEA.

Most importantly, Point 3: Show me the money

Mr. Chairman - crazy suggestion for you. Instead of spending your Friday morning fielding calls on a talk show, why don't you pick up your phone and try to find the RNC the cash it'll need to compete next year? Or call up that marginal, would-be candidate one more time to talk him into running - perhaps by promising him the support from all the donors you're about to call. This task might also be referred to as...your job description, which does not include posturing against your party for the satisfaction of your own vanity/ego while guest-hosting a talk show and serving as the party's chief media whore pundit.

Amen to that Jay. As I pointed out with respect to point 1, the RNC needs a massive War Chest, not another talking head. Instead, it looks like the GOP might be saddled with the reverse. It's still not too late, but the fat lady is already warming up.

2010 started on November 5th 2008. Steele didn't get elected until January 30th 2009. That gap wasted 3 months of 24, or 12.5% of the GOPs time. Steele seems to have compounded the problem with the three issues above. It's now nearly 30% of the way from the Obama win until the 2010 election. Can you believe that?

Time's a wastin'.

What to make of Arlen "the Defector" Specter

It's pretty easy to say good riddance to bad rubbish. While that's seemingly the prevailing sentiment, including my own, a deeper analysis is required since it's a political event and it holds political implications.

First off though, the fun part. Specter was not helpful to conservative causes in very large part. He was self-serving to the end. Look in the dictionary under the term Specter.

spec~ter  –noun

1. a visible incorporeal spirit, esp. one of a terrifying nature; ghost;
phantom; apparition.
2. some object or source of terror or dread: the specter
of disease or famine.
Also, especially British, spectre.

Origin: 1595–1605; spectrum
Synonyms:1. shade. See ghost.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

While Arlen wasn't really terrifying, his voting record could be. He was a ghost on a lot of conservative positions, and it certainly proved to be an object of dread to conservatives. In other words, he lived up to his name. He was a conservative version of the undead - sucking the like life out of the GOP for his own nefarious purpose - to cling to power as a member of the undead would try to cling to life.

That Specter does not understand core conservative principles is summed up in his illogical foray into the NFL's Spygate issue in 2007/2008.

...there is nothing estimable about Specter's call for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the league's Spygate incident involving the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick, and his suggestion that Goodell should be called to testify about why the NFL destroyed the videotape evidence of cheating.

In fact, by putting his nose into an in-house league issue, Specter has portrayed himself as even sillier than Upshaw, who Thursday responded to a question about health benefits for retired players by noting, "The disability program is for the disabled." Duh.

Addressing league matters such as Spygate, some of his colleagues ought to remind Specter, is for the league.

Core principles - free market versus government meddling. Which side did Specter come down on? The same side he's coming down on now - government intervention where it is unwarranted.

That Specter is self-serving is obvious. He bolted on the 28th, this poll came out on the 21st, indicating Specter was in trouble heading into a GOP primary;


And Specter said this on the 19th of March; "To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket."

Self-serving, not constituent-serving.

So how will the Specter defection affect Democrats and Republicans? There's already been a lot of speculation. He's the Democrats' headache now. He'll be challenged and defeated in the Democratic primary for his re-election bid. Toomey is too far to the right. This is good for the GOP, it purges a RINO. This is bad for the GOP, it weakens the party in the Senate and gives the Democrats a super-majority in the Senate. A lot of speculation, not all correct.

If the conservatism of the GOP is helped by this and they still lose a seat in 2010, the problem is bigger than Specter. The GOP needs to have principles guiding their decision making. But in politics every advantage is an advantage to be taken.

Specter is a symptom of a greater problem. Is there room for RINOs in the party? That question misses the mark. At 39 GOP Senators in the Senate the answer is no - there's no point. If there were 65 Republican Senators in the Senate the answer could be yes. But you need to get to 65 any way you can, in order to carry RINOs. If you had say 12 RINOs and the GOP held those 65 seats, you still have have more than 50 reliable votes and RINOs that you can split issue by issue and perhaps maintain a near filibuster proof majority. The Democrats see it that way on their side. The supposed conservative Democrats, aren't as conservative as you've been told, they're staying on the Democrat reservation. RINOs could be brought in line frequently enough to be useful to the GOP.

In reality, the solution is not to go to the Democrat-lite ground. The solution is to find a better way to communicate to the American public. THAT'S THE REAL SOLUTION. The Democrats and their victories have the GOP fighting a civil war and it's mere distraction. The Democrats hold the keys to the kingdom because they have a better message machine - organized, supported by the MSM and they are on campus, in union halls, at town halls. The GOP is flat-footed and on the defensive on all of those. THAT'S WHERE THE REAL BATTLE NEEDS TO BE FOUGHT. I've pointed this out before.

The problem of Specter would disappear if the GOP were better at getting their message into communities and had a better combat strategy for a partisan mainstream media. The real question then becomes, "So where's Michael Steele?"

Tea Party Momentum

The Tax Day Tea Party was either a great beginning or a 'Do you remember?'  moment.  There's an old saw about how of the millions of people who claimed they were at Woodstock, only 500 thousand or so actually are or were telling the truth.  The Tax Day Tea Party needs to fall into the category where everybody who went to the second and third and fourth want to say they were there at the first one.  Well, the first big one.

Was it bigger than expected?  Smaller?  It depends on who you ask.  Getting an accurate assessment is like trying to count sand.  The real numbers will never be known.  Cast aside the acidic derision of the mainstream media,

and you see a denigration of the numbers.  Compare Jim Geraghty at National Review's number of 337,000 with The Atlantic is putting it at a paltry 25,000 total and 538, the turnout was 262,000.

The numbers don't really matter so much as what's next.  If it's 500,000 or 5,000 what matters is that it happens again.  Lefties turned out by the tens to protest the war in Iraq knowing they would get coverage from NBC and CNN as if they were a massive civil uprising.  The double standard is there, and the Tea Parties will be denigrated every time they happen.  But conservatives shouldn't be discouraged by that.    Even Michael Steele had a bit of fire to him and that's encouraging.

The real momentum will come, if this is the beginning.  It's been rumored a July 4th Tea Party is possible.  That shouldn't be the last one either - Labor Day is a great opportunity.  Between now and December, there should be at least 3, but hopefully 4 more national Tea Party days.

The reason for that number is that the news cycle can only ignore and denigrate if there is no momentum.  And with momentum comes more visibility into their bias.  More importantly, 3 or 4 more days like the 15th, well timed, and we're headed into 2010 has it's own significance.  If the momentum grows heading into the Congressional election cycle it's momentum for conservatives in the GOP primaries and momentum for the GOP in the general elections.

Obviously Tea Parties in the dead of winter can be tricky, but they should carry right through to October 2010.

July 4th 2009.

Labor Day 2009

Black Friday 2009 (after Thanksgiving)

New Years Eve 2009

President's Day 2010

Tax Day 2010

July 4 2010

Labor Day 2010

November 1st 2010

That's a lot to ask but it's for your country's future.

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.

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.

Nostalgia? Nah.

I know, I know, as conservatives we're not supposed to languish in the past and forget to fight for the future. Blah, blah, blah. It's true. But I was surfing this morning and came across this image and I couldn't resist posting it.

It's not languishing, it's not pining for the glory days of the Republican party or the glory days of America. It's just a great picture of a great man, in a great time. While we can't dwell on Reagan, there's no harm in celebrating him and what he did for conservatism.

Reagan was a giant. We need to remember his ideals, which were conservative ideals, not really his. He embraced them, and brought them to life in an engaging manner. Without Reagan it is incumbent upon all conservatives to try do do the same ourselves and not wait for our own political 'savior'. Reagan was probably a once-in-a-lifetime gift many of were fortunate enough to witness.

If we conservatives choose to wait for the next Reagan, we are then all Estragon and Vladimir (Waiting for Godot). Doing so is political suicide. The next Reagan will arrive when he or she arrives. Waiting is merely killing time and wasting opportunity. The next time a Reagan arrives on the scene, it's better for us to be ready, engaged, and able to support a conservative agenda with the ferocity with which our political opponents seem to be willing and able to apply to the ruination of the free market.

If Reagan were alive today, he'd tell you the same thing. His line about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." is bigger than just the literal interpretation. It applies beyond that. It implies that self reliance, self-sufficiency and personal dedication is the path to success. It also holds a lesson for the GOP. You're not going to hear "I'm Reagan 2.0 and I'm here to help.", so you have to, as an organization, help yourselves. A few seem to understand that lesson and are bravely applying it. Others who will follow and not lead can be led astray (e.g. Specter or Collins or Snowe) so you as a party need to lead them down the right path.

For now, this means you Michael Steele. You need to put yourself amongst the conservative lions like Jim DeMint and lead. And for conservatives in every day life, you need to do the same. Educate, inspire, discuss, and engage those who don't understand. We don't need a Reagan to get epic victories, we can do it ourselves if we try.

A line in the sand

Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, and that's what we did," Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, announcing the House and Senate stinkulus deal .



If by compromise he means between Senate and Congressional Democrats, then he's not full of it. But according to Connie Hair, the only Republicans involved were the three defectors, Specter, Snowe and Collins. They got the bill down to 789.5 billion, not exactly the 100 billion Collins bragged about axing in her negotiations. But Reid's results don't smack of consensus building, or compromise. If you get everybody on the same side of an issue to agree, you may have an internal consensus but you do not have bi-partisan consensus and you certainly don't have any significant compromise.

Now, there's plenty of reason to be angry with Democrats - they are swindling America here. But to be fair, it's to be expected of them. We know what they want to do and are attempting to do. And now thanks to these 3 Benedict Arnolds they have carte blanche to do it. The Democrats need only 2 Senators to prevent a filibuster. And that was the last tool the Republicans had to stand up against big government for the next 2 years. The Democrats now know that they can make paltry side deals with the weakest links in the GOP chain to get their way.

Now that everyone knows that, the GOP needs to focus its efforts on what it can still control which means two things - preparing for 2010 and penalizing these 3 for taking the only weapon available out of conservative hands (to ensure this doesn't happen again in future Congresses).

To those ends, they ought to be removed from caucus, removed from RNC support mechanisms and Michael Steele ought to challenge all three hard in primaries with strong, winnable candidates. It’s not much from a stop-the-liberal-agenda standpoint, but it does accomplish a couple of things by drawing a line in the sand.

Firstly, it establishes a party unity approach to future Legislative efforts, which given the super-minority status the party finds itself past the precipice on (thanks to the Turncoat 3), is absolutely necessary. Secondly, it goes a ways towards ensuring that party loyalty – you are on THIS team, you play ONLY on this team. No switching sides every inning. Thirdly, it keeps that bi-partisan double-talk from Democrats to a minimum. Even with three Republicans on board, the Democrats are going to try to crow about bi-partisanship accomplishments, reaching across the aisle, and the art and skill of their compromise. They’ll pat themselves on the back, as long as it looks like there’s going to be some success come out of this. And if it starts to turn sour, they can claim – “Hey, those Republicans were in on this too!”

Yeah, right. Kick them out of caucus and see how far that argument goes. The Democrats are pinning their hopes on the fact that this package will kick in to high gear in 2010 and get them electoral victory in the mid-term elections. It’s a gamble. But if they are right, expect that bi-partisan praise to evaporate quickly. It’ll be their plan, their recovery; only 3 Republicans came on board.

As Republicans, we want the country to succeed but we are convinced this will not work. If we truly believe that, as most conservatives and most Republicans seem to feel strongly that it will fail, then in this poker game, we need to gamble on its failure. Not by hoping for failure like the Democrats did on Iraq, but by simply not signing on to it. Step aside and make a big deal about how if it succeeds the Democrats own it and if it fails they own it. In 2010 if the recession is still in high gear or the high inflation has started, or worse still, stagflation has kicked in, Republicans will be poised for not only an I-told-you-so moment but BIG electoral gains.

It’s not wrong or treasonous, Anti-American or wanting failure to say you believe this plan is not going to work. This is an exchange of ideas. We believe our ideas are better. In the next few years, having granted the future generations of America a mountain of debt, we’ll have a better idea of this has become America’s lost decade. And if enough people are aware of the failure WHEN it becomes obvious and they know who is to blame, and they vote accordingly, then maybe it doesn’t have to be an entire decade that gets lost like it did in Japan.

GOP 2010: The Journey back - Part 2

Previously I looked at the GOP chances in the Senate 2010 and it didn't look too promising out of the gate. But there are some mitigating circumstances that help the GOP. Before moving on to some of those factors, let's take a look at Congress. All 435 seats are of course up for election. Currently the Democrats hold a 257-178 advantage.

That translates to a 79 seat advantage meaning that Republicans would need to make up 40 seats to overtake the Democrats. That has occurred only 2 times in the last 60 years, and is far greater than the changes over the last two election. Most races are in strongholds and not likely to change but many liberals are salivating at further gains in 2010, pushing the Democrats passed the 2/3 majority point in Congress. In fact in recent polling the Democrats in Congress are outperforming their Republican counterparts. This early on, even in a tiny two year election cycle, that's not too meaningful. Still, it's better to be on the plus side of that polling than the minus, even though it doesn't count until November 2010.

What are the seat specific pick-up opportunities and loss threats? It's too early and too hard to tell at this point. But for both the House and Senate, there's an ace up the sleeve of Republicans that has yet to be factored into the comeback road and that is redistricting. True, it's longer term than 2010, but 2010 still factors into it;

The 2010 census could add multiple House seats to red-leaning states — as many as four districts to Texas and two each to Arizona and Florida. And it could subtract seats from blue-trending states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Most of the states slated to gain seats in reapportionment next cycle feature Republican-controlled state legislatures and governor’s mansions — the powerhouses that decide how to allocate congressional districts.

So while there is no immediate impact in redistricting in 2010 it does help for 2012. But there are other factors at play that will impact 2010. The current economic crisis, if not solved by the summer of 2010 will definitely cause voters to sour on the Democrats. Another factor is that the youth turnout, so crucial to Obama's win, is not likely to be as much a critical block in a non-Presidential cycle. The mainstream media, caught in the hype of 2008, may have soured a bit on Obama by 2010, but even if they haven't and even if they are as fervent about 2010 as they were about 2008, they won't be able to generate the hype amongst the electorate - particularly if the downturn turns out to be very significant in the interim.

Conversely the Republican base will be re-energized by the battering they took in 2008 and the chance to make back some ground. And the conservative base will be even more engaged if the current rate of scandals holds up. Party identification, having shifted towards Democrats is likely to drift back towards the norm, albeit not back to the best levels the GOP has ever seen.

Taking some positives from the Gregg situation, there are possibilities for further retirements in the GOP in both the House and Senate and while pollsters might look at it as giving up an incumbency advantage, there is a flip side to that coin; new nominees could be more in line with real conservative values and thereby energize the base. As much as it is a threat it's an opportunity. Coupled with Michael Steele's GOPAC connections - there's a strong chance the party gets better talent for it's nominees. Not to mention potentially better fundraising, better message communication and better outreach opportunities than under Bush's handpicked RNC Chair, Mike Duncan. Just the way '94 ushered in a new flock of idealistic Republicans, 2010 offers at least a starting point to do the same.

The field in 2010, while still tilted against the GOP, offers ample opportunity in Congress to see substantial gains and in the Senate, which takes longer to change, at least no more losses and potentially a modest gain.

And then there's the possibility of in-fighting amongst Democrats adding to the chaos of the next two years. How that image plays out remains to be seen, but an article in RealClearPolitics indicates that the in-fighting is not Republican wishful thinking. It also presents an opportunity to the GOP to point out how the committee process has been stripped and that power are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Those who worried about a Bush fascist state should be if not up in arms over this, at least visibly nervous about the possible ramifications of an Obama, Pelosi, Reid triumvirate of power, locking out not only the remainder of the 535 Congressmen and Senators, but all 300 million other Americans.

If things keep up like this, you will start to see shrill conservatives screaming about a socialist dictatorship and the same silliness as the Bushitler meme from the left but this against Obama, Pelosi and Reid. It's not merited because for conservatives the focus should be simply on two things that do not include name calling - obstructing any agenda that makes America more socialist and winning back its lost seats in 2010.

With all this background I'm going to make a ridiculously early prediction about the Senate and Congress in 2010. Don't hold me to it because at this point I'm trying to temper my optimism with the reality of so many unknowns this far out.

Senate - Republicans +2. Congress - Republicans +15.

But I'm not signing any contract on that.

RNC Steeled for Battle

The RNC yesterday elected it's first black chairman, Michael Steele, to a two year term. It took 6 ballots to achieve the victory. Steele has a reputation as a centrist but that isn't necessarily a fair assessment. There are a good number of positives that come out of this and the RNC has elected a man who comes ready to bring the fight to the Democrats.

Some positives

After two election cycles (2006 and 2008) of substantial losses in the House and Senate, as well as the White House, Mike Duncan is gone. If nothing else, it proves that Republicans don't reward failure the way Democrats do (e.g. the auto bailouts). More importantly though, the man who was chosen by George Bush is no longer at the helm of the Republican party. He was not the right man for the job. Cleaning house after the defeats, in this case is a good idea.

Michael Steele is the chair of GOPAC, the organization that recruits and trains Republican candidates, he brings that wealth of knowledge to his chairmanship, and potentially a synergy between the two efforts.

He has vowed to fight for every vote, every group - something the RNC has seemed not to think to do at times;

"We're going to say to friend and foe alike: 'We want you to be a part of us, we
want you to with be with us.' And for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to
get knocked over," Steele said.

"There is not one inch of ground that we're going to cede to anybody," he added.

"This is the dawn of a new party moving in a new direction with strength and conviction."

That vision is something that indicates he understand there are many areas of untapped voter potential for the GOP.

What's ahead?

Steele has a challenging set of tasks ahead. He's got to improve fundraising, ensure quality candidates for 2010 and beyond, and re-visit the infrastructure and the policies of the RNC to see what's working and what needs fixing. More importantly when Steele talks about making inroads into groups, one of those groups that has to be his starting point is conservatives. There is still a lot of disillusionment among conservative voters that the GOP has left them, or at least taken them for granted. The Republican party has image repair to do, by word and deed, to not only those on the outside but those who form or formed it's core constituency. The proof early on will be in the actions of the new Chair, both words and actions are required.

We've seen Michael Steele on the talk show circuit. He has the words, now let's see him put his ideas into a party in need of revitalization. I believe he can succeed, and I wish him luck. Or, to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh talking about another new leader, I can put it into four words 'I hope he succeeds'.

RNC Candidates in their own words

Just a little fodder for the RNC popularity contest;

Saul Anuzis;



Ken Blackwell;



Katon Dawson;



Mike Duncan;



Chip Saltsman;



Michael Steele;

Open Survey - RNC Chair choices

Curiosity about preferences for the RNC Chair got me interested in conducting a survey on my site. My first ever opinion survey.

Please vote. Something I'll be saying more and more frequently to Republicans as 2010 and 2012 approach.

And Please note, I've deliberately left out Al Franken as a choice for nomination, since votes would turn up mysteriously from other blogs and a suspicious recount would have to be conducted.



Favorite Candidate for RNC Chair?




Thanks for participating. I know that these types of surveys are unscientific but hopefully I can reach some level of theoretical statistical significance. So please vote and encourage your web acquaintances to do so also.