Furthermore

Obama: Energy Policy & Fraud

2009 December 4

tags: ANWAR, Climate-Gate, Electric, Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Environmental, Foreign, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, National Security, Obama, Oil, Solar, Tidal, Wind, Wind Farms

by klsouth

Obama: Energy & Fraud

Obama’s Climate Gate has been exposed as a HOAX. Now, about our domestic natural resources…

Global Warming is now called Global Climate change – since the earth is now actually cooling. But don’t let science get in the way of a good political issue; its now junk science. Besides the fraud, stop the madness – man made global warming is and was always a lie. Now we know this. Besides, solar spots account for 90% of all heating and cooling activity and the change in temp over 100 years is 0.01 degrees per decade. When these global climate scientists could not account for the last decade of cooling temperatures they conspired to lie about their observations. Scientists who reject the scientific method are not scientists at all. They are propagandists. Global Warming is a fraud and a scam.

The greatest scientific scam in history has been exposed. The most renowned climate scientists in the world have had 1000 emails and 9000 sections of their modeling disclosed by an inside whistle blower or inadvertently left this data exposed publicly on the Internet by mistake. In these emails they have been shown to have conspired to fudge data, obstruct Freedom of Information requests, discuss among themselves about the temperature decline over the past 9 years and conspired to “hide the decline”, they have conspired to blackball people who do not agree with them by rigging the “peer review” process so critical arguments cannot be published. They developed relationships with realclimate.org (founded by George Soros) where they controlled what was or was not published.

No matter what lengths the media goes in order to protect the President they have invested so much in, the people have caught on. Man-made warming is in its death throws. Gore has cancelled his speech in Nopenhagen. Obama will not as he needs an excuse to pander to his ego by picking up his Nobel Peace Prize and enjoy another family outing. He will even sign a pledge to lower carbon emissions even though he surely knows of the fraud. Nothing could prove more concisely that the warming scare has nothing to do with saving the world, it has nothing to do with saving Polar Bears, and it has nothing to do with science. It is all about political power and greed.

Junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by environmental whack’s apparently had no bound. Congress has begun the process of investigating the leaked climate change e-mails from the University of East Anglia, which means all attempts to suppress and shut down the scandal have failed. Obama too was closely associated with people who run the Chicago Climate Exchange, a stock market scheme that depends on artificial government created scarcities of carbon-based fuels. The entire world too is talking about Climate-Gate while the American media is sitting on the story – instead focusing on the Tiger Woods affair.
And, we learned too that the BBC sat on the story for six weeks. Nothing to see here folks!

Nevertheless, Obama is jetting off to “a disaster track” Copenhagen to further embarrass our country to show support for a plan to give up our sovereignty to the UN by allowing them to assess reparations taxes on the United States and redistribute 2% of our GDP to the developing countries which will inherit our industry as Cap and Tax. Plus, this UN tax makes doing business in this country deplorable; higher taxes, higher unemployment, etc. The lies and deceit about Global Warming are being broken wide-open with more information coming in daily. White House involvement in the scandal will make it harder for MSM to ignore. But I’m sure they will try real hard to ignore it. Yes, it will be very interesting watching all this unfold and I don’t have interest in discussing junk science and a fraudulent hoax beyond what I have here. What should be talked about is the abundance of natural resources that exist today here in our own country sitting in our back yard and alternatives.

Cart before the horse never works.

The oil companies are a great asset to this country, not our enemy (no I don’t work for one nor have I invested in one). Our high cost of fuel is the result of decades of Liberals blocking the creation of better and more abundant energy resources and spineless Republicans who wouldn’t fight the good fight. After 30-years of ignoring the problem the demand has finally exceeded supply and the very people who have caused this are now working overtime to blame those who they kept from solving it. No good deed ever goes unpunished. So here we sit, we have billions and billions of oil reserves we are not allowed to recover, we have nuclear energy, clean coal technology, all together enough to power this great country’s needs for literally hundreds of years. All clean and low-cost and all we want to do are ignore real solutions.

The total import of all goods and services into this country is far less than the price we pay for foreign oil. We have four to eight times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia depending on which estimate of reserves you use; if we drilled in ANWAR, offshore in ANWAR, offshore Pacific, offshore of Florida, on the Atlantic coast; drilled for natural gas in the Destin Dome, drilled on land in the Bakken Fields, opened up the 85% of our reserves now blocked. If we utilized coal for oil and gasified it we would have 500 years of oil and gas supplies. If we utilized shale oil we add two trillion barrels of oil many times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

There is an estimated four trillion barrels of oil just in the UT/WY/CO oil shale basin. It can be developed for under $30/bbl and in an environmentally safe way but, the environmentalists and their lackeys will ‘not’ allow it to happen. There is a lack of political will to tell the environmentalists to take a walk in the desert and hug a cactus while the rest of us move the world forward as we develop other sources of energy that is cheaper than the next hundred plus years currently available to us in USA oil. If anyone thinks that China, India, or other emerging countries are going to do without oil and care about carbon then I have some real good fertile land to sell you in the Sahara. There are many reasonable and necessary steps to energy independence.

Nuclear power would greatly improve the current problems. If we utilized nuclear we could eliminate much of the one-trillion tons of coal we burn each year. In France, 80% of electrical energy comes from nuclear power plants and this nation should at this time in our history be generating 80% of our electrical needs by nuclear power. This is not incompatible with a program of clean energies development. A mix of energies supply must be created as soon as possible. We can burn coal cleanly. If we did all these things we would create millions of jobs, reduce power costs for everyone, clean the air and eliminate the imbalance of trade. Instead we have a president ignoring the fact that global warming is an irrefutable fraud and giving speeches at a so-called Jobs Summit saying we can produce 6 million jobs by continuing to block our energy resources, have huge tax increases, and put huge taxes on all forms of energy. And, lending $100 billion to Brazil so they can develop their offshore oil while blocking offshore oil here in the United States is insane policy.

Russia has demonstrated to the world the dangers of a nation not having developed its own energy resources. The stranglehold Russia has on the supply of energy to Europe should be an eye-opener to all but the most stupid. The Congressional Research Service released a report at the end of October, “U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary,” which clearly showed that the U.S. has a considerable amount of oil, coal, and natural gas at its disposal—but most of it hasn’t been accessed. It is obvious though that an alternative in energy independence will lead to a booster for the energy conglomerates, rather than taking a fresh look at the problem as many advocate “large scale wind and solar”. Large scale is a code word for corporate-owned. These centralized energy ‘farms’ require new transmission lines. This is just more waste of public funds for the profit of large corporations – with national security risks.

Looking forward, a sane strategy is a national ’space race’ type program to develop “distributed generation”. This would put solar on every new roof and provide subsidies for household geothermal and energy conservation measures. Rather than waste the money on vulnerable transmission lines – terrorist targets that can be interrupted and can create blackouts – it would be far better to spend it on quickly ramping-up new energy generation on domiciles and decentralized rooftops. By generating energy close to where it will be used we can save tremendous amounts of money in transmission infrastructure. Such a redundant energy ‘mesh’ (as opposed to a ‘grid’) can’t be blacked out or infiltrated as easily.

Localized energy is the way of the future and 100% American. Like the personal computer it puts power in the hands of our citizens. The more people off the grid the more energy secure and independent we are. There are over 70 gigawatts of solar available in the US. Germany is currently buying 25% of the worlds solar panel supply since they are trying to free themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas. This is succeeding wonderfully in Germany. The punch line is that Germany gets the same average solar energy hitting it as Alaska. Imagine the energy available in the other 49 states. Either we pay for solar conversion via the private sector, or watch how Congress squanders tax payer funds and votes tax increases as it wastes. We need to develop solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc., energy solutions at the pace of the Manhattan Project in WWII – with incentives that foster real returns on private-sector investment.

Electric is going to become the primary form of energy for vehicular transportation, heating and cooling. The market for plug-in electric cars is about to explode and will create the default motor-vehicle design for the rest of the century. Ethanol, hydrogen, etc. will be fringe or limited use energy applications. But, we are not encouraging domestic exploration. While it took 125 years to burn through the first trillion barrels of oil, it will only take 30 years to burn through the next trillion. To put 200,000 barrels a day in perspective, consider the fact the world now uses 1,000 barrels per second. We do however need to reduce our use of all fossil fuels for national security reasons and we need to move away from our dependence on oil from foreign sources.

Our dependence on these governments skews our foreign policy, causing us to prop up these repressive regimes and look the other way at their human rights abuses, just so they won’t shut off the oil spigots. In turn, our reputation in the world has tarnished because of this hypocrisy in our foreign policy. I think it’s in our national interest to arrive at a day when we don’t depend on any other government for even one-kilowatt of our energy needs. When true alternatives are dismissed by the needs of environmental protectionist due to fear and ignorance then no real advances will be made; wind energy kills birds (can’t do that), capturing wave energy in the ocean might trap a dolphin (can’t do that), damns for hydro-energy stop fish migration (breach them all), solar energy uses to much tech and what do we do with the batteries (oh no, oh no), and biofuels, well, blah blah blah…

Get the government out of the way and unleash the American ingenuity – tear down the failed leftist policies that impeded our energy development. We need to devote all of the best scientific minds and research institutions in our country to find an alternative to fossil fuels, and if we also get environmental benefits out – that’s great. But, we are still ambivalent on nuclear power. The best thing that can happen is downsize the Federal Government and return the government to each state; they know far better what they need, what they have and what needs to be done to best take care of its constituents. The candidates that promises to reduce the size of government by eliminating the Energy and Education Department to start – will get my vote.

This Global Warming charade has never been about climate or the environment, but about global wealth re-distribution (as in America’s) and global communism, and the world’s media has pretty much been right there every step of the way, doing everything it can to support this lunacy. They failed with Kyoto (omissions in Europe went up in 2005, 06 and 07 and it didn’t go up in the US), but that isn’t going to stop them, as they now have an ally in the White House who doesn’t give a damn about America or its sovereignty, and in fact shares most of the same goals of the global communists.

Obama’s shortsightedness is dangerous and politically expedient, pandering to those people too selfish or ignorant to see more than a few days down the road. The entire man-made global warming debacle was a fraud from the start and those pushing this pack of lies were well aware of it. The left-wing mainstream media jumped into the fray and are now on the horns of a dilemma – do they report the biggest story of the new century and admit that they’ve been lying to their readers for two decades, or do they act like the Obama administration and pretend that none of this is going on and hope it goes away?

Stay tuned.

Obama’s Economy

2009 December 4

1 Comment

tags: Budget, Congress, Democrats, Economy, Free Market, GOP, jobless, Jobs, Obama, Regulations, Spending, Stimulus, Tax & Spend, Taxes, Unemployment

by klsouth

Obama’s Economy

I’ve never seen a Democrat cut any federal program. Eva.

Obama, in tandem with Democrats in Congress pushed through $700 billion for TARP and a $787 billion dollar bill full of pork barrel spending, government waste, and massive borrowing cleverly called ‘stimulus.’ The Democrats promised you that if you paid for their stimulus, jobs would be created immediately and unemployment would stay under 8%. And Team Obama reports this week that roughly 640,000 jobs were created or retained with stimulus funding through September 2009. Don’t believe it. Obama’s stimulus has completely failed to create any jobs and instead has witnessed more than 3.3 million jobs lost under Obama in 2009.

Business owners won’t hire more workers until health care and climate legislation go away. With a tougher regulatory environment and lending restrictions, there is too much uncertainly in the marketplace. The single best jobs action Obama should undertake would be to reverse course on a dangerous agenda of debt-financed spending, crippling regulation, expensive mandates, and intrusive government expansion. Unemployment is 10.2 percent, with the actual rate closer to 18 percent, and will remain that way well into 2010 and beyond. Even a peak of unemployment by next November or 2010 Election Day will be too minimal for any job-seeker to notice.

Jobs are the measure of the economy for the vast majority of the American people. They don’t see GDP growth. This is a statistic collected by bureaucrats in the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Stock market movements too have little to do with the economy. Meaningful jobs are created by manufacturers, not by governments or unions. When bureaucracy is incorporated into the industry equation, market forces are inhibited from playing out. That is what is happening with the heavy influence of labor; union jobs and government jobs are without question one in the same.

Obama invited 130 academics and politicians to a forum on job creation in Washington December 3rd. What’s wrong with this picture? A jobs summit that doesn’t include small business representation? No US Chamber of Commerce? No NFIB? No NAM? Gingrich said it best; it’s like having a forum to discuss professional football and excluding the NFL from participation. Its plain laughable. In addition, Obama has no respect for free market capitalism; no fear of the scope of government; no balance between labor and business; no integrity in what the stimulus has actually accomplished. I’m finding it increasingly believable that this Democrat-controlled government is destroying this country on purpose. Since when has an “academic” ever created a job?

The fact that the market is up 10% for the year is wiped out by the dollar being far lower for the year. Especially in a country that has a trade deficit. Over-regulating business too is the same as overtaxing and destructive. Government intervention into the private sector and a downtrend USA economy is forcing companies to leave the USA. One of the country’s most important industrial companies recently said the United States is not a good place to manufacture and it will continue moving its assets offshore. David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson Electric Co., noted on November 17th in Manufacturing and Technology News:

“…that the federal government is damaging prospects for U.S. economic growth with a $1.41 trillion federal deficit (10 percent of GDP); $12 trillion in government debt that will grow to $20 trillion in 10 years; a policy of printing money; a “non-targeted $800-billion stimulus”; bailouts for Wall Street and the automobile companies; the prospect for cap and trade legislation; a “government takeover” of health care to the tune of more than $1 trillion; increasing taxes and regulations; and a “lack of U.S. $ support” for manufacturing. The global stimulus “soon will fade,” says Farr.

No free-market employer wants to add employees during times of the uncertainty – and they are not. Washington should stop its war on the middle class and reduce taxes. History show tax cuts improve the economy by giving the people greater spending power and produces higher consumer confidence which leads to more spending of their income which leads to more jobs, more business investment in more efficient technologies, and ultimately higher GDP growth. In a November 19th report, Rasmussen surveyed that 62% of Americans believe tax cuts are the best way to create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21% believe that additional stimulus spending is a more effective tool.

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress of course, still has times to do right. He should cut the capital gains tax to zero for two years; by encouraging investment, lower capital gains taxes increase funding for technologies, businesses, ideas, and projects that make workers and the economy more productive. Return the stimulus funds that haven’t yet been spent and apply it to the deficit. This will show global investors that finance debt to America that the US is serious about restraining out-of-control spending and deficit reduction. Eliminate the cap-and-trade and health care legislation; renew the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010; freeze non-military, non-entitlement spending for two years; boost credit availability for small firms; open-up favored-trade status encouraging expanding exports and reduce payroll taxes. Positive economic growth comes from the private sector not government and unions.

Tax policy can change the size of the future economy in either of two ways: by affecting the underlying growth rate or by creating a one-time permanent shift in the level of economic activity (without affecting the underlying growth rate). Reagan’s strategy was that if he increased military spending that the Democrats would have to decrease funding for entitlements while deregulation would allow business to police itself in free markets. Republicans did great at cutting spending under Clinton – but under Bush they failed. The Reagan tax cuts, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulated growth, reduced tax avoidance, and increased the amount of tax payments generated by the rich.

The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:

1. reduce government spending,
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland’s recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland’s per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom’s average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe and some of the lowest taxes.

Tax cutting is not the only long pole in the Republican tent. The GOP need spending restraint and a lax of the tax and spend mentality. Our country needs the precise opposite of what BO and Congress are doing; raising taxes, regulations and even creating new entitlement programs while government revenue is evaporating. The deficit is not just a problem of lack of income; it is a problem of lack of ability to budget. Most reasonable people know that there are huge cuts that could be made in spending, with no impact on services delivered.

When Bush was running up debt we actually had a decent growing economy, the debt ratio when he took office was 36%, and it was 37% when he left office due to economic (GDP) expansion. The deficits went up to $417 billion in 2004 after a recession, 911, two wars, Katrina, corporate scandals, etc. By 2007, the deficit dropped to $160 billion before Pelosi and Ried’s veto over-rides in 2008 gave us $450 billion. Federal revenue increased at the fastest pace in history after the 2003 tax cuts ($780 Billion). Bush’s increased spending was during good economic times; what we have happening now has never been done and has so far been proven disastrous.

We continue to lose jobs month over month. And, while the latest jobs statistics being released December 4th show a slow down, this is basically an accounting fabrication. There are thousands of people falling off of unemployment compensation rolls each week – none of them are reflected in the official numbers. Obama seeks a centrally controlled economy where HE sets the employment levels and pay wages. He cares about expanding the state; the best way to enact his socialist agenda is to drive down business because a desperate populace is easier to manipulate. In Obama’s world, businesses exist only to pay taxes and fund unions, who then fund Democrats.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. Because of FDR’s disastrous deficit reduction experience that plunged the recovering economy back into the void in 1936-1937, we can reliably predict a worse outcome next year. And, as far as Main Street is concerned, our economy is still in critical condition. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president of this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation’s wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good; much like Obama.

Obama is at his best when he:

1. Takes an issue and hypes it to biblical proportions.
2. Uses said issue to pontificate without saying anything.
3. Uses said issue to photo op.
4. Denounces anyone who doesn’t carry the hype water.

Almost all the growth we have seen to date is from government orders. I’ve always been dubious of the inventory rebuild scenario. No one ever seems to have solid numbers on it which makes it suspicious. Unless Obama stops his push to control business, unemployment will stay high. Investing $750 billion into small business expansion loans would have created 12 million jobs almost overnight. Instead, Obama keeps listening to those with no solutions that work. All we have to hope for is that many Democrats get the boot in 2010. Keep saving money because prosperity is not around the corner.

Less than 50% of American wage earners pay no Federal Income Tax and get back 100% sometimes more with rebates, in each year’s tax returns. There is very little reason for those people to vote against the insanity of progressive taxation that ultimately is ruining the American opportunity Reagan spoke so eloquently about as the “opportunity society”. Obama says that the private sector needs to help in stimulating the economy. Yet, Obama introduces government policies that hinder private sector expansion. People in states like NY and CA are going to see their marginal rates skyrocket next year, and voting for a charismatic charlatan who reads the teleprompter well but is way below his pay grade, will not seem so lovely. Hope is fast taking everything but their change. This is truly amazing times.

I’ve never seen a Democrat cut a federal program. Eva.

Our Republic versus Democracy

2009 December 1

Calamity & Clouseau

2009 November 29

1 Comment

tags: Clouseau, Humor, Investigation, Party Crashers, Tareq Salahi

by klsouth

Breaking! White House Hires Clouseau on Party Crashers Calamity

Sunday, Nov 29, 12:00PM

~~Inspector~~ Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau Enters Investigation: says paw prints are all over this official party crashing caper. With the increasing concern over the White House security breach, after a couple gained up-close access to some of Washington’s elite, including the President and Vice President, and without actually being on the guest list, the Obama security team has reached out to ~~Inspector~~ Jacques Clouseau – Chief Inspector, that is, to identify what went wrong. French and American security professionals, befuddled by the decision, described Clouseau as a bumbling simpleton of a policeman but brilliant detective.

Meanwhile, Republican Leaders on Capitol Hill voiced their concern in having Clouseau head-up the official investigation, in part due to his clumsiness and his incompetence, even as Clouseau himself has shown an incredible knack for survival resulting in the capture of assailants and thieves worldwide.

Clouseau’s superior, Charles Dreyfus, the ranking Commissioner, accompanied Clouseau’s press conference and was visibly observed having a rapidly increasing pronounced tic which began to occur as Clouseau began to speak. The Obama team, against the wishes of GOP Leadership, expressed confidence that even under such duress and confidentiality, Clouseau has the instinct and vigilance to cut through the red tape of the Secret Service, identify the root cause and solve the case. The White House reaffirmed that Clouseau was the right man for the case.

During his press conference, and acting in his official police business capacity, Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau, the brilliant detective with an incredible knack for survival in solving crimes, stated, with some degree of clumsiness, but in no uncertain terms, his highest priority in solving the case. His comments:

“It will not be easy… that is why I have always ffffailed where others have suc-ceed-ed. Instinct… Instinct… I tell you. That split second timing and rare ability to know the differ-ance between life or death. I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one. But these aren’t normal times. To better vis-ualize the crime I am going to place myself in the perpetrators position. As the perpetrators entered the rheumm, dress-ed in all their rich gall-auntray, this Tareq Salahi, a polo-playing swinemaking moat, and his lovely and beautiful wife, Michaele Salahi… Yes, this ‘crahzy’ ’swine’ parrot Taqer, haven forc-ed the lovely Lady Salami to oh-bay his commands, sashayed him-self, with Madame Salami in innah-cent tow, into the closely guard-ded White-House pageantry; and coz-ied up to magnet show-beez, star-studded politis-cion’s and celeb-braties for-ah fleet-eeng shot at fame. I kneaw this.

But euf ceuse …dur-eeng my crime caper solv-eeng parade, I have been pick-eeng up on some-theengz only one with an instinct can… I am, az yaew kneuw, vig-ulant and ah-lert in sol-ving crimes and follow-eeng the cluuues. It’s all part of life’s rich pageant. Yes, politics is where greed wears the mask of morality. Now then, let me bring yeuh up to speed… It iz part of my-job to read peop-pal, as yeau kneuw. I think I am quite good at it! There is one abso-lute treuth in this world and that iz… crime does not pahy, yeuw kneaw… yes, I ah, I think I have lost my train of thought… (at this point a reporter from the Washington Post reminded Inspector Clouseau that he was bringing the attendees up to speed on the investigation) Clouseau stated: Yes, I kneuw that… I kneuw that… that is what I have been saying you idiot! ah yes… this Monsieur Samari, this minkey attend-ee with no lisonce to be an attend-ee waz obsessed with fame and for-tune all the while pose-eng dangers to the Prime Minister of Paki-stan and the Presi-dent of thee U-nited States. The perpetrator could have had a beaum… (when a reporter from the NY Times, pointed out that it was the Prime Minister of India and not Pakistan who was attending the event) Clouseau then stated: Yes, I kneuw that… I kneuw that, I wanted to see if you were pay-eeng atten-tion…

Now then, zpeakingne to the Se-cret Ser-vice gate check-ers and use-eng my animal in-stinct… I have seau far – come to the con-clusion – that there was a seri-ous sec-ur-ity breach. I believe Lady Sanami, after rah-ceiving a bimp to her head, was led innocently in tow by this minkey Monseiur Salami, who was in a rit of fealous jage over Lady Sahara and you are forgetting the most important fact: motive… Yes, motive… Monseiur Salami wanted to make monies from this pageantry event as a launch-eeng pad, for how do yeaw say, this reality swine-show caper to impress Lady Swahelie. Nyot Anymeur… (when a reporter asked Clouseau to clarify what Michaele Salahi received on her head?) Closeau replied: Yes, she received a bimp on – and, listen, monsieur, next time I may test you without warning! She received a bimp… you stupid fewl.

Acting like a swine moat, the perpetrator portrayed himself in rich pageantry as he broke the leauw. But this is just an ole closet minkey ploy. I kneow that. If there’s one thing I enjoy, it’s a good closet minkey ploy. In my init-ial quest-ion of guest and atten-dees, I dis-covered that there was also a bee-keeper who lost his voice, a cook, who thought he was a gardener, and a gardener who thought he was a bee-keeper. Yessss, when duty calls… I suggest you count your beees, you may find that one of them is missing. It is obvious to my trained eye, that there is much more going on here than meets the ear. This is a very serious mat-tar …and everyone in this reuoom is under the suspicions… I am no “fewl”… I will ra-paire the da-mauge that has been done… (when told that no one in the room was at the event and it was just a news journalist pool) Closeau stated: Listen here, yeaw fewl, do not question me, I am Chief Inspector of the Société, it is my job to know that.

Now then, where was I… yes, Madame and sirs, and you, yes you, you nitwit, it is my business to locate trouble… I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble… And I submit, in this sweemang poohl of deceit… rest assured, I will be on the ahf-ficial look-out for other master frugal ploys… as your Chief Inspector, that is what yeu deu, yeu kneauw, a little bit of zis and a little bit of zat… meanwhile, in this grand game of master thievery, I believe that the lovely and beautiful Lady Salad is innocent! (when a reporter asked whether Clouseau meant Ms. Michaele Salahi) Clouseau stated: that is what I said, I kneaw what I said… Uh… Listen, you, you daydreaming fool, can’t you pay attention when I’m talking?

Yes, now then, where was I, ah yes, I am now off to gather the facts, examine the clues, and before you know it, the case is sol-ved… well, sirs and ma-dam’s, until we meet again and the case is sol-ved… No, not now Kato…yeaw little ‘yellow’ friend, Kaetooouu…”

At the end of the news conference, ~~Inspector Clouseau,~~ Chief Inspector Clouseau was attacked by a mysterious little man in black. The two tangled until security officers were able to break them apart. By then, two tables, three chairs and a wall were destroyed but Clouseau was apparently unharmed. The news event ended with news journalist scrambling to decipher each others notes and what had just been said. The investigation continues. No word if Clouseau has been requested at the Tiger Woods household.

On a more serious note, who was at the State Dinner, and why was this breach a threat to national security?

Here is the Presidential Line of Succession:

1 Vice President — Joe Biden
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives– Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate – Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton
5 Secretary of the Treasury– Timothy Geithner
6 Secretary of Defense – Robert Gates
7 Attorney General – Eric Holder

Outside of Senator Byrd, every single official was at the State Dinner. There were two uninvited guest who crashed the party, and if they had more sinister motives, they could have divvied up the list, and set about causing instability in the United States Executive Branch and our government. It had consequences.

Meanwhile, as the press is fixated on Tiger Woods and the party crashing caper. the MSM neglects to inform the public about the more serious issues facing our country:

Cuba conducts war games with U.S. invasion in mind…

Climategate e-mails sweep America…

Obama May Allow US Soldiers to be Tried in the Hague…

OPEC talks about moving away from the US dollar as the currency oil is traded in…

Rev. Manning gets a visited by the CIA regarding his outspoken claims as to Obama’s ineligibility…

Obama delays his Afghan war strategy and troop levels after months of dithering…

China uses American spending power to enlarge its private sector, while America uses Chinese lending power to expand its public sector…

The value of the dollar has plummeted to its lowest level in over a generation…

With more forclosures in the works, Obama will start paying cash incentives to mortgage companies that lower loan payments…

Hotels, like many home owners, are beginning to drown in debt…

America continues on its path of unprecedented mountain of debt…

Health Care bill threatens to put country in more debt…

The National Debt has reached $12 Trillion…

Holland votes to put Iran’s RGC on EU-terror list…

Last month the unemployment rate climbed above 10% for the first time in more than a quarter century….

Dubai debt woes will soon hit the U.S. property market…

Food Stamp use soars across U.S. at record highs and climbing every month…

There is an array of taxes on the horizon…

Finally, Obama’s goal of nationalizing health care, expanding government, and undermining the legacy of Ronald Reagan…

What a calamity. Elections have ‘consequences’… Americans are still in snooze mode.

Giving Thanks: A Tribute

2009 November 26

2 Comments

tags: Armed Forces, GI, Honoring, Iraq, Military, Soldier, Thanks, War

by klsouth

Giving Thanks: A Tribute

We live in a world created for us by those who have gone before us. We have the most wonderful armed forces in the world doing their work heroically overseas. Freedom is not free, and securing it, is not a sport. You are either paying for freedoms with sacrifice and service, or you are free because someone else has paid the price for you. We are living off the honor of the men and women who serve to protect us and the ultimate sacrifice they have given is beyond any words.

There are millions of warriors whose names have yet to be honored while ‘others’ try to steal the glory for their own. While soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives; Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else’s life. It just seems that those who call themselves a “patriot” is pretty easy these days, as long as the blood they’re shedding isn’t their own.

On this Thanksgiving Day, I would like to thank all the soldiers for defending our country and I pray for your safe return home. Words can not express the gratitude I feel for our heroes like Lance Corporal Brandon Lara and all those who serve this great nation. You gave yourself to protect me, our children and our families. We would not be the country we are without heroes; the special men and women who have lost their lives for our freedom. God Bless you. May your soul forever rest in peace.

Lance Corporal Brandon Lara lost his life in the line of duty while serving his country in Iraq. Lara was flown into the Randolph Air Force Base where he was escorted off base, through Universal City, Schertz and to New Braunfels. This is only seven minutes of a one-hour video.

Welcoming Home a Hero – Fallen Marine LCpl Brandon Lara.

This video was first introduced to me by Tara Rogers. (Twitter username = @tararrogers)

Double Dip Recession: Reagan & Obama

2009 November 22

2 Comments

tags: 1980, Deficits, Deflation, Depression, Double-Dip, Inflation, Obama, Reagan, Reaganomics, Recession, Recovery, Spending, Taxes

by klsouth

Double Dip Recession: Reagan & Obama

Typical of great statesmen, Ronald Reagan took no credit for our nation’s recovery during his tenure. He was called “The Great Communicator” because he almost single-handedly restored the nation’s confidence. Indeed, what we’re experiencing now is, first and foremost, a crisis of confidence. “I wasn’t a great communicator,” Reagan said in his farewell address, “but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation – from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.”

He added, “There were two great triumphs … that I’m proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created – and filled – 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.” Fast forward to today; one of the most basic strategies in a successful magic trick is the use of misdirection and diversion. A great magician amazes by doing the obviously impossible and the audience applauds, delighted to be fooled, misdirected to look left when the real action is on the right, and cannot explain the inexplicable.

Last week, Obama said that he’s worried that spending too much money to help revive the economy could undermine a fragile U.S. recovery and throw the economy into a double-dip recession. Isn’t this like a guy shooting his neighbor and then saying, “Hey, buddy, you’re bleeding.” Yeah, comments like that give me confidence in the quality of Ivy League education. In fact, “Double Dip”, is a perfect nickname for this dolt. Let me get this straight – Obama says that if he keeps doing what he’s been doing, bad things will happen? But he’s going to keep doing it anyway because he wants universal health care and cap and tax. Obama’s comments and his direction is as sturdy as pushing on a string.

First, what does double dip Recession Mean? When gross domestic product (GDP) growth slides back to negative after a quarter or two of positive growth. A double-dip recession refers to a recession followed by a short-lived recovery, followed by another recession. The causes for a double-dip recession vary but often include a slowdown in the demand for goods and services because of layoffs and spending cutbacks from the previous downturn. A double-dip (or even triple-dip) is a worst-case scenario. Fear that the economy will move back into a deeper and longer recession makes recovery even more difficult.

Well, before we can have a double dip recession we’d need to have the upside first, don’t we? Look at it like an upside down bell curve or the letter ‘U’. Have we bottomed out and improved? Are we in a U shaped recession? Without bad government policies/stimulus, which has caused rising unemployment and weak corporate profitability, it would have been V shaped. We would be in a W-shaped recession if the stimulus had any nominal effect and it created brief GDP growth, fell back, and then rose again – thus a double-dip recession. Right now, let’s just call it an L-shaped downturn. When Bush was POTUS, Obama said we were in recession when the GDP was still growing and now that they’re in power, Obama is saying we are out of it even though quarterly GDP continues to shrink.

Obama is foreshadowing the fact that he wants to spend money to ‘boost’ the economy, but at the same time cover his butt in the event of creating too much red ink. Too late. To start, when the stimulus money disappears, the programs that have begun won’t be able to sustain themselves when the states affected don’t have the funds to continue these ludicrous plans. In ten short months, Obama had presided over the biggest spending binge in world history. The U.S. national deficit has risen to $1.4 trillion since Obama took office ($1,412,442,058,575) and the national debt is now $12 trillion according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. With our mounting national debt and budget deficits, it is reasonable to assume that near-term future interest rates on new and refinanced debt will double or triple. There is no indication that Obama’s Road to Damascus conversion from big spender to debt reducer is anything more then rhetoric tailored to the comfort-sounding, albeit, misleading sound bite of the day.

Housing prices have been propped up, banks and auto companies have been bailed out, regulations have been increased, anti-capitalist measures installed, debt covenants have been violated, unemployment insurance has been extended, money supply has grown exponentially. In addition, there’s the cap-and-trade bill, the healthcare bill, and a “czar” around every corner. In short, the problems that caused the great recession have been compounded. Real output must then necessarily decline. How can anyone logically assert that we are in the beginning of a recovery? Until small business recovers, this economy will not.

Unless lawmakers make big changes, the interest Americans will have to pay to keep the country running over the next decade will reach unheard-of levels. In Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09), the U. S. Government spent $383 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year. And, as more money goes to interest, creditors may become concerned that the country can’t pay down its principal and lawmakers will be less able to pay for other national spending priorities. Less debt means less pressure on interest rates; more debt means greater pressure on interest rates.

Your money is spent through Appropriations Bills passed by The U.S. Senate and signed by the President. The Government does not have any money, it takes your money from you and, borrows more, then spends it on the appropriated bills. The bailouts of 2008 and 2009 are purely deficit spending. Expect to see enormous deficits in the foreseeable future, leading to much more debt; and interest payments on that debt will soon surpass social spending and become the largest item in the federal budget. Basic economics says that the President and Democrat Congress are doing the exact opposite of what should be done to shorten a recession (such as cut taxes across the board – personal, corporate, and capital gains – and slash government spending). In fact, this administration will bankrupt our economy if this spending spree continues on course.

Despite Bush’s bank lending plan that was proposed to restore economic confidence, the Democrats had “Plan B,” and no sooner was Obama sworn-in to office than they implemented their $4 trillion “recovery plan,” none of which is recoverable because that greatest transfer of wealth in history has nothing to do with recovery and everything to do with the socialization of the U.S. economy, Obama’s ultimate agenda. Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” is in sharp contrast to Reagan’s massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies. Obama is a clear and present danger to the U.S. and its Constitution and the American people. The overreaching authoritative hand of the federal government doesn’t do anything well. It’s inefficient, slow, prone to fraud, and ineffective.

Effect on Business & Consumers

Frozen credit lines. High unemployment. Foreclosures. Contrary to what Team Obama says, the economy is still contracting. At the very least, the business community and investors are NOT jumping back into the economy with both feet; they are still watching to see what legislative and regulatory monstrosities come out of Washington. With unemployment soaring and tax receipts slumping, the deficit will continue to rise. And, forgotten in all this is the job killer of rising taxation. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire next year and everyone’s marginal tax-rate are set to go up 10%. This does not account for what Charlie Rangle will push through Ways and Means or the impact of the “tax” on energy because of cap and trade or the number of taxes hidden in the health care bill or the impact on small businesses that create 70% or more of the new jobs.

Do the math yourself. What the business owner keeps is dependent on what they have to generate in new business and its correlating profit margins – let alone having excess revenue to hire, particularly if the business-to-business market and consumer markets are soft and interest rates have to go up, which is almost inevitable. The Fed has artificially depressed short-term rates to this point, but they can’t keep it up forever. When those rates balloon upward, massive defaults will follow, which will have a rather nasty effect on currently inflated equity prices. And any increase in interest rates will increase the debt service payments on small business and individuals.

When interest rates rise, consumers, businesses and the economy are affected in several ways. Consumers are less likely to purchase products such as automobiles, mortgages and other consumer goods. Higher interest rates means consumers must pay higher finance charges. Two-thirds of economic activity is based on consumer spending and when consumers stop spending the economy slows. Many companies too need to borrow money and accumulate hefty debt loads if they want to continue to do business. When interest rates increase, the cost of borrowing money increases as well, this cuts into the profits of a company. A decrease in profits will cause the price of a company’s stock to decrease and rebuilding of inventories, one of the main drivers of the economy’s recovery, is hampered when business can’t borrow or its profits fall.

A lot of consumers have credit products too such as credit cards and mortgage loans that have variable rates. When interest rates increase, or resets kick in, a consumer’s monthly payments will increase in order to accommodate the higher amount of interest that needs to be paid monthly. If the payments on a mortgage increase substantially, many consumers will not be able to make the payments, leading to delinquency and foreclosure. Also, if consumers cannot make credit card payments, credit card companies will probably have to write-off a number of accounts as bad debts. In order to stop the losses, many credit card issuers will lower consumer credit card limits as well as the limits on home equity accounts. This will further curtail consumer’s ability to spend and throw the economy further into a downward spiral.

From a small business’s point of view, no material change would make one want to hire more staff or take any risk. The Democrats are simply too hostile to business. Credit markets have dried-up, more inflation on the horizon, the crippling energy costs, and consumers less disposable income – those still with jobs anyway – all are barriers to any recovery. Globalization and export of jobs have economic consequences too; The national help desk for Bright House Networks is in the Philippines, Honeywell has hired foreigners to build-out war machine, Verizon DSL help-desk is now in India, Taiwan, etc., Hewlett Packard support is located all over the world and Neilson Media fired 3,500 Americans in lieu of foreigners. Now Nestle’s Water plant has cut 40% of it’s work force and Danka has been sold-out to foreign interests as well.

Add that to the loss of farm produce in California to save the Delta Smelt, a minnow, and the possibility of staring food shortages in the eye and we have real consequences of a left-wing economy facing us. OPEC too is talking about moving away from the US dollar as the currency oil is traded in. The natural effect of monetizing debt is a devaluation of the dollar, double-digit inflation and a lower standard of living. We’re seeing our dollar decline in value, yet President Training Wheels continues to print more money. What incentives are there to invest? Obama and company want the economy to falter, even collapse, so that the government can takeover all major aspects of the American financial system. Obama is now the Pinball Wizard and we are seeing a Weekend at Bernie’s act as I type; he has stolen the thorny crown as possibly the worse president since Jimmy Carter.

Obama is planning to raise all corporate taxes too. The price of everything you buy will go up to cover that tax cost. So, you will be paying those corporate taxes. With higher taxes businesses have to either raise prices or cut cost. When the economy goes into a recession, businesses lay off workers because of the lack of demand for goods and services. To spur demand, businesses will sometimes lower prices which eat into their margins. Consumers will delay spending because they will wait to see how low the prices will go. Companies and organizations will lay off more workers because they will try to cut expenses in an effort to maintain profit margins.

An economy can enter a state of deflation too, which is a constant downward spiral of prices versus inflation where there is a sustained rise in prices. The inflation-deflation debate heated up too in 1981-82 during Reagan’s on-again, off-again recession. Deflation, to us, is too much debt chasing too little income. Inflation and deflation are two sides of the same coin and both are always with us to some varying degrees. During periods of inflation, capital moves away from job-creating and during periods of deflation businesses avoid borrowing to fund future growth, knowing full well that the money they’ll pay back over time will be more than what they borrowed.

As more consumers delay spending while waiting for prices to bottom out, the economy slows even more. There will be more layoffs and more price reductions and more foreclosures. And, some leading corporate executives worry there’s no economic engine available to drive growth in 2010: Technology, construction, finance – all sectors that have powered the U.S. economy out of the doldrums in the past – are flat this year. The commercial real estate sector too is poised for a crash of its own, further dragging down the prospects of recovery of the national economy. While Obama has turned to government to solve the problems of the people, Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government.

Stimulus 101: Reagan versus Obama

During his 1980 Labor Day speech at New Jersey’s Liberty State Park, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan listed the economic failures of his opponent, President Jimmy Carter. With the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, Reagan used the moment to respond to Carter, who had accused Reagan of misusing the term “depression” to describe a recession that began in January of that year. “Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

However imprecise Reagan’s macroeconomic definitions may have been, he’d made his point. Semantics don’t mean much to Americans who have lost or are about to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929, but since 1987 — also on Ronald Reagan’s watch. What did Reagan do – or, more importantly, didn’t do – in response to these “crises?” versus from what Obama is doing?

In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Mr. Obama’s massive government spending infusions. As for the Reagan recession, he waited extremely patiently – to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts – for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn’t spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.

Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25% across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent. By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.

What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing; certainly nothing like a massive government stimulus. “Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.” Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself. The Cato Institute’s Richard Rahn wrote an excellent op-ed for the Washington Times, in which he evaluates the “worst recession since the Great Depression” meme and compares the situations inherited and actions by Presidents Reagan and Obama. I urge folks to give it a read, but here are the highlights:

Even though the president, many members of Congress and many journalists keep saying we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, it is an assertion that is premature, to say the least.

At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

…The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century.

…President Obama has taken the polar opposite approach to President Reagan’s to reignite the economic-growth engine. Reagan pushed for cuts in marginal tax rates to encourage people to work, save and invest in an effort to spur the supply side of the economy as well as the demand side. Mr. Obama has chosen only to greatly increase government spending in an attempt to increase demand while, at the same time, many of his new labor, environmental, energy and other regulations are impeding the supply side of the economy.

Mr. Obama had the advantage of both houses of Congress being controlled by his party, so he was able to get his stimulus package passed within a few weeks of taking office. Reagan was handicapped by having the opposition party in control of the House of Representatives, whose members both delayed (until August 1981) and reduced his tax-reduction stimulus package.

In fact, the Reagan tax cuts were not fully phased in until 1983, more than two years after he assumed office. Reagan, hobbled by an opposition Congress, was not able to get the spending-growth restraint he wanted, so substantial budget deficits occurred early in his administration, at one point reaching 6 percent of GDP. In retrospect, the Reagan deficits look small compared to the deficit of 13.5 percent of GDP this year and the Obama administration and Congressional Budget Office projections of huge deficits in the years to come.

Once Reagan’s tax cuts were largely phased in, the economy took off – it grew by 7.6 percent in 1984 alone. We are in the midst of a most interesting experiment. The administration and the CBO forecast moderate and uninterrupted economic growth between the end of this year and 2019. If they are correct, 1980-82 – not the current recession – will remain the longest sustained period without economic growth since World War II. If they are wrong, they indeed will have the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and no one to blame but themselves.

OK, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?

First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”) Compare that to what’s happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and congressional leadership;

President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We’ve never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks — an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.

So, think about this: Reagan increased the deficit by 35% in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450% in only eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Mr. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit. But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending – implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets – the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress and more. Some reasons were Reagan’s fault; others were Congress’ doing – both share blame in differing degrees.

Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989. The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending – as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.

Many argue comparing the reaction of Obama and Reagan to their recessions as comparing apples to oranges. Reagan inherited an economy that consisted of double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. His reaction was to cut taxes and put the money back into the hands of the people who earned it. People began spending. Companies began hiring and the economy responded. Obama on the other hand is increasing spending and taxes at a historic rate never seen before.

Cap and trade to increase energy bills, government control of health care estimated at over $1 trillion which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been sending out red flags. With first-time homebuyer tax credits and “cash for clunkers” car-selling schemes, government stimulus spending and bailouts, housing bust, credit crunch – all point to serious fiscal problems – and with Social Security on the verge of bankruptcy this recession will not end soon. This is why bills are being passed without being read and all of the Obama agenda has been put on fast track to keep the details from the public, with a huge assist by the state run media. Americans may well fall victim to their own lack of attentiveness.

Closing

The amounts of deficits the administration are running are unprecedented and unsustainable. More government spending, more government borrowing, more government money printing, more government tax increases. This is not a pro-growth formula which almost guarantees reduced tax revenues, which almost guarantees greater deficits, for every level of government. Credit is contracting. The banks may be getting billions in loans, but for the individual on the street, credit is frozen. Couple this with the loss of primary income streams and you have a lot of people with no money for even essential goods. Employers need to be convinced the economic recovery is here to stay.

And, we continue to lose jobs month-over-month too. And, while the statistics being released are showing a slow down, this is basically a fabrication. There are thousands of people falling off of unemployment compensation each week – none of them are reflected in the official numbers. Foreclosures continue to mount too. In addition to the foreclosures of the last 2-years, we have millions more in play right now, regardless of the mortgage programs the government institutes. Job loss plus credit contraction means there is no way millions of people will be able to make their monthly payments.

The best-case scenario is a “V”-shaped recovery – a sharp drop and a quick rebound – at some near-term point. Next best is a “U” shape, with a sharp drop, a protracted trough, and then a recovery. The worst of all possible scenarios is the “L”-shaped recession, which is a sharp drop followed by a flat line. In other words: No recovery at all. In previous recessions from the 1950’s through the early 1980’s, manufacturing led swifter recoveries. But the hiring that goes along with rebuilding industrial inventories these days just isn’t enough to move the needle in an economy less focused on making things (manufacturing). Consumer spending counts for much more economic activity today, but consumers are in no mood to go on spending sprees any time soon.

Playing politics will bad policy will lead to Obama’s underlying demise. Anybody who says the recession is over is either a liar or ill-informed and anybody who believes them is a moron. The natural effect of monetizing debt is a devaluation of the dollar, double-digit inflation and a lower standard of living. Obama’s economic policies will cause a redistribution of wealth, but instead of raising the standard of living for the poor it will decrease the standard of living for the wealthy with no effect on the poor, except the poor will become more dependent on government handouts as the government takes more and more of what wealth is created by the shrinking private sector. Obama will undoubtedly continue to ascribe blame for the recession to the Bush administration for as long as possible. The National Debt is now $12 Trillion.

And finally, as Reagan proved, the best “stimulus” is one that relies on letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity and not government intrusion. Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation down to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the policy implementation was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan was a man of character and substance, as evidenced by his historic re-election in 1984; Obama lacks both.

Double dip? Gee, I hardly noticed the first one.

Note: Economists generally agree that annual deficits should not exceed 3% of the GDP, and that is the level Obama had vowed to reach by the end of his first term in 2013. However, factors such as subsequent spending, tax cuts and unexpectedly low revenues have pushed the forecast of Obama’s deficit to 4.6% of the GDP by then. Currently, the 2009 deficit is 10% of the GDP which is the highest level since the end of World War II when it was 21.5%. If you are wondering who holds the most US debt, here is a list compiled by CNBC.

15: Luxembourg – $104.2 Billion
14: Depository Institutions – $107.3 Billion (commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions)
13: Russia – $119.9 Billion
12: Insurance Companies – 126.4 Billion
11: Brazil – 139.8 Billion
10: Caribbean Banking Centers – 189.7 Billion
9: Oil Exporters – $191 Billion
8: United Kingdom – $214 Billion
7: Pension Funds – $465.4 Billion
6: State and local governments – $522.7 Billion
5: Other Investors – $629.7 Billion (“other” refers to individuals, government sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts, estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses)
4: Japan – $711.8 Billion
3: China – $776.4 Billion
2: Mutual Funds – $769.1 Billion
1: Federal Reserve and Intergovernmental Holdings – 4.785 Trillion

Why Illinois Matters

2009 November 20

2 Comments

tags: Governor, Illinois, Industrial, Midwest, Senator, States

by klsouth

Why Illinois Matters

The question, “ How will it play in Peoria?” was a standard of any national political campaign, meaning if you can’t win in rural Illinois, you’d better change your strategy. But lately, Illinois has been unable to get it right, becoming more solidly Democratic, including, currently at least, two Democratic senators, a Democratic governor and a Democrat controlled big city machine. Illinois, at one time, was considered a bellwether state. Today, the political climate in Illinois is nothing less than a national embarrassment. Our state faces a $10 billion structural deficit, and generations have grown up alongside a pay-to-play culture perpetuated by systemic corruption.

Illinois has voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the last five elections. Obama easily won the state’s 21 electoral votes in 2008, by a margin of 25 percentage points with 61.9% of the vote. And, in 2004, well over 80% of Illinois’ counties cast their vote for Bush, but Cook County, Chicago, went for Kerry by a big margin, giving Kerry the win. Like in many other elections, as Chicago goes, so goes the state. Politics in the state, particularly those of the Chicago machine, has long been about power and corruption and for much of the last century, Chicago has been considered one of the largest Democratic strongholds in the United States. It is sad that Illinois cannot use some common sense and impose term limits on many or all office holders. This is the only way to break up the stranglehold of power and corruption.

The Cook County Democratic Organization is one of the most powerful political machines in American history. Commonly called the “Chicago Democratic machine”, the organization has dominated Chicago politics since the 1930s. It relies on a tight organizational structure of ward bosses and precinct captains to maintain discipline, as well as patronage and graft to reward supporters. It’s not the money in Illinois politics that’s the problem, it’s an entrenched system of political machines and the utter lack of transparency in the process – who’s getting government contracts, and who gets the power to exercise control over what entities, is the problem. Its patronage and cronyism. With Obama in office, the Chicago Way is now nationalized.

And, the Chicago Way effect on Illinois, the region and the nation is noticeable. In 2006, former Governor George Ryan (R) was convicted of racketeering and bribery. In 2008, Rod Blagojevich (D) was indicted on sixteen felony charges, including racketeering, wire fraud, and making false statements to investigators stemming from allegations that he conspired to sell the vacated Senate seat left by Obama to the highest bidder. And of course, there’s Obama winning the White House. Mayor Daley and his cronies and the Olympics bid. Roland Burris. Jesse Jackson. Lisa Madigan. David Axelrod. Rham Emanuel. Valerie Jarrett. Dick Durbin. Tony Rezko. Bill Daley. All could be favorably cast in a movie titled: The Untrustables. And now there is the new Gitmo North.

Here in Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn’s job approval rating is at 39% and disapproval is at 26%, while 35% have no fixed opinion, according to a recent Chicago Tribune poll. In the 2010 state elections, the biggest challenge for Illinois voters will be identifying a candidate that is not part of the corrupt establishment. Yet, the 13 candidates who have filed with the Illinois board of elections to run for governor: 2-Green party candidates, 7-Republicans and 4-Democrats; all but one Republican is from the Chicago area and two are actually from the same suburb, Hinsdale. So much for party unity among Republicans in this election cycle. There are a few front-runners and no one has emerged as the presumptive favorite. All Democrats are from the Chicago area too. Andy McKenna is one of 7 Republicans in the field. Many consider him the least worthy. But his family has a lot of money so McKenna could conceivably buy 3rd or 4th place. No better.

McKenna stepped down in August from the chairmanship of the Illinois Republican Party, to run for governor. He had the post for over 4 years, during which time Republicans lost almost everything there was to lose in Illinois. McKenna also ran for U.S. Senate in 2004 and got less than 15% in the GOP primary. Obama went on to win that seat and the rest is now history. In 2010, Alexis Giannoulias, and Obama’s protégé and currently Illinois’ Treasurer, is the favored of four primary candidates running for the seat currently held (and to be vacated) by Sen. Roland Burris. Giannoulias has a questionable past but will likely be heavily backed by Obama. But, regardless of who makes it out of the Democratic Senate primary, the winning candidate will face obstacles to keep the seat in Democratic hands. The taint of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the ethics scandals that have surrounded Burris create obvious hurdles for the winning candidate.

Meanwhile, the Republican running for the Senate seat, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill), has strong name identification in the state. And in a poll conducted by Colorado-based Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies he currently holds a 42-35 lead over Giannoulias in a hypothetical general election — with 23 percent of voters undecided. Kirk is not an ideal candidate by any means but in a state that is starting at ground zero, its progress; Kirk, well, to be polite, his views too change with the Windy City breeze and is no friend to state conservatives. For me, Kirk ‘is’ a Democrat with a republican button on his Blazer. The Congressman was one of seven House Republicans to vote for Cap and Trade. But the problems that Illinois has are serious. This whole state has gone MAD. Throw in the Cubbies and their 100 -year losing tradition and its maddening.

But, For Illinois GOP politics to move on out from its checkered past, or change its fortunes, it must find a way to field the right candidates in 2010. When looking at state houses and assemblies, it’s clear that the Midwest has been consistently one of the two most competitive regions since the early 1980’s. The only region more competitive across the time period is the Far West. But, because of that competitiveness, the Democrats have flipped more state chambers from Republican control in the Midwest than anywhere else. As for the GOP, Republicans have bolstered their talk of late about recovering in the Northeast. But if there is a Republican recovery in the offing in 2010 and beyond, I’m betting it will come in the Midwest.

The Midwest is not as liberal/progressive as are the East and West Coast regions, and probably never will be, given that the region has more rural areas than do the Coasts, and thus have more of a conservative base. And states like Indiana and Missouri have had GOP tilts in them for quite some time. The Midwest is not a monolithic bloc politically. John McCain prevailed in Missouri with less than one-full-percentage point – a little over 4000 votes. And, Illinois is the 7th least conservative state, voting 12.8% less Republican in the 2004 presidential elections than the national average. Trust in Illinois state government is at a serious low. Only 15 percent of Illinoisans said they believed the state government did the right thing most of the time, compared to 27 percent nationally. All bellwethers are swing states, but not all swing states are bellwethers.

Midwestern congressional gains significantly contributed to the Democrats’ recapture the U.S. House and Senate in 2006, and their expansion of those majorities last year. And, every winning presidential candidate since 1920 has won at least 50% of the big Midwest states and in – an amazing 23 consecutive cycles – has carried at least four of the eight Midwest states that border the Great Lakes and/or Mississippi River (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin). These three states: Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin have historically been a key electoral bloc for successful presidential campaigns since 1860. It is often said that as Iowa goes, do does Wisconsin and Minnesota. During the 2008 election, Chicago Field Director for the Obama campaign headquarters organized trips to the state of Iowa every other week to help organize and influence in the state.

Today though, some of the biggest erosion of Obama’s popularity has occurred in (light) blue states right in the Upper Midwest. While fairly steady in Minnesota, he has declined noticeably in the neighboring states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Although Obama had a virtually identical level of support on Election Day in Iowa (54%) and Wisconsin (56%) as he did in Minnesota, his approval rating has fallen to 46 and 47 percent in the Hawkeye and Badger States respectively. Since January, Obama’s job performance rating has dropped 32.9 percent in Wisconsin (from 70 to 47 percent) and 32.4 percent in Iowa (from 68 to 46 percent). With anti-Bush sentiment waning, Obama’s coattails are frayed and weak.

Democrats successfully turned Ohio from red to blue in 2006 and 2008, but the love affair too with Obama and the Democrats has come to an end. Ohio voters disapprove 53 – 42 percent of the way Obama is handling the economy and disapprove 57 – 36 percent of the way he is handling health care. In September, they approved of his handling of the economy 48 – 46 percent and split on his handling of health care 44 – 45 percent. As Obama’s fortunes fall, so do those local and state candidates of his party. In Ohio, the latest efforts by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland to hold on to his office are spiraling downward.

Obama’s job approval rating has dipped below 50% nationally for the first time particularly with independent voters. In Illinois, Obama still has a 56% Approval but in an October poll, and when asked if Illinois politicians have done enough to clean up politics in the state? Illinois voters overwhelmingly voted 89% NO. The strength of labor in this region is a major factor too as unions have historically had a strong voice in states as Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and have significantly influenced the region. No doubt, Illinois, being a blue state, is one of the most reliably Democratic in the Midwest with one of the most heavily union-influenced machines.

Certain geographical groups of states tend to move as a group, a fact reflected in the national polling which reflects national events. Those states tend to have even registration between the parties and a relatively large independent block. Call these states sensitive or persuadable. Other states do not move and would vote for a dead-horse from their favorite party. For example, Wyoming and Alabama will stay Republican and the District of Columbia, Democratic. The undecided act as a kind of proxy for sensitivity and results over 50% for a candidate as a proxy for dead-horse states; thus, if New York goes Republican so then likely will Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The Midwest is the swing region of the country and to improve its standings in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Michigan, Illinois must reverse it Chicago machine hold. Chicago is the hub and spoke of the Midwest. Its influence from labor and union money on the upper and surrounding industrial states is both influential and pivotal. For Illinois to improve its standings in gaining GOP seats, and thus influencing the region, it must reduce the 400,000 plurality of Democratic votes in Chicago in order to win statewide. Today, demographic factors have grown Democrats’ margins in Cook County and have made the suburbs more competitive. Downstate Illinois is predominately conservative but a decreasing population. This means for Republicans to win, they need bigger margins south of Interstate 80 to offset losses in Cook County and the close-in suburbs.

The challenge for the GOP is that what makes a candidate attractive up north may not translate in central and southern Illinois. Pro-choice, pro-environment and anti-gun wins in the Chicago media market. Farther south, however, moderates begin more to resemble Reagan Democrats. They are pro-life, pro-guns and pro-jobs. Chicago and its suburbs in Cook County, make up roughly 23% and 19% respectively of the 41% of the Illinois electorate. Unless you can chip away 5-6% from that Cook County vote, Republicans will find it difficult in coloring the state red. Alliances between the Democratic machine, organized labor groups and union leadership have made it possible to buy off pensions with party patronage influencing the region.

The RNC, with prodding from state party leaders, recognize now the need to squash the stranglehold the Democratic Chicago machine has with its 400,000 vote plurality. The Chicago GOP is more active and the national party will be making Illinois a top priority in 2010 as they will be pouring money into the IL Senate and Governors race, of which, the RNC feels they can win both. There is a strong belief that the influence that Illinois has on neighboring states can help swing elections. In 2004, the Wisconsin Presidential race was the closest in the nation, with Kerry defeating Bush by just 0.4% and Bush won over Kerry in Iowa by just 0.8%, or about 10,000 votes. Wisconsin with its 11 electoral votes, is always besieged by Democratic volunteers from neighboring Illinois. In Missouri, McCain beat Obama by only 4000 votes in 2008. Bush “won” the presidency in 2000 with only 3 of the great eight states (MO, OH, IN) and Minnesota hasn’t been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1972.

The swing areas in the Midwest naturally tend to be suburban; the cities Democratic, and the rural areas tend to vote Republican, making the suburbs the swing areas. The ‘burbs’ are very vulnerable to the Republican argument of high taxes, so one would not expect them to be nearly as stable as advertised after the ‘08 cycle. One can easily see suburban Cook and Kane counties outside Chicago turning VERY red again. Three district geographic segments: Chicago, “downstate,” and the “collar counties,” comprised of sprawling suburbs and expanding cities surround the great metropolis. Illinois has a chance of getting GOP back into the game and influencing the central region if Republicans capture the governor’s race. But, unless the GOP can capture 5% of the 23% electorate in Chicago (and build on suburban Cook), Illinois will find it hard to regain the power in Illinois and elect a Republican Senator and Governor. But this is Illinois politics, where the unpredictable seems normal.

Candidate Briefs

Election 2010 – Illinois Senate Race
Election 2010 – Governor of Illinois

Explanation: Reconciliation & Conference

2009 November 18

An Essay: The Case for Palin

2009 November 10

8 Comments

tags: 2012, campaign, conservatism, electability, election, GOP, Independents, Mid-Term, Palin, populist, Republican, Sarah, Tea Party

by klsouth

palin_lipstick_88

November 9, 2009

An Essay: The Case for Palin

I’ve heard it all before… I’ve read it all before. I hear it and read it now too. So have you…

“Sarah Palin represents the very worst of America…”

“This woman is a complete moron…”

“She’s a brainless piece of excrement…”

“This woman is a village idiot, uneducated and inexperienced…”

“She’s despicable, emotionally unstable and a narcissistic wingnut…”

“She’s a far-right-wing nutjob with delusions of grandeur…”

“This lady is dangerous. George Bush in a dress…”

“She’s damaged goods…”

There is an obvious pack mentality to question everything about Ms. Palin and their spin is often transparent. We know the MSM gives Sarah negative press whenever they can and Obama a pass wherever possible (as attested to by the Washington Post’s own ombudsman). Of course, if former-Governor Palin really was the ignorant “hillbilly”, the “caribou Barbie” etc., etc., that those who perceive themselves to possess superior intelligence to her proclaim, then neither of the elites in both parties would be trying to label and libel her to the extent that they are so doing.

Yet, the MSM continue to publish unflattering stories trying to vilify Palin and many in the GOP party establishment, mindful of her polarizing persona and the devastating caricatures would prefer she remain in Alaska and leave the party rebuilding to others who may appeal to the broad ‘middle’ of the country. The dirty little secret about Sarah is that she represents everything the beltway snobs hate; normalcy, unabashed conservatism, and absence of an Ivy League pedigree; Palin does not hobnob with the Beltway elite establishment on K Street. She is no friend to the liberal eastern, urban bias.

To them, the strategy to ridicule Palin is a tactic intended to discourage her from any attempt to seek national influence; Palin upsets their apple cart which represents a threat to all the blue blood Republicans – even after being the top GOP fundraiser in 2008. Yet, even after the constant attacks coming from the liberal media, White House and even those within her own party that cling to the old boys-club mentality, Palin has galvanized grassroots conservatives and has tapped into a growing fervor of principle over party. She’s shown too that one doesn’t need the press to get a message out.

Consider this: Compare Sarah with Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan. Both were beauty contestants; both governors. One was a successful, popular governor of a prosperous state, while the other is an increasingly unpopular governor of a state with a dismal economy and high unemployment. One utilized fiscal prudence; the other did not. One is conservative; one is liberal. One is ridiculed by the MSM, by Democrats and their followers; the other was on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination. Since the moment she burst onto the national scene, there has been an unparalleled effort amongst the so-called sophisticated elites to destroy Palin.

Unparalleled yes; but not unprecedented.

Unplugged & Unleashed

Throughout her life, Palin has always been underestimated. Anyone who writes her off does so at his or her own peril. If Palin has her eye on the White House, she’s staking out a different path toward it. Throwing the old GOP playbook out the window, it seems she believes that the modern political landscape has changed; old rules don’t apply and the conventional wisdom no longer exists. Palin has made few of the conventional moves befitting a presidential candidate-in-waiting: She’s rarely shown up at establishment party events, has made virtually no public appearances since she resigned the governorship, or granted no national media interviews and retained no political staff. That is, up until now – with her book tour. The tour is part of a carefully crafted strategy to leapfrog traditional media outlets and appeal directly to her dedicated and vocal fan base.

Palin clearly believes that the public image of her created by the media is fundamentally incorrect, and until only recently, had been seeking an end-run of the media through her Facebook, and in turn, speaking directly to her backers. But she will soon be hitting them head-on too. Palin’s memoir “Going Rogue: An American Life”, published on Nov. 17 and her book tour starts with well publicized interviews on the television circuit. She will be on Oprah, Barbara Walters, numerous ABC News broadcasts – “Good Morning America,” “Nightline” and “20/20″ and is scheduling interviews with others, including Rush Limbaugh and four Fox News Channel personalities: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Greta Van Susteren. A slate of other speeches are expected to be scheduled in the weeks ahead too.

The book tour starts Nov. 18 at a Barnes & Noble in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin, and McCain made a campaign appearance last fall. Choosing Michigan as the first state on her book tour fits the book’s title, which refers to reports from last years campaign that the then-Alaska governor was defying McCain’s staff and instead had gone “rogue.” Palin openly expressed her unhappiness with the campaign’s decision to pull out of Michigan and effectively concede the state to Obama. With unemployment the highest of all states, the voters in Michigan will welcome and embrace Palin’s call. Other parts of the tour will mirror the 2008 race.

Palin will travel by bus adorned with large images of her face in an attempt to start connecting with supporters in the kinds of places she once described as “real America.” On her tours, you can expect her stops to turn into impromptu Palin rallies. It’s interesting to note that many of Palin’s book events are in states which 0bama carried; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Michigan head the list. No stops are planned in the major cities and book-buying communities of Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and others where the voters tend to be Democrats. She will also be the Republican speaker at the Gridiron Club’s Winter Dinner on Dec. 5. The Gridiron dinner allows Palin to show her authenticity, humor, charm and self-deprecation with some of the top Eastern-elite and Beltway journalists. In a recent speech given last week at a Wisconsin Right to Life event, Palin was quoted as telling the crowd: “Don’t let anyone tell you to sit down and shut up.”

The Democrats’ strategy to marginalize Palin was always to shut her up, tie her down and bankrupt her family with frivolous ethics complaints while using Obama’s shadow government of warriors to ridicule her and her family. Unfortunately, Palin trumped that idea by resigning as Governor. It reportedly cost various state agencies $1.9 million over 6 months to handle the complaints as well as public records requests and nearly 6,000 hours of staff hours. The ethics charges seemed insurmountable and growing exponentially as a cost to the state. The decision seems not just prudent but self effacing for the purpose of helping Alaska that she resigned. Her resignation though, shows she is capable of unorthodox “out-of-the-box” thinking – one of the key differences between leaders and managers.

Palin has proven through her fast rise to the top of American politics that she has solid political instincts. By the same token, she has shot herself in the foot from time to time by relying too much on her gut at the expense of seasoned advice. Reagan made many foolish comments early-on because his team was new and he was poorly briefed. It’s fair to say that getting involved in a press release battle with a 19-year-old kid was not a decision that added to her gravitas. And, from Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe: authors of Sarah From Alaska: we learned that Palin did not adequately prepare for what turned out to be the less than flattering Katie Couric interview partially because she was overconfident.

With her book out, Palin will now go on her book tour, give select speeches and promote her common-sense principles and conservative populism all over the country in the midst of the Obama administration disaster; while gaining great political capital in the process. As contributions continue to pour-in to SarahPAC, she will support conservative and center-right common-sense candidates in 2010 amassing much more political capital. Palin said she was going to focus on her book tour through December, but planned to turn to politics and help party candidates starting in January. Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and the Republican front-runner for WI governor in 2010, is the first reported instance of a GOP politician going to her and making his case in person as to why she should endorse him.

Sarah can get over the media trashing of the last year since the media themselves are not viewed in a favorable light. Her popularity problem is simple to understand: 1) the political double standard we know that exist. 2) the power and shamelessness of the MSM. Palin, like Reagan, will have to do it all on her own though. If she does want to run for President, she will have to take her message directly to the people, just like Reagan did. The GOP Elitists will not support her until they are forced to – just like Reagan. And, Palin needs to draw-in ‘less government’ independents. After all, her most ardent backers will continue to support her no matter what. Palin, it seems, now has a strong core group of politicos to give her guidance.

History repeats itself

Palin is viewed by the RNC establishment, as the most potentially dangerous threat to their hold on the power and control infrastructure of the party since Reagan. Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts as well as their opponents. The viciousness of the attacks on Palin is testimony to the degree of panic her persona has generated in leftist circles. Like Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher before her, Mrs. Palin is confronting both barrels of left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. There are few sights more hair-raising than the liberal pack in full cry.

As Peter Heck has elegantly pointed out, there are parallels between Reagan and Palin. The media attempted to downplay Reagan’s intellect as they have Palin’s. Reagan was also the target of ageism as Palin has become the target of sexism. Reagan was termed a radical while Palin is called a far right-wing religious nut. Reagan was proclaimed politically dead after his term ended as governor while Palin has been labeled finished after resigning her governorship. Like Reagan before her, Palin is a gifted public speaker and a former small-market sports broadcaster. And, the camera loves Palin like it loved Reagan.

Reagan too bypassed the filter of the liberal media by using TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day. Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of new social media’s such as Facebook and Twitter. And of course, the intellectuals and elite media didn’t just consider Reagan ‘unqualified’ but ‘nowhere near presidential.’ They considered him a “howling idiot”, a “reactionary kook” and a “warmonger.” Columnist William Grieder summed up the sentiment of many reporters at the time: “My God, they have elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown. There is something going on here we don’t understand.”

Many pundits called Reagan an ‘ignoramus” opined John Osborne in the New Republic in 1980. Warned the Nation on 1980: ‘he is a menace to the human race.’ He was seen as a man of another era, a curious relic, classified as the “most dangerous person to ever come this close to the presidency.” Even within the GOP Party, many viewed him with sneering condescension. Such disdain from the establishment, far more harshly expressed in private, betrayed a broad sentiment that Reagan was a hopeless amateur among seasoned professionals; a witch doctor in the field of skilled surgeons.

Mrs. Thatcher too was looked down on her small town, lower-middle-class background and her religiously strict background. The arguments against her were plenty: She had no experience in foreign policy, defense or national security matters and most of her expertise was in domestic issues such as education. Like Palin, the old-boy network was united against her, but she took on the leadership in her own party. Like Palin, the intellectual and political establishment disdained Thatcher. Thatcher, like Palin, was not an accommodating or compromising politician of principles. In Alaska, Republican leaders tried to stop Palin from going after corruption in her own party. Her unyieldingness upset the don’t-rock-the-boat Republicans in control.

Dismissed as a “grocer’s daughter,” Britain’s Thatcher sparked the ire particularly of the academic left who called her “Attila the Hun in a skirt.” In Palin, those nicknames start with “Caribou Barbie” and “Pit-bull with Lipstick.” At first, conservative leaders did not know how to deal with Thatcher. As her biographer, Chris Ogden of Time magazine, observed, “Her rivals’ experience with women was limited to aristocratic wives and demure and acquiescent females.” Over time, Thatcher struck a resonant chord with Conservative Party constituencies and won the party leadership.

Reagan, Thatcher and Palin: Three demonized peas in a pod.

Yet admirably, Sarah Palin has never played herself off as a victim. In fact, Palin deflects criticism with a smile better than anyone I have ever seen beside Ronald Reagan. And, Reagan wasn’t very popular with moderates and independents at first, either; a voting block Palin must capture as she navigates the political landscape moving forward – starting with her upcoming book tour interviews. But what people don’t recognize is that both Palin and Reagan understood the importance of compromise. Reagan negotiated and compromised with Tip O’Neil on a consistent basis while Palin was bipartisan in Alaska with the legislature. Neither abandoned their principles. Reagan was dealing with a Democrat majority. He had to compromise in order to accomplish anything. Palin dealt with a corrupt Republican majority in the Alaska Legislature and found compromise with Democrats.

But, it seems the GOP elitists are forgetting Palin’s recent history in Alaska too: Palin dismantled the ‘good ol’ boys’ network in Alaska. Palin moved into the governor’s mansion in 2006 on a platform of reform and change, having developed a reputation as a whistleblower after calling out the chair of the state GOP and the state’s Republican attorney general on ethics grounds. She took on the Republican Party chairman, Gov. Frank Murkowski’s attorney general, Murkowski’s daughter, Sen. Ted Stevens’ son, the North Slope oil producers such as BP, Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and finally Murkowski himself – and won.

Beyond Murkowski , she also beat out a former Democrat Gov. Tony Knowles; two of the most prominent establishment power-brokers in the state. After she got into office she started going after corrupt legislators. With the FBI’s help, seven people were sent to prison and fined by the state, several more indicted and the “Corrupt Bastard’s Club” as they arrogantly called themselves were dismantled. As a champion for ethics reform, Palin’s first legislative action after taking office was a bipartisan ethics-reform bill; signed in 2007, and calling it a “first step”, declaring that she remained determined to clean up Alaskan politics.

What many neglect to grasp is how Palin always has taken a keen interest in ethics. She also stood toe-to-toe with top executives from Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, and BP too helping to change the relationship between the companies, and the state, for the better. It’s a well-known fact she cleaned house with a bite radius of a great white shark. For Palin, the outsider role is not really new. She had cast herself before as the new candidate, the fresh face, the good old boys’ worst enemy. She refused to play by the status quo rules; so it is no surprise that she will not play the MSM rules, the Democrat rules, or the Republican rules.

Common Sense Conservatism

I am, to begin with, an admirer of Ms. Palin — the real Sarah Palin that is, not the creature of myth. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Palin phenomenon is that the mythical version, a caricature of Palin as a valley-girl dolt, an arch-conservative, especially on the governing of social issues, and an opportunist almost to the point of know-nothingism; a caricature that has been embraced by many in the Republican Party as avidly as by her arch enemies.

But the caricature has little to do with Palin’s actual record as a public servant. What people and the MSM fail to understand about Palin is although she is a champion of social issues in her personal life her record in office does not reflect her governing on a social agenda. I seriously doubt she would support federal dollars being spent overseas for abortions, but I don’t see her on a mission to reverse Roe vs. Wade either. Her actions, if given a chance will be much more subtle. She will wait until she hears that call from the will of the people, if the opportunity presents itself.

The real Sarah is a populist conservative; a common-sense fiscal conservative; and a corruption-busting reformist. As governor, she dismantled the good old-boy’s network, reformed government, pursued energy independence and executed fiscal restraint. In response to Obama’s announcement of a December Job’s Summit, Palin, using historical facts and logic, and applying them to Obama’s request for “any demonstrably good ideas”, honors Reagan by suggesting to the Obama Administration to follow the example of the man who occupied the White House in 1983: “If you want real job growth, cut taxes – including capital gains taxes and small business payroll taxes – and slay the death tax once and for all.” No doubt, Palin is also an energy expert. If you only know three things that Sarah Palin accomplished as Governor of Alaska, it should be these three:

1. You should do yourself a favor and research about Palin and her involvement to bring about the Alaska Highway pipeline which TransCanada Corp is going to build. It is not only impressive but the natural gas pipeline will contribute 6%-8% of the USA’s natural gas needs. Given that Iran, Russia, and Qatar are in the process of building a natural gas cartel, Palin won a geopolitical economic war against our enemies. And she thumped ExxonMobil, ConnocoPhillips, and BP in the process! That’s brilliance.

To do this, she had to break the monopoly power of the big energy companies by opening the project to competitive international bidding. Gov. Palin’s vigorous action – calling special sessions of the state legislature and injecting herself directly and vigorously into the process – had ended the deadlock in ways that seem certain to benefit consumers. By this accomplishment, Gov. Palin had done more to advance the cause of American energy independence than any other politician – of any party, and at any level of state or federal government – in this century. But the national media have generally ignored this accomplishment.

2. Gov. Palin used her line-item veto to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from the state budget. In considering this accomplishment, keep in mind that the Alaska Legislature is controlled by the GOP, meaning that the funding she cut had already been approved by legislators of her own party. Nevertheless, she made her vetoes stick. The sign of a real fiscal conservative is how they handle the difficult times. Palin cut Alaska’s budget and took significant steps to slow government growth and achieve savings on top of having a $6 Billion surplus. While banking hundreds of millions for a rainy day, Palin proposed a fiscal 2010 budget that was only a scant 1% larger than the budget for the 2009 fiscal year. She also limited pay personnel increases to 2% while refusing a pay increase for herself. She then turned around with a 7% cut in overall spending and a 57% cut in capital spending projects. That is not just a cut in projected increases. But an actual real cut:

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Operating Budget: 13.4%

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Capital Budget: 31.7%

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Overall Budget: 16.8%

When it comes to budgets, holy batman, this is a fairly large number. And, this budget included a large percentage of the Obama stimulus funds in the operating and capital budgets. Clearly, Palin managed to make dramatic cuts to the budget beyond Obama’s stimulus funds. The point of the stimulus funds from the federal government was to increase spending. Some of the stimulus funds were inserted by the Governor (mostly in the capital budget) and the rest inserted by the state legislature (mostly in the operating budget).

Although Alaska has traditionally been more dependent than other states on federal funding (since the federal government owns such a large portion of the state’s property and resources), even the often-critical Anchorage Daily News admits that Gov. Palin has “increasingly distanced herself from earmarking” since 2006, and that her having done so over the past year has been “the leading source of tension between Palin and the state’s three-member congressional delegation.” She also reduced Alaska’s earmark requests by nearly 85% – proving that she was one of the strongest anti-earmark governors in America – and medical backlogs by 83%. In her final year as Governor, Palin requested 8 projects or $69 million in earmarks compared to 63 or $350 million in earmarks in Murkowski’s last year. Actually exercising fiscal discipline in a time of plenty, at both state and federal levels and against the will of the members of her own party, is a better predictor for how she would actually govern on a national level than ten thousand campaign promises.

3. Gov. Palin also kept her campaign promise to revamp the state’s pre-existing severance tax on oil & gas production, replacing a structure negotiated behind closed doors by ethically challenged predecessors and the big energy companies with one negotiated in full public view — and then rebated part of the resulting surplus directly to tax-payers. Severance taxes are a kind of property tax charged on a one-time basis, at the time of production, on subsurface assets (like oil, gas & minerals) which can’t be quantified and taxed through regular property taxes. There was widespread resentment and distrust over the version negotiated by Gov. Palin’s predecessor with the three big energy companies who’ve traditionally ruled the roost in Alaska – Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, and BP.

The new version negotiated and passed with Gov. Palin’s support was thoroughly disinfected by the sunshine of public scrutiny. Although it’s not a “windfall profits tax” – indeed, the base rate only went from 22.5% to 25% – it did permit the Alaskan people to share in a larger portion of the current high prices for oil by raising the additional, progressive portion of the tax from 0.25% to 0.40% on revenues between $32.50 and $90/bbl. Above that, however, the new law actually cut taxes by dropping the rate on revenues above $90/bbl to 0.1%. With the resulting budget surplus, after contributing to the state’s fund for that future day when its oil & gas wealth is exhausted, she pressed for and got legislation to rebate a healthy chunk directly to tax-payers on a per capita basis, trusting them to spend the proceeds from this sale of the state’s commonly-owned resources rather than trusting government to spend it for them.

Beyond her promise to end corruption in state government, Palin made other promises too; reduce earmark spending and provide transparency and accountability in state Government. She’s redeemed those promises in her 2 ½ years. She also spent over $913,000 less on personal expenses in her first two years than former Governor Frank Murkowski did his last two years. For Palin, upholding the Alaskan Constitution took precedence over everything she did, even her own core values. She is a constitutional originalist. In fact, in an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, Palin stated: “My Bible is the State Constitution”. A lifetime member of the NRA, she is a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. No doubt, she is a recognized authority on energy issues.

Palin is pro-American, pro-Constitution, pro-gun, pro-children, pro-capitalism advocate who is the antithesis of Obama. She understands that marginal tax rates are too high and many federal-mandated programs are counter-productive. She initially rejected $288 million of the $930 million of Obama’s federal stimulus package but later moved to accept those funds, except for the $28 million for energy-efficiency spending. Her veto of those dollars was eventually overturned by the legislature. Anyone who thinks Palin is a lightweight hasn’t researched her governing background in Alaska or read the nearly nine-page excerpt of her 90 minute Hong Kong speech, now posted on her Facebook account, which she gave from notes, not teleprompter.

Looking Forward

The lady who shares the beliefs of limited government, low taxes, family values, free enterprise and American exceptional-ism must now start to demonstrate the intellectual framework of her agenda; a clear intellectual understanding of the issues and enduring summation of her political philosophy that effect voters. If she can articulate the problems of this country, and map their common sense solutions the way Reagan was able to articulate simple explanations of complex matters, she will be a force to the establishment and liberals alike. Like Reagan, Palin is a grassroots campaigner – and her grassroots campaigning has silently begun.

To start, Palin’s new strategy of touring through small towns and mid-size cities, designed to both maximize sales of her book and rally grassroots; and her decision to go on shows such as Oprah, Barbara Walters and cable shows – part of a reintroduction of herself – is a decision that will come to be seen as a brilliant counterstroke to the death by a thousand cuts to the Democrats who are attacking her. Combined with other newly deployed strategies of buying Internet advertising based on Google searches of her name, and using Facebook as the key means of communicating with voters, serves as a warm-up for what promises to be a starring role in next year’s midterm elections and, if her supporters get their wish, the next presidential race.

One can predict the book, its tour, and the publicity surrounding it will improve her favorability, and demonstrate that she’s more intelligent than the media has acknowledged. While a majority of Americans view Palin as honest and trustworthy; two thirds believe she is a good role model for women, more than 70% believe she is not qualified to be president. And a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll finds a statistically significant drop in her favorability numbers since July; only 26% of Americans have a positive response to her versus 42% who regard her with suspicion.

This is amazingly similar to what was being said about Reagan in‘78 and ‘79. At the time, powerful congresswoman, Pat Schroeder, compared Reagan to an ‘amiable dunce.’ In an attempt to upstart her reform persona on the national stage, Palin will attempt to win over persuadable voters such as disaffected independents, unaffiliated moderates, libertarians while peeling away margins in the youth vote, non-white, pro-life and Regan Democrats. Already, grassroots conservatives who vote in Republican primaries provide Palin with a nearly 70% favorability. If Palin can lock down and retain her fervent grassroots following and capitalize on the disaffected Tea Party voting bloc ahead of the primary season, she will face a smoother course to the nomination.

And there are other parallels too with Reagan. In a 2008 poll, where voters who described themselves as liberal amounted to 22 per cent of voters, moderates to 44 per cent, and conservatives to 34 per cent. That is almost uncannily similar to a poll quoted by Mr. Reagan some 30 years ago: “A Harris poll released Sept. 7, 1975, showed 18 per cent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 per cent as conservative, with 41 per cent as middle of the road.” So it reasons that Palin will begin to court less partisan-charged voters, or at least avoid alienating them.

To do so, Palin will not try to court the GOP establishment to her way of thinking but instead will capture the movement of the Tea Party activists and grassroots. She already has displayed the ability to draw crowds and raise money. She already has shown she is deft at going on the attack. And, for all her faults, Palin is smart enough to know that having a million friends/fans on Facebook is like having a marketing/information-dissemination army on your side, ready with the click of a mouse to do your bidding. With a low threshold for news, anything she does will be reported. Palin is now pilot of her own plane which seeds her authenticity.

Obama clearly considers FDR a model and inspiration; his belief that as Roosevelt led America out of a great economic depression, Reagan lifted a traumatized country out of a great psychological depression, induced earlier by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., and sustained by the Vietnam War, the scandal of Watergate, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter. Reagan used the same political instruments as Roosevelt – the major address to Congress and the fireside chat with the people – and the same optimistic, uplifting rhetoric. But although both Roosevelt and Reagan appealed to the best in America, there was a significant philosophical difference between the two Presidents: Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government.

And Palin will turn to the people too; conservative grassroots, libertarians, fiscally responsible independents and Tea Party movement activists, to solve the problems of runaway government. This is a platform from which Sarah can take hold. With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, Palin is capable of reviving a modern-era Reagan coalition of the entrepreneurial middle-class and blue-collar workers who unite traditional economic conservatives (that believe in smaller government and tax relief) with blue-collar workers who hold traditionalist views on culture or morality. Like Reagan, Palin has the ability to communicate and explain why our society and ideals are worth preserving. Palin will fight for principles over party.

In a reversal of bad fortunes, while it has not been talked about, you can expect Palin to redeem herself and sit across the seat from Katie Couric again – when the timing is right – dispelling the notion she is an air head. Couric got Palin to argue on bad ground, and Palin didn’t think quickly enough to challenge Couric’s assumptions. That won’t happen again. This time, she will not be looking over her shoulder at McCain and Palin speaking her mind is more appealing than orchestrated answers to appease McCain’s policies. In a June interview, Couric told Usmagazine.com: “If I get the opportunity, I’d be thrilled to talk to her again.” You’ll get your chance Katie.

From a big picture standpoint, the Republican congressional strategy in 2010 is aimed at retaking centrist districts where Democrats have sometimes won election by persuading voters that they aren’t beholden to liberals such as Ms. Pelosi. A major part of the GOP’s 2010 electoral strategy will be linking vulnerable Democrats to Pelosi. The NRCC aired about a dozen television and radio ads during Congress’s August break linking Democrats in conservative or centrist districts to Ms. Pelosi, often noting how often the lawmaker voted with her. The NRCC plans a similar run of ads over the Thanksgiving break. Palin would benefit by aligning herself with viable traditional fiscal conservatives who possess the pedigree and chances at winning in their districts. Here, Palin will use SarahPAC to support local and national candidates who share Palin’s ideas and goals for the country.

Should Palin run and get to the nomination, Palin will have to successfully remake (or polish) her image to independents from what it has been over the past 14 months and in an effort to demonstrate her abilities in winning over a larger proportion of the electorate. Significantly, she’ll have to be ready to take serious questions as to why, if she resigned a little over halfway through her term as governor of one of our most sparsely populated states, she now thinks she is capable of leading a nation of 300 million people. Palin’s resignation speech was somewhat rambling, fraught with emotion and was an enormously missed opportunity. Her resignation speech should have been a memorable philosophical statement akin to Ronald Reagan’s speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign.

The Gipper’s speech was an eloquent and enduring summation of his political philosophy and while it did little to help his candidate, it catapulted him onto the national political stage and laid out his governing vision. It was known among his staff simply as “the speech” and he would give variations of it for the rest of his career. Yet, Palin has been vilified like no other in the press, her family ridiculed, trashed and minimized; countless ethic violation charges and frivolous lawsuits filed against her; over $1.9 million in state agency cost for complaint and public records requests, etc. Palin resigned as Head of the Alaska Oil and Gas commission too and somehow, in spite of this resignation supposedly ruining her career, she still became Governor. Conservative Republicans are the least fazed by Palin’s decision to resign. Just 37% think she’s hurt her chances of winning the nomination, compared to 52% of moderate Republicans. Palin will have to make nice with the moderates in the next year or two.

Historical Perspective: Rove 2004 Base Strategy

It’s really interesting to see how Bush won. In 2004, 37% of voters were Democrats, and 37% were Republican, which left 26% Independent or Unaffiliated. Kerry won the Independents by a slim margin. So how did Bush win by 3%? Nearly twice as many Democrats voted for Bush – as did Republicans for Kerry. Karl Rove was able to capture a larger proportion of the electorate and support among Republicans – and among conservatives; over 90 percent in fact, larger than Reagan in ‘84. “Compassionate conservatism” was the notion that brought Bush to power the first time around, and it was almost the opposite the second time around. Forget about the compassionate conservatism; this was a pure and simple play to the Republican conservative base and enfranchising ‘lazy Republicans”.

The goal was to capture an equal number of Republicans on Election Day as Democrats; if they were successful, the Rove team felt that they would win the election, no matter what happened among the shrinking persuadable voters which had dwindled from 20% to 7% in their analysis. The Christian Coalition was bypassed in favor of going directly to local Christian churches. This had never been done before. Four million evangelicals had gone to the polls for Bush in 2000 but four million did not. The mobilization of individual churches resulted in evangelicals not only coming on board, but campaigning, volunteering at polls, canvassing and working the phone banks. With base motivation as important as swing; all decisions influenced every Rove decision; targeted mail, phones, media, travel, organization, staff – all focused on base.

Roves methodology; utilizing benchmarks or ‘metrics’ enabled him on election day 2004 to realize before anyone else did – that Bush would win. In 2001, Rove set out to enlarge the electorate by consolidating rural votes through new voter registrations programs and target its reach of traditional Republicans. Along the way, they discovered that 85% of Republicans did not live in Republicans precincts; only 15% did. Sophisticated analysis of what magazines people read, brand of cars they owned, where they lived; a combination of what issues they were interested in were gathered, analyzed, scrubbed and put into a central data bank.

If somebody received Field and Stream, it was learned that they were much more likely to be a Republican voter than a Democratic voter. If someone got Rolling Stone, they’re much more likely to be a Democratic voter. Somebody that watched CSI was much more likely to be a Republican versus someone that watched soap’s during the day. People who drank Coors beer, had Caller ID and watched Fox News, when aggregated, all tended to be Republicans, and so on. Once they identified their target constituencies they then aggregated every possible technique to discover how actually to get those people to vote through paid phone banks, messaging and canvassing. The ‘01 and ‘02 elections tested theories and tactics.

In the end, the Rove team figured out ways to go into the Democratic base and peel away votes. Their messaging became more effective at targeting and getting swing voters – the independents – and conservatives increased their participation level as a proportion of the electorate. The Rove team improved performance among people that lived in big cities by 13 points, from 26 to 39 percent; African Americans by 1.5%, Jewish Americans by 5%; hispanics by 9% and even women went up. Across the political spectrum, they not only appealed to the red areas, but made them redder while also turning blue areas purple. Their model was a bottom-up structure, a grassroots structure designed to bring more people into the party, enfranchise more naturally Republican voters and increase percentage in nontraditional Republican voting demographics.

But with base motivation now as important as swing, they reevaluated their mix of putting 80 percent of their resources into persuasion and only 20 percent into base motivation. While they fought to do fairly well among the 6 or 7% persuadable, (analysis showed 93 or 94% were going to be already decided either for Bush or against) they felt they could lose the 6 or 7% and still win the election, which was fairly revolutionary thinking, considering the historical perspective and prior focus on swing votes. What Rove attempted to sheppard in was a durable majority, not a permanent majority. Having just barely won in 2000 with 271 electorate votes, Bush took away 286 in 2004.

How do we grow the electorate in a way that is beneficial to the president? By hardening the base, by everything being aimed at the base of the evangelicals and the social fundamentalists, with minimal effort to reach out to the independents, what cost to governance is there and what cost to the future of the party would there be? Bush won by only a three-point margin not an electoral landslide; Clinton was elected by 8, Reagan by 18, Nixon by 23. And, as we witnessed in 2008, the movement of a handful of states pushed the presidency back to the Democrats. In 2008, McCain lost over 7% of evangelicals and Obama did 10% better than Kerry with church-goers. McCain too lost 6.2 million more votes than Bush and in Georgia, McCain barely mustered 7% to Bushes 19%. And, by a crushing 6 to 1 margin, those young that were polled said Obama, 47, understood “the problems of people our age” better than McCain, 72. Palin, well aware of these statistics, won’t let history repeat itself.

The Rove base strategy is one that Palin can leapfrog from. Palin has shown her ability to connect with the evangelical, social fundamentalists and conservative base, and she knows how to inspire donors to write checks. As VP candidate, Palin made more than 130 stump stops in a hundred plus cities in more than 25 states while also running Alaska. The McCain campaign raised $4.4 million in the first 12 hours after Palin was introduced and debuted as his running mate, and by the end of that weekend, the total was $10 million. The Rove base will transcend and rally around Palin but, it will be up to Palin’s conservative populist agenda to then attract the middle to her way of thinking. Reagan brought the middle-class over to his way of thinking by having a kind of populist agenda. The difference is that he replaced the struggle of the common man with the elite with the struggle of the common man against a wasteful, intrusive, and bloated government. Palin can duplicate this road map.

The Road Map

To give you an idea of the power of independents, take a look at Nov. 3rd NJ and VA elections, the results should be a wake-up call to both red state Democrats and blue state Democrats as well. Of significance was the overall shift away from Democrats in Virginia (13 points), New Jersey (12) and Pennsylvania (8). As Dick Morris points out, in Virginia, the outcomes in 1993 and 2009 were almost identical; a precursor to 2010. And in New Jersey, the parallels between 1993 and 2009 were equally striking. And, Obama is the most divisive partisan politician we have ever seen. That won’t change.

To put in perspective, roughly a 7% shift in the voting electorate and John McCain would be president. With Obama’s poor polling, that seven-point shift is in play now. And as Karl Rove points out, even a five point shift would have drastically changed the make-up of Congress. There are more than eighty (80) Democratic congressmen and 20 senators that come from states that John McCain carried in 2008. This is where the congressional battles will be fought in 2010. And, if Pelosi and Reid have their way, we will soon be witnessing many of their Marxist comrades casting their career-ending votes for health-care reform.

Disaffected independents are critical for any GOP rebound in 2010 and 2012. Just as Republicans can’t win with the culture conservative base alone, they can’t win without them either. The same is true with independents. Through her trademarked maverick persona, Palin will begin to court centrist and disenfranchised independents and “unaffiliated” voters – those that have a jaundiced view of government bureaucracy and big business – with a message that favors the individual and small business, the efficacy of the free market and a willingness to work with the opposing party. Her personal traits of integrity and managerial competence will establish a frame of stability and order for the future as she addresses real-life concerns rather than repositioning issues along the ideological spectrum. To Palin’s benefit; deficits, bailouts, jobs, economy and wasteful government spending will be the new culture war in 2010 and 2012.

Reform is embedded in Palin’s political soul. As she challenges the status quo of the party establishment and as Obama loses more and more independent voters frustrated independents will withdraw from the Obama Administrations turmoil and risk in favor of a safe pair of hands. But, the young will need swaying too. The most lopsided contest within an age-group in any presidential election in modern times was in the under 30 age-groups where 66% of the vote went to Obama. And, of the approximate 10 million Latinos who went to the polls in 2008, 67% voted for Obama. That was up 13% from Kerry’s 53%. In the end, Obama won because blacks, the youth and independents backed him.

In early 2008, during the primary season, women said they would have backed Hillary Clinton over McCain by 18 percentage points, bigger than Obama’s 12-point advantage with them. Whites favored McCain over Obama by 12% but leaned toward the Republican by a narrower 5% against Clinton; 86% of blacks would have backed Clinton – solid, but shy of the 95% who supported Obama. Clinton almost matched the two-thirds of people under-age 30 who voted for Obama, but nearly one in 10 of them said they wouldn’t have bothered voting at all. This reflects too few party faithful in the GOP and a potential challenging hurdle for Palin to overcome – should either run – would be the injection of Hillary in the race in 2012.

To start, winning the White House against an incumbent is more difficult than in an open-seat year. A compelling fact to this is when an incumbent runs the party in power wins about two of every three times, but when the seat is open the party in power wins only about half the time. As Tom Schaller of FiveThirtyEight.com points out, since World War II, there have been 10 elections (leaving out LBJ not running in ’68 or it would be 11) in which the incumbent–whether he won a first term or succeeded to the White House by death or resignation–has run for re-election: ‘48, ‘56, ‘64, ‘72, ‘76, ‘80, ‘84, ‘92, ‘96 and ‘04. And the incumbent, and thus the party in power, won seven times. So, from a statistical standpoint, if Palin is seeking higher office she might want to wait until she is not running against an incumbent president who enjoys the many advantages that incumbency provides. History says the odds are better if you wait. Yet, incumbents lost the Presidency in 1976 (Ford), 1980 (Carter), and 1992 (Bush I).

A historical precedent that is even more predictive of Obama’s reelection is that only once in the last 112 years has control of the White House switched parties and then switched back four years later (Carter ‘76/Reagan ‘80). Every other time (since the nonconsecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) that control of the White House switched parties, it did not switch back for at least 8 years. But, that was then and this is now. Three years is a long way away – and if there was ever an example of fortunes changing within a year – all you have to do is look at Virginia, NJ and Pennsylvania’s elections last week (Nov. 3) as a 13, 12 and eight points shift respectively. The public mood of the electorate is ripe for a Palin run as we have seen how a change in public sentiment can work both for you and against you. Palin is not a conventional candidate and these are not conventional times.

Moreover, recent polling shows too that the mood of the country is ripe for a reversal; 66% of voters nationwide say they’re angry about current government policies; 61% believe the nation is heading in wrong direction; and 83% now believe that ethics and corruption is the key electoral issue placing it just ahead of the economy at 82%. Rasmussen too reported on Nov. 8th that 58% of the American people believe the next US President will be Republican, and 52% say Republicans are most likely to gain seats in Congress in next year’s mid-term elections. Americans too now believe that just 4% of politicians keep their campaign promises. Yes, you read that right – four percent.

Republicans too have now jumped to a 6% lead on the Generic Ballot even while their party ID has fallen. And, for the first time, voters are now blaming Obama nearly as much as Bush for the country’s economic problems (49%-45%). A continued trajectory of Obama’s performance bodes well for all GOP candidates and Palin. The big difference being political operatives do not spend critical time and money throwing mud against unsuccessful VP candidates who are merely irritating, inept or inconsequential. Compare the ongoing fixation with Sarah Palin to the post election coverage of Dan Quayle or Geraldine Ferraro. If Palin is able to get past the relentless, hostile smear campaigns and capture the country’s anger and discontent, Palin will find success in determining a path to the nomination.

The power of the incumbency is something that must not go unnoticed though. Obama may be weakened by 2012, but if you think of weak incumbents who have won re-election, just because he’s weak doesn’t mean he won’t win. George W. Bush was weak in 2004, but he faced a weak John Kerry, and was able to win. Bill Clinton wasn’t terribly popular in 1996, but he won against a weak Bob Dole. Harry Truman was supposed to lose in 1952, but he was able to pull it out against Thomas Dewey, who didn’t inspire anybody. It takes more than a weakened incumbent for people to want to make a change. Even if people are even moderately satisfied with where things are, history shows they’ll keep the guy who is in charge instead of risking a change. Even a tarred and feathered Obama can beat a weak challenger because people don’t want change. History has shown it takes an awfully lot of bad things to happen for the American voter to want change. With Palin stepping-up and speaking out of her “Reaganesque” principles, in 2012, the contrast will be clear.

The route to victory in the primary process is usually one of building momentum early and becoming “inevitable.” If the GOP wants to gain the independent vote, they must do so by creating momentum. History shows independents go where the momentum is (Reagan 80, Bush 04, Obama 08). You cannot develop momentum unless your base is creating it (it did not for McCain in ‘08). A grassroots conservative movement is already influencing the opinion of independents, who traditionally have always been strong fiscal stalwarts anyway. The TEA parties have served to rally independents and conservatives against Obama’s more liberal policies.

If Palin survived the early primaries and goes to Super Tuesday, she’d pick up huge numbers of delegates from southern, some western and even mid-western states and may be able to overcome the fact that the northeast might shut her out. If you do the math, the votes are there if she plays her cards right. But, it will be a battle with the GOP establishment who still holds influence. The only time the party nominated a non-establishment candidate for president in the last century was Goldwater in 1964, and his defeat meant they might not venture outside of their ranks again. Palin is a non-establishment candidate. But, the party underestimated the resolve and force of the tea party movement and the establishment will underestimate Palin’s resolve and force with the grassroots.

The grassroots is looking to champion a leader with true conservative roots and by bucking the establishment in NY23, Palin showed she is that champion. But a political reality is that going forward Hispanics will have to play a bigger role in keeping the GOP competitive nationally. Yet, if Palin does not take a strong stance against those who are here illegally she will lose her base. She did support Rep. Lynn’s HB3 Visa/Drivers License law in Alaska which stated if you don’t have a legal right to walk down a street, you shouldn’t have a legal right to drive. Hispanics are projected to become 20% of the electorate by 2020 and Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona all boast heavy Latino populations.

Electability

The 2008 election was a referendum on Bush II and the economy – the next election in 2012 will be a referendum on Obama and the economy. Obama blew out McCain in high-unemployment states like Michigan, Oregon and Nevada – states which are normally much more competitive. He won, to much surprise, Indiana and North Carolina, two states with unemployment rates well above the national norms but have growing Hispanic populations. In 2008, the Latino vote made the difference in the outcome of three states: New Mexico, Indiana and North Carolina where Obama lost non-Hispanic voters by a slim margin but was put over the top by Hispanic votes. But, in 2012, Obama will face a whole new voting block of the electorate; those who have not participated and voted in prior elections.

In the southwest, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado render the biggest challenges for the Republicans to recapture the White House – but the GOP can win without them. In an attempt to figure out which states the Republicans can win, we can start by looking at those states that John McCain won in 2008, which were worth 173 electoral votes (EV) last year, but will be worth at least 178 in 2012 after the census changes. Starting with that 178-EV baseline, and adding states back into the Republican column in reverse order of difficulty shows what Palin’s most plausible path to victory would be. Note: In 2008, you can subtract any state from Obama’s tally of EV votes, and he still would have won.

Indiana – Obama won by one-point in a small but heavily Democratic-leaning Hispanic population. Republicans won’t take the state for granted next time. Indiana was a state Bush won by 20 points. (11)

Virginia – No Democratic had won since Johnson in 1964. Obama’s had 2,000 transplanted volunteers from Maryland, Delaware and NY flood a single county for 2 straight days. The state came back home for the GOP in the 2009 Governors race. (13)

North Carolina – No Democrat seriously competed in NC since Bill Clinton in 1992, who lost the state by a point. NC’s high unemployment will surely play a role this time around. Obama won by one point. (15)

Ohio - Republicans could gain ground if they trump Obama on issues like NAFTA. And Rob Portman, the Senate candidate, is looking promising in Ohio polls. Ohio likely will lose one or two electoral votes in 2012 as a result of the 2010 census. Obama won by 5%. (19)

Florida – Latino population is still outweighed by Cuban versus Hispanic. Obama won only 57% of Florida’s Hispanic votes in 2008, his smallest margin among Latino votes. Obama beat McCain by 3%. (28)

If Palin is to reverse the fortunes of the above mentioned states, she would have 264 EV’s – 6 short of the 270 needed for victory. Looking at Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4), one nice advantage the Republican nominee will have in 2012 is that candidates will have spent many months barnstorming through these states. The Republicans could lose NH and still win 270-268. Palin will fight for Michigan’s 16 electoral votes (high-unemployment state will lose one electorate) and as Iowa (6) goes, often so does Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (10). If Palin can’t overcome the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and even Arizona, Palin will have to pursue a middle-America strategy; the industrial belt to the deep south – leaving the coastal regions to the Democrats.

In any close race, you have to figure in Maine and Nebraska’s distributed electorate votes. The electoral map will change for the 2012 election, based on the results of the 2010 census. Texas (+3), Arizona (+1), Georgia (+1), Utah (+1) will gain while Louisiana loses one. Swing states Florida (+2) and Nevada (+1) gain, while Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania (-1) and Ohio (-2) lose. The reason why many of these states are gaining electoral votes is because their cities are expanding. Look at Nevada and Arizona for example. Their populations are expanding because people are moving out of California and into the metropolises of these states. Therefore, they are actually getting less conservative. Just look at what happened in Virginia and North Carolina in 2008.

Consider this too: What is the percent of White Evangelical Christians (WEC) in the GOP at the moment? In year 2000 it was 33%, in year 2006 it was 47%, in year 2008 it was 50% in the CNN exit polling. WEC’s make up 20% of the total electorate and they are big Palin fans. So if they are much above 50% then her nomination could be smooth (smoother during primaries if she siphons votes away from Huckabee). Is it possible that the decrease in Republican Party affiliation is caused by non-WEC’s leaving the party to become disinfected independents, resulting in the party base becoming increasingly homogenously WEC. Could percent WEC be as high as 60-70%? In 2004, the GOP got the vote out by riling up the religious right and wooing the moderate middle.

All those declaring 2012 already over because of the power of incumbency should remember that Bush I won in 1988 with over 400 EV’s and still got thrashed 4 years later. Obama had two distinct advantages going into 2008; he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1). Where McCain never mentioned Obama’s “bitter clingers” comment, Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary sermons, Obama’s breaking his word to use public campaign financing and never mentioned Obama’s plan to “bankrupt” the US coal industry – Palin was ready to pounce. Had McCain just followed Hillary’s many tough arguments in the primaries he could have restored his fledging campaign. Palin has a cut in her jib; she knows when to take the gloves off; be the pit-bull wearing lipstick. Palin, it should be noted, has a spine. Sarah will be exceedingly popular among GOP candidates running for Congress in 2010.

McCain was the candidate of every Republican coalition partner except the Southern moralists and the religious right that make up the Solid South; a region that Palin will do well. He famously spat on them time and time again, and they were only happy to return the favor in 2008. Another fact which doomed McCain was his treasonous support of amnesty for illegal aliens. It will be critical for Palin to find solid footing on the immigration issue. As Obama stubbornly neglects the path that Bill Clinton took in moving to the center after his mid-term thrashing, GOP candidates and Palin will benefit from Obama’s ongoing liberal policies. The resulting contrast will be socialism versus conservatism. A Reagan Conservative brings all their bullet points to bear on the opposition, and do so with authority. Palin is a fighter that fights to win – unlike McCain.

Many didn’t predict an Obama win four years ago but some foresaw, two years ago, pretty confidently, that “Generic Democrat” was going to win in 2008. All Obama had to do, given Bush sentiment, the poor economy and financial meltdown, was get in the vicinity of that, and he had it in the bag. If Palin chooses to run for President, she’ll face the same scrutiny and similar primary questions, critique, and pressure that all candidates face; probably even more. The American public will get to see it all unfold, and then the electorate will decide. For those that believe Palin’s brand is hurt:

Not according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll:

-65% believe she’s not a typical politician
-64% consider her a role model
-56% believe she cares about people like you (a question with which Republicans typically struggle)
-55% believe she’s honest and trustworthy

More from the CNN/Opinion Research poll: The country is split as to whether it generally agrees with Palin on issues it cares about (48/50). That’s pretty much the same split that is facing Obama where 48% of the country agrees with Obama on the issues that matter with 51% saying they do not agree. So the country doesn’t believe she’s any further to the right than it believes Obama is too far to the left. A fair reading of the CNN polling data is that a solid majority of the country admires and likes Palin but doesn’t believe she’s qualified for the top job. Those are perceptions Palin can change over the course of the next year much less three years. I don’t think anybody claims to be a walking encyclopedia on all issues so, if Palin were to win the GOP primary, and she still has a branding issue, you might expect the unconventional and see her possibly name certain cabinet members prior to the election. It will all be part of her belief of an open and transparent government.

To win general elections, ‘telegenic’ and ‘charasmatic’ candidates matters. Palin has a
magnetism that can’t be learned. She draws a crowd because people want to see and hear her. Moreover, governors rarely have “foreign policy experience.” How much experience in this realm did George W. Bush have? Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? The answer is none because they were governors. The last VP nominee that met the requirements of “foreign policy experience” as defined by beltway think tanks and the elite-biased media was Dick Cheney. Palin was held to different standards than most, if not all, previous VP contenders. Just look at Barack Obama’s credentials. Expect Palin to travel as she did to Hong Kong to build credentials.

Closing

Voters in 2008 were looking for hope and change because of the economy, jobs, Bush sentiment and, to a lesser extent, Iraq. And, Obama’s activist agenda is in strong contrast to Bushes final 2-years. Now Obama’s approval rating drop is tied to the rising unemployment rate and a belief that he is not solving the nation’s economic problems. As long as consumer confidence lags, so will Obama’s numbers. While Obama falsely ran as the “anti-politician” his administration brought a political campaign approach to its policy agenda. This partially explains Obama’s rapid approval rating drop. But Palin will rally the ‘Reagan Democrats’ and ‘Tea Party activists’ and set the rules of engagement for the election battle. Her fortunes will be tied to what she stands for – not just what she is against.

Welcome to the longest election cycle in political history. Come January, all eyes will be on November, and those who have higher aspirations will begin revving up their activity in support of certain congressional districts in order to build momentum for 2012. By the time the 2012 election season rolls around, many will demand a new era of honesty politics and fervent in their expectation for transparency and accountability in government. Playing politics with bad policy will ultimately be Obama’s downfall. Bad policy often has ulterior motives… And, many too will realize that the same corrupt elected officials who got us in this mess will proclaim they’re the ones that will get us out of it. The landfills are littered with dishonest politicians.

Palin knows how to win elections and take on the establishment; she has a gut and instinct and was right for wanting to stay in Michigan in the ’08 campaign. If Palin was not hamstrung by the McCain team from “being herself” she probably would have been more comfortable in her role of VP instead of letting herself be pigeonholed like she was in interviews. Sarah knows that you can’t bring moderation to an ideology fight. McCain was a flawed candidate. McCain too, did not inspire people. Palin is a candidate who is inspiring; a true conservative who knows how to speak to the principles of common sense conservatism which will be critical in convincing the young, disenfranchised, independents and unaffiliated moderates. That is how, under her own control, she won and governed Alaska. Like Reagan, Palin understands the art of compromise but never abandons her ideals. And, in governing, she moderated her own culture beliefs and did not pursue a rigid social agenda.

In his run-up to his election, Reagan did ‘not’ speak to the core of conservatives but rather Reagan spoke his conservative principles to the core of America as a whole. Palin will follow the same trajectory as she did in Alaska in winning over Reagan Democrats. Is Palin the second calling of Ronald Reagan? If she is not a Ronald Reagan – maybe its because neither was Reagan – at age 45. To be exact, imperfections and all, I don’t think another Reagan in his exact form is in our future. However, Palin has it within her to become his equivalent as a leader. Simply put, the way she has made her way through life and politics tells me that she embodies the moral purpose and absolute fearlessness in defending without equivocation what she knows to be right. Sarah is a leader in waiting and Palin is a disciple of Reagan and Thatcher and it was their policies which led to a 30-year economic expansion.

Palin advocates the practical common-sense conservatism of Middle America. The center-right. She is capable of reviving a modern-era Reagan coalition of the entrepreneurial middle-class and blue-collar workers …. who unite traditional economic conservatives (that believe in smaller government and tax relief) with blue-collar workers who hold traditionalist views on culture or morality. Human, likeable, personable and witty like Reagan, with loads of common sense and confidence, Palin lives what she believes. Like Reagan, Palin has generated a lot of enthusiasm with the grassroots base just as the Gipper did before winning the hearts of the American people. Ronald Reagan is smiling.

Every candidate for office who takes on an incumbent runs on a message of change and reform. Few live-up to their promise. Sarah Palin ran against the political establishment in Alaska with the promise to clean up the self-dealing and corruption that had finally worn out the patience of Alaskan voters. She defeated an incumbent Republican governor and a popular former Democratic one, an impressive accomplishment in itself. But she didn’t just run as a reformer. She governed as one. While Governor, Palin never abandoned her fundamental beliefs for political expediency – something that will be in stark contrast to her primary opponents. Anyone who is more than a casual observer will, in time, see Palin’s ‘all in’ to defend this country against socialism and the attacks of the radical left.

Sarah Palin is hands down the most popular candidate among the GOP conservative grassroots base and Tea Party movement. However, the full court efforts to smear her by the state-run media and the string of bogus ethics complaints have successfully tarnished her brand in the center. I have never seen another GOP candidate who so effortlessly pushes nearly every single ideological and social hot button on the urban-elite left. Sarah terrifies them. Palin-haters and misguided newsmakers arrogantly fail to recognize that a great leader does not imply perfection. Palin astutely understands that imperfection is distinct from or unrelated to being a qualified leader. With an authentic heart and mind Palin stands tall among those who always seek out imperfections of others.

The question for Palin is whether she can reintroduce herself to the ‘center’ to fill the vacuum being left by the exodus of center and center-right independents from Obama’s radical policies and ingratiate herself with the party elites. She cannot win a general election if she cannot successfully do these things. Palin knows how to reposition herself. The late Lee Atwater, Reagan’s former campaign manger stated; that ‘inside polling reflected that Americans were undecided about Reagan until the final week of the election.’ This largest transfer of private wealth to public officials in US history will put the Republicans back in the race in 2010 and 2012 and to the libertarian, Palin is a particular attractive governing choice.

I have no doubt Palin is currently, albeit unofficially, running for President:

1) Sarah started her reintroduction process to the center with her book, her tour and appearances on Oprah, Barbara Walters, etc. Every Presidential candidate who later went on to win – took this path.

2) Sarah will be barnstorming the country picking up tokens raising money for 2010 GOP candidates. No singular person can match her in bringing in crowds or money.

3) Sarah is giving paid economic and foreign policy speeches to foreign business leaders to establish her credentials with party leaders.

4) Sarah is bypassing the state-run media and speaking directly to voters from her Facebook page, which is being picked up pretty routinely in the conservative press and then by the liberal press.

5) Sarah has set up an issues PAC called “Stand Up For Our Nation.”

These are not the actions of a retired politician simply making a living on the rubber chicken circuit. Time will tell whether her efforts will pay off enough to declare her candidacy in 2011. It would be a mistake to underestimate Sarah, though. She is just what this country needs. During her campaign for governor, she was criticized for being vague on issues but she sold voters on the one product that mattered: herself.

The first woman on a national Republican ticket, the party’s top grassroots star, and an obvious potential contender for the 2012 nomination, she’s a sought-after guest whose every move is studied for political intent. She has displayed the ability to draw crowds and raise money. She’s a woman of the people; she belongs to us not Washington. Her political rise is a great and rare story of how adherence to principle – especially to transparency and accountability in government – can produce political success. Look at the politicians of today. Watch their eyes, and you’ll see the difference. There’s no trust with our elected officials. Hire and fire politicians until you see eyes like Reagan’s. Vote out the establishment and bring in an outsider. We need real leaders. Let’s not pretend anymore. I think the party should call on Palin, and any other hopefuls, that want to rise to challenge the status quo and the establishment. As a champion of ethics, Palin has the courage and tenacity to take on both Democrats and Republicans.

Palin’s brand of can-do, no-excuse, moose-hunting feminism too– is a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism. And, the unrelenting attacks against Palin since McCain chose her as his running mate show that the liberal and far-left power brokers most certainly do not understand her, and even more dangerously for them, underestimate her. One has to admire Palin’s courage in the midst of such acrimony and contempt from the liberals as she plays the left like a Stradivarius. One thing’s for sure – Palin is smoking out the real snakes in the grass among the GOP, the liberal left and the MSM. Just watch this all unfold.

A part of Palin’s political appeal is her ability to exploit social grievances, fiscal insanity and cultural symbolism and the more that they attack her, the more that they try to diminish her, the greater her stature becomes in the consciousness of the rapidly enlarging mass. America is no longer fooled and the growing resentment toward elected officials has reached a fevered pitch. If Palin adopts a voter-friendly conservative populist agenda to strengthen her policy credentials which is seen as less partisan to independent voters, then more people will see her as being qualified in beating Obama. America needs a Palin-type reformist for the next Presidential term. If not her, her clone would be fine. But, Palin’s new strategy and grassroots campaign to reintroduce herself has begun and I hope she carries it through to 2012. And, I’ll put my money on Sarah standing above dishonest criticism and gaining national appeal long before I see the moment when the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins to heal.

“Common-sense conservatism” will be her theme.

Articles:

The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah

Furthermore

When Twitter just isn't enough…

Issue & Argument: The BCS

Obama: Energy Policy & Fraud

Obama’s Economy

Our Republic versus Democracy

Calamity & Clouseau

Giving Thanks: A Tribute

Double Dip Recession: Reagan & Obama

Why Illinois Matters

Explanation: Reconciliation & Conference

An Essay: The Case for Palin

Search

Recent Posts

Pages

Archives

Blog Stats

Tags

Twitter Updates

Beltway Buzz

Blogroll

Blogroll - Other

Chicago

Palin

Sports

Archives

Meta

When Twitter just isn't enough…

Search

Recent Posts

Pages

Archives

Blog Stats

Category Cloud

Tags

Beltway Buzz

Blogroll

Blogroll - Other

Chicago

Palin

Sports

Archives

Meta