BEWARE THE EMBOLDENED LEFT

As the left rejoices over their monumental victory, conservatives double down on the upcoming 2010 elections and their campaign strategy. "Repeal the Bill" is a good start, but should not be the focus, as it will be a difficult road and Obama will veto any attempt.

The eye-opening shenanigans by the left such as the backroom bribes, payoffs, and threats in their eternal quest for big government; the takeover of the private sector in financial institutions, the car industry, insurance companies, and now health care; their road to a socialistic re-distribution of wealth; the doubling and tripling our deficit .... should be their focus.

More importantly, the conservatives cannot think this is in the bag. Under-estimating Obama's thug policies and the left would be suicide for a conservative comeback. They need to accent on the revulsion the American people are feeling after the actions of the left this past year, and make sure to hold the momentum.

Marc Rotterman write an important piece on the left's attack on conservatives, their movements, and talk radio in American Spectator:


Beware the Emboldened Left
by Marc Rotterman, March 24, 2010

As I write, Congress has just passed Barack Obama's signature issue -- healthcare reform. After a year of stops and starts, imposed deadlines and rancorous debate, President Obama and his allies have prevailed.

He does, in fact, have a victory. And where I come from, a victory is a victory.

Many of my Republican and conservative brethren view this partisan piece of legislation as a stake through the heart of the Left and some are already measuring for new drapes in the Speaker's office.

In fact, in some quarters of the Republican Party "irrational exuberance" has taken hold. Barack Obama's presidency is being compared that of Jimmy Carter.

That, in my view, is a mistake.

Conservatives and Republicans who underestimate President Obama do so at their own electoral peril. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama is a true believer, someone who understands that transforming policy translates into votes and a citizenry that is more reliant on the federal government. And unlike Carter, Obama is a streetwise, tough politician who will not give an inch when it comes to his vision of a "New America" -- one that is modeled after European socialism.

Starting now, the Obama administration will try to position him as a modern day LBJ -- getting things done for the middle class and the poor. The administration, and its allies in the mainstream media will echo Obama's belief that he is transformative figure and that healthcare legislation is akin to the historic Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.

And make no mistake about it -- Barack Obama's next agenda item is "immigration reform" which, unless it is defeated, will further broaden the Left's constituency, strengthen the unions, and undermine the rule of law.

By the way, Obama and his team will not stop there. Those who openly oppose Obama's policies will continue to be targets. First the liberal establishment went after Rush Limbaugh and for months now -- former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Left and progressives' newest devil is Glenn Beck and by extension the Fox News network.

One only has to watch MSNBC and its commentators' rants against Beck or read the Washington Post's two recent hit pieces on Fox and Beck -- one by the former discredited New York Times editor Howell Raines, the other by Howard Kurtz, a CNN employee who hosts the CNN show Reliable Sources -- to understand how far the progressives will go to torpedo Beck and Fox.

My point is that Obama and his allies view governing and campaigning in the same context -- "winning" means all out war and by any means necessary. In contrast, Republicans have, in the past, viewed campaigns from a "management perspective."

To compete and to win in 2010 Republicans and conservatives must outline and define what Obama has in store for this nation. And that is the remaking of the nation as we have known it from its inception. We cannot count on a bad economy to propel us to a majority, or outrage over the healthcare bill.

Yes, they are still a very important part of the debate.

But, we have an obligation in our messaging and advertising to illustrate in stark terms what "Obama's transformation" means to America, its families, traditions and culture. In short, we must campaign against the Left as if we were at war.

One thing we know for certain is that Obama and his cohorts are committed to their ideology and they will do what it takes to stay in power. To win, we must understand our opponents and maneuver according to circumstance.


Marc Rotterman worked on the national campaign of Reagan for President in 1980, served on the presidential transition team in 1980, and worked in the Reagan Administration from 1981 to 1984. He is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina, and a former member of the board of the American Conservative Union.

THE ONE WAY STREET

A piece by Erick Erickson at Red State on why conservatives need to stand their ground, and have the backbone to stand up against the Republican moderates attacking them.

The One Way Street
Posted by Erick Erickson, February 16th, 2010

I wrote this last November, but in light of current events (see e.g. McCain v. Hayworth) I think it is worth posting again.

We hear this all time — conservatives in the GOP have to play nice with the moderates.

We never hear the other, that moderates should play nice with conservatives. Why is that? Consider the facts:

In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, conservative Tim Walberg challenged the very liberal Joe Schwartz in the 2006 Republican Primary and won. Walberg went on to win the general election.

In 2008, Schwartz endorsed Democrat Mark Schauer and Shauer used that endorsement to squeak out a win in this +2 Republican District.

In Maryland 1, conservative physician and state senator Andy Harris ran in the Republican Primary against Wayne Gilchrist. Harris defeated Gilchrist only to see Gilchrist throw his support to Democrat Frank Kratovil, who won with 49.12% of the vote.

In Arizona 5, conservative David Schweikert won the Republican nomination, but then lost to liberal Democrat Harry Mitchell. Why? Schweikert’s primary opponent refused to help him and sat on his hands rather than help Schweikert pick up his opponent’s primary support.

In Alabama 2, Jay Love beat Harri Anne Smith in the Republican Primary and ran against Bobby Bright in an R +16 district. Smith endorsed the Democrat and Bright went on to win 50.23% of the vote.

In New York 23, the liberal Dede Scozzafava drops out and instead of supporting the guy the GOP crawls on bended knee to, she endorses the Democrat.

All the time we hear “conservatives can’t win the general” and “conservatives should play nice with moderates.” The record shows that the moderates cannot take losing and conservatives don’t win the general because the moderate GOP stabs them in the back.

If we are a team, it can’t just be the conservative players in trouble for not passing the ball

GLENN BECK vs. C. EDMUND WRIGHT

Republicans have their flaws, God only knows, but during this past year they have been joined at the hip - in unison against Obama, his cronies, and his government run healthcare. That took a lot of courage.

They should be praised and encouraged, not spanked as Glenn Beck did at CPAC this past weekend. After over a year of negativity and bashing from this president, Americans, especially Republicans, needed a good old fashioned Reagan speech. Just think back to last year's CPAC. Republicans were a party in turmoil, with the lowest ratings ever, and no hope for the future. In less that one year, it's a completely different story. But, a third party will ensure another Obama term, and if we are to fix and take back the Republican Party, it cannot be done with negative attacks. At this point, with the elections close at hand (including the primaries) intimating is not going to do it. Take a stand, no time for playing games or being vague. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. And do it goes....

From Mark Levin, "No conservative endorses overthrowing this government. That would be nuts. And, no conservative endorses the opposite extreme - doing nothing. That would be nuts too." The ballot box is our weapon, unlike most other world nations.

Mark Levin, continues, "For too long we left it to others to determin the outcome of elections. While we wrung our hands and complained. And therefore the nature of our society is transforming. We've kept to ourselves. We've largely kept quiet. We basically went along with whatever comes. But it's different today. The accumulation of 80 years of abuse and torment and misconduct is now at our doorstep. Today we see as a people that we, each of us, are the target of powerful individuals and groups that seek to punish us. To steal our liberty and our private property and now they want control over our very bodies. They call this health insurance reform.

"And as a young person who went to CPAC, and as I got older and would go to CPAC, the speeches you remember are the speeches that show promise and inspired and motivated. I heard Reagan speak at CPAC two or three times. He did two things, amoug others, but two primary things that always remained with me. He defined our enemies and he defined us in very coherent, logical, step by step arguments. No tricks, no games, no diversions, no self-flagulation. He was a serious man. Positive man with a great sense of humor but he was very serious when it came to getting our message across to the American people...

"Reagan used to have this amendment - the 11th amendment - about not attacking fellow Republicans, and yet he would challenge establishment, liberal Republicans all the time. That's how he became Governor and ultimately how he became President. But what he meant by that was ... conservatives ... conservatives. Ronald Reagan would never have loosely generalized about conservatives and the Republican Party because like a surgeon, like a real thinker, and like an activist he wanted the distinctions to be known, he wanted the distinctions to be clear, he wanted to promote our principles and he wanted to contrast them with those who either had no principles or were promoting something else. Carpet-bombing the Republican Party ... takes out a awful lot of good people, too many good people...

"It's time to unite, ladies and gentlemen. We have a common foe. We're on the move. You're on the move. We're doing exactly what we should be doing. We are in fact taking back the Republican Party. We are in fact attracting people to the conservative movement who were not before conservatives, or didn't feel that they were. We're now going through the electoral process like Sherman went through Georgia, sorry ladies and gentletmen in Georgia, no attack on you, just a historical fact. We blew out the left in VA, we blew them out in NJ, we blew them out in MA and blew up the Kennedy seat. And now we're swinging back around to other states. Politics, very much like military operations without the physical violence. We want to stay on the battlefield, we to own the battlefield, we want to take back our government. Now is the time to unite!

"Can't wear the clown nose, and not wear the clown nose at the same time.... Stop dividing us. What I see across the horizon today in my forty years or so conservative activism is unity like I've never seen before. And it's not unity because of hate for Mitch McConnell or Boehner or what ever. It's contempt for this president, and Pelosi and Reid and what they're doing to this nation. That's what's happening, that's what's going on and when Republicans deserve a lashing they should get it. But right now they're holding the fort and they deserve reinforcements. They won't always, but when they do, they ought to get it." Mark Levin, February 22, 2010

Using the latest label "Progressive" rather than their more accurate name Liberal (which they rightfully deserve) only lets them off the hook, and the Libs love it.

C. Edmund Wright has an interesting couple of pieces on this in American Thinker:

Glenn Beck vs. C. Edmund Wright
by C. Edmund Wright, February 23, 2010

In the spirit of FOX News: I report, you decide.

Glenn Beck acknowledged on his Monday afternoon television show that some folks did not approve of his keynote address to CPAC. The example he chose to express that displeasure was our Monday piece, "CPAC's Odd Ending."

Beck claimed on his show that my words made his case. I respectfully disagree and in fact submit the opposite. Here's why: In response to this article, Beck came right out and said words I have never heard him say before. His wording indicates that he does in fact think of the GOP as his team. He disavowed any third party movement almost totally on two different occasions. This will certainly come as a surprise to many of his regular viewers.

He claimed that he of course always meant this, but he has rarely if ever said these words...which was precisely the point of my article.

So, in the cool, unemotional format of print transcript, I invite the readers to decide as I quickly respond to Beck's comments from Monday's Glenn Beck Show.

BECK: Not everybody was in love with my speech at CPAC. Some are saying I wasn't quite partisan enough ... which I intentionally steered away from ... this [CPAC] isn't really talking to the Democrats.

WRIGHT: Actually, Mr. Beck, I did praise a lot of your speech, and I did not use the word partisan. Having said that, the fact that you admit that you weren't talking to Democrats almost admits that you were knowingly talking to Republicans. Hmmm. This is a far cry from your average TV show, where you go to great lengths to equate the two parties as equally corrupt and equally progressive. Not a major point, but I submit a small admission on your part already.

BECK: It seems that some people think that I was wanting some sort of third party. Nope.

WRIGHT: Memo to the Beck supporters who think he is a third-party guy: He said "nope." I think I may have forced this. He's never said this before that I can remember. 1-0.

BECK: I just think the American people ... just want a party that stands for something.

WRIGHT: I concur, and while I realize that you probably had your people read my piece, had you read it or any other of my works, you would know that you and I agree on this and that I have been a long time critic of the Republican Party apparatus -- as have many other writers here at AT.

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape! What was that again?

BECK: You know -- it's holding your own side's feet to the fire that delivers a party like that.

WRIGHT: Uh, I hate to quibble, Glenn, but you just made my point. My point was that you did not say at CPAC -- and you never say on your show -- which side is your side. You never actually connect the dots and say the word "Republican" in telling us who the only party is that can stop the progressive movement. Thank you for finally connecting those dots and telling us which is "your side." I think a lot of your fans will be shocked to hear this.

BECK: It's important to acknowledge the individual Republicans fighting the good fight ...

WRIGHT: Stop the tape again! I agree. I think you just made another of my points for me. And while we're on the subject, why didn't you acknowledge them last night? That was really all I was asking for.

BECK: ... and I think we do that on this program. CPAC -- they had already done a good job of that ... most of the speeches during the weekend were made by people I tend to agree with. If you watch this show at all, you know that I highlight good conservatives inside the Republican Party. Jim DeMint's on this show ... I think ... as much as I'm on this show.

WRIGHT: First of all, when giving a keynote address where you have agreed with the week's festivities, it is customary to acknowledge that during your speech at some point. You did not.

And yes, on your show, you do tend to highlight good conservative Republicans for the first fifty minutes. I called much of your work fabulous, by the way. You generally don't mention party when you do that. Moreover, you tend to spend the end of your show with the obligatory R or D disclaimer that seems out of place with the rest of the show. That was a point I made. Glad to see you actually stringing the words good - principled - conservative - Republicans together.

BECK: The problem is progressivism. Does anyone seriously think that Mike Pence is who I'm talking about when I say Republican progressives?

WRIGHT: No, we don't think Pence or DeMint or Inhofe or Ryan. But you never say -- until now -- that there are more good conservative Republicans than there are Democrats. You sure as heck didn't say anything remotely similar to that at CPAC.

BECK: The usually on-the-money American Thinker was critical of my speech as well ...

WRIGHT: Again, read what I said. There was at least an equal measure of praise.

BECK: In doing so, inadvertently, they made my point for me.

WRIGHT: I respectfully disagree.

BECK: When I was talking about not seeing the come-to-Jesus moment for the Republican Party -- they [Wright] wrote, "Has he not heard about Marco Rubio? Rubio is now up 12 points over Charlie Crist among Florida voters. That sounds to me like a lot of Florida Republicans admit there's a problem." Rubio is a perfect example of the problem I'm talking about. Rubio is not up by 18 because of the Republican Party. He's up by 18 because the people of Florida are rejecting what the Republican Party told them to do: Vote for Charlie Crist.

WRIGHT: But Mr. Beck, we have a couple of problems with your answer here and your speech Saturday. If you felt this strongly about Rubio before I (and Bill Bennett) called you on it, the CPAC speech was the perfect venue for you to say so. After all, Rubio was the biggest attraction there besides you. Your sudden passion for Rubio, Sir, makes my point that you should have indeed mentioned him Saturday.

Further, you make your living with words -- and words mean things. You said "I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit ..." Marco Rubio is a person within the Republican Party. He is ahead thanks to the Republican Party voters of Florida. They are "people within the Republican Party," too. Can you hear them now?

I know what the party hacks are up to, and I join you in condemning them. But for a wordsmith, your brush was too broad. And I submit that it's not the first time.

BECK: I don't want a third party. I think that might be a bad idea.

WRIGHT: I agree totally. So so so glad to hear you say it. Now, I wonder what many of your fans will say. What do you think? Call me.

GOP'S HEALTHCARE MOMENT

By now, it should be pretty apparent Obama has no intention of a bi-partisan reconciliation on his non-existent [health care] 'Plan' or the House plan or the Senate plan. We all know it's a trap to hog the mike, which is not exactly a meeting. As we speak, Pelosi is scheming a new way to shove her plan through, so why the meeting, when he plans to ram it through anyway? This is another showboating appearance to look 'presidential', when the past year has shown he is anything but. No president would tell you to borrow money to expand your payroll. No president would call his military corpsemen ... multiple times. Jimminy Christmas!

But -- this is a very slippery slope, just as Republicans are beginning to win back their positive image. They are smart to see this is a trap, but if they do not show up, the negative effect will pretty much destroy their new found popularity. If handled properly, the Republicans will maintain popularity and gain more points in the process. We cannot afford to lose any ground.

Dick Morris writes a clever piece on how they can accomplish this:


GOP'S HEALTHCARE MOMENT
by Dick Morris, February 9, 2010

President Barack Obama has so lowered expectations for the Republican Party that if they come to the healthcare summit he has called at the White House with concrete and well-articulated proposals, it will blow the country away. Repeatedly, the president has fashioned the GOP as the party of "no," goading them by saying, "If you have any ideas, bring them on."

Well, let them do it.

Republicans need to be on their toes and aggressive in the meeting and not let it devolve into a question-and-answer session with the president hogging the mike. He asked for a meeting, not a lecture or a media conference, and Republicans need to demand equal time to present their ideas.

Start with tort reform. The Republicans need to explain how much of the unnecessary medical costs are being driven by useless tort litigation. In Mississippi, where they acted to preclude much of it, malpractice premiums have declined by 50 percent.

The GOP needs to explain to the nation that when the president says he is going to cut costs by eliminating tests that aren't necessary, he is catching doctors in a vise. On the one side, they have the government prohibiting or discouraging them from tests, and on the other, the trial-lawyer bar waiting to pounce on them for failing to administer the proper tests if their care has a bad outcome.

The Republicans need to make the cost-cutting part of the healthcare summit about tort reform, constantly raising the subject as the counter to the president's proposed $500 billion cut in Medicare.

Then Republicans need to discuss other cost-saving measures such as allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines and other measures to encourage competition.

Republicans should also zero in on the need for more doctors if we are to expand the number of patients covered. They must articulate the conclusion so much of the nation has come to (but official Washington has never embraced): that you cannot have more patients without more doctors unless you want to impose rationing. They should make the case that you need to phase in coverage for those who are not now covered so that you can increase the supply of doctors and nurses at the same time. Supply must keep pace with demand so that artificial scarcity does not leave the nation short of doctors.

The Republicans need to point out that in Massachusetts, where Romney inflicted a version of ObamaCare on the state, the waiting time to see a doctor in Boston is now 63 days. They need to stress that any rationing will be felt primarily by the elderly and will lead to premature deaths.

Finally, Republicans need to explain their own proposals for reforming healthcare -- including Medical Savings Accounts and expansions of current tax breaks to encourage people and small businesses to purchase insurance.

Then, Republicans need to keep up a steady drumfire of criticism of the president's proposals. They need to:

• Attack the proposed cuts in Medicare.

• Criticize the individual mandate as unconstitutional and paint a vivid picture of how much it will cost young families.

• Demand that young people be permitted to purchase catastrophic coverage to satisfy any mandate, rather than full coverage they don't need.

• Spell out, in detail, how the tax on medical devices will raise the cost of pacemakers, automated wheelchairs, arterial stints, prosthetic limbs and all manner of necessary medical equipment.

• Attack the proposal to make a taxpayer spend 10 percent of his income -- as opposed to 7.5 percent at present -- on medical expenses in order to deduct them. Expose this tax as a tax on the sick.

• Criticize the idea that people could be imprisoned for failing to have health insurance or paying the fine the legislation imposes. There is a big difference between tax evasion and failing to have health insurance.

With proper preparation, the Republicans can turn this healthcare summit into a nationally televised town meeting such as those that frustrated Democratic congressmen last August.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

WHAT I SAID TO THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

We recently witnessed another photo-op, as Obama graced the Republican conference with his presence filling the room once again with more lies and re-writing history about inherited deficits. He inherited it from a Democratic congress, and forgets that he voted for every spending program from 2005 onwards. Once again he is delusional and disingenuous. He tells his own story about the economic decline, while preaching how health care will save the day. Yes, of course, Mr. President. You are not an ideologue, nor a Bolshevik.

When this administration began, we had a few Republicans cross the aisle to vote with Obama and his "transformation of the United States of America". As the weeks and months went by, it became obvious (even to the RINOs) that what Obama and his crew were doing was not good for America. Since then, the Republicans have been united in trying to stop this runaway train, with the exception of Congressman Joseph Cao - the male version of Whorehouse Mary Landreiu. He was the single Republican vote in the House to pass the atrocious health care bill, where a shaky Speaker Pelosi meekly tapped the gavel announcing the bill had passed in the late late dark of night. What a dark day in our history, and it was just the beginning.

That was the beginning of the eye-opening lesson we were all about to witness - that the Left was willing to go down in order to carve themselves out another huge piece of the private sector. God knows when they would have this chance again, and time was of the essence (you never want to waste a crisis yada-yada-yada). But, rising from the Phoenix were the Republicans -- finally -- in unison to stop this takeover.

Dennis Prager was also an invited guest at the Republican conference, along with a couple of his collegues. He writes:


What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress
by Dennis Prager, February 02, 2010

This past weekend, after President Obama addressed the annual retreat of Republican Members of the House, I, along with my Salem Radio colleague Hugh Hewitt, and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, were also invited to address them.

This is an abridged and edited version of my remarks.

Thank you for this honor.

I have never been as proud to be a Republican as I have this past year with your unanimity in opposing Obamacare and the other bills that would transform America. Please know -- you need this feedback -- that your having been able to stand together and do this has been a luminous moment in Republican Party history.

I would like show you some of the large themes involved in your present work.

First theme: It is harder to sell truths than to sell falsehoods.

It is very easy to say, "Vote for us and we will give you, we will give you, we will give you." It is much harder to advocate what is right and to say, "Vote for us, but no, we won't give you" -- even though that is the more moral and the more American position. So you have the far more difficult task.

John Rosemond, who writes books on child rearing, says that the most important vitamin you can give to a child is Vitamin N, his term for the word "No." You have given America Vitamin N.

America needs it terribly because of another way in which God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness in human history: Every change for good must be constantly renewed, but changes for the worse are often permanent. Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over. That is why every American generation has to be inculcated with American values. But once the change for bad is made, it is close to irreversible. The Democratic attempt to vastly expand the state's power would likely be a permanent change for the worse in American life. When they're candid, they admit that the health care bill is their way to get to single-payer medicine and, more importantly, to a government takeover of another sixth of the American economy.

You have to know how important your work is, and how many of us know this.

Second theme: You are not fighting liberals. You are fighting the Left. Democrats were once liberals. But you are not fighting liberals any longer. You are fighting the Left. And as leftists, they do not like to confront reality, even if it means rewriting it.

I'll give you two examples.

This Jew battled to keep the cross in the Los Angeles County seal. Liberals and leftists in California fought to remove the smallest image -- a cross -- from the county seal. Through my radio show, on a day's notice, we gathered about a thousand people to demonstrate at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors when the board voted. The vote went along ideological lines: three liberals to two conservatives, to remove the cross.

I remember testifying before the supervisors and telling them, "You are rewriting our county's history. This county was founded by Christians. That's why there's a cross. Had it been founded by Wiccans, I would fight to keep a broom on the seal. But it wasn't founded by Wiccans. It was founded by Christians. That's why it's named "Los Angeles." It is not "Los Secularistos." If it were "Los Secularistos," I would expect an empty seal. But it is not empty. It was founded by Christians. It's not even a religious issue. You're rewriting my history. And it's frightening to see you do that."

The other example is what is now happening with Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Everybody knows why he was voted in. It was, after all, Scott "41" Brown. We all knew why he was elected. But if you read left-wing commentators, this history is being rewritten. They say it had nothing to do with opposing Obamacare. Nothing to do with it! In the Soviet Union, it took 10 years to write Trotsky out of the Russian Revolution. But this is a rewrite of history in one week! Scott "41" Brown's victory was not about opposing Obamacare.

In fact, the Left argues that the Massachusetts voters were for the health care bill, but simply "wanted to send a message" to Washington. I must say the voters of Massachusetts are not only not bright, they must be truly stupid if they are for Obamacare and send the man who will undo Obamacare as a protest on behalf of Obamacare. This is what we are told by the Left.

Third theme: Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through. Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.

I can give you an example from our side. There are many folks on our side who, if they could pass an amendment against abortion, would happily sacrifice both houses for a period of time. Understand that just as strongly as some are pro-life or religiously Christian or Jewish, that is how strongly many leftists believe in leftism. Leftism is a substitute religion. For the Left, the "health care" bill transcends politics. You are fighting people who will go down with the ship in order to transform this country to a leftist one. And an ever-expanding state is the Left's central credo.

And finally, theme four: I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple -- though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

And here's how we explain it: The bigger the government, the less I do for myself, for my family and for my community. That is why we Americans give more charity and devote more time to volunteering than Europeans do. The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?"

That is what happens when the state gets bigger -- you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God's image. The state is not in God's image, but it is vying to be that. This is the battle you're fighting. You are fighting a cosmic battle because this is the most important society ever devised, the United States of America.

You can easily forget the big picture -- how could you not? You're there every day, battling. You are in dense jungle -- excuse me, rainforest -- you are in a rainforest/jungle, fighting, and I am, because of the nature of my work, in a little helicopter above the jungle telling you what it is you are fighting. America really is the last, best hope of mankind.

That is how important I consider the fights that are going on now, especially with regard to the takeover of health care. How can they, with a serious face, tell us that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are going bankrupt, and therefore the solution is to take over more of health care? How does one say that with a straight face? How does one look a fellow American in the eye and say, "Yes, we have failed in almost every way that government has significantly intruded, and that's why we need more government intrusion"?

It is mind-boggling. But that is what has happened. People get smaller and pettier, as the government and state get bigger. That's what you are fighting. And that's why I came to tell you this is the proudest moment in my life as a Republican. Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Read more Dennis Prager here

Obama Administration Indends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service

ALERT! This is what happens when a totalitarian takes over. He wants total control, and will appoint only those he can manipulate, while firing all his non-believers. The hardest part of Barack Obama's day has to be walking away from the mirror in the morning.

It now appears there's a new discrimination category [may fall under the new Hate Crimes Bill]. If you are a conservative, you will not be fit for hire in this government. People, we are in a Marxist regime, and should be very very concerned.

The US Office of Personnel Management has just put out a memo, and in it states:

I believe we must hold ourselves and the government to a higher standard, one that honors and supports the President’s strong commitment to a Government that is transparent and open. OPM’s responsibility to uphold the merit system is not limited to Presidential election years nor to competitive service appointments. That is why I am instituting a change in OPM policy with respect to hiring political appointees for civil service jobs.

Erick Erickson of RedState reports:


Obama Administration Intends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service
Remember how the Democrats reacted when the Bush Administration started replacing U.S. Attorneys? At least they were actually political appointees employed at the will and whim of the President.
by Erick Erickson, November 12, 2009

Via Instapundit comes word that the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to purge the federal government of Republican civil servants all in the name of purify the federal bureaucracy.

You can read the OPM memo here.

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

Under his new rules, made retroactive for five years, the Office of Personnel Management will examine civil service employees who got their start as political appointees in the Bush administration and terminate those employees. The order is retroactive to 2004, that moment when a number of Republican congressional staffers and others sought to embed into the second Bush administration right after the election.

According to John Berry, the Director of OPM:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

The memorandum goes on to apply this change to civil servants who were political appointees in the last five years, in effect freezing these employees out of other positions, denying them promotions, and forcing them out of their jobs.

No one is allowed to stand in the way of Barack Obama’s agenda, including his own bureaucracy. This is what happens in third world kleptocracies and totalitarian regimes.

This is scary stuff.

Just for perspective: remember the Democrats threatened to throw Bush administration people in jail for firing United States Attorneys who happened to be Democrats. In that case, it was clear as crystal that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, these people are now civil service employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the President and cannot be fired just because they are Republicans. in fact, the law is very clear on that point.

MORE CONSERVATIVES, BUT NO REPUBLICANS

What better example could we ask for than Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat [after she backed out of the race] that the Republican party needs a complete overhaul? And there are more just like her, weakening the Republican party, who need to be voted out. Sour grapes, Dede!

John McHugh had no business deserting his post under the guise of a cabinet appointment, and he should have known better. He is either naive or has an ego as big as Obama, but he took the bait, leaving a critical congressional seat open to Obama's Chicago-style shenanigans.

We need a lot of work, but Gallup shows there is a ray of hope. PajamasMedia writes:

More Conservatives, But No Republicans
The Republican Party needs to redefine itself as conservative.
by B. Daniel Blatt, October 31, 2009

If every American self-described as conservative identified with the Republican Party, nearly half of all Americans would support the GOP — while barely one-quarter would back the Democrats. Yet while our political parties increasingly divide themselves along ideological lines, those lines are not always straight. Indeed, according to the latest Gallup poll, more than one in five (22 percent) Democrats describe themselves as conservative.

This poll, which found that conservatives remain the largest ideological group in America, is welcome news to those of us who believe America is a center-right nation, but sobering to those of us who identify with the GOP. According to Gallup:

Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate, and 20 percent as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

And this shift to the right has accelerated since the election of Barack Obama — ranked by National Journal in 2007 as the most liberal member of the United State Senate — along with increased, and more liberal, Democratic majorities in Congress. The poll shows clearly that their election has not succeeded in moving Americans leftward.

These numbers may show growing opposition to the president’s big-spending initiatives, but Gallup’s polling has also shown a public still wary of the GOP. According to its September poll on party identification, only 27 percent of Americans identify as Republicans, 35 percent as Democrats. Including those who lean toward one party or another, Gallup found that 42 percent of Americans favor the GOP and 48 percent favor the president’s party. Given that 27 percent of Republicans describe themselves as “moderate” or “liberal,” and assuming that percentage applies to the “leaners” as well as the identifiers, this suggests that as many as one in five conservatives neither support nor lean to the GOP.

Simply put, if Republicans wish to recapture their majorities, they need to figure out why so many conservatives continue to remain wary of the party considered the more conservative of the two. Indeed, Gallup found “the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year” has been the number of independents moving right:

The 35 percent of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29 percent in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are “conservative” has increased by one point each.

They’re moving right, but not moving (in any significant number) to the GOP. After eight years of a Republican president who did not hold the line on federal domestic spending, many Americans still don’t see the GOP as a fiscally conservative party. And it’s not just President George W. Bush. At least three successive Republican Congresses lost sight of the principles which helped the party, after a 40-year hiatus, regain its congressional majorities in 1994. That year, Republicans campaigned on their “Contract with America,” which included a pledge “to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.”

Gallup found increasing numbers of independents sharing a similar view, with 50 percent now believing government regulates too much, compared to 38 percent last year. (Among Republicans, the increase was similarly significant, to 70 percent from 56 percent.) And this isn’t the only issue where independents have moved to the right; they have become “more conservative on a number of specific policy issues.” They have shifted right on government and union power, the role of government relative to promoting values, gun laws, immigration, global warming, and abortion. Republicans, most of whom considered themselves ideologically conservative in 2008, have also grown more conservative on several of these issues this year, while less change is seen among Democrats.

These numbers accord with a poll Gallup conducted last month which found “a sharp increase” in the number of Americans believing “that government is taking on too much responsibility for solving the nation’s problems and is over-regulating business.” Their data showed that 57 percent of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals and 45 percent say there is too much government regulation of business. Both reflect the highest such readings in more than a decade.

The issues which animated the GOP during Reagan’s heyday and in the mid-1990s remain as relevant today as they were in the elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994. Indeed, the Democratic presidential nominee tapped into one such issue in his successful bid for the White House last fall, reminding voters in the third debate that “throughout this campaign” he had proposed “a net spending cut.”

His record in office tells a different story.

The GOP has not been nearly as successful this year in tapping into that idea as Obama was last fall or Republicans were for the better part of the last two decades of the twentieth century.

If the Gallup poll is to serve as anything more than an ideological portrait of the American electorate, Republican leaders in Washington — and across the nation — need to ask why independents are moving decidedly to the right but not moving in any significant numbers to the GOP. That said, these numbers do provide a glimmer of hope to those of us on the right who believe that a reaffirmation of the principles which animated the GOP under Ronald Reagan and in the 104th and 105th Congresses, as well as a recommitment to policies in line with those ideals, will restore the party to power.

To do that, Republicans should ignore the advice of pundits who say they should move left to survive. This latest Gallup poll shows instead that the party needs to move to the right. It won’t be enough, however, for Republicans to say they’ve learned the lesson from past electoral losses. They’re going to have to show how much they’ve learned. Adopting a new “Contract with America” would be a good start.

B. Daniel Blatt blogs at GayPatriot.

HEALTHCARE IS ALSO THE GOP'S WATERLOO

As Congress reconvenes after a tumultuous August break, most Americans are unsettled, knowing their future hangs in the balance. Republicans are especially concerned, as they feel a lack of representation from their elected officials. This is going to be a make or break year for these officials, as constituents watch with a hawk eye. The Republican party also hangs in the balance.

The following is an excellent op-ed from the Senate Conservatives Fund:


Healthcare Is Also the GOP's Waterloo
SCF, September 6, 2009

One of President Obama's early attempts to deflect attention away from his unpopular health care policy was to attack Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) for saying the debate would be Obama's "Waterloo."

Of course, now everyone agrees DeMint was right. Saying this debate is make-or-break for the president now is stating the obvious.

But one thing that may be overlooked is that the health care debate is also the GOP's Waterloo. Just as the president has everything to lose, so do Republicans.

Conservative activists across the country are energized like never before in their opposition to government health care. They expect Republicans to hold firm, and will turn on them if they don't. The GOP is already suffering from straying from its core conservative principles. If Republicans fail this critical test, the damage done to their brand could be irreparable.

Some Republicans -- especially in the Senate -- believe it is their duty to work with Democrats to "do something" on nearly every issue. Never mind the fact that this "something" is almost always harmful to Americans. And never mind that these same Republicans swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution, which repeatedly tells the Federal government what it cannot do rather than what it can do.

Infected by the "do something" disease, there is a very real chance that a few Republicans will be drawn into negotiations they cannot possibly win. Anything Republicans agree to will be twisted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and the most liberal President in modern times into something they don't even recognize a year or even months from now (see TARP).

President Obama is going to make the case Wednesday night that health care reform is the equivalent of putting a man on the moon and that both parties have a responsibility to come together to get it done. If Republicans fail to recognize that that is a debate where they cannot compromise, they could become a permanent minority party.

Conservatives are winning this debate and Republicans can make huge strides toward regaining the trust of the American people by fighting to stop the President's plan. Or they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and help the Democrats put America on a one-way trip into socialism.

The Party of Reagan can either stand on principle and make millions of Americans proud to be Republicans again. Or it can remind everyone why it is still unfit to lead. For Republicans as much as for the president, the stakes could not be higher.