The strategy should be pro-state rights

The Republicans lost badly in the 2004 and 2008 elections, handing the Democrats control of Congress and the White House. The likes of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dictate the legislative agenda, and a president with socialist ideology sits in the Oval Office. There was much soul searching post-elections, and even to this day some say that the Republican Party is still wandering the wilderness.

Blame Bush? Blame the media? Blame Sarah Palin? Blame disillusioned conservatives? Blame black voters? Blame young voters? Blame ACORN? Blame Iraq? ...

There's plenty of blame go go around. But as the saying goes, whenever you point a finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing at yourself.

Republican political strategists are pulling their hairs out trying to find the solution to a hard-to-define problem. Is it attracting more voters across all demographics? Or is it galvanizing the base? Or re-evaluating the overall Republican message? Or all of the above and then some...?

In light of President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget, nationalization policies, and bankrupting America, concerned citizens have spoken out on the Internet and at Tax Day Tea Parties. Although the mainstream media paints a picture of a rightwing, conservative only movement, that is not the case. Many Obama voters are showing remorse, but you're not going to see that on CNN or MSNBC. There has been many cases of such past Obama supporters calling into conservative talk shows voicing their regret for casting a ballot for Obama.

This is not about anti-Bush and pro-Obama anymore. As our financial and automobile industries crumble in front of our eyes and our neighbors lose their jobs and homes, Americans understand that we are in a time of crisis. The majority of citizens are looking for help, not handouts, but the federal government is forcing handouts down our throats whether we like it or not. The W.H. and Congress is sending money to states with strings attached, enslaving the cash-strapped states. Bank and automaker executives are getting handpicked by the administration. Favors are still shown to stubborn unions in the midst of the turmoil.

The root cause of this unprecedented expansion of the federal government is clear: the blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution by shameless politicians.

Therefore, there is a simple and coherent message the Republican Party can adopt: state rights. Review the Tenth Amendment again and study it carefully:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Washington today has lost sight of this important amendment to secure federalism principles. Congress has morphed into an unsightly assembly of ignorant, power-hungry politicians with only one thing in their minds: votes for re-election to stay in power. Laws are drafted and passed without respect to the Constitution. Think about it -- the federal government now has control over our labor, wages, retirement, education, drugs, firearms, and even entertainment!

But there seems to be hope and the tides are turning, beginning with Montana's law exempting federal jurisdiction over firearms manufactured and used within the state stamped with "Made In Montana." The law stipulates that because these firearms never leave Montana, it is not interstate commerce by nature and therefore free of federal rules. Certainly a logical and valid point, but it's sure to be tested in court. Montana has definitely made a splash about state rights, and other states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah are following suit.

Can you imagine if all 50 state legislatures pass a similar law? That would significantly limit the federal government's control of our right to bear arms and send a strong message to Washington that people are serious about the federal government meddling in their affairs.

The consequences will have profound effects and the potential to redefine the political landscape. State rights is a cause worthy of the Republican Party's attention. After all, to paraphrase President Reagan, government is the problem not the solution. The only solution is for the states to reign in Washington.

It is a concise message that people will understand. The federal government's powers are derived by the state and its people, not the other way around! Without the states there is no United States government. The Republicans need to work with all state legislatures to find kinks in this federal armor. Any Republican up for re-election needs to campaign on the message of state rights. Most voters only go to the polls once every four years to pick a president and don't quite understand how Washington works, but state politics hit closer to home and are easier to identify with. It is also a strategy that'll attract independent voters: let the state decide on the major issues instead of relying on Washington.

Will the Republicans embrace such a game plan? Is the party leadership still struggling to find footing? The great state of Montana and its people have already stepped up to face the challenge. The GOP should mobilize its resources to get more traction and preferably make a noise that the Obama administration and Congress cannot ignore.

Specter not doing so well as a Democrat

Sen. Alen Specter (D-PA) isn't doing very well as a new Democrat. Did Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promise him seniority upon departing the Republican Party? Well, it isn't happening! Specter's Democrat peers aren't granting him the seniority as he'd hoped for. Now he'll just be a senate junior Democrat, his influence greatly limited. His peers want to see how he performs in his 2010 re-election before giving him the perks.

It's becoming evident that Specter's career may not improve even with his jump to the Democrat Party. Had he remained a Republican to face Pat Toomey in the Republican primary for 2010, he'll likely lose but at least his he wouldn't have been seen as so self-serving. Now as a Democrat, he may still face an uphill battle as Republicans galvanize and gather resources to defeat him in Pennsylvania.

We'll know in 2010 whether this move becomes Specter's biggest career mistake.

Some Democrats already upset at Specter

After leaving the Republican Party, Sen. Arlen Specter may not find many friends yet among Senate Democrats. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a deal with Specter to allow him to carryover his seniority years to the new party, and that's upsetting some high ranking Democrats. You see, nobody likes the person who cuts in line. Worse yet, nobody likes the person who allows a line cutter!

Will Reid be able to hold the caucus together? My take is that Reid's leadership style is already unpopular among several Democrats, and they will be heard soon enough when more voting comes.

Don't over-analyze Specter's departure

Meghan McCain blogs about her disappointment upon Sen. Arlen Specter decision to jump ship to the Democrat Party. According to her:

Of course, this speaks to much larger problem in the GOP. We need to attract more centrist and progressive conservative voters at the primary level, so that level-headed candidates stand a chance. We need courageous Republicans more than ever. And this week, Sen. Specter turned his back. But he wasn’t the only one.

She then turns the attention to RNC Chair Michael Steele's statement on Specter's departure:

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let’s be honest—Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.

Sorry, Ms. McCain, but Steele is right on. There's no need to over-analyze the senator's decision to join the Democratic majority in Washington. Sen. Specter did it to save his career -- and there's nothing wrong with that, especially in this economy and political environment. What rubs conservatives and most Republicans the wrong way, however, is his insulting reasoning:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

His statement sounds principled, but don't be fooled: this man knew he doesn't stand a chance in his re-election bid in 2010 as a Republican. Not to mention the fact that he's been actively recruited by V.P. Joe Biden and the Democrats are showering favors on him for completing the 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate majority (after Al Franken is seated). President Obama promptly called him to welcome him and promised to help his re-election campaign. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has agreed to allow Specter to keep his seniority and therefore eligible to chair some important committees.

All this clearly shows Sen. Specter representing the constituency of himself.

Keeping score at the White House

President Obama to Rep. Peter DeFazio: "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

It's a subtle warning to the Congressman about his vote against the stimulus bill, and a reminder that this White House keeps tabs on such breaks with the administration.

Will this turn off some Democratic House and Senate members? When Obama was elected, both House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke out publicly that they do not work for the President, so I wonder if they are keeping score on the White House, too?

Enemy combatants coming to a neighborhood near you

Attorney General Eric Holder says to expect some suspected terrorists in your friendly neighborhood:

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Get that warm and fuzzy feeling about your government yet? I bet somewhere in Congress there's a Democrat thinking up a bill to provide government-subsidized foreclosed housing to these detainees, and wrap that in a fancy economic stimulus package.

Actually, I have no problem with this if these Gitmo detainees are released into the neighborhoods of Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Nationalized "green" power grid

Green technology is great. There's nothing wrong with harnessing wind and the sun to power our nation. I'm all for encouraging the private sector to do all that R&D and trade those kilowatts. But Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) wants a nationalized "green" power grid which the federal government dictates where to put it and how to pay for it.

The Democrats wants to ration health care. Now it wants to ration electricity?!

Are you starting to see the perils of this administration and the liberal Democrats? Wake. Up. NOW.

Reid says he has enough votes

These past few days we have seen more hot air come out of the Democratic Senate leadership than me after eating five cans of beans.

Okay, so you've got enough votes, Sen. Reid. So go pass your precious spending bill. Just remember, there will be a reckoning in the 2010 election.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

King Obama, monarch of United Kingdom of America

Even the Brits are noticing the inauguration events are looking more and more like a coronation of a king. Millions of dollars are being spent on Inauguration Day events, and this during a recession. All I can say is that there better not be a crown placed on his head when he's taking the oath of office.

Funny enough, King Obama may face some cold shoulders in his own royal court of Democrats. To his credit, many people think he really means it when he said he wants to change Washington, be bipartisan, reach across the aisle, etc. And yes, his selection of inauguration speakers, cabinet members and inner circle advisors have illustrated that. But the Democrats in Congress seems to be drunk on majority power already, their leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi publicly reminding folks that they don't work for the king. Minority Republicans may end up being Obama's closest allies in his first term. After all, the king needs friends to counter the influence of Reid and Pelosi.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard has some fears about Obama -- and rightly so, now that we've come to know PEBO a little better. My greatest fear is that the likes of Reid and Pelosi, with the help of the media which packaged Obama into a pop star, will decide that this president is their puppet and overstep their authorities.

Blago 1, Reid 0

Senate Democrats bows to public and caucus pressure to seat Blagojevich-appointed Roland Burris. Majority Leader Reid comes out looking like a fool.

Leggo my Blago

Okay, so I'm just trying to come up with a clever title than "Way to go, Blago"...

Evidently Roland Burris (D), Blagojevich's senate appointee, has a history of wrongfully convicting death sentences. Of course, that's not the reason the Democrats are going berserk over the appointment. They're going berserk because they'd warned Blagojevich not to proceed with an appointment. Worse yet, Burris is enjoying the media spotlight and gladly waits to be seated in the Senate amid Majority Leader Harry Reid's threat.

The Democrats have a hot potato in their hands with this one. The appointment is completely legal, and Burris stands to win if this goes to court. The best plan is to negotiate for Burris' promise not to run for re-election in 2010, but who knows, maybe Burris has greater political ambitions. One thing is for certain, Chicago-style politics is as flavorful as its pizza!

Sen. Reid starts campaign early

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is already interviewing campaign managers and raising funds for his 2010 re-election bid. Right now Republicans have no strong candidate to challenge him, but they'd definitely pour resources into this fight in an attempt to unseat Reid. Nevada voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but went Obama's way by 12 points in 2008. It's a state that has seen a good surge in Democratic voter registrations. If the Republicans want to put up a good fight, they'd better deploy field resources to increase registration and voter drive.

Lieberman to feel peer's wrath

Sen. Joe Lieberman may not stay a Democrat much longer. Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't very pleased with his high-profile speech at the RNC attacking Sen. Obama, so now he's wanting to kick him off the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Now that Reid leads a 55-Democrat (at least) seat senate, he has no more use for Lieberman. The Republicans will welcome Lieberman with open arms...

The day after...

So America and the world celebrate Obama's victory, another orderly and lawful power transition in the United States. Many heralded the end of racism in the country and proof that in America, you can reach your dreams no matter your skin color and background.

As of this posting Obama/Biden won 349 electoral votes vs. McCain/Palin's 163. Things started to look gloomy for MacCain last night when Ohio and Virginia turned blue. In popular votes, Obama/Biden captured 52% against McCain/Palin's 47%. Some would categorize this as a landslide win, but I beg to differ. Maybe in the Electoral College, but not among the population.

The result of the senate races did not give the Democrats a mandate, either. First, Harry Reid's hope of leading a filibuster-proof senate is dashed. The Democrats' plan to unseat minority leader Mitch McConnell also fizzled as he won re-election by a comfortable margin (53% against Lunsford's 47%). In the hotly contested Minnesota senate race, Republican Norm Coleman held a slim lead to win over Democrat and entertainer Al Franken. The race is still tight in Alaska where convicted Republican Ted Stevens holds the lead, but whether he is actually seated is still questionable; and in Georgia, incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss may have a run-off against Democrat Jim Martin if neither garner 50% of votes (Chambliss leads a slim margin right now). Overall it looks like Democrats will pick up five more senate seats.

There's a lot of talk about a change in the electoral landscape. Yet that isn't really the case. We still have a Red South, Red Midwest, and Red Prairie. With the exception of Virginia and North Carolina, the other battleground states have traditionally been toss-ups. The GOP needs to refocus on why support in the south has slipped. Although Georgia went for McCain/Palin overwhelmingly, it was troubling that the state became a toss-up in the latter weeks of the campaign.

What's worse than an Obama presidency?

Mona Charen paints a bleak picture of an "Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime." Riding on Obama's surging popularity and the worsening economy (by the way, notice the correlation), the Democrats are within reach a super-majority in Congress, having enough seats to be filibuster-proof. If that scenario comes true, then the country will be looking at some very liberal changes in government which will trickle down into society, affecting the lives of everyone.

Democrats want bigger government, and obviously to support that you'd require more taxes. How else can government fund nationalized healthcare? How else can government give credit for college education?

These points seem lost to Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post, who writes:

...the Reagan-Thatcher faith in unregulated capitalism, to which every GOP presidential candidate was pledging allegiance just last winter, has collapsed? The doctrine of laissez faire has been so dominant, so pervasive over the past three decades that hundreds of Democratic politicians can deliver a paean to the market at the drop of a hat, but not a single Republican pol can plausibly defend government as a check on capitalism run amok, even at the drop of thousands of points in the Dow.

The truth is that laissez faire works. The credit crisis that's going on occurred because of government intervention in the first place! The government interfered with free market principles by passing legislation which created a subprime mortgage market. Any bank in its right mind would never offer loans to people who cannot afford to pay back. Yet the government forced banks to lend to subprime borrowers, then created Fannie and Freddie to back those loans, and look what happened...

The issue is beyond nationalizing banks and injecting trillions into the economy. Mr. Meyerson fails to point out that government was the problem, and now government still is the problem.