The American Spectator

Louis Jenkins| 7.27.10 @ 8:12AM

Thank you Mr. Babbin for speaking some common sense. #1: Great. If we can get control of the House, and possibly the Senate, it can be done. #2: No amnesty. A good rule to live by. #3: Unfortunately, the war maybe lost with the latest "Leaks" that have hit the headlines. War by proxy is about the only thing left. At least you have a head about you.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 9:45AM

Deficits: Sorry, Republicans have no credibility on “slash[ing] government spending” or deficits, both expanded (exploded) during the Bush years.

Illegal Aliens: Sorry, no interest among wealthy Republican contributors, a source of cheap exploitable labor.

Wars: Sorry, nine years in Afghanistan, eight years in Iraq, approaching 6,000 deaths, trillions of dollars, Americans think it’s “time to come home.”

Hey, you “dumbasses” can keep “asking questions about [Obama’s] birth certificates.”

Helen Donnelly| 7.27.10 @ 9:54AM

Real class there. Thanks for confirming the level of your common courtesy.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 10:02AM

You’re welcome.

Dave| 7.27.10 @ 12:20PM

The idiot 20% have been reduced to trolling.

Great entertainment.

Bilwick| 7.27.10 @ 2:52PM

So is vtwin mad at the Republicans because they're not pro-freedom enough? Hey, welcome to the club, vtwin!

(Or is he just another State-fellator like Purpleguy?)

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 5:17PM

Just for yucks, would anybody like to discuss the topic of the post?

Aside from the Republicans' complete lack of credibility in the realms of fiscal conservatism and civil libertarianism, they also stand little if any chance of passing the agenda outlined above even if they did win a congressional majority.

The Republicans are, after all, the ones who set the standard that no Congressional majority party will pass anything without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and they stand no chance of getting that before people start seeing the benefits of the health care reform act. Then, it will be about as politically viable to take access to health care away from working people as it would be now to take Medicare away from retirees. So they can huff and puff, but they won't have the lungs to blow that house down.

The question is, if the Republicans can gain majorities in either or both houses, how long can they hold on to them without making any credible progress toward ... well ... reversing progress? Can they maintain majorities while alienating both the tiny majority which represents their base and the "big tent" coalition which elected Reagan at the same time – bearing in mind that it's impossible to appeal to both at the same time? Can they really gain and hold the majority by engaging in constant internal purges for ideological purity? Maybe. But just based on history, I wouldn't bet the farm.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 5:21PM

Correction:

The phrase "Can they maintain majorities while alienating both the tiny majority which represents their base and the "big tent" coalition which elected Reagan at the same time" should read:

"Can they maintain majorities while alienating both the tiny MINORITY which represents their base and the "big tent" coalition which elected Reagan at the same time"

Though I'm sure the intent was obvious enough given the context.

Michael Adams| 7.27.10 @ 6:10PM

I am a nurse, who deals with Medicaid (the government run health care that we already have)a great deal. I can see quite clearly that Obamacare has few "benefits". I read several versions of the bill, and saw the "death panels" provision. Of course they d0n't call them that. That's Sarah Palin's apt phrase. The bill does create a huge bureaucracy, including committees to decide what is an appropriate level of treatment for a given age and quality of life, and vastly increase taxes, on working people like me, who already had health insurance, like eighty five percent of the people in the country.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 7:07PM

So you don't see much benefit for you. Do you think think the 10s of millions of people who stand to gain access to health care in the next few years might have a different point of view?

How about the people who have had their insurance rescinded on technical grounds the moment they filed a claim, after paying premiums for years or even decades? Think they might have a different point of view?

"Death panels" are what we have now, every time a private insurance carrier denies treatment which could save a life. And of course, we also have rationing - based not on medical need or efficacy, but purely on the individual patient's ability - and/or their insurance carrier's willingness - to pay.

For now, I won't even get into deconstructing Palin's lie of the year.

MichaelAdams| 7.28.10 @ 1:32AM

Sigh. Rationing is not the same as market forces. It is some bureaucrat deciding how much is "your fair share." With rationing you can not legally buy what you need or want, even if you have the money.

The "tens of millions" figure was hype. When the people who elected not to buy insurance because they were young and invincible, and the illegal aliens, and the people who qualified for Medicaid but had not bothered to apply are subtracted, the number comes closer to fifteen million.

As for insurance companies dropping people for filing a claim, it did happen, and it is illegal, and there is an enforcement mechanism in every State in the Union. I have eaten, breathed and slept health care economics for thirty years, and it sorely tries my patience to hear slogans trotted out as facts. I heard the lugubrious tales of people kicked out of cancer treatment at MD Anderson because their insurance ran out. MD Anderson takes patients and whatever their insurance will pay. The State of Texas and dozens of oil millionaires have given that institution billions if dollars for research and for indigent care. Nobody in his right mind would think that MD Anderson would hold up treatment until a deposit was paid. And the Texas Constitution forbids their demanding a home as collateral for treatment, which means that they can not demand that a patient go take out a second mortgage to pay for treatment.
The nastiest of the Democrats have been caught on tape admitting that this bill is a step that will lead, eventually, to single payer health care. I can not imagine how uniting our various cumbersome bureaucracies is going to make them more efficient. No, do not tell me that they will eliminate overlap of services. Veterans Administration patients, if they do somehow also have Medicaid, use the services complementarily. The inefficiency is not in overlap. It lies in the waiting for people to act who are punished for failure but never rewarded for initiative.

Bureaucracy is not innovative. It has no incentive to be. The only innovations come from stirring up some political tempest in a tea pot. That's why we spend ten times as much per victim on AIDS research as we do on breast cancer. Politically engaged people used the venality of Congressmen to get the money appropriated.

And speaking of venality, Congress deliberately fed incorrect figures to the Congressional Budget Office to get them to say that the bill would be deficit neutral. Now that the monstrosity is passed, the real price tag is shown.

All the Congresscritters could say, all last summer, was how mystified they were that everyone, everywhere that they went, asked the same questions. (Must be some mighty Astroturf conspiracy.)Did they really think we were as lazy as they were, and had not read the bills? Of course we asked the same questions!

Oh, and here's another one, Barry the Communist runs off at the mouth about passing "Health Care Reform" over the objections of powerful insurance interests. The insurance companies lobbied in FAVOR of the bills.

I can not tell you how many ignorant people have written letters and comments about how the insurance companies must take their profits out of the premiums we pay. This ignorance is so appalling I have to stop and catch my breath every time I see or hear it. Insurance companies, whether for ships at sea or mortgages or health care, invest the premiums, and pay operating expenses and claims from the profits on those investments, and they've done so for four hundred years.

Peg C.| 7.28.10 @ 7:31AM

Michael Adams, YOU make more sense than all the Dems and most of the Republicans in and out of Congress. All true, all very cogent.

Michael Adams| 7.28.10 @ 8:39AM

Peg,
You are too kind. I am sure that Nicole is one of the young innocents who have fallen for the Demogogue party line. I earnestly try to be patient with these kids, because we all have to go over Fools' Hill, and gentleness will lead them over at, perhaps, somewhere other than the widest part. Nevertheless, hearing them spout the Party line, even after the facts and figures are starting to become more common knowledge, does get the old blood pressure up.

We had a couple of elderly friends to dinner last evening, whom I have known for a quarter century, plus a somewhat y0unger woman of only fourteen years' standing, and one of them said something about "Don't get Michael started on politics." I said naught, as always. Even when I break my resolve not to be sucked into a pointless discussion with people who watch MSNBC, I am pretty gentle about it. They just don't like to hear what I have to say.

Well, prayer may change them, and it certainly changes me, so I try to do more of it, and less of commentary.

scotchieguy| 7.27.10 @ 8:16PM

The only thing scarier than the repubs losing the midterms, is they win, and again stumble all over themselves trying to prove their true status as RINOS. The dems are counting on this, and in fact are probably laughing at the prospect. You think Obama gives a damn about losing Pelosi or Reid or any of these other useful idiots? He will wet his pants laughing all the way to an easy second term. It is the "ruling class" that counts here for the RINOS--it is a very important club to join, so don't think for a moment they are going to do anything that actually will reverse what has happened to us in the last eighteen months.

Hmmm...| 7.27.10 @ 8:35PM

What might be even scarier is if the] non "RINO" Republicans get elected, then discover they can't get anything done without the compromise they ran against. That's when they'll decide to spend the next two years following Michelle Bachman's formula of constant investigation for the sake of political vendetta in lieu of actually doing the people's business.

Of course, the last time they gained the majority they proved to be sore winners, when they also had the white house. So we can expect little else. And once again, the pseudo-insurgents will become a government, and as with all governments borne of insurgency - real or fraudulent - they will become what they had opposed. Only every time the party of "fiscal conservatism" wins, they set out to prove themselves more profligate with the people's money than the biggest "tax and spend liberals" ever dreamed of being.

Peg C.| 7.28.10 @ 7:33AM

You're a Moby or you're a lefty. Or you're a Ronulan. One thing is for certain: you are NOT a conservative. You loathe your country and you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Bilwick| 7.28.10 @ 8:05AM

So is Nicole another one of these State-fellators?

Eric Cartman| 7.27.10 @ 12:29PM

Helen, this is vtwin's way - BTW, what kind of stupid screen name is vtwin?! You can see the thought process behind this: " I know, I'll call myself vtwin, like the motor! Like, it's power, man! Like a vtwin boat motor in a speed boat! Yeah! They'll think I have a racing boat, man! That's so cool! I'm cool!" Really, he's a skinny, 20ish , pimply face vegan, Rasta wann-a-be LOL. Probably lives in an Ann Arbor basement of a Co-op - "Man, gunna bong-up at the Hash Bash, man!" - anyway, this is this punk just repeating what he learned to repeat during the "Pimply Faced, Pantie-Wearing Wussie Boys" convention Vegas - I'm sorry, The Netroots Convention - mean of me to point out their personal traits.

David Williams| 7.27.10 @ 1:38PM

My take on this guy is that he is really a puny Smart Car type who has motorcycle engine wet dreams.

Alan Brooks| 7.27.10 @ 1:00PM

"I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

Whites DO think: "we can have at blackie, but he can't get at us.",
and blacks know it, they aren't stupid. They now know that whites want the state to help their families, but not others.

ds80| 7.27.10 @ 1:37PM

Yet another racist remark. You could change your moniker to Robert Byrd (D), Eric Holder (D), Bull Connor (D), Hugo Black (D), George Wallace (D), Ernest Hollings (D), J. William Fulbright (D), Richard Russell (D), ...

I am white but I do not think "we can have at blackie, but he can't get at us". However it is true that Alan Brooks thinks, "we can have at blackie, but he can't get at us."

Do you see how stupid your claim is?

Probably not.

Alan Brooks| 7.28.10 @ 2:09PM

"I am white but I do not think we can have at blackie, but he can't get at us' "

Then you aren't as rightwing as you think you are. But as for the piece, although it is technically correct that people with nothing to gain are being asked to subsidize other people who have more to gain, that is very common. Defense is people with little to gain militarily subsidizing those who have everything-- which is acceptable, as Communism has failed and equality is finished.

Alan Brooks| 7.28.10 @ 2:17PM

... you can't get it that the rightwing as a whole is not about Kumbaya and healthfood, gender and racial equity? don't you know that such is the very reason the leftwing exists, that otherwise there would be no reason for progressivism as a foil? what sort of world do you think this is?

So whose claim is stupider, yours or mine?

Chalkdust| 7.27.10 @ 1:30PM

Let me add my thanks Mr. Babbin for a great piece of writing that could stand as a Republican Party manifesto on it's own accord. I do however have one little nit to pick. I believe it's way to early for the Republican party to pick a party leader to coronate. Let the pot continue to bubble and the contenders fight it out until Iowa. Meanwhile if the RNC could re-state your article without stepping on it's dobber, it would be helpful.

scotchieguy| 7.27.10 @ 7:56PM

"I believe it's way to early..." You mean "way too early?" What are you in second grade? How can you butcher the english language, then expect anyone to consider the merits of your argument? It's truly amazing how many high school drop-outs comment on this site.

WRTolkas| 7.27.10 @ 8:17AM

Dear Mr. Babbin,

Can you HAND Deliver a copy of this editorial to Mr. Steele and stand there while Mr. Steele reads this? He might have questions.

Added note: When too many in the choir decide to be the lead singer, the entire melody sounds off key. For Heaven's sake, don't let this happen in November.

Regards,
WRTolkas

Stephanie| 7.27.10 @ 1:14PM

WR, why don't we ALL email it to Mr. Steele? Lord, when does the RNC get a replacement?

MichaelAdams| 7.27.10 @ 6:25PM

I have not spoken to Mr. Steele in a couple of years. People tell me that his fire has gone out since he lost the Governor's race in Maryland. That's a real shame, because he's a pretty sharp guy, and a very nice one, too. Republican National Committee Chairmen are supposed to be the fund-raisers, and Mr. Steele would be the obvious choice for such a job, in more normal times. We don't normally look to the Chairman to "lead the Party" or be the Party point man. Howard Dean is sort of that, or their lightening rod, and more power to him, in that role. OK. Yes, I know, that was not nice. For penance, I am going to eat some ice cream, really fast. It might give me a headache, but if it does not, well, I did try.

Farley| 7.27.10 @ 8:10PM

WRTolkas,
Love the comment (and the article, Mr. Babbin) but the truth is without a coherent message and a messenger as Newt so deftly provided in 1994, we do not have the same power at the polls. And we need power at the polls like never before.

Sincerely,
Farley

Faffnir| 7.27.10 @ 8:18AM

I concur with your analysis, but where are the leaders? As anyone with military experience can attest, growing leaders is a long and arduos process. The Republican party has significantly failed in this process. What leadership is available is, as you say, focused on "Inside-the-Beltway" gamesmanship. This is absolutely NOT what is needed. Somehow the message must be got across that the size of the federal government MUST be slashed, and oxes WILL be gored in the process. The Republican party must put forward, at all levels, people comitted to shrinking the size of the deadweight that is government. We must take every federal department and subject it to the same cost-cutting scrutiny that small businesses use every day to survive. Eliminate all the duplication and waste. Every office must either justify it's continued survival, on a provable bang-for-the-buck basis or be terminated. What politician is going to vote for such a thing? His power accrues from how much he spends. This attitude MUST be ruthlessly eliminated acrosss all levels of government.
This problem has been brewing since Teddy Roosevelt, was exacerbated by Wilson and turned into a full-blown cancer by Franklin Roosevelt. Republicans had the opportunity to reverse much of it under Eisenhower, but they had not the courage. Gingrich should have done more, but he blinked when confronted by Clinton and the left-wing mad dogs of the press.
We have an ever-narrowing window of opportunity to do what Republicans have said they were going to do: starve the beast that is government. We must make the case, strongly and continuously, of how the monster of bureaucracy is strangling our economy.
We have one final opportunity to kill the beast before it kills us. I can see no-one who is capable of proclaiming that message and leading the charge.

Farley| 7.27.10 @ 8:15PM

Faffnir,

You have the picture, Faffnir. Why don't you run for office?

Sincerely,

Farley

R Martin| 7.27.10 @ 8:29AM

"Barry is a redistributionist Robespierre minus the funny hat, and Americans don't want to be bankrupt personally or nationally."

How about a fourth rule: Earn your own d*** money. This redistributionist philosophy Obama holds so dear has bothered me since he muttered it to Joe the Plumber. Aren't we already up to our eyeballs in redistribution? How much is enough? It is clear the Democrats see no upper limit to redistribution, and I suspect Republicans could exploit that weakness. That is, if they had a leader who could figure out how to do it without being branded...heartless.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.27.10 @ 8:41AM

Jed,
Thanks for that.

I think a whooooole lot of Republican establishment critters are very quietly holding a wetted finger in the wind right now. (Uh, that's how someone can figure out which way the wind is blowing. The side of the finger that cools first is where the wind is coming from. Golfers take note. throwing grass in the air gets caught in the wind eddies around one's body....no clear signal.)

VOTE PRIMARIES, FOLKS, VOTE PRIMARIES! VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVE CHALLENGERS!

A strong showing even in losses will cool some fingers on the correct side. Self preservation will handle the rest.

Petronius| 7.27.10 @ 9:01AM

More wasted ink. Item #1 should be enemy identification. Well the enemy the GOP has chosen is that of the other party; US. A pox on both their houses. This will only end badly when the Federal Sow perishes after consuming what we have left.

Joe D.| 7.27.10 @ 9:01AM

Well said Mr. Babbin!

Eric Cartman| 7.27.10 @ 9:16AM

Not to be a picker of nits, but the sentence two-decade old video clip which showed her apparently celebrating discrimination against a white farmer. is not correct. The clip is from an NAACP hootenanny where Sherrod told of a two-decade old incident where she withheld her "full power" of assistance because the farmer was white and then "took him to his own kind" (meaning someone white) to get assistance. All the "non-racist" blacks in attendance at the hootenanny laughed and "ah-huhed" as she told it. The clip wasn't two-decades old. Just sayin'.

South Texan| 7.27.10 @ 11:50AM

Thank you Eric. I have read so many ridiculous comments about the Sherrod thing and I didn't reply becuase I wasn't sure of the facts. You got it exactly right. Mr. Babbin has a good 'to do' list. I don't think it will get done right. No matter what some conservatives think about the Afghan war, we can't afford it. We need to pull out now while our economy hasn't completely collapsed. We would then have plenty of military to close the border before the open border causes our demise.

Stephanie| 7.27.10 @ 1:18PM

Ahh, the best was Chris Wallace bitch slappin' Howard Dean while he was blasting FOX News as the RAAAAAACISSTTTTT news network. Dean is such a has been and Wallace put him in his place.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 9:16AM

I think stealy mike is nothing more than an affirmative action hire. If not for his complexion, he’d not have his current gig. The respubly-kons need to replace him with somebody more interested in restoring OUR country to The Founders’ blueprint than in padding his bank account. Folks like Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, or if an inside-the-beltway personality is desired, Michelle Bachmann. If Jeb Bush comes calling tell him thanks but no thanks. A third Bush is more than even this free market conservative can stomach. I don’t care if his election would be historic. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the 1871 Chicago Fire, this year’s earthquake in Haiti, the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, the incompetent won’s 2008 ascendancy were all historic. All are also disasters, though the book is still open as to which will prove the most costly and devastating. Every President has been historic even William Henry Harrison. I don’t need historic. I need somebody more interested in restoring OUR country to The Founders’ blueprint and in honoring his oath of office. I hope that there are enough voters this year and in 2012 to change OUR country to Ronald Reagan’s vision of “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." I don’t want to live in obummer’s kommie workers’ paradise.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” - Ronald Reagan
Only 908 days to go.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 9:58AM

“If Jeb Bush comes calling tell him thanks but no thanks. A third Bush is more than even this free market conservative can stomach.”

Hear, hear!

John Navratil| 7.27.10 @ 10:32AM

I have to agree, but it is a shame that Jeb appears to be the most conservative of the sons.

Dave| 7.27.10 @ 12:22PM

Jeb Bush is just another amnesty shill.

No way, no how.

Eric Cartman| 7.27.10 @ 12:36PM

Never - and I mean NEVER - vote another Bush in, period! They need to get out of the political business all together. Bush the First couldn't seem to grasp what Reagan left him. Bush the Second - well, where do I start: "No Child Left Un-Annoyed", Amnesty, Flubbing the wars, expand Medicare, TARP. etc., etc. As some Lefty ahole said, "get out of da Bushes!"

John Navratil| 7.27.10 @ 2:21PM

Assuming that there are 12 million here illegally. What do you propose to do? The economic impact of shipping them home will not be inconsequential. I'm all for reducing the size of government and, while Mr. Babbin didn't explicitly say so, that necessarily involves reducing the ability of Peter to draw from Paul - a reduction of entitlements. If that alters the dynamic so that some illegals voluntarily return home, I have no problem. If, as many say, illegals are a drain on the economy through entitlement programs, then removing the entitlements will stop the drain.

Notice that the number of crossings has dropped because the economic draw isn't as strong as in recent years. Two or three years ago, we had what, economically speaking, was full employment. It was hard to argue then that illegals were taking "American" jobs. Today the point can be made, but what this argument leads to is protectionism. If those working so hard to keep illegal immigrants from working in America were working just as hard to keep from outsourcing jobs to overseas locations, I could see some consistency in the argument. Even so, I would disagree with the protectionism.

Painting in a broad brush and knowing that this doesn't cover the edges, the reason we have unskilled immigrant labor is that we haven't figured out how to outsource our lawn maintenance and roofing.

I presume no one has any difficulty with the illegal PhD from Oxford working as a consultant in the U.S.

Comparing the political aspects of immigration with the physical implementation of border controls I observe that a closed border is not necessarily secure, not is an open immigration policy necessarily insecure. If Jose the drywall contractor can walk legally across the border (policy) he will not swim the river (security). Anyone swimming the river is suspicious.

In my opinion, there are three aspects to the immigration question which must be addressed: Security, Culture and Economics. Nigel, the Phd from Oxford working for G.E. is valued on all three counts. Mohammed with a bomb vest is a threat to all three. Jose is a "tweener". Could we, at least, have an immigration policy which lets Nigel in. We don't!

I, Pencil| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

"The economic impact of shipping them home will not be inconsequential"

Says who? "Inconsequential" is a relative term. The "shipping them home" cost will be miniscule compared to the lifelong entitlement costs.

Here's where Libs just don't get economics: Tarp money to keep teachers working--a one-year slug of cash borrowed over 3-5 years+ (depending on the Treasuries issued to pay for stimulus).

Cost of getting an illegal that no American citizen would sponsor (that's right I'm assuming we go back to the old pre-Teddy Kennedy rules of immigrants having to have a sponsor to get into the country) home: a one-time cost that saves money for generations.

Which makes more economic sense to you?

John Navratil| 7.27.10 @ 6:11PM

If you could push a button and make that 4% of the population disappear, would you do it? What would happen to rental incomes? They don't live under a bridge. And unless they did live under a bridge, they are paying taxes on every purchase they make. They are paying property taxes on their domicile (owned or rented). Federal taxes on the gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol they purchase. If they are small enough to be in the "cash economy" they will not pay federal income taxes as one-half the currently employed do not; no loss there. If they are working under false papers, they pay payroll taxes to a Social Security Administration which will pay them nothing. That's my argument for "not inconsequential".

Studies over the years disagree as to whether the illegal workforce is a net drain or a net asset. The first one I read to say they were a drain was by Don Huddle at Rice University probably thirty years ago. Ever since, I've read studies that argue each position.

As I said in my first post, reduce the entitlements and this argument goes away. I'm all for that... for everybody. If you don't like the fish you are catching, change your bait.

As to your comparison of a teacher with an illegal that no one will sponsor... an unfortunate comparison as I happen to think public education is what public healthcare will become. A full-employment program for unionized teachers which will continue, as it has since I was in grade school studying "new math" to produce an every decreasing quality at every increasing costs. Put that way, I'll take Jose the drywall hanger any day. That said and re-reading your question to say a generic unemployed, but otherwise productive, employee receiving two years of unemployment benefits, I'll answer the question by comparing two years of unemployment insurance ($300/wk = $30,000 - roughly) against an expected working life of 40 to 45 years. It's a lot of money to keep people from re-inventing themselves to better suit the market. Does Jose cost $30,000. Does he have to? Write the laws so he doesn't! Problem solved! Either Jose can make it here or he cannot. I suspect he will.

No onto Nigel the PhD. Were does he fit in? Does it make sense to bring young people into our best Universities, grant them degrees and then tell them to go home, they cannot stay? This is sheer idiocy. We want the best and the brightest to come here and contribute, but this broken system says no! The argument focuses on the simple.

Now, suppose Jose is living and working in your town and paying his way? He's just a work-a-day guy trying to do what's best for his family. Can he stay? Why not?

Finally, do we really care if Jose if legal or not if he is a drug trafficker (another prohibition, but for another day) or cop killer. No! We treat him just as we would if he were a citizen.

BTW, how does 'I, pencil' - a brilliant essay - fit in here?

poco| 7.29.10 @ 2:45AM

Don't need to spend the money to send them home. If we prosecute employers for hiring them and give employers reason and abliity to check credentials they will leave themselves. Nuf said.

Grzmlyk| 7.27.10 @ 5:19PM

Won't have to ship illegals home. As you point out below, many will leave of their own volition.

And if the economy ever picks up again, they'll swarm over again. Illegal immigration good for liberal polticians, good for balkanizing victim-fetishists and good for big business. Bad for America.

Anyway - Saying ANY Bush is conservative is like saying Charles Manson is a model citizen. God damnit do not fall for "compassionate conservativsm" a third time!!!!!

It's heartening to see many on this site see through Jeb's faux conservatism. Were he to be elected, the moment after he took the oath of office, he'd take a 90-degree left-hand turn. The Bush family all believe in the nanny state.

NEVER ANOTHER BUSH!!!!!

Leo| 7.27.10 @ 9:31AM

Again and again, I see one issue that is in the hearts and minds of most Americans (certainly those inspired to take to the streets) left out of the enumerated objectives.
We need politician reform. Campaign finance is how that's been coined and is the wrong approach - there's nothing wrong with contributions and EVERYTHING wrong with what scumbag pols will do for them. Let's regulate what the problem is: the policitians. A system that identifies contributions from any entity that cannot vote as a consituent as a conflict of interest and forces recusal from votes when that conflict is there, along with remedies that include both dismissal from office and long terms in prison come immediately to mind.
Let's reform DC the right way, with the rule of law that protects the voters rather than the politicians.

Dan Hirsch| 7.27.10 @ 9:43AM

There are two political faiths in this country:

Belief in bigger government, which is socialism. It can be nothing else, the government can only take and give money; it cannot make or create it. Government tends to socialism relentlessly, unstoppably. Look at the last 120 years.

Or belief in individual responsibility, personal freedom, and individual risk. This is the founding doctrine of this country.

The Democrats and RINO's are implicit believers in the socialist doctrine, their differences are mainly of how fast we should go there.

The Tea Party is the Constitutionalist belief. They are the nascent reaffirmation of our founding principles.

In twenty years, the Democrats and RINO's will have coalesced into a single party; the Tea Party will be the opposition, where the conservative Republicans had better find a home. If not, we will be surrender-monkey French socialists in a country that dances to the tune of the Chinese.

Concerned Americans will take the 2010 mid-term elections as a waypoint, a rest stop, to a national Constitutionalist party. Democrats are happy to have Olympia Snowe and her RINO ilk as voting allies, Tea Partiers would be foolish to refuse themselves erstwhile, yet electable RINO allies, FOR NOW! We can vote them out later.

First, let's get the Democratic boots "off of our throats!" this November.

No Democrats win! None, not any, not one, NONE!

Work, talk, donate, walk, campaign, register, vote for the most constitutional candidates you can find. And ask everyone why they don't love and follow our Constitution!

Sure it's old, but the Bible, New and Old Testaments are ten times older.

Nolite conculare me!

poco| 7.29.10 @ 2:52AM

I would like to see every incumbant with the possible exception of Ryan from Wisc. deselected in the primaries this season. If we vote for 'the other guy' that would send a very powerful message and throw the balance of power into a tailspin.
Not holding out much hope, however. Too much koolade out there and loads of thirsty fools.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.27.10 @ 10:04AM

Dan Hirch,

Very well reasoned, sir. Thank you.

davelnaf| 7.27.10 @ 10:09AM

Thank you, Mr. Robbins, good article. Many Americans agree with you.

Republicans will nominate a good candidate two years from now (the Republican Party bottomed out with Bush). But there is the sense, even this early on, that he or she might not be an obvious knock out of the ballpark.

There should be some way to bring the younger House Republicans onto the national stage a little sooner. This effort might help guarantee the defeat of Obama’s legacy.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 10:23AM

I'd like to add Mike Pence to Mr. Babbin's list of Cantor, Ryan, & McCarthy. Ms. Bachmann, as Gil points out, is also a current contender. In a perfect world, I'd love to see a Pence/Jindal or Pence/Cantor ticket, but I've heard that he's (Pence) not interested in running just yet.

As for the illegal immigration problem, I also agree that the border needs to be shut. This isn't to say that I oppose immigration. I just would like to see all future citizens of this country go through the same process that my, & most everyone else's, ancestors went through. Add this to the fact that, as Mr. Babbin mentioned, there is already Hezbollah in Mexico, & you couldn't ask for a better reason to restrict border crossing.

When thinking about Hezbollah down there, a few things come to mind. The first being the plots of 2 books written by men with more credebility than the entire Obama national security apparatus. Both Tom Clancy & Vince Flynn have written books in which terrorists infiltrate through the southern border to wreak havoc on the US. In Clancy's book, "Teeth of the Tiger," they (the bad guys) split into groups, scatter across the country, & proceed to hose down shopping malls full of civilians. In Vince Flynn's book, the title of which escapes me now, the bad guys infiltrate into DC, blow up DC landmarks, kill first responders to those explosions, then proceed to storm the National Counter-terrorism Center.

Now these are both works of fiction, but both are MORE than plausible. Add to this equation the coco communists like Chavez & Morales who would be ALL TO HAPPY to support Hezbollah with sanctuary, money, & arms, & you have a DEADLY equation for this country. Does the term "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything in this country anymore?

As for the poorly run war in Afghanistan, we should remember the words of one of the greatest warriors of all time:

"Do nothing which is of no use."...Musashi

The way Obama is running this war, is seems like almost everything we're doing over there is of no use now. If we were to untie the hands of our troops, maybe we could win. But hey, silly me, this country hasn't been in the biz of winning wars since WWII. And eventually, not taking care of these pukes when we had the chance will come back & bite us. Bet on it.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 10:37AM

“If we were to untie the hands of our troops, maybe we could win.”

Not enough bloodshed for you?

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 10:47AM

Hey genius, lemme explain it to you. If we can kill more of the bad guys than they can of us, we win. When we win, we can stop fighting. We can also eliminate a place from which terrorists can stage attacks.

Also, why don't you ask the jihadis you so sympathize with to stop using the populace as human shields. Call me crazy, but when the bad guys purposely hide amongst the populace, that is a problem. But what are we supposed to do? Not shoot back while they shoot from behind women & children? Get a clue.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 12:04PM

WIN in Afghanistan? Given, that the Afghans are defending their country, village, family, or way of life, as Afghans have been doing for centuries, against a perceived foreign invaders, a WIN is unlikely. No, I think the Bush/Obama war in is about over Afghanistan.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 12:06PM

Sorry, is about over in Afghanistan.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 12:30PM

You're correct in one sense. "Winning" in that hellhole isn't the same as the Japanese on the deck of the Missouri. But victory can be achieved by denying Al Qeada & their supporters a base & buffer from which to operate.

Then again, like I stated before, if we still fought wars like we did in WWII, I doubt that there'd be too much of a problem in "winning." Look at it this way.

We know the Japanese would never have surrendered. They were suicidally fanatic about dying for the Emperor. The Emperor was their god. Like the Muslims of today, "surrender" was NOT in the Japanese lexicon. In Japan, like in jihadi circles, the greatest honor can be to die for the Emperor. Add to that the Japanese believed that surrender not only brought shame on the individual & was a sin against the Emperor, but was also a sin against all of one's ancestors.

To combat an enemy like this, we firebombed the living hell out of Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto and other cities (we did this in Germany too). And these raids were not specifically targeted at military installations or industrial targets. We incinerated whole blocks of cities. Just as the Japanese would, had they the capability.

The point being is that yes, war is indeed horrid. People do unthinkable things. And that's why we do a dis-service to our fighting men when we conduct half wars & police actions. Decisive action is what's needed to win a war. And what Obama's doing in Afghanistan is certainlly NOT decisive.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 2:58PM

The United States is not going to “firebomb” the peasant villages in Afghanistan.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 3:07PM

More's the pity. There'd be less places for the jihadi schmucks to hide & less people to support them.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 3:19PM

"May God have mercy on your soul."

Dan Hirsch| 7.27.10 @ 7:03PM

Hopefully mine, too, VTwin.

However you seem to miss the point that the jihadhis feel that anyone who fails to embrace their faith is fair game for annihilation and extermination. Kind of like Hitler did to the Jews, gays, Poles, Slavs, anybody he didn't particularly care for.

There is no other "faith" on the planet that condones the slaughter of innocents whose only crime is failure to convert. Those who support that belief will never "coexist."

Navy Brat accurately portrays the evil of war.

Wanna never fight another war? It's easy, really. Become the biggest dog on the planet, act slightly crazy and unpredictable and no one, NO ONE will mess with you. No more wars for us.

Ever notice how President Reagan had very little foreign aggression to respond to. The Iranians folded before he could get his hands on the football. The Russkies only dared subterfuge on the little spit of land called Grenada.

Under the Apologist in Chief, we've got the Norks, the Iranians, the Al Qaeda clan, Chavez, the French, Germans, the Mexicans telling us to pound sand.

Time for a little good ol' fashioned swagger.

Nolite me conculcare!

Farley| 7.27.10 @ 8:32PM

Police action abroad is similar in success to police action at home - a stand off. Crime, murders, rapes, burglaries abound still, yet we are paying salaries to trained police to protect us from that. If you want the killing to stop, you have to fight as in war - to win.

poco| 7.29.10 @ 3:31AM

Ahem, the police are trained to write reports on crimes that have already happened. The do not protect you from anything. They show up, in most cases, after the fact. Then they write the report. I know, I used to do that job.
If you want protection promote concealed carry laws in your state, then get and learn how to use a loaded gun. That, my friend, is protection.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 2:15PM

I could be wrong but as I recall when Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, the folks within its walls were “defending their country, village, family, or way of life,” as were the Thebans destroyed by Alexander the Great. More recently, even though most of the battles during the Civil War were below the Mason - Dixon line, somehow the Union forces managed to prevail.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” - Joshua 6:21
Only 908 days to go.

vtwin| 7.27.10 @ 2:55PM

What about the American Revolution, the Vietnam War, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Israelis in Lebanon..?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 5:50PM

What about them? You made a statement that because a war in which one side is defending its country, village, family, or way of life, a WIN is unlikely. By providing three examples where a win was achieved by the invaders, since all that is needed to prove your statement wrong is one contrary example, I have exposed your blather for what it is. Here’s another: The American Indian wars of the 19th century. And maybe I’m mistaken but didn’t the Allies have to take World War II into Italy and Germany before achieving victory. Only the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept an invasion of Honshu from being needed. Oops. I almost used Good Guys to describe the Allies, but changed my mind when it occurred to me that term might confuse you in that context.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“As history since Hiroshima shows, the best, perhaps the only, way to curb war is to deter it with such overwhelming force as to turn it from a struggle into suicide.” - Martin van Creveld
Only 908 days to go.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 10:53AM

To put a finer point on it:

You obviously don't think we should WIN wars anymore. I'll bet you think dropping the bomb on Japan was about the most evil act ever perpetrated by man & would rather have seen 600,000 MORE casualties to take the Japanese home islands. People like you are amusing.

Louis Jenkins| 7.27.10 @ 12:13PM

Dear Navy Brat:

I want our team to win. Just don't see it, not now that the information dump has been made. The Pakistanis made a deal, and then stabbed us in the back. Should have known better than to trust a rag head, but Bush made deals and we've got to live with them. And yes, our boys could win a war, any war, if they're turned loose on the enemy instead of giving them 'prompt' cards to read.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 12:37PM

Mr. Jenkins.

Yeah, that document dump is really a game changer. Pakistan is a quandry. We can't risk that country going to hell though, because of their nukes. So what to do?

While I think that any attempt to send Delta & the SEALs covertly into Waziristan would be the "surgical" way of excising the Al Qaeda/Taliban cancer from that safe haven, that's all over now. Those missions were DEFINATELY being run, but now they won't be. Or they won't be as effective. Agents of ours will start disappearing, people who were GONNA cooperate with us won't now, since we can't keep secrets. Its a real debacle.

poco| 7.29.10 @ 2:55AM

Not enough of the right blood shed.

John Navratil| 7.27.10 @ 10:24AM

With Rule #1 you solve the welfare incentive part of Rule #2. To implement Rule #2 you will need to get a visa program in place to allow legal immigration. The grant myth is there is a line. If John Stossel is to be believed it takes, on average, 131 years wait for legal immigration from Mexico. Better bring a snack.

I'll wager that when all the baby-boomers are retired and expecting that Social Security check, either the payroll tax will get so high that jobs will leave or we will be begging for immigration. The time to define a rational visa program which recognizes the needs of this nation is at hand. But...

It begins by securing the border.

Jeremiah| 7.27.10 @ 10:38AM

Good points, Mr. Babbin, but I really don't see how insulting the reach of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Paul Ryan helps advance these points. No one is more suspicious of the Republican leadership than I am. I believe at least 70 percent of them merely aspire to run the mechanisms the ruling class has imposed on us.

However, you sem to have imbedded in your comments a contempt for any aspiring leadership at all. You certainly know that any historical mass movement that does not develop leaders degenerates into mass chaos, usually with bloodshed on the way.

To direct anger at the ruling class wannbes in our ranks makes sense to me. To express undifferentiated anger at any who try to rise to leadership is a formula for collapse.

Palin has done a brilliant job of focusing people on what the problem is with ruling class solutions in very plain, blunt language (i.e. death panels - there never has been a national helath care system anywhere without death panels - and they are getting a lot deadlier in England). Paul Ryan has done a marvelous job of demonstrating why you can't just tinker around the edges of Obamanomics - it has to be fundamentally refudiated (I like Sarah's new word). Newt, I'll cut you some slack on. He does come up with two brilliant ideas before breakfast each morning - and promptly follows up with an idea so dumb even a liberal wouldn't fall for it.

The point is no leader can emerge if people are going to treat anyone who aspires to leadership to contempt. Perhaps I have misread your intention here.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.27.10 @ 11:11AM

Americans are not as dumb as the political class would prefer and that is the issue facing both parties this year. The Tea Party represents the true threat the political class has been fearing for decades: an outsider third-party capable of attracting enough support so as to break the hammerlock that liberal-progressives in both parties have counted on to continue the grand game of voting themselves gifts from our treasury.

Americans are finally realizing that the brand (Republican or Democrat) is no longer important, only the results of the policies. Half of Americans think socialism is okay, yet those who have been able to live under it have nothing but woe to report of their experiences. We also know that reducing spending is like giving cigarettes to smokers and telling them to quit, the outcome is not likely. We know that lowering taxes increases growth, but we also know that no taxes at all would be a better solution - especially since taxation cannot pay for our costs of government. We are quickly realizing that we are being played by both parties and that our only salvation will be a third-party that will eliminate the ruling class' ability to govern by using our third-party political office holders to block the legislation of both. We know that we can only reduce government spending by shutting down the government as both parties feel compelled to spend money no matter what, so the idea of shutting down the government is appealing because it reduces the chances of government going shopping. Sooner or later Americans are going to come to the conclusion that the entire structure of the system will have to change or we must face the specter of the society coming to an end. This is what we know and we no longer trust either party, but only ourselves and that means the ruling class' opportunities for their continued rule and profit-taking at our exclusive risk and expense are going to end sooner rather than later.

poco| 7.29.10 @ 3:11AM

If the Tea Party is effective in blocking future legislation and even more get elected then maybe the repeals can begin. I'm just afraid that once the liberal fools have had a taste of 'da free shit' we won't be able to repeal those programs without the consequence of conservatives being voted out and replaced with those same dirty politicians that put 'da free shit' in place and doing even more damage.
It's hard to ask people to give up something they think they are entitled to (think social security).

Sheila| 7.27.10 @ 11:50AM

"Americans are not as dumb as the political class would prefer" and then "Half of Americans think socialism is okay." Well, Clinton nee Publius, you've certainly provided a perfectly contradictory example of why I constantly denigrate the comment threads here at American Spectator. Everything else discussed in the article demonstrates Americans are even dumber than the political class would prefer, as evidenced by the idiocy of that political class VOTED for by those very Americans you purport to represent! I find this to be one of those rare instances where I can agree with most of what an American Spectator writer argues - particularly when he notes that so many would-be republican "leaders" are engaged in inside-the-beltway wrestling and others choose a media-is-popularity war outside. Call me a purveyor of despair, an absolutist, a racist, whatever you will, but I will not compromise my principles for political or social expediency, the "people" are fools, and tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist iodicracy. Decline and fall.

NavyBrat| 7.27.10 @ 1:29PM

"...but I will not compromise my principles for political or social expediency, the "people" are fools, and tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist iodicracy. Decline and fall."

Right. And YOU'RE the arbiter of who's "smart" & who isn't?

So riddle me this, MENSA member. Since our leaders are chosen from amongst the people you disdain so openly, then how are they any smarter than the people they govern? What makes them (or you, omnipotent arbiter of "smart") so special?

Enlighten us, Comrade.

Proud Mormon| 7.27.10 @ 12:07PM

Mitt Romney is the one and only one who can lead this nation out of its present difficulties. Support Romney for President in '12.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.27.10 @ 12:16PM

Orson Scott Card, (a Mormon), I would vote for.
Romney is merely another RINO.

and...he couldn't lead baby ducks to water.

Al Adab| 7.27.10 @ 3:32PM

Romney is his father's son, remember 1964? Bush opposed Reagan in 1980. The Republican establishment, the accomodationist wing, the country Club Republicans, The RINOA are all the same. It is business as usual that is on trial right now and it has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

The Conservative movement, including the "momma grizzlies", today is the only vehicle that can bring the GOP success. It is no longer about party, but about Liberty versus Statism. Central control against Freedom. Is this the hill we are willing to die for? If not now, when?

Farley| 7.27.10 @ 9:53PM

Love this!!!!

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.27.10 @ 6:15PM

Yep, just like he led Massachusetts into the quagmire of romneycare. He does have a nice haircut, however.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson
Only 908 days to go.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.27.10 @ 12:14PM

Sheila,
You are fast becoming merely a scroll button nominee.

Quit whining and mullygrubbing. If you can't think of even one solution...then ...scroll scroll scroll.
Do something constructive. Go buy some ammo.

JP| 7.27.10 @ 1:24PM

People,
you must learn patience. The GOP cannot be reformed from within until the people who vote such pols into office stop. President Obama and his partners in crime had a once in a lifetime oppurtunity and they ran with it. ObamaCare would take several sessions of Congress to repeal in normal times. The dirty little secret is half of our Republican lawmakers (perhaps more) have no intentions of repealing it; not now, not ever.

But, we are a constitutional republic. Change normally comes in small doses. We are not Weimar Germany. We don't have an Enabling Act written into our constitution. The President and his party will reap what they've sown. They are now just waking up to the fact. And like Hoover and the GOP in 1932 they will suffer from thier own hubris. It's just too bad the entire nation must follow.

poco| 7.29.10 @ 3:14AM

Here, here!

George True| 7.27.10 @ 9:15PM

Let's see, all that conservatives need to do in order to win big in November is to promise to 1) Dismantle big government, including the Communist Healthcare Bill, 2) Seal off the border and aggressively enforce immigration laws, and 3) Prosecute the WOT to a successful conclusion. Whew! It's a tall order just to campaign on these issues, let alone doing them.

Unfortunately, it probably will not happen. I do believe that if the Republiwussies would just have the guts to demonstrate even a little bit of boldness and resolve in these areas, they would see a groundswell of public support. But they won't. It's a crying shame, too, because it is a fairly simple and straightforward platform, both to elucidate and to carry out:

1) Polls have shown that more people in America identify with the goals and values of the Tea Party than they do with either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. The goals are simple - lower taxes, stop spending money we don't have, dismantle Obamacare, and then dismantle Big Government. Again, polls show that at least a plurality of people want this done. But the Republican Party does not want any part of it, and they go out of their way to distance themselves from the Tea Party position on these issues.

2) Build 1800 miles of the best triple-layer fence the world has ever seen on our Southern border, complete with observation towers every two miles. Have border patrol teams staged where they can respond quickly to any observed incursion. Bring illegal entry from Mexico to a complete halt. Poll after poll for years now have shown that 75% of American citizens want this done. Jan Brewer here in Arizona demolished her Republican primary opponents and will likewise demolish her Democrat challenger in November simply because she had the guts and the political savvy to sign SB 1070 into law. Too bad the national Republican establishment is gutless.

3) Prosecute the WOT to a successful conclusion. But before we can fight the enemy, first we have to be willing to name the enemy. And the enemy in general is Islam, and in particular is Iran. Since 1979 Iran has been behind 90% of all the terrorism around the world. Then are the ones who sponsor and equip Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and Syria, among others. We need to cut the head off the snake. To do that, we need to either get completely out or largely out of Iran and Afghanistan, and then execute a massive surgical strike on Iran. Not on the people, but on the regime. Take out their national assembly while they are in session. Then take out the Revolutionary Guards and the Basiji at their bases and in their barracks. Seize their nuclear facilities using the Delta force, and then destroy those installations. Issue massive numbers of guns to the Green Party revolutionaries. Then leave. Then start rolling up Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, etc one by one. One the home front, outlaw the building of any new mosques, and close any existing ones that exhibit the slightest trace of Anti-Americanism.

Even more than being tired of war, Americans are tired of war with no discernible result. People are not stupid. They see lives and treasure being spent in half-hearted ways. It doesn't mean we have to engage in atrocities against non-combatants like the Russians did in Afghanistan. But it does mean we need to at least be willing to name the enemy, and then be willing to wage all-out war against them until we have killed enough of them until we have destroyed their will to wage war. This is very politically incorrect to even verbalize, but Sun Tsu knew this thousands of years ago.

Islamists in general and Arabs in particular respect and will align with the strong horse. Likewise, they disrespect and will challenge the weak horse. Right now the U.S. is acting like a very weak horse. We will never begin to get the upper hand on Islamic Jihadism until we recognize that is is our necessary role to be the strong horse, now and for the forseeable future.

But I do not see any Republican on the horizon who will even begin to push back even politically against Iran and its proxies, let alone have the guts to wage a righteous war with them.

Peg C.| 7.28.10 @ 7:41AM

We need to concentrate on 2010 and we do NOT need a "leader" for that. After 2010, and especially once 2011 arrives and we see exactly how punishing and truly evil the oppressive new taxes, fines, dictates, etc. are going to be, I believe a conservative leader will emerge. I agree that Palin/Romney/Newt are sucking the oxygen out of the room. I don't believe our conservative leader/candidate will be any of those. We have had several good, conservative leaders float like cream to the top this year and more will next year (this year's are Christie, Brewer, and a handful of others; Christie WILL NOT RUN in 2012). We need to stop getting our knickers in a twist before this November's elections and let the Dems continue their self-destruction. There is ZERO benefit in naming a leader this early and giving the enemy 2+ years to demonize and destroy. Let's keep our powder dry, folks. Look at everything that has happened in the past 18 months. You don't think more shocks, earthquakes and tsunamis won't happen to us in the next 18? Please.

I also predict Obeyme will be primaried, most likely by Hillary. This makes a HUGE difference and will require fast footwork by Republicans again.

Michael Adams| 7.28.10 @ 9:03AM

Whoa! Peg C. You said a great deal in relatively few words. I completely agree with you and, partly, disagree with Mr. Babbin, which is a new experience for me. I agree that we may well change the tenor of the new Congress, if we are angry enough to get behind the Conservative candidates. We might sweep. We might just take the House and slow the Senate. The leaders will emerge. That is, after all the essence of Conservatism, that we don't need central planning, nor even central thought. We know that we want to get the government off our backs. We know that they help themselves more than they help us. For a little while, at least, we may stop falling for the blandishments of career political smoothies, and primary a lot of the worst RINO people out. Repealing Obama Death Care, reforming Social Security, abolition of the Department of Education, these are not such impossibilities. From the SS reform, Paul Ryan will likely emerge on the national scene as the bright young thing he is. Bobby Jindal has already shown serious leadership in the oil mess. If Sharon Angle wins in Nevada, we can try her out. My girl Sarah has a very long row to hoe, with the negatives that Journolist has hung on her, although their exposure may help to cancel some of those. Even now, she is a kingmaker, or, at least a prince maker, and she does a pretty good job of articulating some of our issues. "Death panels" was very apt, and appears to be her own creation. All in all, your general theme that we can bring down the Communists by decentralized "Party-of-no" politics is both appealing and probable.