Freedoms Truth's blog

In a discussion among local party people about "how to bring the Republican party back", one idea crystallized that I would like help to flesh out. We discussed the fact that campaigns - in this particular context local campaigns -  need better support in terms of technology, communications, infrastructure and a lot more besides. The challenge is how to implement such great ideas in the context of campaigns that cannot afford huge budgets. Technology is making things cheaper, but there is a yawning gap between what is possible and what people know how to do.

So we came up with the concept of "Campaign-in-a-box" -  a manifest of all of the elements needed to support a basic political campaign (e.g., local-type campaign, state representative, county commissioner, etc.), that would enable a candidate not to get lost in the 'nuts and bolts' concerns of how to set up all the technology and communications infrastructure to support the campaign. It would be a manifest and implementation that provides all the basics to him or her so they dont have to build from scratch.

Consider it from this perspective. We are telling campaigns "get on facebook; get a YouTube account, post video there; get a way to issue press releases; ID your voters; build a website; etc." Well, giving such advice is useless to a candidate who is neither expert, nor does he even know where to start on these things.

So, let's collate that advice in the umbrella of ALL the advice and specific supporting implementations that a candidate would need. Can a local campaign leverage standard infrastructure for an effective campaign, and would such a concept lower the barrier for them to utilize more effective technology?
In other words, what should be the manifest for the "campaign in a box"?

Some specifics:

• Campaign website infrastructure and templates, e.g., can a Drupal implementation be templated to create a baseline campaign website to leverage? Many congressional campaigns use Drupal (e.g., Chet Edwards) so it or a CMS like it is a good starting point. What would be the must-have features, and what is a good implementation (low-cost/no-cost), so that a campaign wouldn't have to start from scratch? What Web 2.0/user generated content to have?
• YouTube, Facebook, twitter; what is the set of must-have online communications channels? Optional/maybe-do communication channels? Encourage use of videos and posting them
• How to interact with bloggers? Websites, forums and online groups to leverage?
• Communications / press office: The 'campaign in a box' includes a Press Release Kit - What's in it? How to establish good press relations?
• Voter database: Voter data should be a part of the package, so the question would be, what sort of database should be used, how should it be managed and integrated? What voter data is important? Mostly getting the "R" and "D" affiliation is just a first step, can more precise data be gathered? Should the candidate bother trying that? Is an integrated database important? How sophisticated should it be? (Again, think local-type race, where you might have 10,000 - 50,000 voters total).
• Campaign  basic strategy: Should the campaign-in-a-box have a basic strategy and what would it entail? What methods of outreach have the best ROI, and how should the local candidate be directed: Phone calls, blockwalking, neighborhood forums, finding key influencers, etc. Which to prioritize or should that be left to the candidate to figure out?

The reason this idea is important is that many campaigns with even good candidates flounder for the lack of a 'good campaign', and they rarely fail for lack of hard effort. They fail because the candidate, while they may know the issues, doesn't know how to run a campaign, and doesnt have the money to pay big-buck consultants to figure it out. A "campaign-in-a-box" would be a simple pared-down version of whatever its that Obama spent tens of millions of dollars putting together and which costs a hundred thousand or more for a Congressional candidate to put together.

A simple "How To" and manifest for a local candidate could go a long way towards making many of these campaigns more effective.

So ... Time to think INSIDE the box.  What should be in the Campaign-in-a-Box? What technology components are particularly effective/needed in this?

I am thrilled to see the ideas that Patrick Ruffini has been putting forward on fixing the party and the "Rebuild the Party" effort:

http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/

My own thoughts are here:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/no-place-to-go-but-up-strategy...

My point #1 is "Servant-leadership"

It starts with leadership. We need local leadership and elected officials that re-engage and re-energize the grassroots. These need to be servant-leaders that show the way by encouraging broad participation. The model is a ‘big tent’, but it is based on core principles as the tent poles that brings activists in and energizes them. We need to re-connect our own leaders with our own base, and need to develop new leaders out of grassroots by getting broader activist participation.

Without a leader who 'gets it' our efforts to rebuilt the party will be valiant but futile.
To that end, I think we need to draft Newt Gingrich to be RNC Chair:
1. He embraces the use of new technology
2. He shows he 'gets it' when it comes to leveraging grassroots networked movements, as shown by his American Solutions effort.
3. He is the most articulate spokesman we have and is high-profile enough to be able to represent the face of the Republican Party and carry some weight. He is a recognizable figure to unify the GOP that has no natural leader at this time. He can go toe-to-toe on Sunday talk shows, can and is already a draw for audiences.
4. Being an outsider of the past 8 years and a critic of Bush administration, he is not tainted by administration's failures and subsequent unpopularity. He has critiqued the execution of the Iraq war, opposed the bailout, and been critical of administration on spending and immigration. In short, he stands with the people on issues that the Bush WH lost popular support over.
5. He has never wavered from solid conservative principles, taking popular and correct stands, on drilling, on the bailout, on spending, on fixing Iraq, on immigration. He has credibility with the Republican base.

6. He engineered the 1994 victory, and 2010, in our best-case scenario, could and should be a similar repeat. Who better to win in this situation than to bring out the man who won this type of battle before.

Most critics of Gingrich will say "oh, we need a new face" but in fact, Gingrich, like Churchill, has had his 'wilderness' years. MOST CONSERVATIVES WANT THE OLD TIME REAGAN-GINGRICH RELIGION. They want us to return to the principles that won Reagan the white house and the GOP the Congress. I cannot disagree. When I think of the GOP core principles, I come back to the Reagan formula as the principles to stand on/

Gingrich knows that - BUT ALSO HAS SPENT HIS LIFETIME TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE. It is a rare and valuable combination that we need at this time. If the GOP stays as stuck-in-the-muds, we lose; if we shed our principles to chase futuristic butterflies, we lose too. gingrich is unafraid to embrace the future while adhering to core conservative political principles.

We need new conservative leadership in the GOP and we need it NOW - in the RNC! Newt Gingrich is our man.

Draft Newt Gingrich to lead the RNC.

UPDATE:

Newt Gingrich has let the word out that he is willing to take the job.  Digial Journal had a piece, posted on Redstate and Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127267/posts

High level of support for it in Freeperville and Redstate as there is here, 9-to-1 in favor ( antis were annoyed by his cough ad with Pelosi).

I made a brief, flippant statement that simply making the Bush tax cuts permanent would get the economy back on track, and a negative comment on it cause me to clarify. My own comment got so detailed I think it deserves it own thread.

My basic point is:

We are in the tough economic situation because we are doing the wrong things, and all it takes to get out of the ditch is to start doing the right things. Those right things are not complicated nor unknown.

Let me clarify my statement:  I am not saying the recession can be averted now (it probably started in Q3), nor am I saying that we are not in serious economic straits. However, it really wouldnt be a challenge at all to get the economy back on track, if only we got our policies back on track.

And the #1 policy error of today is the threat to raise tax rates. A declaration to make the Bush tax cuts permanent would correct the #1 policy error of today.

Correct economic policies are not LIKELY in an Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime, but I think of it not being a challenge to know what those right policies are, we've known what the right policies are for decades, they've been tried and worked:

• Weak monetary policy led to the bubble and the bubble bursting, and a strong dollar policy from 2004 to today would have averted much of the crisis - we would have neer seen gold at $1000 or oil above $100/barrel, never seen the housing bubble and the consequent aftermath. The solution is to get back to sound money and strong dollar.
• On taxes, we must not estimate the huge magnitude of the tax increase, or the economy-deadening impact of letting such tax increases hang over us. They have killed business prospects for the future. Further, the asset values for everything - from commercial RE, housing, to stocks and bonds - are keyed off of future post-tax cash flow expectations. 2 days of post-Obama and the stock market loses 10% of its value, or about $1 trillion. Why? they know his higher taxes and other polices are harmful to the economy and will lower capital returns. We have had 2 years of Democrats in Congress threatening to raise taxes, passing tax increases, attacking business and CEOs. These attacks have toppled over the leveraged economy because the Dems policies have raised the price of risk capital (which you can see in the PE ratio changes from early 2007 to now). That price increase has killed highly leveraged investments. End the attacks and the threats of large tax increases by making the current tax system permanent, and the bloodbath of leverage investments ends too. That reverses the financial crunch, which is really a massive and global flight from risk.
• The recession we are in would not have been as severe without the oil price bubble. Prick the energy bubble permanently with pro-energy policies that increase domestic supply and reduce energy imports and you would prick on element that dragged down the economy.
• We have actually worsened the financial crisis with Government meddling and bailouts. These bailout costs harm our fiscal position, create a risk premium due to uncertainty in governments intervention (an example are the housing bailouts which by rewriting mortgages are in effect making new lending much riskier and less stable). End the bailouts, end the risk to contract law implicits in threats to rewrite bankruptcy law, and make moves to privatize Freddie and Fannie to end our huge liability exposure there.
• The fiscal situation - it's the spending stupid (or the stupid spending) that is causing deficits. Those deficits are not a short-term detriment to the economy, but impair our ability to manage monetary policy and control our long-term economic destiny.

I don't see Obama going in the right direction on taxes, spending, financial services regulations, or energy. (Nor do I have confidence Bernake will be a sound money guy.)

Since Obama's policies are the wrong things, we will remain in the ditch.

A simple declaration to make Bush tax cuts permanent would have an immediate positive effect right now because it would increase after-tax cash flow projections, enough to make risk capital come back in -  to an extent that would increase risk capital flows as much as or more than the $700 billion TARP bailout. Yet such a declaration costs nothing to the budget today and will pay for itself later. Similar ideas like the Eric Cantor's capital gains tax holiday or the proposal to cut corporate tax rates, which are too high, would be high positive cost-benefit as well.

In another blog, I mentioned the situation of the great depression. FDR did not in any way 'solve' the Great Depression, in fact if you read "FDRs Folly" and some recent economic studies, FDR's policies lengthen it. We speak of the Great Depression as a historic inevitability, but surely you can realize that nothing is inevitable. The great depression was caused by a combination of tariff increases (Smoot Hawley) and various beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies, tight money, and raising tax rates massively. Had FDR reversed these immediately, the economic history of the 1930s would have been much better. Indeed had Hoover never implemented them, there would be no Great Depression.

At this point, I am not talking about averting the recession, that's baked in to the 3rd and 4th Q, although it could have been averted with foresight by correcting the issues wrt taxes and oil prices in the past 18 months. The GNP grew by 3% in the 2nd quarter, we actually had growth up until then, despite the fact that the housing sector recession and bubble had burst 12 months prior.  When Reagan came in, he DID fix and turn around the economy, but we went through a tough recession to wring out inflation. In our current economy, we have a lot of deleveraging to digest; we have digested much of in wrt housing and corporate balance sheets are mostly okay (so long as we dont screw up things further). So even the right policies would have us go through a recession before we move on to better things.

But beyond a 2 to 3 quarter recession, in what way is continued economic misery inevitable? It is NOT!  what would be truly mind-boggling is to believe the lie that Govt policy doesnt impact the economy, or that higher or lower tax rates dont matter (they do). Dont be so superstitious or fatalistic to believe that economic misery under Obama is pre-ordained. It is not.the only thing that would make it inevitable is the inevitability of bad policies coming from Pelosi Reid and Obama led Government. It will merely be a consequence of his decisions and his policies.

PS. If you think a declaration to make the Bush tax cuts permanent is 'simplistic' consider how simplistic Paulsen's blank check was. 3 pages, and in the end the stated use of the money - to buy bad assets, was changed after the law was passed! Bottom line: If the issue is risk capital that is fleeing to the sidelines, you get it back in the investment pool by taking away external risks, and the #1 risk today is the risk of future tax increases.

TX-10, should be a GOP carve out, like a +10 or more generic seat, but Rep Michael McCaul is in a tight race right now. McCaul never had a serious general election race in either 2004 or 2006, it wasnt even worth the effort for the Dems.  This year, its a DNCC targetted race. The Dem trial lawyer opponent Larry Joe Doherty has gotten big bucks and is making a real race out of it.  Multiple signs of this: The liberal Statesman endorsed Doherty, while they endorsed the GOP candidates that are 'sure winners'....and early voting is looking better for Ds than Rs in Harris and Travis. A Democrat poll had it within 2 pts (!!).

I spoke with a Larry Joe supporter/volunteer and he claimed Doherty WILL NOT VOTE FOR PELOSI FOR SPEAKER. He PO'd the DNCC folks and hung up on them. Dont know if it is true, but this is classic blue-dog, wear-a-cowboy-hat stuffto get conservative independents to vote for you - works in a cycle where the GOP brand is still "Bush". I dont buy it for a second, they all end up being poodles for Pelosi, but we need a response that will save McCaul. The Democrats call him "Bush" and run hard on TurnTexasBlue and driving up the Obama vote.

McCaul has been good on the energy issue, part of the drill-now contingent, good on national security issues - helped rescue kids in a Pakistan madrassas, and voted 'no' on the bailout with good reason. McCaul is running on energy. McCaul is doing the GOTV phone-banks, and other stuff of course. I dont think its enough.

Somehow the connection between these blue-dog running Dems and Obama's left-liberal socialistic ideas has to be made. A "Stop Obama's Socialism - Defeat All Democrats" meme came to mind to me. I dont believe Obama is as popular as the polls suggest, and I DO believe that we can and we MUST RUN AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS AS THE STATUS QUO CONGRESS.

But a question for the brainiacs here: What can McCaul do to ensure victory?  I'll be going to a  McCaul reception in 5 hours and can relate any ideas. This is about saving a seat that might go down. WHAT ADVICE DO YOU GIVE?  (And please no post-mortem, defeatism or non-actionable reactions. Put on the 72-hour countdown hat and go to town.)

Conservative Texas lawmakers have pledged support for a common and comprehensive agenda called "Pledge with Texans":

• Cut property taxes until they are eliminated
• Protect the right to vote by requiring photo ID and verifying citizenship
• Secure the Texas border
• Stop trans-Texas corridor and eminent domain abuses
• Cut, simplify and reform business taxes
• Lower electric rates and clean the environment
• Make Texas a leader in public education
• Make Texas a national leader in higher education
• Make healthcare more affordable for families
• Limit the growth of Government

The details for this pledge are here.  There has been a tele-conference call with 30,000 conservative supporters and conservative lawmakers like Ken Paxson, Linda Harper-Brown, and several others, attended the call set up by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

This is a very good agenda, both on the top-line areas of focus and the specifics that they have put behind it. There seems to be a well-though-out agenda, and I hope this pledge is rolled out well in the media. Further, I hope conservative activists in other states look at the agenda and see what parts could be pushed in their state.

Thanks to conservative governance, Texas has led the nation in private sector job growth, and has enjoyed better economic indicators than parts of the country (like Michigan) run by high-tax Democrats.

America, the land of the free as we used to know it,  is at risk of becoming just a memory should Obama win big and carry his liberal Democrat friends with him into office.

National Journal rated Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007. Obama in his state Senate years was careful, via cowardly 'present' votes, to hide his
liberalism, but he still has a stark record of extreme positions - so extreme on abortion, he voted against a bill to protect born-alive victims of botched abortions; so extreme
on gun control, he supported the DC gun ban that was ruled Unconstitutional (of course, Obama's favorite Justice Ginsburg voted against the 2nd amendment in that case).
Voting against death penalty for gangland murderers. Obama's record is liberal:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-ratings-and-record.html
Proabortion extremist: Planned Parenthood - 100% Support, National Right To Life - 0% Support,  NARAL - 100% Support
Population Connection - 100% Support (These are the ‘Zero Growth’ freaks)
Anti-taxpayer tax-and-spend liberal: Americans for Tax Reform - 0% Support, Citizens Against Government Waste - 13% Support
Very Liberal: ACLU - 83% Support ,
Anti-gun-owner:  Gun Owners of America - 0% Support, NRA - “F” Rating
Pro-amnesty open-borders extremist: Federation for American Immigration Reform - 0% Support US Border Patrol - 8% Support
Supports Big Unions: Unions - 82% - 100% Support, NEA - 100% Support

The Democrats are the STATUS QUO party in Congress. Since liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker after 2006 elections, the price of oil rose, the stock market fell,
unemployment rose, the economy sputtered. The Democrats' threats of tax increases and their attacks on businesses and markets and energy producers have had a toll on the economy.
The Democrats tried and failed to lose the war in Iraq, but they have managed instead to break promises to cut earmarks (they made it worse), and have spent over $1 trillion
and counting on bailouts this year alone. They want more - money from the taxpayer to new govt welfare cases, with a slice for their special interests on the side;
Like the 'alternative energy bill' that somehow included $50 billion in new taxes yet had a hidden $1 billion gift to trial lawyers.

The Democrats' earlier support for the creation of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), sowed the seeds for subprime lending. Barack Obama, did legal work on behalf
of ACORN to sue banks to force them to engage in subprime lending. that subprime lending ballooned, and the leaders in it, like Countrywide, gave sponsors like Sen Chris
Dodd, sweetheart deals as thank yous; when Republicans warned about Fannie Mae supporting these risky schemes in 2005, the Democrats stopped them. The chicken's have
come home to roost on the flawed idea of giving homes and mortgages to people who cannot really afford them. Democrats instigated this financial crisis as much as anyone
else.

But these policy errors and bad actions are just the preview. Here is what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver:

• Regulation overdrive that will kill jobs
• Special interest giveaways to groups like ACORN
• Government takeover of health-care, shifting as many a 50 million more people into a Government run plan (See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!)
• pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill the Pelosi Congress passed, and the $1+ TRILLION in bailouts this year; Pelosi wants another bailout for $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion for wall street, $300 billion housing bailout and $100 billion govt check giveaway - when will it end?
• Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions and 'Freedom of Choice' Act, which will override state desires to protect unborn life
• Amnesty for illegal aliens, and drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which Obama supports
• No drilling in ANWR or offshore, and an anti-energy policy that won't allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices
• Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover (who created a depression out of similar policies)
• Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%. Now in the general election, Obama has flipflopped on it, but he will surely flipflop back in order to make taxpayers pay for his $800 billion in spending promises that he can't keep without higher taxes.
• Job-killing 'cap-and-trade' CO2 regulations
• Attacks on free speech, with "fairness doctrine" attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech( Missouri DAs investigating people who say bad things about Obama)
• Attacks on the ballot box,  by ending the secret ballot for union elections, and by opposing voter ID laws
•  Gay marriage:  Obama opposes Cali prop 8, in effect signalling that he supports gay marriage, andObama and the Democrat platform calls for the repeal of DOMA to take gay marriage nationwide;  they will enforce ENDA, gay rights in the workplace and a tort lawyers dream and HR dept nightmare, and the result will be attacks on religious organizations and groups that dare to take an opposing moral position; gays openly in the military
• Appointment of liberal activist Judges, who will be handpicked to overrule the people and legislate liberal social policy from the bench.
•  

Here's what the WSJournal says is in store with that Obama/Democrat majority, with more details on :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

- Medicare for all.  ... A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. ...

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. ...

The unflappable demeanor of Senator Obama makes it seem like he is a 'nice guy'. But Obama is lying about himself. Obama is raised and trained on Alinsky leftism; Obama had a Communist mentor Frank Davis Marshall; Obama showe an extreme racial consciousness bordering on animosity in his memiors; Obama was the colleague of radical Bill Ayers (and the point is not that Ayers was a terrorist bomber in the 1960s, the point is that Ayers is as radical
today in his views as he was back then, toasting socialist despots Huge Chavez just last year); Obama for 20 years sat in a Black Liberation Theology church who pastor preaches a political worldview based on the radical Black Panthers. The real Barack Obama has been steeped in the most radical and extreme left ideology of any person to have a chance at the White House.

Any voter who doesn't know the real history of Obama has let the Obama campaign and media bamboozle him or her. Obama's campaign is a $500 million hollywood production, a fiction designed to bamboozle foolish uninformed voters, and the liberal media is complicit in
keeping people as uninformed as possible of the real Barack Obama. As part of that fiction, Obama's left-liberal positions and views have been airbrushed aside, and he's
running on focus-group-tested pablum.

Normally, political realities will restrain such an extremist, but the liberal Democrats think they have the kind of majority coming that will reshape things further. Only twice before has a President on the Democrat side won with overwhelming majorities. In the 1930s and 1960s. Both times we got the most signification shifts towards big Government in our history - The New Deal and the Great Society. Our problems will not be solved by more Government - we need LESS Government. Our only chance to stop this radical and dangerous shift is to vote against every Democrat and for Republicans in the coming election.

If you want to save America ... you have one duty -  spread the word and warn others: Maybe it is too late to stop the manifestly unqualified and extreme Barack Obama from becoming President.  But in that event, we don't have to give Obama a liberal Congress to go with it!  The change we need is to defeat the Democrats in Congress. Defeat Nancy Pelosi and her earmark, pork-barrel, corrupt trial-lawyer leftwing-special interest ACORN-supporting buddies in Congress.

He gave four speeches. The synopsis: I'm a regular guy; the Republicans are evil and screwed up; here's my favorite 29 Government programs; and I have a dream.

Every time Obama got specific, he got wrong. His worst parts were his feeble attacks on McCain on foreign policy. His best part was the end, no specifics, just hope and change and let's all work together for the glorious socialist future that awaits.

Some things stick out.

"So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."

Squealing like a stuck pig. Country First is a great slogan for John McCain, that hits on biography and policy at the same time. When has Obama put Country First?

Obama has neither the background nor the positions to be the 'country first' candidate. Barack Obama is just an inexperienced empty-suit front-man for the same old tired liberal Democrat socialist policies that have cost people jobs, made America poorer, kept children less well educated, emptied our pockets through more taxes and bigger Government, litigated businesses to death, and harmed our national security.

Nobody is questioning your patriotism, Barack. We are questioning your lack of experience, your extremist friends (Ayers, Wright), your left-liberal positions (most Liberal Senator in the US Senate according to National Journal), your pathetic and poor judgment on issues like Iran and Iraq, your failure to know history, and your empty and phony campaign of hype. That's all - not your patriotism.

His claim that he would cut taxes for the middle class.

It's a phonyclaim built on the sophistry to making earned income tax credit welfare increases 'cuts' and taking credit for cuts Bush has already enacted. It is scary in that Clinton successfully ran on the same lie in 1992. We know that in the end Clinton dropped it and gave us a huge tax HIKE, but people might get fooled again. Obama is "paying" for this by pushing up tax rates for the rich past 50%, a level of income redistribution that will topple over and actually reduce Government revenue, while harming the economy significantly. He absurdly bashes Bush, while most of the tax cut he touts is already in place and enacted by Bush. All we have to do is make it permanent! The GOP should issue a challenge and opportunity - lead and get the tax cut passed and on Bush's desk to sign or veto. The Democrats have the Congress - surely they can pass it.

BUSH failed to respond to America’s challenges.

Other than that 9/11 thing, Bush tax cuts that turned around the economy, Bush taking on the need for Social Security reform (and the Congressional Democrats stopping it), the challenge of putting good men on Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito), No Child Left Behind, etc. Bush did fail to cut and run from Iraq when Obama wanted to. Bush also failed to close Gitmo.

He trashed the economy and criticized Gramm's "mental recession" comment.

Obama and the Democrats are poor-mouthing a growing economy as a way to scare people into voting for them. Fact: Economy grew 3.3% in the past quarter.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304816152498589

Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth. ... Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.

"Discredited Republican philosophy." Attacks the "ownership society". Calls it "you are on your own."

Basically, creating a strawman to attack, but in the process making clear that he really doesn't understand nor care for markets, even though he says otherwise in his "BUT" statements.

"It's time for us to change America."

America is the greatest country on earth, and it's time to change all that. Obama actually said that in a previous speech, and people should ponder the irony.

"An economy that honors the dignity of work"

We honor the dignity of work by keeping taxes low and Government out of the way of workers and employers. We honor the dignity of work with "Right to Work" laws and with a secret ballot for Union Workers, both of which Obama opposes. We honor the dignity of work when we offer choice for retirement to replace an outmoded Social Security.

Attacks John McCain for opposing ethanol

He sounded lame and false when attacking McCain on alternative energy and environment because he WAS lame and false.

Drilling is a stop-gap solution, not a long-term solution

We have more shale in Colorado then there is oil in Saudi Arabia! This man is seriously deluded and out-of-touch on this. We can and we should drill now, and it will pay dividends not short-term but for decades to come. His energy solution litany sounded a bit bipartisan, but devil is in the details. Earlier in the night, Al Gore did his litany and touted being 'free of fossil fuels'. Obama was far less ambitious - free of mideast oil. We only get 15% or so of oil imports from the mid-east, most of it comes from closer places - Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, etc. So it is in effect a proposal to lower our imports by about 2 million barrels a day in the next 10 years. Well guess what, we lowered oil imports in June by about a million barrels a day versus a year prior. Amazing what the power of price, supply and demand will do.

Obama's $150 billion on alternative energy like solar and wind?

Will be a big boondoggle. CO2 sequestration is also a big boondoggle.

" safely harness nuclear power"
Sounds good except
1. We've been safely harnessing nuclear power for decades so it's no 'change' and not merely as bold as McCain's real change of actually building more nuclear power plants.
2. he has pandered to Nevada to oppose Yucca Mtn. It's a forked tongue promise.

“Eliminating programs that no longer work”

What has Obama done in the past to prove he will do this? A vital question for the debates? What programs don't work? And what programs have you voted to cut in the past? Non-defense ones?

Parents have to turn off the TV.

That rhetorical fluff, sounding off like Bill Cosby, got the biggest applause. Bizarre that he criticized small things elections and got applause on this.

McCain was willing to ‘muddle through’ on Afghanistan.

A Lie. Obama was lying about McCain on Afghanistan. In Dec 2006, McCain called for more troops in Afghanistan. In mid-2008, Obama came around to that position and then claimed he though of it first. Obama taunted McCain that he wasn't willing to follow Obama to his cave. Excuse me, Senator Obama, if you know where Obama is then why aren't you following him to his cave - NOW - and pointing him out to us?

Obama is all hat and no cattle on the war on terror. He is seriously unstable and wrong on this stuff and it is actually quite scary in a "What if a dumber and more naive version of Jimmy Carter got elected?" kind of way.

“Grasping at the ideas of the past.”

The rhetoric is fine, but Obama’s attacks on McCain’s Iraq policy are feeble.

“The party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.”

Yeah, a guy who gave half of Europe at Yalta and ignored the USSR threat and the guy who screwed up the Bay of Pigs. And why not mention “Hostage Crisis” Carter and his terrible naive foreign policy? Hmmm.

Bush has squandered the legacy ...

Bush has squandered what legacy? The legacy of Carter that let Iran become a theocracy? Or the legacy of Clinton that did nothing to respond to the 1993 WTC attacks and theUSS Cole bombing, but got us in an unnecessary war in Serbia that now has given us some 'blowback'?

“I will end the war in Iraq responsibly.”

Thanks to Bush’s policies, we will have won the war in Iraq by the time Obama takes office, removing the possibility of the Democrats screwing up that war. Bravo, W!

“Never question my patriotism”

Judgment, experience, and proposals. You are wrong for America on all three, Barack.

Attacks the 2nd Amendment supporter with a crack about criminals getting AK47s.

A strawman argument and one that shows his weakness on the issue. Stop lying Senator and start explaining your support for banning handguns, including your support for the DC gun ban?

“hiring illegal workers”

Lament from a pro-amnesty pro-drivers-licenses guy. Republicans take note - Liberals win by sounding conservative!

“No fresh ideas, use stale tactics” ... attack them as “someone people should run from”

THERE ARE NO FRESH IDEAS FROM OBAMA! ITS THE SAME OLD LIBERALISM IN A YOUNG PACKAGE! That and  the stale old attack-the-GOP tactics make this a 'whopper' of a statement.

What about the Bush and McCain cracks? All negativity. They attack Bush relentlessly and then are shocked that the Republicans dare to expose Obama’s radical associates, extreme views, and zero accomplishment record. The hypocrisy of policies and the audacity of hype!

He doesnt want a “Big election about small things”

Small things: Obama’s resume.

“When Washington doesnt work”

The big Obama Lie is the typical liberal lie that if only we send them more money, or rotate new people, we can fix what is broken. Wrong - the whole philosophy of big govt is broken. Power corrupts, and socialism is a prescription for poverty. Failure to change philosophy is failure to fix anything. If the people in DC have failed, fine, fire Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. Get a Republican Congress in place.

“Something is stirring, ... this election is about you.”

“Enough to the politicians of the past” - Like Kennedy, Clinton, Biden????

“Moved families from welfare to work” (in the Illinois state senate)

It turns out Obama is taking credit for something he didnt do.

Cites his accomplishments in Washington. 3 bills that amount to Resume enhancement. Rove went after Biden on that item in a WSJ column. One bill was ethics reform, which did far less than it should; another was a feel-good non-controversial bill with Lugar to track nuclear materials in ex-USSR that was so unimportant it passed on a mere voice vote and was not reported on; and the third he actually did very little to help pass. RESUME INFLATION BY THE EMPTY SUIT!

“Our universities and culture are envy of the world.”

Especially professor William Ayers and Ward Churchill, eh?

He closes more positive. He sounds conservative with some nice rhetoric that means nothing fills the gaps between partisan shots and left-liberal policies.The positive message probably works for him. More BS and less liberalism will fool voters better than telling people what he will and won’t do.

A young preacher from Georgia. ... “America, we cannot turn back.” ... We must march into the future.”

Onward to Left-liberalism.

Yes, the future is tomorrow and the past is so yesterday, and the best parts of his speech are so ... meaningless ... which tells me that this speech might "work" if people don't think about the inherent contradictions in the speech and in Obama's overall campaign.

He denounces negativity in politics, yet engages in it as the core reason to vote for him.

He denounces the failures of the past, yet proposes to repeat failed past policies.

He calls on us to march into the future, but says no to the real solutions that can carry us there.

Crossposted from

travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-speech-freedoms-view.html

Obama's supporters now have a symbol of Obama's experience, accomplishments and judgment level - A big Fat Zero!

It's an awesome symbol of Obama's level of qualifications for President - ZERO.

Cross-posted from: http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-is-zero.html

The much-right-blog discussed 'race card' aka race-mail incessently used by Obama's minions and Obama himself inspired this thought on Travis Monitor:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-corollary-and-racemail-in-america.html

 Obama Corollary to Godwin's Law: Any discussion about Obama and his candidacy will eventually end up being a discussion about race and racism. When an allegation of racism is hurled, the conversation is effectively over.

And an idea for how McCain can totally destroy the race-card in America once and for all.

In the debate, say that there have been some ugly accusations hurled but he can prick it with some humor, reflective of Reagan in 1984: "I will not make an issue in this campaign out of the fact that my opponent is better-looking than I am."

Crossposted from http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/07/libertarian-party-aspiring-to-be.html

So it is with great concern that I read:

It would be good if the Libertarians/libertarians attempted to aspire to real political effectiveness, because this country needs more freedom and less Government, and their influence could be salutory. But that would require taking off the big "L", abandoning a failed third party approach, and becoming libertarians working in the one major political party where their ideas are most at home: the Republican Party. Consider some of the most effective political activist organizations - the litigious ACLU, the social conservative Christian Coalition, the gay rights Human Rights Campaign. I would add another group from Texas:

The Texas Alliance for Life

. TAL has achieved multiple pro-life victories as a force that influences the two party system, working mostly with Republicans but also with prolife Democrats to achieve their goals. These groups successfully worked the two party system, rather than try to work outside it.

A

"Texas Liberty Alliance"

that influenced primaries and lobbied for liberty would be far more effective than aspiring to spoiling for victory for the greater-of-two-evils.