And we Republicans have picked it up – from the LA Times:

For Democrats, Ashley Bell was the kind of comer that a party builds a future on: A young African American lawyer, he served as president of the College Democrats of America, advised presidential candidate John Edwards and spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

But after his party’s midterm beat-down in November, Bell, a commissioner in northern Georgia’s Hall County, jumped ship. He joined the Republicans…

…”I think the midterms showed you really can’t be a conservative and be a member of the Democratic Party,” Bell said.

Since the midterm election, 24 state senators and representatives have made the switch in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Texas.

Mr. Bell is correct – but not only is it impossible to be a conservative Democrat, you can’t even really be a moderate Democrat. Unless, that is, you’re willing to throw it all away when the liberal leadership demands (as it did demand in 2010 on ObamaCare, and look at all the moderate Democrats who got clobbered over it). Its just not possible for anyone to really be a Democrat and stray far from the party line. If you want to chart an independent course where you think for yourself and act upon what you believe is right, only the GOP offers a home for you in politics.

This trend will just continue – even if Obama manages to get re-elected in 2012, the fact will remain that outside the liberal bastions, the Democrat party is rapidly dying away.

Interesting from ABC News:

Rep. Heath Schuler, D-N.C. is one of the 20 Blue Dog Democats who plan to meet with businessman Donald Trump today in New York City. The meeting with Trump, who has expressed interest in running for president in 2012, is set to last an hour. Sources say they will talk about the economy and ideas Trump has for improving it.

Just to be clear here – Donald Trump as Presidential candidate is a sad joke. Quite seriously, given a choice between Trump and Obama, I’m either voting for Obama or getting too drop dead drunk on election day to bother. But it is interesting that he’s meeting with the Blue Dogs.

If Trump really is considering a run for the Presidency, his options are wide open as far as venue goes. He can run as an Independent, as a Republican or as a Democrat. It doesn’t even matter what his registration is now; he can always switch it as necessary. When I first heard the absurd idea of Trump running, my guess was that he’d go Independent, though perhaps only after a head fake to the GOP. But what if his plan is to march in to Obama’s turf?

It can’t be that Trump is thinking he can take the Democrat nomination away from Obama – quite simply there is no one, anywhere, who can do that. Even if unemployment shoots up to 20% by January and Obama’s approval rating is at 20%, he will be re-nominated. Not necessarily because the Democrats would at that point think he could win, but because they know that rejecting Obama would cause a down-ballot destruction of the party, perhaps for good. But in preparation for running as an Independent, suppose Trump enters the early Democrat primaries and then marches off, proclaiming himself as the only real “hope and change” candidate – thus giving disaffected Democrats some one to vote for in the general election other than Obama?

There would still be no chance Trump could win – getting to 270 electoral votes is next to impossible for any third party candidate and even if such a candidate took enough electoral votes to deny the major parties an electoral majority, the House would then elect one of the two major party candidates as President. Of course, Trump might have a big enough ego to think he could pull it off…or, observing the destruction of our economy under Obama, he might just be trying to do his bit to ensure Obama’s defeat next year.

Typical:

Members of the House of Representatives are slated to hold hearings this week on two bills that would stop taxpayer funding of abortions. The legislation is expected to clear the House but Democrats promise to block it in the Senate…

Because the pro-abortion lobby owns the Democrat party lock, stock and barrel. There is nothing the Democrats will deny to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest of the Culture of Death. Liberalism has become a religion and its primary sacrament is abortion.

One wonders – there is no upside to being in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion. The American people reject it – in poll after poll after poll and as reflected in election results around the country, the people do not want to pay via their taxes for abortion. And this includes a very large number of people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal. Only the tiniest and most fanatical pro-abortionists want such a thing – and yet Democrats are prepared to go out on a limp to block this ban in the Senate. Why?

Campaign donations? Do the pro-abortion people really provide that much? It probably plays a role, but not a decisive one. I think it is a matter that they have so tied themselves to this hateful, anti-human practice that they are simply afraid to jettison it. Its a matter of becoming so deadened to morality that returning to morality is frightening – they’d have to reverse years of opinions and votes, and admit they were wrong all along. And so, rather than facing up to facts, they just keep pressing further down that road. Its really rather sad, when you think about it.

Still, we must keep pressing them – the people are on our side and swing ever more towards the Culture of Life. Eventually, all the pro-abortion fanatics in the world won’t be able to stop us.

You can see the video over at Breitbart TV. The bottom line, for Sarah Palin, is that no group which can contribute to the debate in a reasonable form should be excluded. I agree with that view.

The folks at GOProud – just like the folks over at the much-linked Gay Patriot – are good, solid conservatives on most issues. They just get it wrong on the issue of gay marriage. Of course, they would rejoin that I get it wrong on that issue – which, in turn, makes me laugh a little bit and then offer up some prayers for their conversion.

But, bottom line, there are lots of conservatives out there whom I disagree with on this, that or the other issue. Some conservative groups advocate for free trade – even with bestial regimes like China’s. Some conservative groups insist upon a hands-off attitude about the filth in popular culture. Some conservative groups are ok with the Federal Reserve. On and on it goes – the key is that on most issues, most of the time, I and all conservatives agree on the core issues of limited government and individual liberty. GOProud may want gay marriage, but they don’t want to force the State of Utah to embrace it because a couple gay guys in San Francisco want it. As such, I’m able to work with them on the common issues – lowering taxes, cutting government, strong national defense, etc.

One thing to keep in mind: there is much wrong with this world and the ultimate fix for it is beyond our means. God will eventually call a halt to all this, judge all and then a new world will be created. Until that time, the tools God chooses to use in making this world better are, my dear friends, us. Flawed, fallible us. We must work with what we have. Yes, homosexual sex is wrong. Those who engage in it do put themselves in grave peril. I urge homosexuals to stop. But I, too, sin…and if someone were to say to me that because a man has a particular moral failing he cannot participate, at all, in helping to make the world better, I would ask: who, then, will do it?

Rich Lowry gives us 8 reasons why Jeb Bush should run for President in 2012. I can’t emphasize this enough – if we nominate Jeb in 2012, we re-elect President Obama, even if unemployment is at 10%.

Look, I like Jeb Bush – I voted for him for governor when I lived in Florida in 1994. He lost that race, and went on to win in 1998, after I had moved to Nevada. I wish I could have voted for him on his second try. Jeb did a fantastic job as governor of Florida and showed how to advance a strong, conservative program in a State split evenly (at the time) between Democrats and Republicans. Jeb would, if he ever got there, make an excellent President – perhaps even much better than his brother.

The trouble is, he’ll never get there. His brother already did – and while I admire his brother and am still a supporter of that 8 year Administration, the fact remains that a great deal of latent hostility to President Bush remains, and that will transfer over to Jeb, and doubly so because of the very American opposition to political dynasties. I’m sorry for Jeb Bush, I wish it could be otherwise, but he will never be President. If he wants to do something for the cause, he should set up a PAC and start finding good, conservative candidates to run at the State and local level, thus developing conservative strength in the nation. If the GOP wins in 2012, then a cabinet position should probably go to Jeb Bush; but no White House. Not now, not ever.

Can’t think of anything better for the TEA Party than for a liberal Democrat and a RINO to try to bring up immigration reform in front of 2012 – from Politico:

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.

Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up…

In other words, cobble together a coalition of liberals and RINOs in the Senate to put the thing up for a vote, then try to shout “racism” at the House GOP until they pass it. It won’t work – in fact, all it will do is solidify conservatives and make a strong rally point for everyone who is working for a revolutionary change in government. You see, while RINOs like Graham will try to paint opposition to this as “extreme” or “racist”, the reality is that opposition will stem from the fact that people don’t trust politicians.

We know – even a pro-amnesty person such as myself – that the politicians will lie about what they’re doing. If Graham, et al, come up with a “amnesty/border security” bill it is a dead certainty that we’ll get the amnesty without the border security. The American people are firm on this – border security first, then we can address the illegals already in country. Graham’s proposal won’t really go anywhere, but it puts the spur to us to keep fighting, because the moment we let our guard down, it will be people like Graham who will cut us off at the knees.

As an aside: here, folks, is the proof that backing someone like O’Donnell was still the smart thing to do in 2010: if we hadn’t backed her, we probably would have got another RINO to work with Graham and Schumer in the Senate. Graham is the living proof that it is better to lose with a conservative than win with a RINO. 41 conservative GOP Senators are of more worth to us than 60 RINOs.

From The Hill:

Only 27 percent of likely voters favor raising the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, while 62 percent oppose it, according to an exclusive poll for The Hill…

…Seventy-seven percent of likely GOP voters and 64 percent of independent voters said they don’t want the debt ceiling to be raised. Even among Democrats, more oppose raising the ceiling (46 percent) than support it (42 percent)…

This would put the GOP in a very strong but very dangerous position – strong in the sense that the public will back a fight over raising the debt ceiling, dangerous in that if the GOP is perceived as caving in on raising the debt ceiling it will harm the party’s chances in 2012. It is quite a tight rope we have to walk.

The best action, if at all possible, is to not raise the ceiling, at all. Tales of immediate default without a raise are just fear tactics – we can still service our interest payments, we just wouldn’t be able to borrow as much as the Ruling Class would like. Boo hoo. But intense pressure will be brought on the GOP to raise the ceiling, and there will be plenty of GOPers showing their Ruling Class allegiance by insisting “more debt or complete collapse”. Given this, we can expect that raising the debt ceiling will eventually happen – the key to both helping America and helping the GOP is how it is done.

First must come cuts – serious cuts. Cuts which aren’t just a reduction in the rate of growth but which actually result in government agencies spending less next year than they’ll spend this year. These cuts must be pressed and must be made broadly known to the electorate – especially the TEA Party part of it – prior to a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Doing it any other way risks complete disaster for the GOP.

We’ll see how the House GOP leadership carries this out – the ball is really in their court as they hold the power of the purse. So far, I like what I see (a fee odd RINOs aside). But this is now fat in the fire time – where we find out if we’ve got real leaders, or not.

From the Wall Street Journal:

…My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government’s jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion…

Paul goes on to note that these spending cuts are really rather modest – 85% of what we’re spending now and all of Social Security and Medicare would remain untouched. And Paul is asking critics to put up, or shut up: if anything he proposes to cut is considered absolutely vital, then what would you cut to save it? It really is a matter of honesty – unless you’re just determined to keep spending no matter what, then there has to be some priorities set. Senator Paul has set out his priorities, anyone who wants to say “no” had better come up with alternative priorities. The one thing which is absolutely out of bounds is to not cut spending – it must be done to avoid national bankruptcy.

The nation is broke and in spite of this, we have continued to increase the size of the government feeding off the bankrupt nation. This cannot go on – and, in fact, it can’t go on for more than two or three more years before collapse sets in. It really is that bad – we really are that much out of money.

We can turn this around. It won’t be easy and it will be painful, but it can be done. All we need do is show the courage to do the right thing.

I’d have to check with Matt to be sure, but I’m confident he’d agree to a mere $31 million for this blog – quite a bargain considering the quality, and especially in light of what AOL just spent for the Huffington Post:

In one of the biggest digital publishing deals in recent memory, AOL has agreed to pay $315 million for the Huffington Post, the pioneering web-only newspaper co-founded by Arianna Huffington…

Nauseating, hate-filled liberal trash apparently commands a high price – at least to the worthies of AOL.

Professor Bainbridge makes a statement:

The Hill:

“Businesses have a responsibility, too,” said Obama in his weekly address on Saturday. “If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That’s their obligation.”

Wrong. The social obligation of business is to sustainably maximize long-term profits for shareholders. Nothing more. Nothing less…

Both Obama and the good professor got it wrong – though Bainbridge got it more wrong than Obama did. Obama’s flaw is to think that the obligation of business is to serve as a funding and policy tool for liberal, Big Government. In Obama’s mind, if corporations are paying high taxes and providing lush contracts for union workers, then they are carrying out their responsibility. The result of this sort of thing, though, is GM. I need say no more on that matter.

Professor Bainbridge gets it wrong in a different way – asserting that the sole responsibility of a corporation is to be profitable. This argument is disposed thusly – pornographic businesses provide hefty and steady profits. The worth of a business enterprise is not determined by its profits – though, of course, profits there must be or there would be no purpose to the business. A business is worthy of being engaged in – and worthy of a decent man’s investment – only if that business also advances the general welfare of the community. You have to make your money doing something worthwhile. If you make your money in a destructive enterprise then it doesn’t matter how high your profits are, you still shouldn’t do it.

I realize that this is to inject a moral – indeed, a religious – note in to a discussion of economics. But that is precisely what is needed. At bottom, all questions are religious questions. They all boil down to what sort of society we wish to live in. Very widespread and successful efforts have been made to divorce all human activity from the compulsions and supports of religion – and we can see the result. Our economy is hollowed out because of a pursuit of profit above all other considerations. You can’t, in the end, get a good thing by doing a bad thing. You might make some hefty profits, for a time, but it all fails in the end. The end we see right now is a failing American economy – and if we tip over in to national bankruptcy, of what value will be the high profits of 2010’s fourth quarter?

Everything must come together. You can’t break it up in to pieces – the economy exists to provide sustenance to the common man and women going about the primary activity of society – starting and raising families. If we don’t do this activity, then all other activities become moot. Given this, all economic activity must have at its center doing what is right for people – profit is fine; private property is an absolute requirement; government must stay out of the day to day affairs of families and the businesses they own and/or work in…but business must not become a mere engine for profit. If it does, it becomes what we have now; either State sponsored slush funds for favored interests, or mere money manipulators as our financial institutions have become. Meanwhile, the actual needs of society – of the family – are unmet and ever more pressure is placed on this institution, spreading untold misery.

Ultimately, the fix for our economy – and our whole society – lies in curbing both the power of government and corporations – especially the bigger elements of both. They are two sides of the same coin and both of them distort the real economy towards the desires of a select few. A free people working for themselves and able to raise families without let or hindrance from others – that, really, is all we’re supposed to have, and all we really need.