Sarah Palin unloads both barrels on the Federal Reserve.

Most GOP power in the States since the 1870’s.

Olberman will be reinstated. His viewer expressed relief.

Boehner: ObamaCare? Are you freaking kidding me?

Harry Reid must not be above the law – as an aside, I think this is a growing scandal, something which could plague Reid until he is either forced to resign, or he staggers in to 2012 and loses his Majority status.

In light of that Reid scandal, Rasmussen asks why Nevada polling was so far off the election result. My answer: there is a chance that everyone just got it wrong; the alternative is that someone stuffed the ballot box like no tomorrow. Which do you think is more likely?

Now that time is placing more perspective on the Bush Administration – and while Bush, himself, continues to show he’s got more class than all the Democrats, combined – it is useful to start debunking a lot of the lies spread about Bush when he was President. Julian Zelzer takes to this task in the Washington Post – this one I think important:

2. “Compassionate conservatism” was just a campaign slogan.

…as Vanderbilt University historian Gary Gerstle has shown, Bush was personally invested in compassionate conservatism. While growing up in Texas and later serving as governor, Bush constantly befriended and worked with members of his state’s Hispanic community and fought for the rights of immigrants. “Once children are in Texas,” he said in 1995, “Texans know it is in our best interest and their interest to educate them, regardless of the nationality of their parents.” In his gubernatorial reelection victory in 1998, Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the black vote – a strong showing for a Republican in Texas. (It is unsurprising that, in his memoir, Bush reportedly describes the accusations of racism he experienced in the aftermath of Katrina as “the worst moment of my presidency.”)…

Many conservatives disparaged “compassionate conservatism” while almost all liberals held the phrase and concept in contempt. But the reason I first started switching from backing McCain to backing Bush in 2000 was because of “compassionate conservatism”. While I disagreed with some of the things Bush did in the name of compassionate conservatism (the prescription drug benefit looms most large here), the fact remains that any real understanding of conservatism requires a person to be compassionate.

For far too long now conservatism has essentially been conserving liberal policies. Huh? What’s that you say? It is a bit of a concept to wrap the mind around, but I’m not remotely the first to figure it out. In fact, it was an old Liberal who understood this best:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. – G K Chesterton, Illustrated London News, 4/19/1924

Our Progressives, in their eager love for humanity, have quite forgotten about loving their fellow man. Our Conservatives, so desperate to stop Progressivism, have forgotten that they are supposed to be conserving the way of life of the common man. The Progressive makes a new policy, the Conservative opposes it. After a while, the Progressive policy becomes the institution – then the Progressives go on to their next fad, while the Conservatives fight a desperate, rear-guard action to just keep things as the Progressives left them yesterday.

Conservatism, in order to get things right, must try to set things right. Its no good trying to dress up yesterday’s Progressive failure as something worthy – it was idiotic when thought up, and still is no matter how long it endures. A true Conservative looks at the poor, common man and wonders how to get him back to his happy state of being owner of his property and master of his own destiny. That is compassionate, because it is an attempt to do for men what they both want and need done.

President Bush understood this – whether by intellectual process or sheer instinct is both unknown and irrelevant. He got it – he understood that his job, as a Conservative, is to find ways where average, every day people can get back their own. And so, tax cuts for middle class businessmen; quality education for the poor (even the illegal immigrant poor); property ownership spread as far as possible (and too bad that Barney Frank, et al, took this noble desire and turned it in to a casino for their cronies); people able to live and worship without let or hindrance from government. That is conservatism; that is compassionate.

And it is what I am today, and will always remain – a Compassionate Conservative. President Bush did what he did and he made his share of mistakes – what man in leadership hasn’t? But, over all, he was the right man at the right time, and he pointed the right way for conservatism.

From Life Site News:

Widespread discontent with the administration’s progressive agenda, particularly on abortion-funding health care, spurred voters to launch a strong pro-life Majority into the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections.

“The American people have spoken, and replaced 38 pro-abortion Members with pro-life Members and replaced 14 unreliable Members with reliable pro-life Representatives,” said Congressman Chris Smith, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus. “Of the 93 Members of the Freshman Class at least 77 are committed to defending the unborn…

Smith introduced legislation in this Congress to ban all government funding for abortion – this, naturally, got nowhere with Pelosi’s Culture of Death majority, but the new House Majority will probably pass it. Then will come the fight in the Senate, but that might go better for Life than most expect. The “2012 Democrats” will want such a populist measure to vote for (after all, forbidding government spending, in and of itself, is popular these days) and may help the GOP minority get it done. What Obama will do with it remains to be seen – but if he were to veto such a measure, it would be a double-whammy against him: he’d signal his support for profligate spending, as well as his support for something (federally-funded abortions) rejected by large majorities of the American people.

We’re slowly moving the ball our way – one day, America will once again be a Pro-Life nation, as enjoined by our Declaration of Independence.

It is what our government and the rest of the global governments are up to – from the Wall Street Journal:

$10.2 trillion: The amount of money advanced-nation governments will need to borrow in 2011

As the debts of advanced countries rise to levels not seen since the aftermath of World War II, it’s hard to know how much is too much. But it’s easy to see that the risk of serious financial trouble is growing.

Next year, fifteen major developed-country governments, including the U.S., Japan, the U.K., Spain and Greece, will have to raise some $10.2 trillion to repay maturing bonds and finance their budget deficits, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund. That’s up 7% from this year, and equals 27% of their combined annual economic output…

This is unsustainable. In fact, it is an open question as to whether or not some of the weaker sisters in the global community will be able to do it – Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Portugal already teeter on the brink of sovereign default. With the US and other larger economies sucking up vast sums of money to finance debt, will there be enough for everyone? I doubt it.

But even if we stagger through 2011 without a serious default in the world, all we’ll be doing is putting off the day of reckoning. The books must eventually balance, and as long as the United States refuses to tap in to its potential and create wealth, there is no way we – or the rest of the world – can produce the wealth necessary to reduce the debt. We’re in for a long, hard time – which may get worse than anyone imagines, if we don’t swiftly get control of our debt.

From Nevada News and Views – as regards the e-mails at Harrah’s coordinating efforts to get out the vote for Reid:

If a corporation or union spends money to support the election of a candidate in response to a request by that federal candidate (that is, if they make a coordinated expenditure), as clearly occurred in this case, then they are making an illegal contribution to the candidate.

This was not a situation where a corporation was simply encouraging its employees to go to the polls and vote for their candidate of choice — Harrah’s was telling its employees how important it was to elect Reid, setting up a whole system to coerce its employees to vote, even making records of who had not voted.

Both Harrah’s and the unions spend money, in terms of supervisor and employee resources on company time, and the cost of shuttles, etc., not merely in a nonpartisan way to get out the vote, but to facilitate votes for Reid…

As the linked article notes, this sort of action may violate that section of US law which prohibits coercing people to vote. With unemployment in Las Vegas at 15%, the union employees of Harrah’s – faced with intense pressure from corporation and union to vote Reid – might have felt their jobs depended upon a Reid vote. We can rely upon it that Holder’s Justice Department will not investigate this; we can also rely upon it that Nevada’s Attorney General (the merest tool of the Reid machine) also won’t do anything about it. So, what can we do?

We can hold hearings in the House – not just about Reid’s campaign, but about all incidents of voting irregularity. It is time – and past time – we exposed the voter fraud which is endemic to the Democrat party. We must call the witnesses and put them under oath – in this case, calling Harrah’s employees under grants of immunity to ask them if they felt coerced to vote Reid; were they worried about their jobs if they refused to vote, or voted Angle; did they in any way, shape or form give Harrah’s-paid time to the Reid campaign? These and other questions need answers.

This is an important question to answer (another question I’m looking for answers on is why 15% fewer Nevadans voted in our State-wide Surpeme Court elections than voted in our State-wide Senatorial contest…all the same ballot, so why did 109,000 Nevadans skip the Supreme Court vote? Why was it that the two Reid contests – Harry’s son Rory ran for governor – so greatly outpaced all the other State-wide contests in number of votes recorded? I’m currently waiting on a response from the Secretary of State’s office). More important than just Reid is the legitimacy of our democratic form of governance. If the American people ever lose faith in voting, then our freedoms are done for. People must be absolutely convinced that when they vote, the vote is counted and isn’t going to be canceled by fraud.

Getting to the bottom of this issue is a patriotic duty, and it must be done.

Whether they like it or not:

Its about 4:40 in to the audio recording. They’ve really got to televise those caucus meetings…

From International Business Times:

…Heidi Shierholz, an economist at The Economic Policy Institute, notes that given the backlog of 14.8 million unemployed workers in the U.S., at October’s rate of job growth it would take another 20 years to bring the unemployment rate back down to the 5 percent level of December 2007 (at the onset of the recession).

Shierholz also cited that the workforce dropped by 254,000 in October, pushing the labor force participation rate down to 64.5 percent, well below its prerecession level of 66.0 percent in December 2007…

I’m going with “absurd” to describe that 254,000 drop in labor force participation – I can’t imagine that that many people have really just given up and left the work force. That, to me, is a subtraction designed to keep the unemployment rate below 10%. I had figured that the Obama Administration would throw in the towel on manipulating the unemployment numbers to keep it below 10% after the election – but I guess they’re bound and determined to keep it up right through 2012.

Trouble is, they can fudge the numbers all they want, but out of work Americans want jobs. As long as there are so many millions of out work, no amount of Obama boosterism will change public attitudes about the effectiveness of his leadership.

We need to create, according to this article, 230,000 jobs per month in order to start reducing unemployment. While October’s number is the best in a long time, it isn’t nearly enough – and I bet that its worse than it looks (I do know that a lot of the jobs were with temp agencies; and tens of thousands of jobs were added by the Bureau of Labor Statistics “black box”. What’s a “black box”? Here ya go – scroll down a bit and there is a description). In order to create those jobs, we have to start producing things in the United States. Back to my old, old broken record – we have to make, mine and grow things. Lots more than we are now.

To do that, we need to cut taxes and slash regulations – and we also need to get our fiscal house in order so that the United States will appear a safe place to invest; we’ll have to balance our budget in the near term. The problem here is that Obama simply will not do these things – he doesn’t understand economics, at all, and is ideologically committed to a government-control model. If you tried to tell him, “hey, Mr. President, just unleash the American people and they’ll fix things, themselves”, he probably wouldn’t understand what you’re talking about.

Given this, it is unlikely we’ll get the policies necessary to fix the economy. It is doubtful, even with a Republican House, that we’ll get the policies which will merely stave off disaster. We’re in for a long, hard struggle, from what I can see. We’re going to get a lot poorer before we’re done – and it is becoming an absolute requirement that Obama be replaced at the helm.

According to this article in The Hill, Murkowski is supremely confident that once the ballots are all counted, she’ll emerge as the winner. Miller, on the other hand, needs a gigantic showing in the absentee balloting to come out ahead – which is still possible, but growing ever less likely. What is the best way to handle this?

For Miller, it is a matter of figuring out when to call it quits, if the initial count goes against him. If Miller gets reduced to arguing that “Murkonski” is unclear in voter intent, then he’ll only look like a petulant child who didn’t get his wish for Christmas. Any ballot that is obviously screwed up, out it goes – but any thing reasonably written on the ballot which indicates a candidate should not be disallowed.

Whatever one wishes to think about Murkowski (“contempt” is what mostly comes to my mind), she did a great job of hustling up votes – and those voters who cast ballots for her must have their will respected. Sure, it is likely that a lot of Murkowski’s votes were from Democrats who just wanted to poke a stick in the GOP’s eye, but votes are votes regardless of what motivates them. If Murkowski pulls off this unlikely victory, then that is good – for her.

For us Republicans it is another matter. What Murkowski did was turn a sure GOP victory in to a possible GOP defeat. This goes beyond the pale, as far as I’m concerned – and as she was rejected by the GOP base and given victory (if that happens) by virtue of Democrat votes, she’s not someone we can rely upon. In other words, if she wins, we don’t want her.

Kick her out of the caucus. If the Democrats want her, that is fine – they can have her (but, watch your backs, Democrats). The difference between 46 and 47 GOP Senators is trivial – especially as, back in our caucus, we can pretty much rely upon Murkowski cutting us off at the knees when the chips are down. Better to have her out and so not relied upon to begin with. Additionally, why clutter up committee seats with a disloyal RINO when we can have a conservative in there? Murkowski brings no benefit to the GOP caucus while bringing all sorts of risk – she turned on us, and we’d be worse than fools to say “come back in, all is forgiven” if she pulls it off in Alaska.

HAT TIP: The Other McCain

From Investors Business Daily:

…A majority of the public wants Washington to stop the spending that has exploded the budget deficit. In a listing of top priorities for Congress, cutting the deficit by cutting spending came in No. 1, cited by 53%. (Fully 73%, including a majority of Democrats, said this is a “high priority.”)…

Now, fellow conservatives, this isn’t a blank check – the Democrats and their lapdogs in the MSM will demonize any cuts proposed or made, and the public will fall for at least some of this, but there is a clear understanding among the public that spending is way out of control. What we have to do as we cut is first find the most ridiculous spending to frame the debate about cutting, in and of itself, and then ensure that as we cut we are also putting together positive proposals to relieve the pressure on the American people.

There is so much utter BS in government spending that we can find a half dozen absurd things and use them as the poster boys of government waste – keep hammering home that when Democrats oppose cuts, what they are doing is opposing cuts to this sort of profligacy. But we can just be out there saying, “no!”; we also have to find things to say, “yes”, to.

In this, I think that a judicious balance of tax cuts plus moving money from less popular programs to more popular programs can help. The tax cuts are obvious – someone who is hurting financially will appreciate a little less being taken by Uncle Sam…but then we can also take money from, say, the Department of Commerce (finding something really stupid they are doing to eliminate) and putting it in to things like school aid or relief for home owners under the gun due to unemployment.

We hit them with the one-two punch: here’s your idiocy, Democrats and here is the great thing we want to do. We can win the debate all down the line and essentially force them to go along with us or, even better, make them defend the Big Government waste they have created over the decades (as we look for the stupid things to cut, we should be looking in to things very much favored by some left wing base constituencies – this will put pressure on the left to save their bacon, and they’ll turn about and pressure Democrats to keep the gravy train flowing).

Once we get the ball rolling on spending cuts coupled with priority changes we can then build up a strong constituency for more of the same. We have to do this, good people – the United States is bankrupt. We have until about 2015 to get our fiscal house in order or we’ll be forced in to sovereign default. Make no mistake about it, it is that bad. While the people presiding over the disaster will relentlessly assert that there is no danger of default, the facts are otherwise – we either balance our budget, or we crash very hard.

Now, to work.