In the form of Nevada’s Lt Governor:

Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki is considering a run against U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in 2010.

Krolicki says he’s discussing the prospect of challenging Reid with his family and will decide by early next year whether to try to unseat the veteran senator and political powerhouse.

Krolicki says Republicans “got shellacked” nationally and in Nevada in the latest elections. He says the GOP rebuilding effort in this state must include an effort to get a first-rate slate of candidates for numerous offices that will be up for grabs in 2010.

Krolicki was elected lieutenant governor in 2006 after serving two four-year terms as state treasurer. He said he has received calls from Republicans at both the state and national level about a race against Reid, who he described as “too liberal and too partisan for Nevada.”

I have it on very good inside information that at least one other Republican will seek the GOP Senate nomination to run against Reid in 2010. Still, unseating Reid will be no easy task, especially as national GOP leaders will be wary of spending money in Nevada when the GOP will have a hard time defending Senate seats in Florida, Alaska, Ohio and Louisiana. If there is a big GOP wave in 2010, that would make things different – but by the time such a wave becomes noticeable, the chance to beat Reid may already have passed. Still, it is interesting that this early on we’ve got the Lt Governor plus the to-be-announced guy interested in taking on Reid, who has many vulnerabilities – not least of which being the way he’s entirely abandoned Nevada values and opted to become a lapdog for Pelosi and her San Francisco values.

As for Krolicki, himself, he’s a good man, but I wonder if he’s really got what it takes to bring a fresh perspective to the GOP. To unseat Reid will take an imaginative, conservative-populist campaign freed from adherence to the political dogmas of the past. And this goes for a recovering GOP all around the country – we can’t just retread what failed in 2006 and 2008 and expect to win in 2010 and beyond. The hackneyed phrase, “think outside the box” really does apply here. We’ve got to think anew and act anew. Adhering to core, conservative principles but also stretch out to apply those principles to thus-far ignored constituencies (socially conservative African-Americans and Hispanics, most notably – but there are other groups the GOP has ignored or been mostly unaware of). Especially given the media and funding advantage Reid will enjoy, only the most aggressive and different sort of campaign stands a chance.

One thing certain, we GOPers can do no better in 2010 than forcing Reid out – even if we otherwise fail to secure a Congressional majority, if we can beat Reid we can show we’re back on track and have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008. We must not throw away this chance either because we’re afraid to take Reid on, or because we’re afraid to try new things and new people.

This couldn’t come out two weeks ago?

A new study of the global future by U.S. intelligence agencies suggests that Al Qaeda may be on the decline, having alienated Muslim supporters with its indiscriminate killing and inattention to the practical problems of poverty, unemployment and education.

While not contradicting intelligence assessments suggesting that Al Qaeda remains a major threat with a strong presence in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says the group “may decay sooner” than many experts have assumed because of severe weaknesses: “unachievable strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support, and self-destructive actions.”

For seven years now the left has been telling us that Bush Administration actions have made Al Qaeda stronger, and now we see that this isn’t the case. Of course, if our pinhead, liberal friends would really pay attention to the nonsense they are spoon fed by their leaders, they’d realize that what they’ve been mindlessly repeating has been the phrase “Al Qaeda is stronger than any time since 9/11″…which phrase is precisely meaningless, but it sounds to a leftist like President Bush’s actions have made it stronger. Flush with seeming success immediately post-9/11, Al Qaeda reached its peak strength…only to smashed in Afghanistan and then bled to death in Iraq. To say, at any point since 2002 that Al Qaeda is “stronger than any time since 9/11” is to say “its not as weak as it was when we crushed the life out of it in late 2001 and early 2002”. But, out lefties are mindless, anti-Bush, hate-filled robots, and so they bought the story that fighting terrorists makes them stronger.

Another thing the lefties never seem to understand is that the terrorists are engaged in battle with the United States armed forces. To think that there was ever any other outcome to Iraq other than complete victory was to be merely ignorant of the relative strengths of the most powerful nation in human history, and a few thousand ragged terrorists. Right from the start, the only way we could lose would be by giving up short of victory – which event the left worked very hard to achieve. This is something which will flabbergast future generations – the most free and advanced nation in the world goes to battle against slave-masters from the most backwards nations on earth, and the left decided that it was the free and advanced nation which not only would lose, but should lose.

Well, that is that – the War on Terrorism is won. There might be some hard battles – especially in Afghanistan – but the basic thing we were fighting for has been achieved. Right now, terrorists and their State sponsors know that to use terrorism to impose upon the United States is a suicidal act. A few die hards have not got the full picture, but as long as we remain firm of purpose, the chances of a terrorist attack upon the United States are small. The US armed forces led by President Bush and backed by the better elements in Congress have seen the matter through – Obama is being handed victory on silver platter.

Pray he doesn’t mess it up.

Our prayers for the Attorney General and his family:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed while giving a speech at the Federalist Society meeting in Washington tonight, according to AP and Politico. Apparently, he was still receiving medical treatment on stage at the event as of 15 minutes ago — 10:30pm Eastern.

This is the change you on the left sought?

Daschle Serves As A “Consultant” For A Major Lobbying Firm:

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, A “Consultant” For Alston & Bird. “Obama kept $2,300 donated by Alston’s Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader. Daschle, located in Washington , is neither a lawyer nor a lobbyist. He is a consultant.” (Dan Morain, “An Asterisk To Obama’s Policy On Donations,” Los Angeles Times, 4/22/07)

* Alston & Bird’s Lobbying Division In Washington , D.C. Billed Nearly $3.9 Million From Its Clients In 2006. “Alston & Bird has a large lobbying division in Washington . It billed its clients nearly $3.9 million in 2006, ranking 35th among Washington lobbyists. Alston boasts on its website that it offers clients ‘unique experience with how policy is made’ and knows ‘the people who make it: government and agency officials; members of Congress and their staff.’” (Dan Morain, “An Asterisk To Obama’s Policy On Donations,” Los Angeles Times, 4/22/07)

Daschle “Advises ‘Clients On Issues Related To All Aspects Of Public Policy.” “According to Alston’s website, Daschle advises ‘clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes.’ (Dan Morain, “An Asterisk To Obama’s Policy On Donations,” Los Angeles Times, 4/22/07)

This is quite a crew Obama is putting together – worn out Ghosts of Democrats Past. Obama doesn’t need to do this…given the nature of things (especially a completely lapdog MSM), Obama will have pretty much unquestioned authority for the first 6 to 9 months of his Administration (questions will be raised by we GOPers, but they’ll be resolutely ignored). He can, in a very real sense, do whatever he pleases…he really can bring in entirely new blood and new ideas and try bold experimentation in the search for solutions to the many problems besetting the United States.

And, so what does he do? Fill his team with the worst sort of political hacks who wouldn’t know a new idea if it bit them and who wouldn’t take a bold stand if their life depended upon it. There never was much chance that I would be other than a critic of Obama – he’s a liberal and I’m a conservative. But I could at least admire a worthy opponent who is clearly trying to do the right thing…but I’m not getting that out of Obama. All I’ve seen is a person desperately afraid of making decisions which might cause political trouble coupled with an entirely unimaginative approach to governing.

A train wreck is on the way, boys and girls, and the only question is whether it will happen sooner or later.

And, also, that the Great Hopenchange will, ya know?, go for some actual change on the left:

A group of Catholics has addressed an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama, professing an eagerness to cooperate with his administration while pleading that he reconsider his support for the (FOCA).

The open letter, initiated by Henry C. Karlson III, has been signed by several prominent Catholic bloggers and commentators, including the Catholic apologist Mark Shea.

Praising Obama’s call to end harmful forms of partisanship, the writers of the letter said they too wanted to encourage people to “work together for the common good,” saying “It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America.”

Citing Obama’s call for unity and his professed willingness to engage in dialogue with others, the letter turned to the issue of abortion.

“As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.”

The open letter cited Obama’s agreement to limit late term abortion with exceptions for the health of the mother, and his stated desire to work to reduce the actual number of abortions by alleviating those social issues which make women feel they have to abort.

“There is much we can do together,” the letter said. “There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.”

The letter then turned to Obama’s January 22, 2008 pledge to pass the Freedom of Choice Act as president. This commitment to FOCA, the letter suggested, “might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions.”

Nothing is more certain on the left than a slavish devotion to abortion on demand. A radical change would be to drop abortion on demand and go with reasonable, human restrictions on abortion – waiting periods, full disclosure, proper medical protocols, parental consent and no abortions in the third trimester. Such common-sense regulations of abortion would put US abortion law in line with other nations which permit abortion. Right now, we’re the savage beasts of the abortion world. Its time for a change – time for life to be considered important and worthwhile, all the time and every where.

This is, of course, only the thinnest of all hopes – more than likely, the Obama Administration will usher in a horrific increase in the number of abortions in the United States and around the world as the pro-abortion fanatics leverage their access to the Obama Administration into a flood of US government aid for abortion. I really do wonder where comes this concept that abortion is worthwhile – it is the most perverted of all ideas to think that an elective abortion is a proper response to any pregnancy. It is a negation of love, family and even sex to use abortion to end a pregnancy. I just can’t fathom support for it – but there it stands, supported by so many millions of dupes led by a few hate filled fanatics.

The truth will win, in the end, and there will come a time when people look back on this age and stand amazed at the horrors we perpetrated. Here’s to the hope that at some point, Obama will hearken back to the birth of his lovely daughters and remember that when someone tries to tell him that abortion is ok…

We’re powerless?

Somali pirates struck again yesterday, seizing an Iranian cargo ship holding 30,000 tonnes of grain, as the world’s governments and navies pronounced themselves powerless against this new threat to global trade.

Admiral Michael Mullen, the US military chief, pronounced himself stunned by the pirates’ reach after their capture of the supertanker Sirius Star and its $100 million (£70 million) cargo. Commanders from the US Fifth Fleet and from Nato warships in the area said that they would not intervene to retake the vessel.

Well, the reason we have a Navy is to keep the sea lanes open – if Admiral Mullen doesn’t understand this, then we need to replace him with an Admiral who understands the basic concepts behind Naval organization. To fight pirates and others who threaten the free passage of peaceful vessels is the primary task of the United States Navy.

So, what do we do?

From what I’ve been able to determine, piracy outside of territorial waters (and, in some cases, within it) can be attacked by any interested nation. In other words, there are no jurisdictional boundaries regarding piracy. If a pirate seized a ship of the coast of California, a Pakistani flagged warship could intercept it and punish the pirates under Pakistani law…and, of course, if a pirate captured a ship off the Pakistani coast, a US flagged warship could do likewise and punish under US law. So, the US Navy could go after these pirates and bring them to justice.

The pirates do what they do because large profits can be made and, of course, it is highly likely that the ship owners will rather pay the ransom than risk damage to their very valuable property. Trouble is, failure to act forcefully against piracy will just encourage more and more of it until the trade routes of the world are clogged with pirates essentially demanding high tolls to allow the mere passage of vessels. Can’t allow that to eventuate – on the other hand, we don’t want our Navy just endlessly chasing pirates around the backwaters of the world.

Solution: Grant letters of marque to American citizens to become a sort of auxiliary Navy, under ultimate US command, but operating outside the normal parameters of Naval organization and chain of command. The staffing would be former sailors and special forces troops. The ships would be reconditioned Spruance class destroyers (plenty of them in mothballs and with a bit of work they’d easily outmatch anything the pirates could come up with). They would patrol those backwaters, with access to US military intel and either intercept pirates on their way to a crime, or take back ships seized by pirates. The pay could be just about anything (we’d have no problem staffing up the ships – first off because they’d need far smaller crews than a regular US warship and, secondly, because there are lots of old sailors and special forces who are no longer up to snuff for the cutting edge, current military…but are more than sufficient for anti-piracy actions, especially as they would ultimately be backstopped by the regular Navy and special forces) – and when a ship is retaken from pirates, the prize for the crew would be 50% of the ransom the pirates were asking, distributed amongst those who participated in the rescue (this might require re-establishing what used to be called “prize courts”).

As these forces would be outside the normal rules of engagement for regular military and naval forces there would be none of the thorny issues about whether or not they have a right to a jury trial – and deals could be struck with interested parties in the areas of piracy for rescue crews to deposit captured pirates for a bit of rough and ready justice. Bottom line, we’d gain the ability to go after piracy without directly involving the US government, at minimal cost and with a great disincentive to piracy as once a few of the pirates are killed during rescues and/or swiftly dealt with once turned over to some national authority the pirates will start to get the picture.

The right way to do it:

Credit this idea to Robert Reich, the former Clinton administration official. We’ve had lots of disagreements with Reich in the past, and no doubt will in the future. But on this he’s right: If a bailout is to be given, the Big Three and their unions must thoroughly revamp their businesses, almost as if it were a bankruptcy. Call it a Chapter 11 Bailout.

Above all, the companies’ poisonous contracts with the United Auto Workers union have to be torn up. The problem is that the UAW, under President Ron Gettelfinger, remains adamant: No givebacks. This is financial lunacy.

Thanks in part to managerial incompetence, but mostly due to pricey union contracts, it costs American carmakers too much to build cars here; they can’t compete. When you fold in health care, pensions, hourly pay, vacations and the rest, average total compensation for a Big Three autoworker is $73.21 an hour, according to data cited by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Toyota, Honda and Nissan pay a still-generous $44.20 an hour in total compensation — a cost edge of nearly 40%. Is it any wonder that Ford, GM and Chrysler can’t compete? Or that, after paying their workers, they never have enough cash left to retool?

Today the total market capitalization of the Big Three has fallen to about $7 billion. Is it better for the owners of those companies to suffer a total loss or for taxpayers to lose $25 billion? The answer is obvious. As such, the only case for a bailout is if it would force major changes on the industry. That won’t happen with current management in place or with giveaway union contracts that make the companies unviable.

And, remember, if Big Auto did go out of business, it would only be in the sense that the corporate bosses and union chiefs who currently run the show would be out of business – the plants, themselves, would either never close at all or only close for a short time as new management comes in and simply keeps things going, now without the corporate pinheads and self-destructive union contracts. The talk of millions of jobs lost is the typical Big Corporation/Big Government scare tactic when reality is about to overtake them – they don’t want to change, so they claim that if the taxpayers don’t pony up, we’ll have fire, famine, war and a plague of locusts o’er the land…don’t believe them. Its utter BS they are selling.

We were stampeded on the $700 billion bail out (and kudos to those few – left and right – who warned from the start that it was an idiot idea), but we must not allow ourselves to be snookered in to becoming Uncle Sugar for every corporate behemoth and corrupt union in the nation. Unions are, at best, useless – and more often downright destructive. Big corporations like GM are essentially devices designed to hide incompetence until the CEOs get their golden parachutes. The swifter these dinosaurs die off, the better our economy will be for it.

Democrats will fight tooth and nail for these bail outs – because unions shovel massive amounts of cash at the Democrats and, additionally, the corporate bosses are also more than happy to shell out to the Democrats in order to keep the corrupt government process going whereby well-connected corporations help Democrats write the tax laws to advantage big corporations and disadvantage any prospective competitors. Another bit of bull flop not to believe is the leftwing story that liberals fight against corporations – they fight off the corporations with all the determination of hookers fighting off Johns in Vegas on a Friday night…

Let them go belly up – if they are failing, then taxpayer money will only go to reinforce failure. Better to have done with them and allow a rational auto industry to replace the current failed system.

Imagine that – the Great Hopenchange thinks long and deeply and out of the depths of his all-wise soul comes the new Attorney General…a Clintonite who was dropped the ball in the disgusting last-minute Clinton pardon of tax cheat Marc Rich…who then took his new-found pardoned status and went right on in to Saddam’s Oil for Food scandal:

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition…

…The only hesitancy about Holder’s selection was that he himself had reservations about going through a confirmation process that was likely to revive questions about his role in signing off on the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Although there is no evidence that Holder actively pushed the pardon, he was criticized for not raising with the White House the strong objections that some Justice Department lawyers and federal prosecutors in New York had to pardoning somebody who had fled the country. But after reviewing the evidence in the case, and checking with staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama aides and Holder both decided the issue was highly unlikely to prove an obstacle to his confirmation, one of the sources said–especially given the Democrats’ more sizable post-election majority in the Senate.

A partisan hack as Chief of Staff; an ambulance-chaser as White House Counsel, a crook’s dream as Attorney General…this is the change you liberals were demanding? This is what you wanted?

The incoming Obama Administration just gets worse by the day…

Change which is absolutely freakin’ unbelievable:

Barack Obama has selected Gregory Craig as White House counsel, a move that will recall some controversial legal cases over the last few years…

…Besides defending Clinton through the impeachment process, an effort that Craig lost, who else had the benefit of Craig’s counsel?

* Elian Gonzalez’s father – Craig represented the father who demanded the return of his son after his estranged wife died trying to take Elian to freedom. Most people saw this as a thinly-veiled publicity stunt from Fidel Castro, attempting to embarrass the US. The dispute got resolved when Janet Reno ordered an armed assault on the house where Elian’s family in the US provided him a home.

* John Hinckley, Jr – Craig presented and won the insanity defense that allows Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin to spend weekends with his family now.

* Kofi Annan – The former Secretary-General of the UN hired Craig to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein’s pockets while providing cash for Annan’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.

* Pedro Gonzalez Pinzon – A Panamanian legislator wanted for murdering an American soldier in 1992. The Dallas Morning News demanded that Obama force Craig to drop the case during the campaign, but no report of whether he did is easily available.

I doubt that any President has selected the defender of a presidential assassin as White House Counsel before now. Does anyone want to guess how long that takes to become a Trivial Pursuit question?

Everyone, even Castro’s goon, UN crooks and sundry cretins, has a right to counsel – but this is a tremendous misjudgement on the part of Obama. This is the worst sort of ambulance-chasing, celebrity lawyer we’re all sick to death of and, furthermore, someone who is clearly not capable of giving Obama that completely objective legal advice needed from the White House counsel’s office. The Obama Administration is taking on more and more of the look of an impending train wreck.

My prayer: I hope this report is just plain and simple wrong. Someone please tell me that Obama isn’t this obtuse…

Yep, nothing more important than getting the United States back on the side of butchering unborn children, because that is the loving and merciful thing to do, right?

Supporters of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are confident that President-elect Barack Obama will reverse the Bush administration’s 2002 decision to stop the $40 million it received in U.S. funding. The policy was instated because of UNFPA’s support for China’s one-child policy, which includes coercive abortion practices.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D – N.Y.) said the funding will be approved by the Democratic majority Congress. Her comments came while speaking Wednesday at a press conference at the National Press Club where the 2008 U.N. report on world population was released.

“You know the president will have to do nothing,” said Maloney. “He will just have to let the will of Congress go through. One of the changes is that UNFPA will be funded,” CNSNews.com reports.

The Bush administration in 2002 had stopped funding the organization, citing the Kemp-Kasten Amendment which prohibits funds from being available to organizations or programs determined to be supporting or participating in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization programs.

In July of 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte announced that for the sixth year in a row, the government had determined that “UNFPA provides support for and participates in the management of the Chinese government’s program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”

And I know that all of you, my fellow Americans, are delighted that in some small way we, too, will be involved in forced abortions and sterlizations in China. When we think about the poor, frightened woman being forced to have an abortion, we can take real pride in being Americans, can’t we?

Oh, the joys of a liberal, Democratic Administration – with such advances in the battle for equality for women and death for children, can federally funded abortion on demand be far behind?