A nasty, anti-American hate-fest comes to a well-deserved ending:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

Goodness, I hope this happens:

Republicans nation-wide are celebrating Brown’s victory in the heavily Democratic state. Many are sending out fund-raising appeals hoping to capitalize on the grass-roots enthusiasm captured by his candidacy, and surely premature buzz about a possible presidential run.

And the victory is starting to have an impact on candidate recruitment. At the National Republican Congressional Committee, the win has galvanized Chairman Pete Sessions’ attempt to get a GOP candidate on the ballot in all 435 House races, according to party officials.

“We want to have 435 Republican candidates who, like Scott Brown, have also had enough of the spending and taxing and heavy-handed governance,” Sessions, R-Texas, wrote in a column posted at RedState.org last night.

That effort is aimed at making sure Republicans are in place to take advantage of a favorable climate no matter where it presents itself — and to siphon Democratic resources in the fall, by expanding the potential playing field.

Hard as it would be, it must be done – and, also, we must contest every single State legislative seat up for election – and then go right on down the ballot to the lowliest city council. Any partisan race which has a Democrat, must have a Republican. Will we win all of them? Of course not – but the people are counting on us to give them a choice.

And Obama was supposed to be of, by, and for the people?

K Street’s top 25 firms cashed in on the aggressive legislative agenda unleashed by the new president and bigger Democratic majorities in Congress in 2009 to post double-digit growth of about 10 percent over the previous year.

Despite economic uncertainty and the promise by the Obama administration to clamp down on the influence industry, the majority of top lobbying firms posted higher numbers in 2009, with 11 firms showing dramatic growth.

Looks like while working Americans are struggling, Obama is helping lobbyists cash in.

Pam Meister over at Big Hollywood discusses.

So, liberals, how is that hopey change thing working out for you? Is Obama all you dreamed he’d be?

I doubt it – with massive majorities in Congress and coming in to office with an amazing amount of good will on the part of the American people, Obama has managed to make himself terribly unpopular and, more important, managed to get people to hold him in contempt. All of this in one short year.

It might not be so much that we miss President Bush but that we miss having a President we can rely upon. Think about it – after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, people had regained confidence that, at the least, the men in charge were adults who would at least try to do the right thing. Then came 8 years of Clinton – a President who acted like an adolescent with an Administration crowded with school yard bullies. After that, we got President Bush – and after 9/11 we all breathed a sigh of relief that the President was named “Bush” rather than “Gore”.

And for 8 years, come what may, we had a President – once again – we could rely upon to at least try to do the right thing. And then came Obama – and he’s proven that if the right thing presents itself to him all wrapped up in a pretty, little package – he’ll go on and do the exact opposite. Our prayer is to be spared any major crisis because we’re afraid that Obama will fail the test – and let the economy some how improve, just so that Obama’s policies won’t be as devastating as they could be. And we keep our fingers crossed, and mark off the days until January 20th, 2013.

That is the amount Democrats want to increase the debt limit:

Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.

The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation.

It’s hardly the debate Democrats want or need in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts. Arguing over the debt limit provides a forum for Republicans to blame Democrats for rising deficits and spiraling debt, even though responsibility for the government’s financial straits can be shared by both political parties.

Indeed, it can – but, Democrats, it is you who are in charge. Here’s the thing: if you have a bit of courage, you can actually freeze spending at current levels (better if you could actually do a 10%, across-the-board cut) and thus allow this pill to be swallowed a bit easier…but, I know you won’t.

Why won’t you? Because you’re just incapable of thinking of government in terms other than spending money. Its what you do. Its all you know. Its killing the country and you just can’t think of anything else to do.

Ah, well, you’ll pay the proper price for this.

But will anyone in charge pay attention?

….In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a “lean and mean government.” This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.

Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a “new politics” that transcended the “red” versus “blue” partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the “public option” or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the “pay or play provision” in both the Senate and House bills.

Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

That’s what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn’t just, will we listen?…

Of course I would disagree that the people want liberalism even if done by careful compromise – but the point made is fundamentally sound: Democrats need to drop the left and come back to the center if they hope to survive. Right now, with the course Obama has set, Democrats are heading for disaster in 2010 and 2012 isn’t look to hot, either. And, remember, in 2012 and 2014 it is the Democrats who will have a whole bunch of first-term Senators up for re-election, many of them in strongly GOP States…failure to change course could, by January of 2015, result in as many as 65 Republican Senators to go along with a House majority and control of the White House. Such power given to the GOP – if matched with a desire to really reform (which is becoming a white-hot passion) – would spell doom for liberalism.

I don’t think Obama has it in him – certainly, Pelosi doesn’t have it in her and Reid has sold himself entirely to the left: he needs massive campaign funds in order to keep his seat and the price being demanded is liberalism, liberalism, and more liberalism. Time will tell…

That’s the way to show us you’re paying attention after Massachusetts:

President Obama’s biggest mistake so far is being an overachiever?

“If there’s one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values,” Obama told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview at the White House.

And he went into office, he says, giving us more credit for quickness than we really deserve:

The president said he made a mistake in assuming that if he focused on policy decisions, the American people would understand the reasoning behind them.

“That I do think is a mistake of mine,” Obama said. “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”

A President’s day is too full for him to read the news and get a direct feel for what is going on – but he has a huge staff to do just that for him. Is anyone at the White House cluing the big guy in, at all? No one likes to be the bearer of ill tidings, and subordinates are likely to soft peddle bad news to spare the boss…but, after a while, the truth does have to get in there.

Or, does it?

Carter never figured it out and he eventually got mad at us for not being smart enough to see what a wonderful job he was doing. This went over like a lead balloon and Carter was crushed in his re-election bid. We all joked that Obama was “Welcome Back, Carter” – but perhaps we were being prescient? Its hard to be as obtuse and self righteous as Jimmy Carter, but Obama is clearly shooting for it, so far.

Barry, time to get Carville on speed dial…you need someone out there who can give you some good advice and let you know what the real world is up to.

The Brown win yesterday is a great and glorious thing, but the fact remains that Obama is President and the Democrats retain large majorities in both the House and Senate. In order to take our nation back and restore it to the Founder’s vision, we have much work in front of us.

Fortunately, Brown gave us some great clues on what to do – campaign against “the machine”. I’ve been on this – calling it “people vs powerful”, but “the machine” is much superior rhetoric. Romney also hit on it well – calling the Democrats “neo-monarchists” who have a sense of entitlement to power. This is what we must run against – the system, the machine, the elites who think they have a right to rule us.

If we campaign on such populist rhetoric and match it to programs designed to apply free-market principles to the economy, we can win very big in November. We see what we want, we’ve been told how to do it. From Maine to California, lets fight this thing out, everywhere.

Now, let’s get out there and do it.

UPDATE: Bill Quick hits upon an idea I’ve been pushing for a while:

Here’s the strategy. We contest every race. The goal is to put as many liberty-minded conservatives into office as we can, and where that is impossible, to elect the most congenial Republican we can get. In Mass, that was a Scott Brown. In California, it may end up being a Meg Whitman, or a Carly Fiorina. But where a liberty minded conservative has a shot, then back that candidate to the hilt, either in the primaries (no matter what the national party decides is good for us), and in the general elections afterwards. Rubio in Florida is an example of what I am talking about. He is popular, he can win, and he is far more congenial to our cause than the currently anointed GOP candidate (who may no longer be so anointed in the wake of the Massachusetts Massacre).

Every single race – let no Democrat go unchallenged. Doesn’t matter if its the race for local dog catcher: if a Democrat is running, we need a GOPer to challenge. Find the most conservative candidate we can who fits the electorate but who can also lead the electorate towards a more liberty-minded worldview. Our goal is first and foremost liberty, and anyone who will back a liberty platform should gain our support if that person is the most conservative candidate in the race.

What does a liberty platform look like? A few quick tests will always tell us the tale – is the candidate in favor of judicial restraint? Does the candidate think that people should be able to bear arms? Does the candidate believe that the local folks should make their own rules? If a candidate says “yes” to these things, then that candidate is worthy of our support – especially if its against the socialists who dominate the Democrat party.

David spoke to Saul:

“Let your majesty not lose courage.

I am at your service to go and fight this Philistine.”

But Saul answered David,

“You cannot go up against this Philistine and fight with him,

for you are only a youth, while he has been a warrior from his youth.”

David continued:

“The LORD, who delivered me from the claws of the lion and the bear,

will also keep me safe from the clutches of this Philistine.”

Saul answered David, “Go! the LORD will be with you.”

Then, staff in hand, David selected five smooth stones from the wadi

and put them in the pocket of his shepherd’s bag.

With his sling also ready to hand, he approached the Philistine.

With his shield bearer marching before him,

the Philistine also advanced closer and closer to David.

When he had sized David up,

and seen that he was youthful, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance,

the Philistine held David in contempt.

The Philistine said to David,

“Am I a dog that you come against me with a staff?”

Then the Philistine cursed David by his gods

and said to him, “Come here to me,

and I will leave your flesh for the birds of the air

and the beasts of the field.”

David answered him:

“You come against me with sword and spear and scimitar,

but I come against you in the name of the LORD of hosts,

the God of the armies of Israel that you have insulted.

Today the LORD shall deliver you into my hand;

I will strike you down and cut off your head.

This very day I will leave your corpse

and the corpses of the Philistine army for the birds of the air

and the beasts of the field;

thus the whole land shall learn that Israel has a God.

All this multitude, too,

shall learn that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.

For the battle is the LORD’s and he shall deliver you into our hands.”

The Philistine then moved to meet David at close quarters,

while David ran quickly toward the battle line

in the direction of the Philistine.

David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone,

hurled it with the sling,

and struck the Philistine on the forehead.

The stone embedded itself in his brow,

and he fell prostrate on the ground.

Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone;

he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.

Then David ran and stood over him;

with the Philistine’s own sword which he drew from its sheath

he dispatched him and cut off his head. – 1 Samuel 17:32-33, 37, 40-51

The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous, altogether.

Of course, it was an idiotic premise to think they ever had:

U.S. intelligence agencies now suspect that Iran never halted work on its nuclear arms program in 2003, as stated in a national intelligence estimate made public three years ago, U.S. officials said.

Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country’s supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons.

The new consensus emerging among analysts in the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community on Iran’s nuclear arms program is expected to be the highlight of a classified national intelligence estimate nearing completion that will replace the estimate issued in 2007.

It was clear that the 2007 report was put together by liberal moles in the intelligence community who wanted to undermine President Bush – it was laughable to think that the Mullahs would ever give up their dream of nuclear weapons. To the mullahs, nukes are the way to ensure that no matter how badly they provoke us, we’ll never attack for fear of a nuclear exchange. And if you think it over carefully, for the Mullahs basic geopolitical strategy requires nuclear weapons – that they are insane and shouldn’t do it doesn’t matter. You have to think of it from the lunatic’s point of view.

The problem is that now we’ve got a President who has already shown himself unwilling to offend our enemies. The plain fact of the matter is that only by taking a calculated risk of war can we prevent an Iranian nuclear force from becoming a reality – and while I don’t think actual war would eventuate, it is something which may happen, and thus we need a President who can grimly look that fact in the face, and still do the right thing. Obama doesn’t impress me as a man who can do this.

And that means that Israel, if it wishes to survive, will have to strike…could be a very nasty couple years coming up.