Election 2014 - The Aftermath

There are pundits galore, all over the political universe it seems, who will make meaning out of yesterday's election results. Be careful whom you choose to believe.

I have remained intentionally silent in the run up to this election, privately hoping for the results we observed, but not going public with those aspirations. Putting control of the Senate back into the hands of the Republicans has little to do with their superior agenda, in my opinion. Rather, this election was a stout repudiation of Barack Obama's misguided policies across the whole political waterfront. His much-ballyhooed base seemingly evaporated in this election. The vaunted Democratic election machine ground to an embarrassingly squeaky halt.

We are being told this morning the Democrats need to reinvent themselves in the wake of this stunning defeat for Barack Obama as leader of the party.

He won't see it that way, and in fact one of his aides was quoted this morning in the NY Times as saying exactly that: "He doesn't feel repudiated." And this from a man who boldly declared this election was about ALL his policies, "every single one."

It wasn't that long ago there were cries for the Republicans to reinvent themselves, allegations they were a divided party in search of unity, woefully unable to connect to the American people. Well, times change, people change their views, and the political pendulum swings back and forth. Now it is the Republicans who are trending upward. And that will change someday too.

Not only did Republicans win seven Democratic Senate seats (and counting), lost none, and took control of the Senate, but they did something far more significant for the long term health of the Republic by dislodging Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Senate Majority Leader. He has single-handedly and heavy-handedly, broken the Senate rules repeatedly to make new rules to suit his own political needs.

This morning, he sounded like a statesman: “I’d like to congratulate Senator McConnell (R-KY), who will be the new Senate Majority Leader. The message from voters is clear: they want us to work together. I look forward to working with Senator McConnell to get things done for the middle class.”

Based on what Harry Reid has done for the middle class over the last six years, no one should be holding their breath that Harry Reid will ever become anything but the obstructionist he has always been. But hope springs eternal, I suppose. History, I predict, will judge Harry Reid harshly as the author of chaos and divisiveness in the legislative process these last six years. I hope Republicans will model true leadership better, now that the reins are in their hands. I am, and will always be, optimistic about the future of America.

In addition, the Republicans added more governorships throughout the country. Democrats won only one and lost four, including bluer than blue Maryland. Even Illinois added a Republican governor! In the House, Democrats lost at least eight seats, probably more when the final results are in. There are now more House Republicans on Capitol Hill than have been seated since World War II.

Mia Love's family

Several firsts in the House include the election of Mia Love (R-UT), the first black Republican conservative woman, who is also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is an historic "first" worth celebrating, and the citizens of the 4th Utah Congressional District are to be congratulated for their foresight.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) finally is realizing his dream to become the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and as an added bonus he will be named the President Pro Tempore, now fourth in line to the presidency and the recipient of his own Secret Service security detail. For the uninitiated, that office is provided for in the Constitution (yes, we are still governed by it), and is the senior Senator in the majority party who sits (ceremoniously) in the seat of the President of the Senate, who is the Vice President, when the Vice President is not there (which is nearly always never).

There’s no reason to gloat this morning. You couldn't fairly call it a "wave" election. But it could be accurately characterized as the election where Democrats suffered worse than the mid-terms four years ago in 2010.

I hope I'm not stretching too far to think this might just be the end of the liberal progressive Democratic governance and all of Washington's gross spending excesses. My fear is that Republicans have been prone in the past to be the all too willing collaborators for the spending orgy.

Let's hope for some responsible budget setting governance to replace what we've witnessed in the last six years.

Mormons and Political Neutrality

There's a simple reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes such a point in every election year about maintaining its neutrality position on politics - to do otherwise would threaten its tax-exempt status.

In every election year in my lifetime there have always been statements issued by the Church's leaders encouraging members to become involved in politics. However, leaders never tell members how to become involved, which party to support or how to vote. This year in particular with a Mormon heading the Republican ticket, the Church has come up with a creative way to illustrate its position:



I have no idea how Mitt Romney will fare in the general election in November. Frankly, there are days I am almost ambivalent about the presidential race. I don't fear the attacks on the Church, and I am quite certain Romney will be a great candidate. What concerns me more is taking back a majority from Democrats in the Senate, which would depose another Mormon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

If anyone needs an illustration about how bi-polar Mormons tend to be as a voting block, one need look no further than Harry Reid vs. Mitt Romney.

Even more surprising to me is how heavily-Mormon Utah in 2010 could elect Mike Lee, tea party favorite, and now in 2012 be clinging to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Anyone who thinks Mormons vote in lock step in a block this way or that, simply doesn't know how convoluted their thinking politically can be. I have many friends who have remained independent in red Utah, claiming to vote for "the man" rather than the party. I took that position for many years as a registered independent so I could vote in whichever primary suited me that year.

Then Mitt Romney ran for president the first time and the only way I could cast a vote for him was to finally declare myself as a Republican. You're looking at a guy here who voted twice for Ross Perot in Utah where my vote literally makes no difference since in both cases the state went Republican as it always does.

This year we have a lot of interesting things happening. Peter Cooke, retired Mormon general Democrat is trying to generate some enthusiasm among Democrats to siphon off Republican support for Governor Gary Herbert. It's an attempt to revitalize the two-party system in Utah, but Herbert is a popular governor, having trounced his competition in the nominating convention and winning enough delegates to avoid a primary.

Mia Love

Mia Love is running in the general election for the newly-created 4th District seat against Jim Matheson, who changed districts for a more favorable demographic. I can't say I blame him. He's survived many attempts to oust him from office, but I've voted for him in the 2nd District in years past because I felt he was the best available candidate, until I became agitated and aroused. I backed Morgan Philpot last time around.

Matheson would become a six-term Congressman, but this year he may have met his match in Mia Love. How will he run opposed to a black Mormon woman who's smart, savvy and unafraid of anything with the name of Love? My prediction is that Utah is ready to elect her without any reservations in the 4th District.

So why can't Utah kick Orrin Hatch (78 years old) to the curb and deny him his seventh six-year term? He has served as a Senator longer than any other Utahn (36 years), and would become another Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond who might serve until he dies in office. Dan Liljenquist is certainly a qualified and acceptable replacement for Orrin Hatch.

The answer: Utah Mormons are just a bi-polar bunch when it comes to their politics. It's no wonder the Church would never attempt to impose its will on their members.

It's kind of like trying to herd cats.

Predicting the Outcome

Note to self: You are not very good about predicting the future, and nobody is. Truth be told, we only have broad brush strokes of the future events yet to transpire on this earth before the Second Coming. What is always missing from prophecy is the timeline. It is obvious the ancient prophets are of one voice when they speak of the events they witnessed in vision. That's why it is important to gather detail from many sources before making any conclusions about the future. A certain symmetry emerges when one can find more than two or three witnesses in scripture from which to draw conclusions.

On the political front, stepping away from scripture for a moment, this past week has seen two potential Republican nominees for the presidency finally (maybe) and officially (at least that's what they're saying today) announce they would not be candidates in 2012.

Sarah Palin

Each has teased the public for way too long, then bowed out. Sarah Palin has had a longer ramp to run on for a longer period of time than anyone I can remember who lost the election as a vice-presidential candidate. Anybody remember Geraldine Ferraro? Me neither. Sarah Palin became for some reason an iconic figure associated with the timing of the emergence of the tea party. If it never had a head, it at least found a figurehead in Sarah Palin. My problem with Sarah Palin is that I've never been able to paint a picture in my mind of the Oval Office with her in it.

In dismissing Palin, this author concludes, "Wasilla charm will be missed, but it only goes so far."

I think the one single event that ruled her out as a serious contender was the Katie Couric series of interviews. It's the reason Oman's article (see above) attracted me: he came to the same conclusions I did about Palin. She did in those interviews what no one else before her was ever able to do -- Sarah Palin made Katie Couric look like a deep-thinking intellectual genius for the first time merely by illustrating the comparison for us. Ouch! To her credit, she has taken a wagon load of slings and arrows aimed at her personally and effectively deflected them all en route to fame and fortune outside elective office. But presidential? I just don't see it.

I like Sarah Palin as a person, and I love her family story. I even watched the documentary on her life, "The Undefeated," and was mildly impressed because all the talking heads seemed to really like her. She's a pretty, great personality in the same way Utah was once touted as a pretty, great state. Not pretty great, mind you -- that comma made all the difference. But Sarah Palin always strikes me as a mile wide and an inch deep when I listen to her talk. Maybe I'm wrong, time will tell, but her rising star could go into permanent eclipse and no one would notice in the years ahead. She's had a good run, amassed a ton of money, and now she tells us she can be more effective on the "outside." Honestly, who cares? If you ever pay for a ticket to hear her speak anywhere, you've been had.

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ)

Chris Christie has been a darling among true believers in limited government and fiscal restraint. Those looking for a plain-spoken, sometimes bombastic and assertive savior figure in a leader, need look no further than Christie. His political bio is impressive, but became downright irresistible when he first emerged in his campaign for governor of New Jersey and took on the public employee unions, including the teachers, without mercy. He slashed budgets, openly berated the status quo, and returned (is returning) New Jersey to a state of fiscal sanity. He decided to stay on the job at home, rather than run for the presidency in 2012. He's one of a handful of successful governors who has been able to do painful but essential turnarounds in their states, including Mitch Daniels in Indiana, John Kasich in Ohio, Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana to name a few. And who can forget what happened with Wisconsin and its determined governor, Scott Walker? These are all strong leaders and each has a bright political future.

Mitt Romney

So the state of the race today has former Godfather's CEO Herman Cain ("never held a political elective office and proud of it") stealing thunder from Rick Perry in Florida and becoming (maybe) a rising star. Perry at least halved Michele Bachmann's tea party support when he entered the race, but he has stumbled badly and is losing ground to Cain. In the meantime, Romney keeps chugging along in front-runner status as the designated "next-guy-in-line" Republican establishment candidate. Many are coming to view the outcome of the nominating process as a foregone conclusion now, ceding the race to Romney. It now appears former Speaker Newt Gingrich (who has too much personal baggage, but is always the smartest guy in the room), Ron Paul (who looks like a true prophet after he appeared crazy four years ago), Rick Santorum (much better senator than presidential candidate), and Jon Huntsman (who's really in it to prep for 2016) will all fade away. Get ready for earlier and earlier primaries next year -- they start January 3, 2012.

Romney said something last week that caught my attention: "Almost all Americans live for a purpose greater than ourselves.  Our heritage of religious faith and tolerance has importantly shaped who we have become as a people.  We must continue to welcome faith into the public square and allow it to flourish. Our government should respect religious values, not silence them. We will always pledge our allegiance to a nation under God.

"Our values ennoble the citizen, and strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too. One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line. Poisonous language does not advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind. The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate.  The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us – let no agenda narrow our vision or drive us apart."

I applaud leadership instead of criticism wherever I can find it. That statement exhibits leadership.

It's interesting to get the input from about 1500 different points of view, as I do each day on Twitter. What a great addition to social media that has been! Instead of waiting on the print or cable or network news outlets as we did at one time, Twitter gives you raw news feeds in real time, unfiltered and from a wide span of sources, allowing you to sample news as you would food from a buffet table and come to conclusions without being told what some commentator wants you to believe it all means.

So this morning I looked at several sources from the prognosticators about the outcome of the nominating process, then the general election in November 2012. This one predicts a narrow victory for Obama now that Palin is out of the race. I sincerely hope (and believe) he's dead wrong. Rather than go away dispirited by the loss of Palin in the race, my bet is people from all factions within the Republican party will rally behind the eventual nominee, whoever it is, because the fundamental bedrock belief is another four years of Obama would be disastrous.

Hugh Hewitt, author of A Mormon in the White House?, revisits his scholarly view of Article Six of the Constitution prohibiting a religious litmus test for potential candidates for national office, and concludes as he did back in 2007, that Romney's Mormonism is not, never was, never can be or never will be the defining issue of his candidacy. Just as a refresher, here's what the Constitution says:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Because of freedom's guarantees for freedom of speech, however, religious bigotry will always abound in some quarters, particularly among those who have no respect for the Constitution. Not a thing anyone can do about that. That's why we love America, isn't it? Give anyone who wants it a public soapbox and let them say whatever they want. Witness the explosion of bloggers like me in cyberspace.

It's interesting that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Majority Leader, never seems to draw any flak at all over his a membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Maybe it's only because he's a liberal Democrat. Talk about a double standard! Last week Reid invoked the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate, forbidding further debate on a bill he already had in his hip pocket with the requisite 60 votes needed for passage, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), lamented the course the Senate is taking under Reid's leadership. But Reid's Mormonism is never an issue in the Senate.

A Rick Perry surrogate who introduced Perry at a conservative gathering last week, Pastor Robert Jeffress, of Dallas, Texas, was quoted as saying: “Mormonism is not Christianity,” he declared. “It’s not politically correct to say, but Mormonism is a cult.” I almost welcome it now, rather than take offense as a Mormon. The more they say it, the more worn out it sounds. Jeffress doesn't just single out Mormons. He's said equally disparaging things about Catholics.

The Washington Post account includes some othe details on the swift Perry denial:

A spokesman for the Perry campaign released a statement saying that Perry did not agree with Jeffress about Romney’s religion. “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” wrote Robert Black in an e-mail. “He is not in the business of judging people. That’s God’s job.”
Black was quick to add that it was the conference organizers, not the Perry campaign, who chose Jeffress to introduce Perry on Friday.
And Jeffress made clear that he was not speaking for Perry. “I did not talk about my Mormon views” with the governor, he told the press, “and I’m not insinuating that the governor shares those at all — he may not share them at all.”

Be that as it may, when you're losing ground in the polls and desperate for attention, have someone play the Mormon card and paint your opponent as "weird." It's all open season now.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

So how are you at prognostication? I'll admit I'm not a very good guesser most times. My one single triumph was Mike Lee in 2010. I liked Mike early, often, and throughout that campaign when he was considered a dark horse candidate without any backing. He came from "nowhere" to topple a senior senator.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Will anyone rise to challenge Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) this time around? So far, all's quiet on that front as many possible contenders await the redistricting outcome to see where the boundaries will be before committing themselves to a Senate run, Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) among them. He's probably the only Democrat who could challenge either the governor or the senator in a statewide race with some hope of winning in Utah. So, much of the drama in the state races still awaits us.

But when it comes to the national scene, I'm just a "pretty great" prognosticator.

What does a Mormon guy from Utah really know anyway?

Open Letter on the Debt Crisis

Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader, and Mr. Speaker (and Mr. Chief Justice if it helps):

The noise in Washington this week has been deafening, the heat has been off the charts, the accusations and threats unrestrained, and the rhetoric explosive. And what have we gleaned from it all? So far, nothing. You all saw this coming when the new House was sworn in last January, and what have you done since then? You waited until the self-imposed deadline, and very little leadership among you has been in evidence. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) explains just how simple these issues really are:



There are those who claim the freshmen Republicans in the House are irresponsible with their staunch position on "Cut, Cap and Balance," but to date it is the only piece of pending legislation that has passed, until a second attempt passed narrowly late today. Since then a flurry of proposals (and that's all they are -- proposals) have not been put into actionable legislation. Moody's remains unimpressed, saying nothing they've seen so far will work to appease their pending downgrade of the U.S. Treasury's AAA bond rating. What is pathetic in a crisis of leadership that seems to characterize Democrat control of the Senate and the White House is that we haven't yet seen a plan in writing. The budget submitted by this White House earlier this year was so deficient in specifics it was voted down 97-0, and nothing has come out of the Senate since.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

I am grateful for the efforts of Utah's congressional delegation who are leading the way in this fight -- specifically Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (D-UT) and senior Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Lee is responsible for the content of the House legislation and it was sponsored courageously by Chaffetz where it passed. Cut, Cap and Balance is the responsible approach, the "balanced approach," if you prefer. Unfortunately, when it was sent to the Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader, decided to kill it on a procedural vote without giving anyone in the "deliberative body" a chance to debate or amend its merits or deficiencies.

Then the House Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), went to work with Reid, feeling betrayed by a "wiggly" Jell-o-like occupant of the White House, to craft yet another Washington COMPROMISE solution. So far, no success on that path has been reached either. We'll now watch the Senate shred this latest attempt and see if they can come up with anything over the weekend that might have a chance for passage in the House.

In the meantime President Obama remains on the sidelines where he deserves to be as a lame duck and out of the discussions because he was summarily excluded (correctly) by Boehner as an impediment.

Since January, the threat of a downgrade in the U.S. Treasury credit rating for its bonds has been on the table. The rating agencies are looking for a commitment for real cuts in spending amounting to $4 Trillion, not ironically the same amount that has been amassed under the Obama administration in a short two and one-half years. I continue to be baffled why anyone would think borrowing $4 Trillion from principally the Chinese government then blaming George W. Bush for everything, as President Obama did last week without even acknowledging his own complicity might be a factor, is a viable campaign strategy by Obama's advisers. The thought makes reason stare. Then after that he demands that wealthy Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes.

It is my considered belief that Mike Lee is the statesman in all this. I define "statesman" as one who takes a principled stand in the face of popular opinion. However, the American people are lined up behind Lee on this one. A recent CNN poll indicates as many as 74 percent favor the general idea of a BBA without even knowing the specifics. You may disagree, but his influence is having a profound impact for a junior senator from a small state like Utah. Those who doubted his effectiveness as a freshman replacing a seasoned Bob Bennett can rest assured there would have been nothing coming from Bennett by comparison. So, kudos to Mike.

I do not speak for Lee (he is fully capable), but it's important to underscore what he is attempting to accomplish without impugning his motives as some have done. He is not in favor of raising the debt limit if he were making an isolated choice. In this climate currently, however, he is willing to make the necessary compromise now if he can get the Balanced Budget Amendment to change the structure of the government's spending habit to finally come under Constitutional control. Click the link (it's not a new idea). Anything short of a Constitutional amendment allows future Congresses to adjust whatever assumptions are put in place today and to change the law at will. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. I think that position is reasoned and worthy of consideration, especially when it authorizes a mechanism to deal with "emergencies" like wars. There are twenty Democratic Senators who are on the record as favoring the BBA idea.



When 49 states require their legislatures to balance their budgets, can anyone explain to me why expecting the same thing from the federal government is such a bad idea? When did it become "reckless" for government to commit to the taxpayers they would not spend more than they take in? Will those same people explain why deficit spending and unsustainable debt and borrowing is NOT reckless? I await your response. We're at a tipping point in America. The word of the year in politics is "UNSUSTAINABLE." Everybody uses that word. So let's bind Congress in the future to a sustainable and sensible process when it comes to spending priorities. Is that reckless?

I have always maintained since first being introduced to Mike's senate candidacy early in 2010, that he would make an impact on Washington if he could remain true to his beliefs. However, I acknowledge he cannot be effective in isolation, nor that any one man can change everything. That would be a truly audacious undertaking. If I were a betting man, I would wager the August 4th deadline is mythical and has no real merit as a drop dead date for solving the problem. If Americans have a few more weeks of watching these positions revealed for what they are -- mostly lies -- we'll see a public ground swell uniting behind Mike's leadership on the BBA. Why? Because President Obama has already caved on including taxes as part of this compromise. That's a reasonable compromise, and he is to be commended for taking taxes out of the equation. However, the spending cuts proposed by Reid have been exposed for what they are -- illusory rather than real cuts to trim the baseline for this year, particularly when an "assumption" about the end of our involvement in Afghanistan is included -- and REAL, tangible cuts out of this year's budget are what the credit rating agencies are looking for. They are certainly not going to be impressed with a promise to impanel more commissions to study the matters.

Everyone knows what is required, it seems, except the Democratic and Republican establishment leadership, who are taking us down a path of more "blue ribbon commissions" to do the hard work the American people elected their representatives to do. There is a committee of 535 elected representatives already in place -- 100 in the Senate and 435 in the House. They need to step up, write their best proposals, debate them in public rather than cutting deals behind closed doors, take the votes up or down, and be accountable instead of hiding behind procedure. The American people are screaming, "NO MORE GAMES!"



I stand with Senator Lee. We must put on the spending brakes immediately against THIS YEAR's baseline, then plan for the future by passing the BBA out of both houses of Congress, realizing that most of its provisions will take a matter of months, maybe years, to be approved by 3/4 of all the state legislatures before its provisions kick in. However, just the act of passing that legislation will signal Washington's commitment to the world and to our citizens we are taking immediate and realistic steps to curb the spending addiction.

If the individual states disagree with the BBA, then let them have their voice, and let the debates be held state by state until we reach the needed number. A return to states' rights and federalism at that level would be a welcomed change from what we are witnessing on the shores of the Potomac today. Yes, withdrawal from our easy credit addiction will be long and painful, but must be undertaken. Like all addictions, the time to quit is now, not tomorrow. I guarantee you those in Washington who are not willing to find the game changing solutions will be swept out of office in 2012.

There is no doubt when the Constitution was approved it baked in all the spending restraints and separation of powers by design to prevent tyranny from ever gaining power in America as it had in England. But the abuse of Constitutional principles defining those important limitations are only effective if all agree to be bound by its provisions. Sadly, that is not the case today.

Therefore, we must determine right now as a nation what course we will take. Will we at long last try to reclaim the liberties we have ceded as free men and women to an out-of-control tyrannical federal government, or will we wait for nature to take its irrevocable course and watch the ship of state sink beneath our feet? The choice could not be more clear to me. We have given money to this government and it was not enough. The government appears to be ready to confiscate and regulate even more, and we have created that voracious appetite by monetizing our debt and printing gobs of worthless paper. We have done this to ourselves, and we have what we have because of our own greed. Only our collective political will as a people can reverse this addiction and stop it in its tracks.

We can debate the merits of the proposed BBA (there are actually many versions afloat now), if a true debate can be had in today's environment, but this much seems clear -- drastic measures are needed now. If you use a percentage of past spending limits as a measurement, maybe that's not realistic, so let's come up with something else to cap what we spend if you like, but unless the spending cuts and caps are real and permanent, and until someone else comes up with a better idea, let's support Senator Lee's efforts to at least get us to the starting line on the debate as a nation.

The political gamesmanship is pathetic to watch. Only this morning I listened to President Obama suggest Americans need to keep up the pressure on their elected representatives. "Keep Tweeting," he encouraged. Really, Mr. President? That's your solution? Tweeting? Wouldn't it be hysterical if he were reported as a Twitter spammer and they shut down @barackobama?

There are some who are far to the right of Senator Lee. They would argue there is no defensible principled position on which we could possibly stand to consider raising the debt ceiling. They would advocate a complete collapse of the federal government as the only option avialable to prove a point and win the ideological argument for "purity."

I would suggest there might be an alternative.

It's called elections. They are free and vouched safe under the Constitution. We may have to wait for sixteen more months before enough like-minded people can be added to the ranks of those who believe as I do, but I have a feeling it will be worth the wait if it means saving the Republic by peaceful means. I don't love the thought of anarchy in the streets, nor do I relish a complete economic meltdown simply to prove your "pure" ideology is better than mine. America renews itself every two years by design. When it makes an egregious mistake in judgment, America can redeem herself. The pendulum swings back and forth.

While you may argue there is no principled room left to entertain a vote to raise the debt limit, I believe there is. Even Senator Lee recognizes it is irresponsible or naive to stamp his feet and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. His rational, if adamant stance on the BBA, makes sense while compromising on a debt ceiling increase tied to the strong medicine of the BBA later on. That's better than specious commissions to study and recommend spending cuts and caps that cannot bind the collective wills of future Congresses. Lost in the clamor of the ideology sometimes is the simple fact that the current proposed increase in the debt ceiling is only to handle what we've already obligated the government to do. We just need to make a stand that we won't continue our irresponsible spending habits.



Going forward, let's find Constitutional principles to stand on relative to the federal government's proper role in our lives. Then when we reduce the size of government we'll attack the silent elephant in the room in the aftermath -- who's got a plan for putting all the downsized federal government workers back to work in the private sector?

But that's tomorrow's problem.

Obama, Netanyahu and World Peace

I have been searching for days for the words to summarize my feelings about what just happened last week with President Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I have been reviewing the political backlash over the events, and I'm still reeling in a state of semi-shocked revulsion. I've written in the past about the history of the Jews, the state of Israel, and the tragic history of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It seems the more things change the more they remain the same. In the establishment of Zion in the last days it is to be expected there might be some surprises along the way, but the events of the last few days have been a stunner even for me as I've thought more about it.

Charles Krauthammer weighed in yesterday in the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, he believes President Obama is either a rank amateur or a provocateur. Most disappointing, once again, was the way Obama ambushed Netanyahu. The Obama speech was delivered while Netanyahu was in the air flying toward America, where he had requested some time in front of a joint session of Congress to deliver a speech intended to clarify his position and strengthen ties between the two countries.

So what does our President do? He boldly states Israel must be willing to return to the 1967 borders of the state of Israel before it was invaded, defeated its would-be conquerors, claimed the land the aggressors lost by the ill-fated incursion into the sovereign borders of Israel, then be willing to swap other Israeli land in exchange for an affirmation of the "right to return" asserted by the Arabs.

Then, having dropped that bombshell on the world, instead of sticking around for the speech like any former American president would have done, Obama jetted off to tip a pint in an Irish pub. Amazing and appalling treatment of America's only ally in the Middle East with a democratic form of government that is currently working well.

The Deseret News published an editorial, and tried to state the obvious without striking a strident note, in which they said:  "Also this time, he decided to set specific parameters for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, specifying a return to the borders that existed prior to the Six Day War in 1967. That was a diplomatic bombshell that may make an agreement more difficult. It certainly gave Republicans something for which to attack the president after weeks of being tongue-tied by his success in destroying al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It sent troubling signals about the nation's continuing support for Israel as a model for democracy in the region." The editorial then praised the president for offering support for what is being dubbed "the Arab spring," as more and more countries experience uprisings in search of freedom from dictatorial rule.

But in Obama's call for a return to the 1967 borders, Israel would be signing its death warrant, since the old line cuts Israel to a narrow neck of land seven miles wide and makes it virtually indefensible. It is also untenable to ask Israel to divide the Holy City Jerusalem once again. Having captured control of its Western Wall in 1967, the only remnant of their holiest site, the Temple Mount, it is impossible to imagine the state of Israel would willingly surrender it now. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what Netanyahu said publicly in his speech.

Obama quickly recovered, mocking his critics by stating he had said "mutually agreeable land swaps" is what he was talking about. But the problems still remain -- Israel is always required to give up land it acquired through wars with aggressors who attacked them, while the Palestinians merely have to make promises they have historically never kept.

Netanyahu, speaking to a joint session of Congress, made his position absolutely clear:




Krauthammer summarizes the peril into which the U.S. President has thrust Israel, and it has to do with weakening Israel's negotiating power in the U.N. through his reckless (or is it intentional?) teleprompter rhetoric. Writes Krauthammer, "Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

"And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

"Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.

"The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty."

So after all the history between America and Israel since 1948, when the state of Israel was initially approved on the narrowest of margins -- one vote cast by the U.S. -- President Obama is now undermining the Jewish state. Both sides of the aisle in Congress have demonstrated their bipartisan support for Netanyahu, reaffirming not only the Prime Minister, but also standing firm by repudiating Obama's speech.

Even Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader, is his speech at AIPAC last week issued a strong statement in support of the right of Israel and the Palestinians, "and no one else," to negotiate their own path forward. PERIOD. Democrats and Republicans alike are united on this one issue -- the state of Israel has a firm and unyielding ally in the United States of America.



The only dissenter appears to be its Commander in Chief.

Bob Bennett: Consistent and Tone Deaf



Boston Harbor, 1773

Two hundred and thirty-seven years ago last night (can it really be just a "coincidence?"), a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped an estimated £10,000 worth of tea into Boston Harbor.

John Adams described that moment in our history as the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.”  The struggle for independence from Britain would drag on for eight long and frustrating years before the American dream of freedom became reality as the British redcoats succumbed to the ragtag band of patriots and the Revolutionary War finally ended. 

Many people believe the Boston Tea Party was just a protest about an unfair tax.  But it was infinitely more than that.  The 1773 Tea Party was a manifestation of the colonists' protest against the process by which the British government taxed them.  It was the methods the British throne was using to govern them that aroused them to action.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

Last night, our forefathers would have been proud.  Another major victory against what can only be described as a tyrannical process was won when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) was forced to drop his $1.27 trillion, 1,924-page omnibus spending bill.  Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called this bill "dreadful" and opposed it vociferously.  He's gone to school on Bennett's demise, and is already running hard in his all out social media blitz to bid for re-election in 2012.

The problem with Reid’s omnibus spending bill was not just its size, but the process by which it was drafted and forced on the American people.  There was no committee review.  No one was given the chance to read the bill before it came up for a vote.  It was being crammed down at the last minute again. 

The utter collapse of this "dreadful" bill was a complete rejection of that way of doing business in Washington.  It's historic in its implications because it came at the end of the 111th Congress, the lowest rated Congress since Gallup has recorded public opinion. 

Senator John McCain (R–AZ) told National Review:  “I know this is a seminal moment, because for the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’”  Classic quote!!

Lame Duck Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)

Last night’s victory could not have happened without the modern reincarnation of the Tea Party.  Here's the saddest part of the story for me personally.  Once again, lame duck Senator Bob Bennett (R–UT), who was resoundingly rejected at the nominating convention, lined up on the wrong side of history on his way out the door after eighteen years.  He was working “actively to round up as many as nine potential Republican votes” for the omnibus bill.  He never heard the electorate, and continues to turn a deaf ear right to the bitter end.  "That's my intention," Bennett told The Hill when asked if he would support the package.  Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn't affect his vote. "It will be tough for some, but not for me," he said.  During his re-election bid he not only refused to oppose the earmark practice, he defended it.  And we all know how that ended at the convention.

The bill was tinselled with over 6,000 earmarks worth $8 billion, a "mere fraction" of the total size of the bill, but come on, they're trying to pull this crap within a month and a half of a stunning repudiation of the "business as usual" way of doing things in Washington D.C.?  Even President Obama described it as a "shellacking."  It appears, the will of the American people will not be denied, even in this lame duck Congress.

To counter Bennett's actions among his Republican colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) worked in direct opposition to Bennett with those nine Republicans.  Many of them are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  McConnell asked them to drop their support for the bill. 

Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, had 281 earmarks worth $561 million in the bill.  McConnell himself had 48 earmarks worth $113 million.  It's shameful, but this time they got it right at long last when the chips were down.  I'm encouraged, and I'm the forever optimist.

But the daylight has finally dawned, it appears.  McConnell told National Review afterward: “We decided that we’re not going to pass a 2,000-page bill that nobody has seen since yesterday. That’s not the way to operate and that’s not the message from the November elections.”  May history be made!!

This is fabulous news, America!  It can only be considered a victory!  Not every member of the unpopular 111th Congress has gotten the message of the November elections.  By the time the next election cycle rolls around, watch for the remaining clingers on to the Obama agenda to be gone altogether if this emerging 112th Congress sticks to its knitting and continues to listen to their constituents.

According to Gallup, the American people dislike this 111th Congress more than any other Congress in the history of public opinion data gathering.  Eighty-three percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, while only 13 percent approve.  It was the faith of Thomas Jefferson that the majority of informed Americans would almost invariably eventually get it right.  That's why he never hesitated to put so much power into the hands of the citizens, and eschewed big government.  He spread power around intentionally for these very reasons, and once again the Founders are exonerated.

That is the worst approval rating in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance. 

Last night Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D–CA) House also voted to prevent a massive tax hike on the American people.  It now looks like Congress will pass a simple bill that freezes spending through February of next year.

Mercifully, the 111th Congress is toothless at last.  And Senator Bob Bennett, the first harbinger of the electorate's wrath against incumbents in 2010, finally goes with it.

To the bitter end, Senator Bennett remained consistent and tone deaf.

Four Reasons Philpot Will Beat Matheson



Morgan Philpot's Family

I am a state delegate from Precinct 11 in Wasatch County.  Historically, 2nd District Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) has received significant support from our county in his five previous terms.  The reason is because registered Republicans like me have routinely crossed over and supported him. 

That is not true this year!

In an e-mail blast from Wasatch County Philpot for Congress coordinator, Aaron Gabrielson, I received an update on the progress of the campaign.  Morgan Philpot and Jim Matheson squared off this week in St. George at their only public debate.  I wished I could have been there, but seeing it for yourselves should seal the deal for Philpot:

http://vstream.dixie.edu/DSC/Viewer/?peid=cac4131afa2d4fd397fc9e08b7d0b12d

It's unfortunate when incumbents with overwhelming leads in the polls refuse to give the electorate a clear picture of their positions by withholding themselves from public events like this one.  Matheson has a financial advantage by 10-1 over Philpot in campaign funding.  He's sitting on it, like he is his lead.  It happens every time there's an election.  Rather than willingly submit to public scrutiny they cower in the corners to protect their leads in the polls, relying upon name recognition alone to carry them through election day.  As the video stream of their debate clearly illustrates, there are substantive differences between these two candidates.  The choice could not be more differentiated. 

Four reasons Philpot will win

A)  Jim Matheson is a Democrat in a year when Democrats are as popular as a hurricane in kite flying weather;
B)  Matheson's a much more liberal Congressman than any of his constituents previously believed;
C)  Morgan Philpot is much more representative of his constituents than Matheson will ever be; and finally,
D)  There is an uprising nationwide and here in Wasatch County against incumbents of any stripe. 

It's just not a good year to be Jim Matheson anywhere within his district, and particularly in Wasatch County.

Aaron's e-mail blast explains:

Poll Predicts Philpot Win over Matheson

A recently completed poll conducted by the Wasatch County Philpot For Congress campaign predicts that Republican Morgan Philpot will win in the county over five-term incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson.

The poll received 738 responses from registered voters in the county and shows 51% support for Philpot among registered Republicans and 47% with unaffiliated voters. Matheson scored 31% and 37%, respectively. 16% of respondents were undecided and registered Democrats were not included in the poll.

Based on those results and awarding Matheson 100% of the registered Democrats, indicates a 4% margin of victory for Philpot in Wasatch County.

County Philpot coordinator, Aaron Gabrielson, said, "Matheson has won Wasatch County by large margins in previous elections. A poll showing him behind at this point shows that voters are dissatisfied with Congress in general and with Matheson specifically. Wasatch County has always been Matheson territory. If he can't win here, I don't see how Matheson will win the election."

The poll results follow an anti-incumbent trend across the nation that is likely to result in Republicans regaining control of the House of Representatives.

"This poll actually looks worse for Matheson than it first appears, because Democratic turnout is expected to be lower this year and Republican turnout should be higher. If that happens, Philpot could win by a margin of 8% or more. However, Matheson has a big money advantage in this race, so the Philpot campaign still has a lot of work to do."

When asked about a recent Dan Jones poll showing a large lead for Matheson, Gabrielson responded, "I have taken a look at that poll. It was from a small sample with a big margin of error and included a large percentage of Democrats. I think even the Matheson campaign is not putting much trust in it. Back in 2008 during the 3rd District primary, polls showed Cannon up by 4% and Chaffetz ended up winning by 20%."

* * *

Don't be too surprised if the same dynamic plays out this year in the Utah 2nd Congressional District race across all the counties in the district, not just Wasatch.  If the Republicans just show up to vote, and they follow my lead and the other "reformed" Republican voters in Wasatch County who will finally abandon Matheson after being "irrational" in our former support of his liberal voting record, then our next Congressman will be Morgan Philpot.

This is the year to make a difference by taking down one Democrat seat in Congress on the march toward taking down 41 and wresting control from the disastrous majority we have witnessed in the last two years.

Last week, I read an analysis by some pollsters stating there may be as many as 100 Congressional seats in play that could move into the Republican side of the aisle.  If that is true and those predictions play out on election day, this 2010 tsunami I spoke about earlier in the year will have historic ramifications. 

President Obama and Senator Reid

Make no mistake about it -- this mid-term election is a referendum on Barack Obama, plain and simple.  Harry Reid is experiencing a lot of push back in his race for re-election in Nevada.  President Obama is stumping for him every chance he gets.  How can anyone conclude anything other than a loss by Harry Reid, the number one Democrat in the Senate, is a complete refutation of Obama's policies and the agenda he has put forward? 

If Bob Bennett can lose in Utah, then Harry Reid can lose in Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Don't hold your breath over this one, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is in the most competitive race she's faced for re-election in years.  It seems even in her "true blue" liberal home district her popularity is waning.  Here again, when one sees serious challenges to the leaders of the party, Reid and Pelosi, in trouble and threatened at home in their own states, one must conclude this mid-term as perhaps never before is all about the country's revulsion at the way they've been treated these last two years.

I wondered aloud on this page months ago who was doing the political calculations within the Democrat Party, when the evidence suggested they were arrogantly going about mustering their votes for the most liberal lurch to the left I have ever witnessed during my lifetime. I called it "the mother of all political cramdowns," when they passed Obamacare. 

And now we are seeing nothing but an aroused and angry electorate pushing back, as the chickens come home to roost.  I have believed for some time the Republicans set a poor example under the Bush administration.  We lived through a reprehensible period with their profligate spending habits and rampant desires for "deficits-don't-matter" wars and nation building attitudes.  Rather than learn from the rejection at the polls that handed control of the presidency and both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2008, we have seen an acceleration of the same wrong-headed direction they have taken the country. 

Obama completely misread his "mandate" from the election.  Surprise of all surprises -- the people wanted him to take the country in a different direction than out-of-control spending.  They didn't want social re-engineering after all.  They rejected Obamacare resoundingly.  They wanted economic recovery, not stifling regulation and taxation for as far as the eye can see.  They wanted business-friendly stimulants, not anti-business legislation and trillions of dollars of foreign debt for "shovel-ready" projects that still don't seem to be "ready."  Turns out the only shoveling that got done was the knee-deep manure in the political barnyard.

Maybe on November 2nd, 2010, the only way to change course is to fire the incumbents and begin anew.  Maybe this time someone in Washington D.C. will finally be listening to the will of the people.

Make no miscalculations this time, they will be speaking. . . make that shouting out loud.

It's about the spending, stupid!

James Carville, when he was running the war rooms in the Bill Clinton era, famously said, "It's about the economy, stupid," when asked what those elections were all about.

Fast forward to 2010.  This year, "It's about the spending, stupid."

When Bob Bennett went down in flames earlier this year, failing to get out of convention with enough support to even be a primary candidate, we were warned here in Utah that we would be sacrificing a senior Senator who knew how to bring home the bacon to our small state.  Because of his powerful voice in Washington D.C., we were told, we would no longer have his "clout."  He not only defended the earmarks during his campaign, he advocated for them, arguing, "If we don't take the earmarks they will just go to some other state."  We were scolded, "You just don't know how things work in Washington."  Well, he never understood the voters who perceived him as part of the big problem in Washington D.C. 

The big problem is this:  To perpetuate the status quo at all costs. 

The Obama economic team, presumably the brightest minds in America, seem to have no awareness about the simple-minded judgments of their masters, the voters, because they arrogantly proclaim they are the ruling elite who know better than the masses.  That mentality might work for dictators in other parts of the world, but not here in America. 

I noticed last week how slow the incumbents have been to learn the lesson.  Americans are angry this year.  So angry they appear to be poised to begin again and disembowel the establishment.  Like me, the buyer's remorse over our national leadership is palpable.

Lisa Murkowski, incumbent Republican Senator from Alaska lost a narrow primary election last week.  Why?  Apparently her message that she brings home the bacon to Alaska was resoundingly rejected.  Enough is enough, voters there have said.  Politicians who were on deck for the last several years are going to pay dearly for their inept handling of the economic throttles.  Now they will be throttled. 

This is shaping up as more of a bloodbath for both parties, and I say it's about time.  The Republican regulars are licking their chops in anticipation of a huge victory come November.  We're only eight weeks out from November 2nd, and you can feel it in the air.  CHANGE is on its way.  If they don't blow it this time, Republicans are going to notch a big win. 

But it's only a potential anti-Democrat win.  What's the big plan, guys?  Haven't heard much about that, only that Democrats are evil.  Give us a reason to suggest you should be trusted again.  Memo to Republican strategists:  It had better be about more than promising to "crackdown" and investigate.  We don't care about Obama's Justice Department letting the Black Panthers skate.  We DON'T care about that.  Where's the substance for your plan for economic reform?  Stay on task, people!

The only question remaining is what will the margin be at the end of the day?  Will they get to 218 in the House?  Can they knock out the filbuster-proof majority in the Senate?  Harry Reid's seat would be a good start on the path to that goal.  They need a magic number of 39 seats to win control of the 435-member House.  The Senate's harder, but doable.

It's possible.

The party leader of the Democrats is on permavacation, apparently.  This weekend he's at Camp David.  Those torturous three-day work weeks in Washington are just too much!  At the rate he's flying Air Force One, the frequent flyer miles are piling up faster than the most prolific business traveler.  Harry Reid is running for his political life in Nevada, while his boss adds new decor to the Oval Office with inspiring quotes woven into the rugs.  But don't lose any sleep for Reid.  Even if he loses he wins -- don't think for one minute his leadership in the Senate during this last several years will not come without handsome rewards in retirement. 

And where's Nancy Pelosi?  She won her seat in 2008 with a 72 percent majority, but her popularity among voters nationally as Speaker has shrunk to 11 percent, according to CBS in a poll among registered voters in March.  She's been totally AWOL this summer.  Yet she proclaims, "We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish."  Really?  Then tell us more, pray tell.  Even the Democrats who are running for re-election have shunned her.  Instead of trumpeting their legislative success these last nineteen months, they are all in total retreat.  The tsunami is gaining momentum and there is nothing they can do in the next eight weeks to stem the tide. 

As you may have discerned from this page, I have no confidence in either side of the aisle.  Let the purge be massive and without party label.  New blood on both sides is the required remedy this year.

In 1994, the Republicans swept the House races, picking up 52 seats and getting, for the first time in 40 years, a Republican majority and a Republican speaker, Newt Gingrich.  It was unprecedented.  The Democrats had held sway in the House forever, it seemed.  That year even then-Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA), lost his seat. No problem this year for Pelosi, however.  She'll retain her House seat, but she won't be Madam Speaker much longer.

I saw a Gallup poll among registered voters this week that had Republicans beating Democrats in a generic ballot by 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent.  Public trust is a fragile commodity.  If those numbers are true, it appears voters are ready to forgive and hand the Republicans another chance. 

In the 68-year history of that poll, the GOP had never led by more than five points.  This is potentially earth-shattering news for Democrats who are going to receive a slap down heard round the world.  In Europe they wonder aloud, "Why are the Americans flirting with socialism?"  They understand what the brilliant tacticians in the Obama administration don't -- socialism is a failed experiment, and it has been proven a failure again and again.  It will fail here in America too.

The incumbent Republicans, however, are in big trouble nationwide as the "enablers" to socialism.  The Republican majorities under George W. Bush lost their way and acted more like tax-and-spend Democrats when they had the reins the last time.  No incumbent wants to change the status quo.  But voters do.  If you were on watch in recent years, you will pay the ultimate political price for your duplicity this November. 

RealClearPolitics in their polling data has Republicans ahead in 206 races and Democrats ahead in 194, with 35 too close to call.  The Cook Political Report puts 68 Democratic House seats "at substantial risk," while judging less than a dozen GOP seats to be in real trouble.

A few weeks ago, the ever-erudite and ever-so-articulate White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, conceded the obvious -- Republicans could take the House. Yikes, what an admission that was!  He's not alone, because other Democrats have said as much.  Those Democrats are just so sneaky!  They've got those always-say-no Republicans right where they want 'em.

If the GOP underperforms and doesn't sweep both Houses, Obama's supporters will just say, "See, voters  don't trust the Republicans, and our man still has the hearts of the American voter." 

The cash disparity between the parties this year is stunning.  The Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. notes many of the closest races this year are dominated by the deep pockets of the Democrats.  In twenty of those races "the Democrat has at least a four-to-one cash advantage over the Republican candidate." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says it has nearly $17 million more to spend on key House races than its GOP counterpart. Then there are the unions: "The AFL-CIO says it will spend more than $40 million to back candidates and mobilize residents of union-member households to vote in November, overwhelmingly in support of Democrats."

No such thing as a sure thing.  Republicans take note.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich was the chief architect of "The Contract with America."  It resonated with voters.  It was packed with conservative principles to cut spending, cut taxes, and deregulate industry, all designed to allow the economy to flourish.  It was right out of Ronald Reagan's conservative playbook.  One of the things that drives me crazy is Presidents taking credit for economic success and getting blamed for sour recessionary economies in reverse.  With all due respect to those who assert otherwise, Ronald Reagan only had a bully pulpit which he fully utilized, but in the end it is Congress alone, the elected representatives of the people in our republic, who hold the purse strings.  It is members of Congress who must ultimately be held accountable by voters, not Presidents, for the prosperity or the recessions through which we pass.  Bill Clinton rode the horse triumphantly when he finally reached the promised land of a budget surplus, but the underpinnings were the result of Americans giving the purse strings to Gingrich, who made good on the Contract. 

Bush and his majority Congress, not Obama and his majority, destroyed all those gains.  This latest Democrat majority in both Houses just put the final nails in the coffin Republicans constructed on their watch.

There are differences between 1994 and 2010. The miscalculations in Democrat messaging this year have been -- for lack of a better analogy -- tsunami-like.  A tsunami builds in magnitude as it rolls across the ocean, triggered by an earthquake at sea.  By the time it hits landfall it's too late.  For a year, Democratic strategists have been saying:

"We'll pass health care, they'll love us." 
"We'll have a Recovery summer, they'll love us."
"We'll run against Wall Street, they'll love us."

In case you didn't notice, unemployment numbers ticked up in August to 9.6 percent nationwide.  Some recovery (little "r" not big "R").  All those glorious plans to connect with voters on these issues have met with astounding opposition.  It isn't so much the messaging as it is the practical reality -- "It's about the spending, stupid."

Look for a lot of negative ads in the next eight weeks from the Democrats -- it's all they've got left.

I remember another stunning difference in 1994.  I voted for Ross Perot because I was convinced his message if not heeded would put us right where we are with the two dominant parties today.  Perot was my man twice.  He was well-organized, unlike the Tea Party this year, but he had no visibility and had to scream like crazy to even be included in the debates between Bush and Clinton.  One thing the Tea Party has going for it this year is visibility and it's gaining strength.  Its candidates are running under the Republican banner, but make no mistake, these are not your parents' Republicans.  They are much more independent and outspoken against the traditional GOP.  They are younger, and they are more anchored to the people than ever before.  That's a positive trend I'd like to see perpetuated.

That's exactly why I believe on principle they are going to win back at least the House if not the Senate too.

There is only ONE issue on the ballot in eight weeks.  Who is bold enough to stop the spending?  Who will stand up and be counted as a tightwad, a green-eye-shaded, cold and calculating accountant, who will speak the truth to the American people?  Who will say, "The Emperor has no clothes?"  Who will admit higher taxes currently imbedded in legislation passed over the last nineteen months in the middle of the night time and time again is disastrous, no matter how noble its intended purpose may have been?  Who will say taxes and spending are out of control, and I will stand up for the American people in opposition to the continuation of the status quo? 

There isn't a Democrat out there this year who can say with a straight face, "I was not part of this problem," nor is there a Republican incumbent who can remain untainted by his or her role in the complete abdication of their fiduciary duties to the taxpayers.  Not one of the incumbents has shown the least restraint in subduing the spending spree.  Everything they have done is to indicate they don't really want to stop spending.  For too long our politicians have cared only about perpetuating themselves in the next election.

Bob Bennett was Exhibit A, and now we have another, Lisa Murkowski, as Exhibit B.  I am certain there are other examples, and they must all be eliminated if we are to save the Republic.  Save it from what, some have asked?  From complete ruination and the effects of profligate spending to sustain the unsustainable staus quo.  This is not hard to understand.

There is simply no place to run and hide this time.  Judgment awaits its perpetrators.  If you don't get it yet, let me say it one more time:

It's about the spending, stupid!

America's Debt and Deficit Addiction

Sign POSTED on Hwy 61, Hutchinson, Kansas.

Today, the online edition of The Wall Street Journal published a small news item with HUGE implications.

For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher — the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion.

I'm not sure anybody can appreciate the number when it's written that way.  Here's what it looks like:

$-1,470,000,000,000.00 

That's just the deficit, meaning it's the amount of money over and above what the country takes in.

In recent weeks, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) announced he is once again sponsoring a balanced budget amendment (it's the third time he's tried).  Maybe this time somebody will take note and dare to be bold enough to vote it into the Constitution.  Don't hold your breath, but it's a wonderful notion.

Hatch is already starting his run for another Senate term in 2012.  He's running for his political life to avoid the same fate as his counterpart Bob Bennett (R-UT), who crashed and burned at the state Republican convention earlier this year.  While Bennett was perceived as a big spender, Hatch is attempting to distance himself from a similar fate, ignoring for the moment that the 36 years while Hatch has been in Washington the trend to spend ourselves into oblivion has all happened on his watch when his party was in and out of power.

"Our national debt is now $13 trillion," Hatch said in a news release. . . "My resolution can't turn back the clock to stop the outrageous spending of the past few years, but it can stop congressional liberals from adding even more to the deficit through more spending." 

Memo to Orrin:  the "congressional conservatives" from your own party were just as guilty in the past.  You've been in league with the liberals.  You're all going to be fired if the electorate is as awake as I believe they are, and there's no place to run and hide this time in your press releases and proposed amendments.  The emperor has no clothes, and it's not just one little boy in the crowd who sees it.

When Bennett was running for the Senate earlier this year, we were warned that his powerful senior voice in Washington was indispensible to Utah's interests, because Bob Bennett knew how to bring home the earmarks for his home state.  Bennett never once renounced earmarks during his campaign, in fact he defended the practice!

Think about it.  If that's what we're losing in losing Bennett, then every other state in the nation deserves and should be so fortunate.  We must collectively unite as a nation and say to Washington,

"NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE TAG LOOKS LIKE IN SACRIFICE INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY, WE MUST STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!!!!"

And here's what our debt looks like:

$13,000,000,000,000.00

Just the interest payments alone so far in fiscal 2010 amount to $185.25 billion.  Here's what that number looks like:

$185,250,000,000.00

If you were a member of Congress with a record like that to run on in 2010 or in 2012, would any right-thinking American actually believe you deserved another term?  It's insanity or worse.  That's why this year, as never before, the popularity of Congress is at an all-time record low of 11%.  I'm wondering who the 11% are that have a favorable view.  REALLY?  It should be -11% at best. 

If that's a record you can be "proud of," Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, then it's time to lock you all up and throw away the key. 

We can't solve it all in one year, but we can make a great start by hiring Mike Lee for the Senate and Morgan Philpot for the 2nd Congressional District.  Let's resolve here and now that we will hire new management as an electorate nationwide, and look for people who don't want to perpetuate their longevity in office based upon those numbers.

It's time to look for CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN this time around.

George W. Bush once famously warned, "We are addicted to oil," and coming from a member of a prominent Texas oil family that was quite an admission.  Seems like a million years ago at least, but it was only 2006 in his State of the Union address.  Bush had it partially correct.  We are addicted. . .

. . . but our addiction is to debt and deficit spending.

The withdrawal is going to be painful and protracted, but it must begin in the 2010 November mid-term elections.