Last week, the President delivered the annual state of the Union Address.  If you were looking to learn something new about the President’s specific plans for the future or perhaps to gain some insight into the actual state of the union, this was not the speech for you.  But if you were looking for a blueprint of the 2012 election, this speech was a gold mine. I have to confess, I couldn’t bring myself to watch it the night of.  Forgoing primetime t.v. in order to listen to the President say a whole lot of nothing is not a very appealing offer.  So, the next morning, I played the audio on my computer while I was doing some housework.   About 20 minutes in, I walked by the computer and saw that Nancy Pelosi was sitting behind Barack Obama in the Speaker’s chair.  Yep, I was listening to the address from 2010.  I would have felt foolish for not noticing immediately if not for two things.  1.) There were no specifics in his opening remarks which would have given me any inkling about the date of the speech.  The speech was vague and devoid of any real substance.  2.) When I did load the correct video, I checked the date twice because it was just a rehashing of everything I just listened to in the first video.  While many of us joke that the President’s speeches sound as if they are written with some sort of Mad Libs-for-politicians book, there’s more truth to that statement then you may initially think.  His response to any given topic is about the same. “Blah, blah.  Play by the rules. Wall Street, Main Street. I inherited this. Blah, blah infrastructure. China’s schools and bridges. I saved us from the brink of disaster. Rich people should pay their fair share.  Blah, blah my policies need more time. Republicans/Supreme Court keep getting in my way.”  Just about every speech in the last four years went something like that.  And the fact that he didn’t switch things up for the last major address before campaign season shows that, at least to some extent, this stuff works.  Despite his falling approval ratings, there is a sizeable portion of the country that still buys into the Hope and Change rhetoric.  They believe that when he says his cure for the economy is “promoting a sense of fairness,” that he is making an actual policy proposal.  They think that when he says he saved or created 3 million jobs, that he actually calculated that number using some basic system of math that the rest of us are familiar with.  They trust that when he says that he wants “equal work for equal pay,”  that somewhere out there, in the year 2012, is an American woman with a PhD and a 60 hour a week job, getting treated like a 1920′s cigarette girl.  The point is this, while many conservatives laugh at some of the outlandish claims coming from the White House, a large percentage of the population takes the President’s rhetoric at face value. And that is what needs to be addressed in the upcoming general election.

One of the major problems that has plagued Republican politicians is their unwillingness to reframe the conversation.  When they are asked a flawed question like, “The Obama Administration has saved or created x amount of jobs, why do you think you could do better?,” they respond with something like “the President’s policies have slowed the economy and the recovery would have been much faster with lower taxes and less regulation.”  That’s all true, but they need to address the false assumptions in the question first. What the ought to say is 1.) the phrase “saved or created” doesn’t mean anything.  There is no quantifiable way to measure that.  2.)  When you look at the total number of jobs lost versus the total number of jobs created, there is a net loss.  If a business takes in $2,000 a week, but pays out $5,000 a week in expenses, you don’t say that company made $2,000.  Likewise, if 6 million jobs were lost since the President took office and he “saved or created” 2-3 million, he doesn’t get to claim that he added jobs. Then, they can explain why their policies would have worked better.  The President’s greatest strength is his ability to make people feel really good without ever really saying anything.  If Republicans are going to take the Presidency in 2012, they have to be willing to call him on it.  When he says, “we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” they need to answer with a firm “What in the world does that mean?!”   Last time I checked, no one was running against him on an anti-fairness platform.  By fairness, does he mean taking more money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not?  Or does he mean raising taxes to invest in super important infrastructure programs like Solyndra?  Making vague references to one’s love of “fairness” sounds great to a casual listener.  After all, who doesn’t like fairness?  The Republican nominee for President must be willing to make Barack Obama explain his rhetoric and own up to his failures.  If he says that the country is full of crumbling bridges that we must repair in order to get people working again, ask him which specific bridges he is referring to and exactly which people would have a job if only there was a bridge to connect them to it.  When he says he saved us from the “worst economic crisis since the great depression,” the response ought to be, “Mr. President didn’t you estimate that if you did nothing unemployment ‘may reach as high as 8%?’  Under your direction it held steady at around 10%.  By your own estimation, you made things much, much worse.”  We shake our heads in amazement at the number of people who think this President has been a success, but we forget that many of them are basing this on his own declarations of success.  They certainly have never heard anyone in the White House Press Corps push him for answers.  All they have heard is that he loves equality and “transparency,” is trying to fight greed, has saved us from certain disaster, and would have been an even more awesome President if the nasty Republicans weren’t using “the politics of fear.”  They hear the claims that he has “resorted our name” oversees when, in reality, his incessant bowing to foreign leaders, apologizing for the US, and finger-wagging at Israel has our enemies laughing at us and our allies a bit nervous.  They hear all about how he has done wonders for the downtrodden minorities in this country, but have never heard someone ask him to specifically name what those things are.  Was it driving black unemployment to 16%? Maybe is was scrapping the D.C. voucher program, which gave thousands of minority students a chance at a better education? White House insiders are saying that a large part of his campaign will focus around how he “saved” Detroit.  This should be music to the ears of our future nominee.  No one looks at Detroit and thinks “Now there’s a success story!”  Estimates show that the GM bailout (which were told would be repaid in full),  resulted in an overall loss of $23.6 billion, which will never be recovered to taxpayers.  The Obama-promoted Chevy Volt is not only a commercial failure, but it has cost taxpayers $250,000 per car.  We shouldn’t be wringing our hands with worry that voters will believe that the President has indeed saved the economy, we should be thrilled that Republicans get to run against someone who is so easily exposed as dishonest.  The problem isn’t in making an argument for new leadership in Washington, it’s in finding someone who is willing to do it.

Conventional wisdom says that in order to win over independents, candidates must not insult one another.  John McCain was a big supporter of this theory.  He often referred to then-candidate Obama as a “good guy.” He denounced any supporter who suggested that the Barack Obama was a radical.  And, oh yeah, he lost.  It wasn’t just him either, the entire Republican establishment has bought into this idea that you can’t say anything bad about anyone, even when it’s true.  And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the other side isn’t using the same rule book.  As often as Democrats whine about a need for civility and an “elevated” political climate, they are the first ones to mud-sling and name-call.  They mischaracterize everything that conservatives do as racist, homophobic, bigoted, and so on. The left is not only willing to mock their opponents, but they are willing to lie to do it.   I certainly don’t want my candidate to do anything dishonest, but why are Republicans so afraid to tell the truth about their opponents?  It makes no sense.  Ask yourself, if an undecided Independent sees a Republican point out that the President is being dishonest, is his reaction going to be 1.) anger at the President for misleading him, 2.) a curiosity to look at the issue more closely, or 3.) anger at the Republican for pointing out the deception?  If the answer is option three, HE WAS NEVER GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN ANYWAY!  Lots of people like to say that their “undecided” when a pollster comes around.  It makes them seem smart and reflective.  But with a President this liberal, anyone who is reasonably well-informed has already made up their mind.  They are either liberal enough to vote for Obama, in which case they will never vote for any Republican, or they are at least somewhat conservative, in which case they would vote for just about anyone but Obama.  He’s not the sort of man that generates luke-warm feelings. The small number of people who are truly undecided, are typically people who aren’t all that familiar with the issues.  Republicans can’t possibly hope to win them over if they won’t tell them the facts!

A lot of pundits are saying that the Republican nomination is a done deal.  Maybe that’s true, maybe not. If Mitt Romney is our nominee, he will be better than John McCain was in a lot of ways.  Unfortunately, he is also similar to John McCain in many ways too.  In the 2008 primary, John McCain asserted that he had led Americans for “patriotism” and Romney had led “for profits.” He implied that Romney had somehow manipulated his taxes. Later that year, he said that Obama was “a decent family man,” he highlighted areas where he and our current President were in agreement, and he would not address the issue of Barack Obama’s numerous radical associates.  In 2012, despite his hard-hitting attacks against Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney is already testing the water on his Obama-is-a-super-nice-guy-but-just-a-touch-”misguided” routine.  I don’t know if Romney will be the nominee, but if he is, he needs to abandon this strategy immediately.  It is a sure loser. The remaining candidates must understand that all their tough posturing in the primary means nothing if they won’t go on the offensive during the general election.  The American voters are not fragile children who can’t handle a tough race.  In fact, most would find a dose of brutal honesty refreshing.  Between his record and his empty rhetoric, this President is virtually handing over the keys to the White House.  All we need is a candidate who is willing to reach out and grab them.

There were two debates this week and I think that Newt Gingrich easily had the most memorable moment of the week.  Whether you like him or hate him as a candidate, this clip shows just how much the average citizen is sick and tired of political correctness, a fact that I hope the other candidates will remember. 

U.S. Identity Politics and the Failings of Eastern Europe

The racial political tactics that are now commonplace in the U.S. are old news in Europe.  The Way That History Went Down

Among Friends

The President announced more of his awful ideas at the one place where he fits in, Disney World (seriously no one on his staff knew we were going to make jokes about this?). The Land of Obama Make-Believe

Meet Valerie Jarrett

In the middle of every White House controversy, long-time Obama friend Valerie Jarrett has secured her position as The Worst White House Aide

A Defence of Bain Capital

Romney has plenty of legitimate faults, but the Bain Capital attacks are wearing thin. This Wall Street Journal opinion piece claims that Bain Capital Saved America

Postmodernism and the Decline of Morality

An interesting look at how Marxism became postmodernism and the effect it is having on college students.  Postmodern Political Correctness and Christianity and Part 2

Keystone Pipeline Debacle

Obama managed to make everyone angry with this move.  Obama Kills 20,000 Jobs

Communism Documentary

The Conservative Hideout will be posting a series of videos on Communism.  Here’s part one: Lies, Brutality, and Death

This video has a lot of bleeps, but it also has a lot of really good points.  I posted this version (with a few interruptions from Glenn Beck) because it’s the only one with the profanity is edited out of it.

Thank You Mr. President?

This article makes the argument that we should be at least a little grateful for the lessons  we learned watching the disastrous Obama Administration  Obama 101

Hanna Montana & Occupy Wall Street

Miley Cyrus has released a tribute song to the “occupiers.”  Although it seems a  bit hypocritical, Michelle Malkin explains why it is a match made in heaven.  Miley Cyrus, Occupier Poster Girl

Where There’s Smoke. There’s Journalists

Ann Coulter examines the lack of a single credible witness against Herman Cain Once You Go Conservative Black

Looking for Losers

The Democrats put all their energy into winning the votes of the aimless and lazy.  Courting Joe the Puppeteer

Right to Respect?

A brief explanation of why “respect for all” policies on college campuses don’t work.  Tear Down This Wall

Stolen History

An interesting video on the history of the Democrats and racism.  Let’s Make This Viral

During the brief time that Rick Perry was the front-runner, candidates like Michele Bachmann were under a lot of pressure to attack, especially because both of them were considered to be “tea party” candidates.  And there was plenty to attack.  From  in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants to his opposition to an E-verify system, Rick Perry was shaky, at best, on the issue of immigration.  There were even some legitimate concerns about the letter he wrote that was/was not in support of TARP.  If Michele Bachmann wanted to take on the then front-runner, there was plenty of material for her to challenge him on.  But instead of pressing him on a substantive policy issue, she chose to focus her attacks on the grossly mischaracterized Gardasil debate.  The issue should have been relatively simple.  The HPV vaccine helps to prevent cervical cancer in women.  For maximum efficacy, the injection should be administered before adulthood.   With the CDC’s lowest estimate on HPV in adults at 50%, this is not about encouraging promiscuity.  Unlike campaigns to hand out condoms in middle school which are based on the faulty assumption that “all teenagers sleep around so we might as well help out,” this program is focused on young girls only because the vaccine works best at that age.  Because the virus is so common now, a woman could very easily marry a man who has carried the virus for 10,20, or 50 years without having a single symptom.  She could be assaulted by someone who is a carrier.  And once she contracts it, she has it for good.  There is no cure.  Rick Perry signed an executive order making the vaccine standard for adolescent girls, but gave parents the option of opting out. Now, there are some legitimate concerns here.  Should he have passed it trough the legislature instead of using an executive order? Yes, and he admitted that he was wrong.  Should it have been an opt-in instead of an opt-out for parents?  Sure, protecting parental rights is of the highest importance, especially when you’re dealing with this sort of treatment.  Parents must carefully weigh the advantage of vaccinating their daughter against the possibility that the child may see this as a nod of approval to behave inappropriately.  But as difficult and personal as this decision is, most parents are familiar with the list of standard vaccines that pediatricians offer for each age group.  Saying “yes” or “no” to one more shot at the yearly check up is not earth-shattering. Still, if Michele Bachmann had confined her criticism to the questions raised about abusing executive authority and eroding parental rights, she would have been fine.  In fact, she would have scored big points with conservatives. But instead of sticking to the facts, she spent her time trying to equate the HPV vaccine with hard-left policies like free abortions on demand and said that Rick Perry was trying to force “dangerous injections” on “innocent little girls.”  She said that she was “offended for all the little girls and parents that didn’t have a choice.” She even accused him of being bought off by the pharmaceutical companies.  It was the sort of distorted attack that conservatives often face from the liberal press.  It is infuriating when Democrats do it and it didn’t sit well with Republican voters when Michele Bachmann did it.  But if that had been the end of it, she could have recovered some ground. We understand that this is politics and sometimes candidates get bad advice from their staff or get caught up in the heat of the moment.  One misstep is easy to forgive.  Unfortunately for her, she just couldn’t let it go. In an interview with Greta Van Sustern, she made the monumental blunder of saying that the vaccine caused mental retardation.  Her basis for this claim was that some random woman approached her after a debate and told her so. You couldn’t help but to wonder why a person would say such a thing out loud without checking on it first, especially someone with an entire staff of people who were hired to do that very thing. On the Today show the following morning, she had an opportunity to walk her accusation back a bit, but instead she said it again! This was no longer a case of slightly distorting an issue to score political points, she took this discussion into the realm of the ridiculous and kept going full steam ahead (and are we supposed to believe that NO ONE tipped her off that these claims were baseless in the hours between the two interviews?). As Rush Limbaugh said, “she jumped the shark .” Not only did she sound ignorant and hysterical, she was irresponsible.  Someone who is running for President and plans to take on the liberal media needs to have better sense than that.  President Obama has plenty of areas that we can criticize him on, but a candidate who makes wild accusations about him without having the facts to back them up will be torn apart by the press. Just look at what happened to Sarah Palin after the “death panel” comments, and she was telling the truth! Furthermore, Michele Bachmann went into the primaries as the “character candidate,” with a reputation for being honest  and ethical. While many people agreed with her that the bill was an enormous overreach that diminished parental authority, her distortion of the facts surrounding the bill cost her big points in the voters’ perception of her integrity.  In an election where several of the candidates are considered to be relatively trustworthy conservatives, a blow to credibility is costly.  And, you can call it sexist if you want, but the fact remains that voters don’t want to nominate a candidate that may come off as a hysterical woman in the general election.  Despite her excellent congressional record and improved campaign performance in the last two months, the image of the ill-informed and emotional Michele Bachmann that we saw in late August and early September is burned into the minds of many voters. Although she’s said and done all the right things in the last two months, it may be too late to turn this campaign around.

Going Forward- I like Michele Bachmann, as a person, and I think the HPV controversy was probably out of character for her, just a one-time thing.  I think she does a great job in the position she has.  She serves as the “voice of the Tea Party” in Congress and she has made it her mission to keep the public informed of all of the behind-the-scenes dealings of our Representatives.  She has also shown skill in generating support in the form of petitions, donations, and media coverage for numerous conservative causes.  She has proven herself to be a valuable asset for our side, but she has not demonstrated the sort of leadership qualities needed to be elected President.  Her vast knowledge of the inner workings of our legislature (particularly showcased in the foreign policy debate) is often overshadowed by her heavy dependence on catchphrases and emotional “red meat.” The tiff with Rick Perry just amplified a concern that many conservatives already had.  Would she be able to tamper her rally-the-troops speaking style with enough calm and reasoned fact to be a viable candidate?  I think, that most Republican voters have decided that she can’t.

In the last two weeks, she has been making the rounds on talk radio and fox news.  Many are predicting that it is her turn, again, to be the “not Mitt Romney” candidate.  And maybe they are right.  But, I think that most people feel the way about Michele Bachmann that I do.  If she got the nomination, we would gladly support her without hesitation.  Not just because she’s better than Obama, but because we think she would do a great job.  However, when it comes to voting in a primary, I think most of us have a candidate that we like just a little bit more than her.  Someone that we think is slightly more reliable, or more of a leader, or better in a debate.  We like Michele Bachmann, but we aren’t sure she can hold it together in a national election.  The bottom line is this, I don’t see Michele Bachmann becoming the next President of the United States, but I also don’t see her leaving the spotlight anytime soon.  She is very good at the job she has and I hope she keeps it for some time to come.  She holds line on important issues in Congress when many of her fellow Republicans have long abandoned the cause.  She may not be cut-out for a run for President, but few people are.  She has remained a solid conservative in a town where everyone wants to be liked and few people can do that either.

The big winners of last night’s performance were Newt Ginrich, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney.  Gingrich, because he has consistently demonstrated his stellar debate skills, quick wit, and ability to explain complex policies in a comprehensive manner.  He just may be the tortoise of this race.  Herman Cain had a good night because it could have gone so badly.  He managed to quickly put away the scandalous rumors and stay on message.  Also, the crowd was clearly on his side.  That is a huge confidence boost for both Herman Cain and his donors.  Mitt Romney was a winner because he maintained the even-keeled persona that his campaign is built around.  He isn’t the most conservative, the most exciting, or the boldest, but his supporters like that about him.  Romney isn’t going to win conservatives this late in the game, all he can do is maintain his base and try to wait out the competition.  He had a successful night because his performance was competently vanilla.  But the big story of last night’s debate was not the winners, but the two big losers.

The first big loser was obvious, Rick Perry.  While his 53 second memory loss was painfully uncomfortable to watch at the time, in retrospect, it was absolutely catastrophic.  Perry supporters have long said that debating wasn’t his strong suit, that stump speeches and press conferences were more his thing.  They said that his debate skills weren’t important because commercials and speeches are what win elections.  And to a certain extent, they’re right.  Perry can give a speech with the best of ‘em.  But as of right now, the only exposure that most people have to him, are his debate appearances.  Actually, that’s not entirely accurate.  The only exposure that most people have to him are his debate performances and the Saturday Night Live impressions of his debate performances.  So, you can see why almost a full minute of “um…. uh…. I..uh… don’t..hmm” is a serious problem.   Everyone has a brain freeze from time to time, but he should have said something.  Anything.  He could have said something like “the three agencies I’ll cut are the Department of Education, Commerce, and …. whichever one proves the least efficient after an audit.” He could have said “whoops, I meant two agencies.”  But, instead, he showed absolutely, positively, no ability to think on his feet and recover from a mistake.  I hate to be so hard on him. In fact, I feel really bad for him.  I was mortified on his behalf.  But, the fact remains, he probably just killed any chance of growing his base of supporters and donors.  I can’t imagine how he could recover from this.

The other big loser, even bigger than Rick Perry, was the panel of moderators.  They were awful.  There was absolutely no topical flow between questions.  Instead, they jumped around asking  questions in a seemingly random order so that there was no way to expand upon topics or dig deeper into complicated questions.  I don’t understand how a debate that ONLY focused on the economy never got to a single substantive and detailed discussion.  It was two hours long!   The previous debates covered the economy, abortion, foreign policy, the death penalty, and Romney’s landscaping service, but they still managed to get in-depth on at least one topic.  How can you spend two hours talking about the economy and never get past “give me your 30 second answer to _______ ?” But that wasn’t the worst part.  The worst part of the debate, was the smug stupidity of the moderators.  They posed inane questions based on tired liberal talking points and false premises, all the while smiling and nodding at each other with the sort of arrogance that only a true fool can possess.  They were condescending, and they refused to abandon a question when it was shown to be silly illogical.  “Are you saying we should let Italy fail?” “How about you, should we let Italy fail?” “Yes, but isn’t Italy too big to fail!?”  What the heck are we supposed to do about Italy failing? We’re broke!  Should we send them a big pile of monopoly money? Then came that agonizing line of questions about whether businesses should be profitable or hire people.  And as the candidates rightly pointed out that the question wasn’t valid because the two goals are intertwined, the moderators pressed on.  And on.  And on.  Are these geniuses under the impression that unprofitable businesses hire people?  And it only got worse from there. Question- How can we make people confident in the stock market in this world of high-speed trading?

The answer given by every candidate- grow the economy, set taxes in regulations at a level that people can anticipate, and enforce the laws in place.

Response-But besides that, how can we make people confident that they will make money on the Stock Market?

What everyone watching screamed in their head-  It’s the Stock Market, for goodness sakes!  You can’t take the risk out of the stock market! What the heck does high-speed trading have to do with this anyways?  It’s the Stock Market!!!  The housing discussion and the health care discussion went basically the same way.  It was excruciating to watch. And what makes the performance of the panel worse than the flub by Rick Perry is that they actually planned this!  They actually sat down, looked over their notes and thought “man, do I have some good stuff here.”  Rick Perry’s problem was that he forgot the plan.  The self-congratulatory tone of these clowns, particularly Maria Bartiromo, showed that, for them, things were going just as planned.

I’m all for tough questions, but this debate showcased one of the worst trends in modern journalism.  These moderators were only concerned with making themselves look good.  Their questions were not designed to learn more about the candidates or to press them into giving specifics about the economy.  Their questions were carefully worded to make the Republicans look stupid and uncaring and make the moderators look like insightful geniuses.  Unfortunately for them, they based their line of questions on reheated liberal talking points.  So, the candidates had no trouble in exposing the faulty logic behind the questions.  Today, the msm is propping these guys up as the stars of the debate.  They’re painting them as mavericks of journalism.  But the crowd got it right last night.  This panel should be a source of embarrassment to journalists.  They showed up with the sole purpose of patting themselves on the back and ended up making fools of themselves.  Republicans should see this debate as a great triumph and a boost to their confidence.  These moderators did their best to make the Republicans looks bad, but the candidates stood their ground.  The end result was a stage of candidates that looked a little more Presidential and a table of journalists that looked a little more like children. And that’s why the team from CNBC gets my vote for the biggest losers of the night.  Rick Perry may have embarrassed himself, but the moderators were a disgrace to an entire profession.