LEFTWING MILLIONAIRES’ CLUB

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=813

“527″ ORGANIZATIONS Obama’s Money Source

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=813

BARACK’S WORLD

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=800

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

---

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008
Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans:
2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans:
143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats:
13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory
Republican won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory
mostly
encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
“complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already
having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

Commander in Chief or Community Organizer in Chief?

Commander in Chief or Community Organizer in Chief?

Posted By Tom Blumer On December 11, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Column1 03, . Positioning, Legal, Money, Politics, US News | 8 Comments

You’ve got to hand it to Team Obama. Politically, when under control and on message, they are very good.

Take the economy (please). The president-elect has lowered the bar, [1] telling us that it “is going to get worse before it gets better.” He’s talking tough [2] about imposing conditions (”We are not going to simply write a bunch of checks”) on any bailout of Big 3 automakers General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. The statements themselves may or may not be sincere, but they play well.

But in spontaneous moments, Obama blows it. This occurred several times during the campaign, and it happened again Sunday. In another one of those “off the teleprompter” moments that became infamous during the presidential campaign, Obama may have undone all of his team’s market-mollifying efforts.

First, though, let’s look at where we are.

It became very clear last Friday that the architects of what I have been calling the POR economy [3] since early July — Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid — have created a doozy of an economic debacle. [4] Since June, when it became obvious to employers and investors that, deliberately or not, the POR triumvirate [5] were driving an economic downturn with their willingness to starve the economy of energy and their grim determination to raise taxes in the face of sluggish conditions, the economy has deteriorated terribly, and, along with it, the employment situation.

The following two charts from Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show just how bad the decay in [6] Joe Biden’s three-letter word — J-O-B-S — has been. The first shows monthly seasonally adjusted job losses:

[7]

Since June, when Pelosi, Obama, and Reid began working their “magic” in earnest, the economy has lost over 1.5 million seasonally adjusted jobs. What had been an employment slump turned into a quagmire as the prospect, and then the reality, of an Obama win became ever clearer.

As bad as the seasonally adjusted results are, they actually mask how extreme the deterioration has been, as the following not seasonally adjusted BLS chart demonstrates:

[8]

This year, the economy has alternately added fewer or lost more jobs in every month compared to 2007. But what had been a troubling trend clearly became alarming in September and October, and simply awful in November. This occurred as the energy starvation and high-tax postures of Pelosi, Obama, and Reid continued, and the decades-in-the-making crackups at [9] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became obvious. Those Democratic-driven failures at Fan and Fred marked the beginning of the bailout mania, otherwise known as [10] the SUCKUP (the Seemingly Unlimited Cash Kitty Under Paulson), which appears to have no end in sight. It is no coincidence that November’s wrong-direction swing of 947,000 — the worst since the early 1960s, even after adjusting for smaller workforce sizes — occurred in the month Barack Obama was elected.

But maybe the markets have misread him — or, more correctly stated, maybe Obama as president will bear no resemblance to Obama the candidate.

It’s easy to make too much of this, but there have been a few hopeful signs:

• Team Obama has deferred its plans to dramatically increase Social Security and other taxes. Abandoning them would be better, but it’s a start.

• The president-elect’s economic nominees, while not necessarily ardent free market cheerleaders, are mostly not the socialist flamethrowers some had feared.

• It appears that the Big 3 bailout of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford, which to be sure shouldn’t be happening at all, will “at least” not be [11] the open-ended $125 billion nightmare that some advocate.

• The domestic economic mess they have created, the need to ensure that the Big 3 somehow survive if bailout money is disbursed, and the growing worldwide resistance to extreme measures designed to combat so-called global warming that [12] hasn’t been occurring for about 10 years may all cause Obama to back away from the worst elements of his fossil fuel-curtailing agenda. He has [13] already reneged on his promise to [14] impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

But in one statement Sunday, [15] reacting to the factory sit-in at Republic Windows and Doors in his native Chicago, Obama set off alarms in the offices of entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors everywhere:

“Obama: Workers Staging Sit-in ‘Absolutely Right’”

President-elect Barack Obama is weighing in on behalf of workers staging a sit-in on the factory floor of their former Chicago employer to protest abruptly losing their jobs last week.

Obama told a news conference Sunday that Republic Windows and Doors should follow through on its commitments to the 200 workers, who say they won’t leave the plant until they are assured they’ll receive their severance and vacation pay.

“The workers who are asking for the benefits and payments that they have earned, I think they’re absolutely right and understand that what’s happening to them is reflective of what’s happening across this economy,” Obama said.

Regardless of the facts and circumstances, Obama’s statement is a dangerous, de facto endorsement of lawlessness that has the potential to shut business owners’ wallets nationwide. [16] As IBDeditorials.com noted:

If he believes the workers deserve the pay they are demanding, he is free to say so. He has no place, however, to support anyone’s decision to trespass on another’s property. To advocate offenses against society is to legitimize them.

It won’t take very much of this before businesses conclude that putting employees on the payroll must be avoided as long as possible, if it’s to be done at all. They will more frequently use temporary agency employees as long as they legally can. They won’t replace employees who retire or leave. They’ll have more work done in other countries. They won’t pursue business ideas that require U.S. employees. The trend toward professional employment organizations (PEOs, or “leased employees”) will accelerate.

More such appearances by Obama as rabble-rousing community organizer in chief will go a long way towards ensuring that his “get worse before it gets better” prediction about the economy becomes tragically true.

President-elect Obama’s credibility under threat?

President-elect Obama’s credibility under threat?

 

Dr. M. S. Haq

In the US, rumors, media reports (print, electronic), defending stances or otherwise, investigations, and pending law suits – to mention a few and as appropriate – regarding President-elect Obama’s actual place of birth, his actual citizenship status, and his eligibility to become the next US president have been instrumental in inter alia heating up the pre-inauguration (I mean, the upcoming presidential inauguration) atmosphere, therein.

According to The Christian Science Monitor, the people questioning Obama’s citizenship are hitting electors as hard as the Gore activists ever did. The article by David Weigel posted recently on a MSNBC website was inter alia an attempt to provide all concerned with a precise and concise round up of developments so far in pertinent areas.

It is expected while the law will take its own course, President-elect Obama and concerned others will share with world people – in a timely, honest, lawful and acceptable to all concerned (as far as possible, though) fashion – the truth or truth behind the truth or otherwise about those things. In that respect, a few of my questions have been presented below – not in the order of priority or importance.

1. Why there exist discrepancies when it comes to the date of live birth of Obama – the 4th day of August 1961 on one hand as per the certificate issued reportedly by the state of Hawaii in 2007 on the request of Obama campaign, and 13th day of August 2008 on the other according to a Hillary Clinton’s supporter, who cited the edition of Honolulu Advertiser as the source?

It will not, however, be out of place to mention here: the second date of birth could inter alia be a product of genuine mistakes or a product of perception-related limitations or a product of comprehension-related limitations or even typographical mistakes or a product of similar things or any combination of them.

2. Why is Obama apparently hesitant when it comes to sharing the original certificate of birth which he found in a box of his dad’s knickknacks in the “Dreams From My Father”?

3. Is there any solid evidence pertaining to acts and omissions such as falsifying, tampering with, damaging or causing loss of the original birth certificate of President-elect Obama? If the evidence does exist, then the next questions will be: Who committed above act(s) and omission(s)? When? What was the motive? How?

Why is President-elect Obama – as per the request of Bob Schultz (the founder of the paleoconsevative We the people Foundation for Constitutional Education) – not allowing forensic investigators to inspect Obama’s files in Hawaii’s department of State?

4. Why there exist doubts regarding Obama’s actual place of birth? While the Hawaii certificate indicated inter alia Honolulu is the place of birth of Obama, the president elect’s 86-year-old paternal step-grand mother in Kenya had confirmed recently – through an interpreter over the telephone – she was present when Obama was born. It will not be out of place to mention here: the grand mother was presumably in Kenya at that time. It will also not be out of place to mention here: older people can inter alia remember their past well than the present unless human system failures in areas say, the nervous system have already taken a toll on their capacity to perform the required activity in an expected manner.

5. Why there exist confusions regarding Obama’s mother visit to Kenya before the president-elect was born?

6. Why is Ron McRae claiming to know: Obama’s mother gave birth in a third world country because “she did not want to take a chance on that flight back” and “everyone in Kenya” knows this” By the way, was that “third world country” Kenya or another country?

7. Why did Obama’s late father (peace be upon him) reportedly make his son a dual citizen of the British Empire?

Besides above questions, there exist other questions pertaining to for example, the source of the source of his huge election fund he had afforded, and had spent in the campaign.

It appears the fringe movement to stop Obama from becoming president or to delay his inauguration as president is being actively pursued by certain quarters in the US. If the movement becomes successful – either in part or in full or if President-elect Obama, the country’s justice system and concerned others fail to deal with the situation in a timely and proper manner or if something else happens in the immediate future or any combination of them, several developments could take place in pertinent areas during the period – relative, however, to time, space and other variables. A few of them have been presented below.

I. A possible return of situation similar to the one associated with Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in 2001 or a situation somewhat different from that or otherwise.

II. An added uncertainty-laden US, as well as global economy at least until a kind of solid stabilization is achieved by an upcoming US administration – per se,

III. A continuous poor performance of economy at say, local and global levels.

IV. A more enabling environment – than that at present – for terrorism, terrorists, supporters of terrorists, financers of terrorists and concerned others to benefit from the resultant situation.

V. At least a temporary disruption of peace including inter alia peaceful co-existence, security and stability in the US and elsewhere in the world – as applicable.

VI. An increase in vulnerabilities – perhaps short term – of the US to its lone super power status in the world due to resultant outcomes of for example, transition triggered internal weaknesses. A windfall from the development could inter alia be instrumental in say, shaping or re-shaping – in varying degrees, though – the domain of international relations, trust, confidence, mutuality and collectivity at local, global and other levels.

VII. A full-scale engagement of the US in the fight for establishing the truth and truth behind the truth in relevant areas through the immediate future, per se.

The last word: let us work towards establishing, sustaining and promoting the truth in all spheres of life for the betterment and the future of everything Almighty God has created thus far and made them available to us for use so far. An average present day truth related deficit – far beyond the acceptable level of tolerance, though – is not only contributing to pushing up the cost of say, global commons, governance, politics and development including inter alia poverty alleviation at a geometric rate of progression on a daily basis but taking a heavy toll on moral, ethical, intra-generational and inter-generational standards associated with human life, living and continuity in the universe. Further, a continuous shortfall in truth-based transactions – at intra-human, inter-human and other levels – has been instrumental in inter alia soaring up, on a sustainable basis, the competitiveness of say, false-based transactions at those levels – relative to time, space and other variables, though. A windfall from the development is apparently being instrumental in forcing human beings to run more behind the mirage than the truth – in pursuits of say, success in pertinent areas – through the infinity and beyond. Let us also minimize, if not stop it – now.

Obama needs to get his story straight

Thomas Lifson
Everyone from Patrick Fitzgerald on down insists Obama is not implicated in the Blago scandal. The President-elect told us so.

Asked what contact he’d had with the governor’s office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”

 

Jake Tapper ABC asks the important question: 

 

But there remain questions about how Blagojevich knew that Mr. Obama was not willing to give him anything in exchange for the Senate seat — with whom was Blagojevich speaking? Did that person report the governor to the authorities?

And, it should be pointed out, Mr. Obama has a relationship with Mr. Blagojevich, having not only endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006, but having served as a top adviser to the Illinois governor in his first 2002 run for the state house.

 

What did the President-elect know about Blago’s corrupt demands, and when did he know it?

Posted at 06:01 PM | Email | Permalink |

Is Obama capable of giving a straight answer?

Peggy Shapiro
Thomas Lifson reports in “Obama needs to get his story straight” that Obama claimed to have had no contact with Blagojevich or his office about the governor’s criminal efforts at selling the vacant Senate seat. 

But we can’t get a straight answer from the soon-to-be President. Here’s David Axelrod, chief strategist of Obama’s campaign and the man who conducts every aspect of Obama’s political maneuverings, on YouTube stating that Obama did speak to Blagojevich about the president elect’s preference to fill the vacant Senate seat.

Are we going to start the Reverend Wright denial runaround? “I didn’t know. I didn’t hear it. I heard only a bit and it didn’t sound totally criminal. I can’t disown him because he got me started in Illinois politics. Even my grandmother committed some crimes.”

Why all the circumlocution? It appears to be Obama’s first response to even the simplest questions. During an interview last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Tom Brokaw asked a simple yes-no question: “Have you stopped smoking?” Obama’s convoluted reply could have been a satirical sketch on “Saturday Night Live.”

“I have.” (So far that seems to be “yes.”) “What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon.” (Doesn’t that mean “no”?)

Even Brokaw couldn’t resist, “Wait a minute. That means you haven’t stopped.”

“Fair enough,” Obama said. (Yes I lied and you caught me?) “What I would say is that I have done a terrific job under the circumstances…” (I still smoke, but I am terrific?)

Tom Lifson asks for Obama to get his story straight. Terrific as he is, Obama may not be capable of a straight answer.

Posted at 12:00 AM | Email | Permalink |

Democratic Party Scandal: How High Will It Go?

By Rick Moran

Those of us who have followed Illinois politics for any length of time are tempted to give the Rod Blagojevich arrest and pending indictment a quick shrug, a knowing smile, and a cynical sigh of know-it-all arrogance. “We’ve seen this before in Illinois, nothing new here, just move along” is the condescending response to questions from out-of-staters that usually suffice when some Illinois politico is caught with his fingers in the taxpayer’s cookie jar.

But the Blagojevich True Crime Drama is not criminality as usual in Illinois politics. The malfeasance of Governor Rod Blagojevich is so outrageous, so brazen, so breathtaking in its scope and character that even jaded journalistic hacks whose beat has been the statehouse for years are shocked. In the long history of official Illinois corruption, the Blagojevich schemes to personally enrich himself, enrich his cronies, and use the power of his office to further his nefarious designs are unprecedented.

 

“I want to make money” the Governor was heard admitting on tape. Evidently, the opportunities that presented themselves for Blagojevich to clean up were too tempting to pass up. Here’s a partial list of the charges via the Chicago Tribune:

 

Prosecutors alleged Blagojevich sought appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services, secretary of the Energy Department or gain an ambassadorship in the new Obama administration, or get a lucrative job with a union in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate. An Obama spokesman had no immediate comment.

Blagojevich also was alleged to be using a favors list, made up largely of individuals and firms that have state contracts or received taxpayer benefits, from which to conduct a $2.5 million fundraising drive before year’s end when a new tougher law on campaign donations, prompted by the governor’s voracious fundraising, would take effect.

Even Blagojevich’s recently announced $1.8 billion plan for new interchanges and “green lanes” on the Illinois Tollway was subject to corruption, prosecutors alleged. The criminal complaint alleges Blagojevich expected an unnamed highway concrete contractor to raise a half-million dollars for his campaign fund in exchange for state money for the tollway project. “If they don’t perform, (expletive) ‘em,” Blagojevich said, according to the complaint.

Blagojevich and Harris also allegedly conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of Blagojevich in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

In addition, federal prosecutors alleged Blagojevich and Harris, along with others, obtained and sought to gain financial benefits for the governor, members of his family and his campaign fund in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state jobs and state contracts.

 

The big news, of course, is the governor’s attempt to sell the senate seat of Barack Obama. Incredibly, it appears that he tried to get the best deal by shopping the seat to as many as 7 potential candidates — including, indirectly, Barack Obama.

 

Blogger Joseph Cannon of Cannonfire details the offer to an unnamed high level Obama advisor (evidence suggests it is newly-designated chief of staff Rahm Emanuel). Blagojevich was pushing what Cannon calls “a wacky scheme” where the governor would take over control of a not for profit group  — a 501©(4) — set up by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (who would act at the behest of Obama) in exchange for appointing Obama’s choice for the senate seat — his longtime friend and advisor Valerie Jarrett.

 

This is directly from the criminal complaint: (PDF) that details several conversations caught on a federal wiretap:

 

The advisor asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the 501©(4) is a real effort or just a vehicle to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that it is a real effort but also a place for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to go when he is no longer Governor. The advisor said he likes the Change to Win idea better, and notes that it is more likely to happen because it is one step removed from the President-elect.

 

“Change to Win” is a labor NGO that the governor was interested in heading up. In order to get that job, Blagojevich had to approach the head of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Andy Stern. The Governor was willing to name a candidate who would be little more than a union toady in order to secure that position. And he was asking “Advisor B” (likely, Emanuel) to make it happen.

 

…according to Advisor B from the President-elect’s perspective, there would be fewer “fingerprints” on the President-elect’s involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, “you won’t have stories in four years that they bought you off.”

 

Was Rahm Emanuel (read Cannon’s reasoning on why the evidence points to the chief of staff) making a counter offer to the governor’s bribe? It’s an interesting question and one that the press may wish to ask the new chief of staff.

 

In addition to the Obama team, Blagojevich was trying to sell the senate seat to as many as 6 different candidates. One candidate’s representative — “Candidate #5 in the complaint — allegedly offered Blagojevich a substantial bribe for the office. The governor liked that idea and told an aide that if Obama “didn’t give him anything” he would choose Candidate #5.

 

Who is “Candidate #5?” Speculation is zeroing in on Jesse Jackson, Jr. From the actual complaint via Marc Ambinder:

 

Blagojevich said that he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Blagojevich with something “tangible up front.” Noting that he was going to meet with Senate Candidate 5 in the next few days, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to reach out to an intermediary (Individual D), from whom Blagojevich is attempting to obtain campaign contributions and who Blagojevich believes is close to Senate Candidate 5. Blagojevich told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was a very realistic candidate but Blagojevich was getting a lot of pressure not to appoint Senate Candidate 5, according to the affidavit.

 

The only candidate for the senate seat to meet with Obama in the time period mentioned was Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.

 

It should be noted that there is absolutely no evidence that Jackson had any knowledge of these representations to Obama made on his behalf by a fundraiser nor is there any evidence that an “intermediary” informed him of the “negotiations.

 

If you read all 72 pages of the indictment, you just can’t help being struck by the money-grubbing nature of the governor and his mania for money. He had schemes within schemes to extract cash from supporters, cronies, and companies who wished to do business with the state.

 

His “pay to play” program was particularly lucrative. This was a scheme where Blagojevich friend and campaign financier Antoin “Tony” Rezko pressured companies doing business with the state to contribute to the Blagojevich re-election campaign in exchange for lucrative state contracts. Rezko was convicted of 18 counts of fraud in connection with the scheme and the governor’s name was prominently mentioned during his trial. Others involved in this scheme include Stuart Levine, a GOP mover and shaker in the state.

 

At least you can say we here in Illinois are bi-partisan when it comes to corruption.

 

While the selling of the senate seat and pay to play complaints got the most headlines, perhaps the most incredible of all the charges alleged against Blagojevich is his attempted shakedown of the Chicago Tribune.

 

The Trib not only owns the Chicago Tribune but also the Chicago Cubs baseball team. Owner Sam Zell (who has just filed for bankruptcy) is trying to sell the team and, more importantly, one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in Chicago: Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs.

 

But the sale of Wrigley field will involve massive taxes — something on the order of $100 million dollars in capital gains. Zell had a approached the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) in order to strike a deal where, according to the criminal complaint, the IFA would take title to Wrigley Field thus saving Zell a lot of cash.

 

Enter Blagojevich, who told his chief of staff John Harris (also arrested today) to make it clear to Zell that no help from the IFA would be forthcoming unless some members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board were fired.

 

In a November 4 phone call with Harris, Blagojevich told his aide “”our recommendation is fire all those [expletive] people, get ‘em the [expletive] out of there and get us some editorial support.”

 

Harris reported back on November 11 that Zell “got the message and is very sensitive to the issue.” Later, Harris told Blagojevich that there were “certain corporate reorganizations and budget cuts coming and, reading between the lines, he’s (Zell) going after that section.”

 

No firings have taken place yet and it is doubtful that Zell will make a move now that this deal is in the open. I suppose he saw it as a cost of doing business and $100 million is a lot of cash. But the thought that he would buckle to the whims of this strutting peacock of a politician who wanted journalists, who were only doing the job they were being paid to do, axed because they were telling the truth about his corruption stinks of rank cowardice.

 

No doubt over the next few days many aspects of this story will be fleshed out. We will almost certainly be treated to some fancy footwork by the Obama team as they seek to avoid the appearance that anyone connected with the new president came within a country mile of Blagojevich. That may be difficult to do what with the taped conversation between the governor and “Advisor B” and unanswered questions about whether Obama actually discussed the appointment of a new senator with the governor or not.

 

Obama said in his statement he had no contact with Blagojevich. Unfortunately for the new president, his top aide David Axelrod told Fox News on November 23 that Obama had indeed talked with Blagojevich about the senate seat. The transition has since released a statement saying that Axelrod “misspoke” on November 23.

 

And I have a bridge over the Chicago River you can have for a song if you believe that one.

 

The chances are very good that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is far from finished. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party in Illinois may be in for a very rough ride as their leader ponders his future — or lack of one — and his associates lawyer up in anticipation of legal trouble.

 

Rick Moran is associate editor of American Thinker and proprietor of the website Rightwing Nuthouse.

Getting the GOP Back in the Game

Getting the GOP Back in the Game

Posted By Jennifer Rubin On December 3, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Feature 01, . Positioning, Elections 2008, Money, Politics, US News | 12 Comments

Republicans took a beating on Election Day.

[1] They lost the White House and more than twenty House seats. They came within a whisker of seeing the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority of sixty seats in the Senate – rescued only yesterday by the victory of Sen. Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia run-off election.

They have some work ahead of them which will set their course for the next couple of years and determine whether they can emerge from the political wilderness.

First, they must choose a party chairman from a [2] flock of candidates. None of the candidates has a sterling record and each presents considerable liabilities. But some are more problematic than others. Katon Dawson has been a successful state party chairman in South Carolina but his twelve-year membership in [3] an all-white country club would be a public relations nightmare for a party already struggling with minorities. Some are already sending up warning flares. A national committeewoman who is supportive of Dawson [4] concedes, “I think there are some members of the committee who would find it intolerable.” And to boot, the club has also excluded Jews, although it did extend an “honorary membership” in the 1980s to the commander at [5] Fort Jackson, Maj. Gen. Robert Solomon. Just what the party needs: a chairman who belonged to a club with a “whites only” deed which snubbed Jews and blacks.

Alternatively, the RNC may look to Michael Steele, a charismatic and effective spokesman but light on a record of organizational success. Then there are John Yob and Saul Anuzis, who hail from Michigan, where the Republican Party has fallen off the map, despite the opportunity to make headway against tax-and-spend liberal Democrats in the midst of a recession. And Chip Saltzman, former chair of the Arkansas state party, may be too inexperienced on the national stage and too closely identified with a potential 2012 contender, Mike Huckabee. The latter liability hobbles Jim Greer, who leads the Florida party and is allied with Charlie Crist, although Greer alone seems to have a track record of outreach and electoral success — skills the party badly needs.

In short, the RNC must choose wisely. The watchword here may be: choose the candidate least likely to embarrass Republicans.

The real action for Republicans will be in Washington, where four immediate challenges confront Republicans. Greatly reduced in numbers, they nevertheless have the opportunity to revive the base and improve their image with voters.

The most immediate issue is the auto bailout. Democrats will be pressing for billions more in taxpayer money for an industry that has failed to make needed reforms — or cars people want to buy — and has to date not demonstrated the capacity to align its cost structure with non-union domestic auto producers. Republicans would do well to hold firm and stand up for taxpayers, whose salaries and benefit packages pale in comparison to those of the auto workers. One [6] economics professor put it in context:

A recent study by Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan-Flint, shows that the hourly compensation cost, including benefits, for the Big Three automakers in Detroit for 2007-2008 is $73.20 per hour, compared with $48 at Toyota.

In goods-producing industries in the United States, reports Perry, the average hourly compensation cost, including benefits, is $31.59. For management and professional employees in the U.S., the average hourly cost, with benefits, is $47.57. For all workers, the average hourly wage/benefit cost is $28.48 per hour.

Asks Perry: “Should U.S. taxpayers really be providing billions of dollars to bailout companies (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) that compensate their workers 52.5 percent more than the market (Toyota wages and benefits), 54 percent more than management and professional workers, 132 percent more than the average manufacturing wage, and 157 percent more than the average compensation of all American workers?”

Republicans can begin to regain their reputation as guardians of the taxpayers and smart stewards of the economy by following Nancy Reagan’s advice: just say no.

Next up for the Republicans is the sure-to-be-massive Democratic stimulus plan. Based on the faulty memory that the New Deal lifted us out of the Great Depression, the Democratic spending plan will hike the deficit up over a trillion dollars. There are a couple of glaring problems.

First, it’s a game plan that [7] hasn’t worked in the past. As [8] Larry Kudlow put it, “government cannot spend our way into prosperity.”

Second, China’s economy may be grinding to a halt and no longer be the financier for American debt. That means the [6] gravy train may come to an end:

The total national debt, the accumulation of all the annual federal deficits over the nation’s entire history, stood at $5.7 trillion on the day that George W. Bush took office. We’re almost double that now, adding nearly as much red ink in eight years as the nation accumulated in the previous two centuries. And that’s not counting the snowballing trillions in corporate bailouts, already at more than $7 trillion. That’s $23,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Also uncounted in the aforementioned debt numbers are the trillions the government has collected and owes in the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds.” The government doesn’t have a dime of that money. It’s all been spent for things like that needless $500 million tunnel under the Allegheny. Unfortunately, the whole thing collapses if China doesn’t keep lending us the money.

So once again it is up to the Republicans to be the fiscal grown-ups. They would do well to focus the public on these unpleasant realities and to offer an alternative of pro-growth policies beginning with a program of domestic energy development and significant tax cuts to promote investment and job expansion. [9] Republican Minority Leader John Boehner has begun to suggest just such an approach.

Likewise, Governors Rick Perry and Mark Sanford sounded the alarm in an [10] op-ed — warning about the rising mountain of debt and cautioning against a “bailout mentality”:

To an unprecedented degree, government is currently picking winners and losers in the private marketplace, and throwing good money after bad. A prudent investor takes money from low-yield investments and puts them in those that yield better returns. Recent government intervention is doing the opposite — taking capital generated from productive activities and throwing it at enterprises that in many cases need to reorganize their business model.

Their solution: “improving ’soil conditions’ for businesses by cutting taxes, reforming our legal system, and our workers’ compensation system. We’d humbly suggest that Congress take a page from those playbooks by focusing on targeted tax relief paid for by cutting spending, not by borrowing.”

Next up on the agenda for Republicans are two political fights, ones they should welcome.

Senator Norm Coleman appears to have eked out a narrow win in Minnesota, leading with over 300 votes and more than 90% of the ballots recounted. Nevertheless, his opponent Al Franken is [11] threatening to go to the Senate, where the Democrats could vote to seat him, despite his electoral loss, on the notion that absentee ballots rejected by the state canvassing board should have be tallied. Republicans should pull out all the stops and shut down the Senate if needed to preserve the right of Minnesota voters to decide, however narrowly, their senator. This is a fight which Republicans should welcome and which would expose the other side as anti-democratic thugs.

The other political fight deserving of their energies is the nomination of Eric Holder. [12] We, along with [13] others, have recounted his [14] problematic role in not only the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich but of the FALN terrorists — not to mention the Elian Gonzales affair. Republicans need look no further than liberal columnist [15] Richard Cohen for their rationale for opposing Holder:

As noted, any person is entitled to make a mistake. But no one is entitled to be attorney general. That’s a post that ought to be reserved for a lawyer who appreciates that while he reports to the president, he serves the people. This dual obligation was beyond the ken of George W. Bush’s attorney general once removed, Alberto Gonzales, whose idea of telling truth to power came down to saying “Yes, sir. Yes, sir.” On Guantanamo, domestic spying, and Bush’s “l’État c’est moi” view of the presidency, Gonzales was a cipher, and the damage of his tenure still needs to be repaired.

Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was elected to end. He is not one of Obama’s loathed lobbyists; he was merely their instrument — a good man, certainly, who just as certainly did a bad thing. Maybe he deserves an administration job, just not the one he’s getting.

Even if they are not successful, it does Republicans good to stand up for the rule of law — rather than rule by cronies — and force the Democrats to defend one of the worst players from the Clinton era.

All of this should be plenty to occupy Republicans’ time. It is not easy, but it is essential to find competent leaders, defend sound economic principles, and engage in some hand-to-hand political combat. These are the first and altogether necessary steps back from political oblivion. If they demur from these fights their political troubles will only worsen.