My Book Now More Relevant - Meg Heap and Black Voters!

Though the words Conservative and Capitalist are in the title, the booklet is non-political in nature. If you find my Memo efforts of interest and maybe even challenging , whether you agree or not with what I write and/or post, then consider this a personal appeal to support my effort to raise money for The Wounded Warrior project. Buy my book expressing my thoughts on raising children. Please make your check for $10.99/copy to Paul Laflamme for a soft cover version and deduct half the cost as a donation to The Wounded Warrior Project. (Add $2.50 for postage and handling.) If you want a pdf version you can download the cost is $5.99. Click on WWW.Brokerberko.com --- PJTV:WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV Front Page -- European Socialism Is Collapsing. Is America Next? Spain’s Socialist Party suffered devastating losses in last month’s elections. Why did this happen, and what is the significance of these defeats? Terry Jones of Investor’s Business Daily and Scott Shackford of Reason.com join Allen Barton to discuss the collapse of Spanish socialism. --- Avoid Uncle Tom Friedman and his Israel bashing. (See 1 below.) --- The Petraeus episode seems to gather momentum. It finally awoke the liberal press and media folk when the story became a sexual encounter. So much for our fourth estate serving in their critical role of civic ombudsmen. I have no doubt the general will ultimately have to appear before various committees and a semblance of the facts will eventually be fleshed out. I, for one, believe Obama knew what occurred vis a vis the Libyan assassinations and that, perhaps, the general has agreed to be the fall guy. Certainly Hilary cannot be considering Obama's debt to 'Ole' Bill. Whatever ultimately turns out to be the case, we find, once again, this Administration, notwithstanding protests to the contrary,is anything but open. Lamentably, this president consistently lies to the American people. Whether that means anything anymore I leave to others to judge. For sure, this is not a pleasant way for Obama to begin his second term. (See 1a below.) --- Israel continues to focus on defensive measures but is more than capable of raining havoc upon its enemies should they so choose. The problem is, Israel is always held to a higher standard of response by the world's moral Lilliputians. Is another war in the offing? (See 2 below) --- Dennis Prager has written an interesting article and makes the point: "The Democratic Party, and the left generally, have done a magnificent job in identifying conservative values as white male values. One reason for their success is that they dominate virtually every lever of influence — the high schools and universities, television, newspapers, movies, pop culture and everything else except talk radio. Another is that they really believe that conservative values are nothing more than white male — especially aging white male — values. Remember, leftism has its own trinity — the prism through which it perceives the world — race, gender and class. In this case the race is white; the gender is male; and the class is rich." The essence of the article is the argument by some that Republicans must move toward the middle and, in doing so, renounce their values or should they devote their time trying to change liberals. I submit they should do neither. All they should do, as I have written before, is select candidates that are not neanderthalic in their thinking on social issues and resolve the issue of illegal immigration in a manner that balances the competing equities within the context of upholding the principle of legal immigration. A nation that cannot control its borders is doomed. Finally they must become better at delivering their message. (See 3 below.) Tom Sowell discusses the issue of Republican change and the need to be more articulate. (See 3a below) --- Conservatives have a future. (See 4 below.) --- With Obama it is not a matter of restraint when it comes to increasing the need for more revenue through taxes. Cutting spending is not an option. (See 5 below.) --- Black voters in Chatham County are due congratulations for voting for Meg Heap a qualified and competent white candidate versus her opponent a thoroughly unqualified black incumbent. Can one say this is a possible new trend indicating black voters are now capable of discernment and no longer trapped in 'color' voting? I suspect such a conclusion is premature because the stark disparity between the two candidates was quite evident. In this instance, blacks were smart enough to vote their vested interests because Meg will run a tighter ship, more criminals are likely to be prosecuted and incarcerated and much of the local crime is black on black related. That said I am more than happy to give credit where it is due. Stay tuned for further elections. --- Dick ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Stay Away, Uncle Tom Friedman From Ronn Torossian Another Sunday, and naturally one can expect another anti-Israel New York Times editorial by Thomas Friedman. In 2011, Friedman described the Israeli government as "drunk","out of touch" and "in-bred", and wrote that congressional ovations for Prime Minister Netanyahu were "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." Quite the friend. And now, in his first op-ed since Obama’s re-election he has let his “Israeli friends” know that “My President Is Busy.” In a condescending manner, Friedman said “Israelis should understand that the United States isn’t their grandfather’s America anymore”, and that Obama has more important things to worry about than Israel. (Didn’t all these liberals just last week let us know that Obama was Israel’s best friend and would stand by Israel? Quite a change.) Well, Uncle Tom, some of us understand that “…the United States isn’t their grandfather’s America anymore” – and there ain’t no one in the Middle East awaiting Obama’s arrival. As you suggest, Israel is indeed focused on January 22nd elections, and their own elections – and the right-wing Netanyahu government is sitting pretty. ] Witness the merger of Avigdor Lieberman with Netanyahu’s Likud who leads a major Zionist party with many voters who escaped communism and now live as a free people in a free land – and Lieberman has support from many in Israel. He’s doing just fine, thank you. Witness Naftali Bennett, a success story of Israel’s start up nation who launched a technology company and sold it in 2005 for $145 Million, and was recently elected to reinvigorate the vibrant National Religious Party. Bennett, Lieberman – and the Israeli public led by Netanyahu are focused on elections – and am sure wouldn’t mind if indeed Obama and his liberals stay away from Israel. (Get your President to keep your promise and not interfere in Israeli elections as the liberal Democrats did in every single Israeli election). Uncle Tom, some may wonder if indeed America would have been better off if Obama would have stayed away from the entire Middle East during his previous term. Israel may have been able to tell Obama that the Arab Spring ain’t so good for the West. Observers of the Middle East – and certainly supporters of Israel – concur that the safety and security of Israel (and America) could be better off if indeed Obama leaves Israel alone. America isn’t in a better place since Obama’s reign began – and indeed, Israel remains focused on Zionism – self-determination and is doing just fine. In your article, you lambast Netanyahu for scorning President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority who declared on Israeli TV: “Palestine for me is the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital. This is Palestine. I am a refugee. I live in Ramallah. The West Bank and Gaza is Palestine. Everything else is Israel.” Netanyahu is also busy – that proposal is a non-starter and one which has zero support amongst the Israeli electorate. Mr. Friedman – Why don’t you keep worrying about Obama and let Israel manage the Mid-East. Seems America is on the edge of financial collapse, and there’s some unsorted business in Libya. Owning 5WPR, a PR agency I think Israel would be much better off if indeed American media and the American government focused their vast efforts away from Israel. Guess what, Uncle Tom, Israel is just fine You write you “find it very sad that in a country with so much human talent, the Israeli center and left still can’t agree on a national figure who could run against Netanyahu....”. Yes the country has a ton of human talent, and no center-left candidate who won’t get trounced in national elections. And guess what Uncle Tom, Israel is just fine. And let’s indeed hope as your President is too busy to deal with the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Syria, he remains busy the next time some teenage Israeli foolishly writes graffiti as kids do worldwide, or some idiotic American peace seeker stands in front of an Israeli bulldozer and rightfully gets run over. Some of us American Jews know damn well “.. that the United States isn’t their grandfather’s America anymore” – because in that America people were expected to work hard and knew damn well that socialism wouldn’t work. And Tom, as an American entrepreneur I’d say your President really has a ton of work to do on the economy. Market really tanked Day One, didn’t it? Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR a US PR agency, and author of “For Immediate Release.” 1a)If you believe this... By Michael Graham I’m not annoyed that the Obama administration is lying to us about Benghazi, David Petraeus and the rest of this messy, farcical story. I’m annoyed that they expect us to believe them. When a woman discovers her husband in bed undressed, she can accept his claim to be feeling under the weather. But when he asks her to believe the unfamiliar earrings on his pillow were from his mother . . . This is the position President Obama has put us in. I’d like to believe that our president would never lie to us about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including an ambassador. I’d like to believe that our president is above politically manipulating the resignation of a CIA chief and successful general. I’d like — no, I’d love — to believe it all. Unfortunately I can’t. Can you? You know the outline of this already unbelievable story. Petraeus has an affair with the unfortunately named Mrs. Broadwell (apparently “Felicity Shagwell” is copyrighted by Austin Powers) in 2011. His girlfriend’s threatening emails to a third woman lead to an FBI investigation that uncovers the tawdry story last summer. But can you believe the FBI (under Attorney General Eric Holder) would be investigating the most important spy in the country and nobody in the White House knew? Can you believe that around Labor Day the FBI essentially let the matter drop? Can you believe that, after two months of apparent indifference, suddenly — on Election Day — someone woke up and decided “Today is the day General ‘Betray-us’ must go!” The Washington Post reports Petraeus planned to stay as head of CIA after the affair was uncovered, but “resigned last week after being told to do so by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. on the day President Obama was reelected.” So Petraeus the adulterer was no big deal during September and October — the height of the campaign — but suddenly a re-elected Obama hands him a scarlet letter and casts the sinner out? Wait, that’s not quite right. Petraeus met with Obama on Thursday and offered his resignation, but the president claims he needed to think about it. And thought about it just long enough to push the resignation story into Friday afternoon — the ideal time for politicians to break bad news. Want another coincidence? Petraeus was fired between the election and Congress’s upcoming classified hearings on Benghazi. Fire him a week earlier and Benghazi is part of the election. A week later, and his testimony on this fiasco is on the record. “It is simply a fact that the White House did not know about Gen. Petraeus until Wednesday,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said yesterday. “Simply a fact.” And no matter how stupid it seems on its face, the White House insists you accept it as fact. Until, like the “spontaneous protests over a video” in Benghazi, these “facts” turn out to be completely untrue. Then you’ll be given another explanation and expected to believe it, too. Michael Graham hosts an afternoon drive time talk show on 96.9 WTKK. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)Iran’s new interceptor, rejoinder to US-Israeli counter for its cruise missiles Iran’s air defense chief Gen. Farzad Esmaili boasted Tuesday, Nov. 12, that a new air defense system was successfully tested during a “massive” ongoing military exercise, which he said was “a message and a strong slap to those countries that threaten [us].” Military sources report the six-day Iranian air defense drill is Tehran’s answer to the joint three-week US-Israeli maneuver - Austere Challenge 2012 – which is drilling defenses against an Iranian or Syrian ballistic missile attack on Israel. Monday, four US and Israeli Patriot anti-missiles missiles shot down four out of four mock Iranian missiles from the Israeli air base at Palmachim. Tuesday, the Iranians paraded a new air defense system modeled on the US Hawk system. Earlier reports said the new surface-to-air system is named “Mersad,” or Ambush. It was capable of locking on a flying object at a distance of 80 kilometers (50 miles) and able to hit from 45 kilometers (30 miles) away, Iranian state TV said. The Iranians have apparently upgraded the American Hawk system, say our military sources, but not all its touted specifications are confirmed. Even if they are, Iran’s latest military exercise shows it cannot match missile interceptors on the high order of the US and Israeli Aegis, THAAD and Arrow. These systems are capable of pinpointing ballistic and cruise missiles the moment they are launched by means of the highly sophisticated US X-band radar stations, one of which is located in the Israeli Negev, and shooting them down hundreds of kilometers before they approach their targets. The anti-missile systems launched from the Israeli coast Monday practiced for the first time US and Israeli ability to intercept Iranian cruise missiles speeding toward the Israeli shore from Iranian warships or merchant vessels cruising in the Mediterranean Sea or launched by Hizballah marines. Specialized Hizballah units have been trained in Iran of late in the handling of short-range cruise missiles launched from large commando speedboats. American and other Western intelligence agencies have received word that Iran is outfitting with cruise missile launch pads civilian merchant vessels that would sail close to the Israeli coast in a war. The US and Israeli planners of the joint maneuver are working on the assumption that the Iranian stealth drone which entered Israeli air space from Lebanon on Oct. 6, after spending an hour and twenty minutes over the Mediterranean, was performing a part in an Iranian-Hizballah exercise. This exercise is thought to have tested the use of an Iranian drone for guiding shipboard cruise missiles launched from the sea. The UAV passed across Israeli skies, our military sources noted, at exactly the same time as a Palestinian Hamas military exercise took place in the Gaza Strip. Tehran has clearly been building up to the present exercise. A week before the drone operation, Gen. Ferzad Ismaili, head of Iranian air defenses, said, “We may be faced with full-scale and all-out electronic warfare.” The Iranian military exercise under way now over almost the entire eastern half of the country, with the participation of jet fighters, drones and more than 8,000 troops, is one of the most extensive of its kind to take place in recent months. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Maybe Minorities' Values Need Changing By Dennis Prager The most widely offered explanation for Mitt Romney's defeat is that the Republican Party is disproportionately composed of — aging — white males. That is, alas, true. But the real question is what Republicans should do with this truth. There are two responses. The nearly universal response — meaning the response offered by the liberal media and liberal academics (and some Republicans) — is that the Republican Party needs to rethink its positions, moving away from conservatism and toward the political center. The other response is for conservatives and the Republican Party to embark on a massive campaign to influence, and ultimately change, the values of those groups that voted Democrat. The Democratic Party, and the left generally, have done a magnificent job in identifying conservative values as white male values. One reason for their success is that they dominate virtually every lever of influence — the high schools and universities, television, newspapers, movies, pop culture and everything else except talk radio. Another is that they really believe that conservative values are nothing more than white male — especially aging white male — values. Remember, leftism has its own trinity — the prism through which it perceives the world — race, gender and class. In this case the race is white; the gender is male; and the class is rich. As a result of this identification, there is no debate over whether the minorities' (and single women's) values are correct or whether the values of the white males are correct. The left has successfully forestalled any such national discussion by simply reducing conservative values to the dying fulminations of a former ruling class. In the words of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "Mitt Romney is the president of white male America." This identification seems to be working. But it's intellectually dishonest. Aging white males are as important to the left as they are to the right. In a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, liberal Harvard professor Benjamin M. Friedman strongly criticized the Tea Party. After citing "surveys showing that Tea Party members are 'predominantly white, male, older, more college-educated and better off economically than typical Americans,'" he noted parenthetically "they sound like, say, readers of The New York Review of Books." Come to think of it, these people who make up the tea party also sound like the people who attend classical music concerts, who endow concert halls, museums, hospitals, and universities, and fund left-wing causes (George Soros, for example). Perhaps when this generation of aging white males dies off, aging women, aging Latino and black males, and young people will become the readers of journals such as the New York Review of Books and endow symphony orchestras. I suspect not. And if not, the left may come to regret its contempt for this particular group. Without aging white males, I doubt the New York Times would survive. How many young people, females, Hispanics and blacks subscribe to the New York Times? Obviously the issue for the left isn't aging white males, it is conservatives, whether they are young or old, white or nonwhite, male or female. If female aborigines were conservative, the left would have a problem with female aborigines. For conservatives, the issue is that for generations now, they have failed to make the case for their values. They haven't even conveyed conservative values to many of their children. And when they have, the university has often succeeded in undoing them. The only answer to the "demographic" problem, therefore, is to bring women (single women, to be precise), young people, Hispanics, and blacks to conservative values. I wrote a column in September ("It's not Just the Economy, Stupid!") criticizing the Mitt Romney campaign for only talking about jobs and the economy. President Obama kept saying that this election was about two different visions of America. But like George Herbert Walker Bush, the Romney campaign appeared to disdain "the vision thing." Our only hope for America is that every conservative takes upon him or herself the project of learning what American and conservative values are, coming to understand what leftism stands for, and learning how to make the case for those values to women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. That is what my radio show, latest book and Prager University are about. And while I am, happily, hardly alone, there are still far too few of us who understand "the vision thing." Surely the Republican establishment has not. We should missionize for the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum) as least as passionately as the left has missionized for its antithesis — Egalitarianism, Secularism and Multiculturalism. Or we will lose America as we have always known it. 3a)Is Demography Destiny? Thomas Sowell Some media pundits see in the growing proportion of non-white groups in the population a growing opposition to the Republican Party that will sooner or later make it virtually impossible for Republicans to win presidential elections or even to control either house of Congress. But is demography destiny? Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats. Whether in a racial context or in other contexts, the supposed need for Republicans to become more like Democrats has long been a recurring theme of the moderate Republican establishment, going back more than half a century. Yet the most successful Republican presidential candidate during that long period was a man who went completely counter to that conventional wisdom-- namely, Ronald Reagan, who won back to back landslide election victories. Meanwhile, moderate Republican presidential candidate after moderate Republican presidential candidate has gone down to defeat, even against Democratic presidential candidates who were unpopular (Harry Truman), previously unknown (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) or who had a terrible economic track record (Barack Obama). None of this seems to have caused any second thoughts in the Republican establishment. So long as that remains the case, demography may indeed be destiny-- and that destiny could be Democratic administrations as far out as the eye can see. If non-white voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked for them, then Republicans are doomed, even if they choose to go that route. Why should anyone who wants racially earmarked goodies vote for Republicans, when the Democrats already have a track record of delivering such goodies? An alternative way to make inroads into the overwhelming majority of minority votes for Democrats would be for the Republicans to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans. But the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles-- and the track record of those principles-- to either white or non-white voters. Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration. This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation. Conversely, few policies have had such a devastating effect on the job opportunities of minority youths as minimum wage laws, which are usually pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. But these facts do not "speak for themselves." Somebody has to cite the facts and take the trouble to show why unemployment among minority youths skyrocketed when minimum wage increases priced them out of jobs. The loss of income from an entry-level job is only part of the loss sustained by minority young people. Work experience at even an entry-level job is a valuable asset, as a stepping stone to progressively higher level jobs. Moreover, nobody gains from having a huge number of idle youths hanging out on the streets, least of all minority communities. Labor unions push minimum wage laws to insulate their members from the competition of younger workers, and Democratic politicians are heavily dependent on union support. For the same reason, Democrats have to go along with teachers' unions that treat schools as places to guarantee their members jobs, rather than to provide the quality education so much needed to rise out of poverty. What Democrats cannot say under these conditions is what Republicans are free to say-- even if Republicans have seldom taken advantage of that freedom to make inroads into minority voting blocs. Inroads are all they need. If the black vote for Democrats falls to 70 percent, the Democrats are in deep trouble. But if Republicans continue inarticulate, then it is they who are in big trouble. More important, so is the country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)2014 and Beyond: Containment and Rollback By Ed Lasky The election is over. The teeth gnashing and circular firing squads should end, too. Now we have to work together to develop a strategy for the years ahead -- one that Ronald Reagan would endorse: containment followed by rollback. At the onset, there were silver linings on Election Day that should not be dismissed. Barack Obama does not have a mandate. Obama won with nearly 7.5 million fewer votes than he had in 2008 -- the only president to win reelection with fewer votes than he had when first elected. Jim Geraghty at National Review notes that a mere 407,000 more Romney votes in four swing states would have landed him the Presidency. Thirty states now have Republican Governors, an all-time high. In 23 of those states Republicans also control both houses of the state legislature. Obamacare is still very unpopular. Higher taxes are not favored, according to exit polls, regardless of Obama's claim to the contrary. Unions failed to get two constitutional amendments passed by voters in heavily unionized Michigan; the charter school movement scored wins in Washington and Georgia. The highlight of the evening was the continued GOP control of the House of Representatives. Recriminations and Monday-morning quarterbacking have been going on for a week to explain how the Presidency was lost. Hispanics, blacks, women -- all were susceptible to the various claims that Mitt Romney was going to wage war on them. They, along with many whites, apparently felt that Romney could neither relate to nor care about them (the 47% comment did not help). Romney did not combat the negative portrait being painted of him on screens across America early enough in the campaign. He was a plutocrat during a time when many Americans struggle to pay bills. The primaries forced Romney to shift right on immigration (especially when Rick Perry entered the contest) when much of the rest of America was reconsidering their views on immigration and adapting to the reality that self-deportation was not just an odd word but also an unworkable concept. Obama's Get Out The Vote Effort was potent compared to the Republican effort. Obama's "Moneyball" victory (his use of data and social media to fuel his election) dwarfed the faulty and bug-ridden so-called Orca effort of Romney's. The primary became a circus -- too long, too boring, and perhaps a few too many candidates. The media had plenty of material to stereotype Republicans and were all out for Obama, ignoring Benghazi and the grieving parents asking questions of the President (compare and contrast to the beatification of Cindy Sheehan; the obsessive attention paid to Valerie Plame); the deep-sixing of news on Hurricane Sandy once Obama landed for a brief photo-op and Christie bear hug (the hug that may very well have cost Christie a future nomination for the Presidency). Bad demographics for a Republican Party seen, with some justification, as too old, too regional, and too white. All true -- yet Romney would be president had just a few hundred thousand voters come to the polls in swing states and given him their vote. Despair is not a Republican virtue. Nixon/Ford was followed by Carter and massive Democratic dominance in Congress. Yet a few years later came the Reagan Revolution that no less than Obama credited as being transformative. The defeat last Tuesday was a setback; not a debacle. Republicans should do some soul-searching and then throw themselves into the battle for the future of America. How? Many pundits are counseling Hispanic outreach. There should always be outreach to all Americans, not just Hispanics. But Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic group in America and can be swing voters in swing states. It is heartening to see that Republican leaders have announced plans to work on immigration reform -- certainly the language and approach can be more sensitive ("self-deportation" should be banned). A solution to this issue would take away ammo from the Democrats. Republican ranks are filled with highly accomplished Hispanics that can lead the way: not just Marco Rubio and New Mexican Governor Susana Martinez but also the newly elected Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. Rand Paul, a favorite of the grassroots, favors a path to citizenship-providing cover for the GOP leadership Republicans should avoid making the mistakes of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock when discussing abortion. Legitimate rape is an abominable term that was a deal killer for many people who might have considered casting a vote for Akin. Republican primary voters should have been alerted that the Democrats were spending over a million dollars to help Akin win the GOP primary for a very good reason: he was a loose cannon they knew would eventually blow up. Mourdock was a better candidate but blew his chance when making an awkward statement that was easily twisted by the Democrats and the media to make him unpalatable to voters. These were winnable contests in red states. The Republicans have to avoid future fiascos (they and the Tea Partiers should have learned from Nevada's Republican candidate Sharron Angle and Delaware's Christine O'Donnell that picking bad candidates leads to a nasty hangover). The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was excoriated for backing Chris Christie over Marco Rubio in 2010 and so has backed away from actively involving itself in GOP primaries for risk of offending the grassroots and Tea Party again. Rubio seems to have gotten over it and so should the grassroots. Tea Party reps and the NRSC have to have an adult conversation and work together the next cycle. Politico reports the most likely solution is to "enlist conservative outside groups to try to steer electable candidates towards nomination." Rahm Emanuel was a superb talent scout for the Democrats in finding winning candidates. Certainly, there are Republicans who would serve their party just as well. Viability and electability should be job requirements. All is not lost. As Politico's Alexander Burns writes: The good news for the GOP, such as it is: it took Democrats exactly two years to go from losing the presidential race and losing ground in the Senate in 2004, to reclaiming both houses of Congress in 2006. So these things can move fast, if parties do what they have to do to adapt. The better news is the GOP has a second chance to score significant victories in two years. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post looks at the political landscape that could prove fruitful for the GOP: While the map was difficult for Democrats this year, it's murderous in 2014. Here's the breakdown: - 20 Democrats will be up for reelection, compared to 13 Republicans. - 12 of those 20 Democrats come from either red states (six) or swing states (six). - Only one of the 13 Republicans comes from a state that isn't red, and that's Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose seat is basically safe unless she retires. Top GOP targets are likely to include Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.). Five of the nine are first-term senators, and Republicans have already got a strong potential candidate against Johnson, with former governor Mike Rounds launching an exploratory committee last week.) Republicans could also have a chance at winning the seats of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), particularly if either of them (both are in their 70s) retire. The Senate provides a target-rich environment for the Republicans in 2014 and the Democrats won't have Barack Obama on the ballot to help them rally voters (witness 2010's red tide). Meanwhile, the House can be used to contain Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats. The House has become a "refuge" for Republicans in the words of Michael Barone. There are several structural advantages that have led to the GOP controlling the House in 8 of the past 10 elections (among them is that Democrats tend to be concentrated into certain districts; hence the wide red blotches on electoral maps). From their perch in the House, the Republicans can check some of the more aggressive Obama policies through their power to originate spending bills (threaten funding for the EPA, for example), fully use their power to subpoena and investigate the administration over its actions (Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is indefatigable and one hopes will illuminate more Obama failures beyond Fast and Furious and Benghazi; Paul Ryan as Chairman of the Budget Committee will make clear to Americans how damaging President Obama has been to our future), and the ultimate power to "just say no" to furthering Obama's agenda. The House served as a check on Obama the last two years; there is no reason it cannot do so again. The Republicans will also be in a position to benefit politically from Obama's failed policies. Already, there has been a mini-tsunami of layoffs stemming from Obama's victory (that some employers have informed their employees was due to Obama's win), as well as a trillion dollar loss in the world's stock markets. Obama wins and millions of people lose -- that should be graffiti on any future monuments to him. Obama has postponed a lot of decisions until after the election. There has been a lot of talk about the fiscal cliff but few comments on the regulatory cliff. A slew of regulations have already begun spewing forth. The EPA has "delayed" regulations affecting a wide variety of industries (including rules on fracking and clean air regs) but the zealots there will soon be let loose from their election handcuffs. After Obama won, the Interior Department issued a plan to close oil shale development on 1.6 million acres of federal land. Obama will be compelled to finally make a final decision on the XL pipeline. All these decisions will have political consequences -- potentially painful ones for Obama and the Democrats if the Republicans can tie them to job losses, higher energy prices and less personal income. Parties in Obama's coalition have different interests; environmentalists will be upset if XL is approved; union members will be furious at the jobs lost if XL is killed. Political coalitions can be fragile and sunder over time. Now that Obamacare is rolling out, people will begin to feel the baleful consequences of its provisions. Readers of conservative media know what they are but many other people who probably voted for Obama do not. They soon will. Do all those young people, besotted by Barack, realize they will be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they do not have insurance? Given the many videos circulating that display their appalling lack of knowledge of the real world, one can surmise that many of them are blissfully ignorant of the due bill coming to them. When people look for full-time work, will they find that what few jobs available are for fewer than 30 hours a week? When onerous Obamacare requirements kick in for employers of more than 50 full-time employees, full-time being defined as 30 hours of work a week for purposes of Obamacare (a lax work schedule that Obama himself seems to follow), will that be disillusioning? As the months go by, more burdens of Obamacare will impact people (among them, not being able to keep the health insurance offered by your employer; IRS reporting requirements; longer waits; denial of care; increased taxes on house sales; difficulty in finding doctors; and who knows how many rules and regulations to be issued by Health and Human Services). Furthermore Republicans need not cooperate in rolling out Obamacare. They can contain the damage by refusing to set up state health exchanges and burden the federal government with one more unsustainable responsibility. Republicans should allow Obama and the Democrats to live with the mess they made rather than clean it up for them, suggests Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner Taxes will also be going up. The Obamacare tax hikes are coming regardless of any possible termination of the Bush tax cuts. The temporary payroll tax cut that was agreed to in 2011 will end; people will see less money in their paychecks. That will get attention. If we go off the fiscal cliff, taxes will soar and a recession will ensue: Obama will be the president that oversaw that disaster. People might be inclined to respond that a poor economy did not cost Obama the election last week. So why should the Democrats suffer blowback in the future? As noted, many problems and much pain have been postponed until after Obama won. They are now on the horizon. Alas, Mitt Romney was far from a perfect candidate for President. Romney is not a natural. He lost the primary in 2008 to John McCain; lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy, and dropped out before he would lose the Massachusetts gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick. Also, exit polls and surveys reveal that many people still blame George Bush for economic problems. But there has to be a half-life to the Blame Bush meme. Eventually people will blame Obama for the mess he inherited from himself. Patience wears thin when people cannot find work and find the decline in personal income continuing to crush them (in the words of Joe Biden). Then rollback can happen. The Senate might just flip-one can hope that the Republicans get their act together. Better candidates, better GOTV efforts, better messages, better use of modern technology-all will be needed. One positive bit of news: Rience Priebus-who has done a remarkable job in strengthening the Republican national Committee-looks likely to stay on. Come 2016, the Republicans have a good bench at the Presidential level: Mike Pence, governor of Indiana and a man who can bridge the divide between the Tea Party and the GOP; Paul Ryan; Virginia Governor Bob McConnell; Ohio's Bob Portman; Marco Rubio (in George Will's view the big winner on Tuesday night) are among them. Who do the Democrats have? Hillary Clinton most probably. Will she inherit Obama's base? She will be able to garner support among women, but how about the youth and African-Americans? They did not come out to support Democrats in 2010. They did not support her enough in 2008. She will be approaching 70. Obama's coalition may not be Clinton's. Will Bill Clinton's work on behalf of Obama be remembered or appreciated in four years? Will Obama actively campaign for Clinton? Given his nature and narcissism, that is doubtful. There is little warmth between them and Obama is unlikely to forget slights from 2008. Beyond that speculation, how likely will America return the same party to power as President three terms in a row? So...my advice and appeal to Republicans: Do not despair, brush yourself off, stand up, be counted, stay true to your principles and ideals, work hard and win one for the Gipper in 2016. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5)Obama to open talks with $1.6 trillion plan to raise taxes on corporations, wealthy By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Lori Montgomery President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end fiscal cliff, making no opening concessions and calling for far more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider. Obama plans to open talks using his most recent budget proposal, which sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy by $1.6 trillion over the next decade, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday. That’s double the sum that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) offered Obama during secret debt negotiations in 2011. Obama has been pressing to let the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year for the wealthiest 2 percent of the nation’s households, a tax hike adamantly opposed by Republicans. But Carney suggested that even the revenue generated by letting those tax cuts end would not be enough to tame the national debt and reenergize the economy. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy J. Geithner and other senior Democrats on Tuesday said Obama would not be willing to maintain the Bush tax rates in exchange for a cap on deductions for households earning more than $250,000 a year, a leading Republican alternative. “I don’t see how you do this without higher rates. I don’t think there’s any feasible, realistic way to do it,” Geithner said at a conference in Washington. “When you take a cold, hard look at the amount of resources you can raise from that top 2 percent of Americans through limiting deductions, you will find yourself disappointed relative to the magnitude of the revenue increases that we need.” Democrats said Obama is likely to maintain a tough stance Friday, when Boehner and other congressional leaders are due to gather at the White House for their first face-to-face discussions about how to avoid the fiscal cliff. Fresh off a resounding electoral victory in which they kept the White House and picked up seats in the House and Senate, Democrats said there is no reason to compromise now on a central plank of the president’s platform. “It was an intrinsic part of his campaign, and the public supports it. So what more do you want?” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), the senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. GOP reaction Though Republicans have offered fresh revenue in a deal to avoid the cliff, they have not proposed a specific target. Boehner suggested that negotiations resume on terms discussed in 2011, when he offered to raise $800 billion over the next decade through a rewrite of the tax code. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) endorsed that general idea Tuesday but warned Obama not to overplay his hand, noting that the president’s $1.6 trillion tax request failed to receive a single vote in Congress in the spring. “We’re calling on him to lead, to take the initiative, propose a plan that’s actually designed to succeed,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor. “I’m not asking the president . . . to adopt our principles. I’m simply asking him to respect our principles by not insisting that we compromise them. Because we won’t.”