As Obama takes a page from Abraham Lincoln and mulls which token Republican to insert in his Cabinet, he has few Senatorial choices based on the criteria I believe he should consider. Some of the tactics will hurt our Republican cause even more but are realistic strategies that Obama is most likely pondering when narrowing down candidates.

1. This person should be a Republican in the sunset of his/her career, who would not need to seek a new government position at the end of Obama’s four year (God willing) administration. If said Senator comes from a very red state, he might not be able to re-gain a seat as a Republican in the Senate after serving an Obama administration, especially if conservatives are as dead-set against Obama in 2012 as in 2008.

2. This person should be a very conservative Republican to shock the systems of those of us who are rolling our eyes at and scoffing at the notion of a bi-partisan Obama cabinet. Choosing an Olympia Snowe or Chuck Hagel would certainly not be impressive or startling.

3. This person should NOT be John McCain. Please do not put your bootheel on our throats while we are down. We’ve been beaten down enough and can’t take any more after what we endured in this election. Selecting McCain would be insult piled on top of injury.

4. This person, to most effectively wound our Republican caucus, should be a well-respected and commanding vote-mover in the Senate. Snatching such a person would have the added benefit for Obama of not only marshalling the gravitas and persuasive power of that person for himself, but also depriving the Senate Republicans of a mover and shaker when it comes to key votes so that state’s Governor must replace him with a less experienced person.

5. This person should be from an on-fire red state that Obama did not win in 2008 so that when he is up for re-election, he has a better chance of switching another red state to blue by virtue of demonstrating that if a conservative Republican Senator can work in concert with a Democrat president, then surely there should be no hesitation in voting for a Democrat as supposedly bi-partisan as Obama.

6. This person ought to be chosen for a typically conservative-issue Cabinet spot. For instance, selecting a true hawk for Secretary of Defense would truly demonstrate bi-partisanship, instead of choosing a weak, linguine-spined, fence-straddling RINO who will be a yes-man to Obama instead of challenging him and his intellectual honesty.

I most certainly do not offer these thoughts as an assist to Barack Obama, but as the opposition, we should be one step ahead!

To paraphrase a Rush Limbaugh axiom, when one tries to give the other side everything it wants in the hope that they will one day reciprocate, it backfires EVERY TIME. This has proven true as long as time immemorial when Republicans have tried to “play nice” with Democrats, only to end up eating dirt with knives in our backs while the Democrats huddle together and laugh themselves silly that Republicans were such suckers. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman…and I sure didn't see Democrats flocking to Sen. McCain in this election.

I believe the same Limbaugh principle holds true when examining the relationship between the Big Three automakers and the UAW. For decades, Ford, Chrysler, and GM have bent over backwards while simultaneously succumbing to a stranglehold by the unions. Talk about a painful position! The pickle the American automakers find themselves in presently is not a sudden, unforeseen emergency…this has been a long time coming and no objective, thinking person should be surprised. Precisely the reason why a taxpayer bailout is unwarranted.

Well-known, long-standing bad business models and weak negotiating are not sufficient reasons to demand a quick fix from John and Jane Public. Even though I initially oscillated back and forth on the merits of the TARP program, I ended up calling my Senators and Congressman in support of it. I have since changed my mind, seeing that credit markets have barely thawed and that Hank Paulson was flying by the seat of his pants on the economic CPR plan. I do believe that our entire financial market system IS too big to fail, but that market forces are the only solution that will heal the deep wounds long-term. The feds can inject as much money as they like, but I do not believe it will save the patient. I believe precisely the same thing when it comes to “fixing” the auto industry.

Bankruptcy filings, re-organization, de-unionization, moving the businesses to “right-to-work” states or changing the labor laws in the state of Michigan, and job training programs are the only steps that will make the Big Three competitive with foreign car companies like Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, and others. These profitable car companies have large factories in right-to-work states, are thereby not unionized, and pay their workers an average of $48/hour compared with $73.20/hour with unionized workers at the Big Three. How on earth can the union leadership claim, as Ron Gettelfinger did on November 15, that essentially the unions have sacrificed enough already? Clearly they would rather lose their jobs than take a paycut. I would rather get a smaller paycheck than get no paycheck at all, especially if the organization to which I belong has brought this upon itself.

Finally, the claim that filing for bankruptcy would put millions out of work is bunk. How many airlines have declared bankruptcy but are still flying people all over the world at this very moment? Bankruptcy would simply force these failed companies with rotten business models and policies to come to grips with reality and re-tool. This creates a frightening precedent for every other industry that has its hands in the Democrats’ back pocket and is preparing to put their left hand out while stabbing the country in the back with the other. The unions’ staunch support of Democrats may finally pay off, but at a grave cost to the entire nation.

 I miss Hillary. Sincerely, I do. There is a song that plays in the background of a local Independence Blue Cross Insurance commercial, and the jingle perpetually loops in my head: “I wish that I knew what I know now.” When the primaries first began what seems like two centuries ago, I was sure that hearing Hillary’s screeching and nagging voice and contrived laugh for four years would surely be the death of me.  Not to mention that I disagree with her 95% of the time (only 5% less than I disagree with Barack Obama), so the danger of her policies goes without saying. But compared with our current President-Elect, I’d take Hillary back in a blue minute. If Hillary would have beat John McCain, I don’t think I would have been as physically ill as I was on Election Day. Here’s why.

Hillary called out Barack Obama on his thin resume. 

"There are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess, I was somewhat amused, the other night, when, on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama's supporters was asked to name one accomplishment of Senator Obama, and he couldn't."

Hillary agreed with Republicans that Obama’s openness to meeting with the dictators from Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela with no pre-conditions is dangerous and I do not believe she would have been linguine-spined when dealing with these rogue players.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Hillary sounded like a conservative when it came to handling Iran should they attack Israel.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

And finally, we will constantly have to remind the Democrats of Hillary’s new definition of patriotism that she introduced in a screeching screed several years ago when lambasting the Bush administration. Apparently, Senator Clinton supports that Republicans will be vociferously exercising the freedom of speech and opposition that Obama will squish like a bug during his administration:

 

 As a former member of the evil “big Pharma” community, I have heard all sorts of marketing plans. The goal of every marketing plan is, of course, to sell your product. On the other hand, the most successful marketers know that they must balance keeping customers happy with meeting their own needs of making money. What does this have to do with the recent shellacking of the Republicans in the election? We need to take a page from successful companies, organizations, and Democrats – yes, Democrats -  and translate our conservative beliefs into HOW those beliefs will empower fellow Americans and better their lives.

What Republicans have been doing most recently is TELLING but not SELLING. They built a decades-long platform on small government and forcing government to live within its means. That platform disintegrated, in many people’s view, with the financial rescue bill spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Additionally, over the years, President Bush and the Republican Congress continued to allow billions to be poured down the black hole of the Department of Education, Medicare Part D, the arts, and on and on. John McCain had a funny stump line which would have been funnier had he not repeated it at every blessed campaign stop: he recalled how the federal government has sponsored $3 million worth of research on the DNA of bears in Montana. No wonder Americans voters were disgusted with the Republican party.

Ironically, Democrats ALSO tell, but they SELL in increments to keep the customers coming back again and again, as well as ADDING customers as they did in this election. They have mastered the art of serving numerous opposing constituencies. Democrats feel the ends justify the means – say what you need to say to whoever needs to hear it for the purpose of hoarding more power. As a puzzling example, they seem to effortlessly balance the demands of whacko environmentalists (who don’t want any of us to drive anything) with the unions who control the auto industry (which manufactures said fossil fuel burners by the millions). Ironically, Barack Obama openly opposes gay marriage but has Hollywood gay-rights activists in his hip pocket. Obama also got a large share of the supposedly pro-life Catholic vote by speaking of a (contrived) desire to reduce the number of abortions while proclaiming that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) (http://www.FightFOCA.com). Essentially, they dangle the carrot by giving each constituency a little bit of what they want now to keep those groups coming back for more in future elections.

A local radio talk show host recalled the other day the silly charts and graphs H. Ross Perot used to educate the electorate. But Perot really had hit on something – Americans really are in the dark about how percentages, statistics, and huge numbers trickle down and affect them. Barack Obama struck a chord with his simple “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” mantra.  I would have cheered to see John McCain whip out a white board and SHOW how Barack Obama’s tax increases break out to monthly paychecks.  Even if Obama does not raise taxes on the top 5% during this downturn, he is still going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will affect EVERY tax-paying family. If McCain would have broken out a marker and an easel to show that $2500 tax increase will mean that $200 will evaporate from each paycheck, people might have GOTTEN the conservative argument (but alas, we still would have lost, I’m afraid…). What does that $200 buy every month? A few dinners out? The electric bill? Car repairs? That’s how you bring the lofty, abstract policies and asinine sound bites down to ground level. That’s how you sell it.

As we regroup over the next two to four years, Republicans should take a page from our opponents and learn NOT how to be disingenuous or double-talking, but to explicitly spell out HOW our policies empower our “customers” in their every day lives. Then we need to DO IT.

 

We all saw pre-election man-on-the-street interviews, inquiring of Barack Obama supporters why they intended to vote for him. "He's gonna bring change..." was the standard response.

Well, what accomplishments of his do you admire?

---Crickets---

What policies of his do you support?

Hmmmm....

What experience does he have that qualifies him to be president?

Ummmm... 

This was painfully illustrated when Howard Stern (more conservative than you may think!) sent a reporter into the streets to ask such questions, but he sharply clarified the sheer ignorance of the electorate by attributing John McCain's views to Barack Obama to see if the mind-numbed robots being queried had educated themselves on the candidates' basic policy differences.

Agree with Obama's strong pro-life stance?

Absolutely!

Agree with Obama that we need to keep the troops in Iraq until the war is won?

You bet!

Oy vey.

If this were not such a serious election with such grave issues in the world, it would have been humorous but instead made me sad and terrified for my country and the disservice its electorate was doing her.

At the core of the problem is the tendency for voters, it seems to me, liberals disproportionately so, to vote with their hearts and not with their heads.  Call us conservatives cold-hearted or pragmatic - we have been called worse.  If I may be so bold as to speak for the conservatives in this country, we tend to actually knock the issues around in our gray matter to determine if a candidate meets our standards. 

For example, when Sarah Palin ignited a trembling fervor in conservatives not felt since Ronald Reagan, it was not due to Messianic-cult-of-personality-worship or because she has two X chromosomes or a fascinating lifestyle. It was because when we did our mental pro/con lists, she met our standards for a conservative politician.

She firmly adheres to her side of each issue and bears these beliefs out in her every day life (respect for God’s precious children, for example). In spite of the petty attacks by the mainstream media and lies spread by her own campaign staffers, Sarah Palin demonstrated herself to be a thinking, fierce, principled woman who articulates these beliefs in the language of the common American.

It will take a long time for me to trust the American electorate again. As for the media? Who knows? They may be in the doghouse for generations.

I am not blind to the fact that our candidate, the self-styled “straight-talker”, failed to adequately educate the American people about the state of the country and the world and how he intended to get this train back on the tracks. Nor am I blind to the fact that, conversely, their candidate exhibited extraordinary adeptness at brainwashing the electorate with bumper sticker slogans while simultaneously tiptoeing around every uncomfortable issue, lying about his record, and denying knowledge about all the numerous low-life creeps in his past.

Amazing. No wonder the voting public was confused. They were hypnotized by the “cool and calm” factor and by the ability to schmooze catty women on morning chat fests.  It was easier to just swallow the media’s information puree so we wouldn’t have to think about or research basic issues.

Like voting for infanticide.

…slamming small-town folk as bitter.

…accusing the very men and women he claimed to want to lead as Commander-in-Chief of air-raiding villages. 

…the desire to shut down free speech via the Fairness Doctrine.

…handing out “rebate” checks to people who don’t pay income tax.

At the end of President Obama’s four year term, I can only hope that his record as America’s most leftist President will speak for itself so the electorate can come out of the Obama-fog and see him clearly for what he truly represents and avoid that painful thing called…thinking.