Go away Marty, forever

I have gotten a number of direct mails from Marty Seifert's hacks and frankly they have all been disgusting and half truths. Today was the absolute final straw. Really if anything this, I think at least has had the opposite effect, first about the DWI kerfuffle I think I am going to copy Mitch Berg's post about this and a couple comments that are there on his blog, first Mitch...

Someone sent me an email about my post from Friday re the Seifert/Emmer DUI flap. The writer noted that she believed the current laws are hunky-dory, because:

Alcohol affects people differently; one person might be fine driving with a .08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) while another might act, in theory, like Foster Brooks.

Prudence says that the suspicion of due process we’ve come to accept with DUI arrests – immediate loss of license – is OK.

• The fact that they were arrested is sufficient grounds to know there’s a problem.
• Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The writer had a point about the alcohol imits. Alcohol affects people differently. And “laws” require objective measures. And while we’re being objective, we should note that there is virtually no evidence that BACs below .1 contribute to fatal accidents (other than the fact that the government calls every accident in which a participant registers a BAC as a “drunk driving accident. Every one. If a meteor fell out of the sky on a car driven by someone who’d had three beers in two hours, it’d be called a “drunk driving accident”. This is done at the behest of groups like MADD, who have become quite unhinged over the years; it’s dishonest at best).

So it’s correct that a BAC level doesn’t tell us everything. Is the person measuring a .08 after having been a .16 six hours earlier, but is sobering up fast? Is it someone who had four shots in thirty minutes, and is on her way up to a .18? Is it a high school kid and inexperience drinker and new driver who had three beers in two hours and is speeding around like Mario Andretti with all sorts of liquid driving skill, or is it a 35 year old experienced driver who is driving just fine but has a broken taillight and runs afoul of a cop who needs to fill his quota?

The question you have to ask yourself is “is the law’s intent to curb drunk driving deaths, or is it to create criminals by criminalizing a fairly common behavior?” Since there is no objective evidence that casual drinkers with ’08s cause deaths on the highway (that’s all people well north of .1), and the serious problems are most normally caused by repeat offenders who routinely driver well above .1, it’s most likely the latter – especiallly when you consider that the law distinguishes not one iota for the circumstances behind ones’ mild intoxication. When the sheriffs put up a roadblock and start breathalizying people wholesale and corralling everyone who blows a .08, they’re not asking themselves “is this person on the up or down swing, do they have a history, can they rationally be expected to be a problem”.

No, they’re just racking up the fines. DUI is HUGE moneymaker, in fines, whiskeyplate fees, forfeited vehicles, court workloads (requiring more court staff, which feeds bureaucratic empires) and so on. It’s in the state’s interest to make sure there are more arrests. Cynically, it means they control more people (which Emmer’s second proposal would have partially rectified); without the cynicsim, it is an amazing amount of money coming in to government and government’s friends, the State Bar.

I was shocked when I wrote about this a few months ago that something close to 10% of Minnesotans have had some kind of drunk driving arrest. 10%? That’s astounding. Are 10% of the drivers on the road a danger? If that were true, none of us should be on the street.

It’s absurd, of course. Absent any kind of objective data linking .08 BAC with statistically significant numbers of fatalities (to say nothing of being *responsible* for them, which is another whole thing), it’s about nothing more than criminalizing behavior.

The letter from Sandra Berg cast aspersions about Rep. Emmer’s support for two bills in the legislature last year (18 years after his most recent DUI arrest); one that would allow those accused of drunk driving to keep their licenses under certain circumstances, and another that’d take DUI arrests off the public record after 10 years of good behavior.

Here’s the deal principles are hard. The thing about a principal is that it can hurt you as well as help you. Due process and “innocent until proven guilty” are principles, which most of us agree are good ideas. But sometimes those principles mean an alleged murderer goes free due to a hung jury. Ouch.

So when the letter writer writes “I think the arrest is sufficient prima facie grounds for [seizing licenses on arrest rather than conviction] to be a prudent thing” – well, isn’t that true for EVERY crime? Think of what we could do for street crime if we just locked up everyone accused of any crime at all! Or if we gave cops portable “Field Lethal Injection Kits” to use on accused murderers!

Saying “Driving is a privilege” doesn’t cut it; it’s a privilege that is a vital part of being able to earn a living for most people. The fact is, in every other crime judges have (per the Fifth Amendment) the right to consider extenuating circumstances in assessing the accused’s circumstances between arraignment and trial; someone accused of five murders who has a twenty year criminal record and a speedboat waiting to take him to Venezuela might not get bail; someone in jail for the first time for having 15 unpaid parking tickets might get sprung for $100 and no other consequences. Why is drunk driving any different? Why can someone who got a .08 and has no record at all get the incredible burden of being without a drivers license, the same as someone with a .2 who’s already had several accidents and arrests?

Because a well-heeled, emotionally manipulative pressure group has made due process an unfashionable principle, that’s why.

So here’s the question; do you believe in the principles of due process and innocence until proven guilty by court and jury? Or do you only believe in it for crimes where there is no emotional baggage attached?

Walter Scott Hudson writes on the subject.

Now a comment, from King Banaian...

A few points to be made:

1. No law gets rid of ALL accidents. That’s a chimera, and behind it hides a great deal of bad argumentation. The question is whether .08 or .10 or .12 is a big difference in terms of public safety. Decisions are made at the margin.
2. At that margin, it doesn’t appear that many fatalities occur for BAC under .15. But is fatalities the right metric, or is it property damage, serious injury, or …?
3. How long does it take to write a DUI ticket? My understanding is that it’s more than an hour, perhaps 2. So how many other drunk drivers, perhaps over .15, are not caught while the cop writes up the poor schlub with the .09? See Radley Balko for more, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5167
4. I would argue with Mitch about the “more than a privilege” point. That is one very slippery slope. Either rights are limited to what’s in the Constitution or we go into the penumbra-making business. Conservatives cannot win that game.
5. What is the recidivism rate for DUI? MADD says it’s quite high. I don’t see a lot of good research on this. If it is high, I think you have to score that point in MADD’s favor, which argues for suspension-while-waiting.
6. Put this together and I would say I could trade a higher BAC limit for the continuation of suspension rules, until we have good data on recidivism.

Ok I know this a long post but stay with me...

Today I got (another) hit piece mail about how Emmer isn't electable and how he grew up in Edina and is a trial lawyer (needless to say being in and living in Edina most of my life isn't exactly a good way to win me over, not that he could have anyway) and while technically true he isn't a John Edwards trial lawyer but he defends the people John Edwards goes after. So before I have to say what I do I'm going to show you what Jacquie Emmer has to say

Enough is enough.

Over the past nine months I have proudly and quietly supported my husband Tom as he’s gone from a long-shot bid for Governor to the verge of victory. He’s been able to do that because Tom is who he is: a principled conservative who would never lie to you. He says what he means and means what he says.

The closer Tom has come to getting the endorsement for Governor, the more mud has been thrown at him. It has been very painful to watch, but I remained quiet because I know how politics works. Tom has run campaigns in the past, and we have seen some pretty dirty politics and have learned to live with it.

But I can’t stay quiet any more. The latest attacks suggesting that Tom isn’t pro-life are disgusting and untrue.

Over the past few years I have gotten to know Tom’s opponent, and always I respected his work for the conservative cause. Like a lot of you, I have lost that respect.

We’ve already had to explain to our seven children the dirty attacks that have occurred in this campaign. It has been difficult for them to understand why people would lie about their dad.

Tom and I have been married for 24 years. And one thing I know is that Tom lives his beliefs, lives his principles, is not beholden to anyone and would never betray them or you just to win.

Tom isn’t like that. And I would never let him behave like that.

Jacquie

Let me say this another way, fuck you Marty. Once you are defeated go the fuck back to Marshall and go be a spiteful little bitch there. We don't need you in this party anymore, you and your cronies are what is wrong with the Republican party not Tom.
Fuck off.

Night News vol.2

one of the things I hope to be able to do before May 6th is to show how the UK elections work because they are actually much different than how they are done here. First there is no seperate election for Prime Minister and Parliment is elcted all at once at least every 5 years. British law states that Prime Ministers must call elections every 5 years at least. This can lead to sometimes having multiple elections even in one year if one party does not get a majority of Parlimentary seats. This has only happened 2 times in the last 100 years with the most recent being in 1974, with the Liberal Democrats gaining and Labour (they use u's in their version of english a lot more than we do) falling like a rock the improbable could happen. A Tory (conservative)-Liberal Democrat colaliton government could form. The only way I could describe the Liberal Democrats in terms of US politics is a more moderate version of the Green Party, think Ralph Nader light and you have Nick Clegg. Here is an article from the guardian from Sunday's paper

A Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is most likely, but it's not sustainable

Labour voters switching to Clegg will probably put Cameron into No 10. But there will be huge strains on the new government

As this election campaign gets stranger and stranger, it is leading us into a warped, hallucinogenic wonderland. The political colours blur and wobble. The possible outcomes multiply. Soon we'll need a parliamentary version of chaos theory – quantum politics, perhaps.

It starts with "strange attractors" – the growing likelihood of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, with David Cameron and Nick Clegg sending out cautious coded messages of mutual interest. Among all the possible outcomes, from a straight Tory victory through to a Lib-Lab coalition or pact, this one has been least analysed. Yet if the polls are any guide, a blue-yellow deal is on the cards.

Before we look at how strange that would be, it's worth looking at how the battle is going, at least according to the party machines. The Lib Dems seem to be holding off the Tory challenge in the West Country and parts of southern England, and may take some eminent Tory scalps. So the Tories are switching their firepower north, to hammer at Labour in their heartland areas.

They are doing this because they think a catastrophic collapse of the Labour vote is quite possible. The West Midlands, the Pennines and a few parts of the south, mainly in London, are the prime Labour-Tory battlegrounds. Conservative high command now thinks national victory may come from digging deeper into the Labour areas than it had previously hoped.

Senior Labour people are spooked too, and argue that the new popularity of Clegg and friends means some of their voters may defect to the Lib Dems, and allow in the Tories across swaths of the north. Maybe, but Cameron remains unpopular there, and his recent gaffe about hitting the north hardest won't have helped. My guess is Labour will hang on to its core areas, while being in danger of coming third in the national vote. As Clegg made clear today, this would make it all but impossible for him to do a deal with Gordon Brown.

Let's go back, then, to the surreal thought of a deal between a minority Conservative government and the Lib Dems. Where to start? The most Eurosceptic of the main parties yoked together with the most Euro-enthusiastic? The great defenders of Trident in alliance with their opposites? Anti-immigration rhetoric striding arm in arm with pro-migrant policies? Cut-now, help-the-rich economics in alliance with Lib Dem redistributionists?

Admittedly, there are some areas of common ground. If Cameron's Big Society means anything, it is not so far from the Lib Dems' traditional localism. Both parties have greened their economic thinking; both are critical of Labour over civil liberties; both think the past 13 years have been too statist and centralist. But overall, the yawning gaps between Cameron and Clegg would make this a truly bizarre marriage.

Its oddness is underlined by the fact that so many people who were once on the Labour left, and consider themselves socialists, or at any rate radicals, have been thinking of voting Lib Dem. On tax, Trident, Europe, immigration, human rights, Iraq and the environment they now see the Lib Dems as further to the left than Labour. "You're on the wrong side of history," senior Lib Dems tell them, "you're stuck in the wrong party; come over to your natural home." And to a lot of thoughtful, progressive people this makes perfect sense.

So imagine if all those left-leaning voters produced a Cameron-led government? What would the Lib Dem grassroots make of it all? Would they even allow Clegg and Vince Cable to go into coalition government with their traditional enemies – and remember, in theory at least, the activists do have a say in all this. Clegg's fairly brutal rejection of any deal with Labour while Brown was still prime minister may be shrewd electoral politics – "vote Clegg, get Brown" is the most effective Tory line against the Lib Dems. But it's deeply felt, too, deriving from Clegg's personal dislike of Brown and of our weird electoral system. The trouble is, it inevitably pushes Clegg towards Cameron.

Cameron, meanwhile, is returning the favour. He changed his game over the weekend in two significant ways. First, he has let it be known he has an open mind about some kind of electoral reform. I think it's a honey-trap and that the Conservatives would block change. But it's an unmistakable signal of Cameron's desperate readiness to do a deal with Clegg if he has to.

Second, Cameron's announcement that no "unelected" prime minister should be allowed to occupy Downing Street without a general election following within three months is an early move against Labour switching leaders to stay in power. If Brown resigned and David Miliband was installed by the cabinet, Cameron would call foul.

But the move to stop parties changing their leaders in office would, of course, also benefit Cameron directly. Even if he becomes prime minister, the Tory right will still be after him and sharply critical of his electoral performance. A "principled" stand against changing the man at the top would bolster … er, the man at the top. If you judge "political reform" by asking always whether it benefits the person suggesting the change, then this Cameron ploy is doubly suspicious.

The more I look at the prospect of a Con-Lib coalition, the more I think it is not sustainable for long. The pressures of hostile Liberal grassroots and the visceral differences between the parties would bust it up. There's no way Cameron would really concede change to the voting system – rather, he would pull the plug at a time of his choosing, blame Clegg and Cable for "chaos", and call a second election. A bored and irritated electorate would then probably punish the Lib Dems.

Labour, meanwhile, would be busily tearing itself to pieces on the sidelines. The briefing about who is to blame has already started, long before the voters have delivered any verdict. Brown's the disaster, say the Blairites, plotting meanwhile for a deal with Libs. It's all Mandelson, say the Brownites. This has the potential to be so nasty it finally breaks Labour into two.

It's incredibly hard to see Labour winning this election. It's also very hard to see how, in practical terms, Labour could change leaders, hang on as a minority, and do a deal with the Lib Dems to change the voting system. But that's the last hope left for progressive political change. It rests on calm calculation, tactical voting and cool heads. And the chances of that are?

Big deal? Or much ado about nothing?

Ok I first heard this joke on Glenn Beck this morning, and I have to admit I laughed the first time I heard it. But things have arisen that are really damning to him and frankly the Obama administration. First Breitbart.tv landed the video, somehow. And Yid with a Lid found this little tresaure:

Was the Joke Anti-Semitic? Well, the White House must have thought so. The White House transcript sent to reporters after the event conveniently began a couple of minutes into the speech. The video of the event posted on the Washington Institute Web site started right after the Joke, you can even hear the end of the laughter.

Its interesting that the same President that sees racism in the legitimate actions of the Cambridge Police and the State of Arizona, hides the anti-Semitic prose of its National Security Adviser.

Jake Tapper Reports that Abe Foxman felt the joke was inappropriate.

While many in the largely Jewish audience laughed, others didn’t find it so funny, including Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

“It's inappropriate,” Foxman told ABC News. “it's stereotypic. Some people believe they need to start a speech with a joke; this was about the worst kind of joke the head of the National Security Council could have told.”

Just another reason to hate this Administration.

week in sports review #2

Well another week and another hot Twins week to report. They finished the week 4-2 and are 13-6 on the season, 2nd best record in the majors at this point. But the season is a marathon not a sprint. Basketball playoffs continued and it is too complicated to discuss what is going on outside of the fact that the Oklahoma City Thunder embaressed the Lakers last night by like 25 and tied the series 2-2. The Lakers might actually be in trouble here. I have no idea what is going on in the NHL and not many other people do either. Maybe once the Stanley Cup Finals start I will do a long post on it. Anyway that's all for now, I'm watching America: The Story of Us and I am very into it.

Recapping the 2010 DFL Convention

Yeah Yeah I know, DFL is evil and so forth. But that doesn't mean that I can't have some fun watching their miserable and funny and sad convention up in Duluth. They actually did endorse someone for governor. That was a mild surprise for me since they have 4-6 committed people going to the primary in August. Some of my favorite tweets from yesterday thanks to http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/

ppmn: #DFL2010 Planned Parenthood table is almost out of condoms. What's up DFLers?

DEKMinn: Preference Ballot Reminder: Kelliher: 20.05%, Marty: 9.56%, Rukavina: 7.23%, Rybak: 21.67%, Thissen: 7.20%, Uncommitted: 14.71% #DFL2010

Populista: RT @SD56DFL Favorite moment yet: In Q&A, Ole Saviour recommends Democrats change their mascot from a donkey to a unicorn. #goDFL #DFL2010

RyanLyk: @RachelSB too bad for #GoRT the #mngop will have a single candidate for #mngov next week, unlike the #mndfl. #goDFL tomscheck: There are 1348 delegates. 809 will be needed to reach the 60% threshold to win endorsement. #mn2010 Here are how the ballots went down 1st ballot (~4:30pm)- Kelliher 27%, Rybak 21.7%, Thissen 18.8%,Rukavina 18.4%, Marty 13%, Others 1.1% 2nd ballot (~6:15pm)- Kelliher 27.8%, Rybak 24.5%, Thissen 19.9%, Rukavina 17.6%, Marty 10%. Marty concedes, doesn't endorse. 3rd ballot (7:15pm)-Kelliher 30.7% • Rybak 27.4% • Thissen 21.8% • Rukavina 19.9%. No endorsement. 4th ballot (~8:30)-Kelliher 32.8%, Rybak 28.6%, Thissen 21.4%, Rukavina 17. Rukavina concedes, endorses Kelliher 9:54pm, before 5th ballot, John Marty endorses Kelliher 5th ballot (~10:00pm) Kelliher 46.9%, Rybak 32.3%, Thissen 20.1%, no endorsement .7%. 10:03pm, before 6th ballot Thissen concedes and does not endorse 11:06pm- RT Rybak concedes mercifully ending a long day for the DFLers Now the real campaign for the DFL begins, the primary. But are they united? I found this from Minnesotademocratsexposed.com from even before it was officially over MDE is getting multiple reports that angry DFL Delegates are storming out of the Duluth Convention Hall. In fact one angry delegate told KSTP’s Tom Hauser: An upset Rybak delegate just came up to me and said, “Mark my words. Governor Tom Emmer.”

Oh this shall be fun :)

Karl Rove...

I will be live blogging this event. Karl Rove is on campus baby!

11:58am- Karl Rove begins his speech

12:10pm- Interesting note, Rove has not used a single note yet, he speaks to the audience and doesn't have anything to jog his memory, very brave with a couple hundred people watching

12:28pm- SDS loons just showed up, yay... this could get interesting

12:30pm- speech ends, questions begin...

12:52pm- SDS starts chanting, I harass them a litltle, even Rove makes a joke about it.

Good event, had a blast. Rove has a heck of a handshake.

Even I'm not this optimistic...

Before I get into yesterday's article in The American Spectator (sorry about no post yesterday, school, twins game, etc) I want to say that for anyone actually reading this in the morning that Karl Rove is coming here to the U to speak about his new book and take questions and such. Be warned, SDS is planning on crashing the party so if you come please bring cameras and video equipment if possible, SDS has a history of turning violent. Anyway here's the article about Obamacare and the Republicans 2010...

The defining moment for the Presidency of Barack Obama came early, in June, 2009. It was one of many health reform extravaganzas to come, this one televised by ABC from the East Room of the White House, a town hall among health care experts and consumers.

Citizen Jane Sturm took the mike to ask how the brave, new world of Obamacare would treat people like her 105-year-old mother. At age 99 her mother's heart specialist confided that without a pacemaker he couldn't keep her alive, but at her advanced age he couldn't justify the operation. Jane sought out another specialist, and when he saw her mother was still very much alive and enjoying life, he agreed to do the operation.

Over five years later, her mother was still living happily with her family as a result of the highly advanced medical technology she received. So Jane, still displaying her own spirited fight for her mother's life, very articulately asked the President if under his vision for health care there would be any consideration given for a certain spirit, or joy of living, or quality of life, in providing medical care for those of advanced age. Or would there just be a cut-off at a certain age.

The President replied that we as a culture and a society have to learn to make better decisions about end of life care. And when the wise, central planning Washington bureaucrats discover the evidence shows the care is not going to improve health, they can let your doctor know, and let your mom know, maybe this is not going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery and taking the painkiller and going home.

Jane just told him that without the surgery her mother would be dead, and he responds with a hypothetical that maybe she would be better off taking the painkiller and going home. And President Obama's mind is so hypothetical and so theoretical that he is certain that far off Washington bureaucrats would know from the evidence when she should take the painkiller and go home, and could let her yahoo doctor know.

Moreover, from Jane's perspective, this was not an issue of end of life care. She just told him that after the surgery more than 5 years ago her mother was still very much alive and spirited. But those of us who have been paying attention have learned that President Obama is so certain that he has all the answers that he never really hears what anyone else is saying.

The message from the President to America's sickest and most vulnerable should be the theme for Election 2010, and the message the American people will now send to Washington's ruling Democrats: Take the Painkiller and Go Home.

"I'm a Democrat, but I'm not a Communist"

To see the magnitude of the political tsunami that is coming, you have to think dynamically. The key is not where things stand now, but where they are going, and where they are going to be. Knowing where we have been, and where we are, can certainly help in knowing where we are going. But the key is to think dynamically.

Start with the brutal fact that this is not your father's Democrat party. Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others have thoroughly documented Obama's radical left roots, from his openly communist father, to his Marxist mother, to the Communist Party's Franklin Marshall Davis who mentored Obama through adolescence, while his parents were off pursuing the cause around the world. Obama's own books disclose that he was drawn to radical left Marxist professors in college and law school. And all of this was before Obama the adult hooked up with 1960s Weatherman bomb thrower Bill Ayres, the anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, and the far left radical front group ACORN. This is all well-established public information, as hard as that should be to believe.

As Beck has so rightly asked, if Obama has grown up and changed from this radical foundation, when exactly did that happen? There is nothing in the public record to support such a change.

But Obama is not the only one. Ultraleft San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi, a nice lady whose feet are not firmly planted in the real world, serves as House Speaker. Far Left Henry Waxman, the Congressman from Hollywood, serves as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Uberliberal Barney Frank, the Congressman from Boston, serves as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Leftover '60s liberal David Obey, a self-described Robert La Follette Progressive from Wisconsin, serves as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Charley Rangel, the Congressman from Harlem, serves as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. John Conyers, the Congressman from Detroit, with his own past Communist Party ties, serves as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Until recently, ultraliberal Howard Dean from Vermont served as Democrat party national Chairman. Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, as liberal/left as they come, serves as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even these folks are not left enough for Vermont, with the other Senator being openly socialist Bernie Sanders.

In the Democrat party of the past, Southern conservatives were the longest serving members of Congress, heading all the Committees as a result, where they sharply restrained the Left in the '60s and '70s. But today the former Southern conservative Democrats have mostly been replaced by Republicans, and it is the northern urban ultraliberals who are the longest serving, and now head all the committees.

This ugly and dangerous reality is what moved one recent talk radio caller to proclaim, "I'm a Democrat, but I'm not a Communist." The left-wing extremism of the currently ruling Democrat party is one huge dark cloud on the horizon indicating the coming political tsunami. Treating grassroots voters who question that left-wing extremism with disdain and name-calling is only further gathering the storm.

Calculated Deception

The American people never voted for such a radical left takeover of America. Barack Obama ran on a net spending cut at the federal level, a tax cut for 95% of Americans, a promise of a new era of post-partisan political peace, and a pledge to sweet talk Iran out of "unacceptable" nuclear weapons. Obama was greatly aided by the history of Bill Clinton, who after 1994 mostly just went along with the Gingrich Congressional majority Republicans, resulting in solidly conservative economic, defense and foreign policies. Many voters were consequently deluded into thinking Obama and the Democrats would just be a reprise of Bill Clinton and the 1990s. But what should be brutally obvious by now is that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, and those analysts who think he may be on the same political trajectory as Clinton are badly deluded as well.

The Democrats took over the Congress using the "Blue Dog" Democrat trick. In district after district, Democrats ran claiming to be pro-life, Second Amendment, tax and deficit cutting, fiscal conservatives, more Reagan than the Republicans. But all they have done is empowered the above radical left takeover of the Congressional leadership. And when their votes were necessary to pass the radical left agenda, such as with the socialized medicine bill, or the unjustifiable cap and tax House bill, just enough of them voted for it to pass, with the rest still trying to maintain their cover. Even enough of those supposedly "pro-life" Democrats in the end sold out on abortion in the health care bill to the ruling left-wing party leadership.

The Blue Dog Democrat scam was aided by the above-noted history of Democrat Congresses run by Southern conservative committee chairmen. Too many voters thought as a result that the Democrats could be trusted with majority congressional control again.

Winning power through such consistent, thorough deception, the Democrats have no mandate for their left-wing extremism, and are just further angering and rousing voters as a result. That is another huge dark cloud indicating the coming political tsunami.

Choosing Decline for America

Another defining, revealing moment for President Obama also came early in his presidency, in April, 2009. Responding to a question about American exceptionalism, President Obama said, "I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Translation: America is just another country, there is nothing special about it. Again just the opposite of Reagan's vision of America as a shining city on a hill, which is, in fact, our history going back to the first colonists.

President Obama's economic, domestic, defense and foreign policies all bear out this fundamental attitude, choosing decline for America to just another country among many, nothing special. The annual deficits under the Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under the current ruling left-wing Democrats. The deficit under the last budget adopted by Republican Congressional majorities was $161 billion. The deficit for this year is now projected at $1.6 trillion. CBO projects that under President Obama's budget the national debt will quadruple from 2008 to 2020, to $20.3 trillion, threatening the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and America's AAA bond rating.

Putting the government in charge of our health care with 100 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions and programs will trash a fundamental component of America's high standard of living, the best, most advanced, cutting edge health care in the world. Democrat energy and cap and tax policies will further decimate the economy and jobs with unreliable supplies of high cost energy, while further reducing America's standard of living with high electricity and gas prices. Americans will be forced out of their big, beautiful, powerful cars into the rolling sardine cans of their European inferiors.

President Obama builds his secular socialist machine, as Newt Gingrich calls it in his new book, To Save America, increasing dependency throughout American society with new entitlement giveaways and a one-third increase in welfare spending in his first two years alone. Total government welfare spending is now projected to be $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

President Obama is combating the threat of Iranian nukes with American nuclear disarmament, under a shocking policy that our nukes are just as unacceptable. He lets our nukes age without the essential modernization that the Russians and Chinese are already pursuing. Meanwhile, he is slashing America's missile defense, canceling the F-22 fighter jet that guarantees American air superiority, reducing the B-2 bomber fleet, retiring the Tomahawk cruise missile, and cutting the U.S. Navy to half Reagan's level.

An Equal and Opposite Reaction

The American people are not going to sit idly by watching left-wing extremists turn America into just another country, like socialist, broke Greece. That is why yesterday's Rasmussen generic Congressional poll already shows Republicans with a 10 point lead over Democrats. In 1994, the Republicans did not pull definitively ahead of the Democrats in that poll until the fall, and their lead was never half that large. Moreover, the intensity factor among voters trending Republican is already far more fierce than it was in 1994.

Democrat favorability in the latest Gallup poll has fallen to 41%, the lowest in the 18 year history of that measure. The Pew poll has it at 38%. Even the CBS/New York Times poll shows disapproval of Congress, with its huge Democrat majorities, at 73%, with only 17% approving. President Obama's favorability has fallen below 50%.

The emerging issues in this election cycle will cut even further for the Republicans. Under the guise of his deficit commission, President Obama threatens to blow away his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year with a new, European, Value Added Tax (VAT) raising taxes on precisely those workers to their highest level ever. On health care, Republicans will be offering popular Patient Power reforms increasing the power and control of working people over their own health care, the polar opposite of President Obama's Government Power forced through Congress by hook and crook.

With 57% already saying gas prices are hurting them, as those prices climb over $3 per gallon this summer the public will favor even more the pro-production policies of Republicans over the pie-in-the-sky Democrat wind and solar fantasies on government funded life support.

The emerging careful politics of the Tea Party movement will further help Republicans. Tea Party activists have wisely decided not to divide the vote with a third party. Instead, they are supporting the particular candidates that best reflect their views. This is drawing Democrats as well as independents into supporting mostly Republican candidates, while decimating RINOs.

The one factor saving Democrats is that the economy will enjoy a cyclical recovery this year, a slingshot effect naturally resulting after the severity of the downturn. But this recovery is now long overdue, well over 2 years after the recession started, when the average recession since World War II has been 10 months, and the longest has been 16. Moreover, given how severe the recession was, real growth should rebound at 6% to 8% this year, but it will be only half that, about where it was in 1994, leaving unemployment over 9% this fall.

The coming political tsunami is so strong that this recovery will only save Democrats from the punishing, 1932-style, 100-seat loss they would otherwise suffer. But I predict that the Republicans will still gain control of the House and at least come close in the Senate. It could be worse, though, if any of the disaster vulnerabilities discussed below come to pass before November.

What is overlooked is the broader effects this will have. If the 2010 defeat is punishing enough, the Democrat monolith will be broken. Some Congressional Democrats will change parties, others will start to vote with Republicans on key issues, particularly taxes, spending, energy, and defense. The resulting effective majorities could be veto proof.

A Free Market New Deal

Even worse are the vulnerabilities for Democrats after 2010 when the effects of their extremist policies really take hold. The Iranians will then get their nukes, perhaps with a disconcerting, surprise nuclear test. If they attack Israel, either with the conventional Scud missiles they are smuggling to Hezbollah, or worse, Democrat political fortunes will further nosedive. I predict military adventurism by the Russians, if not the Chinese as well, greatly embarrassing Obama foreign policies.

Interest rates will likely rise next year, sharply raising interest costs for our overgrown national debt. The weakness of other paper currencies is propping up the dollar, but I predict the emergence of worldwide inflation after 2010 as a result, which could lead to the replacement of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That means further declines in the American standard of living.

The Obama/Democrat tax increases will greatly slow economic growth, likely with another recession. If cap and tax passes, or the EPA is not stopped, this will be far worse. In this environment, unemployment will turn back up rather than down. The Democrat party cannot survive this.

The only hope for President Obama is the quite possible Republican takeover of Congress this year. That will give him the opportunity to confuse the issues somewhat, blaming the results of his policies on them. Political wrangling with Congressional Republicans could also help him.

But because President Obama in truth is a hardened left-wing ideologue, as shown by his background, I predict he will not be able to successfully triangulate the Republican Congressional majorities as Clinton did. Rather, given all the vulnerabilities, and projecting where the trends are going and where they will be, I predict that he will not even be on the ballot in 2012. Either he himself will recognize he can't win, like Lyndon Johnson in 1968, or the Democrat party will.

But the Democrat party will break down in the process of replacing him, leading to a smashing Republican victory. With Democrats defending 24 of 32 Senate seats up in 2012, the Republicans will have their own filibuster-proof majority by 2013. The result will be an opportunity for a Republican New Deal, a remaking of the welfare state into the empowerment society, resulting in a much smaller government, and much greater long-term prosperity.

I don't agree with all these assumptions but as a conservative it is truly a dream scenario