Free Republic

Salt is necessary to life. You don't get enough you die.

Sodium (Na) is one of the necessary, essential electrolytes and should be balanced with magnesium and potassium.

Also, a rarely mentioned reason for table salt intake in the U.S. is that it's one of the few food additives that is [optionally] supplemented with iodine (check the label for "contains iodine" or "provides iodine" wording), which is a necessary nutrient, usually in the form of potassium iodide (KI).

Not all commercial table salt is iodized, so it's important to read the label. Some, but not all, sea salts have the traces of iodine and other minerals.

A rich source of iodine is seaweed, but few people in the U.S. consume it, though it's popular among Asians, particularly of Japanese ancestry.

Info on halogens, history and reasons for higher rates of iodine deficiency (take some suggestions with a pinch of salt) :

Iodine is vital for good health - Dr. James Howenstine, 2005 November 05

How important is Iodine for our health? - 2010 September 12

This is your healthcare run by the new "Insurance Rights/Rates Setting" authority (IRS):

:~)

Why can't they append the packet with header that tears off on ingress and has a New one attached before egress?

Eliminates inspection, stateful or otherwise.

Just thinking out loud ....

Probably, simply because it doesn't change anything, if the source or transmission is tapped / monitored in-line (i.e., non-quantum transport):

It's already being done. It doesn't eliminate or has anything to do with inspection (I assume "stateful or otherwise" refers to the firewall/IDS/IPS, which has nothing to do with the data transmission, as they operate on higher OSI layers).

Data has to be re-assembled at the end point / receiver. If the header is symmetrical (i.e., the data directly follows the header) splitting the packet doesn't do anything to prevent decoding.

If the header is asymmetrical, the header must contain the pointer to the data packet in order to be reassembled... again, nothing there to prevent decoding, except the usual PGP / RSA key exchange mechanism.

Quantum technology simply adds the step of preventing the tapping of any packet exchange; it's another (and more rigorous) layer of security at the OSI physical/PHY Layer 1 (which is generally not specific to the TCP/IP protocol), below the DLL/Data-Link Layer 2.

More technical explanation: Optical Networking for Quantum Key Distribution and Quantum Communications (1.1MB PDF file)

So while I find the theory interesting, I also observe that theory does not overcome the physical reality. This is why I chose the wording I prefer physics over meta physics. .....

..... Therefore the measurement of any quantum physic idea changes it so that it no longer is Quantum physics... How did I do? -grin-

Fantastic! In one sentence you have disproved Planck, Heisenberg and many others! What were those bozos thinking? Quantum frauds (quads?) they are! Or were they just after government grants? Will we ever know or others will forever continue to perpetuate the quantum hoax?

You might appreciate this: Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" - Corollary on Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law, often attributed to Larry Niven

If I read the data stream by light leakage off of a fiber with a photodiode, it would not change the quantum data one bit. This is horse pucky.
At the quantum level, merely measuring something affects it. You may have heard it said that you can know the location, but not the velocity, or the velocity but not the location?

This is well known as Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle aka Uncertainty Principle or Heisenberg Effect, or in layman's terms, object under observation changes its behaviour or state and is therefore unmeasurable, or as stated by Werner Heisenberg, "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."

Ref: Heisenberg - Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The Uncertainty Principle

They key exchange is a slight variation of or not that much different from PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) public-private/symmetric keys mechanism, developed and published by Phil Zimmermann in the early 1990s, except in this case it's fortified by the use of quantum mechanics to make even the key exchange impossible to tap without breaking communication.

Nothing here is revolutionary, the idea of the practical and inexpensive secure quantum net communications using fiber optics (or even "fixed wireless" lasers) has been around for more than 15 years. The scalability has been tested and established when Abilene Project gave way to Internet2 in 2007.

Refs:

Pretty Good Privacy

Phil Zimmermann

Never mind that the illegality of marijuana hyperinflates its profits and channels those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.
Except those relating to the legalization of the drug alcohol:
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce

1. That's not a statistic or empirical evidence of mythical "hyperinflated profits" of marijuana trade (I will explain the economics of illegal drugs and Girl Scout Cookies later ****) - it's a pure political statement by a political body with a political agenda ("Special Committee to Investigate..." like the travesties of the more recent commissions on "9/11" and "2008 financial crisis" which absolved the guilty and condemned the innocent). Essentially, after the re-legalization all they did was to rename the "criminal gangs" into "distributors" and therefore the formerly "criminal" gangs (who could now use legal distribution to finance their other illegal activities) were no longer "criminal" - presto-change-o, I do declare, the problem of "illegality" is magically solved! It's no different than granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens / "undocumented Democrats" and declaring the problem of "illegality" solved. It's simply a political statement describing a change in political/legal circumstances, not the financial, economic or social one.

2. This already flawed example further confuses and deliberately tries to equate the economics and science of 1920s with the economics of 2000s, and the production and distribution economics, chemistry and biochemistry of cannabis with "drug alcohol" ***.

For example, there were very few countries in the early 20th century to ever prohibit production and consumption of alcohol (Canada provinces 1901-1924; some territories in Australia 1910-1928; Sweden, Finland, Norway had versions of Dry Law in 1910s and repealed in 1920s; USA was pretty much late to the Prohibition show in 1919 and nearly alone before its repeal in 1933) and less than a dozen Muslim countries which are members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation who currently have Prohibition on alcohol. By contrast, there are very few countries where marijuana or hashish is legal or de facto legal (Cambodia, Egypt don't enforce the laws; North Korea doesn't have laws against marijuana), only few countries have decriminalized it and are still struggling with the consequences of "tolerance" policy.

Like I said before, marijuana pro-legalization people must resort to using apples-to-oranges comparisons (with comparison to alcohols or "not really legalized" line) to justify their position. In reality, they are just being used to actually increase the power of and the flow of money to the state which will regulate, tax and "protect" the population from both legal/decriminalized pot as well as intensifying the enforcement against illegal, cheaper (untaxed and unregulated, sold to/where is illegal etc.) and more potent weed. Even if it was possible to significantly reduce the price of marijuana, the government has no interest in "cheap" marijuana because that would bring in lower tax revenue (which is what most governments are concerned with) and wouldn't feed and offset the expense of regulating/compliance/taxing apparatus, and the "expensive" marijuana is, again, a good bait for the illegal "crime gangs" - no wonder so many people don't understand the economic and social impact of pot legalization, they attempt to compare it to the myths or the wrong sample of facts. "We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction" - Aesop

Legalization of marijuana in Netherlands
Never happened - production of marijuana is still illegal and thus still the exclusive province of criminals.

Also, take a look at California where the sham of "medical" marijuana trade
Also not legalization.

Did you know that 75% of Dutch-sold marijuana is home-grown within the Netherlands?

So "still the exclusive province of criminals" is an obviously nonsensical statement. This home-grown and the marijuana sold in "coffee shops" are not grown by "criminal gangs" and yet, as I've already shown, it didn't reduce crime rates or got rid of the "crime gangs" nor has it enriched the state or the cities, with the possible exception of Amsterdam that relies on "marijuana tourism" - nevertheless, as I already explained, trying to get rid of "criminal gangs" by legalizing marijuana is a fool's errand derived from misunderstanding the economics of marijuana and other illegal drugs, and the real reasons why the "state" is primarily interested in legalizing/decriminalizing pot.

Those who are hoping that "true" legalization will give them the weed cheaper than now would be in for a big surprise. There is simply not enough profit margin in the distribution chain of weed farming to make it so. And the marijuana market is efficient, legal or illegal (in other words, there are many channels and distribution points to have price competition and not allow a price elasticity - in fact, small amounts of marijuana are often given for free, to secure the "customers" on the way to upselling them much more profitable "hard" drugs, since the body tolerance to marijuana usually develops very quickly and they need larger hits or potency).

The main proponent of pot legalization, R.J. MacCoun, who proposed that California's Prop 19 (strangely, defeated) would reduce the price by ridiculous 80% (apparently his main selling point) keeps trying to explain away the fact that in Netherlands it didn't reduce the price, or the crime the same way - "it's not really legalization" Since there are no statistics or empirical examples of marijuana "real legalization", where does the notion that it would bring a drastic reduction in prices, especially unaccompanied with the higher crime rates or the mythical elimination of the "criminal gangs" which hasn't been the case anywhere else? It could only come as a selling point based on biased opinion, trying to put pressure on some politicians or convince people to vote for it?

In fact, there is clear evidence that marijuana in Netherlands has become stronger
So what? Smoke less for the same high - stay healthier.

"Healthier"?

Marijuana long-term effects? - Columbia University, NY

*** Re comparisons to "drug" alcohol (fermented substances, which include significant variances in taste, concentration and intensity and processing, such as beer [brewed, 2%-9%], wine [longer fermentation, 10%-19%], spirits [20%-80%], vinegar [from French "sour wine"] and gasohol) - it's a straw-man argument:

Drugged Driving Safer than Drunk Driving? - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam

Drugged Driving is safer than drunk driving in the minds of many teenagers.

In reality marijuana can affect concentration, perception and reaction time up to 24 hours after it's smoked says the federal director of drug policies, John Walters. That's much, much longer than alcohol can affect behavior.

But while marijuana might affect behavior much longer than alcohol and be much more dangerous for driving, it is much safer in that people are very rarely arrested for driving while drugged. A drug counselor and recovering addict, Allison Whitney of Atlanta, says that she got into several crashes as a teenager because of smoking pot while driving. Although she would get pulled over for erratic driving, police would always let her go because she passed breathalyzer tests.

Ms. Whitney says marijuana is especially attractive to teenagers because it's easier to hide than alcohol, a person can get high faster than they can get intoxicated, and parents don't detect marijuana. ..... < snip >

A study by the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety of interstate tractor-trailer drivers found that 15% of all drivers had marijuana, 12% had non-prescription stimulants, 5% had prescription stimulants, 2% had cocaine, and fewer than 1% had alcohol in their systems. ..... < snip >

Unlike THC, alcohol / ethyl is excreted much faster from the system, gives plenty of "warning signals" when consumption exceeds body's tolerance (to activate body's self-defense mechanism) and the hangovers are not exactly conducive to repeating the experience, and is overwhelmingly consumed not to "get high" as it may have beneficial effect on the system in normal/smaller doses (in fact, as a natural product of fermentation, alcohol is almost always naturally present in the system / GIT, in doses to which most of us aren't sensitive) while, in contrast, "getting high" is almost exclusive province for consumption of marijuana (outside of small percentage of people who really need and could easily find better and/or cheaper, non-addictive painkillers).

Possible long-term effects of ethanol, harmful and beneficial (large png)

"Alcohol is a Drug" - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam

< snip > ..... By equating alcoholic beverages with illegal street drugs, anti-alcohol activists attempt to create negative attitudes toward such beverages. That makes it easier to promote higher alcohol taxes, more stringent restrictions on the times and places alcohol can be sold, censorship of alcohol advertising, and similar policies to reduce alcohol consumption. Although this is a deceptive tactic, it appears to be effective.

"Alcohol is a Poison" - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam

< snip > ..... Toxicologists emphasize that "the dosage makes the poison." Although salt, water, oxygen, aspirin, alcohol beverages, and many other substances can cause poisoning in excessive amounts, it makes no sense to call them poisons. So why do so many groups and organizations insist on calling alcohol a poison? Apparently to stigmatize alcoholic beverages and frighten people into alcohol abstinence. The tactic was first used effectively by the Anti-Saloon League, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the KKK and other anti-alcohol groups. The technique is still widely used today.

Honest communication doesn't mislead or deceive. Calling alcohol a poison is misleading and deceptive.

First, there is not that much profit margin in the distribution chain of marijuana for criminals or terrorists to bother with it
Oh, so marijuana is brought to market by the Girl Scouts?

I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm, but it only shows, not surprisingly, an obvious lack of understanding of Girl Scout Cookies (and illegal drugs) economics, apparently under the misguided assumption that Girl Scouts is a "non-profit" organization.

**** The box of Girl Scout Cookies sells for about $3.50. Of that, the troops (those young pretty girls who sell you perfectly legal "drug" sugar by the pound) keep about $0.70 - that's a net of 20% profit per box. The National Girl Scouts of America keep $1.00, about $1.50 goes to local and regional GS organizations.

The net profit margin for the bakers who actually made the cookies is anywhere from 1% to 5%, at best (which is in line with the large non-unionized bakeries such as Grupo Bimbo or Flower Foods). By way of comparison, chocolatiers make an average net profit of about 10%, legal "drug" caffeine / coffee sellers (Starbucks, Peet's etc.) - about 10%, generic drug makers - about 10%-13%, the biotechs net about 25%.

The highly efficient, vertically integrated marijuana farm achieves about 6%. This is real, empirical data, not the theories from FantasyLand. Data is from The Pot Business Suffers Growing Pains - WSJ, by Ana Campoy, 2013 April 20

< snip > ..... Another outfit, La Conte's Clone Bar & Dispensary, formed a partnership with another marijuana firm to share some costs. But it produced a profit margin of only 6% on revenues of $4.2 million last year, according to Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Heidl, who says he considers that an unacceptable return given the financial and legal risks. To expand the business, the firm has branched out to sell everything from smoke-free dispensers to body salves and brownies infused with pot. Still, he says, "the economics of cannabis are so difficult."

A major drag on earnings for marijuana growers is the labor-intensive nature of the business. Payroll can make up more than a third of production costs, says Jason Katz, chief operating officer of Local Product of Colorado. ..... < snip >

Don't forget, they also have to compete with the criminal gangs who don't have the costs of taxation, regulation, inspections and compliance with various state and city rules and limitations on storage, security, eligibility verifications, or make claims of better "quality" or higher potency, etc. etc.

Of course, nothing beats the profit of hard drugs. One pound of wholesale marijuana costs $2,000-$4,000, difficult to grow and bulky to transport. One gram of LSD goes for $10,000-$20,000 and can be spread over 10,000 "hits" (at 100mcg per hit) - it's much denser, far easier to store and far less difficult transport (without being detected). So where do you think the significant profits of cartels or "criminal gangs" are and what do they really want to supply their "customers" - marijuana or hard drugs? If marijuana legalization makes it easier for them to finance their real business, how is any of this helping the taxpayers or reduce the crime unless we assume that most violent crime is directly related to the criminal gangs robbing and murdering each other rather than addicts committing criminal acts to get money or to get high? How does legalizing and creating more addicts help the situation?

So when those little Girls Scouts try to sell you their legal "drug" sugar, think twice before buying it... They are making much more money off your "sugar high" than you realize - "Just say no to drugs!"

Second, following the above logic of "depriving" the criminals and terrorists of illicit profits on drugs, should we then legalize/decriminalize class A/B and derivative drugs
Yes.

I doubt that WA and CO voters would approve the recreational heroin, cocaine or LSD, ecstasy etc. if it were on the ballot (of course, opiates already available for medical use by prescription)... But we just have to "soften" them up with marijuana, and when enough of them get hooked and need a bigger "high" we just might get the "enlightened ones" to vote for "hard" drugs, right? Ingenious.

Never mind that the illegality of marijuana hyperinflates its profits and channels those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.

Unfortunately, you repeat the [academic] assumptions that are not supported by any reasonable statistics, even from pro-legalizing groups (unless cherry-picked in an apples-to-oranges fashion, the same way the U.S. anti-gun groups use their "statistics" and "polls" comparing to "gun-controlled" European countries to sway the population) and have not borne in practice where tried (e.g., Netherlands, where it's de facto decriminalized, regulated, taxed and is legally sold in their "coffee shoppes") and have no relationship to reality.

Not to make this a long post, complete with facts and tables refuting your assumptions, for which you had no empirical basis, but just a few points to yet again refute the above arguments:

Legalization of marijuana in Netherlands (as so-called class D "soft drugs" which are "tolerated" as opposed to "unacceptable risks" class A/B "hard drugs" such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy/"X", PCP etc.) had no effect of lowering the prices or reducing the illegal drug trade in both marijuana (to those who are otherwise ineligible) or the "hard drugs". Even most serious pro-marijuana groups acknowledge these facts, however some are trying to compare selected numbers to the U.S. "illegal marijuana scenario" rather than to their pre- Opium Acts Directive years or their European neighbors where the weed has long been and still is illegal, or to more homogeneous [than the U.S.} societies such as Japan.

For example, just one study by these groups, acknowledged that:

< snip > ..... "On 1 June 2009 16 coffee shops were closed in Rotterdam, because they were located too close to secondary schools and schools for vocational training. Research showed that in areas where coffee shops were closed, there was a decrease both in the occurrence of nuisance (from 58 per cent to 42 per cent) and in the experienced public nuisance (for example: experienced traffic nuisance decreased in areas with closed coffee shops from 51% to 36 % and remained the same in areas were coffee shop had stayed). The respondents had the impression that the supply of cannabis from illegal selling points had also decreased since the closure of the 16 coffee shops. ..... < snip >

..... After the closures, most of the young cannabis users still got their cannabis through friends who buy it at coffee shops, so the measures did not seem to have much effect on the availability of cannabis. ... After the closure of all the coffee shops in Roosendaal/Bergen-op-Zoom the number of foreign drug tourists diminished with 90 per cent. The reported coffee shop related public nuisance diminished with more than 20 per cent. ... However, part of the illegal drugs market remained and is still dealing with foreigners..." [Roosendaal en Bergen-op-Zoom is on the Netherland's border]

In fact, there is clear evidence that marijuana in Netherlands has become stronger, on average (higher percentage of THC content) than has been before decriminalization and than in neighboring "illegal" European countries, as well as relative to the average sold and consumed in the U.S.

From Strains of Dutch marijuana deemed to be on a par with heroin - In Holland Now, 2013 February 08

< snip > ..... This past Monday, 19th of November, justice minister Ivo Opstelten announced at a cabinet meeting that stronger strains of cannabis may become classified as Class A drugs alongside cocaine or heroine. If THC, the active ingredient in marijuana is above 15% then it will be deemed a Class A drug. A definitive date for this restriction has not been decided, but it is not likely to be set for this year, according to RTL news.

Did you know that 75% of Dutch-sold marijuana is home-grown within the Netherlands? Most of this Dutch marijuana has a 15 to 18% THC content.

They are trying to 'weed out' the stronger strains out of the coffee shops. However, according to Mark Josemans, spokesman for the Maastricht coffee shop owners association in an interview with De Volkskrant, this will probably not have a terribly significant impact on the tourist industry because it is the weaker weed that is found in coffee shops and the stronger weed that is found on the street. .....

Also, take a look at California where the sham of "medical" marijuana trade has been in effect for many (?) years now. Many municipalities there have passed ordinances banning or severely limiting the "green prescription" dispensaries due to rising crime and legal costs they are experiencing.

So, do you really think that "new" enforcement and regulations will in any way diminish the power of the state or make it cheaper for taxpayers or reduce the crime or lead to better, more enlightened citizenship?

Re "channels those profits into criminal and terrorist hands" - it is one of the weakest and more dishonest arguments one can make about marijuana legalization.

First, there is not that much profit margin in the distribution chain of marijuana for criminals or terrorists to bother with it, as opposed to class A opioid trade (opium / morphine, cocaine etc.) and/or [semi-]synthetic drugs such as MDMA/ecstasy or many LSD-like derivatives.

Second, following the above logic of "depriving" the criminals and terrorists of illicit profits on drugs, should we then legalize/decriminalize class A/B and derivative drugs because that is supposedly the best and least expensive way of doing it?

I suggest, in the future, libertarians think things through and few steps ahead a little bit, before they trap themselves with such arguments.

WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE DOES ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES He says 90% of the public supports him. This is a con game from last year to dupe the electorate---to get him reelected using shady tactics.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "[Most] polls are meaningless. You can use polls to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

The actual debunking of the "90% support" claim, as well as the relatively new leftists' mantra of "common-sense" legislation/amendments/regulations/proposals/"reforms" can be found in Clarice Feldman's piece: I Know why the Lame Duck Squawks - American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman, 2013 April 21

< snip > ..... As to the repeated claim that 90% of Americans wanted this legislation and the wicked NRA was strong enough to block it, and did so by lies, the first answer is to admire the strength of the president's opponents and marvel at his own incredible impotence. On the other hand, it's more likely that claim is bunk. Charlie Martin and Tom Maguire dismantle that nonsensical excuse: ..... < snip >

Barbarians at the Gate, the Golden Gate, that is...

What was to be expected? How much is it different from the Occupy (oqπ)?

On the positive side, those who have been on the "fence" of favouring the marijuana legalization - "medical" or "recreational" - will now think hard if that's a good thing, and whether they and/or their children should be exposed to it. "Occupy" took a huge public relation and image hit when people in NY, L.A., saw the results and the financial and environmental damage of the "movement" despite major media doing everything possible to divert the attention and focus from the damages and inconveniences to some unspecific and rambling "grievencas" and "solutions" to "inequality" of mythical 99%.

The media wants to "normalize" the dopers in the hearts and minds of the public by creating and focusing on a sympathetic portrayal of them, the same way they have done (largely successfully) over the years with the homosexuals on TV programs.

The more they are out in the open, with their typical behaviour that cannot be hidden, the less sympathy they and their "cause" is likely to attain.

When / if the debate on the "immigration reform" starts, the Republicans should focus on and question the government's "Too Big, Too Failed" [ir]responsible border security and related security agencies such as Border Patrol, ICE, Treasury etc. and propose reform(s) that should involve assigning accountability for failure and restructuring of these agencies or the funding of other incentives and/or alternatives, as well as streamlining visa process and other immigration controls and procedures...

This would completely separate and clarify - for the public at large - the two unrelated issues, place the responsibility for the security and immigration failures where it belongs, and put the spotlight and the heat on the failures of the government to properly and constitutionally deal with both, thus completely changing the control of the agenda and putting the liberals and linguine-spined "moderates" of both parties on the defensive on the issue.

We could also point out that we've already had one similar "immigration reform" that completely failed in achieving its stated goals, so we need to fix the mistakes, not repeat them by encoding them in another law.

No fence no amnesty.

Actually, the amnesty known affectionately in politi-speech as the "comprehensive immigration reform" has nothing to do with the "fence" or, more broadly, "border security" and should not be welded or tied together, as some politicians are trying to do to placate the constituents.

Those politicos who say that we need "border security first" before legalizing the illegal aliens are either naive or, much more likely, cynically duplicitous because there is no proper quantitative and qualitative definition for "secure border" that cannot be redefined in due time as "sufficiently secure". Any politician who talks about "border security first" is either too naive to understand what it means or, more likely, lying to you in the hope of punting the "immigration issue" and as such, should be bounced out of office in the next election cycle.

The illegal aliens (who are now widely described as "undocumented workers" or "undocumented immigrants" but better known as "undocumented Democrats") violated the sovereignty of the country by illegally crossing the border or other means and, while it may not be cost-effective to allocate large resources to specifically target them for deportation, it's quite reasonable and relatively easy to make their unwelcome stay in the country very uncomfortable and unlucrative.

In any case, they should not be rewarded by legalizing their status, let alone even contemplate rewarding their illegal actions by insane "path to citizenship" which will only serve as attraction for more people to do same.

The security of the border is the prime responsibility of any country's government - else, there is no "country" to speak of - and therefore should not be a "conditional part" of any bill, deal, reform ("comprehensive" or not) and should not be a part of "immigration policy".

As such, the true reform of the border security should start with the questions to the government agencies responsible for the border and the reasons for how the millions (!) of people were able to violate it with ease and find it profitable to settle in the country, most likely violating other laws (identification, taxation, employment and other fraudulent acts).

Where "in-sourcing" of immigrants (low-, medium- or high-skill) is truly necessary, it should be handled like any other transparent trade or immigration policy, through temporary/time-controlled work visas, with employers justifying the need and expense, and simplified / "standardized" to allow for minimum bureaucracy and corruption.

So the true "comprehensive" immigration reform, instead of rewarding the violators for committing illegal acts, should penalize the agencies responsible for oversight and security, and if the agencies cannot (or more accurately, would not) do their job properly, the solution is simple - cut or reduce the funding of these agencies and use the money to "outsource" some or all of their functions to private security firms and/or organizations which can compete for the contracts based on productivity, cost and other efficiencies.

If Republicans finally start defining the "immigration" issue, rather than meekly defending their "inhumane" positions, they will find a lot of sympathy among their constituents and population overall (who will learn how much it costs and will cost them in the future). They should start by divorcing the "border security" from "immigration" and separating "immigration" from illegal violations, instead of trying to tie them all together - a trap of their own making - which both Democrats and GOP-e RINOs exploit to achieve yet another monstrous "comprehensive reform" that will keep destroying the country and her foundations.

There are many decent alternative, more functional and safer "skins" that help prevent or eliminate certain UI problems, though they may be not effective against some attacks due to shared / open-source code and proliferation of apps with third-party environments such as Java / Ajax, Flash, javascript, ASP etc.

One of the safer and well done Chromium/AppleWebKit KHTML browsers (Safari, Chrome, Chrome+ etc.) is Comodo Dragon. Comodo also makes a Firefox (Gecko HTML) "clone" IceDragon. Both share a nice, light Comodo user interface and seem more stable than their better-known "original" browsers. Comodo is well-known Web security firm and has other free programs like firewall, AV and email apps (Comodo free products download page)

Also check out their excellent CCE (Comodo Cleaning Essentials) which contain a stand-alone KillSwitch (IP activity monitor), one of the best full-function Autoruns programs, and CCE AV scanners, as well as their firewall, which is considered one of the lightest and best security products in CPU and memory utilization.

SRWare makes Iron, which is also claimed to be more secure and more privacy-oriented than its open-source Chromium "cousins" Chrome and Safari.

Opera has been an excellent choice of different browser, though many of its early advantages over other browsers have been somewhat diminished due to features incorporated in latest versions of open-source and IE browsers.

For people who like or must use IE, there are several free alternative browsers that use IE-engine, with much better, more usable "skins" and many useful built-in extensions and add-ons :

1. Slimbrowser from FlashPeak that was already mentioned here (fast, tabbed, QuickFilll form-filler, popup blocker, site grouping, language translator, DL manager and many handy UI options). FlashPeak now also makes SlimBoat which has a "skin" similar to its IE-based app but is based on Firefox/Gecko engines code.

2. Avant Browser is also fast, has many extensions (privacy, anti-freezing, memory leaks prevention, site grouping etc.) and features. Also, Avant Browser Ultimate is tri-core, which means it can be put in 3 different browser modes by user (Chrome, Firefox and IE) which could be handy if some web sites are shoddily coded and break the page or making it unattractive when rendered in some other browser.

3. Maxthon. Unfortunately, Maxthon 3 version is not anywhere as good as was Maxthon 2.

4. The World (Chinese) - nice, light browser with great recovery and anti-leak / CPU load options, but doesn't seem to be actively developed at this time.

5. QTWeb (also seems to have stopped development) - excellent, small, portable browser with several security features, quick engine-switch view modes and appearance skins.

FD: I am not beneficially involved with any of the above companies. This is just an (quite incomplete) information for the possible benefit of fellow FReepers.

From a more complete source Tax Bills for Rich Families Approach 30-Year High | Federal tax bills for rich near 30-year high while everyone else pays historically low rates - AP, by Stephen Ohlemacher, 2013 March 03:

< snip > ..... President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share ..... < snip >

For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent. ..... < snip >

..... On average, households making more than $1 million this year will pay 37.2 percent of their income in federal taxes ..... < snip >

..... The middle 20 percent of U.S. households — those making an average of $46,600 — will pay an average of 13.8 percent of their income in federal taxes ..... Over the past three decades, the average federal tax rate for this group has been about 16 percent. ..... < snip >

..... it is clear that for 2013, average tax bills for the wealthy will be among the highest since 1979. It also is clear that federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period. ..... < snip >

..... Average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled from 1979 to 2009, increasing by 155 percent, according to the CBO. Average incomes for those in the middle increased by just 32 percent during the same period while those at the bottom saw their incomes go up by 45 percent. ..... < snip >

On average, the families in the bottom 20 percent of households don't pay any federal taxes. Instead, many will actually get tax credits payments from the federal government, which will result in a >negative tax rate. Because usually "the rich get richer" their total income is taxed at much higher "progressive" rate. How is that "fair"?

Since there has never been a "fair tax" and there can never be defined goal posts or a practical consensus definition of "fair share" of taxes, it's easy to keep demagoguing the term to those who think they will not be negatively affected by the taxes on or redistribution of "Other People's Money". So the "progressives" describe it in terms of income "inequity" or "inequality" - which is simply a play on some people's base envy and resentment - straight out of Marxist playbook.

This (hopefully temporary) mental confusion afflicts people not only in the U.S., but in other places where people should know better - like the U.K., Spain, France, Italy and now otherwise more sane Switzerland where people have just voted to limit executive pay by more than 2 to 1 Swiss Pay Curbs Leave Government to Struggle With Details - because it seems like a chance to "get even" without understanding the consequences or stopping for a moment to think why "poor are getting poorer" and life for "middle class" is getting harder despite all the "fair share" taxes and other measures that were instituted by government / liberal do-gooders before the latest rounds of "fair share" taxes/fines/fees/mandates or increases in minimum wages or tax credits are demanded...

But here what the eventual consequences will be for the middle class and the poor down the road - they're the ones who will be "Greece'd"!

From Next Stop, Greece - B, by Gene Epstein, 2013 February 18

Special Report--Debt Crisis: If we fail to rein in spending and increase taxes — starting now — the U.S. in 22 years could be in worse shape than Greece is today.

< snip > ..... Federal debt is a record $12.2 trillion, or 76% of the nation's annual output of goods and services. While that's still well below Greece's 153%, we're headed steadily in the wrong direction.

According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, adjusted by Barron's to account for recent tax increases and other factors, if the U.S. doesn't raise taxes further and cut spending dramatically, the national debt could easily reach 153% of economic output by 2035.

These are not just numbers. If the U.S. national debt continues ballooning, we can be sure of a deep, long-lasting recession — very likely a depression — sometime in the next two to three decades. The unemployment rate could easily surge to 20%. ..... < snip >

..... This problem can't be solved by asking the rich to pay a little more, despite what the president says. In fact, Barron's calculates that immediately increasing the marginal tax rate to 50% on the top 1% of the country's earners would bring in $500 billion over the next 10 years. This would barely dent the country's debt load, which would then be $20 trillion, and do little to forestall a financial crisis. ..... < snip > **

..... To appreciate the magnitudes involved, the national debt by 2023 would be in the range of $20 trillion, give or take. It shouldn't be surprising that even aggressive tax hikes on the top 1% won't save the day. While the rich do earn a lot, they aren't that numerous. ..... < snip >

..... One lesson in this exercise: Unless President Obama proposes drastic spending cuts, his vision for America requires imposing crippling taxes on the very people whose continued prosperity he so strongly champions — the lower 99%. Even a 25% tax hike on this broad group wouldn't be enough to solve the budget problem unless it was combined with sharp cuts in spending. ..... < snip >

** A link to the chart of national debt-to-GDP ratio projections including hypothetical adjustments, such as new Obama taxes "on the rich" and the rollback to pre-Bush tax rates: When Will the Fiscal Crisis Strike?

And in the follow-up article, things are called what they really are - a Ponzi scheme.

From One of the Costliest Ponzi Schemes Ever - B, by Gene Epstein, 2013 February 23

In a 1967 Newsweek column, the late Nobel laureate economist Paul Samuelson called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme that works." While Ponzi schemes in the private sector always go bust, the government's version worked, according to Samuelson, because it was financed by an ever-expanding tax base, which in turn was fueled by an ever-growing economy.

Samuelson's error has been effectively exposed by another Nobel Prize winner, economist James M. Buchanan, who died last month. According to Buchanan's public-choice theory, which he also called "politics without romance," politicians reap short-term gains from spending money that can be paid back long after they leave office. They therefore have a strong incentive to preach and practice continued fiscal irresponsibility, to the point that future tax bases become heavily mortgaged. The revenues that could be realized don't even come close to covering the sums that are being committed. ..... < snip >

Buchanan didn't use the term Ponzi, as far as I know. But he warned prophetically that chronic deficits were becoming an institutionalized part of the way government operates. ..... < snip >

..... SPEAKING OF THE SYSTEM, deficit dove Paul Krugman was on to something when he recently observed that "George W. Bush squandered the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and war, and that window has closed." ..... Why the "window has closed" implies a defeatism that defies logic. Not even Buchanan thought change was impossible. Also, the "Clinton surplus" had a great deal to do with the defeat of "Hillarycare" and the influence of Newt Gingrich on the Clinton budget. ..... < snip >

The author, Gene Epstein, nails Krugman on yet another hypocrisy: in NYT article in February 2005 Krugman chastised President Bush for deficit of 2.6% of GDP as being "indeed a major problem"; in February of 2013 with the deficit optimistically projected to run at 5.3% of GDP "the deficit problem was mostly solved" by Obama.

... Obama praised the work of the movie industry before announcing the Iran hostage drama "Argo" the Best Picture winner. ... "They are especially important for young people. Everyday they engage in the arts, they learn to open their imaginations ... and strive to reach those dreams."

At least they finally stopped pretending that the "arts" media is not much else but a basic political propaganda tool for them, and that the youth is the prime target because they usually don't have enough information to form moral and economic political opinions, so they can be shaped by the media.

If, by its very definition, the marriage is not a union of one man and one woman, why is the "marriage" of man to a man or a "marriage" of woman to a woman isn't a discrimination against "marriage" of several people who may or may not be all "married" to each other or persons outside of any given "marriage"?

Marriage has not been defined in Constitution only because for thousands of years it meant only one thing and it would be too stupid to try and define it [as anything other than a union between a man and a woman]. Just because the definition of marriage is not in the Constitution, it's only for a reason that it couldn't be defined as anything else.

If the "marriage" is to be redefined (by Supreme Court and/or legislators) as "constitutional," why then should it be redefined to only include two people, regardless of sex? That is not "progressive" - that is descendence into the stone age.

If "marriage" doesn't mean "one man and one woman" then it doesn't mean "two people" either. In fact, it then means nothing at all except a legal arrangement for getting special benefits from the government - something that government can grant regardless of marriage status to one, two or a group of people, e.g., corporations, business partners, or other legal civic entities.

To define the institution of marriage be anything else than what it meant up to now means discrimination against the groups of people who want to be "married" to each other and/or several other partners (of either sex).

Certainly gives a new meaning of "extended family." Somebody or organizations should file civil rights discrimination lawsuits in those states where the homosexual "marriage" has been declared legal. Maybe then the people who have been confused by the "same-sex marriage" campaigns and now feel that it's "compassionate" or that there is nothing wrong with redefinition of marriage, start thinking through the consequences and the logical end-game of such developments, and cheapening or the meaningless of their own marriage in the future.

This is gaining momentum, and this is the year to do it, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the lead Senate sponsor, said during a Capitol Hill press conference.

John Boozman from Arkansas, Bob Corker and Lamar! of Tennessee and Enzi from Wyoming are the 4 Republican Senate co-sponsors. ... That is 7.2% of the GOP delegation and they are all benchwarmers, not one of these dweebs chairs a committee

Thanks for the update. A few names on the list are surprising but most are from the states that have "WalMart"-sized constituents or are broke and want businesses from other states be their tax-collectors (with all the empowered state tax bureaucracy and courts that it usually entails).

When I am in another state and buy something from the store, nobody is asking me which state and city I am from to collect the sales tax and send it to that state sales tax/revenue agency)

The reason it's more worrisome this time than in previous times is that now Amazon is interested in multi-state "simplification" (because Amazon is quickly becoming b-a-m via their "affiliates' and expansion of warehousing/distribution centers in many states where they want to expedite and lower the cost of deliveries, to compete with smaller e-tailers and big-box stores) and this bill supposedly addresses "several proposals from the last Congress and includes revisions aimed at winning over skeptics."

Hopefully it will not go anywhere this time as well, because so many Republicans who are "local" small-business owners are confused by and don't see beyond the phony "fairness" issue and misunderstand the nature of this bill and how it will actually hurt them (instead of providing "competitiveness") as well as millions of other businesses and customers.

From interview with the co-founder of Reddit and other ventures (he also actively worked to kill SOPA and PIPA):
The Start-up Guy: Alexis Ohanian - CEA Vision, by Cindy Stevens, 2013 January 06

< snip > ..... Growing up, my father started his own travel agency just before the dot-com boom, and that undoubtedly had an impact on me. It made such an audacious-sounding thing as working for oneself seem possible. I'll also point out that unlike other business people you may have heard of, when world-changing technology like the Internet came along and disrupted his industry, my dad didn't start lobbying Washington, D.C., to pass laws to preserve outdated business models — he adapted his business and survived the huge shift to online travel agencies. ..... < snip >

Can you talk about your bus tour for a free Internet?

The Internet 2012 bus tour was a crowd funded, political-style campaign bus tour, only we were promoting Internet freedom. The bus was literally half red and half blue to show how bipartisan this issue is, with support coming from all Americans. We brought along a half dozen press and a documentary crew to show off just how important this issue is to Americans from Denver to Danville, Ky. The heartland of America is full of startup founders and farmers, students and artists, who all count on the open Internet to do what they do and will fight for it.

Erik Martin (reddit's GM) and I wanted to dispel the myth that it's a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Innovation and job creation is happening all across this country thanks to the Internet. Without a free Internet, not only do we stifle today's job creators, but also generations more who would never even get the chance to begin. ..... < snip >

Good to hear. Thanks.

I read elsewhere about this strong bi-partisan support amounts to 53 co-sponsors. Well that is less than 10% of congress.

Actually, 10% is a huge number, there are very few bills that have this many co-sponsors. Most of them are Democrats, but too many Republicans signed on to this.

From Lawmakers claim momentum in push for Internet sales tax - The Hill, by Brendan Sasso, 2013 February 13

A bipartisan group of 35 House members and 18 senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would allow states to tax online purchases.

This is gaining momentum, and this is the year to do it, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the lead Senate sponsor, said during a Capitol Hill press conference.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), the bill's top author in the House, said he is confident the measure will become law this year.

I have talked to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [(D-Nev.)]. Harry Reid wants to bring this to the floor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Many of the same lawmakers pushed similar legislation last year, but the measures never made it to the floor for a vote. The latest version of the bill, called the Marketplace Fairness Act, combines several proposals from the last Congress and includes revisions aimed at winning over skeptics.

Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes from retailers that have a physical presence in their state [nexus]. People who order items online from another state are supposed to declare the purchases on their tax forms, but few do. ..... < snip >

..... The Marketplace Fairness Act would empower states to tax online purchases. The bill would exempt small businesses that earn less than $1 million annually from out-of-state sales — an increase from the $500,000 threshold proposed last year. ..... < snip >

..... The National Retail Federation is lobbying aggressively for the legislation. ..... < snip >

..... Online giant Amazon also backs the tax. The company reportedly has plans to expand its network of physical distribution centers, which would make it subject to state sales taxes under current law.

Critics of the bill say it would create a complicated new tax system and would stifle Internet commerce.

"Congress should reject any Internet sales tax legislation that throws a new tax barrier in front of small businesses, Tod Cohen, eBay's deputy general counsel, said in a statement.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist warned the legislation would be a nightmare to enforce.

At the end of the year if there are any disputes over sales tax collection, the Virginia business would be subject to the New York Department of Revenue and New York Courts, he said in a statement. ..... < snip >

..... Durbin said he is trying to convince Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to take up the legislation.

He has some concerns. We are trying to address them, Durbin acknowledged. It is important that we bring this matter up sooner rather than later. ..... < snip >

..... The bill will head to the Judiciary Committee in the House, but committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has shown little enthusiasm for the proposal in the past. ..... < snip >

..... Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), one of the new co-sponsors of the legislation and the former tax commissioner of North Dakota, was the losing party in the 1992 Supreme Court decision that ruled that, unless Congress changed the law, states cannot tax out-of-state retailers.

$1M exclusion doesn't really help much for most single-store b-a-m retailers who are mistakenly so gung-ho for it (because they think it will help their sales, instead of just killing some business who they think are their direct online "competitors") so how long after this bill passes, whatever exclusion that is "fair" now will be considered a "loophole" because, you know, "the states need money" and the "loophole" is "unfair"? Or maybe just to "simplify" things, why not have the IRS collect the new "national average states' sales tax" and then distribute to the "states that really need them"?

"Camel's nose" - that's why Dick Durbin et al are rushing it to pass "sooner rather than later"... ya'll can deal with [un]intended consequences after "you find out what's in it."

Imagine programming costs for 50 states not to mention if they have different rates for different counties, as our state does.

And nationally, when tax is collected for different states, how is it distributed back to the states... Add a whole new level of bureaucracy to figure out how much is collected for each state...

Dealing with the state tax agency is problem enough, add to that the cost of programming...

Imagine every brick and mortar asking each customer what state they live in, then collecting the rate of the tax in that state, and keeping it all straight...preposterous, of course...

That's already the kind of issues that retailers that have several stores, even in the same state but in different counties or even in different cities which have their own different sales tax rates, some of them "special" or "temporary," already have to deal with - the expensive programming and reporting nightmare, every time sales tax changes happen in one of their "presence" locations.

But at least it's done only on a one-location-one-tax basis, which doesn't even begin to address the shipping to other states or countries which online businesses often do.

But I think it's a tactic, as you said, to drive the medium and small sized online retailer out of business because of the programming and reporting costs.

Yes, it will disproportionately benefit large online and integrated b-a-m/online retailers at the expense of small/midsize e-tailers and b-a-m retailers.

Unfortunately many Republican single-store b-a-m proprietors don't understand who and what really behind it and think it's a "fairness" issue and may benefit them, without realizing that it's simply a transfer of money from their potential customers (who will have less money to patronize their business) and will make it more expensive for them to do business with potential customers in another state.

This is a large merchants' and states' protection/enrichment power grab, at everyone else's expense.

I don't buy those arguments and will be furious if a GOP House actually goes through with this.

I think they should "know what's in it before it passes" (to channel Nancy Pelosi).

As the arguments "against" from the WSJ article and others show, these small business owners will be mighty surprised when the tax does absolutely nothing for them, except possibly destroying their and others' small brick-and-mortar shops' opportunity in online business.

It would simply limit their opportunity to compete against the big multi-state retailers.

Should read "Rep. Steve Womack, R-Walmart"

My first thought, exactly. Many people who will be squeezed out of their small business (both online and brick-and-mortar) have no idea that this is coming, and that this is at this late stage that it looks like a done deal already.

It will take time for it to be challenged and/or declared unconstitutional in courts, while small businesses and jobs will be killed.

This is exactly why many people say "there isn't a dime worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats"

Article is also making a false statement regarding the Supreme Court 1992 decision that sales tax not be collected by merchants in the states where they have no physical presence - it's not because "the patchwork of state tax laws made it too difficult for online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes" - it's because how the interstate commerce is usually conducted, by catalog or between businesses.

Here is the November 14, 2011 WSJ article Should States Require Online Retailers To Collect Sales Tax? that has a pro (by Michael Mazerov of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) and con (by Steve DelBianco of NetChoice) arguments for "Internet tax."

You can skip the pro-tax part because it's basically the usual "fairness" and "lost revenues" and "government needs the money" pablum (though the latter is the real reason why it's being stealthily moved in Congress).

Here are some salient points from the counter arguments:

• Online stores already collect taxes - in the states where they have brick-and-mortar stores, which includes nearly all large retailers, so the burden of collection will fall mostly on smaller, mom-and-pop online shops.

• Frustration of state tax collectors and "we really need the money" argument is not a justification or a good reason to overturn Supreme Court's 1992 decision based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution — to prevent unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce.

• Commerce Department data show that sales tax due on all consumer e-commerce is only 0.5% of total state and local tax revenue, and much of that is already being collected.

• Ironically, an Internet tax bill introduced by Sen. Durbin is called the Main Street Fairness Act, implying that new online taxes would be good for Main Street businesses. In reality, the smaller Main Street retailers will be the ones hurt the most because one of the ways they can compete with big-box stores is by setting an Internet shop, to expand their markets.

• Smaller resellers have to pass through shipping charges which big-box stores can avoid by scheduling in-store pickup and/or return of items ordered online.

• Congressional efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling recognized the burdens on small firms by exempting those with less than $5 million in annual sales. Recent tax bills reduced the exemption to $100,000 or $500,000 in sales. (Where did the "fairness" / "equal protection" argument go?)

• The real supporters of this tax legislation are the big retailers who already have extensive brick-and-mortar and online sales presence in most states - it helps them saddle smaller online competitors with significant financial and regulatory burdens.

Also, one of the biggest reasons both big-box and small "Main Street" shops don't make the sale is that they simply don't deal with the manufacturers or don't carry the items or don't have the items in inventory which the buyer needs or wants, but which are readily available and can be easily found online. That goes double for "specialty" items or companies that can't get into distribution, or have no interest in or can't possibly succeed by setting up expensive distribution channels (because of additional costs) and the Internet sales are the only way for them to succeed. No tax law will help the brick-and-mortar reseller compete with this issue, and this is becoming more and more prevalent pattern of shopping. Just because your local stores don't stock or manufacture the items you need, why should you pay additional tax if the item is found and bought in another state, via mailed catalog or online?

States already have collection through the "use tax" - they should not burden resellers in other states to be tax collectors for them... An eventually, if this legislation goes through and is unchallenged in courts, this sets up a perfect detour into (additional) national sales tax - to "simplify" states' sales tax collection and then redistribute the sales tax "fairly" between the states.

This is simply a "camel's nose" legislation and the Republicans should be fighting it tooth and nail, not helping it move along.

CONCLUSION Obama's "help" was a millstone around the neck of former Goldman-Sachs exec Jon Corzine---who lost handily.

Yep. Corzine, Kerry and Romney are prime members of the plenus-ergo-politico (rich-turned-politician) club.

I heard a Jay Leno joke recently (paraphrasing) about Al Gore becoming richer than Romney, after the sale of [his] CurrentTV network to al-Jazeera, both proving that no matter how much money one has it's not enough to buy a personality.

Running a Corzine or a Kerry with an (R) after his name (Romney)? No wonder most people wouldn't know the difference in the last campaign.

....but do the Daily Show watching sheeple care?

The sheeple who watch Comedy Channel or nightly comedy shows for news, not for laughs are not really the target-rich audience for conservatives.

one issue voters are easy - they are either with you or against you. They actively seek and make sure they know where you stand on this issue from your own words, actions - Google / FB "intelligence" is hardly of help/problem here - that's exactly what Newt described as micro-issues, micro-communities. The worst that can happen is they see a few more unsolicited ads or emails trying to solidify their opinion on this single issue and encourage them to vote (usually redundant exercise in motivation for single-issue voters) or try to turn them on another single-issue - that only works when the voters don't know where the candidates stand on the issues important to them (case in point - Romney was trying to play kinder gentler compassionate Republican who is more competent than "over-his-head" Obama with otherwise no real differentiation on most policy issues).

Single-issuers know how and where to find information on candidates - perfect example of micro-issue, micro-community, micro-targeting - "Google/FB intelligence" doesn't figure into it, candidates already know who they are and should be pro-active and active in GOTV with them.

The great gelatenous mass in the middle is the target. The people who stick their finger in the wind...

Exactly, that's the "conversion target" and they need to see passion, conviction, enthusiasm and active wooing by political/campaign education so they can be enthusiastic about you or your positions and have confidence in your competence and ability to deliver.

That, among other things, is what separates Reagan, Clinton Obama from Carter, Bushes, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney...

*** = Excitement Factor (to vote FOR)

^^ = Near Win / Loss

Presidential Candidate	VP Candidate
Republicans
Gerald Ford	Bob Dole
Ronald Reagan ***	George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush	Dan Quayle (***)
Bob Dole	Jack Kemp ***
George W. Bush ^^	Dick Cheney ***
John McCain	Sarah Palin ***
Mitt Romney	Paul Ryan (***)
Democrats
Jimmy Carter	Walter Mondale
Walter Mondale	Geraldine Ferraro ***
Michael Dukakis	Lloyd Bentsen
Bill Clinton ***	Al Gore
Al Gore ^^	Joe Lieberman
John Kerry ^^	John Edwards (***?)
Barack Obama ***	Joe Biden

The table shows that the Excitement Factor (and/or Charisma Factor) can't be "borrowed" from the VP candidate - that's why both Clinton and Obama forgone the usual "state balancing" in the choice of their VP.

... the highlight reel shows Obama demanding more money for x, y, and z (and x, y, and z are carefully cultivated special interest groups). He's not so foolish as to believe a) we could afford any of it, or b) he's really going to get 10% of what he's demands.

Why shouldn't he? That's politics - bargaining, negotiating, trying to sway the opinion of sheeple [third party] to bring pressure on the second party in negotiations. That's also part of the "permanent campaign" - the concept most Republicans are unfamiliar with in practice because they think that elections stop after they win (or lose), and start again a few months before next election. That's not how you get things done in politics (unless you have a supermajority and don't plan on keeping it).

Most Republicans are afraid or [rightly] suspicious of active/activist government, but there are things that government does need to do (including pairing itself down, which is a huge "activist" task that doesn't get done by attrition) and all of it requires "selling" to the finger-in-the-wind people, not sitting on laurels of "mandate" after election and finding out that the other side doesn't agree. Being a Dr No or Mr No will only brand you as "obstructionist" and simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, most Republicans, even when they have some power or leverage, act like a why-is-everybody-always-picking-on-me victim (and therefore are increasingly treated like one) instead of equal-side negotiators.

Reagan understood that - he ran "activist" government and he was selling his programs or "cuts"/reforms ("reform" is a double-edged [s]word, which is why it's so popular with politicians of all stripes) to the people to get what he wanted to get from Congress, fully understanding that he was not going to get 100% of it in one bite. Gingrich did that from Speakership (10 points of Contract With America were voted on, most of them passed into law, as well as some other reforms like welfare which required passing 3 times before veto became untenable, etc. etc.) Pelosi and Reid essentially ran the government from 2007 and controlled the agenda even before they got majorities in the Congress.

Bushes (and Republican candidates) never really explained to people what they wanted government to do (and not to do), just what they [personally] wanted to be (kinder, gentler, compassionate conservative etc., i.e., playing defense) and we know the mess that followed.

The "personality transplant" is not something that Google/FB "intelligence" can help deliver, though caricatures can play a role in the "old" and "new" media - but Dukakis, Gore, Kerry suffered almost as much from it as Ford, Bush, Dole (pre-Google/FB), McCain and Romney, mostly just by being "themselves" on the campaign trail.

In other words, author is hitting a panic button about the disadvantages that can be reasonably easy fixed (given the real interest in fixing them) neutralized and even turned into advantage - Internet and cheap digital content creation/authoring tools allow us to break free from the shackles of limited channels and limited content creation (as I like to say, "limited bandwidth" of old network/cable media) even using Google's own YouTube...

Author is correct in some possibilities of search engine to be an intelligence tool (think of "connecting the dots" and Able Danger or Zero Dark Thirty for examples of "social networking analysis") but he is significantly overstating the "political danger" of Google.

Dems were/are just as paranoid about "Fox News" and Myspace (which is no longer owned by News Corp.) and for similar reasons.

Google search cookies can (and should) be disabled or deleted/cleaned frequently on regular basis which greatly reduces its tracking capability. General IP "tracking" is not precise, and doesn't really lend itself to the kind of analysis author is worried about. It can also be defeated if one is sufficiently paranoid, but there is hardly and rarely a need for it.

Most people using Gmail use handles instead of real names, and most of that mail is not sensitive or useful for precision voting pattern analysis or "aftermarket" ads.

Google has compiled a lot of "Big Data" type of information that it can mine, so has Facebook (and qualitatively it's much better because it's much more "personal" due to the its nature as "social" media... same is true about Google+ but participation in both is purely voluntary and users should understand that their private data on social media will be monetized, i.e., sold to people/orgs who maybe interested in certain preferences, habits, "traits" or "trends" which includes political analysis), but they don't have "enough" data to be any more usable for electoral victories than what has been collected over the years and is already available to political information analysts (like Barone, Rove, Plouffe, Axelrod et al) and sometimes they are just wrong due to GIGO (think ill-fated Romney's Orca or even much better equivalent from Obama machine).

What author proposes is that the predominant issue is the access or lack of it to the "Big Data." The "Big Data" itself was not the problem in this election, the GOP-e technocrat candidate and the consultant-driven campaigns they keep running since 1990s combined with self-imposed technological disadvantages and lack of coherent and consistent message were the problems.

The temporary disadvantage in "Big Data" can be easily fixed, with some money and effort... The disadvantages in GOP "message" and messengers' passion and sincerity is another matter...

From Gingrich: The challenge confronting Republicans - FR / HE, post #2, 2012 December 24

..... 2. We need a map of the Democrats' coalition and the scale and intensity of their coalition. Their organized efforts and networks simply dwarf anything Republicans and conservatives have developed. Furthermore, their coalition is a permanent system of activism while the Republican consultant model is campaign focused and therefore both episodic and isolated. An ongoing coalition can mass and focus more energy and resources than isolated short time-horizon campaigns.

3. We need a clear distinction between coalition-based campaigns and consultant-based campaigns. There are profound differences in systems, styles, structures, and attitude. The last three big Republican Presidential victories (1980, 1984, 1988) were coalition campaigns. The House victories of 1994, 1996, and 2010 were coalition victories. The Republican consultant class, many campaign professionals, and many Republican staff are deeply opposed to the coalition model. ..... < snip >

..... 5. Infotainment is a world Democrats enjoy and use and Republicans either disdain or fear, and as a consequence avoid. The View, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Leno, Letterman, ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, and on and on, represent patterns of communications Republicans often disdain, seldom appear on and as a consequence are simply invisible to their audiences. The same could be said for most ethnic media. ..... < snip >

..... 6. The strategic nurturing over time of micro-issues with micro-organizations and micro-communicating ( a pattern much richer and more powerful than micro-targeting) to create micro-communities that support their team and their candidate has been vastly better done by Democrats. This deserves its own study and a strategic response that will require very different systems and structures. ..... < snip >

..... 7. The 47% comment by Governor Romney reflected a deep belief by many conservatives and Republican consultants, campaign professionals, staffs, and activists. The entire psychology of writing off vast parts of a country or state and focusing narrowly may make some sense for a specific campaign. but it is a formula for permanent minority status when adopted by a party. The GOP should end red-versus-blue and narrowly focused targeting models. ..... < snip >

..... 13. Data science Obama-style has no relationship to the Republican model of Internet politics. The Obama system is helped in data science by its 85 to 90% dominance of Silicon Valley. If you have the founders of Google and Facebook helping you design your system you have an enormous advantage over your competitors. The challenge of social networking, micro-community building and citizen mobilization may be second only to the challenge of including minority Americans in the GOP in determining whether Republicans decline into minority status for the next several decades. ..... < snip >

..... 15. In story telling and narrative development, the mismatch of resources is as great as in Internet capabilities. Hollywood, New York City, academics, the news media and trial lawyers are the dominant story tellers in American life. Every one of them is overwhelmingly (80% plus) Democratic. Republicans have complained about the inarticulateness and communications ineffectiveness of the party for the entire time I have been involved (going back to August 1958). This is the third great strategic challenge along with minorities and the Internet community. ..... < snip >

..... 17. The key to success in politics as in war is the ability to stay on offense. There is a deeply destructive tendency among Republicans to fall into a defensive mode (watch the current "fiscal cliff" process as a depressing example). Learning to stay on offense requires a strategic vision that enables you to constantly orient to the future, an operational system that allows you to be inside your opponent's decision cycle ( see Boyd's work on OODA-loops for an explanation) and the tactical skill to dominate the media, which will normally be opposed to you. Republicans as a group have none of these capabilities. ..... < snip >

... and those who click on “Post” once, but it comes out in triplicate...

There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can’t...

There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can’t...

There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can’t...

All the bad data that was trotted out to get Bozo reelected is starting to bounce back.

All this was known before the Election.

...However, they point to the contraction in federal spending as the main culprit:

Correct, the sharp GDP contraction was due to government defense spending contraction from sharply "juiced up" defense spending in Q3. Amazingly, Romney and the Republicans somehow didn't make that an issue in their campaigns:
The Pentagon's Timely Contribution to GDP (3rd Quarter 2012) - FR / Barron's, posted by CutePuppy, 2012 November 05

"However, one-third of the increase came from a surge in defense spending which, of course, has nothing to do with the imminent presidential election," Mike writes in italics, in case you didn't get his point.

So in Q4 it was reversed, and what we got was entirely expected, nothing "unexpected" about it:

... GDP growth was dragged down by a sharp contraction in government defense spending and inventory accumulation, which combined subtracted 2.6% from growth. Outside of these two very volatile components, underlying growth improved with a solid gain in business investment. .....

After increasing to a pace of $60.3B in Q3, growth in inventories plunged to $20.0bn in Q4. This swing sliced 1.3% from growth. ... Nonfarm inventories also contracted, which was likely as a result of businesses caught by a stronger demand at year-end. Bounce back in inventories in Q1 could add notably to Q1 GDP growth. .....

Government spending declined 6.6% owing to a 22% drop in defense spending. This more than offset the 12.9% increase in defense spending in 2012Q3. It is possible that the DoD reduced spending in anticipation of the "fiscal cliff" cuts. If the sequester kicks in as expected, we would expect further cuts in government spending starting in 2013Q2. .....

Consumption increased 2.2%, an improvement from the prior two quarters and owing to stronger vehicle sales. Investment surprised on the upside with capex jumping 12.4% and residential investment up 15.3%. Based on the latest core capital goods orders, the gain in capex could persist into 2013Q1, showing further improvement in corporate sector. Also on a positive note, personal income was revised higher in 2012Q4 due to "fiscal cliff" accelerated dividends and bonus income. .....

Basically, "juicing up" (for election purposes) the economy via defense spending in Q3, combined with "fiscal cliff" distortions in the Q4, combined with expectations of sequestration, has led to distortions that will take some time to unravel.

Otherwise, the economic story is the same: corporations are cutting expenses, preparing for mandatory expenses and hoarding cash (particularly overseas) leading to anemic, only necessary hiring, resulting in healthier balance sheets and higher stock prices (don't confuse the health of the stock market with the health of the economy!), elevated un-/under-employment numbers and general "economic "malaise" despite successful heroic efforts of the Fed to keep economy from sliding into recession due to boneheaded fiscal and regulatory policies of the Obama administration.

How about this?

No discussion of "gun control" before "border control"!

No discussion of "amnesty / legalization" before establishing "border securitization"!

Same ole Republicans who were for backdoor amnesty before are disgracefully using the results of recent elections and ignominious Romney's campaign defeat to trot out the same ole shibboleths about "demographics" and falsely conclude that pandering to Hispanic-Americans through amnesty is the best course.

They couldn't be more wrong about this - following article clearly proves that Romney's loss wasn't simply due to "demographics" alone and that the "amnesty" is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Hispanic U.S. citizens, it's the way to condemn the GOP to losing future national elections and invite importation of more illegals as the discussed amnesty law does nothing to prevent or discourage it and doesn't explain why conservative (not "Republican") principle are best for the U.S. citizens of Hispanic ancestry:

Why It's Not Romney's Inauguration - FR / Barron's, by J.T. Young, 2013 January 12

But Republicans can not shake the 'old rich whitey' image from their public school indoctrination, and college-level brainwashing. They were told and believe we became the 'old rich whitey' through ill gotten gains from stepping on top of the weak/minorities. Evil "Corporate Amerikkkkaa".

Well, it doesn't help to nominate a 'rich old whitey' simply to cement that image in the hearts and minds of voter and then try to redefine him during the election campaign ("reintroduce" him as Ann Romney and his staff put it during the convention, just few weeks before the election). Romney was, from the beginning, the caricature of the "privileged rich white Republican" that is being painted in the media and the "entertainment" industry.

Whoever at GOP-e thought that would have no effect on electorate and pronounced him "electable," nay, the "only electable candidate" should have their brains examined. His son lying about Romney "not wanting to run unless another suitable candidate" emerges just proves how phony, weak and ineffectual his entire campaign was (including primaries).

Romney kept talking about matters that only the rich could understand and profit from. The average "joe" was not concerned with the stock market or high finance.

True. See above.

The Republican party NEVER uses the scare tactic ...

Oh, they do. It's just they've been using it to scare people to vote AGAINST somebody (ABx strategy) but it's usually not enough, and will become even more difficult, to win if you you don't have someone [or something] to vote FOR...

Can you name one "exciting" Republican presidential nominee since Reagan transferred the Oval Office to the "kinder and gentler," "compassionate conservatives"?

Republicans were not trusted on the economy since 2008 to begin with so why was it supposed to be an easy issue for Romney to win?

What did he pitch as different? ... And what in his background made him look like the economy doctor?

You have the right answers by asking your own right questions.

When this, as well as Romney's preposterous claim of "creating 100,000 jobs," was pointed out during the primaries by some candidates and outsiders, they were angrily accused by the GOP-e and the "conservative media" of "attacking Romney from the left"** as if essentially equating Romney or Bain with the "capitalism"?

By the same token, would the same people come to the defence of, let's say, Jon Corzine or his ilk, since he was a self-made multi-millionaire and far more successful in both accumulating more wealth (without Romney's initial political name recognition and privileged "community" ties and Harvard education, and having served in the Marine Corps) and using it in politics, successfully buying a Senate seat and the Governorship.

_____________________________________________
** I still don't quite understand what in bloody hell this phrase is supposed to mean, as if the real facts don't matter to the "right" anymore than they do to the loony left and can't be aired or spoken, if one is being deified as the "epitome of capitalism"?

"Fuzzy math," was it called?

Is it now time for a new Pea Party"?

This pretty much tracks with my conclusions at (Hill Poll: Gloomy voters say US on wrong track, kids will be poorer - FR / TH, by Sheldon Alberts, 2012 December 17)

The author (J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004, and as a congressional staff member for various Republicans from 1987 to 2000) makes several crucial points in this article:
1. It was politically important for Republicans to build their campaign around emphasizing the economic issues à la "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and "It's the economy, stupid."

2. The 23% of the electorate who thought that the economy was excellent is a "minority" group that is about the size of Hispanics and blacks combined but delivered significantly more votes to Obama than Hispanics and blacks combined. The shift to Romney of a small percentage (about 5%) in that group by convincing them that the economy is hardly "excellent" or "good" would require the equivalent of 20% voting shift from Hispanics and blacks - much harder, if not impossible effort.

3. Similar calculations apply to the respondents to the other two questions in the exit poll - the minor shift would give Romney and the GOP massive dividends in the electoral victory.

As usual, the GOP and its band of political and media consultants are drawing the wrong conclusions from the defeat in the elections in which they fielded one of the weakest and least electable candidate in a long time - Mitt Romney had no record of leadership, activism and/or achievement in politics, or as a Republican, outside of succeeding once in buying a governorship in a decidedly liberal state and running it in a decidedly liberal fashion, which made him far less successful than, for example, his fellow plenus-ergo-politico (rich-turned-politician) Jon Corzine or John F. Kerry.

Almost every demographic group - or in a broader sense, special interest groups which involve micro-issues / micro-communities, as Newt Gingrich aptly described them in his analysis (Gingrich: The challenge confronting Republicans - FR / HE, 2012 December 24) - has an economic interest that seeks more than an unsustainable permanent government welfare handouts.

That economic self-interest, as the author shows, is an overarching and an overriding principle that has been and can be very successful in attracting members of almost any micro-community to conservative-libertarian side, if this message is well articulated - both independently of the micro-issue and specifically tailored to the micro-community like particular "demographic" (age, gender, religion, education, ethnicity, preference in food/clothes/music/entertainment etc., etc.) group.

The inspiration of better economic opportunity rather than the goal of "bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator of dependency" on the government should permeate the message of GOP and they need messengers who believe in that message and can sincerely and convincingly deliver it - this beats "You didn't build that!" and resonates with the majority of every "demographic" group every time it's actually tried!

Romney was particularly unsuitable candidate for this role because he was not any more credible than Obama when they sporadically mouthed off generic slogans about economic "opportunity." Pandering to Democrats on the "comprehensive immigration reform with path to citizenship" for illegals, based on Romney's predictable failure, instead of taking the "right turn" with the proper economic message, will doom the GOP to a minority status for generations, and the U.S. to a hybrid of southern Europe and banana republic.

Immigration reform could add millions of people under Obama health law - The Hill, by Elise Viebeck, 2013 January 26

Oh--please. Boehner is a first-class phony.

Boehner is a first-class idiot. He kept "negotiating" one-on-one with the man who had no interest in negotiating - "in good faith" would be redundant, since Obama was not negotiating, period - Obama was simply stating what he wanted House / Republicans to agree to. You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't think he needs to negotiate with you.

Instead, House should have just isolate Obama by working with the Senate (if possible) and/or passing their plan (if, of course, House Republicans could agree on a plan) and putting the Senate Dems in the very uncomfortable position to vote on it - or let the Senate Dems AND Obama be blamed for letting the taxes rise and "draconian cuts" to their constituents take place.

Maybe they now can start this "regular" course of business - even if it takes the place of CRs, essentially approving piecemeal what executive branch can and cannot spend the money on, instead of budget - basically, putting Obama on a fiscal leash. This way, House can assert its priorities instead of Obama's.

All that is, of course, assuming that they are at all interested in cutting deficit and debt to any kind of "reasonable" level... or just "thinking about their own future" and the "welfare" of their friends and relatives.

This decision doesn't change much... or at least not for long. The reason the French Constitutional Court rejected the plan as unconstitutional was not because the rate was "too high" - it was because some other provisions in the law made it possible for two families having the exact same income to pay significantly different overall tax rates, depending on the distribution of "household income" vs "individual income" - this violates the rule of "equal tax treatment"... which is kind of ironic, n'est-ce pas?

For example, a household with one income earner of €1.5M or with two individual income earners of €1.2M and €300,000 will pay much more in taxes than a family of two individual income earners of €900,000 and €600,000.

Hollande and French PM Jean-Marc Ayrault already stated that they will fix additional provisions of the law not to violate the "equality" rule in the next revision of the law, so the top marginal rate of 75% will be in place soon enough unless the French tire of losing their rich and famous to Belgium and other places. Ruling doesn't call into question the revenue or deficit targets or the constitutionality of higher rates.

Currently, the top tax rates stand at 57% for income. The Court also lowered the tax on stocks and options from planned 77% to 64.5%, and on the "retraites chapeau" (private retirement benefit income) from planned 78% to 68%.

In addition, the Court nixed the plan to assess the tax on unrealized (!) capital gains - due to requirements of taking into account the ability to pay the tax!

What's interesting is that French Socialists are doing this fully realizing that the tax would not bring desired revenue to combat deficit - they estimate the additional annual collection of just €500M, a negligible amount relative to the deficits.

What is even more interesting is that France is running a deficit of about 4.5% while she is required by ECU to have deficits of no more than 3%.

The U.S. in the last few years has been running the deficits of 7% or more, and is projected to do not much better, absent substantial cuts in federal spending which currently takes up to 25% of GDP.

Who needs “fathers” when you could have “Parent #1” or “Parent #2” or “Parent #3” or “Parental Unit ##”...

Coming soon to a place near you.

Disabled Workers Hit New Record in Dec: 8,827,795

All of those with their unemployment running out are trying to get on SS disability.

If those "disabled workers" who simply ran out of unemployment were added back to the number of unemployed (U-3 or U-6) the government's "official unemployment rate" would be significantly higher.

Most of everything Newt shared is true and helpful. Stay with the message. He didn't promote gay marriage. I am totally against it. I didn't heard that. He says marriage is between one man, one woman. What part of that is hard to follow.

People hear what they want to hear (especially when something or someone is "Lost in Translation" as Newt's very precise words often are, deliberately or by chance, often colored by misperceptions).

It was Newt Gingrich that originated and passed DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) when he was a Speaker of the House.

Republicans could have had "One Man One Woman Marriage" constitutional amendment long time ago, if they were as proactive / activist as Dems are. But after Newt left Congress they were too busy shaking down K Street and Wall Street, while blaming Newt for any problems they themselves were creating.

Instead of promoting "civil unions" or any other accommodations for "gay relationships" (other than marriage) which is what Gingrich is suggesting, they flatly deny that these "relationships" are legal, on moral/biblical grounds and basis. Without an "escape hatch" Dems are pushing for recognition of "gay marriage" preemptively in some states and it makes it so much more difficult to fight the "discrimination" charge.

Once again, Republicans - by not being proactive in their ideological goals - allowed Democrats to seize the initiative and the micro-issue which cost several percentage points and electoral votes and actually ceded the moral issue to them.

"Learning to stay on offense requires a strategic vision that enables you to constantly orient to the future, an operational system that allows you to be inside your opponent's decision cycle..." - Newt Gingrich

The talk about not "accepting" states' recognition of "gay marriage"? What has been done about it?

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality" - Ayn Rand

Newt is being shot as a messenger, so next time Republicans / conservative may not even get the message, i.e., why bother telling people something they ignore and don't want to hear?

"Don't shoot the messenger, or you may never again be warned of impending danger"

"Being brilliant isn't always an advantage. Sometimes it's a cruel and unusual punishment"

Down in the street they're all singing and shouting
Staying alive though the city is dead
Hiding their shame behind hollow laughter
While you are crying alone on your bed

Pity Cassandra that no one believed you
But then again you were lost from the start
Now we must suffer and sell our secrets
Bargain, playing smart, aching in our hearts

Sorry Cassandra I misunderstood
Now the last day is dawning
Some of us wanted but none of us would
Listen to words of warning
But on the darkest of nights
Nobody knew how to fight
And we were caught in our sleep
Sorry Cassandra I didn't believe
You really had the power
I only saw it as dreams you would weave
Until the final hour

... I'm sorry Cassandra
I'm sorry Cassandra

(Cassandra by ABBA, 1982)

Sorry, Newt...

Thanks for your thoughtful, as usual, contribution.

Today's Republican party establishment, however, cannot accept a reduction in government involvement. Anything that might reduce Washington's power is a non-starter to Washington Repubblicans.

A[nother] fine post.

One problem with it, though. It confines itself totally to technical and structural political questions. There is no mention of ideology.

Of course, later in the same post you show the reason for that so I'll just quote you:

Beyond winning elections, the Republican party has no ideology, no agenda. There is no shared goal. No vision of the future.

QEI. Not much more to say... sadly.

P.S. One of the GOP presidential candidates in a recent elections cycle proudly proclaimed his reason for running: "I am not a manager. I am not a visionary..."

QED

extremely dumb stuff like sitting on the couch with Pelosi

"If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his friend" - Abraham Lincoln

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

To many young people (and many not so young), the "man-made global warming / climate change" is by now a matter of faith, even, as they might believe, scientifically-based "faith" - you will not get through to them about science or fraud or possible positive aspects of AGW (read recent article WSJ: Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change, 2012 December 18).

You will not even get to the first base with them, if you are considered a "climate change denier" - they simply will not listen to you or your arguments - you will be challenging their faith.

If you don't challenge their faith, it's very easy to provide the argument that the right "green solutions" (like "clean, cheap, green" nuclear energy, natural gas, filtrated oil and antracite, and even localized - not expensive farm-based - solar energy) will make their energy more plentiful, cheaper and will not require taxes, fees, more regulation and (most importantly for them) "sacrifices" that Democratic doomsday versions of "global warming"/"climate change" are requiring them to accept.

You don't need to change their faith in "climate change" to convert them from liberal drones demanding drastic actions (meaning more taxes, fees, subsidies for "green" technologies like expensive and inefficient wind turbines and solar farms, which are nothing more than crony socialism) into allies who will be on your side of the "green revolution" and leave Democrats in the dust on the issue, because their only interest in the hoax is government-doled money.

But to be able to talk to them about this, you have to shed the image of Republican "environmental denier" first, or you won;t ever get through the wall. You don't have to agree with them on the issue of AGW - in fact, that issue itself becomes irrelevant, a side issue - the solution and the price to pay are the only issues that are relevant and there you have much better hand than Democrats who only care to exploit the issue to take more money from them. Whether they will come to see the GW facts later or not is less important than getting them to do the "right thing" due to their own self-interest.

This completely undermines the Democrats "environmentalist" raison d'être. Winning the war without firing a shot, turning "enemies" into allies can be done with a little strategic thinking. Doesn't work when the radio hosts only look for "beating them with facts" - where did it get them, us? To quote Charlie Sheen, are we "winning"? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it... what good is the fact that it fell?

Problem is that most people often only read the headlines and opinions about Newt (i.e., "Newt translated") instead of reading/listening/watching the entirety of what he himself actually wrote/said... and doing a little thinking themselves.

enable us to build micro-communities or supporters and appeal to many people who do not consider themselves Republican.

We are all Democrats now!

Ever talked to someone whose values seem to be all conservative or "Republican" (whatever the latter means nowadays) but who consistently votes Democratic and thinks that all Republicans are mean, religious zealots, intolerant, corrupt, rich-white-privileged/white-rich-privileged and they are deathly afraid of even listening to a Republican lest be "corrupted" themselves?

They are the "drones" of Democratic "micro-communities" and "micro-issues" strategy. It takes a lot of effort and incontrovertible evidence / facts to wake them up from that stupor... and that is if they actually listen to you on the subject(s).

7. The 47% comment by Governor Romney reflected a deep belief by many conservatives and Republican consultants, campaign professionals, staffs, and activists. The entire psychology of writing off vast parts of a country or state and focusing narrowly may make some sense for a specific campaign. but it is a formula for permanent minority status when adopted by a party.

What if everything we have been told about politics is wrong...?

Unfortunately, much of what we have been told (and still are being told daily on the radio, TV and Internet) by many of so-called "conservative" opinion leaders, is wrong.

Particularly when they dwell on subjects they know little about in detail (e.g., micro-financial or macro-economic, medical etc.), or are making a wrong conclusion and, instead of accepting a mistake when it's become obvious, decide to stick with that opinion and bring forward phony "facts" and arguments for it because they have an audience that will blindly accept it, without challenge or critical thinking.

When we follow them into that abyss of fighting the wrong battles or making "enemies" of people who already are or should be made into "friends," when we defend something without really understanding the issue, we, conservatives and/or libertarians, as a group, are much worse off.

Merry Christmas to all!

[emphasis mine]

THE RNC ROLE IN KEY PERIODS OF CHANGE

The RNC has historically played a very important role in recognizing new realities and developing new strategies and new structures.

After the disastrous collapse of the GOP in 1964 Chairman Ray Bliss played a decisive role in rebuilding the party structure. Within two years President Lyndon Johnson had created such a mess and Republicans had rebuilt so rapidly that the GOP won decisive victories for Congress and for Governorships.

After the devastating Watergate defeat of 1974 Chairwoman Mary Louise Smith led a courageous rethinking of the party's strategies and structures. Her Executive Director, Eddie Mahe, undertook an exhaustive in depth look at a party which had dropped to 18% support among the American people( the lowest since the Great Depression).

In 1977 Chairman Bill Brock built on that rethinking. He backed Congressman Jack Kemp's concept of supply side tax cutting to create economic growth. In 1978 Brock paid for the “tax cut clipper” to fly Kemp and Senator Roth around the country. This was a very courageous step because many establishment Republicans ridiculed Kemp's ideas and opposed his bill. Even when Reagan adopted it in the campaign it was derided as voodoo economics by some Republicans).

I campaigned on supply side tax cuts and won a House seat in 1978  after losing in 1974 and 1976. I know Kemp's ideas made a big difference.

Brock invested heavily in party structure and in ideas. After Margaret Thatcher won the May, 1979 election, Brock brought her advertising team to the United Stares and we studied intensely how they had communicated complex ideas in simple, vivid language. I was honored as a freshman to be part of that group and I know it disseminated a new wave of ideas that along with Reagan's adoption of them  shaped the GOP for a generation.

After the 1992 defeat Chairman Haley Barbour was decisive in renewing enthusiasm, raising resources, and helping shape and implement strategy. Without Haley's help we would not have had a Contract with America, would not have won the first House  GOP majority in 40 years or re-elected it for the first time since 1928 in 1996.

Your leadership in creating the Growth and Opportunity Project sets the stage for exactly that kind of decisive impact over the next few years.

OUR CHALLENGE

There will be forces urging The Growth and Opportunity Project to develop a shallow, quick fix, small change approach to our current challenges.

There are very powerful, well connected, and prestigious forces who have made a lot of money out of the old system and have a huge interest in keeping it intact.  It may be bad for the GOP but it is good for them.

There are a number of influential people who are simply uncomfortable trying to think through fundamental change. They like to raise money and spend money. Over the last six presidential elections they have been in the minority five times. If money were the answer by now they would have found a majority.

The committee has an historic obligation to insist on  a very deep, thorough analysis of where we are, what we did, the challenges we face, and the strategies and structures needed to win in the future.

If basic rethinking doesn't make a lot of people very uncomfortable it isn't serious enough, thorough enough or bold enough.

This makes the Growth and Opportunity Project a central activity for the party in the next six to nine months.

THE THREAT

Too many Republicans underestimate the scale of the threat we face.

There is a combination of demographic trends, cultural changes, technological breakthroughs and intelligent, disciplined application of resources which could turn America into a national version of Chicago or California.

It is very unlikely Republicans will win in California without major changes.

It is very unlikely Republicans could win in Chicago even with major changes.

Those Republicans who assume bad events will beat the Democrats in 2016 underestimate the power of machines to survive bad performances.

In good economies or bad Democrats win in Chicago.

Throughout the decay and decline of  Detroit (from 1,500,000 people with the highest per capita income in 1950 to under 800,000 and 67th in income today) Democrats won despite failure after failure.

In Argentina Peronism shattered the country's political culture three generations ago and Argentina has never recovered.

The Democrats have been building a national machine while the Republicans have been running campaigns.

Four years of preparation (one could argue 20 years of preparation going back to the first Clinton victory) collided with a two to six month Republican general election campaign.

President Obama combined the lessons he learned as a neighborhood organizer with the principles and systems he learned from the Chicago machine.  In Florida alone they had 800 full time staff by Election Day. In some areas they had paid people who had lived in neighborhoods for over three years before the election.

This was organizing unlike anything Republicans had imagined.

As a general rule Machines beat campaigns.

It will take a large coalition working year around to bring enough people and resources together to defeat a machine

Unless Republicans profoundly and deeply rethink their assumptions and study what the Democrats have been doing the future could become very bleak and the Clinton-Obama majority could become as dominant as the Roosevelt majority was from 1932 to 1968 presidentially and from 1930 to 1994 in the House of Representatives.

THE OBAMA  ACHIEVEMENT

No Republican should kid themselves about the scale of President Obama's political achievement.

I was one of those who thought he would almost certainly be defeated.

Election night results have forced me to rethink everything I understood about how America makes political decisions.

With a bad economy, high gasoline prices, radical policies, and a massive deficit, precedent suggested that President Obama would lose in 2012.

However the President's campaign recognized the challenges and designed strategies and structures to overcome them.

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asserted that “first you win the argument, then you win the vote.”

The Obama campaign took her adage to heart.

Exit polling indicated that Obama won the argument over the economy and by a large margin the American people blamed former President Gorge W Bush rather than his successor for the economic mess.

Building on advantages they had before the campaign began, the Obama team sealed off African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans (amazingly, by a bigger margin than Latinos), younger Americans and especially young single women.

Look at that list.

If the Democrats sustain their dominance in those groups, how can we believe we will be building a successful Republican future.

From a geographic perspective how do we write off New England, New York, California, Illinois, etc and think we are going to compete. One analyst noted that the  Democratic majority starts with about 250 electoral votes and simply has to find 20 extra electoral votes to win the Presidency.

This emerging Democratic machine helps explain why, in five of the last six Presidential campaigns, the GOP has failed to win a majority (and the 2004 Bush reelection was the smallest re-election margin of any President in our history).

If we were a sports team with that record every fan would be demanding profound change.

OUTSIDE KNOWLEDGE

The current Republican consulting class and their professional campaign acolytes simply don't  know enough to provide the level of knowledge we need.

Our effort should include reports from and dialogues with a number of people who have never been Republican consultants (see the  “Questions” section below for some examples).

There should be special RNC meetings throughout 2013 to host day long workshops in which experts from a variety of areas immerse the committee in the realities of the world in which we will be competing.

The workshops should be streamed on line and cached at an “RNC STRATEGIC THINKING” website so every Republican activist  and concerned citizen can also learn and offer suggestions and comments.

We need a bottoms up rethinking involving many, many people, not a top down “expert led” process.

The experts just proved they aren't experts so we should be very cautious about their reassurance that now they know what they didn't know six weeks ago.

An open process would also fit more into the emerging nature of the Internet based, wireless, Information Age fluidity.

MEASURABLE CHANGE

When the analysis has been absorbed and the new strategies and structures adopted it is vital that the Republicans insist on changes that are measurable.

For too long we have tolerated consultants and staff promising change as they went back to their comfortable but losing ways.

For too long we have been intimidated by incumbents and candidates who promise to follow new strategies and grow new structures but promptly fall back into the same old habits and patterns.

Mayor Giuliani's use of specific measurements to fight crime in New York is a case study of insisting on and getting real change.

The results of the Growth and Opportunity Project should lead to measurable differences in the GOP over the next few years.

REPUBLICAN ASSETS

As we enter this process it is important to remember we have a lot of assets.

Having lived through 1964 and 1974 I can personally testify that we are much stronger today.

In November 1974 only 18% of the country identified as Republican. It's hard to believe that six years later Ronald Reagan won in a landslide and two years earlier Nixon had won re-election in a landslide - a note for those who think things can't change rapidly.

The exit polls for Congress in 2012 indicated 33% identified as Republican, 39% as Democrats, and 28% as independents.

Republicans  control the US House ( not true in either of those earlier disasters).

We have 30 Governors representing 315 electoral votes (45 more than it takes to win the Presidency).

In 24 states Republicans control both the Governorship and the legislature.

Those 24 states have 161,390,000 people or 51.2% of all Americans living under Republican government.

There are only 14 states with total Democratic control.

Overall there are 3863 Republican state legislators and only 3519 Democratic state legislators.

Thus we are in a period where there could be an alliance between 30 Republican Governors and a Republican US House of Representatives which could highlight better solutions and also highlight the failures of the federal government.

There is also a large bench of talent in the Republican state legislators which could lead to a future of very good candidates at every level.

The question is if we can identify a strategy and structure which enables us to turn those assets into a victorious future majority.

THE REPUBLICAN CAUSE

Learning how to win in the 21st century is vital to the cause of freedom. The Republican Party remains dedicated to the cause of Liberty as described by our first  Republican President, Abraham Lincoln when he described the source of American prosperity:

“All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” - the principle that clears the path for all-gives hope to all-and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.

“The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.”

We remain dedicated to the cause of freedom and liberty but we have to master the technologies and systems of the 21st century to ensure that that cause is victorious. We  have to apply the principles of freedom, safety, prosperity, and liberty to helping Americans of all backgrounds understand how our approach will lead to their having better lives.

QUESTIONS

The key questions are about Republicans, not about Romney. It is a big mistake to focus the blame for this defeat on Governor Romney. He did not lose the majority in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008. This is a much bigger, deeper problem than an analysis of 2012 in isolation will solve.

The following are examples of the kind of questions the Growth and Opportunity Project should be exploring.  This list is not inclusive but is merely illustrative of the depth of knowledge we need with which to begin our exploration of strategies and structures for the future.

Many of these questions will require a dialogue over time rather than a single meeting or single report. Some of them may remain works in progress over a number of years.

Start with what the Democrats have been doing right. Build a library of must reads starting with books like Plouffe's The Audacity to Win, Bai's The Argument:Inside the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, and Witwer and Schrager's The BluePrint(: How the Democrats Won Colorado(and why Republicans Everywhere should care). A small team should be assigned to pull together every book, article, and interview which helps explain what the Democrats have been doing and to organize them into topics for analytical access by every interested Republican. A working group should also issue a report on lessons to be learned after thoroughly  reviewing all this material. Someone should become the chief researcher and archivist on our opponents' systems and activities.

2. We need a map of the Democrats' coalition and the scale and intensity of their coalition.  Their organized efforts and networks simply dwarf anything Republicans and conservatives have developed. Furthermore, their coalition is a permanent system of activism while the Republican consultant model is campaign focused and therefore both episodic and isolated. An ongoing coalition can mass and focus more energy and resources than isolated short time-horizon campaigns.

3. We need a clear distinction between coalition-based campaigns and consultant-based campaigns. There are profound differences in systems, styles, structures, and attitude. The last three big Republican Presidential victories (1980, 1984, 1988) were coalition campaigns. The House victories of 1994, 1996, and 2010 were coalition victories. The Republican consultant class, many campaign professionals, and many Republican staff are deeply opposed to the coalition model.  This choice is decisive in growing a bigger, stronger, and more robust GOP.  The RNC should insist on this debate and force the transition to a coalition model including within the RNC structure itself. This question of strategic doctrine and the culture and structure which implements it is central to the future of the party. Another billion dollars spent on the wrong strategy and structure will be another billion dollars wasted. As an analogy, the French had more and better tanks in 1940 than the Germans. However they had the wrong strategy and structure for using the tanks. They were routed in days by a more modern doctrine. Doctrine defeats dollars and the bulk of the professional GOP is wedded to the wrong doctrine. This change will be painful but unavoidable if we are to become a truly  competitive 21st century organization. The problem is not consultants, campaign professionals, and staff as such. We need solid professionals and experts who can develop complex strategies, build complex structures, and run complex campaigns. The challenge is to convert the culture and doctrine from one that is focused on candidate centric, consultant defined campaigns to one that is built around coalitions, long term party building and team efforts.

4. We need a timeline and analysis of the Obama Presidency and campaign. Some components of the campaign go back to 2006 and have been growing and evolving ever since. Micro-targeting, micro-leaders, micro-communities, and micro-issues all existed within a larger narrative.  There was solid connection between campaign needs and Presidential and Executive Branch activities (including policies, appointments and schedules).

5. Infotainment is a world  Democrats enjoy and use and Republicans either disdain or fear, and as a consequence avoid.  The View, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Leno, Letterman, ESPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, and on and on, represent patterns of communications Republicans  often disdain, seldom appear on and as a consequence are simply invisible to their audiences.  The same could be said for most ethnic media.  We need a report on the appearances of Democrats and Republicans in these areas in 2011 and 2012 and then we need a strategy for Republican engagement.

6. The strategic nurturing over time of micro-issues with micro-organizations and micro-communicating ( a pattern much richer and more powerful than micro-targeting) to create micro-communities that support their team and their candidate has been vastly better done by Democrats. This deserves its own study and a strategic response that will require very different systems and structures. There is a huge difference between the strategic development of issues over time (often lasting through several election cycles) and the Republican consultant and professional staff focus on tactics with very short time horizons.

We need at least three case studies of the growth of strategic issues on the left. The contraception issue ( which none of the GOP candidates understood when first raised in a debate by George Stephanopoulos in December, 2011) grew into the War on Women and became a major coalition message by the time of the Democratic National Convention. Post-election polling indicates it was very effective in mobilizing and solidifying one segment of the Obama coalition. It is a good example of a case study we need. How do we grow our issues? How do we recognize and trump their issues?

What other strategies should be studied as examples?

7. The 47% comment by Governor Romney reflected a deep belief by many conservatives and Republican consultants, campaign professionals, staffs, and activists. The entire psychology of writing off vast parts of a country or state and focusing narrowly may make some sense for a specific campaign. but it is a formula for permanent minority status when adopted by a party. The GOP should end red-versus-blue and narrowly focused targeting models. What would a 100% Republican Party be like if we planned 2014 and 2016 with no reference to red or blue  states or counties. It is true that President Obama ran a deliberate class warfare divisive campaign. However if you analyze his winning coalition it is amazing how many components were bonded by micro-communities and a sense of inclusiveness that transcended a narrowly class warfare approach. We have to understand this pattern of defining differences while being openly inclusive.

8. California should be a test of the new inclusive solutions-oriented GOP. Having our largest state dominated by the other party is an enormous disadvantage for Presidential elections and for controlling the House. Furthermore a one-party California has proven to be economically and educationally a disaster for Californians.  Finally, a GOP which includes minorities will by definition be competitive in California. A special California victory  project should be developed and sustained by the RNC until California is robustly competitive again (think of it as the equivalent of the long RNC investment in growing support in the South).

9. A truly national party also has to learn to compete in urban America. The 87.5 per cent turnout in Milwaukee, which shocked Wisconsin Republicans, should also be seen as a rebuke to a GOP which has atrophied in urban America. The RNC will need an urban operation that recruits, trains, and supports candidates in urban environments. One of the RNC's great contribution in the 1970s and early 1980s was an aggressive local candidate program. The local elections division was crucial to the growth of the post Watergate Party.  In the mid-1980s it was reinforced by GOPAC. Without the work of those two systems we would not have won a majority in 1994.  The RNC is NOT the presidential committee. It is the NATIONAL committee. As such it should methodically build the party at every level. This requires a structure and budget to make the commitment real.

10. Washington is going to be a mess for the next four years, but there are 30 state capitols with Republican Governors achieving positive solutions.  In 24 states there is Republican control of the executive and legislative branches.  There should be a close, daily alliance between the RNC, the RGA, and House Republicans. Every effort should be made to move Republican achievements from the states to the national media.  House Republicans should host hearings led by Republican Governors with success stories and other hearings with Republican Governors reporting on waste and failure in the federal government in their states. In addition, a thorough analysis should be undertaken of successful Republican Governors. How do thy win? How do they govern? How do they hold their coalitions together? Washington has a lot to learn from the states.

11. The challenge of Latino, Asian American, Native American and African American support must be met or the GOP will become a permanent minority party.  We must think through inclusion and not outreach. Out reach occurs when five white guys have a meeting and call minority activists.  Inclusion is when the activists are in the meeting. As a start, the RNC should bring together minority elected Republicans and those white Republicans who do best  in minority communities. New strategies and systems have to be built starting with listening to the people we want to recruit and attract. This challenge is so big, so hard, and so central to our success that it should be one of the top three items at every meeting and have one of the larger budgets at the RNC. Anything less will simply fail as it has for the last 50 years. The same model of inclusion has to be applied to expanding Republican strength among women and especially among younger single women.  We should establish specific goals for increases in support within each group for 2014 and 2016.

12. How did the Obama team manage such enormous turnouts? What components of message and mechanism went into that historic result?  Could it be matched by a Republican effort, and if so, how?

13. Data science Obama-style has no relationship to the Republican model of Internet politics. The Obama system is helped in data science by its 85 to 90% dominance of Silicon Valley. If you have the founders of Google and Facebook helping you design your system you have an enormous advantage over your competitors. The challenge of social networking, micro-community building and citizen mobilization may be second only to the challenge of including minority Americans in the GOP in determining whether Republicans decline into minority status for the next several decades.

14. The gap between Republican and Democratic pollsters is ominously large. The shock many Republican analysts and “experts” got election night was extraordinary and should lead to a deep, long rethinking of Republican assumptions about the country and the campaign.  In my case, it is leading me to six months of in-depth questioning, learning and analysis at Gingrich Productions. If it is true that the Obama team was doing 9,000 calls a night internally, connected to their data scientists while also using traditional polling it represents a world no Republican can match today. This is at the heart of knowing reality better than your opponent and it has to be honestly and courageously addressed.

15.  In story telling and narrative development, the mismatch of resources is as great as in Internet capabilities. Hollywood, New York City, academics, the news media and trial lawyers are the dominant story tellers in American life. Every one of them is overwhelmingly (80% plus) Democratic.  Republicans have complained about the inarticulateness and communications ineffectiveness of the party for the entire time I have been involved (going back to August 1958). This is the third great strategic challenge along with minorities and the Internet community.

16. The cultural and language context of politics is being changed dramatically by entertainment and by the education system. A 30-second ad can't offset hundreds of hours of sitcoms.  A key speech can't turn around years of indoctrination by left wing teachers and professors. Republican planning has to be much more aware of the context, especially for younger voters, within which we are messaging. In the long run there have to be strategic responses to the left's domination of entertainment and education.

17. The key to success in politics as in war is the ability to stay on offense. There is a deeply destructive tendency among Republicans to fall into a defensive mode (watch the current “fiscal cliff” process as a depressing example).  Learning to stay on offense requires a strategic vision that enables you to constantly orient to the future, an operational system that allows you to be inside your opponent's decision cycle ( see Boyd's work on OODA-loops for an explanation) and the tactical skill to dominate the media, which will normally be opposed to you. Republicans as a group have none of these  capabilities.

18.  What is the Republican vision of a successful America built by a freedom, opportunity, safety and prosperity majority? If we have no positive vision to attract people to and no positive vision toward which we can develop policies, it is impossible to stay on offense and impossible to build the micro-communities and coalitions which lead to victory. We have to translate that national vision into offering a better future in personal, believable terms that draw people away from a culture of dependency and enable us to offer a positive future rather than simply attacking the left. We  need to become  a party that people want to belong to. For example, we should have had a positive answer for lower cost, better outcome health care in addition to opposing Obamacare. People need to know what we are for even more than what we are against.

19. These changes will require retraining or replacing much of the current generation of consultants and campaign staff. All too many of our current consultants and professional campaign staffs have very short time horizons built around negative campaigns of tearing down their opponents.  This does not imply that we can succeed without consultants and campaign staff ( and knowledgable counterparts in public office). Just the opposite.  Their jobs are so critical we have to ensure they have the right doctrine and the right skills.

20. There should be an analysis of the Obama campaign compensation model. Is there a model of compensation which creates a longer time horizon? A model which encourages investing in a ground game as much as in television advertising? A model which has high rewards for winning or for meeting metrics (in some areas we may want to run starter campaigns to just begin re-engaging those communities and in those cases, the metrics of achievement may deserve rewards even while falling short of victory)?

21. What changes should Republicans make to maximize the effectiveness of their resources? There is a great deal of confusion about the efforts of the campaign, the committees, the superpacs etc. What do we need to learn from 2012 and how can we improve resource allocation in future campaigns?

22. What functions should be decentralized outside Washington? What lessons can be learned from the Obama-Democratic Party system.

23.  There should be an honest, tough minded review of the campaigns, the party, and the super-pacs. There is a widespread view that money is not being distributed based on performance and proposals but instead is being distributed based on cronyism, favoritism, closed (rigged.) bids etc?  This is a Republican issue not an RNC issue. Too much money was spent by too few people with too few victories to avoid these questions.

24. One test for the emerging new insights, strategies and structures would be to ask, if they  had been in place in 2009 would they have enabled us to win in 2012? When the various studies have submitted their recommendations, it would be healthy this August or September to have a two day simulated 2009-2012 rerun using the new decisions to see what impact they would have had. That might be a powerful last step in developing a new model, Information Age, inclusive Republican Party capable of becoming the governing majority.

25. As we listen to the larger country and learn more about key groups we failed to win in 2012 a number of new issues will begin to emerge. We need an issue development process that will enable us to build micro-communities or supporters and appeal to many people who do not consider themselves Republican. However this process of issue development should grow out of the new lessons and not prejudge them.

This is an issue paper in the form of an open letter by Newt Gingrich, analyzing and outlining a set of actions by Republican Party and RNC needed to avoid being again a semi-permanent minority party on a national / federal level. It contains strong words on the systemic failures of the cozy model of Republican consulting class and professional campaign managers club.

This is the kind of analysis that is necessary in light of the string of disasters and near-disasters in presidential and congressional elections.

This is from his own "lips," not "translated" by "reporters" in the media like HuffPo etc.

Analysis and course/set of actions seem deep and important, so I will post the rest of the letter in the next post.

While the NRA has been largely quiet, the national debate over guns is reaching a new high — some calling for stricter control; others for more access.

While the media is in full press mode, it's the same old small number of the same old people using the tragedy to call for the same old "gun control" "solutions" - they think that this time there will be a groundswell of popular opinion and that this will be a tipping point for their side.

There is no groundswell, people hear the news about "violence" in their cities and know that "gun control" is not the answer and not going to do anything well armed and protected hypocritical politicians and media "superstars" tell them about guns. Guns and ammo sales are the best prof of that.

Actually, it's great that they might spend next two years talking about gun control and violence, and that they will enlist so-called "conservative Democrats" like Harry Reid and others to "come out" in favor of gun control - this will strip any pretense during 2014 mid-term elections, and they'll be voted out of the office in the conservative districts and states.

The issue has been a loser for them, more so in recent years than before, and there is no government "giveaways" here, just government restrictions. There is a reason why they stayed awsy from this theme, but now Obama and Feinstein will drag them back into the swamp of "gun control" and the "conservative, pro-gun" Democrats may not be able to get out of it scot-free this time.

I'd love for them to keep having this "discussion" (and of mental illness, OTC or over-prescribed drugs, gory violence in the games, rap/hip-hop songs and Hollywood movies content, etc.) for the next two years while people are having to deal with the consequences of ObamaCare, taxes, regulations and mandates and failed economic and foreign policy.

This is great development - bring it on!

Yes, and we've been on it long enough to run up a 16 trillion dollar debt that will increase to 20 during BO's second term.

Yep, Obama will pretty much double the debt load during his "tenure" and cut in half (or worse) the typical rate of growth of the economy in "recovery" - that will be his legacy "inherited" by his White House successor.

Amazingly and ironically, his and his Democratic minions' voters are the very rich (Richest ZIP Codes Paying Up Part of U.S. Voting Democrats: Taxes - BL, by John McCormick, 2012 December 17) and those in ethnic, gender and age groups who have experienced the sharp increases in unemployment and poverty rates "on his watch" due to his economic and "social justice" policies.

Dumb, dumber and dumberer - keep voting for the same and expecting a better outcome - "stupid are as stupid do".

... if anyone here actually believes that 0bama won the last election,

Well, in a sense, Obama didn't "win" it - this was the election for Republicans to lose, and the "electable" "successful manager" Mitt Romney managed to lose it in spectacular fashion (e.g., struggling to win NC, when it shouldn't have even been considered a "battleground" / "swing" state and was easily swept by GOP, is just one case).

But if anyone there actually believes that Obama has any kind of "mandate" coming from this election, they didn't read the numbers in the poll.