Retaking the Senate in 2014 is pure moonshine

Republicans don’t even know what peril their chances of retaking their Senate are in. They’re even smaller than I previously thought. They’re almost nonexistent.

It appears that my worst fears and predictions will come to fruition.

Readers may recall that, a week ago, I warned Republicans against getting involved in protracted primary battles that only weaken Republican nominees for the general election (and thus serve only the Democrats), against nominating extremist, firebreather, unelectable candidates like Steve King and Paul Broun, and against listening to extremist organizations like the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus.

It is now clear that my worst fears and predictions will come to fruition.

Let me be blunt: Barring a massive scandal hitting Senate Democrats before the election, Republicans stand absolutely no chance of retaking the Senate in 2014. At best, they may pick up a few seats to add to their currently meagre 45 seats. At worst, they could again lose, on net, seats, as they did last year thanks to extremist candidates like Richard Mourdock.

I’ll show you why. Let’s go through the Senate races that really matter, state by state.

In Iowa, where Tom Harkin’s decision to retire opened a great opportunity for a GOP pickup, Republicans are now hell-bent on throwing that opportunity away by nominating extremist, firebreather candidate Steve King, who currently gets over 50% of the votes in GOP primary polls. General election polling, however, shows that King would get CRUSHED in a general election by Bruce Brayley (who is the odds-on favorite for the Dem nomination) and by former Iowa Gov. Chet Culver.

Repeat after me: Steve King is utterly unelectable.

Iowa Republicans are hell-bent on throwing this great opportunity away and rejecting electable, solid conservative Tom Latham, whom some have smeared as being “close to John Boehner”.

Georgia Republicans are no smarter. After forcing solid conservative, FairTax supporter, strong defense advocate, New START opponent Saxby Chambliss to retire, they’re now hell bent on nominating firebreather Paul Broun, who is even more extremist than Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock (he says that the evolution theory and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell”). Not one moderate, woman, or black will vote for this guy.

Todd Adkin and Richard Mourdock actually stand a moderate chance of winning – before they opened their mouths and started pontificating about abortion and rape. Paul Broun hasn’t commented on abortion and rape yet, and he’s already doomed to defeat: polls are showing he would get CRUSHED by the most popular Georgia Democrat, Max Cleland, and would probably lose to Congressman John Barrow as well.

Recently, another potential (though not yet declared) candidate, Rep. Phil Gingrey (another Todd Akin clone), has begun to gain steam and even to overtake Broun in potential primary polls. But like Broun, Gingrey would get trounced by Max Cleland (a household name in Georgia) and would likely be defeated by John Barrow as well, though by a smaller margin.

(Last year, when Todd Akin made his infamous rape remark, Gingrey agreed with him, saying he was “partially right”. All Republicans would have to do to beat Gingrey would be to play that remark on a televised loop until their candidate got over the top.)

King, Broun, and Gingrey are extremist morons of the same type as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. The only differences here are the names of the candidates and the states where they’re running.

In West Virginia, the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus is grousing about primarying Shelley Moore Capito. Still, no one has actually dared to challenge Capito yet, and if she wins the primary, she should be fine.

In Louisiana, North Carolina, and New Hampshire, Republicans are not seriously considering any extremist candidates (and Lousiana Republicans tend to be more adroit than their Georgia and Iowa colleagues), but the problem there is a very familiar one: the incumbency problem. Next year, most election prognosticators will probably be proven wrong, except one: incumbents usually win.

In LA and NC, incumbent Senators Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan are leading all potential Republican challengers by double-digit margins and have full campaign coffers. And we shouldn’t be surprised – Mary Landrieu has already won three Senate elections in Louisiana and has never lost one. NH Senator Jeanne Shaheen also leads all comers, though not by double-digit margins and has only ca. $300,000 on hand for reelection, and Republicans don’t have a deep bench in NH.

In Alaska, likewise, even the strongest Republican candidate, Mead Treadwell, is behind incumbent Mark Begich by a large margin (8 pp), although 14% of Alaskans are still undecided, so Treadwell may yet win. Especially given that the election won’t be held until November 2014.

In Montana, Republicans have only one candidate capable of defeating incumbent Senator Max Baucus and popular former Governor Brian Schweitzer. That candidate is Marc Racicot. Currently, Dem primary polls show Schweitzer trouncing Baucus in the Dem primary, so he’s almost certain to be the candidate Republicans will face. And yet, Racicot hasn’t even decided whether he’ll join the race, even though he’s the ONLY Republican capable of winning there.

The only seats that Republicans currently have a realistic chance of winning are those of Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – and that’s only if Capito is the nominee in WV – plus perhaps that of Mark Begich if Mead Treadwell wins the GOP nomination without drama and then wins over the undecideds and Max Baucus’s if Marc Racicot is the nominee.

But that would be a gain of just 4 seats – and Republicans are sure to lose that of Saxby Chambliss, thanks to the extremists who forced him to retire and who support Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey – two clones of Todd Akin.

So the best result Republicans can hope for is to win 3 seats on net – just 50% of what they need (6 seats) to gain majority in the Senate. In the worst case scenario, they could win no seats on net and lose one (in Georgia), reducing their ranks in the Senate to 44 people and making a Republican takeover of the Senate more difficult in 2016.

Repeat after me: Retaking the Senate in 2014 is pure moonshine. The GOP will not accomplish this, thanks to morons like Steve King, Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Chris Chocola, the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus, the morons who forced Saxby Chambliss to retire, and the idiots who are openly grousing about primarying Shelley Capito and Mead Treadwell.

In other words, as in 2010 and 2012, the Club, the Tea Party, and other extremists will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Why Romney REALLY lost, and how to win in the future

There is a dangerous myth circulating around the Net that Mitt Romney lost because he was not “conservative enough”, that millions of Republican voters supposedly stayed home on Election Day, and that the way to win future elections is to nominate “the most conservative candidate”. Any GOP problems with women, youngsters, and minorities are being explained away by claiming that “better communication of conservative principles” will solve everything.

But all of these claims are wrong. In this article, I will show you why Mitt Romney really lost the election, and how Republicans can win future elections.

As to the first issue: while many factors contributed to Romney’s loss, there are three that truly cost him the election:

1)      He was running against an incumbent president who also happened to be the media’s darling and faced no serious primary challenger. Incumbent presidents usually win reelection; they lose only if they face serious primary or third-party challengers or if a total disaster befalls the nation. Ann Coulter has nicely summed up the five rare cases that this has happened in the last 124 (!) years

• In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt fought a bloody primary against President Taft, and after losing the primary, mounted a third-party challenge against him, thus costing Republicans the election and delivering the White House to Woodrow Wilson.
• In 1932, Hoover faced serious primary challengers such as former President Coolidge, and the nation was 3 years into the Great Depression.
• In 1976, President Ford couldn’t defeat Ronald Reagan in the primaries, barely defeated him by a squeaker on the convention floor, and narrowly lost against Jimmy Carter just 2 years after Watergate, 1 year after America’s defeat in Vietnam, and into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
• In 1980, Jimmy Carter was badly bloodied and battered by Ted Kennedy (who ran as “the true liberal”) in the primaries, losing primaries in states such as California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, and faced a third-party opponent, John Anderson, who siphoned votes away from him knowing full well he was helping Reagan.
• In 1992, President Bush, after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge, faced a formidable primary challenger, Pat Buchanan, and a third party opponent, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the popular vote and siphoned enough votes away from him to deliver the White House to Bill Clinton. (Republicans take note: disunited parties don’t succeed.)

2)      Romney had to expend a lot of time and resources defeating unserious primary challengers, all of whom eventually succumbed, none of whom had any business running for President – solely because the GOP base thought that Obama’s extremism and temporary troubles left them free to follow their hearts instead of their brains.

3)      Like other Republicans, and the GOP as a whole, Romney was very unpopular with Hispanics (whom he lost 27-71), young people, and the ladies (whom he lost 44-55).

That last point is also the key to understanding what Republicans need to do to win in future elections. Let’s look at who voted for or against Romney.

Despite the myth that millions of conservatives stayed home, Romney got the votes of 82% of conservatives and 1 million more votes overall than John McCain in 2008. Romney won easily among reliably conservative voters: seniors, members of the military, veterans,  regular churchgoers, protestants, born-again Christians, and so forth. (Catholics were almost evenly split, 50-48 in Obama’s favor, and among them, likelihood to vote Republican also correlates with how frequent they go to church.) Geographically, Romney won all of the South – except the moderate states of Florida and Virginia – quite easily, and he retook Indiana and North Carolina. He won the middle class and wealthy voters, married men and women, as well as those with high school, “some college education”, or a college degree.

The voters who really rejected Romney were the demographics that have traditionally held all Republicans – not just Romney – in low regard: blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, and young people; poor people; unmarried people; high school dropouts and postgraduate degree holders; and people between 30 and 39 years of age.

These demographics have never been friendly towards Republicans (except in 2004, when Bush made a partially successful effort to woo them), so the problem is much larger than Romney. It’s the entire GOP’s problem.

The problem for Republicans is that these demographic groups are the ones that are growing in size, while traditional Republican demographics – seniors, whites, regular churchgoers – are declining. Thus, unless the GOP makes a serious and successful outreach to those demographics which aren’t currently friendly to the GOP, it will become a permanent minority party.

Some claim that conservatism is enough to win again. It’s not. Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1980, but in that year, the electorate was almost 90% white. In 2012, it was just 72% white and is on course to become “majority minority” by the 2040s.

Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote last year – more than Ronald Reagan in 1980 (56%). The problem is that this just isn’t enough any longer. Republicans thus must reach out to minorities, youngsters, and the ladies. The sooner, the better.

So how to win future elections? How to reach out to those groups?

Republicans need to face up to the unpleasant fact that – as so many have already observed – their extremist stance on immigration completely disqualifies them with Hispanics (and with most Americans of all races), and that this cost Republicans Colorado, Nevada, and Florida. True, immigration was not the absolutely #1 issue for Hispanics (the economy was), but it was nonetheless a very important issue for them, and it weighed heavily in their voting decisions.

Polling shows that the vast majority of Hispanics (and Americans in general), including a sizeable minority of Republicans, supports legalization of illegal immigrants. Yet, most Republicans not only reject it, they talk about immigration in terms that are very offensive to Hispanics (even Hispanic US citizens), such as “illegal alien” and “self-deportation”.

Republicans also need to make peace with the ladies and with young voters, the majority of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and seldom go to church. That means at least modulating the GOP’s stance on social issues, especially gay marriage which the majority of Americans now supports. It also means denying Republican nominations for all offices to the likes of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Paul Broun, and Steve King.

But, as with immigration, the problem isn’t just Republicans’ extremist stance on these issues – it’s also the way they express it. Todd Akin’s and Richard Mourdock’s comments like “awww, if you get pregnant from rape, don’t worry, because pregnancy from rape is a gift from God!” are just the tip of the iceberg.

Most women, most youngsters, and most Americans in general are pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice, and Republicans will need to at least soften their stance and explain how can they support Limited Government on fiscal issues but Big Government on social issues. Another way to solve this problem is to devolve these divisive issues to state governments (federalism). After all, they’re just a few among the million of issues reserved by the 10^th Amendment to state governments.

Those reforms will, like any bold reforms, be vehemently opposed by the fringe of the party. But they must be carried out if the GOP is to survive, let alone to win elections.

If they are implemented, Republicans can win back more than enough states to win 270 EC votes and create a new, durable Republican majority, which will consist of voters from all walks of life and of all races, religions, and social groups who support low taxes, low spending, limited Constitutional government, and a strong national defense, even though they will disagree on social issues.

If Republicans make peace with Hispanics, women, and youngsters, they can and should target the following states: Florida (29), OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), and possibly even PA (20). This, even without PA, will give them 275 EC votes in addition to the 206 votes won by Romney last year.

Why Republicans must change to survive (let alone to win)

The GOP is in disastrous shape now, even a worse shape than in 1964 or 1974. As of today, it has lost 4 of the last 6 presidential elections by large EC vote margins and has lost the popular vote 5 out of 6 times. The most recent GOP President, George W. Bush, won reelection by the smallest margin of any reelected President in US history, 286-252. Eighteen states that collectively have about 240 EC votes have voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections, from 1992 to 2012. Three of the nation’s seven mega-states – California, Illinois, and New York – are safely Democratic. Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections; it has not voted Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida are swing states, and Republicans have not won either of them since 2004.

Only Texas remains secure – for now. But whites are already a minority in Texas. When the Lone Star State is lost, America will be irrevocably lost.

By contrast, the GOP was not in such dire straits in 1964 or 1976.

In 1964, it did suffer a worse defeat, but that one was entirely avoidable if Republicans had not nominated Barry Goldwater. And it had won three of the previous 4 presidential elections, including the 1960 election, which JFK “won” solely due to vote fraud in Cook County and Texas.

In 1974, the GOP was defeated in the Congressional midterms, but its 1976 presidential election loss was by a slight margin. Had a few states where the election was decided by less than 1% of the vote had voted Republican, Jimmy Carter would’ve lost it. And even though he won, he could muster only 51% of the vote in an environment marked by Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, inflation, and a stagnant economy. And the GOP had won 4 of the previous six presidential elections (or 5 if you count that of 1960), all of them except the 1968 election won by a landslide. Indeed, just 4 years before, the GOP had won the presidential election by one of the largest blowouts in American history. Furthermore, in both cases, the electorate was predominantly white.

This year, Republicans badly lost what should’ve been a winnable election. Barack Obama won 7 of the 9 swing states he had won in 2008 (all but North Carolina and Indiana) and won the EC vote 332-206. Republicans won no Senate seats on net, and actually lost two, thanks in part to nominating extremist candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who beat far more electable Republicans (John Brunner, Sarah Steelman, and Richard Lugar) only to go on to lose the general election by a landslide. The GOP has also lost seats in the House and now retains only a slim minority.

And looking ahead, the Party’s prospects for Senate seat pickups are dim. Only the seats currently held by Jeff Merkley, Jay Rockefeller, and Mark Begich are realistically winnable as of today – and only if Republicans nominate electable candidates (Greg Walden, Shelley Capito, and Mead Treadwell, respectively).

Why have Republicans lost this election so disastrously, and how can the GOP win future elections?

There is no single answer to the first question, because many factors colluded to give Obama a victory: a friendly media, a better GOTV machine, a largely uninformed electorate (a large portion of which is dependent on the government and has an incentive to vote for Big Government politicians), and more.

But the biggest factor was demographics. And demographics is destiny.

Today, whites constitute only 72% of the electorate and 65% of the population. Blacks constitute 13% of the electorate; Latinos, 10%; Asians, 2-3%. In some states, such as California, Texas and New Mexico, whites are already the minority.

Obama got the majority of his votes from minorities, and won these minority groups by huge margins: 90% of the black vote, 71% of the Latino vote, and over 70% of the Asian vote. The GOP received 90% of its votes from whites – a shrinking majority that is on course for minority status by 2050.

It has been said that “Europe will be Islamic by the middle of the century.” The US will be Hispanic by that time.

Obama also received the majority of the female vote and a large majority of the youth’s vote. Old Republicans are dying out and being replaced by young, mostly Democrat, voters.

And why is the GOP not winning these groups’ votes? Contrary to what some fringe groups and activists may tell you, it’s because the GOP advocates, on some issues, policies that repel the vast majorities of these groups. Policies which these groups, and indeed, a vast majority of all Americans, oppose by large margins.

Take Hispanics, for example. Some columnists, such as Mark Krikorian, Ramesh Ponnuru and John O’Sullivan, falsely claim that Hispanics don’t really care about immigration and instead care about the issues that most Americans consider most important – the economy, jobs, healthcare, and the budget deficit.

This is not true. While immigration is not THE single most important issue for Hispanics, it is nonetheless an important issue for them. And on that issue, the vast majority (77%) of Hispanics strongly oppose the GOP’s official policy. Here’s what a post-election Pew Hispanic poll said on the subject:

“Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported. Among all voters, fewer than two-thirds (65%) said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 28% say they should be deported.”

See? 77% of Hispanics want illegal immigrants to be legalized; only 18% say these people should be deported. But most importantly, 65% of all Americans – a staunch majority – agree with 77% of Hispanics on this, while only 28% support a mass deportation policy.

Things are actually worse for the GOP than that: Hispanics, even those who are US citizens, consider an attack on immigrant an attack on themselves. Thus, it’s not just the GOP’s policies but also its language that repel Hispanics.

And the Latino vote clearly cost, or greatly helped cost, the GOP the crucial swing states of Nevada (6 EC votes), Colorado (9), Florida (29), and Virginia (13), as well as putting New Mexico (6) out of reach for Republicans. Had those five states voted for Romney, he would’ve won 269 EC votes, and get elected President by the Republican-controlled House.

Latinos are hardly the only way the GOP has alienated. Republicans have also offended the ladies by adopting extremist stances on abortion, thus playing nicely into the (false) Democrat narrative of a “Republican war on women”. This started when Virginia legislators, led by single-issue anti-abortion-crusader Delegate Robert G. Marshall passed a bill (signed by Governor Bob McDonnell) requiring every woman wanting to obtain an abortion to undergo a vaginal ultrasound. Then, Missouri Republicans (and Democrat plants in the open MO primary – when will Republicans learn that they need to hold closed primaries?), helped by Mike Huckabee nominated anti-abortion-crusader Todd Akin, whom Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill correctly considered to be the weakest candidate, instead of nominating a across-the-board conservative like John Brunner or, even better, Sarah Steelman (endorsed by Sarah Palin). Republicans initially denounced him, but he refused to withdraw from the race, and Republicans eventually adopted his (and Marshall’s) policy of seeking to ban abortion in all cases – including rape, incest, and the life of the mother – as their official party policy, inscribed into the GOP platform.

So, while the GOP was denouncing Todd Akin’s remarks, it was simoultaneously inscribing his policy into the party platform.

Then, Richard Mourdock opened his mouth and said to women, “Don’t worry about that getting pregnant thingy, because if you get pregnant as a result of rape, that is a gift from God!”

This allowed the Dems to slight all Republicans across the country by warning voters that if they vote for this or that Republican, they’ll be voting for the party of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. This hurt Republicans across the country and lost several winnable races – not just those in MO and IN.

The result? Women could not run away from the GOP fast enough.

In every state that Romney lost, he also lost the female vote, in most cases by a large margin. Even in NC, where he won overall, he lost the female vote.

It’s not surprise, because women are the majority of voters in this country. Alienate a majority of them, and you will lose.

And yes, contrary to what radical religious Republicans will tell you, most women support a pro-choice position and consider this issue important. Right or wrong, they do.

Indeed, according to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject, 54% of all Americans consider themselves pro-choice.

And 75% of all Americans support maintaining abortion’s legality in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

The electorate will never support, and no state legislature will ever pass, a law requiring a woman to bear the child of her rapist.

Again, Republicans are advocating a policy that a vast majority of Americans oppose. No wonder why they’ve lost 4 of the last 6 presidential elections.

Finally, there’s American youth. They are less religious and less traditionalist than any previous generation of Americans. While they may be fiscally conservative, they are socially liberal and consider “socially conservative” policies such as banning abortion and gay marriage to be inconsistent with the GOP’s self-proclaimed principle of limited government.

Obama’s presidency has been a disaster for them. The youth unemployment rate is in the double digits, and Obama has accumulated a huge public debt that these young people – not their parents or grandparents – will have to pay back, with interest.

But Republicans have failed to seize the moment. They have alienated young people with their extremist policies and self-righteous pontification about abortion (see above) and gay marriage. The problem is not just the policies Republicans advocate, but also the fact that when Republicans talk about these issues, they sound like pompous, self-righteous prigs.

65% of all Americans, including a solid majority of youngsters, support allowing gays to marry. The public’s attitude towards this issue has changed significantly since 1996. It’s a losing issue for Republicans these days (as is abortion). Hence why it has already been legalized in several states by legislatures and in two by referendum.

The American electorate has changed beyond recognition since 1980, but the GOP hasn’t changed with it.

And so, young Americans, who would’ve otherwise been natural Republican voters (if they are really fiscally conservative – this is not yet clear), couldn’t run away from the GOP fast enough.

Looking ahead, what should the GOP do?

Firstly, it needs to state clearly that it is a party of limited Constitutional government, free market economic policies, fair trade, and a strong national defense. Period.

Secondly, Republicans should drop the gay marriage issue. Now. There is zero evidence that allowing gays to marry somehow harms the institution of marriage. It is divorce (predominantly no-fault divorce, pioneered by California) that really threatens marriage: America has a sky-high divorce rate, the highest in the world. Divorce, breaks up families with disastrous results for everyone.

At minimum, Republicans should adopt a federalist position on gay marriage, i.e. say that it should be decided by the states.

Thirdly, on abortion, Republicans should also adopt a federalist position, i.e. leave it to the states, and at the state level, say that they support an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This should be written into the GOP platform to make clear that it’s the official GOP policy.

Fourthly, on immigration, Republicans should support the legalization of illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes other than immigrating illegally, coupled with securing the border with a fence, a virtual fence, and making the E-Verify program obligatory. Simoultaneously, immigration laws need to be reformed so as to bring in (indeed, attract) bright, well-educated, productive people to the US while ending the cretinous policy of letting in huge numbers of unskilled relatives of US citizens (extended families). Only spouses, fiance(e)s, and children of US citizens should be let in. Otherwise, the only way to immigrate to the US should be to have at least a Master’s degree and/or some years of experience in an occupation, science, or art in demand in the US.

Currently, if you have a relative in the US, you can immigrate easily, but if you don’t, your chances are slim, even if you have a PhD in computer science and an IT or computer games company wants to hire you. If that company petitions to get you a visa, you’ll have to wait 5 or more years for it. In that time, the company could go out of business, and in the meantime, you need to feed yourself.

The US should stop importing unskilled relatives of US citizens who are a burden on taxpayers, but extend a warm welcome for skilled, self-supporting people.

Fourthly, the GOP needs to diversify its ranks and its leadership. Yes, this is “identity politics”, but it works. One of the reasons  minorities vote for Democrats is because the Dems nominate minorities for high positions. They have nominated a black for President, and in 2000, they nominated a Jew for Vice President.

Republicans, by contrast, have never nominated anyone but a white for President or Vice President, anyone but a white man for the highest office in the land, and only one woman (Sarah Palin) for Vice President. Minorities will not vote for Republicans if the top tiers of the party’s nominee crop and its leadership remain an exclusive club for whites.

And no, Republicans don’t have to adopt an affirmative action policy to change this. There are plenty of qualified Republicans who can lead the party. They include Hispanics Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Brian Sandoval, and Susana Martinez; Indian Americans Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley; and women such as Martinez, Jindal, and Kelly Ayotte. All of whom except arguably Sandoval, are conservatives.

So the good news is that Republicans can still win elections and can still become a majority party. But it’s imperative that they drop losing positions on losing issues and make amends with Hispanics, women, and young voters. Before it’s too late.

Republican prospects for a 2014 Senate takeover are slim

Beaten badly in the 2012 elections, Republicans are beginning to lay out plans for 2014, when the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate will be up for reelection. Among the Dem Senators facing the voters in 2014 will be six who represent “red” states and six others who represent swing states.

Given how badly Republicans were mauled in 2008, when these Dem Senators were elected, Republicans should, in theory, have little trouble winning 6 seats on net (enough for a majority). But it likely won’t happen. The chances of that happening are no higher than 10%, for the following reasons.

Firstly, Republicans still have a Hispanic problem, a woman problem, and a youth problem. The vast majorities of these focus groups perceive Republicans negatively (for example, Hispanics consider Republicans an “anti-immigrant party” and women consider the GOP to be an anti-woman party) and oppose Republican policies on issues they care about (e.g. immigration, abortion, gay marriage). Indeed, on these issues, solid majorities of all Americans oppose Republican policies.

Secondly, Republicans are still behind the Democrats in the GOTV game.

Thirdly, Republicans will be blamed for the incoming “fiscal cliff” (automatic tax hikes on everyone and automatic, massive, across-the-board defense cuts) by a majority of Americans. The negative narrative almost writes itself: “Republicans caused America to go over the cliff to protect tax cuts for millionnaires and to pander to Grover Norquist.” And it would be true – why did Republicans, or at least those 23 purist House Republicans who forced John Boehner to withdraw Plan B from House consideration, do so, if not to protect tax cuts for millionaires (most of whom vote Democrat, by the way)? Virtually everyone agrees on preserving tax cuts for the middle class and poorer Americans – the issue of disagreement between the two parties is whether tax cuts should be prolonged for wealthier Americans as well. Regardless of the merits of both parties’ policies, THAT is the issue of disagreement here.

And most Americans support raising taxes on millionnaires – not necessarily out of some class warfare beliefs, but because they think such tax hikes won’t affect them directly. And in this crisis, every man is looking to save only himself while trying to shift as much pain as possible on others. “Raise taxes for the other guy, but not for me. Cut spending on everything, except the programs I benefit from.” This is what most Americans are saying today. (That they are wrong is a separate matter.)

Fourthly, if the Tea Party again primaries electable Republicans and hands over nominations to unelectable fringe candidates, as it did this year and in 2010, Republicans are royally screwed. Republicans would’ve already had a Senate majority if it weren’t for the Tea Party and its losing 2010 and 2012 Senate candidates in Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, and Indiana.

Last but not least, while there will be 20 Dems up for reelection in 2014, including 12 running in red or swing states, the majority of them are shoo-in for reelection, meaning that there will be only a few pick-up opportunities for Republicans – and certainly not enough to get to 51 seats. Let’s look at the Dem seats up for contesting in 2014:

In Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Minnesota, incumbent Dem Senators (Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Frank Lautenberg, and Al Franken) are safe (not surprising, given that all of these states are blue). Polling has found Al Franken leading all potential competitors by double-digit margins, except Tim Pawlenty sometimes, but even Pawlenty trails him badly. Lautenberg will be primaried by a fellow Democrat, however, and he may not be alive by 2014, but the seat will likely remain in Democrat hands.

In Colorado, incumbent Senator Mark Udall leads all potential Republican candidates, usually by broad margins, except former CO Bill Owens, who trails him “only” by four pp, 43% to 47%.

Hawaii had been represented for a long time by Senator Daniel Inouye. His death will not likely change which party will hold this seat, as Hawaii is a blue state. Still, Republicans might recruit a good candidate to run here. Former Governor Linda Lingle might run and win.

In Iowa, five-term incumbent Democrat Tom Harkin is leading all comers, usually by significant margins. The Republican who trails him by least, Governor Terry Branstad, trails him by 5 pp, 41% to 45%.

In Louisiana, incumbent three-term Senator Mary Landrieu is preparing to run for reelection. No polling has been done yet, but she did win reelection in 2008 by 52% in a red state. Moreover, the candidate who had the best chance of defeating her, Bobby Jindal, has declined to run (he probably intends to run for President in 2016). Still, Republicans have a deep bench in Louisiana, and 2008 was a year very favorable for the Democrats. Landrieu is not a shoo-in for reelection, but her chances are very good.

In Massachusetts, John Kerry, who would’ve otherwise been running for reelection in 2014, is retiring to become Secretary of State. Former Sen. Scott Brown may run and even win a special election, but he will likely be clobbered as he was this year, because MA Dems will again tie him to extremist Republicans like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

In Montana, Max Baucus will be running for reelection, and polling shows him leading a “Generic Republican” by 6 pp, 48% to 42%. A real-life Republican will have an even harder time beating Baucus, and Republicans don’t have a deep bench in Montana. But very little is known about this election so far, and anything might happen in MT.

In New Hampshire, Republicans don’t have a deep bench, either, and incumbent extremely-leftist Democrat Jeanne Shaheen (who believes taxpayers should pay for abortions) leads a Generic Republican and Republican predecessor John Sununu by 9 pp, 53% to 42%.

In Virginia, popular former Governor Mark Warner leads all comers comfortably. His relatively most formidable potential GOP challenger, Bob McDonnell, trails him by 11 pp, 40% to 51%.

In North Carolina, first-term incumbent Kay Hagan leads all challengers and was elected by a significant margin, 53%, in 2008. It’s hard to see how Republicans can find someone that can beat Hagan.

In Arkansas, incumbent Dem Senator Mark Pryor was reelected without any Republican opposition by 80% in 2008.

In Alaska, Mark Begich was elected in 2008 with just 48% of the vote, and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell has already begun exploration. It’s hard to predict who will win.

This leaves Republicans with only two truly realistic Senate seat pickups: in Oregon and in West Virginia. In Oregon, first-term incumbent Jeff Merkley was elected by only 49% in 2008 – a great year for Dems – and is trailing Congressman Greg Walden. However, he leads all other potential GOP candidates. In WV, Jay Rockefeller likewise trails Shelley Capito, but leads all other potential GOP challengers.

But even those two races will be lost if the Tea Party intrudes again by giving the GOP loser candidates like Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck, Linda McMahon, Richard Mourdock, and Todd Akin. The Tea Party is the GOP’s worst enemy.

Even if the GOP wins both races, it will still take only two seats, i.e. recover from the losses suffered this year. If it also wins Mark Begich’s and Mary Landrieu’s seats, which is a big if, it will still have only 49 seats.

So Republican prospects for a takeover of the Senate in 2014, even without the Tea Party intruding in any way, and without America going over the cliff. When Republicans fail to attain a Senate majority (or to win more than 2-3 seats) in 2014, remember you first read it here.

Denial of reality

Tuesday’s shellacking should’ve been a wake-up call for Republicans to go back to basics, back to the drawing board, and think whether their message – not just their candidates – alienated Republican voters.

One would hope that Republicans would finally realize that they cannot claim to be the party of limited government and freedom and then in the next breath tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies; that they need to finally reach out to women, youngsters, and minorities (particularly Hispanics).

But one would be wrong.

While Republican strategists do understand this, many Republican/conservative columnists do not. Examples include AmSpec’s Jeffrey Lord and George Neumayr and AT’s Tara Servatius. They wrongly claim that the GOP lost because its nominee wasn’t conservative enough and that this caused millions of conservatives to stay home on Election Day. They flatly deny that a demographic shift has occurred in the US, or that the GOP needs to reach out to Hispanics, youngsters, and women.

Essentially, they’re asking Republicans: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

To understand why they’re dead wrong, just look at exit polls from this year, 2008, 2004, and 1980.

Mitt Romney has actually won a larger share of the white vote (59%) than Ronald Reagan did in 1980 (56%). So simple math tells us that if today’s electorate were as white as it was in 1980, Mitt Romney would’ve won by an even larger landslide than Reagan.

But this didn’t happen. Why? Because the electorate is far less white than in 1980.

In 1980, whites were about 80% of the electorate; blacks were about 10-11% and Latinos just 2%. Asians were even less numerous. But this year, whites were only 72% of the electorate, while Latinos constituted 10% (up from 8% in 2008) and blacks constituted 13%. Furthermore, they, along with Democrats and youngsters, had the same or greater turnout than in 2008.

Moreover, millions of old white voters have died since 2008, while millions of young voters (millenials) have turned 18 and become eligible to vote. And these voters are overwhelmingly pro-Obama. That’s a net swing of many millions of voters.

So yes, despite Lord’s, Neumayr’s, and Servatius’s denial, there has been a HUGE demographic change since 2004 (let alone since 1980). The American electorate has changed beyond recognition, but the GOP hasn’t changed with it. Republicans are still running in an electorate that no longer exists.

Today’s electorate is far less white, more Hispanic, more youthful, more black, and more Asian than in 1980 or even 2004. And yet, among all minorities, as well as youngsters and women, Republicans got crushed. 90% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, over 60% of youngsters, over 70% of Asians, over 70% of Jews, and 53% of women in an electorate in which women are the majority.

The role of a party is to win elections, and for that, you have to cause voters to want to vote for you. But right now, these huge majorities of every demographic group except whites. Why? Because on divisive social and immigration issues, Republicans not only support extreme policies, but also voice their support for these in words that most Americans find offensive.

Take abortion, for example. Most Americans, including a solid majority of women, are pro-choice, and 75% of them say that abortion should be legal at least in cases of rape and incest. Yet, GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan opposes even these exceptions, as do failed GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock (both of whom made ridiculous gaffes that cost the GOP two perfectly winnable seats), and the Republican platform endorsed a CONSTITUTIONAL ban on abortion without exceptions.

That’s right. At the same time Republicans were condemning Todd Akin’s comments on pregnancy resulting from rape, his stance on abortion was being enshrined in the official Republican platform. As John Avlon points out:

“Good people can disagree about the difficult moral question of abortion. But how some self-described libertarians can pretend that forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child to term is not among the most brutal forms of big government intrusion is beyond me.

That contradiction — driven by a common sense and common decency — is perhaps why a Gallup Poll found that 75% of Americans do not support bans on abortion when the woman is a victim of rape or incest. This is an area of broad consensus with the American people, even on this most personal and polarizing issue.

So the real scandal is not just the sincere stupidity of Akin’s statement — it is the policy that undergirds it, enshrined in the Republican National Platform. The problem is bigger than politics, and that’s why it is worth discussing in this election, even when Akin is off the front pages.”

And Republicans were warned about the consequences before the Republican Convention even began (emphasis added):

“The story dominates political coverage in the week before the Republican National Convention, forcing certain GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to repeatedly address it when he wanted to focus on convincing Americans why he would be a better president than Barack Obama.

Even more, the controversy surrounding Akin’s remarks on “legitimate” rape has forced Republicans to publicly confront the 15,000-pound elephant in their living room: the party’s internal rift between traditional fiscal conservatives such as Romney and the increasingly influential social conservatives of the religious right such as Akin.

Republican officials told CNN on condition of not being identified that the Akin controversy hurts on several fronts. It decreases the chances of capturing McCaskill’s Senate seat, which is crucial to GOP hopes of winning control of the chamber, they said.

At the same time, the brouhaha shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic issues that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery, the GOP officials said.“

Thus, Republicans blew a golden opportunity to attack Obama’s utterly failed ultraliberal tax-and-spend policies and shifted the discussion to divisive social issues, thus alienating swing voters.

Republicans thus alienated tens of millions of women who could’ve otherwise voted for the GOP based on economic issues, as well as tens of millions of youngsters who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (i.e. libertarian-minded). They’ve also alienated them with their stance on gay marriage, as proven by the failure of marriage amendments and the approval of SSM by voters in 4 states.

This Big Government stance on social issues likely cost Republicans a lot of swing states, including Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Don’t believe me? Just look at the poll numbers. In all of these states, the ladies voted overwhelmingly for Obama. And it’s easy to tell why: Republicans played right into Obama’s hands and the Dems’ “War on Women” theme.

Republicans also shot themselves in the foot with their hardline stance on immigration, which cost them dearly the Hispanic vote and thus the swing states of Colorado and Nevada. If Republicans don’t significantly soften their stance now, by 2016 Texas and Arizona may become swing states. Note to potential future presidential candidates: endorsing “self-deportation” and palling with Kris Kobach doesn’t help.

Wise strategists and statesmen such as Mike Murphy and Jeb Bush understand this. So do Mona Charen and Michael Tanner.

The question is, will these sane voices prevail, and make the GOP a party for all Americans who support limited government and a strong national defense, or will delusional people such as Jeffrey Lord, George Neumayr, John Hawkins, and Tara Servatius prevail? We will see during the next four years.

Why Republicans lost, and what is the lesson

Last Tuesday, Republican presidential and Senatorial candidates went down to an ignominious defeat. A perfectly winnable election has been lost. Mitt Romney has won no more than 235 EC votes (assuming that he has won Florida), although he has lost the popular vote to Obama by less than 1 pp and Obama has failed to win a majority of it. And Republicans have failed to win, on net, any Senate seats in an election where 23 Democrat-held seats were up for election and most of them were helding by vulnerable or retiring incumbents. The only Senate seats Republicans have pried away from Democratic hands is that in Nebraska.

Why did that happen?

There are many reasons why. There is no singular explanation. The causes of the GOP’s defeat this year include the following:

1) Firstly, and most importantly, the GOP is still the party of old white men, or at least, is perceived as such. It gets the vast majority of its votes from whites, and most of these whites are men and people over the age of 29. By contrast, Barack Obama got 45% of his votes this year from minorities. Despite the GOP’s own admission 4 years ago, it still trails the Democrats significantly among Latinos, Jews, African Americans, Asians, youngsters, and women (who are not a minority but rather a 53% majority of voters in this country). According to exit polls, Romney lost 27-71% among Latinos, won just 7% of the black vote, has been crushed among young voters, Asians, and Jews, and trailed Obama among women by 44% to Obama’s 55%. Here are complete national exit poll results.

Exit polls in all swing states that Obama won tell the same story: women voted for Obama by margins between 54% and 58%. Romney lost the female vote in these states, and thus these states themselves, decisively.

Women are a significant (53%) majority of the electorate, as well as the majority of voters in all swing states but Indiana. Meanwhile, Latinos, blacks, and youngsters continue to increase their share of the overall electorate. For example, in 2008, Latinos constituted just 8% of all voters; this year, they constituted 10%. And that 10% voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Moreover, their share of the vote will only increase in the future, as America becomes less white every year. In 2011, most children born in the US were minority kids. By 2041, whites will be a minority in the United States. Women, already 53% of the electorate, are likely to remain the majority of all voters.

Romney, despite being a former governor with a record of promoting women to top government positions, and despite advocating economic and national-security policies that would be good for women (instead of Obama’s policies that have utterly failed women), has been crushed among the ladies. Why?

Because, in order to pander to radical religious Republicans and thus to be a viable candidate in Republican primaries, he had to adopt a staunchly pro-life position. If that weren’t bad enough, he was wrongly associated with two idiots (Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock) who made idiotic comments about rape while advocating a policy (banning abortion in all cases, including rape) that only about 1% of the electorate supports, and the GOP platform also endorsed that position. This, combined with Republicans’ mistaken reaction to Obama’s contraception mandate earlier this year, their comments about women supposedly wanting to put abortion pills between their legs, and VA Governor Bob McDonnell’s vaginal ultrasound mandate, was perfect campaign fodder for Obama’s and the Dems’ mantra of “a Republican War on Women”.

That cost Republicans the ladies’ vote and, together with their hostile stance towards gay marriage, youngsters’ vote. (Polls show that most young Americans are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.)

Meanwhile, Republicans’ (including Romney’s) uncompromising, hardline stance on immigration (including Romney’s proposal that illegal aliens “self-deport”), cost them the Latino vote. Whereas in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of Latinos’ votes, Romney this year got only 27%, in a country where Latino voters are far more numerous than they were in 2004.

The plain lesson is that Republicans must immediately drop their extreme stances on social issues and immigration and adopt a softer message on these issues. This is necessary to appeal to youngsters, women, and Latinos, whose votes the GOP will absolutely need. It’s either that or a slow but unavoidable extinction of the GOP.

Also see here and here. For examples of Republicans stubbornly rejecting this reality, see here and here.

2) Crony capitalism works (politically)

Obama’s bailout of the auto industry, combined with incessantly reminding voters that Romney wrote in 2009 “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”, ensured that he would win Ohio and Michigan and thus win the election, blocking Romney’s path to 270 EC votes. The auto industry is important in both states, and its employees don’t care if its bailout was unconstitutional or cost the taxpayers $14 bn. They’re very happy that it happened, because it saved their jobs.

Is crony capitalism Constitutionally, morally, and economically wrong? Of course. But it’s a potent vote-buyer, a large scale pork project. And like all other pork projects, it has one purpose: buying votes.

Winning in Michigan – a state that no Republican presidential candidate has won in decades – was never going to be easy, anyway.

3) No serious efforts in blue states until late in the game

It wasn’t until late October – when polls began to show Romney competitive in blue states like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – that Mitt Romney or the GOP began any visits or airing any ads there. Even then, not enough ads (except in Pennsylvania) were aired, not enough visits were made, and not enough explaining why Romney was the best candidate was done there. Romney should’ve begun campaigning there much earlier.

4) A poor Republican ground game

While the Republican ground game – the GOTV machine – has improved significantly since 2008, it was still insufficient to match Obama’s GOTV effort, made by his well-oiled campaign machine that had remained intact since 2008. More campaign offices, more volunteers, more calls, more knocks on doors. In the forementioned blue states, Romney didn’t really have any ground game at all except in Wisconsin.

In the Badger State, the Republican GOTV machine was supposed to be better than the Democratic one, having had a successful dry run in the summer when Gov. Scott Walker won the recall election. But Obama has actually won Wisconsin by 52%-47%. By contrast, in swing states like Ohio, where Obama’s GOTV machine was widely considered to be much better, the election result was much closer… but Obama still won.

Nationally, the Democrats again heavily outnumbered Republicans at the polls. The electorate was 38% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent. In 2008, it was the same except that 31% of it was Republican.

Without a SUPERIOR GOTV machine, Republicans cannot win even if they flood swing and blue states with ads.

5) Vote fraud

Not much needs to be said on this one. The Democrats, as usual, benefitted from vote fraud, although on what scale that happened is not certain. Vote fraud, by itself, cannot explain this year’s election’s results, however.

6) No minority or female candidates on the ticket

Once again, the GOP nominated two white men (in 2008 the GOP nominated a white man and a white woman). No women, no minority members. While Paul Ryan is a brilliant policy wonk and a staunch conservative, he brought nothing to the table except youthfulness, ability to communicate with average Americans, and intellectual skills. He failed to deliver his home state for Romney, losing it by 5 pp.

Romney would have fared better, and perhaps even won, if he had picked a minority member or a woman for VP. Possibilities included Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Susana Martinez (although she didn’t want the job), Bobby Jindal, and Luis Fortuno. Remember: the road of ANY successful presidential candidate runs through Florida.

Luckily, this is one issue on which the GOP is very likely to improve in 2016, because Rubio, Jindal, Fortuno, and Ayotte (and possibly Martinez) will be among the top contenders for the GOP nomination in 2016, and one of them may very well win the nomination and the election.

Another of them could be picked as the VP candidate.

And a Rubio-Jindal, Jindal-Rubio, Jindal-Fortuno, Ayotte-Rubio, or Rubio-Ayotte ticket would change the GOP from the party of old white men to The Party of Conservative Color People and Women.

Indeed, if the GOP nominates Ayotte, Martinez, or another qualified woman, it stands a high chance of making history by being the first party to nominate a woman for President and get her elected.

It is important for Republicans not to waste this opportunity.

In short, Republicans need to stop being the party of old white men and religious wackos, and start being the party of all Americans who support a strong national defense, limited constitutional government, and free markets. And it needs to stop nominating white men for President and Vice President.

The consequences of Barack Obama’s reelection

As everyone knows by now, Obama has been narrowly reelected for a second term. I will not mince words: this is a disaster for the United States, its allies (especially Israel), the Western civilization, and the world at large.

His reelection will bring about disastrous consequences for the US both at home and abroad. Let’s consider what these consequences will be in terms of domestic policy, foreign/defense policy, and politics (including the future of the GOP).

Domestically:

Obama will claim his reelection as a mandate for massive tax hikes and massive new domestic spending, as well as a mandate for anything else he may want to do, e.g. veto any entitlement reform. He will insist on massive tax hikes and veto any attempt to even slightly reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Taxes will rise across the board. Spending will balloon, and America will be buried under a mountain of debt from which it will likely never recover. It will share Greece’s fate.

During the next 4 years, he will also have an opportunity to appoint 4 new SCOTUS judges to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg (aged 79), Antonin Scalia (aged 76), Anthony Kennedy (76), and Stephen Breyer (74). Thus, by replacing them with young liberal jurists, Obama will create a 7-2 liberal supermajority which will sit on the bench for decades, together with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These liberal judges will rubber-stamp Obama’s (and future Democratic presidents’) policies, overturn conservative ones, and change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constutition to one which will suit Obama.

Remember that in 2008 and 2010, in the Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago cases, your God-given right to defend yourself was just one vote away from being consigned to the dustbin of history. It will be gone in a matter of months after Obama appoints Anthony Kennedy’s or Antonin Scalia’s replacement. They are unlikely to remain on the Supreme Court by the end of Obama’s second term, when they both will be 80 years old.

Obama will also continue to block any attempt to develop America’s God-given natural resources. High gasoline prices – and thus, high prices of everything – will become the new normal, as will high unemployment and stagnant economic growth.

Abroad:

Obama and Senate Democrats (who will retain their majority of seats) will insist on sequestration of defense spending going through unless Republicans agree to massive tax hikes. Since there is zero chance of Republicans agreeing to such thing, it means that sequestration will kick in on January 2nd.

Obama will also unilaterally and deeply cut America’s nuclear deterrent, at the same time that Russia and China are growing their arsenals. This means that Russia and China will gain nuclear superiority over the US and thus the ability to blackmail America and its allies with nuclear weapons.

Obama will also forego any plans to deploy ballistic missile defense systems in Europe, as he has already promised to Russian leaders in his “flexibility” remark.

He will also continue to appease Russia, China, Iran, and other enemies of the United States.

Because Obama plans to unilaterally cut America’s nuclear deterrent deeply, this means that other countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, will have to develop their own nuclear weapons. Countries that cannot afford to develop their own nuclear deterrents will have to seek the protection of those who can, and will have to develop multilateral alliances.

And, as America’s military and economic power continue to quickly decline under Obama, all foreign countries, from Britain to South Korea, from Canada to the Philippines, will have to reorient their foreign policy away from Washington and towards Beijing and seek friendly relations with China. The PRC will replace the US as the world’s top military and economic power no later than in the next decade, and probably much sooner than that, so relations with China will be much more important than relations with the US.

Isolationists will rejoice at this prospect. I do not. I love America and I know from facts that the US is the guaranteer of the security of the entire Western civilization and of peace in the world. Without America, the Western civilization will not survive.

Politically:

Obama’s reelection also means huge, negative consequences for the GOP and the conservative movement.

Firstly, Obamacare will not be repealed, and it will become a permanent feature of the American society. You read that right: with Obama and a Democratic Senate majority, Obamacare will never be repealed.

Recall that, in order to make Obamacare look deficit-neutral, the Dems structured it in a way so as to ensure that while the taxes to pay for it kicked in immediately after it was signed into law, the goodies won’t kick in until 2014. When Americans are thrown off their employer-provided insurance policies and forced to rely on the federal government for healthcare, they will fight tooth and nail to keep their “free” healthcare, just like they fight tooth and nail to keep their SS, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. And of course, Obamacare bureaucrats will fight tooth and nail to protect their jobs.

So, because there is no chance of repealing Obamacare within the next 2 years, starting in 2014, Republicans will be running for office promising only to “modernize” Obamacare. And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it “right-wing social engineering”.

Obama will also expand welfare, entitlement, and subsidy programs as well as other federal giveaways. By 2016, or perhaps even by 2016, the takers will outnumber the makers. And when that happens, the Democrats will become a permanent majority and Republicans a permanent minority… unless the GOP becomes the second party of Big Government, fully adopting the Democrats’ policies.

After all, why would the takers vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay, but wants to cut the cornucopia of federal benefits (paid for by someone else) they do enjoy?

There might never again be a Republican president.

Americans have been taught to live at someone else’s expense. This election was the last chance to turn things around and educate the American people that they must start to take responsibility for themselves. That opportunity has now been lost.

Obama and the Dhimmicrats will also claim that Obama’s victory means that conservative policies have been discredited, including socially, fiscally, and defense-conservative policies. They will claim that social and fiscal conservatism have been discredited.

So just as night follows day, you can expect Republicans outside the South to dump the GOP’s socially and fiscally conservative platform plans and to jump on the abortion/gay marriage bandwagon. You can also bet that Republicans will dump Paul Ryan and his brave fiscally-conservative plan to save America from a crushing debt. Do not expect Republicans to ever again offer any conservative policies, including entitlement reform, because entitlements will continue to be considered the third rail of American politics.

Last but not least, you can bet that the fringe of the Republican Party will falsely claim that the Party lost because it nominated a moderate. There is a real risk that in 2016, as a term-limited Obama will have to retire, the Party will nominate a fringe candidate who will lose the election to the next Democrat nominee by a landslide. We have already seen the GOP shoot itself in the foot this way in multiple Senate races in 2010 and this year. If it hadn’t been for the fringe of the party and its candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Kurt Buck, the Dems and Republicans would each have 50 seats in the Senate now. And if it hadn’t been for Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and their supporters, Republicans would’ve likely had 51 Senate seats now, and thus the power to stop or at least slow down Obama’s agenda in both houses of Congress. (Richard Lugar would’ve been a shoo-in for reelection, and had either Steelman or Brunner been the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, Claire McCaskill would’ve been sent packing.)

The fringe of the Republican Party, especially radical Christians (the litmus test Republicans), will not give up, even now, after they cost the GOP 2 Senate election and perhaps helped cost the Party the presidential election. And they will never learn from their mistakes.

In short, Obama’s reelection portends disastrous consequences for America, its allies, the Western civilization, and the world at large (except America’s enemies). There is no silver lining. There is no consolation. Obama’s second term will be nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

Even if Republicans stage a comeback in 2014 and 2016, it will be too late by then.

For more on the disastrous consequences of this year’s election, please read these excellent articles by Peter Ferrara and Robert Stacy McCain:

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/31/election-2012-america-will-nev/

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/07/doomed-beyond-all-hope-of-rede

Rebuttal of Rick Moran’s attack on Republicans

In an AT blogpost of September 22nd, AT Associate Editor Rick Moran wrote this utter garbage:

“Why should the Democrats believe the GOP will hold firm on taxes even if Obama loses? Do they expect the Dems to cave on taxes if Romney wins? They are dreaming if that is the case.

By acknowledging that they will be forced to accede to the Democrat’s demands on taxes – in any case – the Republicans have already lost the post-election battle. Rather than fighting for budget cuts and fiscal sanity, they are going to allow the Democrats to raise taxes and then let them take the extra cash to “invest” in their pet projects.

Deficit reduction? Maybe later the Dems will say. And the GOP will look like the chumps they are.”

What utter garbage!

Let me first say clearly that I oppose tax hikes and that I don’t believe it is wise for Republicans to say before the election (let alone before the bargaining has begun) what they will certainly give ground on. That’s not how they should negotiate. They should keep all of their cards closed until the negotiations begin AFTER the election.

But that being said, let’s be honest: until at least January 2013, the Democrats will control the Senate and the White House. And given current polling, as well as Mitt Romney’s and Todd Akin’s mistakes, it’s more likely than not that they’ll continue to control both the Senate and the Executive Branch after 2012. That being the case, any deficit reduction deal – or any deal to avoid the fiscal cliff, including the automatic tax hikes and the automatic defense cuts set to begin in January 2013 – will have to be acceptable as much for Democrats as for Republicans. It will have to be acceptable for both sides, not merely for Republicans. If anything, the Dems will have to get more out of it than Republicans if the former group wins the November elections.

And if you want to avoid the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and thus to prevent massive tax hikes from becoming law, you will have to give some ground to the Democrats. Likewise, if you want to avoid the massive, destructive defense cuts set to begin in January 2013 (sequestration), you will have to give the Democrats something and compromise with them.

The US Constitution is designed in such way that if both parties control a branch of the federal government, or if control of the Congress is split between the two parties, then, as Glenn Kessler rightly noted last year – neither side can forever insist on nonnegotiable demands.

Which brings me to my last point: the need to avoid sequestration’s massive, destructive defense cuts at all costs. I have written on this need several times, so I’ll just repeat, in brief, the reasons for doing so, as I anticipate that if and when a deal to do so is reached, many libertarians and fiscal-only-conservatives will accuse the GOP of having a “sacred cow” and defending Big Government and “Pentagon spending” at all costs.

So here are, in brief, 6 good reasons to cancel sequestration, even if it means a compromise on taxes:

1) These defense cuts would be destructive and devastating to the military, as confirmed by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, all of the Joint Chiefs, other generals and admirals, retired generals and admirals such as Adm. Edmund Giambastiani and LTG Steven Blum, many veterans’ associations, and independent experts from the Heritage Foundation and the AEI. Sequestration would make such deep cuts in defense spending (real cuts, not mere reductions of the growth rate) that there wouldn’t be nearly enough funding for the troops’ salaries and healthcare programs; for the maintenance of existing equipment and personnel; for the development and acquisition of new equipment; for training (tank miles, ship steaming days, flight hours, training ammunition, etc.), and operations – even flight patrols over the country. The entire ICBM fleet, the next generation bomber and fighter programs, and other crucial equipment programs would have to be killed, the Navy would have fewer than 230 ships, and the USMC would, according to its Assistant Commandant, be too weak to handle “even one major contingency.” For details, see here. So how deeply would base defense spending be cut? To $469 bn in FY2013, down from $535 bn today – and stay way below today’s levels for the foreseeable future, as even by FY2022 it would be barely at $493 bn. War spending would also be cut, as it is not exempt from sequestration.

2) Even under the First Tier of 2011′s debt ceiling deal, defense spending will be cut in real terms, albeit not as deeply as under sequestration. W/o sequestration, it still goes down to $521 bn in FY2013 and doesn’t return to today’s level until FY2019… assuming the Congress makes no further defense cuts. What do such cuts mean for the DOD? Among other things, this:

So cancelling sequestration does not mean letting defense off the hook, just cancelling the deepest and most destructive cuts.

3) Defense is not merely a legitimate government function, it is the HIGHEST Constitutional duty of the Federal Government. The government is Constitutionally OBLIGED to provide for a strong defense. See here, here, and here.

4) The DOD is the ONLY federal agency/program to have contributed anything meaningful to deficit reduction so far. Counting the 50 weapon program closures of 2009 and 2010, the Gates Efficiencies Initiative, and First Tier debt-ceiling-deal-mandated defense cuts (see above), it has already contributed $920 bn to deficit reduction over the next decade. Those who blather nonsense about defense being Republicans’ sacred cow should be forced to point to any other government agency/program that has contributed ANYTHING meaningful to deficit reduction to date. They can’t, because there isn’t any, and defense is not Republicans’ “sacred cow.”

5) Sequestration would disproportionately target defense while leaving entitlement programs almost unscathed. As data given in the Paul Ryan Budget Plan, in Table 1 of Appendix II (on page 96 of the full report), proves, defense would bear far more than half of the burden of the sequester’s budget cuts. The numbers, as the table states, would be as follows:

Category/FY13–-14–-15–-16–17—-18—19–-20—21—22–-TOTAL CUT OVER THE DECADE

Sequester—­‐98 -­‐93 -­‐92 -­‐91 -­‐91 -­‐90 -­‐89 -­‐88 -­‐88 -­‐90 -­‐913
Defense.——55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐56 -­‐551
Non-­‐Def.—­‐43 -­‐38 -­‐38 -­‐37 -­‐36 -­‐36 -­‐35 -­‐33 -­‐33 -­‐34 -­‐362

As these numbers prove, defense would bear far more than half of the spending cuts burden. In the first year (FY2013), it would be 56%; in FY2014, 59%; in FY2015, 59.78%; in FY2016, 60.43%; in FY2017, 60.43%; in FY2018, 61.11%; in FY2019, 61.79%; in FY2020, 62.5%; in FY2021, 62.5%; in FY2022, 61.11%.

In total, defense would be whacked by $551 bn over a decade, while nondefense discretionary spending would be cut by only $362 bn. Thus, the total amount of cuts would be $913 bn, and defense would bear 60.35% of that spending cut burden, i.e. the vast majority.

6) Last but certainly not least, sequestration is not needed to reduce the deficit. In fact, it would fail to make a meaningful difference, cutting only $98 bn out of a $1.3 trillion annual budget deficit. So even WITH sequestration, there will be a $1.202 trillion deficit every year. Even eliminating military spending entirely would not even HALVE the deficit, let alone eliminate it completely – and such puny savings would be eaten up in a few years by rapidly growing entitleent spending, as this Heritage graph proves.

As Paul Ryan’s, the Republican Study Committee’s, Sen. Lee’s, and Sen. Toomey’s budget plans prove, one DOES NOT have to deeply cut defense spending to balance the federal budget. It would be far wiser to follow one of these plans, and thus erase the deficit while funding defense adequately, rather than cut defense deeply, gut the military, and still fail to balance the budget.

So there are VERY good reasons to spare defense from sequestration. It is not a “Big Government” policy; it’s a conservative policy and the right thing to do.

To win in FL and OH, emphasize national security issues

This is not a partisan or campaign blog, and is dedicated strictly to America’s national security issues. Nonetheless, given the importance of these issues (still unappreciated by Republicans) in this presidential race, it is important to ask Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, his running mate Paul Ryan, and other Republicans to emphasize them and show them how to talk about these issues and use them to win Florida and Ohio. This is important because without Florida AND Ohio, Mitt Romney doesn’t stand a ghost’s chance of winning this election (unless he wins Florida, Virginia, and NV, CO, or IA).

But first, do Floridians and Ohioans really care about nat-sec issues? And can most of them be convinced to support Republican policies instead of those of Obama on these issues? The answer to both questions is clearly “yes”. This is demonstrated by a recent poll of Floridians and Ohioans commissioned by SecureAmericaNow, which found, inter alia, that:

• 57.8% of Floridians and 51.9% of Ohioans oppose Obama’s defense budget and military force structure cuts.
• 64% of Floridians and 60% of Ohioans oppose Obama’s plan to cut America’s nuclear arsenal by up to 80%.
•  54.6% of Floridians and 51.4% of Ohioans believe Obama’s policy of talking to the Iranians has only given them more time to work on nuclear weapons.
• 61.2% of Floridians and 58.8% of Ohioans believe an Israeli strike on Iran would benefit “everyone in the world”. 53.7% of Floridians (but only 43.7% of Ohioans) believe the US should support an Israeli strike.
• 67.4% of Floridians and 66.1% of Ohioans believe Obama’s sanctions will fail to convince Iran to forego nuclear weapons.
• In both states, pluralities believe Obama has relied too much on international coalitions and been too soft to the Muslim world.
• 49.1% of Floridians (but only 44.9% of Ohioans) believe Obama’s nat-sec positions are weak.
• 65.2% of Floridians and 60.6% of Ohioans believe Obama has underestimated the economic and security threat posed by China to America.
• Large majorities of Floridians and Ohioans believe that the two most important nat-sec issues facing America are 1) preventing Iran from going nuclear and 2) preventing another terrorist attack. However, 40.7% of Floridians and 43.1% of Ohioans list “preserving US military superiority” among their top two nat-sec issues.
• 71.1% of Floridians and 61.6% of Ohioans are concerned about Obama’s promise of flexibility to Dmitry Medvedev.
• In total, while a slim majority (51.7%) of Ohioans approve of Obama’s handling of nat-sec issues, 44.3% of them do not, and neither do 50.4% of Floridians.

So on almost all of these issues, majorities (in some cases, very large majorities) of Floridians and Ohioans already agree with conservatives/Republicans. That’s a huge group of pro-strong-defense voters to tap into, and a lot of other Floridians and Ohioans are probably swayable to conservative positions if presented with facts.

The companies who conducted the poll, Caddell and Associates and McLaughlin and Associates, concluded in their analysis of it that “It seems very clear that in both Florida and Ohio national security issues could be decisive.”

This is a very important warning which the Romney campaign should heed. Romney has already convinced Americans that he’s better at handling economic issues. Yet, despite this demonstrated ability, and despite America’s difficult and worsening economic situation, he’s still behind Barack Obama in most polls, both nationally and in most swing states, including the most important ones: Florida and Ohio. FL and OH combined have 47 electoral college votes, which means a net swing of 94 EC votes for whoever wins them. That being the case, when economics alone have failed to win Romney the hearts of enough voters, it’s clear that national security issues need to be prioritized. The Washington cognoscenti – the “wise men”, “experts”, and pundits who claimed foreign and defense issues would not matter – were dead wrong, and I was right.

So, to Mitt Romney and his campaign staff: enough of fighting Obama solely on economic issues. You’ve already tried it and it has failed. Only national security issues can put Romney over the top.

So what exactly should Romney say, and on what issues? Here’s a partial list.

On Obama’s defense cuts, he needs to remind voters that not only has he scheduled 487 bn in cuts over the next decade (which, by itself, will weaken the military and hurt readiness, as explained in more detail here and in the following graph), he’s also directly responsible for sequestration. As Bob Woodward’s newest book proves, it was Obama who demanded that a deep sequestration of defense spending be included in 2011′s debt ceiling deal to blackmail Republicans and force them into choosing between deep defense cuts and massive tax hikes, knowing full well Republicans hate both. He also needs to explain how deep and disproportionate the sequester’s defense budget cuts would be and why they would be disastrous. He also needs to dispel widely-held myths about defense spending, such as the myth that it’s Republicans sacred cow.

Regarding Obama’s New START treaty and plan to cut America’s nuclear arsenal even more deeply, Romney needs to show how damaging to national security and how one-sided (in Russia’s favor) New START is, why further nuclear deterrent cuts would be disastrous, and why the whole idea of nuclear disarmament and arms control is fundamentally flawed and foolish. (Under New START, only the US is obliged to cut its nuclear arsenal; Russia is allowed to increase its, has done so, and continues to do so to; its stated goal is to build it up to New START limits, which it was below when the treaty was signed. I repeat: Russia is not cutting its nuclear arsenal at all.)

On Iran, Romney needs to underline that many years of talks with Iran by both the Bush and the Obama administration have failed utterly, that they’ve only given Iran more time to enrich uranium, and that the weak “sanctions” Obama has implemented, with loopholes so large you could drive a truck through them, have also utterly failed and striking Iran appears now to be the only solution.

On Cuba, Romney should pledge to tighten anti-Castro sanctions, which Obama has loosened, and refuse to deal or meet with the Cuban regime until it frees all political prisoners and holds free and fair elections.

On China, Romney needs to point out that:

• China is cheating on trade on such a scale that America’s huge trade deficit with that country has cost America at least 2.7 mn jobs in the last decade.
• The Chinese military is not obsolete, has already caught up with America in most categories of capabilities and weapons, and is developing two 5th generation stealthy fighters while Obama has killed the F-22 and cut back on purchases of the F-35. Further defense cuts will make the US military inferior to the PLA.
• China’s military is rapidly modernizing, does not intend to stop modernizing, and its vast military buildup has long ago exceeded legitimate self-defense requirements.
• China’s military spending is far higher than often reported or widely believed. According to the latest DOD report on the PLA, its annual budget, contrary to China’s and its sympathizers’ claims, is at least $160 bn and up to $250 bn. And if you factor purchasing power parity differences, that number must be multiplied by at least 3, giving you a budget of $480-$750 bn.
• China considers America its enemy, and its leaders, military and civilian, are implacably hostile to the US, especially its hawkish generals like Xu Caihou.
• Chinese military leaders believe that “the US is not strong enough to help Japan.” When America’s enemies believe the US is not strong enough to help its allies, war and death are guaranteed. The ONLY thing that can deter them is a strong, unrivalled US military. But America cannot have such a military if currently scheduled cuts, including sequestration, proceed.

On Israel, Romney needs to remind voters how contemptously Obama has treated Benjamin Netanyahu and that the Obama Admin, instead of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program, is busy trying to dissuade and prevent Israel from stopping that program; and that as President, Obama has never visited Israel. Romney should also pledge to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Romney and his staffers need to read and heed the above advice now. Just 40 days remain before the election.

http://www.secureamericanow.org/pdfs/SANow-09-18-12-RELEASE-MEMO-WITH-TABLES.pdf

Rebuttal of POLITICO’s and the Dems’ lies about Ryan and Obama’s FP record

Because Mitt Romney’s VP choice, Paul Ryan, is a budgetary affairs wonk rather than a foreign policy veteran, and because Romney himself is a former CEO and Governor, the leftist Politico magazine is now falsely claiming that the Democrats and President Obama now have an “edge” or an “advantage” on defense and foreign policy issues. Politico even tries to make Obama’s ridiculously thin pre-presidential resume look like that of a foreign policy expert, by hailing the bills on “threat reduction” and “nuclear weapons” that he authored as a (half-term) Senator and his supposed decision to kill OBL.

This is utter garbage.

The reality is that Obama’s entire foreign policy is an utter failure, and that as a half-term Senator, Obama accomplished… absolutely nothing.

Sure, he introduced a lot of bills on the subjects Politico listed, but how many of those bills got passed? None. Any Senator can introduce any number of bills, but getting them passed and signed into law, or at least reported out of committee, is an entirely different task. How many bills sponsored by Obama got passed, and how important were they? That’s something that Politico avoids discussing.

Similarly, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced 200 bills since coming to the Senate, but not one of them has become law.

As for “threat reduction”, what threat did Obama try to reduce? Oh, that would be the grave, dastardly threat of America’s own nuclear weapons! Oh, what a dastardly threat… wait, it’s actually the US military’s most valuable asset and America’s life insurance!

As for OBL, the claim that Obama gave the order to kill him has been disproven over and over again, yet, the Left continues to rehash this lie like many others. It’s a lie; Obama never gave any order to kill OBL. In fact, under Valerie Jarrett’s influence, he continually denied Leon Panetta and the SOCOM the authorization to kill the Al-Qaeda leader. Panetta and JSOC commander Adm. William McRaven eventually decided to act on their own while Obama was playing golf. They acted with Obama’s and Jarrett’s consent or knowledge; Clinton and Gates assured them that they would protect them if the mission failed.

And remember that photo of Obama supposedly sitting in the Situation Room and watching the mission? It’s a forgery. Notice that Obama looks like a pygmy in it. In reality, Obama is over 6 feet tall.

As for Joe Biden, on the world stage, he has been an embarrassment for Obama, and as Senator, he accomplished nothing, like Obama, except that Biden had been in the Senate far longer than Obama and therefore had much more time to achieve something than Obama… and still didn’t.

And neither of them have served in the military, even though the draft was still in effect while Biden was 18-21.

Now, of course, neither Romney nor Ryan have served in the military, either.

But Paul Ryan, as an economist, budget expert, and House Budget Committee Chairman has put his skills where they are of most use, and by so doing, he has done the Nation a great service on defense issues in two ways.

Firstly, he has drafted, and secured the House passage of, a bill to cancel the first year of sequestration (the Sequester Reconciliation Act) and his comprehensive budget plan (the Path for Prosperity, AKA the Ryan Plan), which would fully provide for America’s national defense, honor America’s commitments to its troops and veterans, and permanently stave off the threat of sequestration while still saving taxpayers over 3 times more money than defense sequestration would, in nondefense programs which, unlike defense, have swelled during the Obama years. (Defense has grown from $513 bn in FY2009 to $531 bn today, while domestic discretionary spending has splurged since FY2009, and indeed, since FY2001.) And sequestration is unquestionably the number one threat to America’s national security today. Few people have done as much to stave off that threat and to provide adequately for national defense as he has.

Secondly, in parallel, Paul Ryan has nicely explained, in spoken words and in writing, why exactly is it necessary to provide adequately for national defense, even in tough economic times, instead of using the defense budget as a scapegoat for America’s fiscal problems (which it did not cause) and gutting defense, which is politically the easiest thing to do. Few people have made that case as well and as eloquently as he has.

But there’s more: Paul Ryan has actually laid out his foreign policy vision some time ago, during a speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society. Jamie Weinstein has nicely summed it up, and has backed it up with quotes from the speech, here.

Moreover, as AEI Vice President Danielle Pletka (who has known Ryan since the 1990s, when he worked for then-KS Senator Sam Brownback) says: “What makes a foreign policy leader is judgment and an understanding of America’s role in the world, not frequent flyer status. He knows the issues, and brings the same thoughtfulness to national security that he does to all the other issues that he covers on the Hill.”

AEI’s Michael Rubin adds that “instinct matters just as much as experience”, and that “Joe Biden, for example, could brag about foreign policy experience, but he was still the laughing stock of Baghdad and Kabul, and Tehran’s favorite senator.”

Indeed, Ronald Reagan, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, had no real foreign policy experience before becoming President, yet he was undeniably one of the greatest US Presidents, and one of the most competent stewards of US foreign policy, ever.

Of course, as Politico rightly admits, American voters’ top issues are overwhelmingly economic affairs (economic growth, unemployment, the federal budget deficit, the federal debt, etc.), and Mitt Romney prioritizes these, in line with the voters’ wishes. And economic issues constitute Mitt Romney’s forte.

But it is completely incorrect to claim  that Romney, by choosing Ryan and prioritizing the economy, is neglecting national security issues. And it is completely wrong and utterly dishonest to claim, as one “Truman National Security Project” political hack by the name of David Solimini (its spokesman) has, that:

““Mitt Romney had the chance to show the American people he took national security seriously with his choice of vice resident [sic]. Instead, he chose Paul Ryan, who has no national security experience. Worse, Ryan has shown time and again that he is willing to cut essential national security priorities in order to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

Leaving aside the lie that Paul Ryan wants to “protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires”, this is a blatant lie. Paul Ryan – as Politico itself has admitted – has actually fought hard to provide adequate funding for defense and to stave off sequestration by making (deeper) spending cuts elsewhere, including the Department of State (whose budget has more than doubled since Obama took office without more accountability from the Foggy Bottom) and bloated welfare programs that cost almost a trillion dollars per year. Yet, even Politico could not abstain from lying about defense spending, falsely claiming that:

“Although Romney rarely talks about it on the campaign trail, he supports devoting a minimum of 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product to the DOD budget – meaning a spike worth billions of dollars. He and GOP allies, including Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, who also spoke in Norfolk on Saturday, say Obama is “dismantling” the armed forces, and blame the president for the looming threat of $500 billion in DOD budget restrictions set to take effect Jan 2.“

Actually, devoting 4% of GDP to the DOD would mean a (very slight) DECREASE, because the current( FY2012) DOD budget, which is $645 bn, amounts to 4.218% of America’s GDP (which is $15.29 trillion according to the CIA World Factbook). And yes, Obama IS to blame for the looming threat of the indiscriminate $550 bn defense cuts set to kick in on January 2nd (on top of the $487 bn in defense cuts already mandated by the BCA and on top of all defense cuts previously implemented and scheduled), because HE demanded them. HE demanded of the DOD to make another $400 bn in cuts on April 13th, 2011 – long before there was any talk of raising the debt ceiling and negotations on the subject – and HE is the one who demanded deep defense cuts during debt ceiling deal negotiations in order to protect his beloved socialist domestic programs. You can read more about that in this fact sheet, which uses nothing but Obama’s OWN WORDS as proof.

His previous defense cuts have killed over 50 crucial weapon programs and brought about the New START treaty, which obligates the US – and only the US (not Russia) – to make deep cuts in its nuclear arsenal. He’s now implementing First Tier BCA-mandated cuts by, inter alia, prematurely retiring seven youngest Tico class cruisers (including the single youngest, Port Royal), 2 amphib ships, hundreds of attack, fighter, tactical and strategic airlift, and ISR drone aircraft, delaying the SSBNX and F-35 programs, cutting orders for the V-22 and P-8, deeply cutting ship orders, and cutting the Navy’s shipbuilding plan so badly that by the 2020s and the 2030s huge gaps in the cruiser/destroyer and submarine fleets will open.

And, as Randy Forbes has pointed out, retiring those 7 young Tomahawk-launch-capable cruisers (each of which has 122 VLS cells) is worse than scrapping the entire surface combatant fleet of the British Royal Navy.

Even worse, Obama threatens to veto ANY fix to sequestration that does not involve massive tax hikes on “the wealthiest Americans”, i.e. holding the US military hostage to his own class warfare ideological blinders and threats and threatening to execute the hostage.

And now, by its own admission, the Obama Admin, blinded by their ideological drive for arms control for its own sake and for disarming the US of nuclear weapons, is seeking deep, unilateral nuclear arsenal cuts, which would leave the US at the Russians’ and the Chinese’ mercy.

So yes, Obama is quite literally dismantling the US military. And America cannot survive this.

And yes, Paul Ryan IS an excellent choice from a defense conservative’s standpoint.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79621_Page2.html; http://freebeacon.com/arms-control-mania/