Rand Paul is a total fraud, a RINO, and a leftist libertarian

There appears to be a consensus on the Right that former Congressman Ron Paul (RINO-TX) is a leftist libertarian nut, a fruitcake, and a man totally unfit for public office. That consensus cost him three presidential elections in which he failed to win a single state (thus losing in all 50 states 3 times each): in 1988, 2008, and 2012.

However, many of my fellow right-wingers, including some of my good friends, are for some reason infatuated with his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and are open to voting for him if he runs for President. They have been fooled by him and the pseudoconservative media, and delude themselves, that Rand Paul is more reasonable, saner, and less extremist in his libertarian beliefs than his father.

This is the result of careful media efforts by Rand Paul himself and his staffers. Rand Paul, who apparently wants to be elected President someday, understood early on that to win, he’d need to get the votes of conservatives, and to receive them, he’d have to moderate his image.

But he also understood that he would not have to change the substance of his views and the policies he supports – merely the way he advocates them. In other words, he would have to soften only his style, not the substance. Only the rhetoric, not the policies themselves.

Compared to his loathsome father, he has changed only the style, not the substance.

The only difference is the STYLE, not the SUBSTANCE. His father was a wolf in wolf’s clothing; Rand is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Let’s look at what he has actually done and said.

Rand Paul, the defense weakling

Rand Paul, like his father, supports massive defense cuts. The difference between him and his father is that he pretends to support a strong defense – while supporting deep budgetary cuts.

He claims he’s for a strong defense, but he supports sequestration and possibly even deeper defense cuts. Sequestration, as I have already documented, means cutting $46 bn from the base defense budget in FY2013 alone, and $55 bn in every successive FY through FY2022. It means cutting the base defense budget from $525 bn pre-sequestration to $469 bn in FY2013 post-sequestration (while the OCO/war budget is also being cut significantly) and keeping it down for the remainder of the sequestration decade (if not longer). By FY2022, a decade from now, the defense budget will still be at a low, pathetic $493 bn – $32 bn LOWER than two weeks ago (before sequestration).

And under sequestration, the DOD has NO latitude whatsoever about to where to make the cuts. The House and the Senate originally planned to give the DOD that latitude, but the Senate has now backtracked on that plan.

But Rand Paul doesn’t merely support the sequester. He thinks that not only should the sequester be kept, but that defense spending should be cut even further.

Simoultaneously, Paul has been spreading utterly false garbage propaganda from leftist libertarians (such as Veronique de Rugy and CATO Institute propagandists) claiming that sequestration would be a mere cut in the rate of growth of defense spending and not a real defense spending cut. But, as I have proven above, and many times on my blog, sequestration is not a mere cut in the rate of growth of defense spending; it is a REAL, DEEP, IMMEDIATE, and PERMANENT cut in defense spending.

He has also falsely claimed that defense spending has increased by 137% (when it has actually increased only by 67% since FY2001, has declined since its peak in FY2010, and that includes GWOT spending) and made other false claims about defense spending.

So not only does he support deep defense cuts, in concert with his CATO Institute buddies, he also spreads utterly false propaganda about US defense spending, thus misleading the public. A liar cannot and must not be entrusted with public office.

Rand preaches the Constitution, but doesn’t respect it himself

Rand Paul likes to lecture others about the need to respect the Constitution and says that “the Constitution should be our guide.” But he doesn’t respect it himself. Like all other politicians in Washington, DC, he has his pet issues and is willing to set his principles and the Constitution aside for the sake of these pet issues.

For example, he supports the National Right to Work bill, which, if passed, would overturn all state laws on the subject of employment and unionization (or the lack thereof) and mandate the right to work by federal statute. This would not only violate the 10th Amendment and state laws on the matter, it would also take away a key competitive advantage of conservative states (like Texas, Virginia, and Florida) away from them.

He also supports a federal ban on abortion, again disrespecting the Constitution, which reserves this issue (and millions of other issues) to the states. Don’t get me wrong: I’m firmly pro-life. But I believe in the Constitution first and foremost. And the Constitution reserves all issues not explicitly assigned to the federal government to the states. The federal government has no power to ban abortion, just like it doesn’t have any power to legalize it. The issue is up to the states to decide.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is not so much that it legalized abortion as that it took away the states’ right to settle this issue. The genius of the Constitution is that it reserves virtually all contentious issues (other than questions of war and peace) to state and local governments, thus allowing each state and each city/town to decide how to settle this issue in line with the wishes of their respective citizens. Thus, all states and their citizens can live in peace, because each state can settle an issue in line with what its citizens want, regardless of what other states or the federal government think.

Before Roe, there were 50 different state laws. The US still has 50 different state laws on issues such as marriage, road safety, drivers’ licensing, employment, construction, etc. And that is as it’s supposed to be.

Yet, Rand Paul wants to take away states’ rights to settle issues reserved to them as they see fit. He wants to set the federal government up as a policeman over the states. This is the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted.

Rand Paul and the Balanced Budget Amendment

But even that affront to the Constitution, to states’ rights, and to the people’s right to settle issues as they see fit is dwarfed by Sen. Paul’s (and all other GOP Senators’) endorsement of the Balanced Budget Amendment, which, if ratified (God forbid), would forever end the Constitutional limitations on the federal government.

As my fellow conservative blogger Publius Huldah has documented, the Constitution currently authorizes only a federal government of very limited, strictly enumerated powers. Accordingly, most annual federal spending (75% according to my analysis) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

But, as PH also documents, the BBA would transform the federal government into one of general, unlimited powers. It would legalize the current, illegal federal Leviathan forever. It would authorize the feds to spend money on anything they want – as long as their annual spending doesn’t exceed 20% of America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

And what is GDP? It’s a computation produced by the Department of Commerce, an agency controlled by the President. In other words, the President would determine the basis on which to assess whether federal spending exceeds the BBA’s limit of 20% of GDP. (Under the BBA, the President would also write the budget, including determining both taxes and spending – powers reserved strictly to the Congress. Goodbye, Congressional power of the purse.)

So the BBA would change the Constitution beyond recognition – from one authorizing a limited government of enumerated powers to one authorizing an unlimited federal Leviathan of unlimited, general powers, and from one reserving the power of the purse (i.e. authority on taxes and spending) STRICTLY to the Congress to one delegating that authority to the President – the figure about whose accumulation of power Sen. Paul pretends to be concerned about. He thinks it’s wrong for the President to kill you with a drone or to detain you indefinitely, but it’s OK to give the President the power to tax you to death and to spend your money as he sees fit.

This is the scam that Sen. Paul supports – as do all other GOP Senators.

“Containing” a nuclear Iran

Sen. Paul also supports a policy of “containment” towards a nuclear Iran and adamantly opposes any notion of a preemptive strike on Iran, any talk about it, and even voted against a resolution merely stating the sense of Congress that a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable, falsely claiming that it was a blank check for war with Iran and an endorsement of the concept of preemptive war.

His claim is utterly false – the Senate was merely disapproving the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran – and voting for it was not an endorsement of war with Iran (preemptive or otherwise), let alone of the concept of preemptive war in general. Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran, if it were to become a reality, could not be “contained” – it would spark a regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as other countries in that region – especially in the Gulf, where ballistic missile flight times are measured in single minutes – would race to develop their own nuclear arsenals. CENTCOM commander, Gen. James Mattis, has recently confirmed in a Congressional testimony that at least one Middle Eastern country has indicated to him that it would develop its own nuclear weapons if Iran goes nuclear.

In general, Rand Paul is hopelessly naive: he talks about “containing” Radical Islam, which, being Islam, cannot be contained: its goal is the conquest of the whole world. Islam divides the world into “Dar al-Islam” (“the House of Islam”), where Sharia already reigns supreme, and “Dar al-Harb” (“The House of War”), where Islam does not yet prevail, and commands its followers to wage a holy war (“jihad”) upon the “House of War” until it is subjugated to Islam.

Any person claiming that Radical Islam, or a nuclear-armed Iran, could be “contained” is hopelessly naive, if not worse.

A change in style, not in substance

It is surprising and astonishing how many conservatives Rand Paul has managed to fool. Make no mistake, he professes the SAME libertarian, anti-American, pro-weak-defense views as his father Ron Paul. The only thing that’s changed in comparison is the style, not the substance.

Ron Paul was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rand Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Conservatives must not be fooled by this pseudoconservative imposter. The GOP’s future depends on it.

And in general, conservatives must beware this libertarian tactic of trying to gain conservatives’ trust by agreeing with us on 95% of the issues so that we’ll overlook the other 5%. The 5% that counts most.

I, Zbigniew Mazurak, like everyone else, have some personal flaws. But all of them can be overlooked with just a little good will. But if I were to sell drugs to schoolchildren, that could NOT be overlooked. That would be a friendship breaker.

Similarly, Rand Paul’s and other libertarians’ advocacy of deep defense cuts, isolationism, a federal policeman over the states, and of the Balanced Budget Amendment cannot be overlooked. It MUST be a disqualifier.

No one should be fooled by Rand Paul.

Postscript: Libertarians, of course, wish for Rand Paul to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and the White House, a goal that his father never even came close to accomplishing. But while Rand Paul may win the nomination, he will certainly fail to win the White House. There is NO Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 (or 2020). (Although part of me would like to see Rand Paul be nominated and then crushed by Hillary so that he and his libertarian fans would at least be taught a lesson.)

The RINOs who voted for cloture on Hagel must be primaried

By the time of this writing (Feb. 22nd), several RINO Senators – Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John McCain-Feingold of Arizona, Lindsey Gramnesty of South Carolina, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, intend to vote for cloture (i.e. breaking the filibuster) on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for SECDEF, thus allowing it to proceed to the floor, where it is sure to pass as the Democrats have 55 votes.

If these RINO traitors vote for cloture and thus vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel along party lines (which, BTW, would be a first for a SECDEF nominee), we must vote them out of office. All of them. No ifs, no buts.

We must primary all of them (including the pseudo-conservative Deb Fischer) and, if they somehow survive the primary, support their general election opponents.

No forgiveness, no ifs or buts, and no get-outta-jail-free-cards for McCain.

But first: why should Hagel’s nomination be filibustered?

As myself and many other conservative writers have chronicled in great detail over the past several weeks, Chuck Hagel is a strident leftist (despite being a nominal Republican) who is implacably hostile to Israel (and to Jews in general), friendly to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (which has endorsed him), supports the gutting of America’s defense and deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, and is totally unqualified to be SECDEF due to his lack of high-level executive experience, ignorance of defense issues, and inability to perform well even before the Senate (as his confirmation hearing proved).

And yet, despite all of these facts, and despite more Americans opposing than supporting Hagel, Senate Democrats, pressured by the Obama Administration, are marching in partisan lockstep with each other and with the White House and all intend to vote to confirm Hagel.

And they have 55 seats in the Senate – enough to confirm Hagel.

Make no mistake: if the filibuster is ended (i.e. if cloture is invoked) on Hagel’s nomination, the Dems will be able to confirm him along party lines with their 55 votes.

A vote to end the filibuster (i.e. invote cloture) on Hagel’s nomination is therefore a vote to confirm Hagel as SECDEF. There is no material difference between the two.

Those Republicans who intend to vote to end the filibuster thus essentially plan to vote to allow the Democrats to confirm Hagel.

These Republican traitors must NOT be allowed to hide behind a meaningless final, nominal vote against Hagel’s confirmation, when it will be too late to stop his nomination as the Democrats have the votes to confirm him.

Make no mistake: a vote to invoke cloture on Hagel is a vote to confirm Hagel.

So what can we do?

Niceties won’t work with these worthless RINOs. Nor will reason and facts. They are immune to reason and facts.

The only thing they understand and fear is a credible threat of losing their seats – because the only thing Washington politicians – including newcomers – care about is getting reelected. And if a credible threat to vote them out of office is made, they usually DO really start voting against Democratic proposals.

So you MUST call or write to both of your Senators (especially if one of your Senators is one of the worthless RINOs listed above, i.e. if you live in Arizona, SC, Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Maine, or Mississippi) and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination, and that you will not be fooled by a meaningless final vote against Hagel’s confirmation when it will already be a done deal.

Tell them that if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel, you will wholeheartedly support primary challengers against them and if they somehow survive their primaries you will support their general election opponents.

And if these worthless RINOs nonetheless ignore this warning, we must follow it through and throw each one of them out of the Senate. No ifs, no buts.

Johanns is retiring in 2014, so we can’t hold him accountable, but we can hold the rest of these RINOs accountable.

Worthless RINO Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Bush-Tax-Cuts-For-The-Rich-Cap-And-Trade-My-Good-Friend-Ted-Kennedy’s-Amnesty-John-McCain-Feingold must be voted out of office, no matter what the National Establishment Review says. We must support whoever his primary challenger will be, and if he somehow survives the primary, we must support his general election opponent. By 2016, Republicans should have a secure Senate majority, so if need be, we can afford to sacrifice this one seat.

The same must also apply to all other RINOs listed above. McCain and Murkowski are up for reelection in 2016. But Lindsey Gramnasty and Susan Collins are up for reelection next year. Not in 2016, not in 2018, but next year – in 2014!

We must make it unmistakably clear to them that BOTH of them (and the other RINOs listed above) will be voted out of office if they vote to invoke cloture on Hagel.

Already, there is talk about primarying Gramnasty, and his endorsement of the McCain-Schumer amnesty proposal will certainly not endear him anyone. We must join hands with those who oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (among whom I count myself) to oust Gramnasty and McCain out of office.

And remember: with the sole exception of Maine, all of the states which these RINOs represent are solidly-red, Republican states. It is totally unacceptable that these states are represented by RINOs. Whoever wins the Republican nomination there – unless it’s a Todd Akin clone – should be able to easily win the general election there as well. This is not Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Delaware that we’re talking about, this is the red-hot states of Arizona, South Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, Alaska, and Alabama.

Politicians must be held accountable for EVERY vote they cast. And the only way to hold them accountable is to vote them out of office. Which is what must happen to the worthless RINOs listed above.

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.

Republicans have forgotten nothing and learned nothing

The upcoming 2014 midterm elections should be a golden opportunity for Republicans to win back the Senate (while retaining the House) and thus creating a momentum on which to capitalize as they try to retake the White House in 2016. But not if the Tea Party and the Club for Growth have anything to say about it.

In theory, everything should go Republicans’ way. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats – sometimes big time – in midterm elections, and in 7-8 winnable states Democratic incumbents are either retiring (Harkin in IA, Rockefeller in WV, possibly Johnson in SD), running in red states (AK, LA, AR), or underfunded (NH). There are also other potential, though less feasible, pickups (e.g. OR and MT). Also, the economy shows no sign of recovering, will almost certainly not recover as long as Obama is in office, and Obama has veered far to the left. By any standard, this should be an easy election for Republicans to win.

But it won’t be, because extremist Republicans and the fringe of the conservative movement, including the Club For Growth of the Democratic Caucus, have decided to fire their arrows at good, mainstream conservatives and moderate Republicans instead of the real enemy (the Democrats).

The party and the country will both pay a heavy price if these extremists succeed.

We’ve seen this happen several times already. In 2010, when most Americans were angry at Obama and the oversized Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Tea Party and the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus still managed to throw away several winnable Senate seats by supporting extremist against mainstream Republicans in states like Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado. They gave the GOP doomed-to-lose candidates: Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Ken Buck.

In 2012, winning back the Senate was going to be more difficult than in a midterm year, given that Obama was on the ballot and many Democrats rode his coattails. Still, Republicans had a chance, given that they were only 4 seats shy of a majority.

Yet, Republicans lost badly. On net, instead of winning seats, they actually lost two, growing the Democratic caucus to 55 members. This was primarily due to extremists like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both of whom were supported by the Tea Party and both of whom threw away otherwise perfectly winnable seats. Richard Lugar, who would’ve otherwise been a shoo-in for reelection, was defeated in a primary. In Missouri, Todd Akin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his mouth about abortion and rape and saved Claire McCaskill, who would’ve otherwise been easily defeated.

Their idiocy not only cost them their races, but also cost other Republicans theirs, because their Democratic opponents reminded the voters that however nice Scott Brown, Tommy Thompson, and George Allen were, they were members of the party of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

Those disasters should’ve been a wakeup call that Republicans must, from now on, nominate only electable – THE most electable – candidates and avoid bloody primary battles.

But it’s clear that Republicans, like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. And pseudoconservative publications like the American Spectator continue to fool Republicans into thinking that the reason Republicans lost was because they weren’t “conservative enough” and that “conservatism” and “communicating the message better” will suffice to win future elections. But that’s jut an easy, lame excuse for avoiding the unpleasant fact that the voters simply rejected you.

And so, fooled by the likes of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Lord of AmSpec, and Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ, Republicans continue to delude themselves and to oppose the only candidates who stand a chance of winning future elections. And that puts their chance of winning back the Senate and retaining the House in grave peril.

In West Virginia, the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus opposes mainstream moderate conservative Shelley Capito, as if she were a Massachusetts liberal. In Georgia, extremists have just forced incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss – a solid across-the-board fiscal, defense, and social conservative – to retire under the threat of a primary challenge. And who’s the favorite for the GOP nomination? Rep. Paul Broun, a Todd Akin clone who believes that the evolution theory – proven scientifically over and over again – is a lie “from the pits of hell”.

In Iowa, likewise, extremists have given incumbent Rep. Steve King – who has never won anything beyond his solidly red district – the upper hand in the race against solid conservative (but not extremist) Tom Latham, who is being smeared with gossip that he’s “close to Speaker John Boehner” – a toxic name among Republicans. In Louisiana, former Rep. Jeff Landry may win the nomination, although thankfully in the Bayou State, the most electable candidate, Rep. Bill Cassidy, is also the favorite to win the nomination.

So in at least four states, extremists are already at work to deny the nomination to the most electable candidates, even though all of them are mainstream conservatives and haven’t done anything egregious to deserve a primary challenge. This is more than enough to deny the GOP a Senate majority for the third time in a row. In the worst case, the GOP could lose seats again.

On a positive note, popular former SD Gov. Mike Rounds has an at least 50% chance of winning in his state – whether Tim Johnson runs for reelection or not – and in Arkansas, Republicans have a deep bench, although it remains to be seen if the strongest GOP candidate, Rep. Tom Cotton, runs for the Senate here. If he does, he’ll likely win. And in Alaska, disastrous 2010 candidate Joe Miller can’t find enough supporters even in his own party, so the GOP should defeat Mark Begich (D-AK), especially if he fails to block the move of a fighter wing out of Eielson AFB.

Republicans also have a pickup opportunity in NH, because incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen has raised only a pathetic $300,000 for reelection. A well-funded Republican challenger who doesn’t have to undergo a bloodying primary battle would be a strong candidate.

But Republicans can win the Senate back only if everything goes their way. That means no protracted, bloodying, divisive primary battles (they only help Democrats) and no more unelectable, fringe candidates.

No more Sharron Angles. No more Christine O’Donnells. No more Ken Bucks. No more Todd Akins. No more Richard Mourdocks. No more Paul Brouns. No more Steve Kings.

Republicans can win the Senate back in 2014 – but ONLY if they keep the Tea Party and the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus at bay.

Folks, let’s focus on the REAL enemy: the Democrats.

Rebuttal of the DOD’s lies in defense of Chuck Hagel

Proving that the once-conservative DOD is now firmly controlled and run by pacifists wishing to disarm the US in concert with their fellow pacifists at the State Department, the Obama DOD has released a pamphlet of blatant lies intended to make Obama SECDEF nominee Chuck Hagel look good. The pamphlet attacks what it calls 7 “myths” about Chuck Hagel and invokes what it falsely claims are “facts”, but which are actually blatant lies.

On America’s nuclear deterrent – which Hagel would like to do away with (and could, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense), the DOD falsely claims that Hagel is committed to retaining a nuclear deterrent “as long as nuclear weapons exist”, but at the same time shares Barack Obama’s “goal of a world without nuclear weapons”.

Leaving aside the fact that such a world will never exist, that the world is currently going in the exactly opposite direction (with more countries joining the nuclear club), and that nuclear disarmament is undesirable (the risk of war between great powers will be much higher without nuclear weapons being there to restrain them), the fact is that Hagel is NOT committed to maintaining a nuclear deterrent: He’s virulently opposed to it.

Chuck Hagel is a board member of two extremely leftist, pacifist organizations seeking deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal: Global Zero and the Ploughshares Fund. Both seek to disarm the US unilaterally while claiming to seek universal nuclear disarmament. Both also grossly overstate the cost of America’s nuclear deterrent. Ploughshares also pays millions to media outlets each year to slant their stories in favor of unilateral arms cuts and against America’s nuclear deterrent (the NPR has been particularly biased in that, and receives $5 mn per year from Ploughshares) and virulently opposes any military action against Iran.

Global Zero has, for its part, released a “report” co-authored by Hagel which calls for deep UNILATERAL cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, including the elimination of all US ICBMs, deep cuts in the bomber and ballistic missile submarine fleets, scrapping all US cruise missiles, and scrapping America’s tactical nuclear weapons.

This would be the deepest cut ever in America’s deterrent, bringing it down to only 450 “active” and 450 inactive warheads, and Global Zero wants the US to be unable to use even the “active” warheads until 72 hours after an enemy strike on the US.

This – as experts such as Dr Keith Payne and Rebeccah Heinrichs have pointed out – would dramatically reduce the number of targets America’s enemies would need to destroy in a first strike, from 455 to just 5: 3 above-ground bomber and 2 submarine bases, plus the few SSBNs that Global Zero’s plan would allow America to retain.

This would be a recipe for and a guarantee of a Russian or even Chinese nuclear first strike, as they’d have only 5 targets to retain. Moreover, an arsenal of only 450 warheads would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority, or even any significant share, of Russian or Chinese military assets at risk, meaning such a tiny “deterrent” would be ineffective and wouldn’t be a deterrent at all.

And Hagel signed the plan calling for such an ineffective pseudo-deterrent. (It was sensibly and promptly rejected by USAF and Strategic Command leaders.)

To be effective, a nuclear deterrent must be large – to be survivable as well as to hold the vast majority of enemy assets at risk, thus guaranteeing that he’d pay an unacceptably high price for any aggression. But Hagel doesn’t understand that.

So contrary to the DOD’s lies, Hagel does NOT support the nuclear deterrent – he supports gutting it. (Of course, the DOD is silent on Hagel’s support for that plan.)

On the defense budget, the DOD again tries to have it both ways: claiming that Hagel doesn’t want to cut the defense budget too deeply but also that the DOD „must do its part” in cutting the budget deficit.

But the DOD has already done more than its part in addressing that problem: it has already contributed over 900 bn to deficit reduction, while no other federal agency has contributed ANYTHING towards that goal. And that’s without counting sequestration.

Besides, Hagel doesn’t just want the DOD to „do its part”: he wants to deeply cut its budget for ideological reasons. He has also falsely claimed that it’s „bloated”, when it’s not: it amounts to only 4.2% of America’s GDP, less than 18% of the total federal budget, and is quite modest considering the gravity and wide array of military threats America is confronting: from a rapidly building-up and modernizing China whose military already has a lot of modern, lethal weapons, to a Russia that retains a huge nuclear and conventional arsenal and is run by an anti-American KGB thug, to a nuclear- and ICBM-armed North Korea, to an Iran racing towards nuclear weapons, to various terrorist organizations.

To cut the defense budget under such circumstances would be pure folly.

On Israel, the DOD conveniently cherry-picked the facts, while completely omitting Hagel’s virulently anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic statements, such as „the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”, „let the Jews pay for it” (the USO facility in Haifa), etc., as well as his calls for US to directly negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah, thus belying the DOD’s claim that Hagel has been tough on these terrorist organizations.

In fact, Hagel was one of only 12 US Senators to refuse signing a letter calling on the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

On Iran, the DOD conveniently omitted Hagel’s vote AGAINST designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist group while calling for direct talks with Iran and ardently opposing any military option WRT Tehran, claiming that it’s „not a viable or responsible option.”

Last but not least, Hagel completely lacks the experience and qualifications necessary to be SECDEF. Again, the DOD has lied to make him look good. Hagel has never run any large business, university, government agency (being deputy administrator of VA doesn’t cut it),  or any military unit. His ability to act as the DOD’s CEO is completely untested.

So the DOD’s „facts” in defense of Chuck Hagel are all blatant lies. Contrary to Hagel’s defenders’ claims, no one is „smearing” Hagel – we, his critics, are merely using his own words and actions to show people who he really is. Hagel is his own worst enemy. He has no one but himself to blame for the criticism he’s receiving. No one ordered him to support a treasonous unilateral disarmament plan, call for appeasing terrorist groups and regimes, insult Israel and the Jews, or call for deep defense budget cuts at the most dangerous time since WW2. It’s all his fault.

It is the moral and Constitutional duty of the Senate to reject Hagel. Any Senator who fails to carry out that duty must be voted out of office. No exceptions.

Folks, please call both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel. Also, please call Republican Senators and tell them to filibuster Hagel’s nomination.

Ronald Reagan’s 102nd birthday: What Would Reagan Do?

Today, February 6th, would’ve been Ronald Reagan’s 102nd birthday. As is frequently done on February 6th and indeed, everyday, the question “What would Reagan do?” will be asked today. And it should be.

And I believe that if he were alive today, he would’ve been appalled to see what the GOP is today.

He would’ve been appalled to see the GOP slavishly agree to unfavorable, unilateral disarmament treaties (such as New START) and to massive defense cuts, including the sequester, which most Republicans voted for in August 2011 even though the sequester was Obama’s idea. By foolishly agreeing to it, they gave Obama and the Democrats a weapon with which to blackmail them and have forced themselves into choosing between two very bad options: either allowing Obama to execute the hostage (i.e. gut defense) or agreeing to tax hikes as a condition of sparing defense from draconian, salami-slicing budget cuts.

He would’ve been appalled to hear some Republicans advocate this (or a similar) course of action and agree with the disastrous, treasonous proposals of leftist, anti-defense think-tanks such as the “Project on Defense Alternatives”, the Cato Institute, POGO, TCS, and the Center for American Progress (three of these groups, namely Cato, POGO, and the CAP, take money from George Soros).

He would’ve been appalled to hear Ron Paul badmouth America and its troops everyday, call for isolationism and unilaterald disarmament, and call for a “hear no evil, see no evil, everything bad is America’s fault” foreign policy. He would’ve called on the GOP’s leaders to expel such politicians from the Party. He would’ve also deeply regretted ever endorsing Ron Paul for Congress, especially considering the fact that during his time, Ron Paul and his sidekick Lew Rockwell fought against him every step of the way.

He would’ve been appalled to see and hear pseudoconservative, anti-defense, leftist libertarians such as Justin Amash (a Ron Paul clone), Tim Huelskamp, and Raul Castro Labrador be hailed as “Constitutional conservatives” and heroes.

He would’ve been appalled to see these people vote against a passable, fully workable, fiscally conservative budget plan, such as the Ryan Plan, simply because it wasn’t as good as they wished and to see the better become the enemy of the good.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans lose faith in supply-side, pro-growth economics and claim that the Ryan Plan would not jumpstart economic growth and balance the budget within 10 years under dynamic scoring. He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans reject dynamic instead of static scoring (a classic liberal method).

He would’ve been terrified to see that Republicans can’t prioritize federal spending and make cuts where they can be made safely – in domestic discretionary spending – even cut an Energy and Water Approps’ bill’s price tag by 1%!

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans failing to understand the Constitution, let alone commit themselves to abolish unconstitutional federal agencies and programs.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans unable to commit themselves to abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy – a cause he fought for – even long after George W. Bush has left the White House.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans attrite and weaken each other in nasty primary battles, thus helping them lose the general election.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans prioritize abortion and gay marriage above all other issues, while America’s defenses are atrophying, China and Russia are on the march, and the US is sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

He would’ve been horrified to know that Republicans prioritize – and are dividing the party over – such divisive issues instead of uniting the party and the people around common-sense bread-and-butter issues like deficits, debt, taxes, spending, defense, and so forth.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans not only accept, but even embrace and advocate, the use of police-state-like measures to fight “terrorism” but in fact to expand the federal government’s power over American citizens through the cynically-named PATRIOT Act (AKA the Ermaechtigungsgesetz), Know Your Customer provisions, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, and so forth.

And he would’ve been horrified to see Republicans repeat his own mistake from 1986 – accept and even advocate amnesty for illegal aliens, thus rewarding criminals who have broken the law and also committing suicide as a party.

He would’ve been horrified to see that, thanks to unlimited legal and illegal immigration, California has become a majority-minority state and such a liberal one that it’s incapable of electing any Republicans statewide anymore, with the consequence that state taxes and spending are rising and there’s no one left to pay the bill as most productive Californians leave the state in droves.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s better for Ronald Reagan not to be here today. He would’ve been horrified to see the state of the party and the country.

But we can finish his work and make him proud if we commit ourselves to doing the right thing and do it.

So today, on Ronald Reagan’s 102nd birthday, let us, as conservatives, pledge to each other that:

• We will identify and work on issues that unite us, not divide us.
• We will adhere to Reagan’s principles of fiscal and defense conservatism.
• We will work to elect the most electable conservative/Republican candidate in each district and state.
• We will work to make the entire GOP adhere to the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government.
• We will work to recommit the GOP to abolishing the Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development as a start.
• We will stop pretending that the federal budget can be balanced by simply eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse (as important as that is).
• We will work to commit the GOP to fundamental tax reform – either a flat tax or the FairTax.
• We will not tolerate within the Party or the conservative movement those who have slandered America, its honorable military, or Ronald Reagan, nor will we tolerate those who, like Amash, Labrador, Huelskamp, and Mulvaney, advocate gutting the military and are collaborating with the House’s most strident liberals towards that goal.
• We will commit ourselves and the Party to a commonsense, Reaganesque foreign policy: building the world’s strongest military while intervening militarily only where and when crucial American interests are at stake – and even then, only with clearly defined goals, a clear strategy to achieve them, an exit strategy to avoid endless entanglements.
• We will never advocate anything that would infringe US citizens’ civil liberties and will commit ourselves and the Party to repealing all of the existing such measures, including the cynically-named PATRIOT Act, KYC provisions, warrantless wiretapping programs, and indefinite detention. And we will not tolerate within the GOP those who, like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Kelly Ayotte, advocate such police state measures.
• We will wholeheartedly support the Ryan Budget Plan (at least until someone devises a better plan that can pass the Congress instead of being voted down by huge bipartisan margins) and work to secure its passage.
• We will work towards the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the abolition of the Federal Reserve.
• We will leave divisive social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia, to the states to decide. We will support the 10th Amendment all of the time, not selectively when it suits us.

Let’s win this one for the Gipper.

PS: A record 40 states, including even liberal states like California, Illinois, and New York, have issued proclamations designating today as Ronald Reagan Day. Only 8 states run by liberal Democrats have refused to do so, and 2 states run by Democrats are sitting on the fence.

Rebuttal of Robert Burns’ and other leftists’ anti-nuclear lies

On January 30th, the leftist Associated Press published yet another irredeemably biased, utterly ridiculous litany of blatant lies by its “National Security Writer” Robert Burns, a strident leftist biased against the military and against nuclear weapons in particular. As is typical of a leftist media “journalist”, Burns has written yet another garbage screed which is so biased and filled with so many lies as to brainwash the public into supporting leftist policies and presenting Republicans in a negative light.

In this case, Burns wants to mislead the public into supporting deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent (and its eventual elimination) and portray nuclear weapons as dangerous relics of the past and Republicans as dinosaurs supporting an orthodox and outdated policy.

To that end, he makes a litany of false claims and quotes three leftist “national security thinkers” while not quoting a single dissenting (i.e. conservative) expert.

But his claims, and those of the stridently leftist “thinkers” he quotes, are all blatant lies. Here’s why.

Burns starts by gleeing over the fact that Chuck Hagel, Obama’s nominee for SECDEF, backs deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear arsenal and:

“That puts him outside the orthodoxy embraced by many of his fellow Republicans but inside a widening circle of national security thinkers — including President Barack Obama — who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset, less relevant to 21st century security threats like terrorism. (…)

The customary stance of defense secretaries in the nuclear age has been that the weapons are a necessary evil, a required ingredient in American defense strategy that can be discarded only at the nation’s peril.

Hagel, 66, takes a subtly different view — one shared by Obama but opposed by those in Congress who believe disarmament is weakness and that an outsized American nuclear arsenal must be maintained indefinitely as a counterweight to the nuclear ambitions of anti-Western countries like North Korea and Iran.

In a letter to Obama two months after his former Senate colleague entered the White House in 2009, Hagel wrote that Global Zero was developing a step-by-step plan for achieving “the total elimination of all nuclear weapons,” but with a “clear, realistic and pragmatic appreciation” for the difficulty of realizing that goal. (…)

“Getting to global zero will take years,” Hagel wrote in the March 2009 letter to Obama on behalf of Global Zero. “So it is important that we set our course toward a world withoutnuclear weapons now to ensure that our children do not live under the nuclear shadow of the last century.”

Hagel stands out in this regard in part because history — first the demise of the Soviet Union, then the rise of terrorism as a global threat — has changed how many people think about the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. For decades after the birth of the atomic age in the 1940s the chief concern was controlling the growth, and later managing the shrinkage, of nuclear arsenals without upsetting the balance of power.

Today the thinking by many national security experts has shifted as the threat of all-out nuclear war has faded and terrorist organizations with potentially global reach, like al-Qaida, are trying to get their hands on a nuclear device.

“Hagel’s views reflect the growing bipartisan consensus in the U.S. security establishment that whatever benefits nuclear weapons may have had during the Cold War are now outweighed by the threat they present,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Hagel was co-author of a Global Zero report last May that proposed, as an interim step, reducing the U.S. arsenal to 900 weapons within a decade, with half deployed and the other half in reserve. That compares with a current U.S. stockpile of 5,000, of which 1,700 are deployed and capable of striking targets around the globe.

The report said these cuts could be taken unilaterally if not negotiated with the Russians or carried out through reciprocal U.S. and Russian presidential directives.”

What’s wrong with Burns’ claims?

To start with, EVERYTHING.

Firstly, contrary to the image that Burns and the three leftists (Steven Pifer of Brookings, Joseph Cirincione of Ploughshares, and Bruce Blair of Global Zero) attempt to project, nuclear weapons are anything but relics of a bygone era, and the need for nuclear weapons today is as greater as, if not greater than, during the Cold War.

Russia currently has 1,500 deployed and 1,300 nondeployed strategic nuclear warheads (a total of 2,800) and untold thousands (probably around 4,000) deployed and nondeployed tactical nuclear warheads – all of which are deliverable anytime.

To deliver the strategic ones, Russia has 434 ICBMs (mostly multi-warhead missiles) which can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads, 13-14 ballistic missile subs which can deliver over 2,000 warheads on their 220 SLBMs; and over 250 strategic Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M bombers.

To deliver its tactical nukes, Russia has a very wide range of systems including aircraft (e.g. the Su-25, Su-25, the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family), artillery pieces, surface warships, submarines  armed with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, and short-range ballistic missiles.

It is now working on modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad, including two new ICBMs, a new long-range bomber, and a new SSBN class.

China has at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 nuclear weapons (not the mere 240-400 often claimed by US disarmament supporters) and many systems with which to deliver them: over 60 DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 ICBMs; six ballistic missile subs; over 120 DF-3, DF-4, and DF-21 MRBMs; 440 bombers and strike aircraft; and around 2,000 SRBMs and Land Attack Cruise Missiles.

(In another sign of Burns’ bias, his screed does not mention Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals, and barely mentions in passing that Russia and China have nukes in general. This is a deliberate tactic by Burns to mislead people into thinking that the US doesn’t need to deter Russia nor China.)

On top of that, the US has to deter North Korea (which has ca. 12 nuclear warheads and intends to test one soon) and Iran, which is racing towards nuclear weapons. Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many and protectors to nobody, the US has to provide an effective nuclear umbrella not just for itself, but also to over 30 allies.

If the US makes further cuts in its arsenal, it will become too small to deter enemies and reassure friends, and consequently, these allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons, thus making the proliferation problem much worse. But these allies cannot bet their security, and indeed, their very existence on ridiculous “nuclear weapons are relics of a bygone era” and “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kumbayah beliefs – or on America breaking free of such ridiculous notions and of Democrat-led government by 2017.

The fact is that nuclear weapons are not relics of a bygone era, nor are they “liabilities”. They are indispensable assets in protecting America against the gravest security threats it is facing: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Terrorism is a threat, but not even close to being as severe as that of Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals and military buildups, North Korea’s smaller but deadly one, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions and quest for regional hegemony.

No amount of shouting the tired “we’re in the 21st century!” and “they’re liabilities and relics of the Cold War!” slogan will change these facts.

Moreover, if nuclear weapons are “liabilities”, a huge threat to those who hold them, and relics of yesteryear, why are more and more countries interested in acquiring them, and why are Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all growing their nuclear arsenals?

Answer: because they recognize the inherent value of nuclear weapons, which are NOT relics of the Cold War nor “liabilities”.

The cost of maintaining the entire US nuclear arsenal and its related infrastructure is estimated by the Stimson Center to be about $35.2 bn per year – just 6% of the entire military budget, and a bargain price to keep America safe.

And contrary to what Burns and Cirincione claim, there is zero risk of American nuclear weapons (let alone their delivery systems) being stolen by terrorists. These weapons are well-guarded and secure, and Al Qaeda is not even trying to steal them. So doing away with America’s nuclear weapons will do NOTHING to stop Al-Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons elsewhere.

The real risk is that AQ may steal Pakistani nuclear warheads – but scrapping America’s own arsenal will do nothing to prevent that. It will not cause Pakistan’s arsenal to magically go away or encourage Pakistan to dismantle its weapons.

America’s nuclear weapons pose no threat to anyone – except, of course, those who wish to attack the US or its allies.

So the benefits of America’s nuclear arsenal greatly outweigh the costs – not the other way around.

So, by pushing for America’s nuclear disarmament, Burns, Obama, Hagel, Cirincione, and Blair are advocating a ridiculous policy which will gravely weaken the US and its military, jeopardize US national security, invite a nuclear first strike by Russia or even China, leave America’s allies fending for themselves (and thus encourage further nuclear proliferation), and embolden America’s enemies around the world, while completely failing to prevent (or even slow down) nuclear proliferation or nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands.

In other words, nuclear disarmament would make America (and the whole world) dramatically less secure and less peaceful.

And yes, disarmament IS weakness – by its definition, it means laying down all arms, i.e. the state of being disarmed (unarmed). Yet, without weapons (including nuclear ones), the US will have nothing to defend itself with. That would be a state of terrible weakness – and weakness ALWAYS invites aggression.

“But Hagel wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally, not just in the US”, you might say. But there will never again be a “world without nuclear weapons” – not even in the next 100 years – Obama’s, Hagel’s, and others leftist’ fantasies notwithstanding. China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India will never give up their nuclear weapons (China refuses to even talk to the US about them). This genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

A world without nuclear weapons is not only utterly unrealistic, it’s also undesirable. For all human history prior to 1945, we did actually have such a world. The result? There was nothing to restrain the world’s great powers – so all human history before 1945 is one of huge, bloody wars between the great powers of the time, including the two bloodiest, most barbaric wars the world has ever seen: the two World Wars, with a combined body count of 100 million people – mostly innocent civilians.

Since 1945, we have not had another world war or any conflict between the world’s great powers – and that is at least in large part, if not wholly, due to nuclear deterrence.

Burns claims that there is “a widening circle of national security thinkers”, whom he also wrongly calls “experts”, who believe that “who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset”. Yet, he cites no serious “national security thinkers” or “experts” sharing that view – only three stridently liberal anti-nuclear hacks: Joseph Cirincione, Steven Pifer, and Bruce Blair, plus America’s most leftist president ever, Barack Obama.

But they’re strident liberal ideologues, not “thinkers” or “experts”. Cirincione is the president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent and routinely lies about the subject while staunchly opposing any military action against Iran. Blair is Hagel’s fellow Global Zero member. Pifer is with the George-Soros-funded Brookings Institution, a liberal think-tank.

Meanwhile, I can cite many genuine nuclear deterrence experts who believe further cuts to America’s arsenal, especially unilateral or deep ones, are wrong and foolish: e.g. Heritage Foundation experts Rebeccah Heinrichs, Baker Spring, and Michaela Bendikova; USAF nuclear deterrence affairs chief MGEN William Chambers; former SECDEFs Harold Brown and James Schlesinger; and the nation’s foremost nuclear deterrence expert, Dr. Keith B. Payne.

Indeed, when Global Zero issued its “report” calling for deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent, STRATCOM commander Gen. Bob Kehler and then USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz rejected it and Dr. Payne testified before the Senate against that report’s proposals, showing how dangerous and suicidal they are.

Moreover, consensus does not determine the truth. Discovering facts does. And the FACTS are that the need for American nuclear weapons today is as great as (if not greater than) it was during the Cold War.

For that reason alone, Hagel’s and Global Zero’s proposals of deep unilateral cuts are absolutely unacceptable and disqualifying.

Please call both of yours Senators, Dear Readers, and please tell them you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

There is a group called Americans for a Strong Defense which, as the name suggests, advocates a strong national defense, opposes Hagel’s nomination, and is working to warn Senators to vote against Hagel – or to unseat them if they disregard that warning. Another group opposing Hagel is the American Future Fund.

A summary of Chuck Hagel’s record

As the Senate Armed Services Committee considers Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense (which should be rejected), here’s a summary of Hagel’s record – of what he has said and done – on several important issues.

1) Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah

• In 2008, Hagel told Aaron David Miller (a former Clinton advisor on Middle Eastern issues) that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here [in the US Senate - ZM].”
• He has advocated that the US talk to Hamas and Hezbollah.
• He has refused to sign a number of letters supporting Israel and a letter urging the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
• In 1999, he was the only Senator refusing to sign a letter urging then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to act against anti-Semitism in Russia.
• In 2006, during Israel’s action against Hezbollah, he called what Israel was doing a mindless “slaughter”.
• His friend, self-admitted “self-loathing Jew” MJ Rosenberg (Twitter handle: @MJayRosenberg) (fired by Media Matters for his anti-Israeli rants) says that he knows Hagel is “lying” to the SASC now to win confirmation.
• In 2003, Hagel accused Israel of keeping the Palestinians “caged like animals”.
• Hagel has been endorsed for SECDEF by virtually all critics of US support for Israel, including Stephen Walt of Harvard University.

2) Iran

• Hagel has claimed that a strike on Iran is not a “viable, responsible” option.
• In 2007, he voted against designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization at the same time that the IRGC was killing American troops in Iraq.
• As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he voted to kill certain sanctions against Iran in committee, as he has admitted to SASC member Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
• Hagel is a board member of the Deutsche Bank, which is under investigation for violating sanctions against Iran. He has also received rewards and emoluments from groups that oppose sanctions (let alone a military strike) against Iran.

3) Nuclear deterrence

• Hagel is a proud board member of two extremely leftist groups which support deep unilateral cuts to, and the unilateral elimination of, the US nuclear deterrent – a policy which would not only invite but virtually guarantee a Russian nuclear first strike on the US and its allies. These two extremely leftist groups are Global Zero and the Ploughshares Fund (the latter also opposes any military strike against Iran as well as the US missile defense program).
• Hagel has been endorsed for SECDEF by all pro-disarmament organizations in the US, including Global Zero, the Ploughshares Fund, and the so-called “Council for a Livable World”. He’s also supported by many individual proponents of unilateral nuclear disarmmament, such as Bruce Blair of Global Zero and Stephen Walt of Harvard University.
• As a member of a 5-man Global Zero panel, Hagel co-authored and co-signed a report calling for deep, unilateral, and fast reductions to America’s nuclear deterrent, including the scrapping of all US ICBMs, tactical nuclear weapons, and nuclear-tipped missiles; deep cuts to the nuclear modernization program; cutting the SSBN fleet from 14 to just 10 boats and the retirement of all B-52s and B-2s or converting them to purely conventional roles, as well as cutting the total US nuclear arsenal to just 450 active and 450 inactive warheads – and under Hagel’s and Global Zero’s proposals, even the 450 “active” warheads could not be used until 72 hours after a potential first strike on the US. The report called for all of these cuts to be completed in 10 years, by 2022. That report was roundly (and rightly) rejected by the commander of STRATCOM, Gen. Bob Kehler, and by the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz.
• In 2009, Hagel claimed that the US does not have the credibility to demand that North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states renounce nuclear weapons while the US itself retains nuclear arms – despite the fact that North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states couldn’t care less about America’s “credibility” or “moral leadership” and were pursuing nuclear weapons based on their perception of their own interests, not based on America’s actions. He also ignored the then-18 years of incessant cuts to America’s nuclear arsenal that had passed since 1991, and the failure of such cuts to make any impression on Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states. By making that statement, he also suggested moral equivalence between the US and its allies on one hand and America’s potential adversaries (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran) on the other hand.
• Also in 2009, and many times since, Hagel expressed his support for total nuclear disarmament and the fantasy of a “world without nuclear weapons”, a fantasy that will never again exist but did exist before 1945 – and brought about the carnage of two World Wars, as there was nothing sufficiently deadly to restrain the world’s great powers.

4) The defense budget

• In 2011, Hagel falsely claimed that the defense budget is “bloated in many ways” and needs to be “pared down”, ignoring the fact that the total military budget amounts to just 4.2% of America’s GDP, less than 18% of the total federal budget, and is not bloated at all considering the gravity and wide array of security threats America is confronting today, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to name just a few.
• Hagel has been endorsed for Secretary of Defense by organizations seeking deep cuts in America’s defense budget, capabilities, and force structure, such as the Ploushares Fund, the “Council for a Livable World”, and the George-Soros-funded CATO Institute.
• The New York Times has said, citing unnamed Obama Administration officials, that Obama wants to cut the defense budget and “kill some major Cold War era weapon systems” (without specifying what these supposed “Cold War era weapon systems are”), and that “for that, Mr Hagel (…) is needed” – in other words, the reason why Obama has nominated Hagel is because he wants Hagel to gut the US military.

Ask yourselves, Dear Readers: is this the kind of Secretary of Defense you want and America deserves?

If not, please call both of your Senators and tell them that you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel. Also please contact Republican Senators and ask them to filibuster Hagel’s nomination. Republicans can and should do this to spare the nation from an extremely leftist and unqualified SECDEF nominee whom Obama has nominated for purely political reasons, and whom Obama’s lackeys in the US Senate have utterly failed to properly vet and will back solely for political reasons (out of blind deference to Barack Obama).

We cannot afford to lose this fight. We cannot be content with Republicans merely voting against Hagel but letting the Dems use their Senate majority to confirm Hagel. We cannot be complacent with merely opposing a bad and unqualified nominee: we must stop him, in his tracks BEFORE he can get to the DOD and do any damage. We must  hold Republicans’ feet to the fire and make sure they BLOCK Hagel’s nomination by filibuster.

We must also contact AIPAC and urge them to pressure all Senators to vote against Hagel as well as to pressure the White House to withdraw Hagel’s nomination. AIPAC prides itself in being America’s chief pro-Israel organization, but recent media reports indicate AIPAC does not want to get into a fight it believes it would lose.

We must convince AIPAC to jettison that ridiculous defeatism and to join the fight to BLOCK Hagel’s nomination – for America’s sake as well as that of America’s closest ally, Israel.

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.