MLK of the GOP

by: the Common Constitutionalist


It’s baffling to most Republicans and conservatives that a vast majority of blacks in America support, defend and vote for Democrats.

Somehow history has been rewritten. I misspoke. We know how. I believe it can be traced back to the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for before that time, most blacks were Republicans.

According to his niece, Dr. Alveda King, MLK was Republican. Republican you say? Impossible! We have all been taught that the Democrats are the party of civil rights, of minority empowerment and Republicans are racists. It’s irrefutable!

Well, here’s a little proof. Time to step into the Way-Back machine again.

It was 1954 and the Supreme Court was deciding the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case. The Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Republican Pres. Eisenhower, ruled for Brown. The landmark decision ended school segregation and declared the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision violated the 14th amendment, with its “Separate but Equal” doctrine. The Democrat party supported the views and sided with the Topeka Board of Education. In fact, a faction of the democrat party, the Dixiecrat’s, formed in 1948, had a slogan; “segregation forever”.

It was Pres. Eisenhower (republican) that established the first permanent U.S. civil rights commission, which had coincidentally been rejected by the Democrat man of the people, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt actually banned black American newspapers from the military, claiming they were communist.

Many Democrats voted against the first civil rights act in 1957. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John F Kennedy. Republicans such as Sen. Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater supported it.

In fact, Illinois Sen. Dirksen was instrumental in virtually all civil rights legislation; in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. He wrote the language in the 1965, “Voting Rights Act”. But history has been rewritten to show LBJ was a civil rights advocate.

Yet in private Johnson said: “these Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be reconstruction all over again.”

As president, JFK opposed the 1963 MLK march on Washington. A. Philip Randolph, a black Republican, organized the march for Dr. King.

It was well known back then that Dr. King criticized Kennedy for ignoring issues of civil rights. JFK didn’t take too kindly to the criticism and was one of the reasons he had his Atty. Gen. brother Bobby Kennedy, through the FBI, wiretap King’s hotel rooms on suspicion of him being a communist. This was all done to undermine King’s efforts, for obviously Dr. King was no communist.

There were many other notable Democrats; none were friends of black Americans. Some of the leading opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were racist Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. What? Al Gore’s dad was anti-black? Yep. And Robert Byrd was a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan.

A few of the worst were Eugene “Bull” Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Bull Connor let loose dogs and fire hoses on black demonstrators and did I forget to mention he was also Pres. Bill Clinton’s mentor.

Maddox, governor of Georgia, and his supporters used ax handles to beat blacks to prevent them from entering his restaurant.

Alabama Gov. Wallace infamously blocked two black students from entering the University of Alabama in 1963, where he continually shouted: “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Before history was rewritten it was well known that racist Democrats said they would vote for a “Yellow Dog” before a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

It was Ronald Reagan that made Dr. King’s birthday a federal holiday.

So despite what we hear, see and read today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would never be a democrat. Not then and not now. He would’ve never joined the party of segregation and the Klan.

Of course, were he alive today, he would probably have his doubts about the GOP.

Three Card Mitchy

 Mitch McConnell Doubles Down on Surrender


Mitch McConnell wants to clear the air based on my earlier RedState post.  In the post, quoting Yahoo! News, I noted McConnell said, “When it came to Obamacare, we gave it everything we have, everything we have, and we just lost.”

In response to this morning’s post, Mitch McConnell’s press team sent out an email blast with the transcript of the speech.  They reached out to my office insisting I fix a quote from a news story that itself has not changed the quote. Nonetheless, the McConnell team insists the actual quote is, “We gave it everything we had, and we just barely lost the legislative fight.”

Okay, but what else did Mitch McConnell say.  From his own transcript:

Obamacare should be repealed root and branch. And we’re not backing down from this fight. We’ve taken the same approach to Obamacare. We gave it everything we had, and we just barely lost the legislative fight. The Supreme Court ruling last summer was another blow. But I can’t just stand by and look at that assault on liberty behind me and do nothing.

Continue Reading

The Stupid Party Personified

Stupid Republican Believes Obama Dinner With GOP Was Sincere Bipartisanship

Bobby Jindal had it right: the GOP is truly the stupid party. Sure, stupid is  better than corrupt and deceitful, like the Democrats, and at least stupidity  will get good results sometimes, albeit accidentally. But man,  Republicans sure do have their share of moments of naïvete.

While Senator Rand Paul was speaking on the Senate floor for 13 hours to  filibuster the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, there were twelve of  his Republican colleagues dining with President Obama at a fancy restaurant.

One particular member of the Stupid Party, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma,  lived up to his party’s name, saying that he believes Obama’s invitation to  dinner is a sign that Obama truly does want to end his partisanship. Oh, Tom,  bless your heart. (By the way, Coburn was one of the twelve).

“I think he gets it,” said Coburn, “and I think he’s genuinely reaching out.  I think the president is tremendously sincere. I don’t think this is just a  political change in tactic. I think he actually would like to solve the problems  of the country….”  Continue Reading


Conservatives Drawn to the Dark Side

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Have you ever felt alone? Not like, on a desert island alone; just the feeling that you are in such a philosophical minority that your segregated from the rest of society.

Well, that’s how I’m beginning to feel. I know that is not the case, but with every passing month I see one ally after another fall, or at least lean toward the Dark Side. I’m speaking metaphysically of course.

christie-obama-odd-coupleMaybe I set my sights too high or maybe I’m just being unreasonable. I liken the situation we find ourselves in to the Matrix movie; the first one in particular. In the movie practically everyone is living in a great mirage and even if given the choice to free themselves from the program, they choose not to. There are a relative few who broke out of the matrix to fight the system and try to free the minds of others. In the first of the trilogy, one of the freedom fighters betrays the others. As payment for this betrayal, the overlords promise to return him to the mirage of the matrix, thus freeing him from the suffering of reality. He claimed he was simply tired of fighting the good fight.

Well, as I stated, it appears that not a month goes by where another freedom fighter seems to either give up the fight or begin the slow walk of compromise to the Dark Side.

Not that Christie was a conservative in the first place and whatever his reason, in 2012 Chris Christie sold us out with his famous post Sandy invite an overly affectionate salutation of Obama. Personally, I believe it was that he felt snubbed by Romney for not choosing him as his running mate. Whatever conservative leanings he did have, have all but vanished.

Then about a month ago, the great Hispanic hope of the conservative movement and potential presidential hopeful, sold out to the lefts idea of immigration reform. Some would say it was smart and pragmatic, given the times we live in. I say it was a sellout, pure and simple.

Now in just the past few days, one of my favorite constitutional conservatives has shocked me. I’ve held up Rand Paul as one of a very few constitutionalists in our government I could count on to say and do the right thing consistently.

I was disappointed in his vote for John Kerry as Secretary of State. I held out hope that he would redeem himself when he and others filibustered Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Hagel was a Republican, but a liberal RINO in every sense of the word. I was stunned when after two successful filibusters; Rand Paul changed his vote to confirm Hagel.

He first appeared on Fox news to explain why:

So he filibustered just to get additional information on Hagel and when he knew he would not receive it, rather than just vote his conscience, he voted to confirm. He claimed he voted for Kerry, “despite not agreeing with a single thing Kerry believes”. Huh?

Paul explained he did so due to constitutional deference to the President. Indeed, the president may nominate anyone he likes to such posts and the Senate’s job is “Advice and Consent” of the nominee.

The senator said that he takes the position that, “The president is afforded a lot of leeway in his selection”. He’s right; the president could select Charles Manson if he is so inclined. The Constitution does however, in no way state that the Senate is merely a rubber stamp. If that were the case why would they bother with it? Hello! Robert Bork?!

Article II. Section. 2. Of the United States Constitution, in part reads: “… and he (the president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

I know it’s a silly and outdated notion, but are we not supposed to follow the law, which is the Constitution? Ridiculous! And if we are even the slightest bit confused, regarding the federalist papersmeaning of said document should we not look to the original intent of the founders who wrote and advocated for the Constitution? Seems logical.

Well, the Federalist Papers were the commercials of the day. They were written to explain the document and compel people to support it.

Federalist 76 – The Appointment Power of the Executive – explains the Advice and Consent clause.

The author of Federalist 76 was Alexander Hamilton. He wrote, “to what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters…” “The Senate… In the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate.”

It is therefore evident to me that the Senate is supposed to play an important role in the process of confirmation, and not as I said, be a rubberstamp.

Another thing that bothered me was Paul’s statement that he will stick with his party (Republicans) if the party will stick together. I don’t care for that lemming mentality and it was wholly unexpected coming from Rand Paul.

When asked whether he thought Chuck Hagel would be a good Secretary of Defense, Rand said he didn’t know. Then why vote to confirm him?!

I haven’t given up on Rand Paul, but I do know that compromise begets more compromise until one is unable to walk it back. Let’s hope this doesn’t happen to the Senator.

Rove and the Soft Center

It’s Time to Declare War on Karl Rove and his ‘Conservative Defeat Project’

The New York Times is reporting “that the ‘biggest donors in the Republican Party’ have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project.”

The Conservative Victory Project is a direct attack on the Tea Party and its conservative agenda to bring the GOP back to fiscal conservatism and a renewed moral culture that includes opposition to State-sanctioned abortion and State-promoted homosexual marriage, to name just two important social issues

The Times article states that “dedicate itself to ‘recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.’”

People like Rove were content to have Richard Lugar of Indiana win re-election. He was one of his guys.

Karl Rove has been a disaster for conservatives ever since the door was opened to him to orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party. As you probably know, there are two main factions in the GOP: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. But there’s another group that does not have a name yet and I’m not clever enough to come up with one. Corporate Welfarists might suffice until someone can come up with a better moniker.

They are Republicans who like the flow of free money just as much as Democrats do. They just like it directed at their kind of people. They’re not against stimulus money as long as it’s simulating their fat-cat donors.  Continue Reading



The Naïveté of Conservative Politicians (part one)

Or maybe the dishonesty.

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Lately I’ve been quite critical of the Republican Party and supposed conservatives therein. I’ve had friends recently asked why I’m being so hard on the Republicans; why am I not going after the Democrats?

Ted_CruzThere is no saving the Democrat party. They are all too far-gone. In fact I have virtually given up on the Republicans also. There are but a handful able to stand up for true conservative values such as Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert, but there are damn few and not enough to make a difference in the Republican Party.

As most of you know, I’m a big fan of conservative talk radio. The three opinions I trust most are Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.Louie Gohmert

Just as Democrats will take to the cable networks such as CNN and MSNBC to get their message out, so will conservatives. The conservatives will however, take their message to a different venue; conservative talk radio. How I judge the conservative bona fides of a politician who has been thrust front and center into an issue is by with whom they speak to explain their issue.

When I hear a supposed conservative on a program such as Sean Hannity or some other Fox News airing but don’t hear them on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck’s shows, my warning bells sound. I know that a fake conservative will have no problem with a Sean Hannity interview, whereas he would be wary to speak to Rush and never darken Glenn Beck’s door. This I believe to be the one true measure of one’s, shall we say, conservative honesty.

This is why I was encouraged when I heard Marco Rubio was to be on the Rush Limbaugh program to explain his plan on immigration. Rush gave him a fair shake but unfortunately, in my opinion, he was a disappointment. He did say some good things, but overall, a lot of it sounded like political nonsense.

He (Rubio) has been pushing hard, getting his word out on radio, television and in print. Recently he tried to make his case on Erik Erickson’s site, RedState.

RubioIllegal ImmigrationHe wrote, “We have a legal immigration system that doesn’t work, we don’t have an effective system to enforce our immigration laws, and we have, by some estimates, as many as 11 million human beings living in the United States without the proper immigration documents in a state of de facto amnesty.”

While I agree with Mr. Rubio that our immigration system is broken, I believe he is wrong in his assessment of the 11 million human beings. If we wish to have an honest discussion, we must be honest about who we are dealing with. These “human beings” are not just those without proper documents. They are criminals that knowingly, illegally breached our sovereign border. With their first act, they willingly broke American law. Don’t get me wrong. If I were in a similar situation as most of these people, I would be trying to do the same thing, sneak across the border to get some work or free stuff, but our laws can’t take into account the sufferings of individual noncitizens. I’m sorry that these folks were not born in America and aren’t citizens, but that’s just the way it is.

Rubio continues, “On the political front, a growing number of voters of Asian and Hispanic descent have been convinced by the left that conservative opposition to immigration reform equates to being anti-immigrant.”

Hyphenated AmericansI agree that the left has indeed convinced many that conservatives are anti-immigrant. This however, is not due to the ability of the left but the ineptness of the right. The right has allowed the lefties to frame illegal immigration as all immigration. I conclude that those on the right either don’t really care about the distinction or are not courageous enough to speak out against the lies. And another thing; can we stop with the incessant “voting block” nonsense. We have to appeal to the Hispanic community, the Black community, the Asian community. This is all such utter nonsense. Either these people are Americans or they’re not. Go out there and speak to them as individuals, not some monolithic voting bloc. It’s all such crap. This is what I mean when I say, those who control the language control the debate.

Stay Tuned, as it were, for Part Two




Friend of the Immigrant

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is in the spotlight. He’s daring to touch one of, what are becoming many third rails in American politics.

It’s not welfare reform or Social Security privatization; both are rails, which will eventually have to be touched. No, the third rail I speak of, is immigration. This is the hot issue Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, has chosen to tackle.marcorubio

For quite some time the Democrats have owned the issue of immigration. Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The issue they do own is not immigration, but illegal immigration. And they don’t just own it, they embrace it.

The Dems, with the aid of the media, pundits and spineless Republicans have successfully blurred the line between legal and illegal immigration until there is no discernible line left.

The old saying is no truer than in this case: “those who control the language, control the debate”. Such as Global Warming morphing into Climate Change or more recently; gun control, which, right under our noses,  has just been renamed. It is now gun violence, because who could possibly be opposed to ending gun violence. When illegal immigrants are magically reclassified as just immigrants or effectively citizens that are merely undocumented, those of us that insist on the distinction have lost or at least Illegal signbeen relegated to the back of the bus.

Enter the so-called conservative rising star – Sen. Marco Rubio. Rubio, the young, photogenic Republican is a rising star in the party. As Joe Biden might say, he’s clean and articulate. Best of all, he’s Hispanic. Hooray, a Republican that is not a white guy! Why that makes any difference is beyond me, but apparently it does.

I don’t know whether he’s trying to “get out front” on this issue because he is of Cuban heritage or he, like many Republicans, simply feels he must.

I do know the Republicans will lose on the issue of illegal immigration. They will lose because the GOP is becoming the Democrat-lite party. The Republicans don’t seem to grasp that they cannot win a giveaway contest vs. a party full of socialists, the Democrats.

Now Rubio has said some good things, such as “Legal immigration has been, for ourmarco-rubio1 country, one of the things that makes us vibrant and exceptional”. I agree with that statement. Any reasonable person would. Another strong statement: “Every country in the world has immigration laws and expects to enforce them and we should be no different”. Who wouldn’t agree with that? Evidently most people, or at least most politicians, for we don’t, in fact, enforce the thousands of immigration laws we have now.

He continues: “I’m a big believer in family-based immigration. But I don’t think that in the 21st century we can continue to have an immigration system were only 6.5% of people who come here, come here based on labor and skill. We have to move toward marriage and skill-based immigration.” I agree with the merit and skill-based immigration statement. The family based nonsense sounds like liberal claptrap.

He then exclaims, “I don’t think there’s a lot of concern in this country that we’ll somehow get overrun by PhD’s and entrepreneurs.” Too bad, but he’s right.

Rubio then takes the inevitable turn toward the squishy left of the Republican Party, as he weighs in on agriculture. “The goal is to give American agriculture a reliable workforce and to give protection to those workers. When someone is undocumented they’re vulnerable to being exploited.”

illegalThis is exactly what I meant by the language. Illegal aliens are now simply undocumented. I also disagree with the statement. These people came to our country illegally. They have no right to ask nor do we have any obligation to protect them.

And what does Rubio propose to do about the 12 to 20 million illegals currently residing in our country? He says, “Here’s how I envision it. They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check. Anyone who committed a serious crime would be deported. They would be fingerprinted. They would have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, maybe even do community service. They would have to prove that they’ve been here for an extended period of time. They understand some English and are assimilated. Then most of them would get legal status and be allowed to stay in this country.”

And predictably, Republican lawmakers say that Rubio’s plan could pass muster, even with immigration hard-liners, if the plan included a significant restitution for illegals to pay and began taxing them for their work here.

And… Rubio and the Republicans lost me. Whatever conservative statements he uttered prior, was all just washed away.

This softened, kinder gentler stance will be just another nail in the coffin of theGOP-and-Dem-Lite1 Republican Party. They will not win a single coveted Hispanic vote and in turn will lose more of the conservative base that already believes the Republicans untrustworthy. This is a political stunt. It will never work – the Democrats will never allow the GOP to achieve even the impression of success. Republican lawmakers have shown once again they are sellouts.

In fact, what will more likely happen, is something akin to compromising on the budget where taxes are increased and more money borrowed now, with the promise of tax cuts later that never materialize. Republicans are chumps and so is Rubio for proposing this.

Rubio has lost me. I may be alone on this, but I’ve stated I will never support anyone who is willing to, in any way, legalize or reward criminal aliens.

An Early Christmas Present – Boehner Could be Ousted

by Mike Flynn at Breitbart

The future leadership of the House GOP conference may be decided by a procedural motion on the morning of January 3rd. When the new 113th Congress convenes that day, the first order of business will be to elect a Speaker of the House. As my colleague Matthew Boyle reported, however, some GOP members are planning to preempt this vote with a motion to conduct the election of Speaker by secret ballot. If that were to happen, John Boehner may face a real fight to retain the Speaker’s gavel.

But if a member introduces that resolution for a secret ballot, the whole House will vote on that first. That vote will need to have a public roll call, meaning the American people, the press, and Boehner will know who voted which way. Even so, those who are considering this path forward to unseat Boehner know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans can’t legitimately oppose the concept of a secret ballot election for a leader of a political body.

It would be very difficult, politically, to vote against a resolution for a secret ballot. A secret ballot is sacrosanct in the American psyche. The procedure, however, would free Congressmen to vote for Speaker without fear of punishment or retaliation. If just a handful of Republicans vote for someone other than Boehner on the first ballot, he would be denied that gavel and the House would then move to another vote. Because of a current vacancy in the House, a member would need 217 votes to claim the Speakership.

A move to a second ballot could quickly get interesting. Seeing that Boehner is vulnerable, other members would start trying to build support for their own nomination. If this coalesces behind a single alternative to Boehner, then his speakership would be in serious doubt. The position of Speaker is built to a large degree on inevitability, i.e. the lack of any credible alternatives. Once that veil is breached, support for current leadership can melt away quickly.

It is also possible that, having failed to secure enough support in the first ballot, Boehner offers concessions to various members to win their votes. The chief source of Boehner’s vulnerability within the caucus has been his tendency to marginalize conservatives or enforce discipline for votes that are against conservative principles. A loss on the first ballot could provide the needed warning shot that Boehner needs to improve relations with the conservatives who make up the bulk of his caucus.

But, all of this rests on that first procedural motion. If a member comes forward to make that motion, then the 113th Congress will begin with a very new chapter.


To Hell With It, Let’s Jump Off the Fiscal Cliff

HunterBy Derek Hunter

We’ve all heard about the “fiscal cliff.” But what does it mean? The media won’t bother to explain it in any detail, and people aren’t looking it up on their own. So, a great many Americans think it’s a physical place, a vacation destination of some sort. I understand people are busy with their lives, but a majority of Americans just voted to re-elect President Obama, a man whose failed leadership created this harmonic convergence of economic mess that is the fiscal cliff. So I say, “To hell with it; let’s jump.”base-jumping

President Obama is still in campaign mode, traveling the country to sell his unserious proposal of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, more insane spending and a laughably small amount of spending cuts. So much for a “balanced” plan. But the president couldn’t even be bothered to deliver his “plan” to Congress himself. He sent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, an alleged financial wizard who claims he “misfiled” his taxes because he couldn’t properly use the near idiot-proof TurboTax.

Democrats are unwilling to take seriously the coming crush of entitlement spending. They took entitlement reform off the table before negotiations even began, and their megaphones in the media don’t put down their pompons long enough to report honestly about any of it.

The House of Representatives has passed an extension of the current tax rates, and the Democratic-controlled Senate has done exactly nothing with it. The Senate could vote to just extend the current rates they support and deal with it in a conference committee, but it won’t. It won’t do anything because the party that controls the Senate doesn’t want anything done.

harry_reid_is_a_jerkWhat few leftists will tell you is they want tax rates to increase on everyone. That’s why the president campaigned on extending them for the middle class for only one year, not permanently. They know, just like hiking rates on top earners, that will harm the failing economy, but they don’t give a damn. They want more money.

Liberals have no interest in even inching toward a government that lives within its means because, unlike every other individual, company and entity in the world, government is the only entity that can simply vote itself more means. Max out your credit cards, then tell Visa you’re raising your own credit limit, and let me know how that works out for you.

Republicans should start now, raising a lot of money and running ads about how Democrats are unserious and responsible for taxes going up. Spend money to explain the situation to the American public. The media never will report it, and Republican leaders, such as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, don’t have the bully pulpit or ability to communicate as Ronald Reagan did. So paid media is the only option.ronald-reagan-great-communicator

In the meantime, the people voted for Obama, so let them have Obama. Just make sure to pin every ounce of failure on his chest like a scarlet letter.

Yes, sequestration will cause serious cuts in defense spending, but the military can handle it. Liberals become aroused at the prospect of cutting defense, and liberal voters in Virginia and Maryland would be hardest hit as defense contractors lay off Obama voters in those blue states. I say good. Sometimes voters have to take their medicine, even if it’s a suppository.

It won’t be easy, but the military will adapt. That’s what the military does, and that’s why it is the best in the world. And half the automatic sequester cuts will come from domestic spending – bureaucracies also filled with Obama voters, who will be less able to deal with them. If they can’t adjust their spending to absorb the cuts, they’ll have to lay off people. Again, good.

If Republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits, these newly unemployed Obama voters eventually will get to experience first-hand the lifestyle their vote empowered. Welfare state overlords on welfare. Can you think of a better education for bureaucrats than to be forced onto the very programs they administered, so they themselves experience the soul-sucking, aspiration-killing impact of what they’ve done to others? Karma is exactly what they say it is.

no gutsOr, if Republicans don’t have the “intestinal fortitude” for this (which leadership hasn’t displayed in years), the House should pass a middle-class tax cut but keep the top rates the same. And make them permanent. That would force Democrats to reject an actual middle-class tax cut, not the “keeping-rates-the-same” nonsense they’re now trying to sell to the American people as a tax cut.

We know Democrats aren’t interested in cutting taxes for the people they claim to fight for, so call their bluff. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama like lying about middle-class tax cuts, so pass the bill and see how they react.

But none of this will work if Republicans don’t start a smart, aggressive, expensive and sustained ad campaign that circumvents the media. The key word is “smart,” and it’s also the catch. The Republican Party needs to treat itself like Keith Richards and embrace failure and go with all new blood. If the party doesn’t shed those who brought us the debacle of Nov. 6, no strategy will work. Just like voters who re-elected a failed, incompetent president expecting a different outcome, Republicans can’t retain the same failed team and expect to win.

Democrats have no interest in addressing our massive deficit and out-of-control spending; it’s up to Republicans. The question is this – do Republicans have the will? We’ll all have to have to take our medicine sooner or later. If we don’t take advantage of the opportunities now, that suppository will end up being like a cyanide pill.