Attorney General Eric Holder took his turn in front of the Senatorial talking-points firing squad (also known as a “Senate Committee Hearing,” where Senators don’t bother with what could be regarded as inquiry and instead try to fit as many one-liner rhetorical pot-shots they can during their allotted time) Wednesday.   Interestingly enough, the New York Times reported the event in a considerably concise manner: touching upon the concerns Republicans (and Democratic New Yorkers) had with the idea of the Justice Department holding terrorist trials in New York, or in the United States period.  The Times is also sure to point out the small spat between Senator Jeff Sessions (R – AL) and Mr. Holder, while de-emphasizing Mr. Holder’s respectable ability to quibble his way around Senator Session’s questions and points.  In the end, even Senator Schumer (D – NY) pointedly registered his view that New Yorkers’ had developed a fairly strong consensus against any terrorist trial being held in the state.

Of course, I write for this website that encourages Liz Cheney in a direction that would land her in some sort of public office.  With that in mind, I had to journey into forbidden waters to find what truly interested followers of Draft Liz Cheney, which was the part of the testimony where the Attorney General goes out of his way to address his contempt for Keep America Safe’s campaign to elucidate the nine lawyers working on terrorism cases that had defended ‘suspected’ terrorists in the past.  Fortunately, the HuffingtonPost does a fair and balanced article on the Attorney general’s scornful remarks:

“There has been an attempt to take the names of the people who represent Guantanamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud,” he said, when pressed to disclose more information about these lawyers by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There were reprehensible ads in essence to question their patriotism. I’m not going to allow these kids… I’m not going to be a part of this effort.”

Holder continued: “Their names are out there now. I’m simply not going to be a part of that effort. I would not allow good, decent lawyers who have followed the best traditions of American jurisprudence… I will not allow their reputations to be besmirched. I will not be a part of that.”

Had Mr. Holder answered the questions raised regarding the Justice Department’s employment of attorneys that had been involved in terrorist defense cases, no one’s reputation would have been “dragged through the mud.” Furthermore, it was not for the purpose of dragging through the mud that Senators (before Keep America Safe even became involved) asked the Attorney General for those names in November to begin with, it was in the interest of full disclosure and transparency: these two nefarious notions that the Obama Administration promised would be at the forefront of their Administration. When the Justice Department ducked and dived, Keep America Safe stepped up to the plate and Liz Cheney called Attorney General Holder out on it.

I find it interesting that Holder’s lawyers are “good” and “decent,” while the Bush Administration’s lawyers faced possible indictments the entire year following Bush 43’s ride into the sunset. What is killing the Obama Administration is the knowledge that they might be able to kick around Sarah Palin and a few others by calling them stupid or letting SNL do their dirty work for them; but they cannot do the same with Liz Cheney. This is what makes her such a force inside the beltway, and why we need to push her in that direction.

-rj

In case you missed it on Sunday, George Will had some tough words for Michael Steele, the embattled RNC chairman: “He has fundamentally misconstrued his job, which is to be the face and the ideological spokesman for the Republican party.”

“There are a lot of people who do that,” Will said, “but the best party chairmen are like major league umpires. If, at the end of the game, they go back into the dressing room and no one has noticed them, they’ve done their job brilliantly. They strive for anonymous perfection, and that should be the role of the party chairman. The best Republican party chairmen — Ray Bliss of Ohio, who rebuilt the party after the Goldwater meltdown, Bill Brock, former senator from Tennessee, who built the party up on the eve of the Reagan triumph — they were perfectly anonymous. And I’m not sure that this man has understood that.”

Steele doesn’t appear to have taken Will’s advice. Earlier today, he appeared on Good Morning America and told George Stephanopoulos that he has less room for error as chairman due to his race. “The honest answer is yes,” Steele said. “It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do . . . That’s just the reality of it . . . My view on politics is much more grassroots-oriented. It’s not old-boy network oriented. I tend to come at it a little bit stronger, a little more streetwise if you will. That rubs some feathers the wrong way.”

Robert Gibbs, of course, had a quick comeback at today’s morning meeting with reporters. “I think that is a fairly silly comment to make,” he said. “I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card; it’s the credit card.”

I think Dan Amira at New York has it right: “Steele probably blew a chance to cool this down.” Besides, as Ben Smith notes, “Jonathan Martin made a pretty convincing case a few months ago that, in some sense, the reverse is true within a Republican party that’s almost entirely without prominent African-American officials.”

You can see the Will comments here, as well as the follow-up comments by another Roundtable contributor who explains what the job of an RNC chair is…and how Steele is not doing that job. Furthering the damage, this morning Politico reported that the top RNC fundraiser is ditching the organization, which is sure to bring more pressure to bear to fire Steele. However, I think the most damaging remark came from Gibbs- when the Democratic White House Press Secretary is getting quoted favorably, and being laughed with and not at, by conservatives against another right-of-center leader, the RNC chair is in trouble.

I saw part of Steele’s comments this morning on ABC, and while I missed his comment about being black, this is not the first time he has brought race into the debate. The fact is that he has made the RNC look ridiculous throughout his tenure, and while it has been proven this strip club fiasco is not his fault, it’s emblematic of the inept leadership he brings to the table. Blaming others just  makes it worse.

Personally, I think getting rid of Steele would have zero impact on what few Republican race relations we have, and bringing in a dynamic person like former governor Sarah Palin would not only inspire fundraising, it would bring in far more fundraising than we might (or might not) lose by ridding ourselves of a bad RNC chair, no matter what his skin color is. It would also free Steele to travel around the country, speaking on behalf of candidates, something he did well with in 2008, when he was a McCain surrogate. Additionally, we have other minority candidates we can support for leadership positions, if we must look at race. (Which, given it’s politics, we must.)

Oh, and the other good thing about bringing Palin in? It would likely prevent her from running for president. An added bonus.

The two-party division that dominates our political world was born only years after the ratification of The Constitution.  The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, propounded a larger Federal Government that took a more expansive role in the lives of its citizens.  Ironically, it was the Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, that opposed the expansion of the Federal Government, and insisted, rather, that social programs and regulations be left to the control of state governments.  While the modern political parties have swapped ideologies, the classical alignment still exists, though, perhaps, somewhat muddled in the minds of individual americans.  It is that confusion–the ignorance of fundamental principles–that is to blame for today’s bloated expansion of the Federal Government.  Unable to articulate what they believe, modern conservatives, or those who would have allied themselves with the Democrats (or classical liberals) of Jefferson’s day, have, for over eighty years, found themselves voting into office leaders who have actually succeeded in increasing, rather than decreasing the size of the Federal Government.  The claim that there exists little difference between Democrats and Republicans is far more axiomatic than many realize.  The ideology of Jefferson’s Democratic party–the belief that the Federal Government should be limited to the express powers dictated by the Constitution and that social programs and regulations should be left to state governments–has all but disappeared from the political arena.  However, in an age were information is readily accessible, where the average american, by and through the aid of libraries and the internet, can obtain an education far superior to that offered by the university, Jefferson’s voice is heard once more in the mouth of the Tea Party.

As the Tea Party seeks to restore the principles of limited government, it has found its closest allies within the Republican Party.  And while many Republicans still believe in the expansion of the Federal Government, the movement would be wise to stay the course, and focus on reforming the party from within, rather than rejecting it from without.  Of course, when forced to decide between loyalty to party or loyalty to principle, the movement must remain true, even if it requires voting Democrat or Independent over Republican.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.

The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.

The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.

These were much larger than a $15 billion profit registered from the Capital Purchase Program for banks and $4.4 billion in profits from other bank investments, asset guarantee and lending programs.

A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers. But the department was not yet ready to update its estimate of the final taxpayer costs for the bailouts.

The official said the Treasury would update its cost estimates on a quarterly basis as the bailout program shifts its focus toward small business lending and housing relief in its final 10 months of operation.

The Treasury in November said TARP’s ultimate cost estimate had been reduced to about $141 billion from $341 billion earlier in the year. Further reductions in the final cost estimate could aid the Obama administration as it faces pressure to produce a new budget that starts to show deficit reductions.

(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Unfortunately, this story was not the lead anywhere today, though Fox did have  a related one on their top three stories. Drudge’s lead story today is about Scott Brown, the candidate for former Senator Kennedy’s seat (okay, that one’s fairly important). Yesterday, he had an accusation that Senator Reid (D-NV) had a facelift or something. Drudge did have this story, but buried several stories down. Meanwhile, cable news is failing as badly as usual to provide important news. Fox has the “tell-all” story about Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) as their lead story, and CNN has David Frum’s newest column as theirs. MSNBC actually has the most important lead story of the three, with an article about the death of an Iranian opposition leader. ABC is also not doing their job, with a massive lead story about President Obama allegedly playing favorites regarding the race card. 

Once again, I’ll ask Americans to look at the important news. Who really cares if Sarah Palin is on Fox? Is anyone surprised? Reid has said two racial statements in recent weeks. Why are we letting our elected officials waste our taxpayer money over his comments? (Note- every time they go after or defend Reid instead of doing their job they are wasting taxpayer money.) We are losing billions of dollars to corrupt government, business and other officials and executives…and we care about something stupid Reid said or the common-sense career move of Sarah Palin? Give me a break. Let’s worry about the troops dying overseas, our sovereignty, the education of our youth and the other critical issues facing this country. Our mainstream/professional media certainly won’t do it, obviously, but in the age of the Internet and other technologies, we the people have no excuse.

At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand.  Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.  That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.

The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asked the above question at the end of a critique of the “news” that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin blacked out Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) name out of an old campaign hat she wore. *Rolls eyes* Obviously, this isn’t news, and Morrissey makes that clear. (He also pokes fun at himself for using Palin’s name to bring extra viewership, something he critiqued the “Today” show for.)

Morrissey’s question is very important. Sarah Palin is incredibly unpopular among many demographics of Americans, yet many of her supporters think she is the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan and believe she is the answer to President Obama in 2012. Unfortunately, they are incorrect, and the more quickly Palin’s supporters realize this and stop protecting her from every sling and arrow, the more quickly we can move onto better candidates such as Governors Romney and Pawlenty, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and pretty much anyone else.

When Democrats and liberals of many affiliations and political backgrounds want Palin to win the nomination- including a number of Democratic and liberal friends and acquaintances- there’s something very bad going on. Either they are all wrong- doubtful, since my friends and acquaintances are politically experienced, intelligent guys (yes, by coincidence they are all guys)- or Palin’s supporters are throwing the party, and by association the country, to President Obama in 2012. Again, abandon ship, Palinites, or the country will be harmed for a long, long time.

At the risk of being callous, I’d like to comment on the political ramifications of the murderer and his actions. First, this incident pretty much sets Governor Mike Huckabee out of any presidential run. The accused murderer is the second known?person Huckabee released as Arkansas governor who has committed a heinous crime afterwards. Too, Huckabee’s released statement makes no mention of his involvement in the man’s release.

Secondly,?this may be a huge boost for?Governor Sarah Palin’s?presidential nomination chances?in 2012.?I do not support her for any election races, but even if I did the numbers have always been against her. The simple fact is that she and Huckabee would have split the evangelical votes, and this would have left both of them politically weak with their strongest base of supporters. It was my hope that this would happen, as I do not support Huckabee, either, for president in 2012. Unfortunately,?I expect?Huckabee to be?a non-factor after the shootings, and this could very well clear the path for a strong evangelical showing for Palin. Since evangelicals and arch-conservatives are a huge part of the base for Republicans right now, this could very well give her the nomination. This would be terrible, for both the party and the country.

Updates: Huckabee has admitted fault. Also, Maurice Clemmons, the shooter, is dead.

So now Ziegler has decided to go after people that he has determined are counter productive to appropriate leadership in the conservative movement.? Part of the decision to do this is because he is under the impression that donations and sponsorships are earning speaking positions at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Yet he cavalierly and ironically admits that he has been given speaking slots and panel positions at both CPAC and WCPAC (the conference on the West coast) because of his documentary being a sponsor of the event.

Double standard much?

This past Sunday, Zieglar posted the afore-linked to post on Mediaite.com tearing into CPAC Chairman David Keene.? Zieglar issued three main complaints as to why Keene wasn’t fit for leadership, and postulated that he wasn’t even a Conservative.? Actual evidence withstanding…

Here is Sherlock Zieglar’s list of dastardly Keene deeds:

1) Keene believes Sarah Palin’s decision to step down was a mistake, that she “bailed out” on her duties and that it would hurt her candidacy for the presidency.? –? Is this really a big deal?? I mean our own RJ Caster essentially said the same thing back in June.? People have a right to their opinion.? And furthermore, I would actually argue that it’s bad for the conservative movement for everyone to always be in total agreement, or to jump on an “Obama-esque” idolization bandwagon.

2) Keene gave Arlen Specter $2,000 in 2008.? Arlen is a long time friend, supposedly.? –? You know, a lot of dyed in the wool conservatives gave Specter a lot of money in 2008.? And a lot of them were ham hogged! (my word)? I’d be willing to bet Keene gave a lot of Republicans with conservative values across the range money in 2008.? The guy isn’t a psychic.

3) Ziegler alleges that the American Conservative Union, whom Keene is Chairman of, offered to give FedEx Keene’s Op-Ed support on a legislative issue if they paid ACU a $2 million.? — First of all, shouldn’t Ziegler be in favor of the free market?? If that is the cost of Op-Ed support, and you have the name recognition to get published to help a client, then what’s the problem?? If you do feel that is unethical, that’s fine too.? That would also be a valid opinion.

Turns out, it wasn’t the case at all.? As Keene explains in this video Ziegler made of a interview he asked if he could have with Keene at WCPAC.? Which turns out to actually be a setup where Ziegler unethically and maliciously corners Keene with his ridiculous assumptions.

The recent escapades of the?Governor of the fine state of South Carolina and now the announcement of Sarah Palin stepping down as Governor of Alaska have added to the concern of the current statue of the Grand Old Party.? Members of the party of the “Rough Rider” and “The Liberator” are beginning to feel weak in a government dominated by Progressives and in all estimations have zero voice in the grand arena.

rj’s current concern of course is that of Palin’s supposed fall from grace.? That a potential unifier or at least fresh face in politics has given in and can no longer stomach the fierceness of the battle ground that is modern politics.

I respectfully dissent.

This is a Trojan Horse if I’ve ever seen one, my friend.? I am of the position that there is a presidential campaign announcement headed our way in 12-18 months.? Do not miss the forest for the trees here.? This is truly a cunning ploy of which the fall out is the act of storing ammunition and not the destruction of her political career as the elitist media would have you believe.? Her base is that of the disenfranchised, the down and out, the every man.? The individuals sick and tired of being told how they feel and what they should believe by the Washington Beltway elite.? Those individuals who crafted a false Palin under the McCain campaign and refused to define her as an intelligent leader, and allowed her to fall victim to painting her as a ditsy pretty face.

The salt of the earth Americans are growing sick and tired of the direction the country is going, and they have zero representation.? The Progressives do not represent these people, and neither do the Neo-Cons.? These are the people that care little if a candidate hales from Blue Blood Ivy League educated status.? They desire leadership that knows of their struggle, that has raised a family outside of towers of concrete, has sweated for their keep and watched it taken away by the invisible hand of government.? These individuals are slowly beginning to rise up against the machine as evidenced in the outpouring of movements like the Tea Parties across our country.

Palin will use the animosity towards her to further establish her base for a strong following when campaigning begins in just about 18 months time.? Because the animosity towards her by the elite will be associated as animosity towards the American Every Man.? This movement can be further established with smart and ambitious grass roots, Internet based social networking plan in the line of my.barackobama.com to impress upon individuals of communities that she represents their strong Goldwater-esque convictions.

If I’m wrong, then there is either a Huckabee style talk show on Fox News waiting on her post July 29th.? I can’t take credit for that prognostication.? That belongs to Ruth Ann Harnisch.? But my conjecture remains that there is a strong possibility that this exit is simply based on a desire to spend time with family prior to the roller coaster and to build ammunition for the fight.? This is more than reasonable.

The bottom line is this: Sarah Palin is standing on the precipice of either disappearing as a footnote of the McCain campaign or having made one of the most brilliant campaign moves in political history.

-nick

??????????? I am beginning to harbor similar feelings regarding our Republican brethren (and sisters).? Of course, there have been an increasing number of hecklers from within the ranks of the Republican Party and conservative movement, who use their platforms to mask their attacks under the guise of ?constructive criticism? as if harking entirely on the negative aspects and name-calling were constructive.? I must touch upon this subject, because they are attempting to do that which I am trying to do: better the political movement of which I belong.? They do so through constant humiliation and scrutiny, as if the father that beat his boy mercilessly for not living up to his expectations actually succeeded in making his son into a better man.? No, the boy grows into that which he knew, and perpetuates the cruelty.? I don?t wish to become one of those antagonists; but there is something about recent events that lead me to need to speak out.?

??????????? In the summer of 2008, I will admit to being swept up by the Sarah Palin fanaticism.? There is a charm about her, something romantic, and something that invoked images of the Yeomen Farmer and the Mr. Smith going to Washington.? The Republicans failed to define her before the media covered her in manure (which in Alaska they do sell Moose dung ?trinkets? oddly enough) and turn her into a ditz.? Fair enough.? Of course there were people from McCain?s Camp that were helpful in dropping the media some fodder as well.? Besides, the first lawyers and Private Investigators that showed up in Wasilla and Anchorage were actually from a Republican candidate.? Many Conservatives stuck by her, and many degraded her; it was the difference between the ?top-down? Conservatives and the ?bottom-up? ones.? I tend to consider myself humbly as a ?top-down Conservative,? being guided by ideals and principles over culture and pragmatism to a degree.? This did not deter me from getting excited and throwing my own support behind Governor Palin, and I don?t really regret it, yet.

??????????? With that said, I was at first sad to hear Governor Palin would be stepping down.? This of course drew shouts of glee from the more snobbish Conservatives, and seemed to throw liberals for a loop until they figured out how to spin it to make her look like a witch.? Nevertheless, I was at first a bit sad as I said, but then later, I became a bit angry.? Sarah Palin?s move may have been justified in her mind, because let?s face it, she has been getting lambasted with 15 ethics investigations, and people who possess nothing close to a respectable sense of humor.? I don?t believe this is the true reason why she is doing this, I think that this was her out, and instead of fighting like the ?Mr. Smith? type many of us thought her to be, she is cutting and running.

??????????? Governor Palin admitted that she was officially a ?lame-duck? governor essentially.? Many people in her position would be traveling on tax-payer money, going to other states, travelling abroad, et cetera.? She was not going to do this? so she is just quitting altogether?? In the end, Sarah Palin made a pact with the people that elected her.? She swore an allegiance to do for her state what needed to be done.? I do not find this a necessary way out, I find it to be the easy way out.? In the end, this hurts Governor Palin?s career, it hurts her word (which used to count for something, right Governor Sanford) and she hurt the Party.???

?

-rj