Gentlemen, Start Your Engines

With the Iowa caucuses just about a month away, the Republican presidential race finally has some life in it.

For months, the conversation about the contest has gone something like this:

"Well, we've got Mitt, who's been running for 4 years, so I guess it's his turn. But I don't know. I don't really trust him. He doesn't seem to have any core convictions. And RomneyCare. Oy! That neutralizes one of our main lines of attack against Obama: that government-run health care is a nightmarish power grab which we cannot afford. Mitt's not helping himself by refusing to drop RomneyCare like it's hot. That, I suppose, would be one flip-flop too many. Of course, a flip-flop on RomneyCare is the one flip-flop we'd actually welcome. So, Mitt. Sigh.

"Who else is out there? Oooohh! Michele Bachmann! She's a solid conservative and a gutsy pol. But can she win? It's tough for women, as Hillary discovered. Steeper climb. And what's with her gaffes? Everybody makes mistakes, but women in the race need to make fewer of them to avoid looking airy. She's not airy, but there is a double standard. Let's see...Ooohhh! Rick Perry! Smart, good economic record in Texas, looks the part. But the debates....D'oh! Deer in the headlights. Sorry, but this election is too significant. We're not going to send this guy into a debate with Barack Obama, he of the silver tongue. Oooohhh! Herman Cain! He's shiny and new. Successful businessman, solid free marketeer, refreshing. But what's with all the women? If all of these allegations are false, where does he go to get his reputation back? I feel for him. But he's so distracted now that he can't focus on his message. He had some policy weaknesses before all of this crud hit the fan, but now? Well, we're not going to send him into a debate with Barack Obama, either.

"Which leaves us with Mitt...sigh....and oooohhh! What's this? Newt Gingrich?! He's not shiny and new. He's had some personal controversies. He's been undisciplined and all over the map over the past 20 years. But man, the cat knows how to debate! He would cream Obama in a debate just by shooting him a glare. Then he'd back up the glare with a full-throated advocacy of conservative principles and policies, he'd smash Obama's leftist ideology and give voters a true choice between Obama's failed socialist experiment and limited government, free market solutions. Newt. I can't believe it. But I'm starting to believe it."

Mitt has his work cut out for him. For the first time, he's started to show a bit of panic onstage during the debates and in interviews. When Perry entered the race, he was worried but didn't show it, because he still believed he was the smartest guy there. At that point, Newt was an also-ran. But no longer. And no longer is Mitt the smartest guy in the race. He's sounding more defensive and looking more easily shaken. His confidence may be undermined. Remember that old ad that said, "Never let them see you sweat?" Mitt's letting us see him sweat. In a way, it's good---competition makes all the players better candidates, and better prepared to take on Obama next year. Perry's entry made Mitt a better candidate. But Newt's rise seems to be having the opposite effect on him. While everyone is focused on if Newt can hold up, I think the more interesting question is if Mitt can hold up.

Newt. Who'd a thunk it?

Sometimes the man meets the moment and the moment meets the man. We know what the moment is. Let's see which man rises---and stays---to meet it.

Imus In The Morning

I'll be on with Don Imus tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 8:30am ET. Please tune in to your local radio station or to Fox Business Network.

Dispatches From the Age Of Obama

Some developments over the past few days:

1. Fitch Ratings announced that it was lowering the outlook on U.S. debt to "negative." A full downgrade can't be far behind.

2. American Airlines announced that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankrupcy protection.

3. Obama announced that the United States "stands ready to do our part" to help Europe "resolve this issue." "This issue" refers to their crushing debt. Do we have "that issue" here at home? See #1.

4. Obama's Department of Health and Human Services denied Indiana's and Louisiana's requests for a temporary respite from ObamaCare's medical loss ratio requirements, meaning they'll have to ramp up ObamaCare's requirements a lot sooner than they will be fiscally able to do so. Those 2 states join North Dakota and Delaware in being dissed by Obama's HHS, which apparently doesn't care that the states are broke and can't take ObamaCare on.

5. On the retirement of Democrat Barney Frank from Congress, the White House said, "This country has never had a Congressman like Barney Frank." Indeed. In his full-throated defense and advocacy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and giving loans to people who had no way to ever pay them back, he pretty much singlehandedly sparked the financial crisis.

6. Frank becomes the 13th Congressional Democrat to announce his retirement. So much for the vaunted Obama coattails.

7. Iranian protesters have stormed the British embassy in Tehran over a new wave of sanctions on the regime.

8. Pakistan is in flames after a NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistanis are burning Obama in effigy and the U.S. image there is described as the "worst ever." If this had occurred under President Bush, he would have been crucified by the Left for blowing up such a critical alliance.

9. Over the holiday weekend, when all of these things were brewing, Obama played golf, caught a college basketball game and ate a hot dog.

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox News at 8pm and 11pm ET. Please tune in!

Thanksgiving, 2011

As Americans, today we count our many blessings. We give thanks for our families and friends, our faith, our Constitution and the many freedoms it guarantees, our great and good country, and the extraordinary United States military, our bulwark against tyranny, oppression and terror.

We are going through tough times, but we are truly blessed in this great land. There is still no other nation like it on earth. Never has been, never will be. God blessed America from the beginning. And He blesses us still. Now we just have to work a bit harder to save her. The work begins anew tomorrow. For today, we celebrate and give thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Electing A Commander-in-Chief

Last night, the Republican presidential candidates took part in a debate featuring national security issues. Broadcast by CNN and moderated by a rapid-fire Wolf "Blitz" Blitzer, the debate covered a lot of ground, from how Islamic terror should be fought to how our southern border should be enforced. All of the candidates were outstanding, but some really stood out. Here are my quick thoughts on their performances:

Newt Gingrich: Newt is the master of detail, history and policy. Nobody can lay a glove on him when he gets on a roll. He dispatched all questions with ease and expertise. His answer about allowing children of law-abiding, longstanding illegals to stay in the U.S. may embroil him in some trouble, but perhaps his gamble was to try to humanize himself. Not sure, but it may be risky. What conservatives like about Newt is that he ISN'T warm n' fuzzy. Maybe he's already running a general election campaign, targeting independents??

Mitt Romney: He got less airtime last night than he usually does. That's a reflection of his slightly slipping poll position vis-a-vis Newt. When he did have the floor, he was polished and displayed a commanding sense of the world and America's place in it. He gave a stronger answer than Newt on illegal immigration, which may help to shore up his standing among conservatives.

Herman Cain: He was much better prepared for last night's debate than he'd been for previous debates. It was a pleasant surprise that he seemed far more agile with tough foreign policy topics, and although he doesn't have the details of policy at his fingertips and seemed a bit hesitant here and there, his performance was more than serviceable.

Michele Bachmann: She was dynamite on that stage. A member of the House Intelligence Committee, she knows her stuff and isn't afraid to show it. She showed particular finesse on the questions about Pakistan, Iran and terrorism. She knows far more about national security issues than Hillary Clinton knew when she ran.

Rick Perry: He turned in a far better debate performance last night than he has in the past, which must be a huge relief to him. He tightened up his response to the illegal immigrant/southern border question, although he said he'd seal the border, which might be tough to do without the fence he says he opposes. But he demonstrated a solid understanding of world dynamics, even if he, like Cain, were sparse on the details. I'm not sure a solid debate performance this late in the game can turn it around for him, but he's still in the hunt.

Ron Paul: He makes an important point that our economic vulnerability thanks to crippling debt is THE major national security threat. If we can't project power because we're an economic basketcase, that's the end of the U.S., the bad guys will advance and the world will convulse. But he goes astray when he refuses to accept a strong and influential American role in the world. Someone who rejects American superpower that obviously will not be elected president by a Republican base.

Rick Santorum: He was excellent, as he usually is, on national security issues. He handled with ease the few questions that came his way and was right in his straightforward analysis of how we should handle terror, Iran and nuclear weapons. It's a shame he's never gained much traction.

Jon Huntsman: His dissertations last night sounded like odes to liberal global-handholding. He referred to "the shining light" or some such thing a few times and spoke of the "global community" etc. In other words, he's still right at home in the Obama administration.

With the exception of the isolationist Ron Paul, any of these candidates would be light years ahead of Obama in terms of protecting and advancing America's interests in the world. We're not just electing a president. We're electing a commander-in-chief. The world is a dangerous place. We need someone who actually believes in and practices American exceptionalism.

Every Day Older and A'Deeper In Debt

So, here we are. Last week, we surpassed $15 trillion in national debt. The federal government now borrows $4 billion per day. Spending actually increased by 5% over last year. Our debt to GDP ratio is now over 100%. To put that in perspective, Greece---whose sovereign debt crisis is imploding much of Europe---has a debt to GDP ratio of about 128%.

And yet, the profiles in courage on Capitol Hill could not get it together to cut a measly $1.2 trillion---over 10 years. Thanks to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending blowout, we're running annual deficits of $1.4 trillion. They've added over $4 trillion to the national debt in under 3 years. And they couldn't see through a paltry $1.2 trillion in cuts over a decade. Pathetic.

Even more pathetic is President Obama's response. He has not lifted a finger on deficit reduction since he became president. In fact, he has done the exact opposite: he has put TNT under the spending baselines and exploded them. Intentionally. His purpose is to so expand government and the dependency that goes along with it that he is deliberately bankrupting the nation in order to do it.

When he had big majorities in the House and Senate during his first 2 years in office, he could have taken on deficit reduction if he were serious about it and gotten whatever he wanted. He wasn't serious about it, and nothing got done. Instead, he went to the other extreme and blew out the federal fisc.

He then commissioned a special bipartisan debt commission that advanced about $4 trillion in cuts along with tax and entitlement reform. It was chockfull of gutsy proposals. Obama promptly threw it in the circular file.

The new House Budget Chairman, Paul Ryan, then proposed another gutsy approach when he submitted the House GOP budget. It also consisted of courageous reforms of the tax code and entitlements to start to bring spending under control. The House voted to approve it. Reid's Senate killed it.

During the debt ceiling debate this past summer, Obama stood on the sidelines, only emerging to scold members of Congress like they were Sasha and Malia. When the Republicans presented a compromise that contained revenue increases---painful to them---Obama agreed, only to come back and up the ante, demanding more tax hikes. The result was a dead "big" deal.

And now we have the failure of the ridiculously nicknamed "SuperCommittee" of Congress, which, surprise surprise, couldn't do what the entire Congress couldn't do. Why anyone thought a microcosm of Congress could do what the macrocosm of Congress couldn't is beyond me. At no point did Obama step in, take control, lead and demand spending cuts, tax and entitlement reform and deficit reduction. He was AWOL. It was a complete abdication of leadership and duty. But that's routine for him.

The reason? He doesn't believe we've got a spending or size-of-government problem. In fact, he's moving the other way: to spend more and grow government even bigger. Everything he proposes costs billions of dollars more. Once again: he doesn't think we've got a problem. If he doesn't think we've got a problem, why would anyone assume he's ready, willing and able to fix it?

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be a guest with Bill O'Reilly TONIGHT at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

Pipelines and Guns

The Keystone XL pipeline project would have been an incredible boost to the US economy. It would have created over 20,000 new jobs immediately, over 100,000 over time, decreased our dependence on foreign sources of oil, made us more energy independent and lowered fuel prices for all of us. It also would have been paid for by the private sector. Not a single taxpayer dollar would've been committed to it. Which is why President Obama and so many on the Left opposed it. That, and some hyperventiliating by environmental activists like Daryl Hannah. Even Big Labor was for it because of the instant jobs it would've generated.

But Obama was unmoved. Actually, he punted the whole controversy over to the State Department, which ultimately decided to punt on it until after the 2012 election as they gas around about where to possibly relocate the pipeline and while Canada looks to China instead. Profiles in courage, aren't they?

Last week, Obama was asked about the Keystone pipeline project. He replied: "The State Department's in charge of analyzing this, because there's a pipeline coming in from Canada. They'll be giving me a report over the next several months, and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people ... but also, what's best for the health of the American people? ... We want to make sure that we're taking the long view on these issues."

Hamlet strikes again. On the one hand. On the other hand. Paralysis.

But here's a question: Obama said that it was up to the State Department because the pipeline was crossing an international border. Where was the State Department on Fast and Furious? That, after all, was a far more serious gunrunning operation across an international border. Hillary claims she knew nothing, heard nothing, said nothing. She was either AWOL on Fast and Furious or knew about it and is covering up. Obama was deferring to her Department on the pipeline because it crossed an international border, but he doesn't know where the buck stops on that OTHER operation that crossed an international border?

Weird that Obama seems anguished by a decision about a major job-creating oil pipeline but not much disturbed by a recent gunrunning operation that has claimed the lives of two federal agents so far. I guess when it comes to operations that cross international borders, he's only interested in talking about the safe ones that actually help us.

Occupy Goes Into Phase Two

As we watch the violent, anarchist, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, socialist throngs fill the streets of lower Manhattan today, marching on Wall Sreet, disrupting the stock exchange and local businesses, and swarming the subways, remember what we're witnessing here. We are dealing with a very sophisticated leftist pychology and movement that gets kids and radicals moving FIRST and then at a later point, supplies them with the message and marching orders. Occupy Wall Street, with the localized park infestations, was just Phase One. Phase Two is starting now: escalating violence, ramped up rhetoric, greater abuse of the system and chaos. It's all designed to destroy the existing capitalist order in order to make way for a more socialist one. This revolution has been around since the turn of the 20th century. Bill Ayers described it well when he said in the early 1970s, "Kill all the rich people." The revolution is the same. Only today, they've gotten much more agile and adaptive in their tactics. Pay attention: this is not just about a bunch of kids in sleeping bags pooping on each other in between shooting up. They are merely the troops. Pay attention to the generals: the unions, the socialists, the communists, the anarchists. They are running the show. And they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Please take a look at this short video of New York's OWS, done by Ami Horowitz for Glenn Beck's GBTV. It's disturbing and hilarious. We've got to keep our eyes on the ball---because they certainly are.

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19996135&topic_id=&tcid=vpp_copy_19996135&v=3