New York Governor Faces Daunting Threat By His Own Party

The Governor of New York has tossed down a challenge at any and all. He will not raise taxes and he will support Marcellus Shale drilling. Cuomo publicly lashed out, ridiculing those who felt that

Andrew Cuomo, son of Democratic Party legend Mario, faces powerful attacks from public employees' unions, factions of his own Democratic Party, and a left wing "workers' party" the supports everything but work.

The Democratic Party in many parts of the nation faces a serious identity crisis. In places such as New York, the old liberal establishment finds itself at odds with the New Left. Most of the time, liberalism succumbs quietly to the shrill and mindless "mike check" mentality. In doing so, they wave good-bye to meaningful dialogue and the jobs that could be saved through tax and regulation relief. Governor Cuomo will have none of the Left. He seems to stand ready to strike back.

Thankfully, West Virginia Democrats, at least the majority anyway, have successfully resisted the burrowing of the left. They do not support business reforms as stridently as the state needs, but they have not kowtowed to Obamunism either. Democrats in the Mountain State are not swimming to shore, but they do continue to tread water, unwilling to put the weights desired of the left on the state's ankles.

Democrats need to take their party back.

Mitt Romney Needs to Abandon the Thomas E. Dewey Strategy

What do you think of when you think of Mitt Romney? Certainly he is intelligent, accomplished, organized, and, in a way, looks like a president. Conservative ideology aside, we would have no reason to think that Romney could not be sound in office.

But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"

There lies the problem.

Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.

Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.

Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.

Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."

Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:

No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.

To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.

It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.

Happy Thanksgiving

We are thankful for God, family, country, and all of the men and women who risk all every day to protect us.

Gingrich Looking Past Primaries?

Newt Gingrich, in last night's debates, seemed to start positioning himself against not only his fellow Republicans, but also the incumbent president. The former Speaker of the House strongly advocated for a "humane" immigration policy that eases the enforcement of laws on long term illegals. His rationale lay in preventing family break-ups.

Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.

It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.

The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.

What Is Joe Manchin's Endgame?

It's a good question.

Unlike many Democratic lawmakers who thinly praise, or opt out of the discussion altogether when it comes to Obama, Senator Manchin has gone on the offensive. Most recently, he blasted Obama for failed leadership on the issue of budget deficits.

This is not really a position of tremendous political courage for Manchin. West Virginia despises Obama and overwhelmingly approves of their newest U. S. Senator. However, he is right to compare his own leadership favorably to the absent Obama. Manchin, albeit with a few accounting gimmicks, could show a balanced budget every year. He also used surpluses to reduce state pension debt. Despite the (D) after his name, Manchin exercised some fiscal conservatism. His example has been followed by current West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin and even New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Common sense dictates that in a poor economy, tax hikes and drastically expanded spending cannot work.

Joe Manchin is the consummate politician. He has an endgame here. Does it involve a bid for higher political office under the Democratic banner? Or is his rhetoric, which sounds moderate for a Republican and actually runs right of Mitt Romney in some ways, prefacing a party switch?

This coming election cycle could be one of the most raucous and unpredictable in some time. Some things that would have been impossible a few years ago might be seen as bold solutions now, especially if a true maverick like Newt Gingrich ends up on the GOP ticket.

For now, it is interesting to see Manchin again target Obama on the economic warpath.

Obama and NASCAR...What Could Go Wrong?

In one of the worst of a series of bad moves for the Obama administration, someone had the bright idea to put Michelle Obama front and center in front of a .........NASCAR crowd?

What's next? Beer summit between Barack and Charlie Daniels?

Michelle Obama, she who was first proud to be an American only when her husband received the nomination, was booed heartily by the crowd in Florida. Just like Herbert Hoover met with boos in 1932 when he attended baseball games.

She ostensibly was on tap for a pretty worthy cause, honoring troops and their families. The swing state timing of this appearance was certainly political, and had she met with roars of approval, Democrat pundits would have eagerly embraced this as evidence that Obama has more support than we think.

Barack himself, who believes that these NASCAR fans cling unreasonably to guns and religion, (among other fairly condescending remarks) was booed in 2010 by Boy Scouts, of all people. This is not a new phenomenon for the Obamas.

I wonder what bright individual thought that Obama and NASCAR would mix. NASCAR fans do not tend to be leftists. And don't give me the race issue either. Had Allen West or Herman Cain done the same, they would have received raucous cheers.

Michelle Obama should try opening up CPAC next year. She might get a better reaction.

University of Charleston: Ahead of the Curve

The University of Charleston, yes, our Charleston, is getting ahead of the curve on changes that are coming to higher education.

It announced this month that tuition will drop 22% over the next few years.

High education costs, pushed by the student loan balloon, have soared. Students and institutions of higher learning alike rode the "free money" train for many years. Humanities departments rejoiced and hired hand over fist, granting tenure to many. Inevitably, student loan procedures will change. They will have to be more geared toward students who plan to do something productive with their degrees, something that will eventually be able to repay the loans.

Colleges and universities will have to do their part and lower their tuition and fees. Raises in these were only possible on a large scale because of the student aid programs.

The University of Charleston is adapting to the landscape before the changes come, trying to remain competitive for great students while dealing with the realities of the next several years.

Bravo, U. C. You are likely a model for the rest of the country.

Has CBS Rediscovered Journalism?

The lowest point of the news career of the Tiffany Network came in 2004 when Dan Rather pursued a story about George W. Bush's National Guard record into the ground, despite the fact that supporting documentation was forged. This came many years after Rather declared a vendetta for no conceivable reason against George H. W. Bush. In 2008, Katie Couric ambushed Sarah Palin by using a softball interview to ask strong questions. Which, honestly, is fair enough. A candidate or elected official should be prepared to answer tough questions at any time. But treat Obama and Biden the same, please. That's all we ask.

That was then. Are we seeing a new CBS?

Which old network has pursued Fast and Furious? CBS. Which old network spotlighted a Brietbart contributor's book on the use by congressmen and women (including Pelosi) of inside congressional information to score big on stocks? CBS' 60 Minutes.

CBS seems to have rediscovered the public benefit of journalism that shows less ideological favor and hits everyone just as hard. Now they are not yet perfect. Scott Pelley's laughable performance as debate moderator demonstrates that they have a ways to go. But at least they are covering the news.

Remember Our Vets Today

From the militia defending the frontier in the 1600s to the men and women on the front lines of freedom today. You all are appreciated. Thank you!

The Third Agency and the Stupid Shallowness of Debating

In the future, the Republican Party needs to shape the debate process better.

In no way, shape or form can voters make an intelligent decision about their candidates when their main national speaking forum resembles more a game show than a serious discourse.

In thirty seconds or less, explain how and why you would end Obamacare. Really? This is what an important issue gets reduced to?

Rick Perry is no debater, but he does have more executive branch experience than anyone that he might face in this election. How does eleven years of experience translate into debating? It doesn't. Pundits, based solely on his debating skills, rate him as mentally deficient. Debating skill does not necessarily equal political brilliance. Had Prince Otto von Bismarck, one of the great statesmen of the modern era, been put on stage with these GOP candidates, he would have flubbed worse than Perry.

Tell me when, outside of a campaign, does a president have to debate anyone in this fashion?

I am not endorsing Rick Perry here. In fact, if there is any way that we can set aside the personal baggage, Newt Gingrich may be the best potential president. He sounds absolutely Churchillian at times.

Gingrich, to his credit, is trying to change the game. America deserves thoughtful debate. We don't need guys standing behind podiums sweating nervously and trying not to make mistakes. Let us, just one time, sit these candidates down in comfortable chairs and let them calmly discuss the issues of the day. If it takes three hours, so be it. If America tunes out, that is our choice. But let us discuss issues in a civilized tone so we can make a truly educated choice.

Why Republicans Should Engage Labor Unions

A dalliance. A brief liaison. A flirtation. That might be all that is needed to spur union rank and file towards the Republican camp in the upcoming election year.

Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.

The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.

As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.

Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.

A Tale of Two Joes

Two Joes have the spotlight today. One finally got his due, another got exposed. One was beloved by the media, the other ridiculed. Time has a way of uncovering the good and evil that men do, or at least tolerate.

Joe Frazier never got his due while he was alive, as a boxer or a man. The media always saw him as a placeholder for Muhammed Ali during his suspension, even after Frazier beat him. It took Frazier's death for the media to admit, finally, that Ali (as a Washington D. C. sports talk commentator said this morning) that Ali was a "d!&k" and that Frazier conducted himself with class.

The media always looked upon Joe Frazier with scorn and laughed at Ali's racial characterizations of him. They sounded a lot like later attacks on Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele. Frazier bore them with pride and dignity, even in his later, impoverished years. Only now, with his death, do we finally hear that, yes, this was a great man in his own way.

Joe Paterno has always been identified as morality and rectitude itself. He comes from that greatest generation and seemed to symbolize all of its virtues. Unfortunately, he could not bring himself, when given a statement that a child had suffered sexual attack, to turn in his old friend who happened to attack at least eight other children. Paterno did the legal minimum. He told his superiors. It does not matter that Paterno knew few of the pertinent details. He knew a man with Penn State credentials had sexually forced himself on a young boy. That is all you need to know to pick up the damned phone and call 9-1-1.

So while we feel disappointment with one Joe, let us remember fondly the other. Joe Paterno was not the man we thought he was. But Joe Frazier was so much more.

Liberalism Needs to Separate From Leftism

America is moving towards disaster. Greece, which currently is in debt at 120% of its GDP, is set to collapse. We are at 101% and rising. Tough decisions must be made.

This is where traditional American, old school liberalism needs to reassert itself. American liberalism was not anti-industrial. As a matter of fact, they cringed at radical environmentalist proposals in the 1960s that feel far short of the Lisa Jackson EPA. They understood that labor needed industry in a basic way, but also needed help. Labor needed prosperous industry to employ workers and pay for pension and social programs.

At some point, liberals joined with leftists and therein lies the current problems.

Liberals understand that business needs to profit so that it can grow, employ more people, and pay its taxes. The Left sees business as a milk cow to be squeezed as much as possible, then whipped when it can provide no more milk.

The fact is that, given the knowledge that the United States can lead the world in energy production, including oil, we can pay for our social welfare system. We need to make tough decisions about federal spending on such things as education and we definitely need to cut waste. But, in reality, if we unleash American energy and manufacturing from its regulatory shackles, the resulting economic growth can pay for social welfare IF we do not start tacking on a whole bunch of new programs.

I don't mean gutting all environmental and labor laws. But we need to recognize that a balance must exist. We must stop discouraging development and begin encouraging growth.

To do so, the liberals need to reject the left and support energy and manufacturing growth. They need to stop bashing the productive simply because they exist and realize that if they are doing better, so is labor and so are the tax revenues that fund the programs that liberals love.

In other words, you cannot have it both ways. We cannot expand social benefits and discourage manufacturing and energy production at the same time.

Greece

It was either this or Herman Cain today. I happened to see Cain last night at the American Spectator dinner. He has a power and an eloquence in his public speaking and an easy going nature around his potential constituents. If you wonder how conservatives react to Cain now, he got a standing ovation after his introduction.

Unless the accusers have something more than inappropriate talk, Cain ain't going anywhere.

And now Greece.

2,400 years ago, Greece stood at the center of civilization. Persia's slow decline coupled with regional desire for olive oil and wine made the Greek cities wealthy. They traded their own, and other countries' products. However, their own tragic flaw lay in their inability to unify on anything. Their fratricidal wars left them vulnerable to the expansion of Rome.

Today, Greece stands at the abyss. Most of their country wants to stick its head in a hole and pretend that a welfare state is viable. Their debt is 120% of their GDP (ours is 101%, so we are not far behind) and they must pare away much of their welfare state and bureaucracy to qualify for a loan that will only pay their bills until the end of the year. An agreement was made, then rescinded as their prime minister agreed to put it to a national referendum, which is allowed under their legal system.

Where will Greece go from here? No one knows. The agreement will fail to win the vote, according to polls and observers. Had the prime minister gone ahead with the deal with the European Union, he risked civil war. If the country votes the plan down, there will still be massive social unrest, but the people can only blame themselves for that. However, if the vote passes, then it will give their government a mandate to make the reforms that they desperately need.

Greece's prime minister has gotten pummeled by the international press. But the spoiled brat populace of Greece gives him little choice

Jim DeMint (R-SC) Blasts Environmentalists Who Put Extremism Ahead of Public Safety

Recent Press Releases

November 1, 2011

54 Senators Risk Health of Millions to Appease Environmentalists on Inhaler Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after the Senate voted 44-54against his amendment that would have stopped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ban on over-the-counter (OTC) epinephrine asthma inhalers. The amendment would have disallowed the use of taxpayer funds to enforce the ban on OTC inhalers. The ban is set to take effect in Jan. 1, 2012 and puts environmental concerns ahead of concerns for the estimated 3 million American asthma sufferers who use these inhalers.

“Fifty-four Senators voted to appease extreme environmentalists by banning inhalers that millions of Americans that depend on to breathe,” said Senator DeMint. “This ban won’t do anything serious to help the environment but it will force asthma suffers to spend two to three times more on prescription inhalers, leading many low-income Americans to seek less effective remedies. Even the EPA and FDA admit that banning OTC inhalers will do little to nothing to affect the ozone, but it could lead to hundreds of thousands of new asthma related hospital visits and hundreds of millions in new health costs.”

“This is exactly the kind of ridiculous regulation that shows why Americans are so fed up with the federal government’s nanny-state mentality. Once again, Washington is willing to put Americans at risk in the hopes of appeasing special interests.”

The FDA estimated that the inhaler ban may result in asthma sufferers self-medicating with less effective remedies, and could lead to an increase in annual health expenditures from $180 million to $1.1 billion and hospital ER visits for asthma could increase by anywhere from 0 to 444,000. (source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27436.htm)

The ban is an attempt to reduce chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, yet even the FDA admits that “The reduction of CFC emissions associated with removing OTC epinephrine CFC MDIs [Metered-Dose Inhalers] from the U.S. market represents only a fraction of 1 percent of total global CFC emissions. Current allocations of CFCs for OTC epinephrine MDIs account for less than 0.1 percent of the total 1986 global production of CFCs.” (source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27436.htm)

Federal Reserve Not Immune From Law of Unintended Consequences

Twist Puts Looney Tune Squeeze on Citizens

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently announced that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would begin a process informally known as “Operation Twist,” in which the Federal Reserve will attempt to force long term rates downward while letting short term rates rise.

This will be accomplished by selling short term treasuries and purchasing longer term ones with those same funds. Bernanke believes that this will aid the economy by allowing individuals to refinance at lower rates, thereby providing support for real estate markets and yielding an increase in consumer spending money.

With this announcement, Mr. Bernanke has proven once more that elaborate theories crafted by geniuses always yield results even Wile E. Coyote himself could not devise a more promising scheme if left alone in the desert with stacks of economic data.

If by now you’re wincing just a bit, it could be because you know that reality comes with its own set of rules. Attempting to manipulate markets to achieve a desired outcome may appear logical…. it might even seem like the right thing to do on many occasions, but the law of unintended consequences always does exactly what you don’t expect, as its name implies.

Economic recovery in this environment is not unlike the Road Runner. Each time you think it can be had, it leaves you looking silly. What we need is an elaborate plan—or two…or even three.

The problem is that we have already made these attempts. First, there was QE1, then there was QE2. Both were extravagant and expensive ways to attempt economic stimulus. And now, because the first two were so successful, this third round of tinkering is being forced upon the public by a Fed Chairman concerned with his own job security.

First of all, we must consider those who depend the most upon a healthy and normal yield curve. Retirees, pensions, and small to regional banks depend more on long term rates to yield an acceptable rate of return than most other segments of society. Yet, Operation Twist is taking from those who have worked and saved, pressuring pension funds which are already stretched thin, and tilting the board to favor the megabanks which have far more diverse revenue streams – banks that have already been bailed out once.

In addition, only those people who qualify for refinancing will be able to benefit from these lower rates—if the bank is willing to lend at all—but those on the edge of walking away from their mortgages will see no reason to change their minds. As a result, real estate values will remain soft from the glut of homes on the market.

　

Mr. Bernanke (Wile E.), perhaps it is time to stop chasing Mr. Recovery (Road Runner). Retreat. Reconsider. Let supply and demand determine housing prices.

Perhaps some young couples starting out could benefit from a real break. If left alone, they will soon have saved enough money to do the things that move economies.

They could start a business and hire people. Perhaps their local bank would lend them money for commercial property if rates were attractive. Maybe Grandpa could have helped them out in a tight spot if his cash flow wasn’t restricted by a meddling little man in a far away place with a fancy title and wild ideas.

Henry Dillon is the Principal/Adviser with Founders Finance, LLC located in Huntington, WV. For further information, please visit their website at www.foundersfinance.com

Joe Biden Causes Increases In Rapes

The Joe Biden Theory of Police Presence and Increases of Instances of Rape can be put to teh test in other areas besides Republican fiscal responsibility.

Joe Biden supports OWS and like movements across the country.

Prominent officials' support of such movements encourage local city governments to tolerate their presence no matter how violent, unhealthful, etc. they get.

A large assemblage of shady characters requires a larger than normal police presence.

Those police are not on their usual beats.

This causes rapes.

Therefore, according to his own logic . . .

Joe Biden causes rape.

If We Wanted to: How to Comply With OWS Demands

OWS demands pretty much fly all over the place. This should get even more freaktastic now that Islamic militants have joined in common cause bare breasted hippie girls that have (useless) college degrees. But a few stand out. Universal distribution of food and through the roof minimum wages are only a couple of the proposals/demands heard from these protests.

Conservatives claim that such demands are impossible. We are wrong. They are possible, as well as easy, to fulfill. We cannot do these things through simple taxation because American businesses and individuals simply do not have enough wealth to cover the bill.

One model of society that could satisfy the demands made by OWS was proposed over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic.

Hippies would love this. Philosophers, defined by Plato as the enlightened, not necessarily the ones from the ivory tower, get to rule. Bankers, soldiers, merchants, artists, and professionals have their place in this system. The intelligent, educated, and enlightened get to spend all of their time pursuing the work that fulfills them and avoiding other kinds of dull or dangerous labor.

Sounds great so far. Just what the young want. Fulfilling work that pays. There is a catch, though. Plato insists that each person fulfill their intended roles. He then lists a number of jobs and includes the word "slave" in the list. Plato's model state rests on slavery. This produces the wealth that enables everyone else to pursue their dreams without worrying about who digs the ditches.

Let's say that we don't want to enslave anyone. We can still pay off the debt and do as OWS desires, at least for a few decades. The answer is conquest. Yes, we can pay for everything by seizing the wealth and resources of neighboring states. We have military strength and resources to seize Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and any other nearby area that suits our needs. We then just take what we want for the greater good.

Towards the end of the Roman Republic, the masses were encouraged by opportunistic political leaders to demand more and more handouts. The constitution, once revered, was increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than a guardian. Poor leaders demanded action now, even if it violated individual rights and constitutional law. Once leaders started down that road, it led to civil wars, conquests, and, eventually, an empire led by insane tyrants.

Yes we can do what OWS wants. We could enslave our own population. Or conquer others and lose our own constitution in the process. Or we could ignore the simple minded drivel and make long term plans to cut spending, cut regulation, spur economic growth, and diligently climb out of the mess created by greedy government.

Ann Coulter

I had a chance to see Ann Coulter at Georgetown University last week. She put on an impressive show.

About 2/3 of the student crowd were respectfully hostile. Coulter delivered a lively and confrontational performance. She did not just want to preach to the choir, but also to afflict the comfortable liberals and leftists in their own academic lair.

Coulter cast her lines and reeled them in. No one disrupted the forty minute speech, but the question and answer session, called by Coulter "the fun part," brought forth lines of undergraduate students offering themselves up as neophyte gladiators against a master of rhetoric.

An academic world dominated by leftists and liberals can only with difficulty produce people of that ideology who can argue their own cause. The best resorted to ad hominem attacks against her while the worst spouted incoherent and untrue anecdotes of things that were said to have happened ten years ago. At one point, in mock frustration, she stated that she gave them a half an hour of actual issues to attack her on, but none of them were creative enough to go beyond what they found on "AnnCoulterisacword.com" talking points.

It's true. They attacked her language and image, but none took issue with the substance of her speech on economics and society.

Most amazingly, a few of the very critical questioners, whom she dispatched easily, showed up afterwards, her $29 book in hand, to get an autograph and shake her hand.

It reminded me of a scene from the movie Private Parts where the network executives were aghast that not only did Howard Stern's fans listen regularly, but also those who hated and complained about him.

In this sense, Ann Coulter entertains liberals. She offers herself and her views on their turf and invites their attacks. Like the old contests where an average guy can win a prize if he lasts three minutes with a boxing champion, they test themselves. They come out the loser each time, but they can at least brag that they faced their conservative devil and lived to tell the tale. Coulter goes beyond the preaching to the choir mentality that a lot of commentators have. She engages, entertains, and provokes. Very likely, liberals often leave a presentation of hers at least rethinking some of their ideals because she presents her own very logically. But they also enjoy the kind of rhetorical tussle with an accomplished conservative that rarely happens on a college campus.

It's also obvious that she loves the fight as well.

Republicans Need to Talk Team In Presidential Race

America is living through a crisis that we have not seen in two generations. Somewhere between the Carter years and the Great Depression is our economic mess, caused by big government, easy credit, tax policy that is beyond stupid, and overregulation.

Republican presidential candidates and political minds, too influenced by both "The Won" and the Ron, offer themselves as the solution.

Most of us following the chase for the Republican nomination know that no free market white knight messiah exists on stage. One has personal baggage, the presumed winner before it starts is more liberal than Joe Manchin, another sees aggressive foreign policy as a covenant with death, the leader's demise has already been predicted, and the guy from Texas is just making it up as he goes along.

The GOP choices look way too much like a Washington Redskins quarterback controversy. All bring strengths to the table, but none stand out as a definite winning horse, not yet anyway.

So I want to hear something more team oriented. Not "I." We don't have complete confidence in any of you yet. You have all had failings and flaws at some point. You all bring weaknesses to the table, even you, Newt. Talk about the team. Talk about working with John Boehner, other prominent members of Congress such as Allen West and Marco Rubio, state governors, and even each other.

What we actually have is a slate full of great potential Cabinet appointees. Paul at Treasury (imagine the Federal Reserve boys if he actually got that appointment!), Gingrich at State, Romney or Cain at Commerce, Perry at Homeland Security. Bachman should stay where she is and work towards a committee chairmanship. Santorum to Labor, or something else domestic. But we have to pick one of these people for president.

Conservatives ridiculed and decried "The Won." Now we are foolishly looking for our own version. We only got one of those in the past century and some countries never see his ilk in their entire histories. They need to talk about how they will work together after the primaries and a successful GOP campaign. Even Romney and Perry, who obviously share some dislike, need to talk about cooperating in the future.

The team concept is how to sell the GOP nominee to the country. You don't just get the nominee, but you also get the Republican team. The adults are coming back to set things right again.