http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vK9GnNgUI

But is he really. In just a year and a half the President has managed to take control of at least one of the world’s largest banks, two automobile companies, the beginning of control over the health care industry through HHS, and now, because of this crisis, is in the position of controlling an oil company simply by nudging it into bankruptcy. Next up on the agenda, amnesty. He has ignored the Arizona Governor’s plea for help along the border, despite a public promise to do so … even as crime has risen. Chaos. We need to solve this with amnesty, he will cry.

Incompetent? I don’t think so. I consider him amazingly focused.

It started with Rush’s rant last week where a woman caller brought up O’Reilly’s name and Rush took a level only Rush could. He mocked Bill about his “fair and balanced” pander to the Obama administration … but Rush’s rant also included shots at Bill’s … umm … self awareness?

It must have struck a nerve because O’Reily spent the first half hour of his show asking a variety of guests if they thought Obama was a socialist. Newt was first up. Answer was classic. But as you listen you will notice that Bill continually confuses socialism with communism and totalitarianism. No Obama is not trying to confiscate private property … well not all private property (see GM, Chrysler, college loan industry, health care) but he believes in Government control that goes far beyond government regulation. But why let me tell you. Here’s Newt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUe6LMzFGU

Not a socialist, just President Johnson on steroids. No, not quite. Johnson never had a pat czar and didn’t own a car company. But that’s just me. Comments welcome. I will likely touch on this, so if you have objections, make em known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d5DEWDPH9I

Yesterday on Face The Nation Bob Schieffer puts the question to Rohm Emmanuel who does a nice job of evading the question, instead talking about the $7.69 a week income transfer to lower in come folks. That is to say, Gingrich is correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH-_NrteRVI

Nice try Rohm.

Fox News and bloggers brought those stories to light, and now the Associated Press has written a story targeting former Republican lawmakers and staffers who were hired in 2006 by the GSEs to help keep Congress off their back. I’m willing to hear the evidence from 2006, but remember that the damage was already done by this time.

Here’s part of the story from knoxnews.com.

Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:

-Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, at Park Strategies, $240,000.

-Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, at Clark & Weinstock, $360,297.

-Rep. Susan Molinari of New York, at Washington Group, $300,062.

-Susan Hirschmann at Williams & Jensen, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $240,790. …

The AP previously described, in October, how Freddie Mac thwarted efforts to bring a tough regulatory bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John McCain of Arizona to a full Senate vote.

At a meeting days after Hagel’s bill went to the full Senate, Syron and McLoughlin berated the company’s in-house lobbyists for failing to keep Hagel’s bill corralled in committee, said the four people familiar with events at Freddie Mac at the time.

Freddie Mac shifted into high gear, secretly paying a Republican consulting firm, Washington-based DCI Group, $2 million to kill Hagel’s legislation. The covert lobbying campaign targeted Republican senators in 2005-06.

According to the newly obtained records, DCI’s deployment was part of a broader campaign that targeted mainly Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The internal Freddie Mac documents show that 17 of the lobbying firms and consultants paid in 2006 were specifically directed to focus on Republicans and four on Democrats, with varying targets for the rest.

So, this tells us that the Democrats were already taken care of and on board with allowing the GSEs to move along with current management and current stupid policies. Republicans needed to be challenged, and it seemed to work for about one year, until the collapse.

I have not had time to research all of the information, but I’m certain that we’ll see a lot of reporting on this subject in the next few days.

Looking for a solution? Why not get Washington D.C. politicians – and the GSEs like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – out of private sector businesses like offering mortgages? I’m not saying that there should be zero regulation, but man, can’t we see how broke the current system is?

Previous information posted.

Update: Morrissey over at Hot Air just picked up on this.

Duncan is the chairman of the RNC, and quite honestly he’s a nobody. He’s got a fine resume and I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but he’s got zero name recognition.

Hot Air is asking the question of the hour. Malkin has a poll up too, but it’s not as straight forward.

Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele have both been mentioned as being interested in ousting current leadership come January, and my first thought is that both could be good choices, but what do I know.

I think Gingrich is a great teacher, one who would be an excellent organizer and could fill the role quite well. I’m not so certain that he is electable, therefore the RNC chair may be a good spot for him.

I do like Michael Steele – although I don’t know too much about him yet – and think he may be a candidate that would be more acceptable compared to Gingrich – no offense to Newt.

Maybe the RNC chairman’s responsibilities should simply be the ability to teach conservatism, raise funds, support marketing efforts and get top-notch people (like Steele) interested in running for office.

Note that the poll at Hot Air confirms I’m not alone thinking there is no clear choice, the poll is split down the middle right now.

More reading and other possible candidates.

• Newt for RNC chair?
• Malkin is saying thanks, but no thanks to Newt
• How about Fred Thompson?
• Huckabee thinks that his former campaign manager – Chip Saltsman – would be a good bet

Note: Even though Malkin states her case against Newt for chairman, the voting on her site shows Newt’s still got solid one out of three support.

In the end, what did that new tone get us?

Either Bush 43 was not a conservative in 2000 when elected, or he was quickly convinced that his new tone required him to reach across the aisle, reach out to liberals, and compromise. The problem is when he did compromise – better defined as giving up principles here, there and everywhere – he still was attacked.

Bush gained no ground at all during his tenure, it’s quite clear Bush hatred grew exponentially especially after the 2004 election.

Just look at how Bush was treated concerning No Child Left Behind, a law that he signed, but Kennedy wrote. Bush was blamed constantly concerning the legislations failure to improve student performance. Of note is Bill Clinton also blaming Kennedy just after the Senator endorsed his wife’s Democrat rival, Barak Obama.

Ed over at Hot Air has some good analysis as well.

Dick Armey writes in a Wall Street Journal column today what most conservatives understood for the past several years — that “compassionate conservatism” was just another name for Big Government.

I’m not sure Bush went into office with the intention to grow entitlement programs, but that is certainly how it turns out. Ed also provides a video interview with Newt Gingrich – shown below – and provides this recap.

… in the midst of the Bush-bashing, I want to point out something Gingrich says. He states that as long as the government spends multi-trillion dollars every year, lobbyists will gather to get their share, distorting the political process and leading to corruption. The only way to reduce or eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington is to reduce the amount of spoils they can grab.

Damn straight.

Note, Jim over at RadioViceOnline also picked up on this today and points out an opinion article by Dick Army over at WSJ.