In his 2007 opus “Politics Lost,” liberal scribe Joe Klein examined the political machinations of candidates and campaigns over the last 40 years, ultimately lamenting something or other. It’s not important. But in one of his presidential anecdotes, almost in passing, Klein observed that one of the more remarkable things about Ronald Reagan was that he got Ted Kennedy talking about the danger of inflation.

Hallelujah! Once again, Republicans can learn at the foot of a master.

Getting Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion, to take a respite from pummeling deceased equines and engage in a debate over inflation was no mean feat. But it wasn’t magic either. Having once been a union leader and an FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan knew how to fight and win in politics: Get your opponent to fight on your turf.

In almost every political battle, the winner is predetermined by whose turf is being defended. In a battle over taking care of the elderly, feeding the hungry and healing the sick, the Democrats will win. (Americans are a generous people, and we like free stuff.) In a battle over individual liberty, reckless spending, the national debt and enslaving America’s future generations to the Chinese, Republicans will win. (Americans are a generous, self-sacrificing, patriotic people who want the best for their children.) None of these characterizations necessarily pertain to a side of a given issue. Each is a way to frame a debate (i.e., to define a political skirmish’s terrain.)

The left does this as a matter of routine. Last March, under the looming threat of a government shutdown, Senator Chuck Schumer was caught on an open microphone giving invidious marching orders to his fellow Democratic leaders. He told his colleagues how to characterize the GOP’s modest proposed cuts, coaching them to use words like extreme and draconian. Schumer wasn’t writing talking points. He was establishing turf, setting the parameters for a battle in which the Republicans would have to capitulate. And, in short order, they did.

It was John Boehner’s first opportunity to flex his post-2010 landslide muscles. The speaker could have told Schumer that elections have consequences, throwing President Obama’s line right back at him. Boehner could have ignited the just-victorious tea party to action, marching under any number of banners that would have altered the turf. Instead the GOP leadership griped about Schumer’s folly, then proceeded to defend their proposed cuts as perfectly reasonable, which was exactly what Schumer wanted them to do. And then they caved.

Take a more recent example. During the January 7th Republican presidential debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos posed the question: “Do you think that states have the right to ban contraception?”

I remember thinking that the question was sinister when Stephanopoulos first posed it to Mitt Romney. Dick Morris believes that the query was the first move in an elaborate collusion between the White House, Stephanopoulos and the liberal media. But even if you don’t buy into Dick Morris’s theory, Stephanopoulos’s question was clearly intended to create a straw man out of social conservatives (i.e., if elected, pro-life candidates will make contraception illegal.) His intent is clear because there had been no serious suggestion of such a ban. No GOP presidential candidate had a contraception ban in his platform. And there had been no momentum for such a ban from any substantive political movement.

Despite Stephanopoulos’s intent, the question was more stupid and inane than it was sinister. When stoking the flames of fear for political purposes, the fear must first exist. LBJ’s insidious 1964 “Daisy” ad worked because, at the time, there existed a real fear of nuclear war with the Soviets. Today, the public does not fear that states or conservative candidates will attempt — let alone, succeed in an attempt — to ban contraceptives.

Yet Santorum is taking the bait.

This fight could and should deliver a knockout blow to the left. Why is Rick Santorum answering questions about contraception? Every time a Republican candidate is asked about contraception, he should tell the questioner that they’re missing the point. This debate is about freedom. It’s about conscience. It’s about the hugely unpopular Obamacare legislation. It’s about a president who doesn’t respect the freedom of religion. It’s about big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.

That’s our turf.

It boils down to this. When the left attacks, a conservative needs to stop and look at his feet. If an individual liberty argument can’t be made from where he’s standing, then he shouldn’t defend himself. He should step back and attack from his home turf.

(Yates Walker is a conservative activist and writer. Before becoming involved in politics, he served honorably as a paratrooper and a medic in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He can be reached at yateswalker@gmail.com.)

The event was moderated by Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit fame.  He did a excellent job and kept the talk going on not only school choice but also how to make the education system better able to make the kids compete in today’s world.   There was also some very good questions from the audience.

The Panel was comprised of Dick Morris, Dana Loesch, Mike Podgursky and Robbyn Wahby of Mayor Slay’s office.  There was not 100% agreement from all sides of the issues, but there was common grould and many good ideas on how to improve the education system in the United States and in Missouri.  And School Choice is a very big part of it.  One of the bi ones I remember is to allow Private Religious schools to receive scholarships from the state for students to go to one of the Catholic or other religions schools.   There is legislation to the MO Gov to allow this.

All in all, it was a great experience to go see people from all over the political spectrum discuss this and in a more or less non partisan atmosphere.  the education system in the USA needs to be more innovative and help the children become competitive in the world that is changing rapidly.

Stacy on the Right was asking Dick Morris some questions after the event while I was video taping it from her phone, but unfortunately her phone ran out of space t video tape it all.

I got some pics from my phone:

To see some better quality pics check out JD Wilson

Dick Morris said, “Newt, Newt, Newt. He was absolutely terrific tonight…he might win on Saturday!”

Kathryn Lopez of National Review said, “This will get watched and re-watched.”

Even the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “This was the former House Speaker’s best debate of the entire race…Gingrich let ‘er rip tonight and had the exuberant crowd…eating out of his hand.”

It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum” — more like float under it.

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.”

Dick Morris agrees:

Ron Paul in ’12 is Like Obama in ’08!

Ron Paul- To the left of Obama!

Does President Barack Obama get a vote in the Republican primary?  Apparently, he wants one.  His campaign organization has targeted Mitt Romney for negative ads, a sure sign that he would rather run against Newt than against Mitt.

He may not be right.  His political judgment is, after all, flawed.  But he likely sees the race in ideological terms — as he sees the world — and would rather run against a strong conservative like Newt than someone with moderate credentials like Romney.

How do we know?  Obama is now running ads, through the Democratic Party, in Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin attacking Romney for changing his position on abortion. The ad begins with an announcer saying, in ominous tones, that he is about to describe the drama of “two men inhabiting one body.”  No, he is not talking about Sybil, the multiple personality disorder.  He is attacking Romney for once having been pro choice and now being pro life.  Apparently Obama does not understand that Mitt — like Reagan, Nixon, and Bush-41 before him, have abandoned their pro choice positions as they came to know more about the issue and embraced a pro life posture.

Read the Rest @ Dick Morris.com

On Wednesday, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner, now in a crowded Republican primary field to take on Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in 2012, unveiled the endorsement of one of the most prominent national political pundits–Dick Morris. Morris, best known for his role in guiding Bill Clinton’s political career, is now a pundit for Fox News.

“It is with great pleasure that I endorse Adam for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.  As a Florida voter, I intend to cast my primary ballot for Adam. I am confident that he will win the primary and I look forward to voting for him in November as well,” said Hasner. “Adam can win and his victory will be a big step forward in liberating the U.S. Senate from the clutches of Harry Reid.  Florida is lucky to have Adam in the race and Senator Nelson is unlucky!”

Dick Morris gives a comprehensive overview of Herman Cains 999 Plan… this my be the best explanation I’ve heard independent of Herman himself.

Here what Dick sent over in an email:

Here’s what will unfold in Washington:

Step One:  Reid and McConnell will craft a deal calling for larger so-called budget cuts (they’ll count the fictitious spending cuts achieved by avoiding foreign wars not now contemplated) and they will extend the debt limit until after the election.  McConnell will exact some language whereby Obama has to ask for the additional borrowing authority but it will require a two-thirds vote to deny it to him.  There will be a bi-partisan committee to craft further savings, but nobody will pay much attention to its results, certainly not Obama.

Step Two:  The Reid-McConnell compromise will pass the Senate with five or six defections by Democrats up for re-election and a dozen or two additions from non-tea party Republicans.

Step Three:  House Republicans will raise hell and refuse to pass the Senate bill.  Boehner will make a show of persuading them and then, finally, confronted by the “deadline” artificially ginned up by the president, he will permit it to pass with strong Democratic support.  A majority — or close to it — of his own party will vote no.

Outcome:  Obama will get credit for raising the debt limit.  Republican conservatives will be able to say they voted no.  Boehner will keep his credibility because he got a pure debt limit bill passed only with GOP votes before he crossed the aisle for final passage.

But the real outcome will be to have brought Obama’s job approval down from its bin Laden high of 55% to a new Gallup low of 40%.  That is ground he won’t be able to make up.  And, put through the rigors of tension and uncertainly, the economy will sink further into a double dip recession.  A recession brought on, in large part, by Obama’s crying wolf over the debt limit and creating an environment of financial and economic terror around its passage.

Republicans proved they can govern by passing their one-house debt limit increase.  Their fiscal conservative credentials are intact.  And Obama looks, once more, like a weak and easily cowed incompetent to his backers and a big spending and borrowing liberal to the rest of us.

Game to Obama.  Set and Match to the GOP.

Political novices will no doubt be concentrated on bashing Boehner and McConnell because, quite frankly, they have little idea what they’re talking about but I agree with Dick in this instance… This chess match has been won by the Republicans once this debt limit nonsense plays out over the next couple of weeks Republicans can get back to taking on the real fight (in my opinion) and that’s out of control spending and the debt & deficit problems. If I were Speaker Boehner I’d have a stand alone balanced budget amendment bill ready to pass the house on August 3rd!

Dick Morris lashes out at the surrender to Obama being pushed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and calls for Republicans to stand firm for spending cuts.

Dick Morris has criticized Pawlenty for a Shariah compliant housing loan program in Minnesota. Now the former Governor says Dick is “reckless” “offensive” and “absolutely crazy”. Here’s Dick’s rebuttal