It’s Monday, November 26th, 2012….and 29 years ago today, God sent TLJ and us the second-most wonderful baby ever born to mortal man.

Happy Birthday, Jonathon; you’re all we could have hoped for….and then some!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, everything that’s wrong with the GOP in one simple headline:

Yeah….”Republicans”….

Read our lips: we’re not in this current fiscal crisis because taxes are too low!!!

Moving on, in the wake of all the post-election analysis and Monday-morning quarterbacking, Victor Davis Hanson suggests Conservatives pause, take a deep breath and….

Let Obama be Obama

After his party’s devastating setback in the 2010 midterm elections, Barack Obama was re-elected earlier this month by painting his Republican opponents as heartless in favoring lower taxes for the rich. They were portrayed as nativists for opposing the Dream Act amnesty for illegal immigrants, and as callous in battling the federal takeover of health care.

Republicans countered with arguments that higher taxes on the employer class hurt the economy in general. They assumed most voters knew that amnesties are euphemisms for undermining federal law and in the past have had the effect of promoting more illegal immigration. They tried to point out that there is no such thing as free universal health care, since Obamacare will only shift responsibility from health care practitioners and patients to inefficient government bureaucracies and hide the true costs with higher taxes.

And they utterly failed to convince the American people of any of that.

Why doesn’t the Republican-controlled House of Representatives give both voters and President Obama what they wished for?

The current battle over the budget hinges on whether to return to the Clinton-era income tax rates, at least for those who make more than $250,000 a year. Allowing federal income rates to climb to near 40 percent on that cohort would bring in only about $80 billion in revenue a year — a drop in the bucket when set against the $1.3 trillion annual deficit that grew almost entirely from out-of-control spending since 2009.

Instead, why not agree to hike federal income tax rates only on the true “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats” and “corporate jet owners” whom Obama has so constantly demonized? In other words, skip over the tire-store owner or dentist, and tax those, for example, who make $1 million or more in annual income. Eight out of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States voted for Obama. Corporate lawyers and the affluent in Hollywood and on Wall Street should all not mind “paying their fair share.”

Upping federal tax rates to well over 40 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year would also offer a compromise: shielding most of the small businesspeople Republicans wish to protect while allowing Obama to tax the one-percenters whom he believes have so far escaped paying what they owe, and then putting responsibility on the president to keep his part of the bargain in making needed cuts in spending.

Likewise, instead of hiking death taxes on small businesspeople, why not close loopholes for billion-dollar estates by taxing their gargantuan bequests to pet foundations that avoid estate taxes. Why should a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates act as if he built his own business and can solely determine how his fat-cat fortune is spent for the next century — meanwhile robbing the government of billions of dollars in lost estate taxes along with any federal say in how such fortunes are put to public use?

The president flipped in an election year on the Dream Act. Suddenly, in 2012, Obama decided that he indeed did have the executive power to order amnesty without congressional approval for those who came illegally as children, stayed in school or joined the military, avoided arrest and thus deserved citizenship. In response, Republicans supposedly lost Latino support by insisting that federal immigration law be enforced across the board, regardless of race, class, gender or national origin.

But why not make the president’s Dream Act part of the envisioned grand bargain on immigration? Once it is agreed upon that we have the ability to distinguish those foreign nationals deserving of amnesty, then surely we also have the ability to determine who does not meet that agreed-upon criteria.

Why, then, cannot conservatives allow a pathway to citizenship for the play-by-the-rules millions who qualify, while regrettably enforcing an un-Dream Act for others who just recently arrived illegally; enrolled in, and have remain on, public assistance; or have been convicted of a crime? Who could object to that fair compromise? (Dimocrats, of course!)

Finally, Obamacare will be imposed on all Americans by 2014. But so far the Obama administration has granted more than 1,200 exemptions to favored corporations and unions, covering about 4 million Americans. Shouldn’t Republicans seek to end all exemptions rather than tackle the improbable task of overturning Obamacare itself? Their motto should be: “Equality for all; special treatment for no one!” (Particularly the First Family and Congress!)

One of the brilliant themes of the 2012 Obama campaign was forcing Republicans, on principle, to systematically oppose most of the things that the administration wanted them to oppose — thereby shielding itself from the unwelcome consequences of its own ideology while winning political points. Now, in defeat, Republicans should agree to let the chips lie where they fall: Tax only the truly rich; reward only the truly deserving illegal immigrants; and exempt no one from Obamacare.

Nothing could be fairer or more equal than that.

We detect two small flaws in Hanson’s thinking: (1) we doubt the Dims will compromise on anything, least of all Obamascare or any other entitlement; (2) even were they to agree any meaningful compromise, given their record, we wouldn’t trust them to live their end of the bargain any further than we could throw Chris Christie.

That being said, given four more years of his wreckless spending and regulatory overreach, we’re betting time proves Hanson far more right than wrong.

In a related item, the WSJ‘s Stephen describes another Liberal luminary many consider the GOP’s second-most important not-so-secret weapon:

The Pelosi Advantage

House Republicans and conservative leaders are cheering last week’s decision by the Democratic caucus to make Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California minority leader for two more years. She not only retains her top post but is once again in line to become speaker should Democrats take back the House in 2014.

So why do Republican House members believe Ms. Pelosi is an asset to the GOP? Because next to Barack Obama, she is the most polarizing figure in Washington politics.

“Pelosi’s name identification and negatives are astonishingly high for a former speaker of the House in some areas of this country,” says Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. “Candidates who voted against the Obama-Pelosi spending, stimulus, bailouts and ObamaCare credibly ran against the Obama-Pelosi axis en route to re-election.” Why? “Her ideology and brand of governance is at odds with most of America,” says Ms. Conway.

A Democratic lawmaker tells me off the record that Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, don’t get along and that “we have a dysfunctional Democratic leadership team.” Mr. Hoyer presses to move the party more to the center as Ms. Pelosi tugs the caucus to the far left. Democrats also acknowledge that even though Ms. Pelosi’s ultra-liberalism reduces their chances of taking back the House in two years, the party is loath to throw a woman under the bus.

Steven Sutton of the Leadership Institute, which trains conservative activists and candidates, sees the Pelosi choice as a gift. “In voter focus groups,” he says, “Pelosi tested off the charts in a negative way.” Mr. Sutton says that in the 2012 cycle, “many Dems running for the House refused to answer the question posed to them, ‘If you are elected, will you be voting for Pelosi for speaker?'” He complains that “Republicans in the House don’t use this issue as they should.”

But Ms. Pelosi also has powerful assets that conservatives ignore at their peril. There is general agreement that she is more skilled as a minority leader than she was during her disastrous reign as speaker. As one former aide to the House leadership tells me: “I would argue she is much more valuable to the Dems in the minority. There is no one in her caucus that can touch her fundraising abilities. If she left, it would take them a while to replace that.”

Dumber than dirt, clueless as the day is long….but one helluva fundraiser; is it any wonder America’s in the shape she is?!?

And since we’re on the oxymoronic subject of dumb Dimocrats, FOX News informs us….

NYC sends health teams to post-Sandy food handouts, rubbing some wrong way

You….yes, YOU!  Did you wash your hands before serving that sandwich?!?

Meanwhile, there’s dumb, dumber, and particularly when it comes to Liberals, just plain stupid:

At least she’s assured of receiving free contraceptives; for the good of the country, we hope she uses them!

For more on “stupid” we turn to today’s Money Quote, and this from the WaPo, courtesy of Newbusters.org:

“We can’t know their hearts”; but that won’t stop us from making absolutely groundless assumptions about their thoughts an motivations….particularly when it keeps us in line with the only real racists in Congress.

Next up, Townhall.com‘s Kate Hicks updates with the latest on Benghazigate:

Transparency: White House Refusing to Release Benghazi Situation Room Photos

Nearly three months after the lethal terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, the Obama Administration continues to pay lip service to transparency, but refuses to deliver. CBS News has requested a number of photos and documents that might provide a better idea of what, exactly, happened at the White House on September 11, 2012, but the administration won’t cooperate.

CBS News first requested the images on Oct. 31. In the past, the White House has released photos showing US officials during national security incidents. A half dozen images related to the mission that captured and killed Osama bin Laden were given to the public last year. One depicts President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team gathered in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011.

A White House official referred our request regarding the Benghazi attacks to the White House Photo Office. On Nov. 1, an official there indicated she would process our request quickly, but then did not respond further. Finally, this week, the White House Photo Office told CBS News it would not release any images without approval of Josh Earnest in the White House Press Office. Earnest did not respond to our telephone calls and emails. […]

In addition to the Benghazi images, CBS News has also requested, but not received, details concerning the president’s and his staff’s decisions during the attacks. Last year reporters were given details of the decision making, timeline and players regarding the Osama bin Laden raid as well as access to certain emails.

CBS News is also seeking drone and ground-level surveillance images and email communications and documents from the night of the Benghazi attacks. So far, none has been provided.

   (H/t Breitbart News)

So despite Obama’s promises in a recent press conference to “provide every bit of information we have,” and get to the bottom of the matter, his press team has been remarkably unaccommodating. Of course, this does nothing but fan the flames of suspicion; if they’ve nothing to hide, why not release the photos?

As if we should expect the most secretive, uncooperative Administration in American history’s second term to be an improvement on its first.

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this bit of biting humor from Craig Thomas….

….and this definition of friendship from Wally Gator:

By the way, that’s Wally on top, Buddy on the bottom!

And in International News of Note, this just in from China:

Man Sues Wife For Birthing Ugly Baby—and Wins!

So, here’s the scenario: Attractive man from northern China meets attractive woman and they marry. All is well until attractive woman gives birth to a baby girl her husband finds so repulsive to look at he’s convinced his wife’s genes are responsible for the ugly baby. So, he files for divorce on the grounds of “false pretences” and wins a six-figure fine from her, the result of his lawsuit.

Sounds like an old wives tale, right? Unfortunately, it’s the true story behind the saga lives of Jian Feng and his now ex-wife who remains unnamed. After their baby girl was born, Feng demanded a DNA test to prove his wife had cheated on him with another man and the baby wasn’t his. But, when the test results came back and proved Feng was in fact the biological father, he made the choice every father makes—to apologize and accept his daughter as is.

Oh, wait. That’s not what he did. He decided to sue his wife to prove his ugly child was all her fault genetically. You would think any judge would have laughed this case right out of court, but again, not what happened.

Feng’s wife admitted that before she met her husband-to-be she had $100,000 worth of cosmetic surgery performed in South Korea. This backed up Feng’s claim of “false pretenses” that by not revealing her plastic surgery to him before the marriage, she tricked him. The judge sided with Feng and ordered the wife to pay him $120,000.

This guy obviously either hasn’t read the story of the ugly duckling, or isn’t willing to wait for it to play out.

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with another Hallmark Moment, brought to us today by a rather volatile young Annapolitan:

Man allegedly attacked with serving fork during Thanksgiving dinner

Two thoughts: first, the dude should be thankful Allsup wasn’t holding the carving knife.  Second, this oughta teach him not to call “pit stop” when Shenika asks for the gravy!

Magoo