Apologies for going on, but another good take on this over at Red State: http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/08/the-fiscal-cliff-and-the-keyser-soze-option/

An interesting take on this question from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/08/must-tgop-bow-to-obamas-fiscal-demands/

You raise an important question about what GOP lawmakers, especially those  in the House, do going forward. An alternative to the "You Own It" strategy described in your post, is the "For Sequestration" option, aptly described over at Ace (http://minx.cc/?post=334740). Neither seems free of cynicism, but they appear to be the best options on the table.

Despite the harm sequestration will do to the military, I'm leaning towards that option. The harm the cuts will impose are minor compared to what prolonged economic stagnation would force anyway. Obama signed off on sequestration, then promised it would never happen. House GOPers should call his bluff, force the cuts, and, as you stated, refuse to sign off on any tax hikes that their constituents wouldn't tolerate. It's why they were elected - like it or not, they are the opposition. They should oppose.

"I think we can rest assured this will not be another mealy-mouthed campaign of empty platitudes."

Exactly right. Mitt impressed me with his VP pick and Ryan did not disappoint tonight. Clear, direct, optimistic. When he says "We can do this" it comes across, not as focus-group generated marketing (remember "Yes we can" or the insipid "Hope is on the way"), but as a heartfelt call for action. Like you, TR, I've seen a lot of politicians, but few seem to really believe their speeches as much as Ryan seems to (and Reagan did). 

Finally, his pledges at the end of the speech were terrific - positively inspiring.

After reading the text, I think it's possible he was referring to the bridges and such. But so what if he was? Pick your poison, Barry: you're either denigrating the hard work and sacrifice of millions of people (you know, the ones who think they're so smart) or you're making a completely vacuous argument (banal as Charles Krauthammer described it in his outstanding column on the topic) that a high school student would be able to knock down.

This from the greatest orator of our time and the smartest president ever. Apparently he liked that bit so much when he heard Elizabeth Warren say it he just had to get in on the action. The trouble is, no one told him how laughable a proposition it is and he couldn't recognize it as such because he agrees with it so completely. Now he owns it and if Mitt is smart he'll be relentless in hanging it around his neck.

Without a doubt ... but in that regard it's a strange outlier in his work; a very early short story whose theme never was worked into any of his novels. If it didn't have his inimitable style, it would be difficult to believe he wrote it!

Great topic. I'm horribly embarrassed to admit it, but I used to admire Kurt Vonnegut. I still think he's extremely funny at his best ("babies with rabies!"), but I came to see his work as hostile to freedom and it became increasingly bitter as well. 

TR, just getting caught up with things and wanted to comment. I really like the "Elections Have Consequences" theme. As you say, nice and simple. One concern I have is the focus on Obamacare. Here's why: the base is already in a lather over the issue, so new converts for Romney will be few there. But the squishy middle are more susceptible to Obama's siren song of free stuff and "fairness" (e.g., being female is no longer a pre-existing condition), so the focus on the ACA will undoubtedly give more airtime to advertise those tempting goodies. Obama's real weakness is the economy - that can not be spun in any positive light and focus on it exposes his poor leadership and ideological blinders much more clearly. 

Whatever his motivation, CJ Roberts delivered a must win victory to Obama this week. We should let the dust settle so the wreckage of the Obama economy can be clearly seen by everyone willing to see it.

Holy smokes, that was good. Thanks for writing. 

Oh, that was precious ... hope you don't mind but I shared your embed link, and the "Pure Schadenfreude" summary on Twitter. (https://twitter.com/rightchemistry/status/210320721048641536)

Excellent post - we need to expose the contempt the Left feels toward those they claim to speak for whenever their masks slip, as happened in this case with Old "Loose Lips" Joe.

Absolutely right - Iowahawk is a blast and treasure - can't believe I didn't think of him for my comment above.

Since I just followed you on Twitter, I'm happy to comment here. You left out the #Julia hashtag, the one that finally prompted me to join Twitter. I was amazed at the fast-pace and sharp wit conservatives bring to the medium. I'm not sure how influential it will be, or how lasting, but I recommend it highly - a terrific medium for satire. Personal favorites of mine are Jim Geraghty, VodkaPundit, IMAO, Treacher, and Ricochet's own SooperMexican. Lots of opportunities to find links to recent science postings too.

Wow. You've been such a constant presence here since I joined - always thoughtful, articulate, and maddeningly level-headed about everything. I'm sure you'll be back so, until then, best of luck!

She really must think we were born yesterday to take this seriously: 

Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit...

The day the Dems don't spend the tax dollars they've collected is the day hell freezes over.

As much as I'm sympathetic toward his aggressive spending cuts, I think he's demonstrated that he's too undisciplined for a national campaign. His comments on the Civil Rights Act would have been a huge distraction and potentially very damaging if they were to have been uttered in a national campaign. Methinks he's too politically green to know how to frame such issues in such a way as to not do damage.