Big hairy audacious goals - that's what Republicans need.

Republicans are banging on Obama for every bad thing that's happening in our country. Just as the democrats did when the republicans were in power.

Some suggest that's all that's necessary to regain power. Keep saying we're not the other guy. Fred Barnes suggests that's not enough. Ultimately, people need to know what you believe and stand for and want to do.

He writes in recent Weekly Standard column:

For Republicans, the Road Map authored by congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the most important proposal in domestic policy since Ronald Reagan embraced supply side economics in the 1980 presidential campaign. It’s not only the freshest, boldest, and most comprehensive Republican thinking, it’s also the most relevant. If Republicans adopt the Road Map as their basic ideological blueprint, it offers them the prospect of a landslide in the midterm election this year, followed by victory in the presidential election in 2012.

For sure, that’s a lot of weight for a policy statement drafted by a 40-year-old House member to bear. But the Road Map is perfectly timed to deal with the crises of the moment: economic stagnation, uncontrolled spending, the deficit and long-term debt, soaring tax rates, health care, the housing problem, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Yet Republican leaders are wary of endorsing it, and for understandable reasons. The Road Map is sweeping and politically risky. It would overhaul popular programs like Medicare, relying on individuals to make decisions now made by government. Democrats are already attacking it. When Ryan delivered the weekly Republican radio address in late June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a press release under the heading, “Republicans Make Key Advocate of Privatizing Social Security and Ending Medicare Their Spokesman on Budget.”

It reminds me of what Jim Collins, author of "Good to Great" and "Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies" wrote. In the latter book, one of the keys to success of great companies is they had audacious goals. I think that applies to other organizations, including political parties.

Is Obama a secret centrist?

That's the subtitle of Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes recent article. He speculates on what sort of president will Barack Obama be.

He notes that:

So the scoreboard looks like this: Three of the four cabinet posts that matter most are going to those with views acceptable to the center-right of the Democratic party. That's Geithner, Clinton, and Gates. The fourth, attorney general, will provoke a confirmation fight if Obama chooses his buddy Eric Holder, famous as President Clinton's deputy attorney general for facilitating the pardon of Marc Rich.

Three out of four isn't bad. Conservatives aren't jumping for joy. But imagine how the left wing of the Democratic party-the dominant wing, after all-feels. Let down would be an understatement.

Organized labor must be crazed over the selection of Summers. As a believer in the indispensability of global trade, Summers is bound to advise Obama to reject labor's call for limitations on trade, especially during a world financial breakdown. In fact, I suspect he's already urged Obama to go along with "card check," labor's latest scheme for unionizing workers, but not the protectionist agenda. Tinkering with trade would unsettle financial markets.

And how about the environmental lobby, which totally embraced Obama? Jones will be hard for environmentalists to stomach. And the foreign policy left? The left views Jones, Clinton, and Gates as enemies.

The losers in the Obama administration, as of now, are Joe Biden and Susan Rice, favorites of the left. Biden's role in foreign policy is likely to be minimal with Clinton at the State Department. She'll squash him if he sticks his head up. Rice, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and an Obama campaign adviser, may wind up as United Nations ambassador, a highly visible but inconsequential post. She'll have little influence.

The Washington cliché about appointments is that personnel is policy. It's an exaggeration but essentially true. If Obama wants to pursue economic and national security policies that would thrill MoveOn.org, William Ayers, and the Democratic left, he has a funny way of showing it. The only reasonable conclusion is he's spurning the left.

I suspect where his left leaning tendencies will come out will be on domestic, social issues. Daschle at HHS will push for government-run universal health care. Obama will appoint very liberal judges. And he'll appeal to homosexuals by pushing for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. And on abortion, he'll push for FOCA which would codify abortion on demand.

As Barnes notes:

Obama has dozens of lesser posts to fill, and no doubt he'll use some of those jobs to assuage the left. Labor can probably have whomever it wants as secretary of labor. For all Obama's talk about education reform, chances are he'll bow to the teachers' lobby in choosing an education secretary. If former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle becomes health and human services secretary, that will please the single-payer crowd and the champions of more government-managed health care.

Political realities have a way of straight jacketing politicians, including presidents. Especially today when our economy is in a state of crisis, and internationally, storm clouds are building around the world.

There's a Liberal Colorado Model but what about a Minnesota Model?

There's an interesting, Weekly Standard article by Fred Barnes about efforts by Colorado liberals to take over that state politically. It's touted as The Colorado Model and is viewed by some as the model for a liberal takeover of other states. Funded by mega donors who are willing to spend lots of money to defeat conservative, especially social conservative candidates, they've had quite a bit of success -- winning the governor's office, the state legislature and a US Senate seat.

They've not just targeted political offices but are also building the political infrastructure to sustain their efforts. Barnes, notes after talking with Eric O'Keefe, of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, that there are seven "capacities" necessary for political success...."the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to fight media bias, to pursue strategic litigation, to train new leaders, and to sustain a presence in the new media." He then goes on to point out organizations and initiatives started to address these capacity needs in Colorado.

Some say that Colorado will serve as model for other states if successful. I think that sort of model is already being instituted here in Minnesota. Liberal think tanks, media mouthpieces, grassroots training organizations, grassroots mobilization efforts and tons of money being poured into local legislative seat races are happening. (Liberal interest groups outspent conservative ones by almost five to one in 2006 in Minnesota; lots of that money came from out of state.) In the last two election cycles, state House Republicans lost a couple dozen seats. Some of that was due to a changing political environment, e.g. the war and frustration with the party in power in Washington, but some was due to massive grassroots and political efforts.

I think conservatives are waking up to the realities of what's happening and responding accordingly, meaning putting more effort into grassroots efforts. I doubt they can match the money of the left but what they have going for them are ideas and the sensibilities of a majority of the people are with them. The left is made up of the extreme social ends of society -- liberal elites and the poor who are often dependent on government. The right appeals to those in between. The left believes that government is the answer to society's problems and accordingly supports high taxes to support their efforts. The right believes that government has a more limited role and the needs of people are best met by individuals and private groups. I believe the right has a more accurate picture of reality because it's rooted in an accurate view of human nature. As always the struggle politically speaking is effectively articulating that vision and moving people to act on it.

The challenges liberals face in Minnesota in a political environment favorable to their party, the Democrats, are an unattractive candidate at the top, e.g. Al Franken and the beginning of a record they'll need to run on -- they've raised taxes by billions of dollars and have aggressively been pushing liberal social policies. Those will start to turn the pendulum in the other direction.