Lest anyone think Mitt will consider a switch back on abortion, the Swamp reports:

With tens of thousands of anti-abortion protesters descending on Washington today, another voice is heard from as well:

“In a city of many competing political interests, these marchers have come to speak for only one cause: The goodness of every life, and the rights of the unborn. ”

Mitt Romney.

The Republican former governor of Massachusetts and erstwhile candidate for president who has, as he likes to say, “evolved” on the question of abortion rights. He has settled squarely in the “pro-life” camp, which is where any good Republican contemplating another run for president will reside.

“Thirty-six years ago, those rights (of the unborn) were denied by our highest court, in a decision that also denied the rights of all Americans to resolve the abortion issue through democratic debate and legislation,” Romney said in a statement issued by his PAC – The Free and Strong America PAC – today.

“America owes these marchers a debt of gratitude for their perseverance in a noble cause,” Romney said. “I am honored to count myself as their friend and ally. And because of their dedication and their goodness of heart, I am certain that one day this cause will prevail. “

Romney’s appearance is a solid political move and if he’s planning a 2012 run, this is a picture of the type of thing he’s going to need to do. He’s going to have to establish identification with movement conservatives. The March for Life is key as it’s an opportunity to reach out to Catholic voters who went for McCain thanks to the efforts of Sam Brownback. Of course, one March is just a start.

What about Romney’s potential 2012 opponents? Sarah Palin was in Alaska and Huckabee actually attended his local March for Life in Little Rock this past Sunday.

Re: Adam Graham’s Bird in the Bush Republicans

- – -

The true danger of religious conservatism to the party lies not in its ideas — they’re doomed to failure, by every objective standard measured since the birth of the Christian conservative movement: Gay rights are gaining, not losing, support; there’s a national mandate for stem-cell research and the right to die, and the vast majority of the public supports the right of a woman to obtain an early-term abortion. Last November, even South Dakota shot down, by a double-digit margin, a proposed ban on abortion that had exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health. No: the true danger of hardline religious conservatism in the Republican Party lies not in its anti-science, anti-individualism agenda taking root. That’s not really why I’m interested in forcing them to moderate. They must do so, simply, because they can no longer be considered anything but a parasite on the party.

In a new video for the website NewMajority.com, Rudy Giuliani sits down with John Avlon to discuss why the Republican Party is losing elections. Quite simply, he says, the Urban Republican phenomenon has disappeared. He’s not blunt enough to come out and say who’s behind it, but he notes that Republicans have won city-wide elections in large cities because they’re, for instance, more socially tolerant and more accepting of gays. They’re still to the right of Democrats, but they don’t take the hardline:

Notice that what is recommended by Hizzoner is not to throw anyone overboard or to emphasize the issues of gay rights. All he’s asking is for the tone to be turned down, so that urbanites aren’t alienated by the cultural divide. And that’s to say nothing of the centrist young, who tend to view Republicanism as a form of bigotry nowadays (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “I’m a Republican, but not one of those Republicans…”).

This is not a “two birds in the bush” argument. We’ve had those birds — social and cultural moderation — before, and we won forty-nine states at the presidential level two times within fifteen years with them. Religious conservatism was the bird in the bush.

Ronald Reagan won elections because he knew how to reach out. He didn’t begin a rally by saying “It’s good to be here in the pro-America part of this state!” He didn’t refuse to compromise with his political enemies. And he certainly was not a religious zealot: he never crusaded for social issues. He simply knew how to project an image that wouldn’t turn off urbanites.

What I’m asking us to do is go back to the real Reagan: the one who won over moderate and conservative Democrats while uniting the entire Republican Party. The religious right can’t even do the latter, let alone the former. Reagan did what he did through a positive, uniting image. Religious conservatism is inherently divisive. All we social moderates are asking is for the religious right to tone it down and stop being so rigid. You simply don’t get the sort of insane litmus tests from other sides of the party that you get from the religious wing of the party (except, perhaps, the Club for Growth, but its influence is small by comparison).

A few suggestions, for starters:

Stop calling pro-choicers “pro-abortion” and “baby-killers.” Stop impugning people’s motives. They tend not to like that.

Stop calling people who support gay rights “anti-family.” Stop saying that homosexuality is a choice. It’s time to stop waging war on psychology.

Stop making the GOP look like a religious organization. No “writing God’s law into the Constitution.” Moderates — hell, plenty of conservatives — actually don’t go for that, okay?

Barry Goldwater famously said to Bob Dole, remarking upon the religious right: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you believe it?” Goldwater opposed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, was highly tolerant of gays, and was pro-choice. That one-time Mr. Conservative would never have been able to even run for the Republican nomination under the rules of today’s religious litmus tests.

George W. Bush was seen as one of the religious right’s golden boys, whether the religious right was satisfied with him or not (and, weirdly, many of them weren’t, despite the fact that he publicly supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, got a partial-birth abortion ban passed, appointed solid conservative judges and Supreme Court justices, intervened in the Terri Schiavo case, and successfully blocked federal funding for stem-cell research). That is one of the reasons that people viewed him as divisive. The fact that he was an inarticulate, born-again Southerner only compounded the cultural disconnect. So whether the religious right likes it or not, there’s going to need to be some scale-back in that respect — at least if being a national, majority party is the goal.

It’s not your party, religious conservatives. It’s our party. It’s the the center-right people’s party, too. And, believe it or not, just a short time ago, it was also the party of moderates! If we’re going to win such people back, it’s time for you to learn the art of compromise, before you turn us into a permanent minority party.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

In yesterday’s post I disparaged the idea of moving left to win new Republican voters as it would disenchant your existing voter base and you’d be unlikely to recoup your losses. How then do you build the Republican Party?

I think too much thought is given to a wide net of people who will never come on board. As Reagan said, “A political party cannot be all things to all people.” Does this mean that socially liberal folks don’t have a place in the GOP?

No, what it does mean is that you can’t have the President of National Right to Life and the President of NARAL in the same party.  If you’re a pro-Choice person for whom the abortion issue is a really vital component of your vote. If you’re a homosexual for whom gay marriage is a paramount concern, really your party is the Democratic Party.

However if you’re a pro-choice person who really likes tax cuts, and is willing to live in a pro-life party or if you’re a homosexual who believes in the importance of the national defense, then fine, welcome aboard.

However, focusing on the issues of gay rights and homosexuality is ultimately a snub to existing voters and will bring in few voters. If I really care about having legal abortion, am I really going to join the party that wants the issue sent back to the states, or am I going to join the one that wants abortion on demand. If I really care about gay rights will I join the party of the federalism or the party that is owned by the gay rights movement. Trying to be the same as the other party, only offering less is a silly way to build.

Also as Big Tent Democrat of Talk Left has observed, “Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.”

In fact, the political middle is little more than shifting ooze and people blown about by the wind. To move to the center and stay there means letting the other party move the center further left.

The solution in a business sense is that the Republican Party needs to consider what it’s real product is for attracting not just voters, but turning people into party members and activists. The real product of the GOP is not its candidates, rather it is its ideas.

And what the GOP must again explain is not only why its ideas are right, but why they matter. Ultimately, Americans hold many political beliefs. I, for example would prefer the repeal of the 17th Amendment, but the issue will not decide my vote for any political office, because I don’t think the issue is important because it won’t happen.

Similarly, you have people who are opposed to legal abortion, but don’t vote the issue. They believe in school choice, but don’t vote the issue. They think Social Security Reform is important, but don’t vote the issue. Thus, the benefits must be sold, and there must be some payoff.

Some may not like such an ideological approach, but ultimately getting people to care in and believe in the issues Republicans espouse is the only way they can compete. Republicans have a much less secure base than Democrats. The Democrats have an army of permanent interests such as Labor Unions and Trial Lawyers who would support the Democrats if they nominated two serial killers for President and Vice-President.

The Democrats also control both secondary and post-secondary education in this country guaranteeing a supply of gullible young people with heads full of nonsense that are ready to support the most outlandish other candidates.

The Republicans have people who care about ideas, values, and policies. There is no union boss ripping money out of their paychecks. They are not mind-numbed immature people who were politically born yesterday. They are people who throw themselves into politics out of belief in certain principles. If those principles that brought them into politics are not being advanced, they have plenty else to do with their time and can take their time and energy elsewhere.

This last election should forever silence the voices that say idiotic things like, “Where else are they going to go?” The best result coming out of the 2008 election could be a Republican Party that actually understands and appreciates their base, rather than just using and abusing it.

The Establishment is back.

Steven Stark writes today on how Barack Obama’s inner circle is dominated by graduates of a few elite eastern universities. Beyond that Barack is more closely linked to the Establishment than any recent President.

This is really back to the future.

JFK, Truman and FDR all had administrations dominated by establishment types.

Stark suggests that in this economic climate we can expect populist figures to arise. Obama’s inner circle contains many elites who had a hand in this economic crisis.

Going forward we may find Obama’s main opponents are populists and not conservatives.

Last Saturday, the federal government approved sales of offshore plots for oil drilling off the North and South Carolina coasts:

The Carolinas’ coast is included in areas a federal agency proposed Friday for possible oil and gas drilling.

Leases off most of the Atlantic coast could be offered for sale between 2010 and 2015, the Minerals Management Service said in a draft proposal.

Ten of the 31 proposed sales, including those off the Carolinas, were off-limits to drilling until presidential and congressional moratoria expired in mid-2008.

Whether all those sales actually go forward will be up to the incoming Obama administration, the service said. Public and political support, environmental sensitivity and revenue-sharing with states will factor into those decisions.

We will be interested to know if Charlotte’s Mel Watt (D-NC) will urge President Obama to include the jobs that would result from the oil lease sales in the 3-4 million jobs he promised to create or save.

We are confident that Charlotte’s Sue Myrick (R-NC) will support the job creation bill given her past position on the issue.

This could be an early test for Obama. As I have argued for weeks, Republicans must be vigilant in pitting Obama and the Democrats against each other and their job killing radical environmentalists and trial lawyers that pay the Democratic Party’s bills for all to see.

Especially for all the naive Obama voters who believe he will “stimulate” an economy other than a government jobs and lawyer position economy.

If the American people are denied the right to bail themselves out thru stimulations like recovering our own energy resources, then we should take Obama’s words of praise for the “doers and makers of things” in his Inauguration speech, and drill for the oil as an MLK-like act of civil disobedience.

—————————————————————————

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

As I pointed out last night in this post, not only does the state of Washington not require parental notification in regards to abortion, but it also states that a child who has reached the age of thirteen years old may recieve substance abuse treatment without notifying the parents.

The parent is the legal guardian of the child, not the state. If a child is using illegal substances, then they are breaking the law. I am not somebody who believes that substance abusers should be locked up and have the keys thrown away. In fact, I experimented with them at a younger age, so I do have some sympathy for those addicted.

However, that does not excuse anyone from following the rule of law, in this instance. If the state is aware that a minor child is using illegal substances, then it is their responsibility their duty to inform the parents. One of the myths about children who use drugs is that they come from less than ideal circumstances. They feel that the state could be protecting the child from their parents. Anyone with any sort of knowledge, though, should be aware that drug addiction knows no class. It can happen to anyone’s child.

Here’s a hypothetical situation:

Let’s pretend I have a fourteen year old daughter, who unbeknownst to her hypothetical mother and myself, is addicted to heroin. Afraid of the consequences and that her mother and I would be disappointed in her choices, she seeks treatment. As most know, a heroin addiction is not something that is broken overnight, and though the child is seeking help through the state, she continues to abuse the drug. While recieving counseling, she still struggles with her addiction, and one night, she dies from an overdose.

If such a situation were to happen, I would explore every avenue for options to sue the state for not seeking parental intervention. The child’s mother and father could’ve placed her in a treatment center where she would be medicated and observed for every hour of the day, and in fact, would not have any sort of access to heroin, cocaine, crack, or any other sort of deadly substance.

As broken this morning on the Brody File:

The Brody File has learned that President Obama WILL NOT issue an executive order today that would have reversed a Bush administration policy which bans federal money by non-governmental agencies that provide abortions overseas. It’s called the Mexico City Policy. Go to the end of this blog to read more from White House Producer Laura Kraus on this policy.

A source with knowledge of the situation says the fact that Obama will not issue this executive order today (on the same day of the huge March for Life rally in DC) sends a strong signal to religious leaders across the political spectrum that President Obama wants to set a different tone in Washington.

President Reagan first implemented the policy but President Clinton reversed it on this day of January 22, 1993. January 22nd is the annual March for Life rally. President Bush then reversed Clinton’s executive order on this on January 22, 2001.

It is unclear whether Obama intends to reverse the Mexico City Policy at some point in the future but this reliable source tells me that this move signals that Obama will stress the need for reducing abortions in this country rather than focus on the divisive tit for tat policy reversals of the past. As a matter of fact, President Obama may actually release an abortion related statement today about this need to reduce them. The point here is that President Obama has opted out of the “in your face” politics of the past. He may reverse Mexico City Policy at some point. Many on both sides of the abortion debate expect he probably will at some point but today is a day where Obama took the more tactful and less confrontational approach.

These are debates that the GOP can stand their ground and not appear to step on the new President’s toes. See my article from last night.

We finally found a provision of the Constitution that Barack Obama respects and that is not above his pay grade: The Oath of Office that is the prescribed moment of conception for live presidencies.

So serious did he deem the exact words required, that he re-took the oath 19 hours and 35 minutes from the same Chief Justice of the United States that flubbed his administrative task at Noon on Inauguration Day.

Too bad the millions of babies aborted since the fateful decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 36 years ago today, can’t get a “do over.” (see depiction above of what results of do overs would look like in the president’s hands)

Yes, for President Obama, the words of the U.S. Constitution are set in stone when it comes to making damn sure his Presidency lives, but when it comes to the “least of these” he repeatedly promised to use government to help during the campaign and in pronouncements since, the Constitution “lives” so that that their non-Presidencies may be snuffed out.

The Oath of Office can’t be altered by one jot or tittle, but we can insert the word “choice” in place of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments so that its easier for a woman to make the BMW payments lest her mental health be harmed, even in month nine with the legs of “part of her body” dangling towards Earth, at the prospect of the cost of Pampers.

We were certainly no McCainiac, but we certainly voted for him with enthusiasm precisely due to the stark choice presented on the issue of life.

Moreover, before Obama re-took the Oath (predicted less than three hours after the flubbing on the podium by yours truly), we had documented his contempt for the framers of the Constitution on the day before his election:

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a (sic) enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot…[and] [the U.S. Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

It was also passing strange that in the last few days leading up to Inauguration Day, Obama’s speeches and the Inaugural speech itself, contained voluminous praise for the values, principles and courage of the Founders; wisdom of the framers of the Constitution; reviews of the vast panoply of American history as heroic; as well as praise for the “doers and makers of things” in a paean to free market capitalism.

We give a tip of the hat to the President for all that, as it is all anathema to his far left supporters in the Democratic Party, that are also funded to a large degree by those whose greatest victory was Roe v. Wade. Their kind are the ones that regularly trash America as land of racists that have raped the poor. They have poisoned our school children’s minds for 40 years with a trashing of America’s founders as just slaveholders whose monuments should be torn down.

We are happy that a liberal Democrat descended from an African father could look past the fact that our founders were born into a world in which slavery existed, to see their great wisdom that made his prosperity and success possible. We will be sure to quote you to school children when your ideological allies contradict you in academia, film and the press.

But back to the millions of dead babies that would love the luxury of a dead Constitution that would protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as it protects the sanctity of presidential conceptions.

What you say Obama, are their lives still above your pay grade, like they have been for every other Democratic Party President and the vast majority of its leadership in Congress and its appointed judges?

Is the Constitution dead enough for an Oath, also dead enough for parents to be notified that their minor children are seeking abortions?

How about a re-do on your previous contempt for the document?

Do what your words of praise for the Framers at the Inaugural imply and save millions of lives!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Oh baby, oh baby:

There was complete confusion Wednesday night over whether or not Caroline Kennedy had dropped her bid for Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat.

However, late Wednesday night Kennedy confirmed an earlier New York Post report by releasing a statement saying she is removing herself as a candidate for the now vacant New York Senate seat.

“I informed Gov. Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate,” Kennedy said in a statement obtained by CBS 2 HD.

Bravo, Governor Paterson!

While America throws a $200 million dollar party, a Dutch court has ruled that conservative lawmaker Geert Wilders should indeed be prosecuted for “inciting religious hatred” by calling the Qur’an a “fascist book.” Nine people — presumably all Muslims (you did know that Amsterdam is almost half-Muslim now, right? — filed complaints against Mr. Wilders. Nine people? Off with your free speech!

That’s right. Criticizing religious texts — with a special focus on being “sensitive” to Muslims, of course — is no longer within the realm of free speech in parts of Western Europe. Hot on the heels of the slaying of Dutchman Theo van Gogh for his film criticizing Islam’s treatment of women, Submission, and the banishing of former Dutch parliamentarian (and former Muslim) Ayaan Hirsi Ali for collaborating with him, the Netherlands looks like it’s going to be the first to fall in the war against Radical Islam.

This is not Sudan.

This is not Syria.

This is not Saudi Arabia.

This — the disintegration of free speech — is happening in the West.

Watch Mr. Wilders’ film, Fitna, and stand up for free speech:

Must-reading on this subject: While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, America Alone by Mark Steyn, The Caged Virgin by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And of course, for proof that the Qur’an is an authoritarian work of hatred (fascist may technically not be the right word, but we know what he meant), all one need do is read the d*#n thing.

The one with the thrill up his leg has spoken. Dissent is no longer patriotic according to Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing-, I’ve never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What’s that about?

Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? When was this ever asked about people who spent years doing nothing but undermining the efforts of our troops and our nation overseas? What we’ve been hearing for years is that not only is it okay to undermine your country and the commander-in-chief in a time of war, but, “Don’t question their patriotism.”

And let me say this, I didn’t recall a whole lot of people shouting, “I hope Bush succeeds” back in 2001 from the left. In the aftermath of Florida, the far left was gunning for Bush. Real wishes of success from the liberal talking heads. I never saw it. Certainly, politicians would say it because that’s what you’re supposed to do.

Now, we’re into a new Administration and on day 2, dissent has gone from being patriotic to unpatriotic.

I think we have to be clear on our definition of success, those folks who voted for McCain who are out there saying, “I hope Barack Obama succeeds” are saying, “I hope the economy gets better, we don’t get attacked, and the nation enjoys relative stability.” If Barack Obama leaves the White House and that’s pretty much all you can say for his Administration, he won’t be viewed as a success, but as a middling President.

What conservatives who say I don’t want Obama succeed are ultimately saying is: “I don’t want nationwide Romneycare. I don’t want the Freedom of Choice Act. I don’t want the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. I don’t want our country to move towards socialism. I don’t want an end to American economic opportunity.”

FDR “succeeded” in beginning a long strain of social policies that cost our country trillions. Is America better off for it?

My personal wish is that Obama succeeds by realizing the error of his proposals and does right by our country. As a nation, we are running out of time and can’t afford too many more Presidents who “succeed” only in messing things up even more.

I guess we should get used to this. Indeed, I’d suggest it’s time to go out and buy a pack of, “Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism” bumper stickers if the bumper sticker wasn’t so arrogant. There’s something wrong with a person who suggests that a fat white guy typing on a keyboard, or an ignorant college student screaming on campus is more patriotic than the solider on his belly with enemy fire all around him.

In the end, though, the left only believes dissent is patriotic when they’re not in power.

It is no secret that the new President is pro-choice. Anyone not aware of that would have to have been living under a rock for the last two years. It goes without saying that for the next four years, at minimum, Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned, nor will abortion be outlawed on a federal level.

There are certain areas, however, where Republicans can pressure Obama to listen to their arguments, and not back down. One of these is a federal law banning Parental Notification.

Searching for reasons made by those on the left for their reasoning to oppose parental notification laws, I came across some interesting, yet illogical explanations. Here are two examples of reasons that they feel that parental consent should not be required:

A- That it does little to curb teenage sexual activity
B- It is an invasion of the right to privacy of the teenager

The first was proposed in an issue of Women’s Health magazine, while the other is the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and both of these positions have been widespread arguments used by those who oppose notification.

“It is an invasion of the right to privacy of the teenager”

Let’s examine how this is paid for in the state of Washington, where notification is not required. According to the Washington based non-profit Feminist Women‘s Health Center (FWHC):

The cost of an abortion depends on the stage of pregnancy and which clinic is providing services. First trimester procedures run about $500-1000. Second trimester procedures cost $600-10,000.

If a minor refuses to notify their parents of having an abortion, one has to wonder how they can afford to pay those kind of prices in a bear economy. There is the possibility that the child may have a job and can afford to pay for the abortion themselves. I don’t have actual statistics that give any indication as to how much a working minor makes, but I’d be willing to be that it would be difficult to afford a bill at that price. However, according to the FWHC:

In Washington, abortion is covered by the state medical assistance. State Medicaid coverage varies from state to state.

Abortion is covered under many insurance plans. The clinic can help by verifying coverage and other paperwork. It may not be necessary to obtain a referral from a primary care physician before setting up an abortion appointment.

State medical assistance. Your tax dollars at work.

The citizens of the state of Washington pay for abortions, whether they agree with it or not. Which means, that a parent is still paying for their child’s abortion… but they are not told about it.

The other option available to a minor, according to the FWHC, is using health insurance to cover the costs. The problem with this is that most minor’s health insurance is either covered or paid for by their parents. Unless the minor pays for their own health insurance, then the parents are still paying for the abortion… but they don’t know it.

Not only is parental notification not required by Washington state law in regards to abortion, a child over the age of thirteen can recieve substance abuse treatment without parental notification (pdf file). However, if a juvenile is placed under house arrest, then the child must be supervised by a parent at all times, and before the trial, the parent assumes all responsibilities for the child.

The reason I bring this up is because the removal of notification laws not only erodes the parent’s responsibility for the child, it places decisions that should be reserved for the legal guardian squarely on the shoulders of a minor.

It also brings into question “the age of consent.” For example, a thirteen year old girl could have sex with a thirty year old man, and not only would the parents not be notified, but neither would law enforcement. A sexual predator would be allowed to continue to prey upon minors, and without laws requiring doctors to notify parents and law enforcement, the state would undermine it’s own child protection laws.

In regards to point number one, that parental notification does not curb teenage sexual activity… it’s irrelevant. Parental notification does not monitor a decision made by a teenager, but it does make them face the consequences of their actions. Until the age of eighteen, the parent/guardian is responsible for a child’s well being, and if that child were to get pregnant, then it is the parent’s responsibility to counsel them and help deal with it.

[Update] For those that think this re-do was about appeasing “right-wing bloggers”:

The Constitution is clear about the exact wording of the oath and as a result, some constitutional experts have said that a do-over probably wasn’t necessary but also couldn’t hurt. Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur.

I don’t think Coolidge and Arthur were fearful of Instapundit.

I wish conservative bloggers had such power, because if we did, President Obama would be proposing supply side tax cuts this morning. 10:19 am est January 22, 2009]

Cockstradamus vindicated in post-Oath declaration of a President-less America.

Less than three hours after the Chief Justice of the United States (John Roberts pictured) misplaced the word “faithfully” in his administration of the constitutionally prescribed Oath, my erstwhile alter ego issued the following comment at other websites and at here:

The Chief Justice flubbed the Oath by misplacing the word, “faithfully”:

The correct version:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Roberts said:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the office of President of the United States, faithfully…”

And the Oath is a constitutionally mandated procedure, so I can understand how Obama is thinking, “man, if we don’t get this right, I’m not really President.’!

Obama mistakenly called himself the 44th American to take the Oath. Wrong. Since Grover Cleveland took the oath in non-consecutive terms and is considered both the 22nd and 24th President, only 43 Americans have taken the Oath.

Sixteen plus plus hours later Matt Drudge reports:

OBAMA RE-SWORN IN

At 735 pm, Roberts administred the oath of office again to obama in the map room. Robert gibbs said the wh counsel, greg craig, believes the oath was fine Tuesday, but one word was out of sequence so they did this out of a “an abundance of caution.” “We decided it was so much fun…” Obama joked while sitting on a couch. Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool as roberts donned his black robe. “Are you ready to take the oath?” Roberts asked. “I am, and we’re going to do it very slowly,” obama replied. Oath took 25 seconds. After a flawless recitation, roberts smiled and said, “congratulations, again.” Obama said, “thank you, sir.” Smattering of applause. “All right.” Obama said. “The bad news for the pool is there’s 12 more balls.”

So, for 19+ hours, we know that Barack Obama was not President of the United States.

Was President Bush still president?

Or was Vice-President Joe Biden, whose Otah of Office was administered flawlessly the first time, actually President-in-fact? And if so, is that why we still haven’t seen the expected “international test”?

Now, if only President Obama could count.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

This series of posts is based on one idea. We don’t need to examine all the potential Presidential candidates for 2012. We really need to shrink down that long list to only those Presidential candidates who meet necessary requirements. The first post suggested we limit ourselves to candidates who can personally appeal to some Obama 2008 voters. The second post suggested we limit ourselves to candidates who have the appearance, speaking ability and charisma to communicate forcefully and skillfully.

In this post I suggest we limit our 2012 contenders to only those candidates who present new ideas. A candidate who slightly alters 90′s Republican rhetoric has no future in Presidential politics.

New ideas have to be judged on more than just their merits. Are these ideas linked in a larger theme?

Politicians often develop a theme for their campaign and then awkwardly try to fit their policies and ideas into a theme were they don’t naturally fit. Besides that candidates often pick horrible themes that can’t motivate anyone outside the Republican base.

Besides getting elected, we need leaders who can fight for their agenda in office. It’s much easier to do this when the voters support a campaign’s ideas not just a candidate.

Beyond this we’ve got to recognize that Americans are not worried about the issues Republicans were elected on in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2000.

For 2012 we shouldn’t support candidates who don’t focus on the issues Americans care about. We shouldn’t support candidates who can’t get their message together.

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com where you may access all links not provided that are referenced in this article.

With their latest in the tank for a liberal Democrat mission accomplished, our local dead-tree Drive-By media (Charlotte Observer) announced a post-Inauguration “triple play” war on tobacco, which, if successful, would kill many jobs that President Obama promised to save (link at Examiner link above).

If the same strategy were applied on baseball diamonds, where real peril exists for catchers, the Charlotte Observer would have to call for a statewide (or local option) ban on America’s National Pastime, rather than allow them to wear masks (see Yogi Berra pictured above).

Here are the disturbing details of the Observer’s war on individual liberty and private property rights, but I repeat myself:

The 2009 N.C. General Assembly should enact a statewide smoking ban in public places, including restaurants and bars (or at the very least free local elected officials to take that step on their own).
The legislature also should raise the cigarette tax by at least 50 cents a pack and bring North Carolina’s tax to the national average.

Congress should give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco.

Grand slams beat triple plays all day long, so here goes.

Let’s start with “out” three: For decades now, every cigarette pack (and all containers of tobacco products) has been emblazoned with dire warnings of death from a General. Regulation by the FDA would mean an outright ban.

Now, for the bait-and-switch of “out” two: They want to ban a product while they promise tax revenues from the use of it. Most legislative proposals also earmark the revenues for health care, which always leads to later tax increases from more stable sources of income.

Finally, as to “out” one, before my “second-hand” home run (be patient, the metaphors will be worth it very soon), I find it quite telling that the most prominent argument used by proponents of smoking bans is that they must “protect workers”, primarily those working as cooks, bartenders, waitresses in restaurants and bars.

Yet, they don’t seek to ban textile plants. In fact, this same newspaper regularly bemoans the loss of textile jobs to countries overseas. Many years ago, the Charlotte Observer won a Pulitzer prize for a long series of articles investigating the causes of brown lung disease in textile workers. One of the results of that series was the increased wearing of masks by workers in plants where one would regularly breathe in cotton dust.

Why the difference in the case of food service workers? Do they care less about their jobs?

The reason is obvious: the issue is not about health. If it were, the problem could be solved by the wearing of a mask by the worker. The issue, rather is a tyranny of a majority mob bent on asserting its will against private property owners that saved the fruits of their labor to build a business. No matter that the free market has provided that 65% of the restaurant market is non-smoking already.

This is about ascethics as well. They don’t want to be served by someone wearing a mask, even though masks could be dressed up for anal retentive liberals (see picture above) who deem it their right to eat anywhere they want and control the air within.

And what do the Disturbing anti-Liberty newspaper and their allies offer as the need for the police power to prevent Winstons and Salems from being lighted inside bars in Winston-Salem?

Second-hand smoke.

And just in case one of us common sense holders questions them, well, they have “experts.’ And we know that science has never been politicized, don’t we? Al Gore said that half of North Carolina was “in the balance” with the rest of the Earth in his book twenty years ago with doom scheduled for 1998. Raleigh remains dry, unlike 10,000 years ago before Chevy SUVs roamed the planet, but I digress.

Expert witness number one is the Surgeon General, whose declaration they conveniently fail to date. With good reason too, since its over 15 years old. The Surgeon General also warned us a heterosexual AIDS epidemic that never came.

“Expert” number two? Sit down for this one:

Smokefree NC, a health advocacy group, estimates that workers in a smoke-filled room for one eight-hour shift are smoking the equivalent of one to two packs a day.

Yes, if you roll the stuff up in a cylindrical piece of paper and suck the smoke of twenty down your throat everyday, you might die from it in 60+ years. But if you disperse the smoke in parts per septillion and breathe it in, you are at the same risk? Liberals think we are all fools.

I have my experts too, with this 2008 report from Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.:

A 1986 surgeon general’s report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

In 1992 EPA published its report … claiming [secondhand smoke] is a serious public health problem … [But] the report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

A longer version of this essay with footnotes is available here.

By the way, ever notice how rare it is for a dead-tree drive-by media outlet to provide such easy access to their sources? I think I’ll put Dr. Arnett up against a “health advocacy group” with the Charlotte Observer’s fax machine number any day.

Back to baseball: I wonder who gets hit in the face more by the ball, catchers or Left fielders?

Care about workers?

Let them wear masks!

Before they come for your food, like they have in New York (link at Examiner links above and below).

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

For more info: ABC Health and Consumer Affairs reporter John Stossel on the myths of the dangers of second-hand smoke. (links at Examiner.com)

Property Rights trump second-hand smoke

The old saying, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” is lost on many Republicans wanting to move the GOP away from its conservative positions (particularly on social issues) in order to expand the party.

Thus, they’re willing to risk losing the bird in the hand (social conservatives) to get this mysterious creature known as the person who is fiscally conservative but believes in abortion so much that they’re willing 10% higher in taxes in order to ensure it.

Many of the people advocating this strategy come from a business perspective so let’s take a look at it from that viewpoint.

In business, they tell you it is 7 times harder and more expensive to get new customers than it is to retain your old ones, why would we think it is any different in politics? Consider that Evangelical Christians cast more than 20 million votes for Senator McCain and consider the pure number of Conservative Catholics and other religious conservatives who did so well. That’s a lot of customers to replace.

Of course, many of these political entrepreneurs don’t know their customers, don’t understand what motivates and what drives them and think they can dictate what are reasonable “compromises” for them to except, never understanding that compromises are the results of two people coming together, not one person proposing something slightly less than his view of ideal and telling the other person, “This is the way it’s going to be.”

To rebuild conservatism, you must attract new people without undermining existing ties. There’s no way to jettison or diminish social conservatives  that will end happily for the GOP. There are not enough people that you can bring in to make up for all the people you drive out.

Honestly, what seems to drive this argument is a combination of personal over or distaste of social conservatives rather than any hard date suggesting that there’s a huge wave of socially liberal people who will fit well into the party.

Well, it may have been the most attended Inaugural ceremony in recent history, but the audience who watched it on television fell short of the number that watched Reagan take office.

Inaugural ratings likely second best
Obama head-to-head with Reagan’s numbers
By RICK KISSELL

Early numbers for the inauguration of Barack Obama are impressive but, perhaps surprisingly, could come in below those for Ronald Reagan’s first term in 1981.
Preliminary Nielsen estimates show that 29.2% of U.S. households were watching the presidential inauguration — easily the largest in decades but below the 37.4 household rating for Reagan. Obama’s figures include viewership on roughly 15 broadcast and cable networks, while the Reagan ceremony was viewed only on ABC, CBS and NBC; also, they do not include the huge online viewing this time around, with CNN.com, FoxNews.com and MSNBC.com all reporting record streaming video traffic.

The Reagan inauguaration in 1981 ended up averaging a whopping 41.8 million viewers to stand as the most-watched on record. The previous low-water mark came in 2005 for the second inauguration of George W. Bush (15.5 million).

Obama’s Agenda on issues like abortion is a very mixed bag. It could be a lot worse, but it’s not good. He does seem to respect the fact that abortion will be a wedge issue that can drive Americans apart over the disagreements, but he will not waiver in his support for Roe Vs. Wade.

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

That’s a big strike right there. No surprise. The question will be just how far he is willing to support this measure. It’s one thing to believe it acceptable to have first trimester abortions, as there are a large number of Americans who hold that position, but past that is a different ballgame that Obama has yet to face strict scrutiny over on the national stage. I mean, we all knew that he was pro-choice, but whether or not he will be as militantly extremist as he was in the past may go quite a ways towards how much independent Church goers will continue to support him.

His sex education plan, on the other hand, is much better than I expected, though not good.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

It remains to be seen just how much he wants to “expand” access to contraception, but on the other side, he will continue to offer abstinance programs.

In the end, this reads like a moderate stance. The issues will be framed by just how far he wants to take these ideas. Someone can be pro-choice, and still not sign late term termination of pregnancies into law. Someone can offer both safe sex and abstinance education in school. However, one can sound moderate, and yet still hold extreme positions. Judging by his past record, it remains to be seen whether this new found moderation is sincere, or just nice wording.

EDIT: This is an analysis of how it may play, not to be confused with whether I agree with it or not, which for the most part, I don’t.

Beginning Anew

This morning at 11 AM, as the final hour of the George W. Bush Era dawned and assorted dignitaries filed into place upon the inaugural stage, I quietly contemplated the uncertain future of the Republican Party. Standing halfway between the Washington Monument and the Capitol Building among a great mass of humanity, I could not help but think that the GOP’s return to respectability would be a long and arduous journey.

President Bush wore a weathered gaze, a mix of sleepless nights and unending defiance. Vice President Cheney, long perceived as the administration’s most enigmatic figure, appeared literally and emotionally defeated; he offered only a weak smile as his wheelchair was directed to its resting place. Eight years of tough choices, disappointment, and controversy was destined to end with a whimper, history’s final verdict left to be determined.

The failures of our leaders at the national level opened the door for Barack Obama and he seized the moment. Yet, before Republican officials choose a RNC Chair and grassroots activists wrestle over the 2012 nomination, I must make one thing clear: American voters have clearly lost faith in the Republican Party. Whether they came to this conclusion by judging the Big Government policies of the Bush Administration is beside the point. Abandoned in the political wilderness, rebirth is possible only with a bottom-up mentality.

Forget the Sarah Palin fad and the Huckabee-Romney fued- Republicans do not need an immediate face to fill our national power vacuum. More importantly, will be our ability over the next two years to recruit and support local, senatorial, and gubernatorial candidates for office. This stands as the best avenue to regain the trust of the American electorate through policy smarts and proven results. If we overextend resources in a fight to defeat Obama while Democrats build their coalition on the local and statewide scene, the public is less likely to reward the GOP the White House.

Three Hopefuls

Three proven Republicans, all with law-enforcement backgrounds, could kickoff the comeback: Christopher Christie in New Jersey, Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania, and Bob McDonnell in Virginia.

Christopher Christie, former U.S. Attorney- New Jersey

Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Attorney General

Bob McDonnell, Virginia Attorney General

These races offer a unique opportunity for Republicans to secure the governor’s mansion in three states Obama won in November. Although Republicans handily lost the popular count in each state (15% in New Jersey, 10% in Pennsylvania, and 6% in Virginia), the upcoming races for governor are considered toss-up’s. The latest polls reveal the fragile nature of three embattled Democratic governors, one of which is seeking reelection (Gov. Jon Corzine, New Jersey):

(more…)

One of the glaring negatives of today’s events revolves around the Reverend Joseph Lowery’s closing remarks, in which he stated:

“we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around… when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.”

Well, apparently the good Reverend has been reading this poll released by CNN over the weekend, which asked Americans whether they felt “Martin Luther King’s vision had been fulfilled.”

According to the poll, roughly 70% of African Americans feel that MLK’s dream has truly been fulfilled, which is a truly staggering number, even by today’s standards. On the other hand, only 45% of the white population feels that the dream is fulfilled.

So while a clear majority of African Americans feel that they have an equal opportunity to succeed in this country, only a minority of white people feel that way. Leave it to the Reverend to remind them that he is among the 30%. You can find the rest of that 30% by reading the membership lists of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, The Black Panther Party, and whatever group Al Sharpton is now attached to.

The Obama agenda is up and ready to decipher on the government website.

Part 1 of this series: The Obama Plan- Defense

President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.

Invest in a 21st Century Military

Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: Obama and Biden believe that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Obama and Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 Marines. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Leadership from the Top: President Obama and Vice President Biden will inspire a new generation of Americans to serve their country, whether it be in local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe.

Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: The Obama-Biden Administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families’ concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama and Biden will end the stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect.

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must get essential equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost.

Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces can succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.

National Missile Defense: The Obama-Biden Administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.

Ensure Freedom of Space: The Obama-Biden Administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. They will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

Protect the U.S in Cyberspace: The Obama-Biden Administration cooperate with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.

Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves

Equip, Support, and Modernize the National Guard and Reserves: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. They will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability

Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: The Obama-Biden Administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): Obama and Biden will create a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

Restore Our Alliances

Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges: America’s traditional alliances, such as NATO, must be transformed and strengthened, including on common security concerns like Afghanistan, homeland security, and counterterrorism. President Obama and Vice President Biden will renew alliances and ensure our allies contribute their fair share to our mutual security.

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need: The Obama-Biden Administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friendships and attract allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process.

Reform Contracting

Create Transparency for Military Contractors: President Obama and Vice President Biden will require the Pentagon and State Department to develop a strategy for determining when contracting makes sense, rather than continually handing off governmental jobs to well-connected companies. They will create the transparency and accountability needed for good governance, and establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contractors.

Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement: The Obama-Biden Administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting. Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government’s ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.

I have been struggling all day with writing a post of this nature (leaving a couple of unfinished drafts in our bin). Thankfully, Aron Goldman provided a link to Andrew Levy’s To Don’t List. Here it is:

The only thing worse than bad winners are sore losers, and we’ve had enough of them for the past eight years. So with that in mind, in the wake of today’s historic inauguration, here’s my Handbook For The Loyal Opposition, 2009 edition – a “To Don’t List,” if you will. Or even if you won’t.

DON’T question the motives – question the policy. When you disagree with Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.

DON’T make it personal. We don’t need another Derangement Syndrome. We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause, or to the country as a whole, is beyond me. Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are smushwords like BusHitler, or sillywords like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.

DON’T cozy up to and champion foreign dictators and despots. Sean Penn is an ass. No reason to be like him. ‘Nuff said. (Corollary: Don’t cozy up to and champion foreign dictators and despots and then act outraged when people question your patriotism.)

DON’T pretend you’re being brave when you criticize your government. Not while people in other countries actually, y’know, DIE, when they do that.

DON’T use the word “divisive.” At this point, all that word means is “You disagree with me,” and the English language gets mangled enough these days.

DON’T use the phrase “speaking truth to power.” EVER.

DON’T move to Canada.

DON’T say you’re going to move to Canada and then stay here. (I know it’s too late for Stephen Baldwin, but not for the rest of you.)

DON’T apologize to foreigners and say things to them like, “I didn’t vote for Obama,” or “He’s not MY president.”

DON’T say or do everything in your power to drive this country apart and then claim you want unity when it’s your guy in power. This is like the convicted felon who conveniently finds God when he’s up for parole.

DON’T call people un-American one week, and then talk about how “We are not blue states or red states, we are the United States” the next. (This rule may only apply to Tom Hanks, but I put it in just to be safe.)

DON’T automatically think people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. Some of them are, of course. But most of them aren’t, and you might actually learn something if you listen to them.

And finally, DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

Pretty insightful stuff… Hopefully, those on the right can read and abide by it.

Not to put a damper on the respect for the peaceful transition of power that took place today, but this is freaking me out. It is frightening.

Watch as Hollywood B grade talent pledge the possession of their souls to the One:

“I pledge to be a servant to our president.”

Me? I pledge to make as much money as these people so when our country faces an economic crisis, I can devote all my time to serving the One. Ooops… we already are facing an economic crisis and I am broke.

Update: I thought of a new pledge… I pledge not to treat people, whether they are of the same political beliefs as I am or not, fairly and with respect, in times of agreement and disagreement.

That’s one pledge that I think everyone in this video FAILED.

Rob Portman starts off on a strong footing:

PPP 2010 Ohio Senate Poll, conducted Jan. 17th-18th, 2009

• Rob Portman (R) 42%
• Jennifer Brunner (D) 34%
• Undecided 24%

• Rob Portman (R) 41%
• Lee Fisher (D) 39%
• Undecided 20%

• Rob Portman (R) 40%
• Tim Ryan (D) 34%
• Undecided 26%

PPP surveyed 578 Ohio voters on January 17th and 18th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.1%.

Yes, I know that it is ridiculously early and that the undecideds are ludicrously high… However, it is good news none-the-less that Portman starts this race off ahead of his more well-known potential Democratic opponents such a SoS Brunner and Lt. Gov Fisher.

First off, I would like to apologize to the R4’12 staff, as well as our readers, for my continued absence from the site. Personal matters have prevented me from being a regular contributor to this site and will likely continue to do so for the near future. I would like to thank my fellow writers here at R4’12 for picking up the slack in my absence.

Now on to the inaugural…

Barack Obama was not my candidate in this election. He is not of my political party and certainly does not share my political philosophy. But today he becomes my President, and for the sake of the country that I love with all of my heart, I hope that he will be a good one. I am, and will always be, an American before I am a Republican and I will never wish any harm upon our great nation for the sake of political gain.

Today, our nation sees its first African American citizen assume the highest office in the land- and in that fact I cannot help but feel a deep and powerful sense of pride. I hope that his Presidency serves to help those who, for whatever reason, have not felt that they have a stake in the prosperity of our nation become invested in the promise that the greatest country on Earth has always afforded its members.

Until my next post, God bless you all- and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

-Originally published at Examiner.com which version contains all links to supportive and referential material.
_______________________________________________________________________

[Update @ 12:57pm Inauguration Day, 2009 - President Obama satisfied my hopes with his embrace of the Founders, our heroic American history, and the "doers and makers of things." Bravo Mr. President. I will have a complete review of the Inaugural address later.]

I didn’t vote for Barack Obama.

I oppose the change he advocated in his campaign, but he is my President.

But I have great hope that America will thrive under his leadership and will pray for him and my country daily, as I did for President George W. Bush and all that preceded him.

My hopes have risen in many ways during the transition, especially with respect to national security and defense issues. The President-Elect retained the Defense Secretary that helped President Bush continue on the path to victory in Iran and retain the perfect protection of the homeland since 911. Obama has also recently scoffed at the suggestion of looking backwards at prosecutions of government agents that obtained life-saving intel from three prominent al Qaida detainees via so-called waterboarding torture. And, our next President has backed off his reckless campaign pledge to “immediately” close the POW camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, now publicly acknowledging that dangerous terrorists are housed there.

We pray that President Obama will honor his more recent pledges and not what he now refers to, post-intelligence briefings from President Bush, as “campaign rhetoric.”

In the area of economic policy, I can’t say that my hopes have risen as much, given the pork and government jobs bill being passed off as an emergency stimulus bill to combat the current economic crisis and create jobs. We hold out some hope given his choice of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as chief economic advisor and some other appointees; his reluctance to seek campaign promised tax hikes for at least two years; and that his proposed stimulus bill had more tax cuts than the bill passed out of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives.

But, we expect to oppose Obama and the liberal Democrats on economic and social policy. After all, I am a conservative and, in fact, a convert to same after 18 years a Democrat activist and official until 2000, precisely because we came to see their policies as proven failures. We have no doubt that we need a stimulus. We need a supply side stimulus policy that has proven to be a success on many occasions via individual and corporate tax rate cuts, capital gains tax cuts and reductions in regulations that would turn the American people loose to bail themselves out through expanded oil exploration and the building of oil refineries, nuclear power plants and the creation of small businesses.

We would love for the new President’s Inaugural Address to contain some reference to these types of measures, but we aren’t holding our breathe.

But we do have hope that the address can be a net positive for the nation. Inaugural addresses are more important than most speeches because they are read by school children and are used to define the nation’s ideals. We here that Obama will speak of responsibility as a theme, and we think that is appropriate and good. We just pray that it is not used as a ruse for class warfare and does not exclude from responsibility, those elected government officials that helped bring about the current economic crisis.

For President Barack Hussein Obama’s Inaugural Address to be a success in my eyes, he will have to say three things that relate directly to the ideal of “responsibility”:

1 – Publicly and unequivocally thank his predecessor for keeping us safe since the attacks of September 11, 2001;

2 – Publicly and unequivocally thank the former Commander-in-Chief and the armed forces of the United States for the victory in Iraq. Show the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve for succeeding in their mission. Don’t treat them like victims that need to be rescued from their mission by you.

3 – Pays homage to the wisdom and greatness of the Founders as he has been doing of late in speeches leading up to Inauguration Day. This can go a long way to correcting the politically correct trashing of this nation’s glorious history by so many in academia.

If a President won’t defend us, we won’t be defended. Congress can’t force a Commander-in-Chief to fire one bullet, drop one bomb, or round up visa overstays from Muslim countries after a terrorist attack.

I will never forget when former Attorney General John Ashcroft related President Bush’s first words to him after the 911 attacks:

“John, don’t ever let this happen again.”

John didn’t and neither did the President. And we all know that a President Gore would have never crossed the political correctness police and picked up all those visa overstays that we now know prevent follow up attacks.

Has the President-Elect related the equivalent to his national security team? Will he have the courage to do whatever it takes to protect us?

Let us pray that he will.

Today is a great day for America and a great example for the world. It is now self evident, what I have known for over two decades: America is not only not a racist country, it is the most non-racist nation in history.

Once again, we show the world how to peacefully transfer power.

We just hope and pray that our new leader is as committed to keeping the peace on U.S. soil as President Bush has been.

Farewell and Godspeed to the man that kept us safe and Congratulations and best wishes to our 44th President of the United States.

God Bless America!

__________________________________________________________________________

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Race42012 is pleased to announce our new frontpage contributor, Max Twain.

Max is a graphic designer and contemporary artist who resides in unfortunately still-blue New Jersey. Max is a life-long fiscal conservative and was a member of the few but proud College Republicans, and the even fewer and prouder college republican art students. Max has been a constant observer of the national political scene since the 2000 Florida recount and particularly the September 11th attacks.

Please join me in welcoming Max to the R4’12 family.