From The Boston Globe.
Mitt Romney has landed another prominent perch from which to stay in the political conversation — and enhance his political prospects.
The former Massachusetts governor will be among those writing a new column in the Washington Times, well read by the party’s mover’s and shakers.
Editor & Publisher reports that the newspaper says that the “Reinventing Conservatism” columns will “showcase a revolving series of essays by some of today’s biggest thinkers in the conservative movement.”
The first column, published today, is from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Romney ran for the Republican presidential nomination last year and subsequently created a political action committee to support GOP candidates. He is a frequent talking head on the cable TV news shows, most recently critiquing President Obama’s economic stimulus plan. And he is in the early scuttlebutt about the 2012 presidential race.
Governor Romney appeared on The O’Reilly factor last night, disecting on the Obama stimulus plan. He was very effective in his opposition. Watch the video and/or read the transcript here.
Is Governor Romney looking to ’kill time’, or is this an opportunity to keep his name in the headlines, especially in Republican circles…? Your thoughts?
Erick Erickson has this joyous news over at Redstate.
Kasich’s entry means that we will have two top-tier prospects on the ballot in Ohio in 2010.
Via Politico:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.” In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”
The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”
“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”
“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”
R4’12 wishes Gov. Palin’s a happy 45th birthday today!
You can send your own birthday wishes to Gov. Palin at teamsarah08-at-gmail-dot-com.
If you’d noticed Hillary Clinton becoming a background figure, you’re not alone. Writes Dick Morris after noting several other members of the National Security Team have taken larger roles so far:
While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration.
Hillary’s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers — at the very least — know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they — and she — be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely.
We’re about 3 weeks into the Hillary Clinton era at State, and we could see her far more prominent and assertive by the end of the year. But, what if that doesn’t happen?
Well, if President Obama remains popular, I expect you’ll see her simply resign by early 2011. If he slips and stumbles, and the country still looks troubled and those part of the Democratic base that are angry with him continue to grow, then you may see a Hillary 2012 campaign after all with Hillary using her former position in the Administration to go after the President.
I’m pleased to announce I hope a Romney wins an election.
Not Mitt, though there would be a number of elections that he could run for if he were so inclined: Governor of California, Senate from Utah or perhaps Nevada, Mayor of Detroit. But the Romney I’m talking about is Josh Romney, Mitt’s 30-something son.
Josh Romney considered a bid against Congressman Jim Mattheson (D-Ut.) last year but decided against it. Smart move. Even in Utah, last year was not the year to challenge a Democratic member of Congress who has been seen as a moderate.
However, 2010 appears to be different and Mattheson just voted for the Generational Theft package. His district went for McCain by 18 points (it’s the most liberal in Utah.) It looks like a ripe pick-up opportunity IF Republicans find the right guy.
Who better than Josh Romney to take this House seat back for the Republicans? Romney has instant name recognition, which would negate Mattheson’s advantage in that category as a fellow scion of a political family. This is one of those districts Republicans ought to have and a smart move by NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions would be to recruit Romney for Congress.
From Lorelli’s inbox to mine, here is the offical campaign email:
I want you to know that I do intend to seek re-election. The magnitude of the financial crisis that many American families are facing makes it clear to me that I want to continue to serve our country in the Senate.
The economic challenges currently confronting our nation are immense and unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress propose addressing these challenges through increased spending that wastes billions of taxpayers dollars and saddles our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. Their proposals will not stimulate economic growth or create jobs. While the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, has pledged to change business as usual in Washington and spoken of bipartisanship, I have been saddened to watch as Congressional Democrats try to use their majority to advocate more of the same failed policies and wasteful spending of the past. With so much at stake, now is not the time to step away from my work in the Senate.
As always, I anticipate a tough re-election challenge. But with your help, we will counter those efforts and put forth an aggressive campaign by registering new voters, reaching out to Democrats, Independents and Republicans, and again earning the support of Hispanic and Native American voters in Arizona .
I am honored to serve the people of Arizona as their United States Senator. I would be most appreciative of your support of my re-election efforts and hope you will click here to join my re-election team. Thank you for your consideration.
With Janet Napolitano heading the Department of Homeland Security, Sen. McCain will likely sail to reelection.
The official site, Friends of John McCain, can be found here.
I just can’t figure this one out:
The opening-day headliner for the annual CPAC conservative convention February 26-28, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has pulled out, citing state business in Juneau. “We’re obviously disappointed,” said a CPAC official. A spokesman for the three-day confab, organized by the American Conservative Union Foundation and others, said that Palin, the popular former vice presidential nominee, had indicated she would be able to attend but cited “duties of governing” in bowing out. Instead, she will send in a taped message. The decision was clearly a blow to many of those planning to be there, who expected to see Palin address the group on the opening day and Obama foe Rush Limbaugh wrap up the convention. Limbaugh is confirmed to speak on Saturday, February 28. One conservative associated with the convention said Palin, who earlier this month attended the prestigious Alfalfa Club dinner, was “making a mistake” by not appearing in person. But another said that the taped message, while lacking the wow factor of an in-person presentation, showed that she was still keen on keeping close ties to the conservative movement as she builds her political action committee, SarahPAC, and considers her national career in politics.
Well, at least I didn’t shell out $2,000 to attend. I would be seriously disappointed not to see Gov. Palin there.
Hat-tip: The original Sarahbot 
Conservative icon Fred Malek gives us the inside story on John McCain and Sarah Palin’s first post-election reunion at the both the Alfalfa Club Dinner and a private gathering at his home:
The January 20 Inauguration and the January 31 Alfalfa Club dinner brought me in close quarters again with John McCain and allowed me to bring John and Sarah Palin together for the first time since election night.
A little over a week later was the Alfalfa Club dinner. Alfalfa is a 200 member club with mostly illustrious members such as leading Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, Supreme Court Justices, and former Presidents, as well as a few such as myself, who somehow slipped past the screening. The club does absolutely nothing other than an annual dinner filled with patriotism, bipartisanship, and very humorous speakers, including traditionally the President. Each member is allowed to bring two guests and one of mine this year was Sarah Palin. The night before, last reported by Roxanne Roberts of the “Washington Post”, Marlene and I hosted a small dinner at our home for my Alfalfa guests and a few other friends. Here is what impressed me most over the weekend:
- The warmth John McCain showed toward Sarah Palin when she arrived at my home Friday night. It was the first time they had been together since the election, and their good feelings toward each other were evident.
- The gracious and engaged Sarah Palin was with everyone. It was great to see her in deep conversations with people like Alan Greenspan, Madeleine Albright, Walter Isaacson, and Mitch McConnell. For sure, nothing shallow about this lady.
- The celebrity treatment Sarah received from the highly sophisticated crowd at Alfalfa. There were as many or more people lined up to meet her as there was for President Obama.
- Sarah’s singular focus on her job as Governor of Alaska. She left Anchorage on a 2:30 a.m. flight Friday so as not to miss a day on the job, and she singled out people to meet who could be impactful to Alaska, including President Obama.
- Sarah’s grace and charisma reminded me of why she had been selected as John McCain’s running mate.
Be sure to bookmark Mr. Malek’s blog as he will be publishing his analysis of the 2008 campaign in the coming days and there are sure to be some very interesting observations in these posts.
A story once recounted to me spoke of Napoleon Bonaparte being approached by a young military commander who described a dire military scenario to him. “You’re known as one of the world’s greatest generals,” the man said to Napoleon, “so what would you do in such a situation?” Napoleon replied “My boy, I became known as one of the world’s greatest generals by never getting into such a situation.”
That’s roughly where we find ourselves right now in respect to Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. They’re bastards, but they’re our bastards, and if we don’t want to have to rely on bastards, then we don’t get into situations where we have to rely on them! If we had more than forty senators in our party, this wouldn’t be an issue. But instead, the base is whining that we don’t have any power, as if it were a mere accident. But it’s not an accident. We are where we are for a reason.
Similarly, the only reason that Republicans defectors are so small in number is because, quite simply, nobody’s left to defect! The party’s in such dire shape that only conservative stalwarts are left in Congress. (But we’re united through our principle, thank goodness.)
The truth is that there was no “good outcome” to this scenario. If we compromised, we’d own the bill along with the Democrats, lend President Obama the bipartisan legitimacy he craves, and get dragged along for the ride. What would a “compromise” bill have looked like? I imagine that it would probably have something where 25 to 30 GOP senators still refused to vote for the bill. A bad bill, but enough would have bolted to make the bill “bipartisan.” On the other hand, if we sat on the sidelines, as we did, a terrible, irresponsible bill would pass — and indeed it has. It will eventually be sent to Obama with a few tweaks, he’ll sign it, and that will be that. Or we could have banded together to stop the bill from progressing at all, making us look like irresponsible obstructionists. The public doesn’t like the bill, but the public also doesn’t like people who stop the process. (Anyway, weren’t we complaining a couple of years ago about ‘obstructionists’ who refused to admit that ‘elections have consequences’ and all of that?)
So what do we do about Snowe, Collins, and Specter? I’ll quote commenter Adam: “Do nothing. Nothing at all. Get annoyed…Let it turn to determination. Use determination to do whatever it takes to elect more Republicans…and then Snowe, Specter and Collins won’t matter as much.” Specter is a symptom of our problems, not a cause. Why do we have to get mad at Specter? Because we’re in such a terrible position that we have to rely on him. A few years ago, we didn’t have to do that. But we blew it while governing. So now we are where we are.
So what do we do? We reform the party and we elect more Republicans. Don’t get mad at Specter. Don’t miss the forest for the trees. Get mad at liberal Democrats. They’re the problem. Not Arlen Specter.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
Kavon wonders how we should deal with the Specter, Collins, and Snowe defections. I take a fairly hardline position on this issue. There are essentially two schools of thought on the Republican collapse these last 4 years. One says that we’ve lost because we became intoxicated with power, and supported bad bills simply because they were OUR bills. This school also insists that in 2000 George Bush and Karl Rove thought that “Compassionate Conservatism” could be a bridge to a permanent majority, and therefore they led Republicans in a sort of inept triangulation on fiscal issues, to head off traditional Democratic talking points (Republicans are stingy, don’t like new programs, etc). You might call this the “We lost our way” school of thought. The second school insists that an excessive conservatism, largely on social issues, has driven away moderates, especially well-educated moderates. Both of these schools of thought have merit, but there is no school of thought which argues that the GOP has floundered because of too much fiscal conservatism (Unless you count Ross Douthat, which I don’t. I take Ross to be arguing that the GOP has given up having any ideas on “Democratic” issues or concerns).
Even Obama and the Democrats didn’t really argue that; they blamed the bad economy on us, but they certainly didn’t attribute it to a failure to spend adequately (they couldn’t have- Obama was still playing at wanting balanced budgets). Now it may well be that a different 2-term Republican Presidency would have inspired the “stingy” charge, but that’s simply not where the action is right now. Republicans can’t lose, even in blue Maine, by opposing profligacy and waste; it’s been so long since ANYONE has seen anything but profligacy and waste, even some Democrats oppose it. This is how elections turn; the country’s governed by fiscally right of center policies for two decades, and they forget all about the excesses of genuine liberalism. In 4 years, the country will be in the middle, no matter what, of the most sustained expansion of Government in its history. Even if the economy has reached glorious heights, fiscal responsibility will be a reasonable card to play.
So while I agree with the strategy of promoting moderate candidates in moderate areas, we don’t need to promote candidates who offer THIS sort of moderation. Specter, Snowe, and Collins have badly miscalculated, and frankly, as long as we’re going to have a powerless minority, I’d prefer the symbolism of a sustained grassroots effort to primary someone like Specter, even if it means we lose the seat. Only it’d be nice, if we could leave the Club for Growth out of it, and promote a more mainstream candidate, through a more mainstream outlet. When the Club for Growth primaries someone, it always feels as though they’re doing it because they demand perfection. We want to send a message that while we don’t demand perfection, we demand SOMETHING. Failing to vote against maybe the worst spending bill in the Nation’s history-when it’s not even clear enough of the public supports it to harm your career- makes you just about useless.
Nor, do I believe that had we torpedoed this bill, we would have received the blame for further economic troubles. This assumes something indefensible: that after weeks of Chicken Littling about the need for a stimulus bill, Obama would have, or could have, simply thrown up his hands and said “Oh well, I guess we do nothing. Their fault”. The idea is ludicrous and frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who advances it seriously. There is simply no scenario where a new President lets the signature agenda piece of his first 100 days in office, go down in flames. Had Snowe, Collins, and Specter held out, Obama would have had two options. 1.) Incite the public against the GOP for obstructionism, and hope the GOP is frightened into caving. 2.) Produce a better bill. The first showed no signs of happening, despite Obama’s best efforts. And I’d contend that even had the bill been mildly popular, the GOP would have been well-served to hold out. They could have drawn up a new GOP “compromise” bill every day (or every few days), as a gimmick, and if Obama consistently balked, he would have had a hard time sustaining the “Republicans are obstructionists who refuse to give ground” narrative.
Republicans could have, quite reasonably, asked “how moderate could this bill be if he can’t even convince one of us to vote for it?” We would have likely ended up in scenario number two. At the very least, we would have succeeded in drawing Obama out on his support for particular aspects of the bill. As it is, he has a legislative victory, however labored and meager, and hasn’t received any of the blame for the “divisiveness” because of that maddening Eisenhowerian distance. Contra some of my colleagues, I think Obama has escaped a tricky situation remarkably in tact. Oh, and did I mention, we’ve now passed a disastrous bill, with nothing of any significance to show for our efforts? Glorious.
Popular Congressman Adam Putnam will not seek re-election (politico).
His name is now added to a growing list of GOP incumbents who will step down at the end of this term:
GOP Congressmen not seeking re-election:
Jerry Moran- Kansas
Todd Tiarht- Kansas
Zach Wamp- Tennessee
Adam Putnam- Florida
Speculation is growing that Roy Blunt (MO) will also be stepping down at the end of his term to run for the Senate, and Gresham Barrett (SC) may not seek re-election so that he may run for governor.
From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., announced during a Chattanooga fundraising event Monday that his gubernatorial campaign has received “cash and commitments” of “more” than $1 million.
“Tonight, thanks to the generous support and hard work by so many people, we exceeded all expectations and raised more than $600,000 from tonight’s event alone for my campaign for governor,” Rep. Wamp said in a news release. “I am pleased to report that we are way ahead of where we expected to be so early.”
He said he is “humbled and gratified that we have so quickly crossed the $1 million dollar mark in cash and commitments in just about three short weeks of active campaign fundraising.”
The announcement came during the Chattanooga congressman’s first major campaign fundraising event at the Chattanooga home of businessman John “Thunder” Thornton and his wife, Eileen Thornton.
It was co-hosted by more than four dozen other East Tennessee leaders. The honorary chairman of the event was former U.S. Sen. Bill Brock, R-Tenn., who already has publicly endorsed Rep. Wamp in his 2010 campaign for the Republican nomination.
One of Rep. Wamp’s GOP primary foes, Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, recently made statewide headlines when he announced he raised $1.4 million at a Jan. 29 fundraiser in Knoxville.
Among donors listed on Mr. Haslam’s first financial disclosure recently was former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, R-Tenn., who gave $5,000. Also giving $5,000 was Nashville businessman and major GOP fundraiser Ted Welch and his wife, Colleen.
Shelby County District Attorney General Bill Gibbons has declared as a GOP candidate. Former state Rep. Kim McMillan, D-Clarksville, has announced as a Democratic candidate.
This race is becoming more interesting. Wamp, who was considered to be an early favorite, is going to have his work cut out for him because Haslam is a multi-millionaire. It also seems to be splitting the TN GOP heavy hitters, who usually line up behind one candidate. With Baker backing Haslam and Brock backing Wamp this early, it could end up being uglier as the 2006 GOP primary to replace Bill Frist. The difference, this time, is that the richest candidate does not have the backing of all the big names, especially considering that John Thornton is siding with Wamp. Thornton was a fundraiser for Fred Thompson’s campaign in 2007.
What say you Conservative Grassroots? What exactly should our reaction be to Senators Snowe, Collins, and Specter now that the stimulus package has passed the Senate?
How many times in President Barack Obama’s first press conference (pictured) as President did he defend the stimulus bill by saying that the near unanimous Republican opposition is due to their desire to “do nothing”?
The McCain Plan is not “nothing” and it is only one of several GOP plans.
I lost count of recitations of the big lie tonight, just as I lost count of the big lies over the last 40 years of all the times that Democrats told Americans that Republicans, if elected, would starve the elderly and the poor and that black churches would burn.
The first question of the night was devastating:
And let me go to Jennifer Loven at [The Associated Press]. There you go.
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse.
Can you talk about what you know or what you’re hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?
Unable to reverse? The United States of America?
He spoke for over ten minutes before calling on the next reporter for question number two, but never answered the question.
A president of the United States got called out as the anti-FDR, anti-George Washington and even the anti-Abraham Lincoln. He must have realized immediately, when an AP reporter dared to commit the greatest slander one can commit against a Democrat by accurately quoting them that, he was, at that moment, Jimmy Malaise Carter II.
Ten minutes of yak yak followed. He hoped that so long an answer would make us all forget the question.
Not a chance at the Examiner
The President was called out on his “The Only Thing We Don’t Have to Fear is Obama Himself?” fear-mongering routine of the past ten days, and probably realized how insulting it sounded to many of his voters when hearing it repeated from the lips of the usually friendly Associated Press in public.
So he rambled for ten minutes plus.
Its hard to be a liberal Democrat. One simply can’t say what one actually believes and maintain credibility with the American public. So one has to ramble for ten minutes and say nothing or forever repeat big lies.
The GOP has not advocated doing nothing, but if the only two choices were this 25%+ GovernmentGrowthulus bill and nothing, then sign me up for the latter. In fact, the GOP has advocated doing exactly what has actually worked in the past to end recessions in the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s and 2000s, i.e. tax cuts, and especially those for them that actually create jobs.
President Obama says he wants to create jobs, right? But, it seems that the only ones he wants to create or “save” are those held by state and federal government workers that we have to be taxed in perpetuity to maintain.
But our President uttered The Big Lie numerous times that the only choice other than Pelosi’s bill is doing nothing.
Do Democrats care about the poor?
For decades, the national Democratic Party has regularly rolled out the Big Lie that Republicans don’t care about the poor or the unemployed. Yet, the Democrats repeatedly advance proven failed policies and the GOP advocates for the very policies that have better helped poorer and lower income workers.
This lesson was taught in spades in the 1960s, 1980s and early 2000s. The President seems not to know this history and then compounds the problem by alleging that tax cuts for the rich caused the present crisis when it is patently obvious that the liberal Democrat policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the housing bubble by forcing lenders to take mortgages from borrowers that could not afford them and then guaranteeing the mortgages with taxpayer dollars.
The evidence suggests that Democrats don’t care about the poor, and that is The Big Truth.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
And here’s some cold water to pour on that last post I made…
Remember my post about that stupid map that Rush Limbaugh used to try to demonstrate that we’re still a Red Country (you know: the map that we lost by over 7% with)?
Well, I’ve found an alternative map that should put things in perspective — it’s called a cartogram, and it’s a map that Limbaugh should acquaint himself with. To give you a new perspective on why the Northeast must be broken into, well, take a look at this:
Not good.
Wonderful candidates, like the one who put her hat into the ring today, can crack the blue states. In addition, we have a fantastic new chairman willing to pour resources into winning those states back.
In the meantime, that’s the state of things…
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
Demography will kill us as a party if we remain on our current track, but if we can get our act together, then things on a state-by-state basis, well — they could be a lot worse.
In 2012, we’ll actually have a slightly more favorable electoral map to work with. The current projections for the Electoral College after the 2010 census are thus:
Red States Gaining: Texas + 4, Georgia +1, Utah +1, South Carolina +1
Blue States Gaining: None
Swing States Gaining: Nevada +1, Florida +1
Light Blue States Gaining: Oregon +1
Light Red States Gaining: Arizona +1
Light Red States Losing: None
Light Blue States Losing: Michigan -1, Minnesota -1,
Swing States Losing: Ohio -2, Missouri -1, Iowa -1, Pennsylvania -1
Blue States Losing: Illinois -1, Massachusetts -1, New York -1, New Jersey -1,
Red States Losing: Louisiana -1
This means that, if the map stays the same as 2008, we gain 13 electoral votes — and the Democrats lose 13, for a swing of 26. Not bad. We can worry about one less state — say, Minnesota (sorry, Kavon) — like this. Furthermore, Nevada and Florida are far more winnable to us than Minnesota and Michigan. This is a map we can work with.
(EDIT: Commenter MWS points out: “Most (if not all) of the population growth in this country is due to immigration, and the GOP stinks at getting the Hispanic and Asian vote. While near term trends in the electoral college are favorable, long term trends in demographics are disastrous. If we continue to get the same share of each major racial and ethnic group, by mid century we will have a ceiling around 35-40% of the vote.”
This is correct, which is why this is only good news over the long term if we reform our party. I state as much above but fail to put enough emphasis on it: “Demography will kill us as a party if we remain on our current track, but if we can get our act together…”)
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
SACRAMENTO, Calif.: Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman has taken the first step toward running for California governor in 2010.
Whitman on Monday launched an exploratory committee to seek the Republican nomination for governor, a move that allows her to raise campaign funds. She says on her Web site that California faces unprecedented economic challenges and that she refuses “to stand by and watch” the state fail.
The 52-year-old political neophyte began testing her affinity for politics after leaving the online auction site after 10 years last January. She served as finance chairwoman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and then as a national co-chair of John McCain’s.
GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is prohibited from running again under the state’s term-limits law.
We all knew that Obama’s image to liberals as a savior riding on a white knight was sure to eventually fade or come crashing down.
Who would have thought President Obama would be brought back to earth in his first 20 days in office?
It’s not that conservative commentators are thrashing him about. In fact many “conservative” commentators like Michael Barone are still swooning over Obama.
It’s that liberals are already disparaging him as an inept, blinded fool.
During the general election Maureen Dowd wrote as if she dreamed of a Prince Charming descending from Chicago. Looks like she’s shaken off the martini-goggles. Now she’s describing Obama like this:
In his first weeks padding around a White House that still has nails on the walls waiting for new pictures, and phone and e-mail kinks, Barack Obama could not locate the bully pulpit and ended up being bullied.
Then:
The president and his aides seemed a bit snow-blinded by the White House, overwhelmed and slow to understand that they were losing the high ground and the whip hand. They couldn’t even get their pick for commerce secretary, the Republican Senator Judd Gregg, to vote for their stimulus bill; he said he would abstain.
Later she wrote:
The Obama wizards’ tactical skills seemed to desert them. The White House often ends up making its inhabitants tone-deaf (or even nuts), but this was an unusually quick trip into the cognitive third dimension.
Sounds like someone is passing the puppy love stage with her not quite Prince Charming.
She’s certainly not alone. Disappointment and a shock back to reality are sweeping through the liberal ranks.
One of our advantages in the coming months are that Obama has a coalition so wide he must either disappoint his moderate followers or his liberal ones. Either reality helps us as Obama’s Messianic celebrity image wilts and he becomes a mere President.
Due to popular demand, here is Gov. Mark Sanford on the “stimulus” package:
Hat-tip: BobH
The Three Stooges. It is a name that will stick with Senators Collins, Specter, and Snowe for as long as they remain in their seats. Three senators who for years have claimed to be fiscal conservatives have agreed to support President Obama’s Generational Theft Act. Try to wrap your mind around this. Three “fiscal conservatives” have agreed to spend more money in one bill then was spent in the time period between the Civil War and the election of Jimmy Carter, 115 years. The numbers are so massive, so disgusting, that it is almost surreal that this could happen in the United States. This dwarfs New Deal and Great Society spending, even when adjusted for today’s dollars, ensuring that this will fail even more dramatically then those liberal monstrosities. The idea that one republican could be this absurd was troubling, but three? I guess the senators from Maine share the same half a brain. And anyone batshit crazy enough to dream up the ‘Magic Bullet’ theory must be a few cards short of a deck. I think we should make it very clear to the Stooges that there is no tomorrow for them in the GOP if they go through with this. Specter is the first to have to face the voters, and we WILL nominate someone other then Senator Specter if he goes through with this. The Maine twins will be next. We will beat all three in primaries. It no longer matters if we hold those seats, I’d rather these 3 seats be democrats who will blindly vote for this kind of legislation rather then 3 false republicans. If you ever hear one of the Three Stooges talk again about being a fiscal conservative, be sure to donate immediately to whomever challenges them in the upcoming primaries. In fact, start reminding them of their disloyalty and cowardice right now, and don’t stop until true conservatives oust each one of them in their next primaries.
http://collins.senate.gov/public/
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
This bill does what the Soviet Union failed for years to do; deliver a near-death blow to American Capitalism.
If you are not familiar with the man who will replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the U.S. Senate, it’s about time you did. I present to you the State of Texas’s next Senator, Michael Williams.
Here are some of the highlights from his biography:
Michael Williams currently serves as Texas Railroad Commissioner, a state-wide elected office to which he has been elected to three-times. He is the first African-American to hold statewide office in the state of Texas.
Williams is an alumnus of the University of Southern California where he holds a bachelor’s, a master’s and a law degree. He was an adjunct professor at Texas Southern University in the School of Public Affairs and Texas Wesleyan School of Law.
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush appointed Williams to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, a position previously held by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The former President Bush previously appointed Williams as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He had policy oversight responsibility for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Williams also served in the Department of Justice as Special Assistant to Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.
Williams served as a prosecutor in the Reagan Justice department. In 1988, he was awarded the Attorney General’s “Special Achievement Award” for the conviction of six Ku Klux Klan members on stolen military weapons charges. Previously, he was an assistant district attorney in his hometown of Midland, Texas.
If you have not seen him give a speech before, you are in for a treat. Here is Williams’ speech to the 2008 Texas GOP Convention:
His official campaign site is here. I encourage you to sign up for email updates and donate if you can.
A little over a week ago all House Republicans voted no on the gift to the Democrat’s pork laden spending bill.
Included in this number was Jospeh Cao the recently elected Congressman who replaced corrupt Democratic Congressman William Jefferson.
As expected Democrats are running ads in Cao’s district criticizing him for not buckling under to the Democrats to support their pork laden spending bill.
Cao said
“that he voted against the massive spending bill because it was rife with waste and failed to provide his district with anywhere near the kind of money it needs to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, and because it would create far too few jobs in New Orleans and throughout Louisiana.”
It’s interesting that Democrats are so spooked that they’re targeting a Congressman who has almost no chance at re-election. That is the epitome of wasted money. Do they think they can really sway a guy like Cao who knows he’s a one-term act and is voting for New Orlean’s best interest?
He’s not going to betray his principles and support a bill that harms America in the long-run and wastes money with little benefit in the short-run.
If Republicans can agree on nothing else we need to agree to oppose a massive hastily planned bill composed of waste, goodies to special interest groups and ineffective government spending. There is not enough good in the Democrat’s spending bill to justify its massive spending, pork, waste and special interest goodies.
If Jospeh Cao has the courage to say no to Democratic special interests, waste and corruption so should Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. If not they need to find another job that doesn’t require good judgment or putting country first.
President Obama’s call for stimulus house-parties has found few takers:
Few supporters are answering President Barack Obama’s call for nationwide house-party gatherings this weekend to build grass-roots support for his economic stimulus plan.
A McClatchy survey of sign-up rosters for a score of cities across the country revealed only 34 committed attendees in Tacoma, Wash., as of midafternoon Friday; in Fort Worth, Texas, only 54, and in Sacramento, Calif., just 78.
“Before the election, we would have had 500 to 800,” said Kim Mack, 46, a Sacramento city-facility manager who’s hosted house parties for political figures and causes since the mid-’90s.
Even in Washington, policy-wonk capital of the nation, only about 500 people had signed up.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Here is the current list of potential presidential candidates in 2012. I am only including candidates that appear to making moves to explore a potential run or are not giving strong indications that they won’t run. These are in no particular order.
1) Governor Sarah Palin. She’s the one everyone is talking about, and like a game of king (or queen of the hill), will be the early target of her opponents. Her strategy will likely be similar to that of Huckabee’s in 2008; go full force on Iowa and hope it carries to South Carolina. Her allure is similar to that of Obama’s as well–motivate and inspire. She won’t be the “economics” candidate, or the “national security” candidate, but she could well be the one who everyone settles on. I believe she is almost certain to run.
2) Governor Mitt Romney. I honestly believe Romney and Palin, at this early, early point, are tied for the top stop. The economy is the #1 issue and Romney simply has the credibility. However, if Obama looks strong, there’s a possibility Romney won’t want to spend millions of dollars again. The big question about Romney is whether he’ll “catch on” better than last time. Remember, in Iowa, he spent many times more than Huckabee per delegate and still lost, and went after New Hampshire aggressively as well. I personally think he is truly undecided, but if he runs, will gun for a strong showing in Iowa but focus primarily on New Hampshire.
3) Speaker Newt Gingrich. His strategy is similar to Palin’s–excite, excite, excite. The problem is that there will be VERY serious questions about his electability, but he’s an idea factory, and could become one of the most powerful voices of opposition to President Obama. Don’t underestimate the combination of appealing to the basis, sounding credible and intelligent, and having exciting ideas. If he becomes the candidate of “reform,” with big plans, he will have a shot at this.
4) Governor Bobby Jindal. He seems unlikely to run, but he also is an exciting candidate and sounds credible when he speaks. He also can be the “reform” candidate, but the main problem is that he has to stand for something and find a niche. Besides being exciting, it’s unclear what that is. Some will say its health care, but that’s similar to McCain’s issue of pork barrel spending. He may win on that issue, but the issue won’t win the election.
5) Governor Tim Pawlenty. I think he is certain to run also. He’s young and appealing, but I don’t feel like he inspires confidence. If he wins, it’ll be because the other candidates bloodied each other and he’s the second or third choice of most people.
6) Governor Mark Sanford. I think he is also certain to run, and will compete with Pawlenty for that similar spot. Conservatives will love him, but there will be a lot of conservatives running, and I don’t see what niche he could carve out for himself.
7) Governor Mike Huckabee. Unless he decides that the Fair Tax is a winning issue, I expect him to stay out of this race if Palin is in. The problem for Huckabee is that Gingrich or any other candidate can hijack the Fair Tax issue from him, either by adopting it or having a similar, exciting tax reform plan. I think he’s unlikely to run.
Senator John Thune. Another exciting conservative, but unless he can do something dramatic, he’ll find himself one among many conservatives acceptable to the majority of voters, but probably not the favorite of enough to win.
9) Senator Jon Kyl. He may end up taking the votes of foreign policy hawks, as he’s been very active on this front. Of course, if General Petraeus runs, then that removes that issue from the table.
10) General David Petraeus. How can you argue with this? If he resigns, he can draw from first-hand testimony to bash President Obama. And President Obama can’t hypocritically argue Petraeus lacks experience, or knowledge of economics. Simply put, Petraeus would have a convincing line: If I can fix Iraq, I can fix America. He’ll also be the only candidate capable of arguing he basically ran a country.
11) Governor Gary Johnson. He has a niche, that’s for sure. Don’t underestimate the impact Ron Paul has had on young voters either. As a 22-year old, I must tell you that libertarianism is growing immensely among the youth, including both conservatives and liberals. The question for Johnson is whether voters won’t be excited by a libertarian-esque leader for the second time like they were in 2008. This will be the test to see if Ron Paul-type politics was a popular fad just because it was different and radical, or if these ideas have truly impressed themselves among the electorate. Johnson may not win, but he may very well be considered a major candidate.
12) Governor Dick Kempthorne. Same as the other base-pleasing conservatives. He’ll argue he’s more experienced, but unless he has the rhetorical skills of President Obama, I can’t see this going anywhere. He reminds me a lot of Jim Gilmore in this regard.
13) Governor John Huntsman. Very big possibility he won’t run if Romney does. Even if Romney stays out and Huntsman goes in, I don’t see how he separates himself from the pack.
14) Senator Lindsey Graham. Notice how vocal he’s been. He may be the foreign policy voice if no other rises up. But again, there’s plenty of exciting candidates and I don’t see how he can compete. Huckabee was a different story–he was written off due to name ID, but he himself was extremely interesting and exciting, love him or hate him.
15) Senator Jim DeMint.
16) Governor Mitch Daniels.
17) Governor Charlie Crist.
18) Governor Haley Barbour.
19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
20) Governor Rick Perry
I stopped summarizing my thoughts due to the risk of being too repetitive. Of course, this is so early that anything can happen. But in order for most of these candidates to break out, they’ll need to either be very good in terms of speaking and inspiring or have some dramatic ideas that captivate the base. As it stands now, I think the top tier candidates would have to be Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Jindal (although I doubt he’ll run) and Petraeus, if he chooses to run. In my opinion, Petraeus’ intentions are the hardest to gauge.
Rasmussen delivers the very early good news in the contest for the Governor’s mansion in newly blue Virginia:
Rasmussen Reports Virginia Governor’s Race
- Robert McDonnell (R) – 39% (39)
- R. Creigh Deeds (D) – 30% (39)
- Robert McDonnell (R) – 39% (37)
- Brian Moran (D) – 36% (41)
- Robert McDonnell (R) – 42% (41)
- Terry McAuliffe (D) – 35% (36)
Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings:
- McDonnell – 50/18
- Deeds – 30/29
- Moran – 32/33
- McAuliffe – 34/39
Survey was of 500 likely voters. Numbers in parentheses are from a December survey.
Yes, it’s early. Yes, there are a ton of undecideds in these numbers. But folks, news of the death of the Virginia GOP is greatly exaggerated.
This really has nothing to do with politics, per se, but it does have a whole lot to do with Life:
Hat-tip: Allahpundit
A source close to Sarah Steelman has confirmed to me that she will be running for the U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 elections. Ms. Steelman may face a tough primary campaign, as several high profile Republicans are also considering a run (Talent, Blunt).
If successful in the primary, Ms. Steelman may end up facing Democrat Robin Carnahan, ensuring that this will be the Senate race to watch in 2010.
You may remember a small bio post written yesterday by Alex Knepper. Nice timing, Alex.
Facebook: Steelman for Senate.
Steelman is a Gingrich Republican.
