Kathleen Sebelius pays back taxes ahead of confirmation hearings.

Do I really have to comment?

“Only the little people pay taxes.” – Leona Helmsley

Building off the fascinating discussion last week about Judd Gregg’s potential VP or POTUS viability, I came up yesterday with another suggestion for a 2012 Republican VP candidate: Secretary of Defense Gates.  While Gates has not declared how long he will hold his current position (supposedly at least for Obama’s first year in the White House), he has suggested that he will step down before the end of Obama’s first term, allowing room for time to gear up for the 2012 campaign trail.  I jotted down some pro’s and con’s:

Pro’s

• Widely respected – Respected enough for Obama, who ran as arguably the most liberal presidential candidate in American history, to ask Gates, a prominent offical in the administration of a president reviled by the Left, to continue serving as SecDef
• Public servant-scholar – Ph.D from Georgetown in Russian and Soviet History
• Wide range of foreign policy and national security experience – Served in Air Force, NSC, CIA (as Director of Central Intelligence) and obviously the Defense Department
• Served as SecDef under Obama – Gives him experience under both parties in some of the most trying times we have seen in decades and an insider’s perspective of the faults of the Obama administration; also also blunts possible attacks about connections to Bush administration (he obviously wasn’t too “dangerous” for Obama to appoint him to his administration)

Con’s

• Has never run for elected office, and therefore an unknown quantity on the campaign trail
• Charisma is nothing to write home about
• Has never registered as a Republican, according to Harry Reid (a credible source, if I may say so…)
• Served as SecDef under Obama – This could prove a double-edged sword, as campaigning for VP in 2012 might compel him to indirectly criticize his own work as SecDef if he rails against Obama’s foreign policy

I firmly believe that the oft-mentioned frontrunners for 2012 would all need a running mate with foreign policy expertise.  With slim pickings (Rudy, Petraeus as a far stretch, perhaps a foreign policy-focused Senator, and not much else) in this department among prominent conceivable 2012 VP candidates not connected to the Bush administration, Gates seems like a good option.

I also believe that Gates would most effectively complement an economics-focused governor, like Romney or Sanford.  Furthermore, he would provide regional balance (born in Kansas, served as President of Texas A&M) for candidates like Romney, Palin and Pawlenty.  All in all, I think the combination of a governor, with their focus on domestic issues – especially an economics-focus governor, as previously stated – and an admired authority in the area of knowledge typically lacking in governors – foreign policy – would provide a deadly one-two punch for taking down the Obama Machine and saving America from stagflation and endangered national security.

What do you think?  Am I nuts?  Or am I on to something here?

Republican Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy are competing to replace Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York’s 20th Congressional District.

Live results here.

Notes:

http://saratogacitydesk.blogspot.com/

Knepper: “Don’t blame Steele If Tedisco Loses”

Blackwell: NY GOP Defeat Would Be ‘Devastating’ to Steele

NY GOP Moves To Block Franken-Style Vote Grab

Boehner lowers expectations for NY-20

Last-minute Obama turnout plea in NY-20 

–

Update: It is a tie!

The deadline was extended about a week after the U.S. Justice Department determined that overseas and military voters weren’t given enough time to remit their ballots. Ballots must be postmarked by March 30.

About 6,000 absentee ballots had been received by Monday

 H/T: Aron Goldman

Obama democrats don’t care about the poor and middle class

The only kind of parties the poor and middle class can afford under Obama-Democratic Party rule are those serving items from fast food dollar menus.

Think Hoovervilles-light as unemployment in the Palmetto and Tar Heel states approaches 11% headed toward 15%. But at least in Dixie, God serves tea as he intended at a religiously low price.

As a former Democratic Party activist and official for 18 years, I should clarify the lack of caring I declare. The caring starts when they reduce you to a dependent victim entitled to a subsistence existence as part of a class envy grievance group.

Yes, they will feed you, shelter you and indoctrinate the children you don’t abort within minutes after the God-made umbilical cord is cut and it is replaced by the Government cord they tie you to for the rest of you so-called life.

But forget about those trips to see Grandma 30 miles away, much less the annual trek to Myrtle Beach. Wouldn’t want to risk destroying the planet with less than $4/gallon gas. Want a stress relief Winston or a formerly politically correct Virginia Slim? Forget it. Taxes have made it the equivalent of a caviar-like luxury item only affordable by Democrat approved executive on Sabbatical at Fannie Mae.

Tough luck Freddie, but don’t worry, we did mention that you get to eat out of the rain? Such caring. You get to live till you die waiting for weeks for a government doctor to remove an infected hang nail. Did I mention the doctor visit is free? We have pamphlets to read while you wait. Pay special attention to the motor-voter registration card and the support group for recession fatigue (The one with President Obama’s face on it. He’s smiling.)

The Big Lie

The biggest lie advanced as conventional wisdom during most of my life by the Drive-by media and the Democratic Party is that Democrats and liberals care about the poor and that Republicans and conservatives are racists, bigots and homophobes that will take starve the poor and take away the social security checks of the old.

Yet, despite the Democrats’ war on poverty since 1965, the same percentage remain in poverty. And, despite Republican presidential dominance and 12 years of GOP congressional majorities, no checks went un-delivered and starvation remained an Asian thing.

Despite the indisputable proof that Reagan supply side conservative Republican policies worked to fix the failures of the liberal Democrats and lift all boats, the world’s oldest political party continued to advocate the same proven failed policies of class envy, higher taxes, burdensome regulation of business, energy suicide, despite the success of their own President’s success in the 90s from continuing conservative policies.

They refused to end the Fannie and Freddie bubble despite pleas from Republicans at the dawn of the 21st Century and since 2006 have forced Atlas Shrugging investors on strike with the promise of higher taxes.

And now, they justify a reckless destruction of the dollar and free market capitalism by reminding that George Bush’s policies were 20% as bad.

They care so much about the poor that they pass out pitchforks to poke banking executives with and call for rallies to bankrupt the coal industry. Wood burns.

But when the rally ends and all I got was this lousy blue blood tipped pitchfork, the sweet tea parties will sour and the caring donkeys will bray as they are thrown overboard.

Republicans must find their voice to express moral outrage at the policies of Obama and his allies in the Democratic Party. It is not enough to disagree with honorable friends.

I am confident that they will finally do this. Why? Not because they will lead. No.

We the sweet and non-sweet tea drinking People alike, democrats and republicans, will light the fire in the long hot high unemployment and high inflation summer to come and lead a revolt against the assault on prosperity being directed by the Community Organizer in Chief.

He is now, unwittingly organizing the largest community of his career. It will come to be known as the community of his landslide defeat.

I left Obama’s party 8 years ago because I did and still do care about the poor and middle class.

I was right to do so.

My party now, never forgets what works and what doesn’t.

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

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

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

The incredible and shocking government overreach into private business potentially continues, with Barney Frank and the House Democrats as the ringleaders of the angry mob:

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary

in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies…

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.) The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week…

Let me review for you: this goes way beyond executive compensation now. This allows the federal government (specifically the Secretary of the Treasury) to set the salaries of every employee at every level of every company that took any amount of federal money.

Not just CEO’s. Not just the top percentage of company executives. Not just companies that took more than a certain level of money. Anybody. Anywhere. Who works for any company that took anything.

And of course, the Democrats are already framing in the debate to catch the GOP opposition in a catch-22:

“This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they’re willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable,” Grayson said. “We’ll find out who are the people who understand that the public’s money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street.”

Of course, this is a brazenly ludicrous political ploy containing no honesty whatsoever. The Republicans who vote against this bill later this week will be champions of free market capitalism. They will be the last ones fighting for some semblance of economic freedom in this country.

Meanwhile, while capitalism dies, we argue about religion and Obama enjoys a 66% approval rating according to ABC News (and his approval rating has rebounded back to 61% on pollster.com). Welcome to your brave new world, America.

As John Edwards might say, there are two President Obamas. The first President Obama is a myth. The second President Obama is a man.

First, the myth. The latest polling from ABC News/WaPo on the president and the economy finds that Americans trust the president’s economic leadership over that of Republicans by a margin of 58 percent to 25 percent. By a margin of 62 percent to 32 percent, voters feel that Obama is a new-style, fiscally conservative Democrat as opposed to an old-style, tax-and-spend Democrat. That 58-62 percent economic approval rating is essentially the same as President Obama’s overall approval rating, which is hovering around 60 percent.

But when voters are actually forced to adjudicate President Obama the man, the results are far different. Voters choose new government spending over tending to the deficit by a slim margin of 49 percent to 47 percent. And the government’s overall response to the economic situation is approved by only 49 percent of voters, with 48 percent disapproving. President Obama the man is apparently favored by only that same 49 percent of voters who cast ballots for Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004.

The problem is that with the Republican Party in tatters, unlike in 2004, there’s nowhere for the remaining 51 percent of Americans to go. As the aforementioned poll demonstrates, only about half of that 51 percent approve of the current iteration of the Republican Party. The other half — fully 26 percent of Americans — disapprove of both President Obama’s policies and of the Republican Party. And a fair number of those voters have embraced President Obama the myth because of their hunger for a strong and popular leader, and because of the lack of a coherent, modern Republican response.

And who can blame them for not being persuaded by the second grade teacher schtick of Bobby Jindal, nor by the colloquialisms of Sarah Palin, nor by retreads like Romney and Huckabee and Gingrich — whose transformation into a culture warrior will work for Newt in 2012 about as well as it worked for Mitt in 2008 — nor by congressional Republican frat boys like John Boehner and Eric Cantor. The B-team is more impressive than the A-team. Pawlenty, Crist, and Sanford, among others, all bring to the table different kinds of Republicanism than the kind that wants to resurrect either 1980, 1994, or 2004. But to end the myth of President Obama that enjoys the support of 60 percent of Americans, and to bring Obama down to earth as a man whose policies are only popular with 49 percent of the nation, it will take a lot.

If the economy is still sputtering along in 2012, Republicans may find themselves in the same position that Democrats did in 1992. Then, Americans disapproved of President Bush’s economic stewardship but still didn’t trust the Democrats to run the country due to memories of Jimmy Carter and the angry, stale Democratic Party that ran itself into the ground during the 1980s. President Bush probably would have been reelected had it not been for both a modern, forward-thinking Democratic presidential nominee AND a self-financed third party candidate who was able to run as the fiscally conservative, good-government Republican in the race and steal a lot of voters who weren’t ready to pull the lever for another Democratic president. In 2012, the GOP is DOA if it nominates a candidate for president acceptable to and only acceptable to the quarter of Americans who still consider themselves Republicans. BUT if the Republican Party nominates the economically inventive Pawlenty or the socially modern Crist, and if that nomination is coupled with, say, a Michael Bloomberg third party run to rob Obama of DLC-style independents who don’t want to reelect the president but who also aren’t yet ready to put the country back in Republican hands, that combination could sink a president whose popularity exceeds his policies, whose reach exceeds his grasp.

Newt Gingrich is launching a new organization called Renewing America’s Leadership. It’s to be dedicated to the same sort of mission outlined in Rediscovering God in America: putting religion back in the public square. School prayer. Combatting schools as “centers of anti-religious propaganda.” Going after “gay and secular fascists.”

Because clearly, when a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress are assaulting capitalism at its very foundation, the most pressing issue is school prayer.

This man is supposed to be our “ideas” man, our intellectual god?

Some may suggest that this is merely pandering; that he’s prepping for a presidential run. As what? A religious candidate? He’s going to go the Huckabee route? Really? He sees the center of gravity there? Or does he really believe that religion in the public square is the most pressing issue of the day? Both are disturbing thoughts.

Discuss.

Over the weekend, Newt Gingrich converted to Catholicism.

Awfully random. Reminds me of McCain’s conversion to Baptism.

This comes hot on the heels of the launch of his new organization, Renewing American Leadership, which focuses on uniting conservative Christians. In fact, Newt seems intent on making Christianity his issue. He’s concerned with “gay and secular fascism” and “schools turning into centers of anti-religious propaganda.”

Really, Newt? Of all the issues to focus on right now. What is happening to this party?

Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight.com, has created a statistical model that relates presidential approval ratings to the performance of the president’s party in mid-term elections:

The correlation between the president’s Gallup approval rating immediately prior to the midterms and his party’s performance has been very strong. In fact, once the president’s approval rating is accounted for, knowing about the economy doesn’t tell anything more about how to predict the outcome of the midterms.

…While a popular president can help his party to stem its losses, his party nearly always loses at least some seats at the midterms. Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of twenty-four House seats in the interim elections, gaining ground on just two of sixteen occasions. My statistical model shows that Obama will need to sustain an approval rating in the range of 65 percent to avoid losing any ground in the House. (The Senate, where the Democrats can take advantage of at least five Republican retirements, might be a different story.)

Federal stimulus money only stymies much-need restructuring in South Carolina government and wastes time, Gov. Mark Sanford told a crowd at his college alma mater.

“So if there’s any silver lining to what’s going on with the economy it is that it could force changes that in many cases have been long overdue in our state with regard to the structure of our government,” Sanford said.

…Sanford showed up late in front of a crowd of about 200 students, visitors and faculty in an open-air pavilion with an armload of charts showing the state’s debt load out of line with the rest of the nation and the nation’s debt doubling. He appealed to the crowd to get on the phone with legislators to persuade them to cut spending and pay down debt.

Spending stimulus money for ongoing programs creates budget holes and it is better to cut spending and force restructuring now, Sanford said.

“What if the economy isn’t off to the races in 24 months? Then how do you deal with it? What government services are you going to cut two years from now?” he asked.

Even if you disagree with Sanford’s stance, you can’t help but respect his courage to steadfastly adhere to fiscal conservative principles, even in the face of public disapproval and even scorn, something far too many members of the GOP in Washington failed to do during the Bush administration.  Sanford has a point when he states that South Carolina should use the recession to restructure its government.  Too bad the people in D.C. don’t favor the same approach.

This is a couple of weeks old, but this is so-Race42012 material.

Questions for the readers (from the Mclaughlin group);

- Will Pawlenty represent the moderate wing of the party in 2012? (Cliff)

- Is Pawlenty in the top 5 of leading contenders for 2012? (Mclaughlin)

- Are conservatives looking for a ‘red meat’ candidate in 2012? (Crowley)

- Is Gingrich really a leading contender for 2012? (Buchanan)

- Are Huntsman, Crist, Sanford and Huckabee really off the list of leading candidates for 2012?

The main purpose of this blog is to initiate debate on a number of issues Gamecock has been unable to address over the past two weeks due to an increase in legal work in my day job. I want to get some ideas out there and get reactions and input from my fellow bloggers. I provide links and my propositions and/or questions on several issues, that I have not seen addressed on specific points, after the immediate introductory remarks below.

Why call this set of issues “Susannahs”?

I name this intended ongoing series (Other column DeVine-Gamecock categories: “Foghorn Leghorns” that call out the drive-bys for their fog and planting the truth with legs on the ground) and “Cockstradamas” forecasts) after TMR frontpager and regular Redstate blogger (since Gamecock discovered her) Susannah as a tribute to her good will, hard work, insightfulness and since she likes open threads. (I have never done an open thread because I am a serial, hit-and-run thread-jacker and have never called threadjack on my columns. I am very tolerant).

Moreover, I also share a major characteristic with Susannah. She is a former? democrat that appears to have had a conservative epiphany. Now to the

Issues (aka Susannahs):

1) Federal and State (NC) cigarette tax hikes break Obama’s promise that the bottom 95% of taxpayers would not have taxes raised

These taxes make one of the main affordable pleasures of the poor and lower income essentially a luxury item. These folks are already unable to take vacations and afford many things most of us take for granted. Now they are being targeted to fund government subsidies for middle class and corporate welfare.

The Charlotte Observer has been on a mission for years to make smoking tobacco illegal but recently published an editorial opposing blue laws that restrict sales of bottles of spirits on Sunday because they “limit personal freedom.” Yet, they support President Obama’s Big Brother government that massively limit liberty 24/7, seven days a week.

2) Ever heard of “iPS” (“induced pluripotent stem cells”)?

We must make iPS a household word. Of all unlikely columnists, Kathleen Parker wrote a monumental column on the subject recently that reinforces my long advanced contention that the purpose of the proponents of ECS (Embryonic stem cell research) is the legitimization of abortion and not saving lives given that iPS produces pluripotent (able to become any other type of stem cell) stem cells from adult skin cells.

iPS makes ECS obsolete.

Moreover, to-date, only adult stem cells have produced any useful treatments for disease, after decades of research.

3) Teachable moment via School system layoffs of non-teachers

I have long contended that education budgets are bloated due to the salaries of administrative personnel. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System (CMS) recently announced recession related layoffs of 500+ employees, none of whom are classroom teachers.

We have a chance to provide proof that these paper pushers are not necessary.

4) Newt shamelessly echos Hillary’s unpatriotic Blame America First exoneration of Mexican Drug gang violence

Just saw Newt on O’Reilly. Had already planned column against Hillary’s cloaked attack on the Second Amendment by blaming American gun laws for border violence by Mexican drug gangs.

Just for the record I recently announced that I lean toward ending the drug war in the US and have found the William F. Buckley libertarian argument more persuasive after so long a war. But that does not translate into making it a point of foreign policy to blame the source of the guns and drug users for murder by the gun users.

4) The new American Frontier that will determine America’s fate

Two quotes.

First quote:

Geithner on MTP:

Geithner said Washington alone was equipped to salvage the economy.

“The market will not solve this. And the great risk for us is we do too little, not that we do too much,” he said.

TIME and the market are the ONLY things that can solve the economic crisis. Yes, given the debt the government and We the People ran up the past 25, but especially the past 10 years, we were going to be in for a hard time until people could save enough money to risk money again. But Obama is making Hoover/FDR mistakes that prolonged the Great Depression by causing investors to go on strike, in addition to much more draconian “mistakes) (they intend them to use the crisis as an opportunity to impose their leftist vision, i.e. government directed economy – see tyranny) with their breach of NAFTA re Mexican trucks; tax hikes; massive deficit spending; and takeovers of private businesses.

The Americans that created the Shining City on the Hill carved it out of a rough, no bailout frontier. If we are to preserve it, we will have to be very strong.

Second quote:

[Mark] Levin quotes Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Rush asked Levin on his show Monday, (paraphrase) “Why, if the yearning of the human heart is for God given liberty, do people tend toward socialism/statism”?

My answer: Sin

Yes, man yearns for that liberty, but as CS Lewis and Whittaker Chambers, especially points out in “Witness”, the tendency toward tyranny began in the Garden of Eden when the serpent offered Adam and Eve the apple so “Ye shall be as Gods.”

Man rejected God as his director and chose Man to be his own God.

more later

Discuss

Coming Soon: What I consider the main issues that need to be resolved at Race 4 2012:

1) Ending gratuitous attacks by conservatives against Rush Limbaugh; and

2) Ending gratuitous attacks by conservatives against social conservatives.

___________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

Considering all the hype the media created around Michael Steele’s comments about abortion rights, you would think this would get some MSM play:

The abortion-rights wing of the Democratic Party is none too happy today with a top leader.

Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, President Obama’s hand-picked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, signed a bill including state funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which abortion right advocates calls “anti-choice organizations.”

The NARAL Pro-Choice America political action committee said today that Kaine has “taken action that’s inconsistent with the strong pro-choice platform adopted by party leaders last August.”

“This is the first piece of legislation involving a woman’s right to choose that Kaine considered since being elected chairman of the national party,” said the committee, which says it sent 17,266 messages from activists to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the measure.

Kaine, a rising star in the Democratic Party, was believed to be on Obama’s short list for vice president.

“It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health,” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “This action reminds America’s pro-choice majority that we must hold elected officials in both political parties accountable when they take actions that are inconsistent with mainstream pro-choice values.”

We have the leader of the DNC, chosen by Barack Obama, taking a number of anti-choice positions now, and throughout his career. Maybe the press will ask Democrats who raise money from NARAL and Planned Parenthood if they approve of Tim Kaine’s positions.

Nothing much of interest today. So I’m going to be self-indulgent and engage a conversation with readers of Race: name some of your favorite books. Here’s my list, lifted from Facebook with a few added:

Aesop’s Fables, The al-Qaeda Reader, America (The Book), America Alone, The Art of War, The Burden of Bad Ideas, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The Case for Democracy, The Case for Israel, The Crisis of Islam, the Dhammapada, The End of Faith, The Enlightenment Reader, Ever Wonder Why?, Everything Is Under Control; Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism; How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), How to Win Friends and Influence People, In Defense of Elitism, Innumeracy, The Iranian Time Bomb, Islam: the Religion and the People, Islam Unveiled, Islamic Imperialism, Leadership, Letter to a Christian Nation, Meditations, Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict; Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity; The Neocon Reader, Of Paradise and Power, Party of Defeat, A Place at the Table, The Power of Logical Thinking, The Satanic Bible, The Sexual Spectrum, Treason, The Truth About Muhammad, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Vision of the Anointed, While Europe Slept, World Almanac, World War IV

Wee. Currently I’m reading Suicide of the West by Richard Koch and Chris Smith, and then I’ll be moving onto either Breaking the Real Axis of Evil by Mark Palmer or The Spirit of Democracy by Larry Diamond.

So, indulge a bibliophile: what are you reading? What are your favorite books about politics, culture, religion, foreign policy, etc.?

Perhaps we can unleash Christopher Hitchens on all of Obama’s celebrity friends and enjoy eviscerations like this on a weekly basis. Rapper/Actor Mos Def’s ignorance got effectively under Hitchens’ skin, leading to a complete beat down that Bill Maher was desperate to save his lefty pal from. I couldn’t stop laughing when he called him ‘Mr. Definitely’. Enjoy.

Based on the recent activity (comments) on this site, I had to post this editorial by Andrew Breitbart.

In so many ways it accuratly depicts this site.  Next time, we should think twice before being critical of our sites administrator, when he decides to ‘ban’ a guest. 

First Page:

A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

We must not let that go unanswered.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy – us. They want to ensure that President Obamais not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency – and the humanity – of George W. Bush.

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way – all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its “idealism” in a most cynical fashion.

The ends justify the means for them – now more than ever.

Much of Mr. Obama’s vaunted online strategy involved utilizing “Internet trolls” to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that’s called “vandalism.” But in a political movement that embraces “graffiti” as avant-garde art , that’s business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people’s property in pursuit of electoral victory.

Hugh Hewitt’s popular site shut off its comments section because of the success of these obnoxious invaders. Breitbart polices nonpartisan newswire stories for such obviously coordinated attacks. Other right-leaning sites such as Instapundit and National Review Online refuse to allow comments, knowing better than to flirt with the online activist left.

During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a new group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans. They said they would never vote for the GOP again if the case against Bill Clinton was pursued.

Rush Limbaugh was the first to isolate these “seminar callers,” whose mission during the Lewinsky mess was to fool the listening audience into believing they were outraged conservatives willing to cut their ties to the Republican Party if the GOP-led Congress continued down the impeachment path. 

Read the rest of the post here:

UK Telegraph: Video footage allegedly of Vice President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley, snorting cocaine has been offered for sale to several news organisations.

I have not seen the video, but the international media has been reporting this story for over 24 hours.  I now see this story being reported on a couple of US media online sites.  The New York Post is now reporting that in 1999, Vice President Biden’s daughter was arrested for drug possession and the Huffington Post is reporting that Ms. Biden was arrested for obstructing a police officer in Chicago, in 2002.   The San Francisco Examiner is reporting that the same New York Post refused a $2 million dollar offer for the video.

“On the tape a man cuts up five lines of what is said to be cocaine,” Radar online reported.” The woman who the seller says is Ashley then jokes with the man that the lines aren’t big enough.

“The man hands her a rolled-up dollar bill and she proceeds to walk a few steps to a table where the cocaine is cut. She pulls her hair back, bends down and snorts a line.”

I have no idea, nor do I care if any of this is true, but I do have questions for the media:

• Are voters interested in the stories of the children of politicians?  Should these children be off limits since they are not public figures?
• How do the large media organizations spend so much time and money investigating the  Republican Vice Presidential candidates children, while making no effort at investigating the the opposing Vice Presidential candidates ADULT children?
• Why does an adult female deserve protection from public scrutiny, but not a new born baby with down syndrome or a grade 11 high school girl?

I have spent the better part of my adult life interacting with politicians and on occasion with their families.  It is an unforgiving life, especially for the spouses and children.

–

Update: I am now getting the impression that the criminal background of the adult Biden children were well known to the media.  I respect the media’s decision to not disclose this information, but I cannot help but feel outrage that the underage children of Governor Palin were targets at the same time the decision was made not to report on the Biden’s.

No, that title is not (at least for the moment) referencing Sarah Palin – but rather someone a little more distant.

I’ve talked a lot about how U.S. Republicans should use foreign conservative success stories as templates for our own renewal – like David Cameron’s rebranding of the UK’s Conservatives, or how Prime Minister Steven Harper resurrected Canada’s decimated conservative movement. Now, the global economic crisis may be pushing another conservative leader into direct confrontation with Barack Obama and his leftist buddies – German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

With the  G20 Summit looming, Merkel has made international headlines by refusing to cooperate in massive “stimulus” spending, bringing her into conflict with my least favorite world figure – Britain’s unelected pretender Gordon Brown. Here’s an excerpt from a story in yesterday’s edition of The Times:

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.

“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.

Meanwhile, on our side of the the pond, the New York Times was also highlighting Chancellor Merkel as someone who could present a roadblock for President Obama’s global agenda.

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, an avowed friend of the United States and the leader of the European Union’s biggest economy, is diplomatic about the coming visit by President Obama. But she is clear that she is not about to give ground on new stimulus spending, stressing the need to maintain fiscal discipline even as she professes to want to work closely with the new American president.

Now, make no mistake, the Germans gave out plenty of bailouts last year, and EuroConservatives like Merkel would not be considered terribly “conservative” in the American sense of the term. However, it’s very heartening to see her taking a hard line against generational theft. As someone who grew up in East Germany, she knows how bad things can get when the Government starts tinkering with the economy, and she is definitely someone we can look to for encouragement at this moment.

So, I now find myself in a position that would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago – I will be cheering on the German Chancellor at the G20 Summit, and hoping that she can hold the line against the American-British onslaught.

We’re only about 5 months out from the last election, and the GOP lost big last time.  Inevitably, various wings of the party, all of whom are just CERTAIN they either couldn’t be the reason for losing or convinced another wing HAS to be why they didn’t win will emerge.  They lash out, inflicting yet more damage to an injured brand, setting the party back even further and hurting their own agenda in the process.  Those that are lashed strike back, deepening the wounds and continuing to bleed vital support just at the time when it’s needed.

Some of it is justifiable anger, but most of it is denial.  Regardless, it hurts everyone, themselves included, to indulge this feeling.  Now, I can’t blame a group for reacting to continued smears in a negative way.  If I get slapped by someone, my initial reaction isn’t going to be a constructive one.  However, as hard as it may be, you have to fight the natural urge to react in kind if you want to do better at the ballot box next election.

I’m not saying ignore the slander and insult.  That just causes a different problem, where the slurs become reality in people’s minds.  No, response is necessary, but something better than “You’re lying!” and “I’m leaving!” is necessary if you wish to beat them.

Many people don’t understand the differences in fighting friends (intra-party) and opponents (general).  Tactics wholly acceptable in one may be totally inappropriate in the other.  The key is understanding which fight you’re in and using the proper tactics for each.

So, how do you win an intra-party fight when you’ve been unfairly demonized and misrepresented on an issue that isn’t even relevant to your governing skills?

1. Stop for a moment and outline the attacks being made.  It’s easy to get angry and just lash out, but you might miss the underlying accusation that fuels the entire attack.
2. Address every point made.  For the truly absurd, either call it absurd (if it’s a matter of opinion, such as whether Mormons qualify as Christians (which by any sane measure they do)) or refute it (if it’s a matter of fact, such as “Candidate X did Y”).  Don’t ignore anything, for fear it will stick as fact.
3. Don’t descend into namecalling and threatening.  It might work in the short-term, but will hurt you in the long-term.  Eventually, you’ll be called on the threats, and the end result will be you hurt your cause more than if you’d accepted the slander in the first place.
4. Don’t walk out of the debate.  Once you quit the debate, you lose the ability to fight for your cause, meaning the jerk wins the battle by default, and likely the war in the process.
5. Have some faith.  Honey draws more flies than vinegar, and a positive argument will beat a negative one nine times out of ten.

If you choose to fight fire with fire, I can understand you doing so, and don’t blame you for your anger.  I’m just trying to say you’ve got a better argument than descending to the other guy’s level.

Alex once against argues for a godless whatever philosphy Alex teaches. To call it conservatism is an insult to the concept of conservatism and devalues it much as the current Administration devalues the currency. A conservative seeks to conserve those things which make our nation great. In these case, Alex is seeking to tear it down.

The terrible irony of the brouhaha on Race today is that Steve Deace is a natural extension of this line of thinking. Freedom requires religion? Oh, really now?

I know this will seem quaint in an era where we no longer need to bother to read the Founders now that our nation is possessed far wiser minds such as David Frum and David Brooks. But I will quote the wisdom of the Founding Fathers on this matter:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.-George Washington

I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.-Benjamin Franklin

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?-Thomas Jefferson
 

Alex’s quarrel then is with the founders of this nation, not with me or with anyone else on this board. Washington cites the oaths that are taken and the integrity of people. What we’ve seen run rampant in corporate America has been the result of decades of moral relativism run amok. Have we not also seen it by those who forsake historic values of work and are looking to the Almighty State as their provider?

Washington owns the possibility that individuals may be moral apart from religion, but to expect society to go that away is absurd. And I challenge Alex to give me an example of the free country you think the U.S. ough to emulate that has the type of government you describe.  Tell us why you are wiser and more knowledgeable than our Founders regarding what Freedom takes.

As to the second answer, Alex says:

The Pandora’s Box that this line of thinking opens is: whose religion? To what extent? And why should Evangelicals not judge Mormons for their religious convictions, if there is no legitimate reason for religious worldviews to intersect with politics?

These are questions that America has historically answered and dealt with. America has historically taken the stance that there is no government compulsion towards a religious belief.  America has left each citizen free in their own conscience their own decisions, but there have been recognitions of God and religion in the publc square including prayers by the Chaplains, the utterance of Presidents and Congressmen throughout our history, and in visible ways such as the presence of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court.

In addition, there was a sense that God governed in the affairs of men, blessing the nation it when did justly, and punishing it when the nation did unjustly (see Lincoln’s second inaugural.)

These basic guidelines as well as the Declaration of Independence’s statements of rights coming from the Creator formed a basic theological core of beliefs to which a large number of religious systems could fit quite nicely.

Now, as to Alex’s question:

if it is perfectly appropriate for religion to influence one’s political decisions, then it’s perfectly appropriate to come to the conclusion that anyone rejecting mainstream Christianity for Mormonism has a deficit of judgment that colors his overall worldview — and therefore, that candidate must be rejected in favor of one who has accepted the True Faith.

Actually, understanding America’s history of acknowledging God and managing God in public life, Mormonism has no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency. The basic truths about God’s character: his justice, his righteousness, etc. are also understand at pretty much the same level in Mormonism at least as far as national policy goes.

The theological differences between Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism do not amount to anything in regards to national policy or the basic understanding of God that even deists such as Franklin and Jefferson has no problem with.

I’d also point out that Deace himself said that he did not vote against Romney for his Mormonism. If you think he’s lying about that, say so. To simply state that Deace’s opposition was due to Romney’s Mormonism without acknowledging the denial isn’t quite fair.

From Politico comes this harrowing story about the further destruction of capitalism:

GM CEO resigns at Obama’s behest

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said…

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government’s behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason…

The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.

Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. It is not yet clear who would replace him, or what role the administration would play in that process.

Okay, so let me get this straight – politicians now have the right and authority to call for the resignation of a CEO from a private company? And it is “not yet clear… what role the administration would play in” the process of choosing his successor?

I have an idea: how about none?

If GM is a failing company (and it appears they are), then it is their decision – management, shareholders, et al – to fire or demand the resignation of their CEO (or not). And then they deal with the consequences of their decision. They hire a new CEO. They restructure their organization. At no point should the government have gotten involved in this mess.

And by getting involved, this is where it’s led us: the government essentially firing a CEO of a private corporation.

Where does this end? Does the Obama administration now feel it has the right to go after any CEO they deem unworthy of the position? How far will they stick their noses into private enterprise?

The fact that most Americans now identify themselves as populist and approve of overreaches such as this one just shows how successful Obama has been in reframing the entire economic and fiscal debate, as well as shifting the entire nation more leftward – just in his first two months in office! And meanwhile, the Republicans sit by arguing over ridiculous, absurd, trite garbage while capitalism and freedom die a slow, quiet death.

UPDATE: SecTreas Tim Geithner, per FOXNews:

Government is the answer to solve financial crisis

Geithner said Washington alone was equipped to salvage an economy that has seen jobs lost and credit shrink.

“The market will not solve this. And the great risk for us is we do too little, not that we do too much,” he said.

That should tell you all you need to know.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. – Mitt Romney

The terrible irony of the brouhaha on Race today is that Steve Deace is a natural extension of this line of thinking. Freedom requires religion? Oh, really now? The Pandora’s Box that this line of thinking opens is: whose religion? To what extent? And why should Evangelicals not judge Mormons for their religious convictions, if there is no legitimate reason for religious worldviews to intersect with politics?

Live by religion, die by religion. You reap what you sow. Ideas have consequences, after all: if it is perfectly appropriate for religion to influence one’s political decisions, then it’s perfectly appropriate to come to the conclusion that anyone rejecting mainstream Christianity for Mormonism has a deficit of judgment that colors his overall worldview — and therefore, that candidate must be rejected in favor of one who has accepted the True Faith.

There is an escape hatch here, of course: contend that faith has no place in politics, that public policy should be the realm of reason, not religion, and that a candidate should be judged solely by his secular record. But if religion and freedom are interconnected, as Romney contends, then that idea is out the window. So long as that idea is still with us, then Steve Deace has every right to reject Romney for the religious reasons that he does.

Reading about the House Republican Mortgage Plan makes one realize how fundamentally messed up the GOP is right now:

1. A $5,000 tax credit for people who refinance their homes. This is designed to help people who are in trouble making their monthly mortgage payments.

2. A $15,000 credit for homebuyers who put more than 5 percent down. This gives homebuyers an incentive to put some skin in the game when they purchase a home.

3. Extends the real estate capital gains tax exemption not just to primary residences, but to investment properties as well. “If you invest in your neighborhood,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, “then we’ll invest in you.”

As someone who (in the interest of full disclosure) is refinancing his home (though not because I’m in any trouble), this is totally wrong even if it would benefit me. What this once again shows is that Republicans don’t get it.

First of all, they’re wanting to use the tax code to pick winners and losers. The idea of the tax code as social engineer is a dangerous idea, and I think we’ve seen far too much of it in recent years, and I think it’s been part of the housing crisis. The goal here is to stop the decline of housing. A serious problem, sure. But one the government helped create through a perverse set of incentives and the idea that everyone should own a home and the government should help.

Kevin Brady’s, “We’ll invest in you.” statement is absurd. The insulting is that the statement assumes that some beneficient act is occurring when in reality, the money the government is “investing” is money of the person that earned it. It seems more and more Republicans are adopting the view that all of our money belongs to the government and what they give back to us is a gift we ought to be graciously thankful for.

It’s time to get back to basics: Limited government that does a few basic things, taxes that have the primary purpose or raising revenue, not helping us by a new house or refinance our old one. We need simple tax reform, not more loopholes, bells, and whistles.

Some will point out that Republican can’t enact real tax reform now. Well, they can’t enact this proposal either and this proposal reads like it’s a gimick, another attempt to bribe us with our own money and in some cases our grandkids money.

As long as Republicans accept the Democrats’ central premises-All money belongs to the state, government has the answers, and we can social engineer are way out of anything-the GOP will lose elections. Because, Democrats define the debate. What the GOP is offering now is truly Democrat-lite. “Tastes worse, less filling.”

McCain leaves off Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee and others from his list

John McCain has changed his commonly used, ’I love Sarah and her family’ line in response to questions about her potential candidacy in 2012.  Senator McCain offered some names of potential candidates. 

Knowing that Senator McCain is close friends with Governor Huntsman, Pawlenty and Jindal, this may be one of our first public “tipping of the hand” that these three Governors are considering runs for the White House.  Watch the video here.  In previous interviews, McCain has not listed names. 

Update: As Tommy pointed out, McCain has mentioned some of these names last month, but Senator McCain continues to refuse to name Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee, when discussing the future of the GOP or potential 2012 candidates.  

–

Gingrich makes 2012 prediction

As Newt continues to develop mailing lists and outreach programs to conservative groups and introduces his wife to the media and voters, he made this prediction on Fox.

Well, I think it’s a rate (ph) that the left-wing Democrats are alienating America with a big energy tax, with a war on churches and charities, with a big effort to raise taxes on every successful American, with an enormous increase on the federal debt. I think the odds are fairly good they’re going to lose control of the House next year and lose a number of Senate seats. And I think by 2012, the country will be in a choice of socialism or free enterprise, which kind of future do you want.

And my hunch is the Democrats can’t win a campaign that is open, aboveboard about whether you want cronies, politicians and bureaucrats to run your life, or you want to have a choice as a citizen about what you do with your own money as a customer and not as a ward of the state.

–

Learning from Katrina, liberals use natural disasters to score political points

Tim Pawlenty is continuing to receive a lot of press, but leave it to liberals to use a crisis that is destroying the lives of thousands of Americans, to make a political point.  Chris Steller, from the Minnesota Independent wrote a post on the devistating flooding in north and the impact it may have on the 2012 primary.  The headline: “Flood gives Pawlenty a chance to sandbag national GOP rivals”

After declaring a state of emergency there on Friday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty headed to Moorhead today for an early-afternoon briefing with local officials about the looming flood in western Minnesota. Pawlenty and local officials will meet with media representatives after the briefing. It’s a chance for T-Paw to re-start the national PR offensive.    

For Mr. Steller to suggest that Governor Pawlenty is using this crisis for his own political gain, is completely absurd! 

–

For Crist’s sake, make a decision 

Governor Crist has some critical legislative decisions to make in the next couple of weeks.  The most impactful one; will he agree to raise taxes in an attempt to make up for a budget short-fall?  This decision could have a major impact on the 2012 primary.  Either way, it will provide ammunition to his opponents.  Just ask Governor Huckabee what Republican voters and conservative media thought about his willingness to sign a liberal tax bill.   

It seems as if half the Republican legislature is putting their own political careers on hold, waiting for Governor Crist to make a decision on a 2010 run for the Senate.  The Tampa Tribune, with a headline stating, “Crist Facing Conservative Rebellion”, is reporting that conservatives are looking to challenge the Governor, if he does decide to run.

“My phones have been ringing off the hook,” said DiMatteo, now a Pinellas County delegate to the state party. “A lot of people around the state feel the same way I do. We didn’t leave Charlie, Charlie left us.”

Governor Crist is also waivering on several other issues that may impact a Senate or Presidential run.  Governor Crist usually governs on principle, but you cannot help wonder if he is second guessing himself on every decision, knowing it will impact him politically in the near future?   

Petraeus brings us up to speed on President Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

… but (I hope) less contentious.

I was going to suggest to Kristofer that, since he seems determined to post on religion instead of politics, that he do his posting at GetReligion.org, which I find to be an excellent religion blog, covering mostly how religion is portrayed in the mass media.

Instead of sending Kristofer to GetReligion, though, I’ll drag GetReligion here. I visited it after reading as much as I could stomach of the interview with the scumbag Deace, and found that their first post currently is this one, which could be number 387 in a series on Can You Imagine How This Would Be Reported If Bush Were President.

This is the Virgin of Guadalupe, described by Wikipedia as follows:

The Virgin of Guadalupe is a symbol of significant importance to Mexican Catholics. The Virgin Mary in this aspect has been given the title: “Patroness of the Americas”, and the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City is the second most visited Catholic shrine in the world.

Hillary Clinton visited the Basilica during her visit to Mexico, which was a very nice gesture, I think.

Unfortunately, she then proceeded to ask who painted the image.

The problem with that question is that it was not, according to Catholic belief, painted at all. Or, as the priest, no doubt surprised by the question, answered, “God.”

Whether one believes in the miraculous provenance of the image, and whether one thinks Hillary should have known the story behind it, is not important. What is important is whether anybody at the State Department or the US Embassy in Mexico City knows the story. If not, why not? Isn’t it important to an understanding of the culture of the country? If so, why would they not explain it to the Secretary of State before she goes to the Basilica, so that she doesn’t embarrass herself and her country?

In part two of my series on the Iowa caucus, I interviewed controversial talk-show host Steve Deace about conservative politics and the 2012 prospective candidates. 

–

KL: How influential is your radio show with Republican voters in Iowa, or talk radio in general? 

SD: With all due respect, this is a bit of a self-serving question.  I’d prefer to let the audience answer that question.  All we try to do every day is fear God, tell the truth, and make money.  I will say that in general WHO is consistently the #1 radio station in Iowa, and the only statewide media presence remaining in the state.  Our show generates approximately a quarter of a million listeners per week on the radio station that Ronald Reagan got his start on back in the day.

KL: Can Obama be defeated in Iowa in 2012?  If so, then how?

SD: Yes, if the Republicans nominate someone who passes the smell test.  As it is elsewhere, voters have a tendency to cut Democrats who lie or turn their back on their principles much more slack than they do Republicans.  Maybe that’s because the idea of most Democrats not being people of principle doesn’t surprise them, but Republicans tend to run on ideas more than issues so the voters demand more consistency from them.  I don’t know the answer to that.

KL: What are the pros and cons when politicians campaign in churches, temples, synagogues and mosques? 

SD: Well, I’m a Christian.  I’m not a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Jew, or Muslim, but a Christian.  So I can only answer about churches.  The only danger comes when the church allows itself to be used by politicians for grandstanding or campaign purposes, and doesn’t hold our leaders accountable to the Word of God.  Frankly, I fail to see the reason for a church to have a politician there to speak if it’s not going to do that.  Of course, they’re welcome to come in and worship like every other Christian in the pew, but our pulpits should be reserved for pastors, not politicians, unless we’re going to hold them accountable.

KL: Some believe Dr. Dobson and other well known conservative leaders caused great harm (public criticism) to the McCain campaign, after it was apparent he would be the Republican nominee.  The differences seemed to have more to do with ego, rather than on moral or policy grounds.  Would you agree with this theory?

SD: I think if you look at McCain, and the fact the Republicans ran a Whig at best and a Democrat at worst for president, nobody hurt McCain other than McCain.  He was the most liberal Republican presidential nominee since at least Ford if not earlier.  Dude, Bob Dole called and thought McCain was a RINO. 

KL: I presume you have considered the possibility that Governor Huckabee will not be a candidate in 2012.  If this is the case, which candidate will you be supporting?

SD: I have no idea, and I don’t even know for sure that I will support Governor Huckabee again if he runs.

KL. Based on his comments about the Bush foreign policy (bunker mentality) and the pro-growth wing (Club for Growth) of the GOP, has Governor Huckabee made too many enemies within the party to become a viable candidate in 2012?

SD: He was proven to be right about the Bush foreign policy.  

And the idea that the Club for Growth people backed a guy in Romney who raised taxes (you can call them fees or whatever you want, but a tax by any other name is still a tax) by over $500 million and imposed a government mandated health care plan trashed by The Wall Street Journal, puts their character in question.  Obviously, the elites in this party don’t resonate with the base the way they once did, and have lost the trust of the base; otherwise Huckabee wouldn’t have even won Iowa let alone several other states.  What hurt Huckabee last time was two mistakes I believe he made: the first was going to Michigan at all after New Hampshire (he wasted time and money there he didn’t have trying to prove something to the media) and not going straight to South Carolina, and the second was not directly confronting Fred Thompson in South Carolina.  Had Huckabee won South Carolina, which I believe he would’ve done had he not made those strategic mistakes; McCain would’ve not been the nominee.  It would’ve become a two-man race the rest of the way between Romney and Huckabee.  And that would’ve been interesting…an all-out civil war between Faux News/Talk Radio Titans and the Christian conservative base. 

KL: If you could place aside your own beliefs and opinions for a moment; would it be in the best interests of any of the candidates to skip the Iowa caucus in 2012 and head directly to New Hampshire?   

SD: History has proven that strategy doesn’t work.  It didn’t work for McCain in 2000, and it didn’t work for Giuliani last time.  I suspect Mr. Romney may try that strategy the next time around.  Good luck with that.  The reality is if you bypass Iowa you allow those that don’t an unprecedented advantage in media exposure, not to mention you lose the battle of momentum coming out and expectations going into New Hampshire.

KL: In your ‘The Ann Coulter Hang-Ups’ video, Bob Keller stated; “Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims”.  Do you not feel that this statement could be perceived as a bigoted statement?  Are you prepared to denounce this statement and apologize to members of the LDS church?

SD: No I’m not, because Mr. Keller is correct.  About the one thing Mr. Minnery said in my interview I agreed with him totally about is when he said Mormons aren’t Christians.  They have a different religion, and it would take too long to articulate those differences in this forum.  Even Hugh Hewitt, the Tariq Aziz of the Mitt Romney campaign, agrees that Mormons aren’t Christians.  But don’t just take my word for it.  Research the works of recent American Christian leaders of various theological stripes like Walter Martin, Adrian Rogers, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Albert Mohler, Josh McDowell, John Piper, and John MacArthur and you’ll find they would all agree Mormonism isn’t Christianity.  If it has become bigotry to say something is true and something else is not, then I guess I’ll proudly wear that. 

Now, one more thing on this question.  While I often say on my show Mormonism isn’t Christianity, I have also said repeatedly Mr. Romney’s Mormonism isn’t automatic grounds for me as a Christian not to vote for him.  Great statesmen like Jefferson, Franklin, and Lincoln also weren’t trinitarian in their theology.  Yet they also demonstrated a clear respect for the “laws of nature and nature’s God” that our Declaration of Independence discusses, as do the vast majority of Mormons today.  Thus, from a political perspective, my problem with Mr. Romney is he wasn’t Mormon enough.  Had he governed in Massachusetts with the orthodox morality the Mormon Church has stood for over the last 150 years or so, I would have had no problems supporting him.  Frankly, given his signing into law $50 abortions after his alleged pro-life conversion, and his illegally and unconstitutionally enacting sodomy marriage without a valid court order, I’m struggling to figure out why his fellow Mormons supported him.  Perhaps it’s time folks such as yourself start asking Mormon leaders that question.

KL. Romney has been very consistent in recent years on the life and marriage issues (sharing your views). Is there anything (short of converting) he can do to gain a sliver of respect from yourself and Keller? Do you not feel that comparing voting for Romney to Satan damages the GOP brand and makes our party appear intolerant?

SD: Your question again asserts the false premise this is about Mormonism for me.  Did I not already address this issue?  I’m a pretty blunt guy.  If I wasn’t going to vote for someone based on religion, I would say so. That’s not the case for me in this case.

Also, I have never compared voting for Romney to voting for Satan.  If Mr. Keller has done so, and I don’t know Mr. Keller, then perhaps that question is better directed towards him.   

As to your contention that Romney consistently shares my views, he does not.  For instance, during the Iowa Caucuses he gave three separate positions on the Human Life Amendment, and I have the audio to prove it.  He also believes in legal protections for homosexual relationships, and I do not.  Romney has been consistent for sure; he’s been consistent in lying.

As to the image of the Party, I frankly am not the least bit concerned about that.  I am a Christian.  My identity is in Christ, not a political party or any other human institution.  I vote conservative not because I care about the conservative movement or view it to be some American panacea, but because it best matches up with the truths of the Bible, which is the standard I hold all my beliefs to.  It’s the standard I believe nations rise and fall by.  Since the Republican Party has traditionally been the home of American conservatism, I have traditionally voted Republican. 

The Party is welcome to do whatever it wants.  I respect that.  It’s welcome to abandon every single principle I cherish if it determines that’s what it must do to win elections.  Just know, however, that as a Christian who fears the one who can cast the soul and the body into Hell I won’t be going along with that sellout.  And for as long as God grants me the grace to have this microphone in front of my face, I’ll do everything He allows me to do to make sure as many of my fellow Christians don’t buy into it, either.  It isn’t our job to change our principles for the Party; it’s the Party’s job to prove it wants our vote by advancing our principles.   

Our nation begins with the words “we the people.”  Not “this the system” or “this the party.”

If I should go to Heaven but with a political party I would just as soon not go at all.

Thomas Jefferson

KL: Your video appeared to have less to do with Ann Coulter and more to do with Mitt Romney.  Is it not a little early in the 2011-2012 Republican primary process to be focusing on prospective candidates? 

SD: I’m not focused on candidates.  I am focused on truth.  And the truth is several various Christian “leaders” have not told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God.  And from where I sit exposing that is always newsworthy.

—-

Update#1:  As many long-time visitors will remember, in late 2007, Race42008 highlighted the popularity and importance of Steve Deace, which included a visit to his radio show during the campaign.  They can be read here and here.    

—-

Disclosure Note: Although I committed to Mr. Deace that I would post his answers word for word, I did in fact edit some of the content.  Mr. Deace embedded links to theological sites in his answers, but upon review of these sites, I determined that is was not approapriate to publish these links on Race42012   

So Jim Tedisco really just might lose that seat in New York vacated by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. A new poll showing Tedisco trailing Democratic challenger Scott Murphy prompted a rather ridiculous reaction from my colleague Matt C, who said that “Steele needs to be ousted, period,” if Tedisco can’t pull this off. Now, Matt is surely looking for any excuse to bash Mr. Steele, given that he was always skeptical of the chairman, but I think that my own comment in that thread better sums it up: “What the hell does this have to do with Michael Steele?”

Really, it’s nothing more than the nonsensical “presiding over” argument that people in politics always spout back and forth. “Bill Clinton presided over a booming economy,” say Democrats. Ari Fleischer recently contended that “George W. Bush presided over many years of job creation.” Yes, I suppose that’s true in the most literal sense. I’ve also lost weight since Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House. But the better question to ask is whether correlation and causation are linked.

Quite frankly, I don’t really see how it’s possible to blame Steele for a Tedisco loss. Tedisco has run a terrible campaign, waffling around on its most important issue, the stimulus (he refused to take a position until just a couple of weeks ago). The ad campaign has generally been seen to be going in Murphy’s favor, and Murphy has been leading in fundraising. Tedisco recently weirdly skipped out on a debate with Murphy and the recently-disqualified Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall, who endorsed Murphy but whose departure is seen to help Tedisco. Tedisco, for his part, chose to take part in a townhall meeting stacked with sycophants. Most recently, he released a last-minute ad bashing Murphy for opposing the death penalty for terrorists. I would leave you with this quote from Aron Goldman, who also highlighted poll numbers showing voters responding poorly to Tedisco’s ads:

This ad reeks of desperation, and all indicators suggest it will be counterproductive.

Even though I strongly support the death penalty for premeditated murder, I can’t say I agree with the ad’s suggestion that justice isn’t served if someone like KSM is locked up in Gitmo, or perhaps Bagram, until his dying day; that advocacy for anything less than death makes Scott Murphy somehow unpatriotic or weak in the…Overseas Contingency Operation.

Also, it’s one thing if this were intended for an audience that’s across the entire country, but no New Yorker, not even those living upstate, need to be reminded that 9/11 was “a national tragedy.” It shouted ‘tonedeafness,’ and highlighted a disconnect on the part of the NRCC.

Last point. It can’t come as any real surprise should Scott Murphy pull this off. In how many “Republican districts” does Obama still boast a 65 percent favorable rating? And I can’t imagine the GOP faring very well in any CD where the state’s Democratic senator sports a 76 percent favorable rating.

So please, dear God, don’t blame Steele for this mess. You might as well blame Chuck Hagel.

About 35% of the US population lives in the 20 largest metropolitan areas. John McCain got about 30% of the vote in those 20 metropolitan areas.

There are a few commonly mentioned problems in urban areas:

• Traffic Congestion
• Crime
• Failing Schools
• Failing Infrastructure
• Slums
• Insufficient Housing
• Air Pollution

I’ve only heard conservatives speak on a couple of these issues (crime, failing schools). The rest of the problems deserve some conservative attention.

Is there a program for urban renewal that conservatives could offer for cities that have been run by liberals for generations?

Reading through Kristofer’s post on the Ann Coulter apology ad, a couple of things caught my attention.

First of all, I must be completely up front… there are very few people that I actually hate in the world. In fact, I’m even on record saying that I “don’t hate” Barack Obama. I disagree with him on the large majority of issues, but I don’t hate the man… but I HATE Ann Coulter with a passion.

As I read the names of those particular hosts mentioned in his post, it didn’t initially strike me, but the second time I went through them, something clicked…

Bill Keller… Bill Keller… where did I know that name from??? So I did a search on our site to see what I could find, because I knew that name sounded familiar.

and guess what…

On June 27, 2007, I wrote an article for this site about this guy and now I remember him all too well. He’s the “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan (because he’s Mormon)” guy. He also attacked Fred Thompson’s denomination, referring to it as “a cult.” In fact, I think more articles were written about this guy on this site and some of his ridiculous claims, but I can’t find them at the moment.

This is the same guy who called upon President Bush to declare a National Day of Prayer and Fasting because it was “the only way to…”

“fix the economy is for this nation to repent of its sins, ask God’s forgiveness, and turn back to God and His truth … Sadly this nation is so blinded by its sin, so far away from God, that it can’t see that what is happening in the economy is the start of God pouring out his judgment on our nation for our sins and our wickedness. Every twenty-four hours we legally slaughter over 4,000 innocent babies, we’ve made a mockery of God’s holy institution of marriage, we bow down and worship every idol and false god man has created. We live in complete and total rebellion to God and His word. My friends, we’re not only due God’s wrath and judgment, we are overdue God’s wrath and judgment.”

He also started a petition to do just that:

In his petition to President Bush and Congress, Keller writes, “Our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis that is not going to be solved by the wisdom of men or any amount of money, but only by the grace and mercy of Almighty God.”

He apparently became an expert on the economy after he spent two years in jail for… you guessed it… insider trading:

A former businessman convicted of insider trading in 1989, Keller served two years in federal prison, was released and later earned a degree in biblical studies from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Bill Keller- Man’s Answer to Martha Stewart

Ok, I’m still alive, everyone.  It’s been hectic, and I have had very little time to follow the news or even post.  I’m hoping that will change in the near future.  I can’t even get the cartoon I planned on putting up here to load (I thought it was pretty good).  What good news stories have I missed?

Update: I’m not terribly good at this yet, but I got the cartoon up at FaceBook.  Look me up there!  If that doesn’t work for you, I could even email it to you.  Feel free to send such a request to: richard.murray.001@gmail.com