Emphasis on the word “most”…

Many things make me proud of America, many of which make possible what I am most proud of.

Before we could make liberty possible outside the borders of the United States, we had to reap the benefits of what made prosperity possible inside the United States.

Judeo-Christian values, brilliant Founding fathers, and the courage of millions to press toward the mark of those values and the ideals expressed in the Declaration made us the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

What we accomplished for Liberty in the Lower Forty-Eight would be what makes me second most proud of these United States.

But what we have sacrificed for Liberty for non-Americans is what makes me most proud (see Europe, The Philippines, Japan, Korea, Grenada, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan).

And the occasion for my expression of this pride at this moment in time relates to a particular and very small minority of non-Americans to whom we must now confer the liberty we have so selflessly conferred on others in the past.

But first, I would direct your attention to the millions of Japanese and Germans we defeated in WWII. All those of Soviet, Chinese, East European, Cuban, Iranian and Vietnamese descent we have liberated and granted asylum.

Now, we come to a few Afghans that were captured after 911 that were in the wrong place in Afghanistan at the wrong time that we admit have no connection to al Qaida, five to seven years after their capture.

As a point of reference, the author of this column is a neo-con , pro-executive war powers hawk that favors wide commander-in-chief powers to identify and KILL the enemy, understanding that innocents will be killed.

So, here we are, seven years on, with innocents captured, that we now are satisfied are innocents but that no country will repatriate.

What are we to do?

It is obvious. We must set them free in the Land of Liberty.

That the liberation is being done by a President that doesn’t understand Liberty is of no consequence on the bottom line issue of what America MUST do.

This is not about appeasing the opinion of any foreign power. This is about what we are.

Time matters, and even the Bush administration admitted that certain individuals were innocent but that they could not get their home nations to agree to repatriate them.

We must set them free among us, even if by the Obama Administration. The fact is that just as we obviously kill innocents in justifiable acts of war, we also capture innocents, and when we are satisfed that they are innocent, and when no other nation will accept them, then we must grant them asylum.

And if the Reagan-defined “safety net for the truly needy” finds them engulfed thereby, then we must feed them.

We are the United States of America.

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

I am not providing an opinion on this video, but it is a must watch.  Poor Ann Coulter.  She is taking hits from the center and the right.  The video was produced by four conservative talk-show hosts, Steve Deace, Bill Keller, Bob Enyart, and Gregg Jackson.  Read the press release here. 

They have also launched an associated web-site, www.AnnCoulterApology.com     

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywvqMAnHZd8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgayrights%2Echange%2Eorg%2Fblog%2Fview%2Fann%5Fcoulter%5Fdefends%5Fsame%2Dsex%5Fmarriage&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

This afternoon, I asked controversal talk-show host Steve Deace for his views on the leading GOP candidates.      

Mitt Romney

POSITIVES – If it’s location, location, and location in real estate then Romney has the money, money, and money for a political run.  He’s a human ATM.  Because of his ability to raise money, he has most favored nation status among many mercenary conservative elites and right-wing talk radio titans who just want to win at absolutely any cost.

NEGATIVES – Quite frankly, he’s a phony.  The biggest phony running for the Republican presidential nomination I have ever seen.  And that’s why the only contested state he won last time around was the state of his birth.  Despite all the free media he got from the talk radio titans and Faux News, and favoritism he received from legions of conservative elites, conservative voters of every stripe rejected him in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina – the first three contested states in the 2008 cycle where Romney out-spent all of his opponents combined.  Why?  Because guys who sign into law $50 taxpayer subsidized abortions after their alleged pro-life conversion, and illegally enact sodomy marriage unconstitutionally without a valid court order don’t pass the smell test with the base.  As another person on this list once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

-

Sarah Palin

POSITIVES – To the base she’s not a politician, she’s a rock star.  She has natural charisma and charm that other politicians have to pay an army of consultants to create.  No one’s name recognition is higher.

NEGATIVES – She’s just not qualified to be president yet.  Her resume is an unfinished product, and that’s being kind.  If Ann Coulter said on my show she would advise her not to run.  Last election, she was Luke Skywalker going out to confront Darth Vader before he was ready, and just like Luke she got creamed.  She needs more Jedi training.  Her ability to articulate conservative issues on the campaign trail wasn’t even Romneyesque, let alone Reaganesque.  Might I submit that if you can’t outwit Katie Couric, you’re not ready for that dude in Iran whose name I still can’t pronounce or spell.

- 

Mike Huckabee

POSITIVES – High name recognition, adored by the base, and he gained added credibility by aggressively opposing the disastrous and unconstitutional Bush bailout.  The best living communicator the Republican Party currently has.  His wit, charm, and winsomeness will give him permission to attack Obama that other more stoic or rigid Republicans can’t pull off without looking mean.  He’s done everything smart since dropping out.  He supported McCain without being a sycophant, he’s got a popular Fox TV show, a regular national radio spot, and has built himself a real organization.  Because of that, he’ll be able to raise the money he couldn’t last time despite his surprising success.

NEGATIVES – The elites at places like CPAC hate him because he went to seminary and not law school and has a funny last name.  They’d almost rather have Obama president for life than subject themselves to him as their standard-bearer.  The RINOs in the party hate Christians far more than the Left does, so he’ll win over their collective dead bodies.

- 

Newt Gingrich

POSITIVES – Nobody is smarter, more eloquent, and more respected within all three factions of the base: defense, fiscal, and Christian conservatives.  Plain and simple, no carbon based life-form calling themselves a Republican is more innovative from a solutions standpoint.  He can embarrass Obama intellectually in a debate.

NEGATIVES – Has to address his past peccadilloes up front, because the Left and his primary opponents certainly will.  Also seems to be the kind of leader that does better as a revolutionary than a standard-bearer (wonder if he’d make a better chief of staff than a president).  The new Newt is also too friendly with the Left at times (see last year’s bizarre advocacy ad with Nancy Pelosi as an example).

- 

Bobby Jindal

POSITIVES – The anti-Palin, he lacks her charisma and stature, but is the only person on this list anywhere near Gingrich’s league intellectually.  It’s also clear the party has decided he’s a conservative they can live with given the opportunities he’s getting, so he’s the girl with the curl right now.

NEGATIVES – A bad contrast to Obama.  He’s much shorter, much more reserved, and so young he makes Obama look like a man of stature and accomplishment.  He should wait until 2016 or 2020.

- 

Mark Sanford

POSITIVES - Reputation as a guy with bedrock conservative credentials, and you have to be in a state like South Carolina where they aren’t squishy.  Also a fresh face with a more developed political resume than either of the other so-called fresh faces like Jindal.

NEGATIVES – Fresh face also means unknown, so he needs free media and the ability to raise money to raise his profile.  Also considered kind of dry from a charisma standpoint, which isn’t what you want opposite President Obama.

 

Just a month ago, liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was criticized by liberal bloggers for “selling out to the banking industry” on foreclosure relief — now, Durbin appears to be paying back the banking industry once again — but this time he is doing so under the guise of protecting the consumer from the “evil” payday loan industry.

The bill he is pushing would place a cap on short term credit, but interestingly, bounced checks are exempted (anyone who has ever been short on cash knows that bouncing a check is a double-whammy — you are broke — and yet you get penalized more).

Of course, it is fair to say that if consumers cannot acquire short term loans, they will be more likely to bounce checks, and thus, incur bank fees.  This adds up to quite a bit.  According to Lawrence Meyers,

“If Durbin’s bill passes, banks will pull in another $25 billion abandoned by its competitors. However, since they’ll now control a monopoly in short-term credit, you can bet the average NSF/ODP fee of $28.95 will skyrocket, adding to their ill-gotten gains.

Not only can bounced check/NSF fees be the most expensive product available in this market (based on term and amount of credit provided), they offer the least consumer protections and result in the most damage to a consumer’s credit score. Bouncing a check also poses a legal risk to the consumer, as it is illegal to knowingly write a bad check.”

If you’ve wondered why Durbin seems to love the banking industry, Meyers notes he has received more than $65,000 from Citigroup, alone.  As they say, “follow the money.”

H/T Matt Lewis

The NRCC is out with a hard-hitting ad showing the NY-20 Dem opposes the death penalty for 9-11 terrorists:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmwnnNPGVUQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Fblog&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Sorry ths is a little late, but the counting has been a bit of a headache (hand tabulation, double checking, and I had someone else do their own count).

On the first question – where I asked voters to rate their enthusiasm for the 2012 GOP ticket if Judd Gregg were to wing the presidential nomination – 64 votes were cast, and Gregg’s average rating was a very respectable 6.7 on a scale of 1-10.

The second question asked voters to choose their first and second choice from a limited, but still crowded, 8 candidate field which included Sen. Gregg. Two points were awarded for every first-place vote, and one for each second place vote (the goal being to test the theory that Gregg might be “everyone’s second choice”). Here are the results as best I can count them (see disclaimers at end of post), keep in mind that this is a point sytem not a percentage system.

Mitt Romney – 62 points

Mark Sanford – 27 points

Bobby Jindal – 24 points

Sarah Palin – 21 Points

Judd Gregg – 21 points

Mike Huckabee – 17 points

Newt Gingrich – 16 points

Tim Pawlenty – 16 points

I don’t think anyone is surprised by the top of the poll, as we have a lot of Romney commentors here - and I would add that while I think he is a legitimate threat in his own right, Sanford benefitted heavily here from the second-choice votes of Romney supporters. Though, in all honesty, several candidates did very well on second-choice votes.

So, based on this (whatever that’s worth), Jud Gregg has a potential shot to be a top-tier candidate – as he ties Palin and beats Huckabee. I would also note that, based on first-choice votes, two front-page posters on this site would be “Juddbots” if the field shakes out as I listed it above (I’m clearly not one of them).

At least in the minds of the people here, it looks like Sen. Gregg could indeed be a serious candidate for the presidency were he to try. So the next question that I would pose is “How do we sell this guy if he wins?” Sen. Gregg is very stylistically different than almost anyone else on the list.  He is an extremely calm, collected, and even-keel type of guy – he wins a lot of respect for his knowledge and his actions, but not a lot of kudos for his charisma. I wanted to know how effective he can be on the stump, so I did my best to find video of Judd Gregg when he gets emotional. There aren’t many campaign speeches online, but there are a number of his Senate speeches on YouTube. Hence, I did get to see what Judd Gregg looks like when he’s angry – and I do mean angry - at Chuck Schumer. My guess is that this is about as worked up as “Grandpa Judd” ever gets – and roughly what his stump speeches would sound like. I would suggest watching at least a few minutes of this, and definitely watch the last minute or so at the end (I loved the line about New Hampshirites being able to play politics as well as New Yorkers).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drVUYFDa7QA[/youtube]

Hence, the quesiton is whether a gentle, soft-spoken, and humble man like Judd Gregg can be successfully marketed in the 21st century world of constant media saturation. Personally, I think it would actually be very easy for a VP candidate (especially against Joe Biden), but it’s a bit of a challenge if you’re talking POTUS (especially against Barack Obama). I don’t think it’s impossible (note that Ron Paul is a wonky guy who nonetheless ran a great campaign), and as a guy who lies strategy experiments, it actually sounds like a fun experiment. However, Judd certainly presents a radically different set of risks than most of the people were talking about. For the most part, we’ve been dealing with a field that’s packed with charisma but very light on national-level experience. So, can we make room for a guy who has the OPPOSITE problem - too much gravitas and not enough charisma?

*Poll Disclaimers: For those voters who merely listed 1-10 ratings for all candidates, your highest two scores were counted on your first and second choices. Only first-choice voites were counted if the voter who entered the same candidate as their first and second choice  Write-in votes were not counted, as they undermined the premise of the poll  (forcing people to decide based on a limited field). If a voter listed a write-in as thier first choice,  that vote was disgarded and thier second-choice vote was elevated to first-choice status (two points).

The AP reveals that South Carolina’s unemployment level rose even higher in February:

South Carolina’s jobless rate surged to 11 percent in February, moving closer to the 14 percent peak the a state advisory board expects as the recession throttles the economy.

The February rate was well above the nation’s 8.1 percent rate. The dramatic increase from January’s 10.3 percent moved the state’s joblessness to levels not seen since March 1983 in another sign of the state’s dire economic straits.

…Allendale County had the highest unemployment rate at 23.4 percent. It was one of five counties with a fifth of the workforce out of work.

Lexington County had the lowest rate at 7.9 percent and was the only county in the state with a lower jobless rate than the national average.

Sanford has said much of the unemployment problem comes from growth in the state’s labor force. The commission says the labor force increased by nearly 5,600 in February.

As much as I like Sanford, SC’s struggling economy hurts his strength as a potential 2012 candidate, as it exposes him to criticism from primary competitors and especially Democratic opponents (attacks along the lines of “Look at what Mark Sanford’s hands-off approach has done to South Carolina’s economy!”).

Not surprisingly, many Florida Republican Party activists have begun voicing public discontent with Gov. Charlie Crist:

Florida Republican Party circles are hearing increasing talk of conservative dissatisfaction with Gov. Charlie Crist, and a possible primary challenge if he runs for the U.S. Senate next year.

Crist’s high poll ratings, which muted such criticism early in his term, remain high, pollsters say, but are no longer preventing the talk.

Some conservatives, never happy with Crist’s emphasis on racial diversity, environmental regulation and populist willingness to take on big business, are now saying it openly.

…Whether that will translate into tangible political opposition remains to be seen.

More pragmatic Republicans note that Crist has expanded the base of the party by getting Democratic and independent votes, and made himself not only a household name in Florida but well known nationwide.

“He’s looked upon as such a popular and compelling figure that the sky’s the limit,” said Republican advertising consultant Adam Goodman of Tampa. “There are always going to be people to his right and to his left both in the party and in general. As long as he maintains his anti-tax platform, he’ll be fine.”

Party figures say a primary challenge is more likely if Crist switches offices, running next year for the Senate instead of re-election as governor.

…Conservative dissatisfaction began soon after Crist was elected governor in 2006, focusing on his climate change policies and speeding up restoration of voting rights for felons who have completed their sentences.

It has peaked with two recent events: his public support for President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package, and his appointment of Judge James Perry to the state Supreme Court.

Other sources say that Marco Rubio will not oppose Crist but rather run for which ever office Crist avoids, between governor and the Senate.  I, for one, think that Rubio (and possibly fellow former Florida House Speaker Allan Bense) would better serve himself and the party by taking the latter strategy and running for a different office, instead of against Crist, due to Crist’s high approval ratings and wide range of supporters.

Lastly, Bloomberg reports the following:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House this year will consider health-care legislation including an option for a government-run program that would compete with insurers.

President Barack Obama has said he wants Congress to produce legislation that would expand health-care coverage for the country’s 46 million uninsured and reduce medical costs. Republicans and some insurers have opposed the creation of a new program modeled on Medicare as part of the effort. The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, last week called the idea a “deal-breaker.”

Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House will be “aggressive” in its approach to a health-care overhaul, which is a centerpiece of Obama’s agenda. She said a government role in health care will help U.S. companies be more competitive.

“This is not only about the health of individuals in our country, which will be justification enough,” said Pelosi, a California Democrat. “It’s about the competitiveness of our businesses to make them globally competitive because they are competing with companies and countries where the federal government — their governments — pay for health care. They don’t have to bear those health care costs.”

It’s nice to see Pelosi caring about the competitiveness of American businesses.  Unfortunately, she only does so when it benefits her causes (I wonder what she’d have to say about the corporate tax’s effect on American businesses’ global competitiveness…).  Regardless, this health care plan represents another power grab by the government.  After establishing government-run care to compete with private care, Pelosi, Obama and the other Dems would inevitably expand the government program’s budget and power, at the expense of private, market-based solutions.

Rasmussen Congressional Favorability Ratings

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Mitch McConnell 29% / 31% [-2%]
• John Boehner 28% / 34% [-6%]
• Harry Reid 29% (29%) / 45% (42%) [-16%]
• Nancy Pelosi 34% (36%) / 60% (53%) [-26%]

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted March 24-25. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted March 10-11 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats now view Pelosi favorably, including 16% who have a Very Favorable view. But in the previous survey, 65% of Democrats liked Pelosi, with 27% Very Favorable.

The same goes for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Forty-three percent (43%) of Democrats see him in a favorable light, including 11% Very Favorable. In the previous survey, Reid had 51% favorables, with 11% Very Favorable.

In a shocking turn of events, a pro-Romney blog (ComMITTed) is beginning to question the candidate himself, as well as the motivation, intelligence, technological and organizing capabilities of Romney supporters.

Still three years out from selecting a nominee for the Republican party, the Romney post (written by a former reader of this site) suggests that Romney may be facing an inevitable defeat in 2012. 

Some highlights from the post;  

In response to some recent polling involving Mitt Romney;

an embarrassing defeat for the candidate (Romney) most widely regarded to be the frontrunner in the upcoming election.

On Romney supporters and grassroots organizations:

(A) serious weakness in the Romney netroots movement

On the launch of CTR.net:

is not going to be enough

Describing and carelessly lumping together many of those in the Republican party who are currently not supporting Romney:

fringe individuals, militant libertarians, or college student

It appears as if the lack of online and grassroots support for Governor Romney is starting to cause the most dedicated supporters to second-guess the viability of ‘Romney 2012′.  The warning from this article is clear; if Romney supporters cannot learn how to embrace social networking, become better organized and “be in reach of a computer during the day”, then Romney will face certain defeat in 2012.

Admittedly, I am shocked at the pessimism displayed by some of these hard-core Romney supporters.  It is true that Romney social networking sites only have 3-4% of the have hundreds of thousands of registered activists on Palin and Obama sites, but that does not mean Romney supporters should surrender 2012 or turn on one another.   

My experience in the ‘WWW’ is that Romney supporters are some of the most active users of the Internet of any of the potential candidates and they tend to participate in dozens of networking sites and blogs, not focus or dedicate time on a single cyber-club or wikis.  For the comMITTed posting to scold supporters and raise doubts, while being more than 3 years away from selecting a nominee, is a little over the top and extremely condescending to the readers of the blog.

With a struggling leadership, shrinking registration and a fundraising gap with the Democrats, the Republican party cannot afford to attack college students and libertarians. These voter groups are critical to electing Republicans.  As a representative of the Romney network, I would have expected better from that blog, especially since their candidate is distrusted by so many factions within the Republican party.  The administrators of this site may want to reconsider the standards they set when hiring FPP’s.  There are plenty of talented Romney supporters capable of blogging (and some already do), who do not alienate undecided Republicans or drive away existing supporters.  The Romney grassroots must learn from their mistakes of 2008, by building bridges instead of the silos that contributed to the failed campaign of early year.  

Keep your head up Romney supporters, ignore the second-guessing within your team!  Your candidate remains a strong (one of 3) favorite in 2012!          

Siena New York 20th Congressional District

• Scott Murphy 47% (41%)
• Jim Tedisco 43% (45%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Kirsten Gillibrand 76% (78%) / 18% (15%) [+58%]
• Barack Obama 65% (65%) / 28% (27%) [+37%]
• Scott Murphy 49% (40%) / 38% (25%) [+11%]
• Jim Tedisco 48% (49%) / 41% (30%) [+7%]

(more…)

From the New York Times Magazine:

Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of theNASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

A particularly distressed member of that public was Dyson’s own wife, Imme, who, after seeing the film in a local theater with Dyson when it was released in 2006, looked at her husband out on the sidewalk and, with visions of drowning polar bears still in her eyes, reproached him: “Everything you told me is wrong!” she cried.

“The polar bears will be fine,” he assured her.

And how does the left respond to such a brilliant scientist’s dismantling of Climate Change dogma? Well, as you would expect, Saul Alinsky style:

Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.”

Here’s an appointment that may be a bit more favorably received by the base:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has picked an Anchorage lawyer and National Rifle Association director as the state’s new attorney general.

Palin named Wayne Anthony Ross to the post on Thursday.

Ross twice sought the Republican nomination for governor. He is a former NRA vice president and current director.

Ross replaces Talis Colberg, who resigned Feb. 10 amid what Palin called a “harsh political climate.”

That’s cool.

I just wanted to point out that Matt Lewis of AOL’s Political Machine has taken note of the site’s discussion, prompted by Mr. Brickley and Mr. Miller, about Judd Gregg’s VP/POTUS potential.  Thanks again to Adam and Matthew for making such thought-provoking and strikingly sensible suggestions!

Finally, the moment you’ve all been waiting for… kind of…

I decided, in the spirit of Adam Brickley’s earlier post, to somewhat break my silence, per my thoughts about 2012. I’ve kept my cards close to my chest, and have said that I need to see more before I could tentatively throw my support behind any one candidate.

So, I decided to do a rating scale on each candidate like Adam asked our readers to do, via Judd Gregg. With each candidate, I jotted down a few quick thoughts and this is what I came up with, transcribed straight from my note pad:

(be forewarned… I did not edit my thoughts, these are transcribed “as is”)…

(more…)

Ross Douthat comments on Shelby Steele’s op-ed on the black vote.  He writes:

You cannot expect the descendants of slaves and the heirs of segregation to embrace a conservative politics en masse until we’re much, much further out of those institutions’ shadow than we are today; by the same token, it would be bad for conservatism, and for America, if the Right were to seek black votes by jettisoning its core premises, and simply giving up (as the Bush Administration sometimes seemed eager to do) on its long-running critique of the diversity-and-dependency two-step that undergirds modern liberalism’s approach to racial issues…

But drop down to ground level for a moment, and consider Ta-Nehisi’s response to my post on prison reform. Here we have an issue – the design of our criminal-justice system – that’s of burning concern to the African-American community. It’s not an easy issue to wrestle with by any stretch: My preferred approach to reform, for instance, would marry a reduced incarceration rate to a substantial increase in the police presence on America’s streets, which if implemented clumsily (as most policy shifts are) could mean fewer black men behind bars, but more tragedies like the death of Ta-Nehisi’s friend. But it’s also an issue where conservatives could embrace policy shifts without compromising their core beliefs – the question of where to strike the “build prisons or hire cops” balance is a practical rather than a philosophical one – and in the process, I think, substantially change the way the Republican Party is perceived in the black community. Also, it would be the right thing to do…

There are also a lot of political issues that boil down a question of resource allocation: We’re going to spend X dollars on prisons and police (or on the military, or on the school system or the highways or what-have-you), and the question is how. And getting that “how” right can make an awfully big difference – to the African-American community, and to many other people as well.

Douthat is certainly on the right track here.  We need to target black voters on issues where we have room to manuever: where the ideological choice isn’t clear.  That approach allows us to retain our principles, but expand the party.  But, I think this only gets us part of the way.  Our struggle with black voters is, I think, more fundamental than an unwillingness to promote periphery policies they’re likely to favor.  We need to promote these types of policies, as explicitly benefiting blacks.  During the primaries, Romney took to saying, on occasion, that the failure of inner city schools was the greatest civil rights challenge of our time.  It was a nice line, but it didn’t go very far because Romney only used it on occasion.  To the extent that black voters pay attention to Republican messages at all, that wasn’t the Romney message they were getting.  And this is the real problem: Republicans seem to think they can get somewhere, with blacks and minorities, by either me-tooing Democrats on a few inconsequential issues, or by mumbling into their cups about the issues that genuinely concern these communities.

To go back to Ross’s example, putting more cops on the street and lowering incarceration rates may well keep more black men out of jail, but those men will never know about it if you simply checklist add it to your agenda.  Republicans need to LEAD on these types of issues.  If we honestly believe that school vouchers will benefit urban black voters, we need to make school vouchers a center-piece of our agenda, instead of just using it as a sort of rhetorical cudgel, now that we have a black President.  If we sense that we can improve black communities by increasing police forces, and lowering jail time, then we should include this policy in every stump speech, and tell black voters: where they live.  Republicans, moderate and conservative alike, often have rational reasons for avoiding these types of explicit appeals: there are potential short-term losses, etc.  But, the country is changing, demographically, and we simply cannot continue to win without making genuine outreaches to minorities.  I know from experience that there are enormous social costs, within the black community, to listening to Republican candidates.  Republicans need to speak directly to black voters, and lead on important issues, if they want to make inroads in that community.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

In an interview earlier this year with Ann Coulter, Mike Huckabee made it clear that he is eyeing another run for the White House, but he continues to provide his future opponents with political ammunition based on comments he makes in speeches and on radio/TV.  Although pro-lifers understand and accept his rationale, invoking slavery as a supporting argument for any moral crusade, provides an opening for political fodder and ridicule.        

Speaking to an anti-abortion group in Jefferson City, Governor Huckabee said this:

“What are we saying to the generation coming after us when we tell them that it is perfectly OK for one person to own another human being?” Huckabee said. “I thought we dealt with that 150 years ago when the issue of slavery was finally settled in this country, and we decided that it no longer was a political issue, it wasn’t an issue of geography, it was an issue of morality. That it was either right or it was immoral that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being.” He said civilization cannot survive if “one group of people have life and death control over another for no particular reason other than their own conveniences and, in that case, prejudices.”

The comment brought the following response from the local chapter of the NAACP. 

“It seems to me now that when folks want to object to some kind of morality type of issue, they want to attach it to slavery,” Ratliff said.

Ratliff is correct.  It is not that Huckabee is wrong in stretching the comparison between abortion and slavery, it is that many conservatives and Republicans feel the need to reference the darkest moment in our nation’s history, only as a way of strengthening a political or modern-day moral argument, such as abortion.  Slavery is not a ‘buzz-word’, it is a reference to an dehumanizing practice that has left deep societal scars and cultural and economic divisions within our nation.    

Governor Huckabee needs to be himself and stop with the overreaching arguments on this or any other topic he believes so strongly in.  Governor, you are pro-life, so is nearly half the country and the majority in your party.  The ‘life’ issue is a moral and criminal issue, so there is no need for the historical introspective psychology argument to gain followers.  It is not your style.  If you are committed to referencing slavery in your speeches, then talk about how the Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act.   

So I am proposing a new policy for Republicans;  Only mention ‘slavery’ when it is attached to an apology.

If you weren’t watching, something really interesting happened here last last night. I put out the name of Sen. Judd Gregg as a potential VP nominee, prompting Matthew Miller to say that Gregg might actually be better suited as a candidate for POTUS. Frankly, he got a good deal of support for that assertion, considering that Gregg seems to be positioned in between the Palin/Romney conservatives and the Crist/Huntsman/Pawlenty moderates. So, those who weren’t thrilled with either camp seemed rather eager to jump at the idea of Judd Gregg entering the race.

I figured I’d take this concept a step farther by officially polling you all on the subject, and I have two questions for you.

1. On a scale of 1-10 how enthusiatically would you support the GOP ticket in 2012 if Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire were the party’s nominee for President of the United States? (10 being the most enthusiastic)

2. From the following list, please select your first and second choices in a potential GOP Presidential Primary (Please clearly label which is which – and no write-ins please).

• Governor Mark Sanford

• Former Governor Mitt Romney

• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

• Senator Judd Gregg

• Former Governor Mike Huckabee

• Governor Sarah Palin

• Governor Tim Pawlenty

• Governor Bobby Jindal

Votes will be counted at noon tomorrow. Gregg enthusiasm scores will be tallied and averaged, while straw poll votes will be scored by awarding a candidate 2 points for every first-choice vote and 1 point for every second-choice vote.

The NPR 2012 March Madness is officially over.

The current results are as stands: Pence beats Palin by 19%, DeMint beats Huckabee by 31%, Paul beats Romney by 23%.

What’s happening? Well…the Paultards are spamming the poll, just like they do with every other Internet outlet they can find. Why? Because they live on the Internet. They’re clearing the way for Paul by messing up the Palin and Huckabee results.

RIP NPR 2012 March Madness.

First, a little background on Pat Toomey; His policy views can be found here:

Pat Toomey, age 43, is the President, and CEO, of the Club for Growth.

Before joining the Club for Growth, Mr. Toomey served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, from Pennsylvania?s 15th congressional district, for three terms, from January 1999 through January 2005. Mr. Toomey distinguished himself as one of Congress? leading advocates for limited government and personal freedom. He led Republican efforts to expand the Bush tax cuts of 2001; to reduce wasteful spending; and to block the vast expansion of Medicare in 2003. He served on the Budget Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and the Small Business Committee.

Prior to his service in Congress, Mr. Toomey co-founded, owned, and operated four very successful, original-concept restaurants in Allentown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

His first career was in investment banking from 1984 through 1991. He developed and managed a $21 billion derivatives trading operation for Morgan Grenfell Finance, Inc. in New York, supervising sales and trading operations in New York, London, and Tokyo.

Mr. Toomey attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI and graduated from Harvard University, cum laude, with a degree in government.

There is no greater change-agent and advocate for fiscal sanity, then Pat Toomey.  Pat has consistently defended taxpayers from the threats posed by our federal government to our personal and economic freedoms.  Pat has consistently fought for school choice, 2nd Amendment rights, balanced budgets, a simplified tax system and growing our manufacturing industry through free trade and reduced corporate taxation.

I fondly remember Pat Toomey’s battle with President Clinton over the marriage-tax penalty.

“When we lower people’s tax burden, we increase their freedom,” Toomey said. “Every dollar that stays in the hands of the folks who earned it is a dollar that they can decide how to save or spend as they see fit, instead of having it taken from them and spent by politicians in Washington.”

He said 59,000 married couples in his eastern Pennsylvania district pay, on average, $1,400 more than they would have paid had they been single.

A few have questioned his ability to hold this seat for the GOP, but Pat’s track-record is one of exceeding fundraising expectations and winning votes from registered Democrats.  When Pat Toomey first ran for Congress in 1988, in a democratically-held seat vacated by former Congressman Paul F. McHale Jr., Pat beat his opponent (a popular State Senator) by ten percentage points.

Pat’s humble, working-class roots, excellent communication skills and his unwavering support for bureaucratic reform, based on pragmatic conservative principles, makes him a favorite to hold the Senate seat the Republican party.  Since achieving re-election to his fifth term, it has become clear that Senator Specter is a liability to the Republican party and their chances of preventing Obama from obtaining a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate.  As the total number of registered Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania continues to decline, many observers have concluded that not only has Senator Specter failed to provided leadership to expand the party (or at least stop the slide), but his questionable voting record and inconsistencies with critical policy positions have damaged the GOP brand in the Keystone state.

With the panic-driven environment that is currently suffocating the political process in Washington, new level-headed, practical and responsible leaders are needed to bring a reality-check to Washington, D.C.  Most of our national politicians seem oblivious to the long-term damage their 2009 legislative initiatives will cause to our nation.  They are destroying the economic foundation of this country by adopting Keynesian regulatory laws and placing our government on a path of DOUBLING the national debt by 2010.  Who has convincingly spoken out against this moral crime our political leaders are committing against our children and all future generations?  Pat Toomey has.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3gVXqyMsww[/youtube]

Franklin & Marshall College 2010 Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary Poll

• Arlen Specter 33%
• Pat Toomey 18%
• Don’t Know 42%

Question asked of registered Republicans only.

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Barack Obama 59% / 21% (+38%)
• Arlen Specter 48% / 24% (+24%)
• Bob Casey 34% / 16% (+18%)
• Ed Rendell 45% / 35% (+10%)

How would you rate the way that ARLEN SPECTER is handling his job as U.S. SENATOR?

• Excellent job 13%
• Good job 39%
• Only a fair job 25%
• Poor job 12%

Do you believe that ARLEN SPECTER has done a good enough job as SENATOR to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change?

• Deserves re-election 40%
• Time for a change 46%

Survey of 586 registered voters, including 211 Republicans, was conducted March 17-22. The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

Perhaps the most important piece of information to note from this PA poll, as well the one from Quinnipiac — the dates. Both were conducted prior to Specter stating that he would vote against cloture on Card Check legislation, thus denying the Democrats of the 60th vote they would need to break a GOP filibuster.

I read Alex’s Britney Spears post, wryly.  I confess to having a weakness for pop princesses, but I’m thinking more Katy Perry here.  I’m looking at her wikipedia now, and I came across this:

In June 2008, Perry emerged in a publicity photo in which she pose with a switchblade.^[35] Anti-knife campaigners criticized her for glamorizing knives.

There are anti-knife campaigners?    See, pop-stars are good for something.  There’s apparently this whole subterranean political movement.  From a BBC article:

A hard-hitting new play is to be shown to 12 and 13-year-olds across Northern Ireland in a bid to reduce knife crime.

It is part of a campaign ‘Knives ruin lives’ into which parents of young people killed by knives have had input.

True, it’s mostly a British and Irish thing, but that’s kind of the point.  Even where they’ve “eliminated” firearms, there are still people pining for disarmament.  Individuals are never responsible for their own actions.  Inanimate objects are always to blame.

Having cleverly wriggled Katy Perry into a political discussion, I’ll leave you.  Oh…but one more thing.

I do believe I’ve one upped Alex.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Fellow conservatives, we may be coming to the end of the McCain-Feingold Act.  Republicans may regain their financial advantage.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the key vote in any majority decision, suggested the court may be in position to strike down a key part of that law.

The government lawyer also suggested that books could be prohibited in the same way McCain-Feingold restricts the airing of certain political advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. That proposition did not sit well with the court’s conservative members.

“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel Alito exclaimed.

The Hardball interview below is, incredible.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPV-1eeDoTo[/youtube]

This race for the NPR March Madness has gotten hilarious! Apparently, the Romney fanatics have figured out how to use the internet, as over at Committed, they are openly giving instructions on how to skew results in their chat window. Of course, they’ve got to use any means necessary, since they are up against the Ron Paul internet machine.

Look at the skewed voting totals, as of 10:36 pm eastern time:

+Mike Pence vs. Sarah Palin- Total Votes: 17,916
+Mike Huckabee vs. Jim DeMint- Total Votes: 18,845
+Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul- Total Votes: 32,357
+Meg Whitman vs. Mark Sanford- Total Votes: 12,142
+Jeb Bush vs. Mark Ryan- Total Votes: 12,568
+Newt Gingrich vs. Tim Pawlenty- Total Votes: 12,990
+Sam Brownback vs. John Huntsman- Total Votes: 11,778
+Charlie Crist vs. Bobby Jindal- Total Votes: 12,493

Exclusive Race42012 Insider Info:

For those putting money on the outcome of this March Madness, I’m sure these vote totals have changed in just the last ten minutes or so since I wrote those totals on this page.

However, here is the inside strategy as to what alliances are being formed…

While Romney and Paul are going down to the wire… WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF MAJOR INTERNETZ UPSETS!!! Sarah Palin is on the brink of losing her bid for the NPR nomination in the 2nd round to Mike Pence (who is he again?). Mike Huckabee’s army seems resigned to see their championship hopes upset by 8th seed Jim DeMint. Seventh seed Paul Ryan is well ahead of fifth seeded Jeb Bush. Mark Sanford is living up to his seed, well up on Meg Whitman, and second seeded Bobby Jindal has a comfortable lead over the fourth seeded Charlie Crist.

I’ve scanned through all the different camp sites and this is what is so ironic. While the Paul and Romney supporters are mostly focusing on each other, they both are making a priority of seeing that heated rival Mike Huckabee goes down in the upset. While it is speculation (although I dare anyone to 2nd guess this one) that Romney supporters are not voting for Mike, the Ron Paul supporters are adamant in their fight to also take down the “evil Huckabee” (as one fine Paul supporter put it so eloquently on a forum). The Huckabee supporters, on the other hand, are not advocating any kind of mischief on their sites, but they are blind to their allegiences… because for some strange reason they think Ron Paul supporters believe the Huckster is A-OK (uhhh… you might want to rethink that one there, fellas…) I don’t see the same kind of internetz enthusiasm from Palin supporters as I do from the others, though.

Predictions: Ron Paul has the upper hand, but those crazy Romney fanatics, (whose strategy is being masterminded by a former reader of this site) are not going to go down without a fight. It’s the internets… BABY!!!

Yes, yes, this is all subject to change, but still…

With the latest Siena poll showing state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo clobbering Governor Paterson in a hypothetical Democratic primary for governor, Cuomo says he is heartened to know the people feel good about him as Attorney General, and he plans to run for re-election to the post next year.

He does not plan on running for governor, though, saying he thinks Paterson will seek and win re-election.

Might just be politician-speak, but a Rudy fan can hope, no?

UPDATE: Hmm…

“The polls go up the polls go down,” he said. “I’m very happy being attorney general.”

He did not answer directly a question as to whether he is ruling out a run for governor.

“I believe Governor David Paterson is going to run for re-election as governor,” Cuomo said. “I believe he’s going to be re-elected as governor.”

And here’s video and more remarks…

Addressing the Siena poll, Cuomo said he is “very happy to be attorney general, and it heartens me to know the people feel good about me as attorney general.” He said he “believes Paterson will run for governor and he will also be re-elected.”

Still, Cuomo sounded like a candidate for governor in his opening remarks, LaCerais said. She called his comments a campaign speech.

Hmm…

It’s hard to imagine that Cuomo would pass up an opportunity like this, no?

A poll for R42012 readers:

Regardless of how you may feel about Michael Steele or your loyalty to a specific candidate, please watch this video and let us know if Michael Steele is considering a run for President?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFOHz2_lLY[/youtube]

On the surface, it looks like the Obama administration may actually do the right thing, in regards to the spike in drug cartel violence on the Mexican border. From the defense professionals:

Turning to Mexico, Obama cited his administration’s decision today to send millions of dollars of additional U.S. equipment there to provide better surveillance to help the Mexican government in its fight against escalating violence perpetrated by the country’s drug cartels.

Additionally, the president said, hundreds of extra U.S. personnel will take up posts along the U.S.-Mexican border to control border checkpoints and manage customs issues.

Obama praised Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s efforts to corral the drug cartels.

President Calderon “has taken on an extraordinary difficult task in dealing with these drug cartels, that have gotten completely out of hand,” Obama said. Drug cartel-committed violence has spilled over into some U.S. communities located along the border with Mexico.

Meanwhile, the United States will continue to monitor the situation in Mexico, Obama said.

“And, so the steps that we’ve taken are designed to make sure that the border communities in the United States are protected,” Obama explained, “and you’re not seeing a spillover of violence and that we are helping the Mexican government deal with a very challenging situation.”

Also, as Mexican authorities work to stem the flow of drugs from their country into America, Obama said, U.S. officials must do more “to ensure that illegal guns and cash aren’t flowing back” from the United States to the drug cartels in Mexico.

The drug and weapons smuggling along our southern border is out of control, resulting in over 9,000 deaths in the last years.

From the CBS newswire, courtesy of the State Journal:

The U.S. Government is gearing up for a security blitz along the Mexico border

Mexico’s border towns have become battlegrounds between the government and drug cartels; not only is that violence spilling into the U.S. but the drug trade is rampant.

The Whitehouse now plans a big increase in the number of law enforcement agents and teams at the border, more intelligence analysts, more “ice” immigration and customs officers and more violent crime specialists.

They also plan more extensive dog and X-ray searches of traffic going in and out of Mexico, paying close attention to vehicles leaving the U.S.

Why focus on people leaving the U.S.?

Because 95 percent of the firearms used by Mexico’s drug cartels come from this side of the border. In the past two years, Mexico’s drug violence has killed more than 9-thousand people, including hundreds of police officers and public officials.

The plan is to have the extra security in place in 90 days; if more help is needed, they may send in the national guard.

The truth is that George Bush and our 2008 nominee, John McCain, had abysmal records on this issue. ABYSMAL. It’s time that something is done about this mess. It remains to be seen whether the Obama Administration means what they say. I don’t have much faith in them, but anything is better than what we’ve been doing the last eight years, in this regard.

We were both at the Verizon Center to see the dazzling Britney Spears concert:

And you all thought Washington wasn’t sexy: the office of ambitious young House Republican Whip Eric Cantor has confirmed to your Wonkette that instead of watching President Obama’s boring press conference last night like the rest of us dingbats, Cantor and a bipartisan group of legislators attended the Show Of The Century at downtown’s Verizon Center: a Britney Spears concert.

Cantor 2012! My question for Cantor: did you pay for a $100 seat like I did, or did you get the $700 “Toxic VIP Experience”?

UPDATE: Britney’s performance was based upon the current political climate, as far as I’m concerned.

“Womanizer” aka An Ode to Bill Clinton
“Oops, I Did It Again” aka An Ode to Joe Biden
“Toxic” aka An Ode to The Stimulus
“Gimme More” aka An Ode to the Companies Being Bailed Out
“Circus” aka An Ode to Washington, DC

I think Adam Brickley is on to something, but frankly why doesn’t Gregg run for the top job? He’s a former Governor of New Hampshire, and now a 3-term Senator. He’s pro-life, but has enough finesse/moderation on the issue (he favors the expanded embryonic stem-cell research), to avoid any so-con stereotyping (he’s against the Federal Marriage Amendment too). He’s not too bad on border security (better than McCain), but he’s far from a nativist. He’s basically a mildly more conservative version of McCain, except his conservative positions are actually rooted in philosophy and economic knowledge, whereas McCain’s were picked from a hat. Oh, and Obama wouldn’t be able to accuse him of not knowing how to address economic challenges. Sounds pretty good to me.  What say you, readers?  Anything here that looks like a disqualifier?  Oh, and two more questions.  If you’re a moderate or unorthodox conservative, does Gregg look more appealing than “base” conservatives like Romney and Palin?  If you’re a orthodox conservative, does Gregg look more appealing than moderates like Crist and Huntsman?  Have at it.

This will be published in my university paper, The Eagle, tomorrow.

—

Gosh, those “progressives” sure caught that mean old Tom Tancredo in a trap, didn’t they? A few weeks ago, the former congressman was brought to campus by the newly-launched right-wing group Youth for Western Civilization (full disclosure: I am media director for the organization) to give a speech on the importance of assimilation and the value of Western culture. He was met with a few hundred black-shirted juveniles holding up signs vapidly proclaiming that “America is Multicultural.” The pinnacle of the event for those “progressives” was when Tancredo fumbled around the question of “whether the Pilgrims should have assimilated with the Native Americans.”

It was the second question of the night with the implicit assumption that there was something exceptionally virtuous about Native American culture. But it’s highly ironic that liberals would be so enamored with Native Americans. By all accounts, they weren’t exactly “progressive”: gender roles were quite rigid and “inter-communal outreach” to other tribes wasn’t very high on the agenda. Cherokees were often slave-owners, subscribing to racist notions toward blacks that were indistinguishable from those held by the British. Moreover, Native Americans frequently fought wars for land.

The last point is the crux of the argument that Tancredo should have made: the British, in seizing land via arms from the Native Americans, more or less did assimilate to the Native Americans’ way of thinking. To paraphrase the esteemed Thomas Sowell: the Native Americans were probably very upset that they lost so many battles, but the idea that they had a problem with the ethos of seizing land through armed conquest is laughable. Contrary to liberal sentiment, Native American culture didn’t really resemble the movie Pocahontas.

Of course, Native American culture was not monolithic, but then, neither was British/American culture. The large-scale abandonment of the war-for-land ethos is a highly modern conception, and one that was fueled by — horror of horrors! — the West after the post-war restructuring of international relations.

Liberal love of 1700′s Native American culture is driven by nothing more than a weird fixation on a contrived, mangled version of “diversity.” But the whole push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” is really nothing more than the promotion of the concept that identity matters more than ideas. Liberal diversity consists of: white liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, straight liberals, rich liberals, poor liberals, female liberals, male liberals … (In a hilarious fit of irony, the leadership circle of Youth for Western Civilization includes a gay man, a Jewish man, a Hispanic woman, and a couple of international students.)

After the struggles of various oppressed groups conclude in victory, conservatives invariably come to treat them like normal members of society. Liberals still treat them as if they are living in a perpetual state of oppression — mostly because they have a stake in whether blacks, gays and Hispanics feel oppressed. If any of those communities ever got the crazy idea that individuals can succeed on their own merits or that Islamo-fascists aren’t too keen on gay rights or women’s rights, then there’d be little sense in voting for liberals.

The true agenda of the breed of “progressives” that protested Tancredo’s sensible speech is ultimately nothing more than mindlessly bashing America. The United States has been a trailblazer for women’s rights, gay rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities. These are classically liberal aims. Why has the modern left decided that bashing conservatives is more important than sticking up for them?

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

This subject should probably wait until at least the beginning of 2011, but I actually think there may be some news on the subject to report…maybe.

If you haven’t noticed, a certain soft-spoken Senator – who was largely unnoticed despite serving three terms – has suddenly rocketed to prominence as one the GOP’s most visible and effective voices against Obama’s spending spree. This new star has almost two decades of experience as both a Governor and Senator; he is widely known as one of the best economic minds in the Senate; and he enjoys universal respect on both sides of the aisle. Best of all, and he comes from a region of the country that the Republicans have desperately been trying to reach out to, and remains very popular there despite his conservatism. He will be 66 years old in 2012, putting him at the upper edge of VP viability – but that’s only one year older than Joe Biden was in 2008. So, I would think that most Presidential contenders would definitely put such a qualified and respected individual on their shortlists.

I’m speaking, of course, about Senator Judd Gregg of the Great State of New Hampshire – and now that I’m no longer trying to keep you in suspense, I can put forward his biggest selling point. This guy almost became Barack Obama’s Commerce Secretary, and now he’s one of the administration’s staunchest fiscal critics. He speaks as somebody who got to see the inner workings of the Obama machine and couldn’t stomach what he was looking at. He is more qualified than anyone to take the President to task, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t use him to his fullest potential. Furthermore, he could potentially swing New Hampshire back into the GOP column, and his pragmatic image would play well in many of the states we have been trying to target for years – places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Still, he’s more than conservative enough to keep the base in line. His calm, collected manner of speaking would also provide a phenomenal counterpoint to the hotheaded Joe Biden in a debate. – I can literally see him saying, “Joe, you and I have known each other for a long time – so can we please just calm down and have a civilized conversation?”

So, while I admit that we’re way too far out to really get into this stuff, I think we should definitely put Sen. Gregg on the list of leading VP contenders. He would probably work best with Palin in my opinion – as he balances her on experience, geographics, and personality. However, I could also see him being of use to Jindal and Huckabee were they to win the nomination, as he can expand the ticket’s appeal beyond the South and talk very compotently about banking issues. The only potential problem would be with Romney (who Gregg endorsed in 2008 and who I would expect him to endorse in 2012). Gregg’s soft-spokeness and grandfatherly appeal would definitely be a nice balance to Mitt’s slick, high-wattage personality. However, they are both financially-focussed New Englanders, so it wouldn’t be a terribly balanced ticket. Still, considering the Senator’s unique experience, I think that even a Romney-Gregg ticket would be worth considering. After all, Clinton and Bush 43 both got away with tickets that weren’t regionally balanced.

So, what do you all think? Should we officially put Judd Gregg on “Veep Watch”?

Ben Smith of Politico informs us that Tim Geithner has declared the U.S. “open” to the proposal from the governor of China’s central bank for a global currency to supplant the dollar:

“We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union,” he [Geithner] said.

Smith then adds:

President Obama flatly rejected the notion of a new global currency at last night’s press conference.

A global currency would reduce the economic power and influence of the United States.  With Putin first and now China suggesting a new currency, similar calls from world leaders may continue if Obama makes defecit-friendly budget proposals habit in the coming years.

The Obama administration, led by the frightening Peter Orszag, has appointed Paul Volcker head of a new task force to reform the tax code to minimize tax evasion.  The task force will study three main objectives:

“One is tax simplification, the second is closing tax loopholes and reducing tax evasion, and the third is reducing corporate welfare,” the director of the Office of Management and Budget told reporters.

Orszag said the Volcker panel would also examine offshore tax havens, a major agenda item for Obama and other Group of 20 leaders at a summit convening in London next week to address the global economic crisis.

“One of the key things that the Volcker board will be examining is ways of unifying, streamlining, making more consistent the various credits that are out there,” he said, citing the complex array of tax breaks now on offer.

Orszag pointed to a 2005 estimate by the Internal Revenue Service that the US tax gap — the difference between what companies and individuals owe and what they actually pay — exceeds 300 billion dollars a year.

“Three hundred billion dollars a year or more is a lot of money, and we are interested in being as aggressive as possible to reduce that number.”

…The task force will have two constraints: it cannot recommend any tax increases in 2009 or 2010, and it cannot call for taxes to be raised on families earning less than 250,000 dollars a year.

While I agree with “tax simplification” and “reducing corporate welfare”, the “constraints” imposed on the task force scare me.  The Obama administration has provided itself political padding by forbidding tax increases on families with annual incomes of less than $250,000, at the expense of pro-growth tax policy.  In the end, the task force will likely recommend hiking tax rates on “the wealthy” (families earning more than $250,000 a year, as Obama puts it) and implementing an initiative to tax profits earned overseas, similar to what the administration has already proposed.  Unfortunately, these measures will only stifle economic growth and job creation.

Finally, thanks to Aron Goldman for posting this link in a comment.  Newsmax reports that Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway offers some intriguing advice for the GOP:

Along with Hispanics, the Republican Party needs to appeal to unmarried women, small business owners, and Asian-Americans, Kellyanne Conway, one of the most respected Republican pollsters, tells Newsmax.

…“Hispanics are hardworking, church-going men and women who increasingly question the value of traditional public schooling and are hard-hit by out-of-control government spending,” Conway says.

…In 117 of the 435 congressional districts, a majority of households are headed by an unmarried individual, she says. About one-half of American women live in a home where no man is present.

While many unmarried women regard the U.S. government as welcome members of their family, they begin to become suspicious of the government when they start to “make money, start small businesses, and become part of he investment ownership classes in our country,” Conway observes. Thus, the GOP can appeal to unmarried women through fiscal issues.

“If the GOP wrongly presumes young women only care about abortion and the environment and waits for singles to marry, we’ll continue to lose elections,” Conway says.

…Asian-Americans should be a natural Republican constituency, she observes. While George H.W. Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton, he beat him among Asian-Americans by 24 percentage points, Conway notes. Similarly, while Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole, Dole beat him among Asian-Americans by about 5 points. Al Gore beat George W. Bush by 13 points among Asian-Americans.

More recently, that picture has changed. Obama won Asians over John McCain by 27 percentage points.

“The exodus of Asian-Americans away from the Republican Party has been precipitous and stupefying, outdone only by the inability of the GOP to reach out to them,” Conway says. “Asian-Americans, by and large, own small businesses, often cash-based businesses. Their children go to college as you and I drink water and coffee. Of all races, they have the highest income-per-household in the country — over $60,000. Along with Jewish-Americans, Asian-Americans are among the highest, proportionately, in having first-time intact marriages.”

On paper, Conway says, “Asian-Americans are completely conservative and Republican. But we’ve allowed the left to co-opt them by basically messaging them, saying, If you’re a minority, we’re with you. The Republican Party doesn’t care about you, would oppress you. Come with us.”

…Meanwhile, “Republicans, particularly conservatives, are making very good headway in terms of shocking the national conscience about some of the early economic policies being floated or engineered by the Obama administration,” Conway says. “They need to shock the conscience on some social issues.”

…“We all know what aggravates voters at the surface level — runaway spending, increased taxes, lack of accountability, pigs at the trough, pigs in the bedroom, all these ethical lapses,” Conway says. “But you know what also aggravates the public that gets very little attention? An inability to focus and to prioritize, especially given how apprehensive and impatient Americans are these days. “

Conway seems to have a point about the compatability of Asian-Americans with the GOP.  Add to that the fact that Asian-Americans earn high per-household incomes (good for fundraising) and attend college in large numbers (helps for winning back college-educated voters and many eventual suburanites), and it appears that the GOP would better help its cause by reaching out to this demographic instead of focusing so many resources on targeting African-Americans, one of the most reliably Democratic voting blocs.