Following up on MattC.’s post… this little piece of news went unnoticed last week

Apparently, from last week forward, terrorism does not exist in our nation’s vocabulary. From now on, acts like those of September 11 will be referred to as “man-caused disasters,” at least according to the Obama Administration’s Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

From Bret Baier at Fox News:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has an explanation about why she never mentioned the word “terrorism” during her first testimony on Capitol Hill.

Napolitano tells the German news site Spiegel Online that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: “I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

James Carafano, senior research fellow at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation says: “By deliberately trying not to use the T word they run a serious political risk. If something does happen, they’ll be accused of taking their eye off the ball and no amount of explanation after the fact will suffice.”

I don’t like to play the 9/11 card that often, as it should not be used lightly, but I guess this was not an act of terrorism, but a “man-caused disaster”:

Sen. Specter is in fairly serious jeopardy if Pat Toomey decides to follow through on his primary challenge:

2010 Pennsylvania Republican Senate Primary Poll

• Pat Toomey 41%
• Arlen Specter 27%

Specter Approval Rating

All voters: 45%-31%
Republicans: 29%-47%
Independents: 41%-35%

From March 19 – 23, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,056 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. The survey includes 423 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percentage points.

Millions of Americans have become unemployed or underemployed, especially in the financial industry, yet President Obama cannot seem to fill positions in his administration. 

Folks, this is no longer fodder for blogs and late night comedy, this is becoming a serious threat to our economy and bureaucracy.  We are at risk of entering a depression and key positions remain unfilled.

March 25 (Bloomberg) — Frank Brosens, a hedge fund manager who was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s choice to run the office overseeing the $700 billion bank bailout program, withdrew his name from consideration. 

McCain would have made his share of errors as President, but he would have had key positions in the administration filled, immediately.

–

Update:  President McCain would have fired Chairman Bernanke and our Treasury Secretary would have been Meg Whitman.

FOXNews and the Washington Post bring us this disturbing tidbit this morning:

The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department’s office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

Overseas Contingency Operation? Seriously? Could they have found a less-offensive, more vanilla way to cover up the nature of the threat the civilized Western world faces?

This is proof that Obama and his administration completely misunderstand the goal, actions, abilities, and potential of the terrorists. They just don’t get it. Overseas contingency operation. Contingency for what? Making contingency plans is something you do for a hurricane or a snowstorm. It’s what sports teams do when one of their star players gets injured. It is not how you deal with jihadists who have as their goal a global caliphate and will kill anyone standing in their way to achieve it.

Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan are fond of describing President Obama as a sort of liberal version of Ronald Reagan, that is, a transformational, charismatic leader who will not only change the conversation in American politics but who will reorganize the parties and the political spectrum to form a new center-left majority in this country. I have expressed skepticism about this claim in the past and that skepticism remains — Obama’s instincts are far too cautious and tepid to allow him to push for the kind of ideological sea change needed to shift the political goalposts in this country, and his Obama Republicans, unlike Reagan Democrats, are members of a personality cult and not particularly loyal to any specific ideas. If anything, the white collar, middle class Obama voters who used to vote Republican but crossed the aisle last year were hoping for a third Clinton term, not deficits of a trillion dollars a year as far as the eye can see. That’s because most people don’t follow politics religiously and the last six years of Bill Clinton, tempered by Newt Gingrich, created the illusion that the Democrats were the party of socially liberal pragmatic techno-libertarians, which is also what most urban and suburban secular white collar voters are. But I digress.

Unfortunately, Republicans’ inability to articulate a coherent rebuttal to President Obama’s policies — responding only with anger or boilerplate ideological talk in order not to offend a wounded, detached base — may be allowing the president to fall into this Reaganesque transformational role after all. If the president convinces Americans that putting the nation an additional trillion dollars in the red every year with no end in sight is good policy, he will have changed the conversation from the ’90s, when pretty much everyone agreed that balancing the government’s books was paramount. This will be effectively the same as Reagan convincing Americans that the top tax rate should come down to the 20s or 30s, not hover in the 60s or 70s.

Even the arguments are the same. Reagan convinced Americans that taxes were crippling America’s economic growth, and reducing them, even on — especially on — top earners was necessary to spur investment and rejuvenate the economy. Obama claims that massive government spending is needed in order to put in place a society in which sustainable economic growth is possible. In both cases, the future growth is supposed to pay for the debt. That didn’t happen the first time, of course, and I doubt it will happen this time.

But just as the unspoken yet underlying hope of Republicans in the ’80s was that the massive deficits caused by lower taxes would force government to shrink in order to live within its means (and thus give up a significant amount of control over our lives), what President Obama isn’t telling us is that because these deficits will be unsustainable, taxes will have to be raised at some point in order to keep things afloat. And we’re talking a massive tax increase here, probably on everyone, including the middle class. This is Reaganomics in reverse. The president is feeding the beast in order to make it grow to a size where it needs more and more food just to survive. It’s very clever. And it’s going to work unless Republicans can respond intelligently and effectively.

Where oh where is the leader that I yearn for: the socially modern techno-libertarian who can marry the best of Clintonism with the aspects of Republicanism that still make sense in order to rebut President Obama and elections in an increasingly secular, diverse nation?

John Zogby is the first to find this:

A March 20-23 Zogby Interactive survey shows 45% of likely voters believe the nation is headed in the right direction, a gain of five points from a similar survey completed on March 5. At the beginning of the year, only 14% held that positive view.

However, President Barack Obama’s ratings for job performance and favorability did not improve over earlier this month. In the most recent survey, 49% rate his job performance as excellent or good and 50% as fair or poor (less than 1% were not sure.) That is a dip of three points from the previous poll. The percentages who feel very or somewhat favorable toward Obama remained unchanged between the two polls, with 55% now and 56% in the previous poll.

Not so good this early in the game. At tonight’s press conference, it seemed as if the media has begun to finally get out of their trance from Mr. Obama and ask pointed questions. Many of those questions were answered with bobbled words, long winded responses, circular logic and dear-in-the-headlights glances. Note also, his continual reliance on the tele-prompter even for a short speech. Expect to see a continuing downward trend in his numbers as we move forward.

Tossing Obama A Softball

What was the reporter from Ebony magazine thinking during the Obama press conference?  We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, are increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan and the public is obsessed with the AIG bonus scandal, and yet Kevin Chappell of Ebony asked ‘President Obama to speak to the homeless people of America’?

Chuck Todd asked the President why he has not called upon Americans to sacrifice something specifically during this global economic recession.  Brilliant, Chuckie.  Did your feel a tingle up or down your leg when you stood up in front of your saviour?

Props to Ed Henry and Jake Tapper for holding our President accountable. 

A Liberal I Rarely Disagree With

I must admit, I rarely disagree with Daily Kos diarist, Elizabeth Ross.  Essentially, because she says nothing at all.  Markos must be getting a little desperate to fill page space in lieu of falling ad revenue.  Maybe Markos should re-activate that ‘consulting firm’?   

Yes, No, or fake an earpiece malfunction to save yourself?

I am not sure what is happening to Rep. Cantor, but someone please get him away from cable news (or at least MSNBC), until he hires a new media consultant.  I am a fan of Cantor, but we must locate a more forceful voice for the GOP.         

Fast forward to the 4:15 mark.   

Money trees are to be planted on the White House lawn

At a townhall meeting today in St. Cloud (apparently Matthew, Gary and Kavon were too busy to cover it), Vice President Biden and several cabinet secretaries outlined massive increases in education spending, 61 Billion in total.  

“The three areas we will concentrate on are a new focus on early childhood education, K-12, and over $32 billion into increased financial aid,” Duncan said. “We’re going to increase access, increase Pell grants, increase tuition tax cuts for the middle class, so that every hardworking child who wants to go on to higher education can do that.”          

Our media has now become so accepting of our government announcing spending programs in the hundreds of billions of dollars, they now virtually ignore new spending programs in the tens of billions of dollars.  Just last year, this type of spending initiative would have been a front page story.         

Well, I’ve got some good news and some bad news…First, for the good news, Jon Huntsman has signed into law three pieces of pro-life legislation:

The first measure, HB 90, that makes second-trimester abortions illegal and ups the penalty for doing an illegal later-term abortion to a second degree felony from a third degree felony.

HB 222 is a bill to allow women to know about the pain an abortion will cause to their unborn child.

The bill requires abortion practitioners to tell women about the pain their baby will feel during an abortion. The measure is another effort to help reduce abortions until the day comes that unborn children are protected under law.

The final bill, HB 114, would create a legal defense fund that private citizens could donate to in order to defend an abortion ban they expect to receive approval of by 2014.

Sponsoring lawmakers want to create a fund to raise money to be able to afford attorneys to defend the ban in court after it is approved in future years.The fund will be open for five years and if there is not enough money to defend the abortion ban after that period, the money will be used to support abortion alternatives.

In addition to the immediate benefit of protecting the unborn, these three bills add to Huntsman’s growing arsenal of accomplishments he can cite should he run in 2012 and stand to win him some points from the base.  While his embrace of cap-and-trade freightens me, Huntsman has impressed me over the past few months with his political savvy and ability to govern like a Conservative without antagonizing or irritating Democrats.  Even in scarlet-red Utah, an 80-plus approval rating says something.

Now for the bad…The Washington Posts reports:

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president’s Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration’s proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed’s other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG’s most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

And so Obama continues our march toward socialism.  Under the “too big to fail” guise, this proposal would allow the Obama administration to take control of a company and exert forceful and unconstitutional actions, like break existing contracts.  What is going on here?  For a former constitutional law professor, Obama shows blatant disregard for that document, the blueprint for the least-worst government in recorded history.  He has got to go, and we conservatives must lead the charge to replace him in 2012 and correct America’s course, away from nanny state, European socialism and toward limited-government, free-enterprise capitalism, liberty and prosperity.

Knepper is Correct: Palin Can Delivery Rudy

In his well written and honest Sarah Palin post, Alex Knepper hints at a possibility I have been considering for a long while.  Is Palin the only candidate that could deliver a moderate (albeit strict constructionist) Vice Presidential nominee, such as Rudy Giuliani, to the Republican ticket in 2012? 

Answer: Yes  

These are the reasons:

His age and standing with some pro-life voters:  His potential role as Vice President will never lead to a run for President (age), which was a major concern for many pro-life voters when the 71 year old McCain was hinting at a pro-choice running mate in 2008.  As well, Rudy does not have a poor standing with all Christian conservative voters.  His views on federal judges, the endorsements he received from pro-life leaders and his willingness to support the Republican party platform, makes Rudy a very unique pro-choice candidate. 

Rudy negates most of the attacks Palin will receive from liberals: Rudy’s shining success as mayor of New York, both from a crime prevention and economic standpoint and the heroism he displayed during the 9/11 attacks will counter-act the Democratic campaign against Palin, ‘that she is not ready for the job’.  Obama faced many of the same critiques in 2008, and his selection of Senator Biden silenced many of the ’not ready for the job’ detractors.  Obama will no doubt claim victory in Iraq, as well as a slew of other manufacturered foreign policy success during his first term.  Rudy is an elder statesman, with a proven record of handling a security crisis.  His consulting firm provides assistance, such as strategic security planning, to political jurisdictions around the world.  Rudy solidifies the pro-growth Republican base (he received the endorsement of the CFG in 2007), neoconservatives and suburban Catholics.   

Palin is the only candidate that can ‘sell’ a socially moderate VP:  Although I have been frustrated at the media’s focus on Palin’s faith and socially conservative views (she is actually more of a federalist), no Christian Conservative can doubt her dedication to the ’life’ issue.  Palin is the first and only major political figure that can actually say; ’I not only talk the talk, but I walk the walk on life issues’.  Palin practices what she preaches and in 2012, Palin will receive stronger support from Christian Conservatives than Bush did in 2000 and 2004.  Not unlike McCain, the other potential 2012 candidates would have to select a pro-life VP, but Sarah’s flexibility with Christian Conservative voters affords her one get-out-of-jail-free card.  I am betting she uses this ‘card’ this to select her VP nominee.  Do not forget, G.W. Bush polled Republicans prior to the convention, when he was leaning towards selecting Governor Ridge.    

Saying all that, a more conservative and federalist politician, such as Fred Thompson would also make an excellent running mate for Sarah Palin.

I have to admit a certain level of annoyance regarding the “Mitt Romney Called for Secret Timetables!!” controversy because, in my humble opinion, the whole argument contains about the same level of intellectual honesty as the “McCain Wants Troops in Iraq for 100 Years!!” meme.

The word “Timetables” had a very specific meaning when it was employed in the public debate over the Iraq War circa 2007. Back then, the term “Timetables” was assigned to the idea of setting specific dates for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground and the advice of our generals, and regardless of whether the war was won or lost.

This is the actual video of Gov. Romney’s statements that Alex wrote about just below this post. Tell me if you feel that Romney is calling for setting specific, secret dates for withdrawal of American troops regardless of the conditions on the ground in Iraq:



Of course, it is factually true that Mitt Romney said that he supported “timetables.” But it is clear from the video that Romney meant that the American and Iraqi Presidents should work closely together to set specific goals for victory and establish a time frame in which they hope to achieve it. This just sounds like common-sense to me. Why would a CiC not want to established a time-frame in which he hoped for his strategy to achieve success?

But let me ask you this… If Alex and I were, say, eating chicken fingers at a Perkins Restaurant and he loosened the top of the salt shaker while I was in the restroom, resulting in me pouring salt all over my lunch upon my return, and causing me to exclaim, “I am going to kill you Alex!”–would it factually true that I stated I would “Kill Alex”? Of course. But would anyone with a brain and the capacity for understanding the unsaid meaning behind my words believe that I really threatened to kill him? Of course not.

It is much the same with this “controversy.” There are many things that we can and should argue over when it comes to the foreign policy views of the 2012 Republican field. But in the interests of rational discourse, “Romney called for secret troop withdrawal timetables!!” should not be one of them.

A comment from my Palin thread:

[Romney] didn’t call for secret timetables for withdrawal but benchmarks that should be met by the Iraqis. Stop twisting words Alex, you’ve been called out on this more than once.

Yes, Virginia, Romney did call for secret timetables in Iraq:

Romney Embraces Private Iraq ‘Timetables’: Republican Presidential Contender Creates Some Distance From Bush War Policy:

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate who sits atop the GOP pack in fundraising, appears to have grown comfortable with talk of “timetables,” in addition to talk of “milestones,” when discussing U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The former Massachusetts governor is quick to note, however, that these timetables should be private and not published.

…

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

…

“But,” Romney said, “that’s not something you publish for the enemy to understand, because of course they could just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly.”

And here is Thesaurus.com’s list of synonyms for “privately,” in case you’re going to be difficult:

Synonyms: alone, between us, clandestinely, covertly, in confidence, secretly

We have a right to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Whether this was a bad idea or not is up for debate. But it is 100% fact that Romney called for secret timetables. Let’s not let this go down the memory hole.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Sarah Palin and I have a bit of a checkered history. I was promoting her for the vice-presidency in the early summer of 2008; later on, she was the cause of my being booted from this site. I sucked it up and voted for her on Election Day, but have been fairly merciless ever since. Over the past couple of days, I’ve been speaking about Sarah Palin with a few people, and my line has been the same: I am willing to give her a second chance, but I’m not holding my breath. So what do I really think of Sarah Palin right now? Well…

1. She’s Hard to Hate

Let’s be serious, here: even the most hardened Palin-bashers don’t have an easy time hating the woman. She’s very pretty, unflinchingly friendly, and just seems like she wants to give you some cookies that she just baked. And she was willing to say things during the McCain campaign that others wouldn’t say: yes, Obama really was palling around with terrorists. Yes, his ideas really are socialist in nature. Yes, the ideas behind liberalism are elitist in the worst sense of the word.

Her down-home attitude and pretty face act as both a blessing and a curse for her, of course: it made it easier for her to get ahead, but now that she’s the near the top, it’s become harder for her to be taken seriously. Still, her natural charm, if deployed effectively — rather than embarrassingly — can turn around the negative opinion that people have of her in a couple of months. The Sarah Palin that we saw on Larry Kudlow’s show in early 2008 is the Sarah Palin I want back. I want her to be as smooth talking about Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the evils of Hamas as she is when she’s talking about energy.

2. She’s Been a Fairly Competent Governor

I don’t really take much of an issue with how Palin has been governing thus far, but I’m not going to pretend that she’s had a very difficult time. Alaska’s quasi-socialist economy — CATO even excludes the state from its rankings — makes me excuse her $1,200 checks, and she’s been fantastic when it comes to budgeting, slashing earmarks, and promoting American energy production. It’s when discussing those issues that Sarah feels at home.

I was also pleased to see a bit of a pragmatic streak in the governor when she broke with the Religious Right in appointing a pro-choice judge to the Alaska Supreme Court, rather than someone willing to block her energy measures. Believe me: that did not go unnoticed by me. Her actual positions on abortion — and gay marriage — are horrific, but they don’t really matter except in the context of how people are going to respond to such backwards thinking. (She has implied that homosexuality is a choice, for instance.) Her statements on global warming have been baffling (we have to do something about it, regardless of the cause — huh? What if it’s natural? “Well, let me just get my weather machine!”).

Her record as mayor is a little spottier. Her major accomplishment was, well, a blunder: she pushed a sales tax increase that the people of Wasilla approved in order to build a new sports complex. The city is, to this day, still in debt because of eminent domain issues: Palin had not made sure that the land was acquired before the referendum was approved! It’s an embarrassing, shoddy example of governance that she has not explained away. Could I eventually overlook it if need be? Yes. But it’s not encouraging.

How she handles the next two years, with far lower oil prices, will be vital to whether I can come around to supporting her at all.

3. She Really Has No Idea What She’s Talking About When It Comes to Foreign Policy

Regardless of what you think that the Bush Doctrine is — and Professor Robert Kaufmann, author of “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” and Norman Podhoretz, neoconservative godfather who has written an essay called “Enter the Bush Doctrine,” seem to think that it has a clear definition — it certainly isn’t “…his worldview?” It certainly isn’t that we have the right to attack in the face of an imminent threat, as Palin implied in the Gibson interview.

Her pre-election statements that the war in Iraq may have been for oil and that an exit strategy was her priority when it comes to Iraq are hardly encouraging, either.

Additionally, someone more learned on foreign policy would have never let Joe Biden get away with some of the nonsense that he did during the vice-presidential debate in October. Hezbollah kicked out of Lebanon, eh? Really, now?

Does Palin even know the first thing about Hezbollah? Confidence hasn’t exactly been inspired in me, thus far, and I think all honest observers will state that we just need to wait and see if she “studies up,” so to speak.

4. She’s Still a Blank Slate In Many Ways

What does she really think about immigration? Tax reform? Trade? Iran? China? Russia? Venezuela? It’s hard to tell where her instincts are. One minute, she’s calling for us going into Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence — a more hawkish line than McCain took — and for admitting Georgia to NATO, and the next, she’s calling for a clear “exit strategy” (and we all know what that meant in 2006) in Iraq? Hmm…

And why is Paul Streitz, Buchananite, heading the Draft Sarah 2012 group in Connecticut? Is Palin secretly some kind of protectionist?

Who knows? Palin’s not showing her hand.

5. Her Advisers Will Tell Us a Lot About Her

There are going to be a lot of potential advisers floating around that Palin might do well to take. Rudy Giuliani’s and John McCain’s advisers — Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes — are people to watch, as well as former Bush Defense Department staffers and appointees. Will she pluck out thinkers from AEI, the Weekly Standard, Commentary? This will tell us what we need to know.

What Does She Need to Do to Win My Support?

1. Drop the culture war crap from McCain-Palin 2008: No more “It’s great to be here in the pro-America part of the country!” Was this Sarah Palin or was this Sarah Palin, McCain’s VP? Who was telling her to say what? We don’t know. This is a large part of why I’m willing to give her another chance. She doesn’t have a history of being a culture warrior, nor do her recent actions show that she’s remaining one, so we’ll see.

2. Put hawkish advisers on her team: Daniel Pipes and Robert Kagan sitting on Palin’s board of advisers might just earn her my support, given that the advisers of Huckabee and Romney are likely to stay the same. Neither of those two are very hawkish.

3. Study up! I need Palin to know her Hamas from her Hezbollah, be able to quote from the Hamas charter, articulately spell out why we support Israel, describe the threat from Islamofascism, and show that she’s committed to America’s defense. There’s a “Defense Candidate” vacuum right now. She can grab the wandering defense voters.

4. Stop acting like a ditz: no more Couric interviews, no more “the world doesn’t revolve around you, Katie,” no more “I read all newspapers” — chill out, girlfriend!

5. Put a Cheney/Biden-style vice-president on her ticket if she wins the nomination. Rudy Giuliani seems an obvious vice-presidential selection for Sarah Palin, quite honestly: beloved by hawks, known for his competence, is less divisive and abrasive on cultural issues than Palin. They make a nice contrast, but can come together on several of the most important issues.

And there you have it.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Maybe, according to Politics in Minnesota:

We’ve written in the past that seeking a third term is an uphill battle for GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty, no matter how popular he is after all is said and done with respect to solving our budget deficit crisis. In the last 50 years, the only two-term governor who tried was DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich in 1990 and he lost to GOPer Arne Carlson.

Nevertheless, we hear some Pawlenty advisors are making the case for Pawlenty to run. The thinking is that (1) there’s no clear GOP successor to Pawlenty and given his consistently good popularity rankings, he is best-suited to keep the office in GOP hands; (2) if Pawlenty is serious about running for President, he’s a much stronger contender if he’s a sitting governor, particularly since he’s not amassed a national donor or fan base like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin; and (3) 2010 is an “extraordinary” year for running for governor.

They go on to point out that turn-out has been low, in Minnesota, when the Gubernatorial race was the top race in the state.  Add to this a likely backlash against Democrats, and Pawlenty may have a strong chance of winning re-election.  I have at least a few problems with this.  First, it’s premised on the idea that Pawlenty will be running for a third-term, without ruling out the possibility of running for President in 2012.  That’s a hard enough challenge when you’re George Bush, in deep red Texas, sitting on a massive warchest: if you’re from blue Minnesota, and you’ve never raised more then 4.5 million for a campaign, it becomes considerably more difficult.  As I said in another thread, I have a hard time believing that Pawlenty could win a third-term without explicitly ruling out a 2012 run.

Also, it seems to me that 2010 is as likely to be anti-incumbent, as anti-Democrat.  The rise of Glenn Beck, the burn the bankers attitude, and the widespread public support for the unconstitutional AIG bonus-tax, all point to one phenomenon: the rise of a “throw the bums out” mentality.  In 2008, voters were sick of politics as usual so they voted for Obama: in 2010, voters may be sick of politics period, and vote for whoever doesn’t look like a politician.  Unless Pawlenty substantially changes his message, his light blue-collar populism won’t be enough to shed the politico label which inevitably attaches to incumbents.

Finally, I’m not sure I understand this “Pawlenty’s a stronger contender if he’s a sitting Governor” idea.  If he’s a sitting Governor, he’s liable to utterly tank his popularity in Minnesota when he’s on the campaign trail for 2 years.  Governors are not senators.  Voters want them to be around and doing their job.  A large part of Pawlenty’s appeal comes from his potential to carry Minnesota and parts of the mid-west, and that disappears if he’s catching flak at home.  All in all, I’m not sold.

H/t Tommy Boy

Kris,
In all fairness, I think we’re in uncharted territory when it comes to what will happen in 2011. In effect, the GOP is a party with no identity at the moment. With no leader, or true heir apparent, anything could happen when the next primary for the nomination begins. It may be that the defeat of 2008 will have soured the voters on the whole “next in line” process… hence the early support for potential candidates such as Bobby Jindal in some of the polls that have been posted.

On Alex’s post:

I’m taking a wait and see approach on whom I may consider supporting in 2011-12. I could concievably support any of them (though there are a few instances where I may draw the line). We’ll have to wait and see…

Governor Jindal was quick to post this on his Facebook…

I found the interview very insightful and interesting.  After reading it, I am sticking to the theory, that behind every smart man, is a smarter woman. 

Excerpts;

Your husband is the youngest governor in the history of Louisiana and he is the first non-white governor of Louisiana. Whether you like it or not, his name is being thrown around as a potential presidential candidate in 2012. Obviously my family and I know what it’s like to feel that pressure. But what is the pressure like for you two, given that people like me and other Republicans need a leader now?

Bobby’s focus always has been and should stay, and will stay, on Louisiana. That has to be his first priority and that is his first priority; making a difference here in Louisiana for families here in Louisiana. So all this talk is just talk going around. You know, we will see what happens but he is focused on his re-election here in Louisiana and making a difference in our state. 

It’s very flattering, it’s very nice, but I think the party as a whole and the country as a whole needs to focus on solutions right now and not focus on who the next candidate’s going to be. All of that needs to go by the wayside. We have dire problems going on in the country and we need to focus on that right now.

What?! (Meghan’s reaction upon hearing that Governor Jindal did not ’show’ on their first date)

Yeah, the waiter came with a note saying he wasn’t coming. And I was with my friends and had to tell them that this amazing guy that I just met wasn’t coming.

Where was he?

Working with the legislature, got a cold, didn’t feel well. Every version of an excuse you can think of. So, he invites me out on the third date and I tell him “no.” This goes on for about six months. He would call me, we would have nice conversations. He would ask me out and I would tell him “no.”

As you should have.

So he finally asks, “Are you ever going to go out with me?” I said, “Yeah, I’m just busy, you know”—my little shrug off. And he said, “When are you not going to be busy?” I said “in a month.” I was working on my master’s at the time and working nights and working crazy schedules. I won’t be free for a month. He says “a month” and takes out his calendar: “I want to book you in a month for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I want to book you for those three days.” So I said, “OK.” So that weekend, he calls and asks if we were still going out and I said, “I guess so.” So we went out and had a wonderful time. We were engaged about a month later, it was pretty quick.

How’d you know he was the one?

I think it was one of those things where we had a wonderful time when we were together but we also had a wonderful time talking during those six months with our phone conversations, getting to know each other and so when we finally were together it made it all right. It was good. It’s a crazy story.

WISHFUL THINKING ON POTENTIAL CANDIDATES

With respect to the very talented Mr. Dalke, who wrote this;

If Sanford decides to run and devotes himself to campaigning, a sizable war chest provided by these donors, coupled with a well-articulated message extolling the virtues of limited government and robust free-enterprise, could very well take the New Hampshire primary, which would put Sanford in a very strong position heading into his home state’s primary.

Governor Mark Sanford is not going to be the nominee in 2012.  Neither is Jindal, Crist, Gingrich, Johnson, Petraeus, Pawlenty, Thune, Barbour, Paul and probably Huntsman.

Republican party primary voters are the most predictable voters ON PLANET EARTH (including Greenland)!   Primary voters cast ballots based on simple criteria.  NAME RECOGNITION and/or the perceived runner-up/next in line.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush and McCain were all considered ’next in line’ and carried name recognition within the party hierarchy and at grass roots levels.  To borrow a line from an astute political observer, and friend of mine, “McCain spent 8 years pissing off the entire party and was still nominated!!!”.

There are only 4 realistic candidates for the 2012 nomination.  They include; Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.  All four can lay claim to the title, ‘Next in Line’ and all four carry heavy name recognition.

We all love to debate the possible scenarios (i.e. vote splitting) that could upset the natural course and determine a surprise pick for nominee, but that will just not happen.  Modern history has only proven one thing….Republican voters are not risk takers and they typically check the most recognizable name on the ballot.  Risk takers with low self-esteem, vote in Democratic primaries.

—

AN IOWA CAUCUS VICTORY IS USELESS TO ANY SERIOUS CONTENDER

The populist political glue-sniffer, Matthew Kilburn, posted a piece over at comMITTedtoromney on the importance of the Iowa caucus for Republican candidates (for Governor Romney).  Initially agreeing with the majority of Mitt supporters in his article, Matthew seemed to purposely ignore historical evidence and strategic thought by arguing in favor of Romney competing in Iowa, as if it were a political craps game.

For an early state, Iowa’s record is about as good as anyone could ask for – it votes for the eventual winner about 50% of the time, comparable to New Hampshire’s record, though not as good as South Carolina (this makes sense, since SC usually cast the tie-breaking vote. – it should be noted that, apparently, there are only two tickets to SC, one from IA and one from NH).

No Matthew, South Carolina is not the tie-breaker.  If you include the 2000 race (no contest) and previous Iowa caucuses that were ignored by large portions of the candidate field, Iowa has meant absolutely nothing in determining our nominee, and any qualified campaign manager would understand, the Republican caucus acts as a 4 year reunion/kegger for the media elite and pollsters.  Democrats care about Iowa, based in part because their primary calendar is different.  As for the Romney 2007-2008 campaign, if Mitt had skipped Iowa, he might have won New Hampshire.

A candidates decision on whether or not to enter the Iowa caucus cannot be played out like a game of spin the bottle, Matthew.  Iowa is a major strategic decision that could cost a candidate the nomination, along with tens of millions of dollars worth of donations and/or personal fortune.  Listen to the other Romney supporters…..it was and still is, a mistake for Mitt to enter that contest.  Since South Carolina is an uphill battle for Mitt, he must win the first primary, and win it big.  The fact that Romney (if his political instincts are as sharp as you claim they are), will skip Iowa in December 2011, will cause the media to downplay the election even more so and will prevent the eventual caucus winner from gathering any momentum.

SPEAKING OF MITT

Was anyone else impressed with how calm and polished Mitt Romney was on Larry King Live?  He actually looked comfortable and at ease with himself.  I watched the replay this weekend and I have to admit, Mitt seemed much more direct with his answers and he even softened his rhetoric when taking jabs at his opponents.  His answer on the exaggerated AIG scandal was impressive and should be a talking point for every Republican official.

One surprising mention that seemed to evade the blogging world, was when Mitt revealed that he speaks with John McCain on a regular basis.  Makes one think, doesn’t it?

Daniel McCarthy: “I Applaud” Unconstitutional Taxation

From the great abyss of Joseph McCarthy Republicanism, Daniel McCarthy, over at the American Conservative is celebrating the passing of the 90% corporate bonus tax.

Those are taxpayer dollars that these executives, many of whom are patently incompetent, are being given. The incentives created by the tax are all in the right direction: 1.) don’t continue to reward the bigwigs at AIG, Fannie, Freddie, etc.; 2.) don’t encourage talented people (if there are any) to stay with these zombie companies that already aren’t “viable” –it’s better that talented people go to companies that actually are viable; 3.) send a signal to other decrepit financial institutions that bailouts come with some personal pain (or at least deprivation of pleasure) for the receiver;

Since when do conservatives champion unconstitutional taxation, or any taxation for that matter?  I understand the entire anti-NAFTA, anti-China, pro-manufacturing rhetoric from the Buchananites, but how can Mr. McCarthy (Daniel, that is) actually consider himself a conservative and promote illegal legislation, written by leftists in Congress?

It seems as if The American Conservative is encouraging illegal practices within corporate America, arguing that they should turn their back on compensation agreements negotiated with their employees.  I thought the American Conservative was about promoting corporate honesty and loyalty to their domestic (legal) workers?

What Daniel and the media have failed to understand is that many of the bonus payouts go to middle-management and those in specialized fields, not just the Executive.  Many private financial institutions have divisions that have remained profitable and those employees who have met their performance targets are entitled to their merit increases and bonuses, based on the legally binding agreements they signed with their employers.  In fact, corporate America has extended bonus programs to hourly employees, through the implementation of attendance and productivity incentives.

Daniel McCarthy and The American Conservative should stick to the winning argument of opposing corporate welfare.  At least then we do not have to penalize American workers and their families because of mistakes made by the President Obama, the Federal Reserve and CEO’s.

I was tempted to just write “Mitt Romney” and post this, figuring it would result in 200 posts. However, I’ll do something else fun.

Divide the 2012 candidates into these groups like this (with my responses included):

First Choice: Rudy Giuliani or Jeb Bush, ideally, but of those who could conceivably run, Jon Huntsman.

Would Enthusiastically Support In the General: Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich

Would Unenthusiastically Support In the General: Haley Barbour, John Thune, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty

Would Grudgingly Support In the General: Potentially Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford, depending upon how they speak of foreign policy

Would Vote Third Party Over: Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson

Would Vote for Obama Over: Mike Huckabee

BONUS – VP Choice: Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Steelman, Bobby Jindal, the CEO of a successful company

Siena Poll

- Paterson’s Standing with Voters: from Bad to Worse

- 2/3 Prefer “Someone Else” in 2012; Gov Crushed by Cuomo, Giuliani

Paterson was viewed favorably by 29 percent of voters in the survey released today, the lowest since he took office a year ago. The rating is down from 40 percent in February, 54 percent in January and 63 percent in December.

“The speed of his falling numbers is staggering,” Steven Greenberg, spokesman for Siena’s New York poll, said in a statement. “The governor should be grateful he does not have to face the voters anytime soon.”

In a hypothetical 2010 Democratic primary, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo beats Paterson by 67 percent to 17 percent, compared with 53 percent to 27 percent last month. In a 2010 general election matchup, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani beat Paterson 56 percent to 33 percent, up from 51 percent to 36 percent last month. In December, Paterson led Giuliani 51 percent to 38 percent.

There was some bad news in this poll.

Cuomo leads Giuliani 51-41 percent, similar to last month’s 51-38 percent.

The Polish government has begun expressing public concerns about the Obama administration’s hand-wringing over the missile defense system planned for Central Europe:

Poland said on Sunday it hoped the new U.S. administration would not abandon plans to station a missile defence system on its territory.

President Barack Obama‘s administration is reviewing U.S. security policy, including the missile shield plan. This has prompted speculation he might shelve a project that has angered Moscow, with which Washington wants to mend ties.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said Poland had taken “something of a political risk” in signing an agreement with the Bush administration to host the system.

“When we started discussing this with the United States, the U.S. assured us they would persuade the Russians that it was purely defensive and it would be a non-controversial decision,” he told the annual Brussels Forum conference.

“We signed with the old administration; we patiently wait for the new administration, and we hope we don’t regret our trust in the United States,” he said, adding that Russia had continued to threaten to deploy missiles near Poland if the shield were deployed.

For someone so fascinated with establishing diplomatic talks with foreign nations, Obama has foolishly taken for granted the cooperation and goodwill of a former communist nation and current U.S.-supportive democracy.

Utah’s Deseret News reports that Jon Huntsman’s approval rating has risen to 84 percent after the just-completed 2009 general session:

Huntsman comes out of the 45-day Legislature with an 84 percent job approval rating, found pollster Dan Jones & Associates in a new survey for the Deseret News and KSL-TV…

…Historically, Huntsman has been loved by Utahns, with approval ratings above 80 percent.

While I have no assurances of the credibility or reliability of the poll source, this could provide Huntsman with more ammunition should he run in 2012.

Finally, David Weigel of the Washington Independent has written an article about the growing support for a Mark Sanford 2012 candidacy among deep-pocketed GOP donors and Ron Paulites:

Sanford’s public battle with the White House has won him support with a more important group of people: the Republicans who will pick their next standard-bearer in 2012. According to some big-money Republican donors, party strategists who worked on the 2008 campaign and activists who powered the quixotic presidential bid of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Sanford is emerging as the leader for the next Republican nomination.

“His profile has grown dramatically over the last month,” said Floyd Brown, a Republican strategist who lives in Washington state best-known for creating the 1988 “Willie Horton” ads against Michael Dukakis. “Amongst the activists who really matter, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in the South, there is a lot of positive talk about him. A lot of people asking, ‘What do you know about this guy?’”

…Below the radar, conservatives see in Sanford’s stimulus battle a pathbreaking political argument, one that has—better than the blunt unanimous vote against the stimulus in Congress—framed the argument in a way that conservatives can win.

“There’s unanimity among Republicans about what the party stands for after Bush,” said David Polyansky, the CEO of Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign who is launching a new political consulting firm with former Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins. “Even if the stimulus isn’t a defining issue two, three years from now, anyone who supports increasing taxes and increasing spending is going to have a hard time winning the next presidential nomination. So it’s helpful to be a governor articulating this conservative message and explaining why big spending is not the way to go.”

Much of Sanford’s potential support is tied up with the Club for Growth, the decade-old political PAC that has bundled millions of dollars to support fiscal conservatives over moderates. Sanford has one of the warmest relationships with the Club of any national politician. Chad Walldorf, who heads the South Carolina Club for Growth, briefly served as Sanford’s deputy chief of staff, and helped steer a campaign to beat anti-Sanford state legislators in the 2008 primaries.

But it’s the national donors who are boosting Sanford for 2012. John Bryan, a wealthy retiree in Lake Oswego, Oregon has given hundreds of thousands of dollars through the Club to support its candidates–$210,000 in the 2008 election cycle–and has supported Sanford for years because of his advocacy of school vouchers.

“I wrote off the Republican Party as a principled organization probably twenty years ago,” Bryan said. “George W. Bush was no conservative. He mouthed conservative principles but he didn’t govern on them. That’s what I’ve come to expect from Republicans.” Bryan was pessimistic about whether “a man of integrity” like Sanford could rise any further in the Republican Party. But if Sanford ran, he said he’d support him fully. Robert Levy, the chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors, who donated $95,000 to the Club for Growth in 2008, called Sanford “principled, intellectually honest and right on the issues.” Other donors talked in the same way, of Sanford as a dream candidate whom they were happy to see the rest of the conservative movement keying in to.

If Sanford decides to run and devotes himself to campaigning, a sizable war chest provided by these donors, coupled with a well-articulated message extolling the virtues of limited government and robust free-enterprise, could very well take the New Hampshire primary, which would put Sanford in a very strong position heading into his home state’s primary.

First off, a “Happy Birthday” to both Alex and Jason from the entire R4’12 community. Many happy returns to you both!

Secondly, I would like to thank everyone who helped me out on yesterday’s “Race42012 Has the Smartest Readers Out There” thread. Particularly Adam, James Boulder, corep, mac, Sampo, Ohio Republican, fed-nad, Illinoisguy, and Joel.

Now, I promised that whoever would help me find the correct answer would be awarded the “Smartest Commenter on Race42012 Award” on the frontpage. So without further ado, the award goes to both Doug Forrester and Nate who did advise me of the correct answer.

Congrats to both Doug and Nate, and thanks again to everyone for all of their help.

The Dawn of Blue Dawg Democrat Power?

Cockstradamus, Gamecock’s erstwhile prognosticating alter ego, read the usually eternal optimist DeVine’s Winter of Discontent survives Vernal Equinox gloom and doom entry over the weekend and immediately ended Sabbatical II in Cancun to crow at the Dawn of Reality Bites meets Huckleberry Hound, and a few I told you so’s given that PBS and the History Channel still prefer Medieval Nostradami.

Last year, before the optimistic cocknosticator’s Sabbatical I was necessitated by fairness due to his call for an end to pessimistic, self-defeating conservative polls and predictions as Election Day approached, the poultry oracle was ridiculed for suggesting that the global warming religion was on the $4/gallon gasoline fast track to becoming a national joke and that even Democratic Party majorities would not be able to enact carbon taxes or cap and trade legislation.

Soon after his New Year’s Eve predictions for 2009, Cockstradamus launched Sabbatical II in the safer for chickens environment south of the border (USA eats less beef during recessions and Mexican poultry workers dominate US factories), yours truly suggested, to some conservative scorn, that the reality of the worsening recession would make it possible, not only to re-brand the GOP apart from failed liberal policies in time for massive gains in 2010, to actually prevent portions of the Obama agenda from being enacted into law.

Reality’s first bites into that agenda over the weekend was much like that of pooches into Postmen, with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in the role of mail carriers:

Senate Democrats forced Barack Obama to choose between two break-the-bank policies for this year. The White House apparently surrendered on cap-and-trade in order to get started on a massive overhaul of the nation’s health-care delivery system.

Obama thinks he can get a few moderate Republicans to go along on health care reform, probably more than just the Porkulus 3, if he steers a centrist course. Cap-and-trade has problems even among Democrats, especially in the Rust Belt and in coal-producing areas, and its impact on the economy makes it a non-starter in this session of Congress.

Even the health-care effort will get curtailed, likely as a result of the massive government spending already undertaken by Democrats this year. Instead of moving forward with a comprehensive plan to socialize the health sector, Obama wants to work around the edges this year. Obama has apparently learned that lesson from Hillary Clinton’s abortive attempt to nationalize the health sector in 1993-4.

That may put off the rest of his reforms until 2011, though. Obama will not want to impose a nationalized system in an election year, especially if he’s performing as badly then as he has in the last two months. Republicans are already licking their chops for the midterms, and a major socialist initiative will be exactly what they need to compete for control of the House. That probably pushes cap-and-trade to 2011, too.

It is instructive that the realization by Generation X, defined by the 1994 film Reality Bites, that their generation’s present and future prosperity is under the greatest threat from failed liberal policies, has driven many of their democratic party congressmen and congresswomen to take huge bites out of the Obama agenda so early.

Yes, in his first 60 days he ended welfare reform as we know it; mortgaged the future to the tune of a $750B non-stimulus bill; $450B omnibus pork bill; crashed the stock market by 25% by demonizing capitalists; and insulted Britain and France.

But the overreach is now obvious, especially given the other signs of Dawn and the realities causing the light to shine on the disaster Obama’s agenda would portend:

The reality that Obama’s budget would explode the deficit from a Bush worse $400B to a whopping $1.8 TRILLION.

That in less than three weeks after the rushed passage of the Stimulus Bill, Democrats have been bitten by unread except by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Amendment protecting AIG bonuses, prompting fears of being shot by future smoking guns in the Massive Budget.

Obama indicates opposition to 90% Bill of Attainder tax on AIG and some innocent bystanders given reality that they need private partners that wouldn’t want pre-nups thrown out.

Federal Reserve, unhappy with the non-stimulus bill, desperately prints a trillion dollars last week to try and save America from a lazy, incompetent Obama Treasury.

Generic congressional preference poll numbers show the GOP leads the Democrats for the first time in years

Four weeks ago, it was conventional wisdom that Obama would get his cap and trade and socialized medicine containing budget within weeks. Now, cap and trade is dead and health care reform goals are delayed and scaled back.

Evan Bayh formed a gang of more than ten democrat senators to oppose cap and trade. You don’t have to be a blue dawg to eschew higher gas, oil, heating costs and the bankrupting of the coal industry. Blue Dawg dems in the house are flexing their muscle as well, armed with CBO budget estimates that predict the bankrupting of America.

Obama hoped to put off the trillion dollar remedies for what ails the housing and credit markets so he could rush through his vague “fundamental change” campaign promises that turn out to be a European style government directed economy with a glass ceiling on prosperity.

Reality bit last week and global warming in general, much less the man breathing variety became a joke (poll confirmed by the poll obsessed) sometime between Day 46 and Day 47 of the most ground days covered by snow winter just passed.

Even CBS News is spewing less fog for Foghorn Leghorn to translate, as Steve Kroft accuses the President of being punch drunk on 60 Minutes.

At that moment on Sunday night, Sabbatical II ended for Cockstradamus; Foghorn Leghorn announced Kroft’s failure to ask Obama about signing the AIG bonuses into law and left for Cancun to use up the rest of the pre-paid previous hotel site of the Sabbatical and Huckleberry Hound went back into syndication for the first time since The Great Communicator reasoned with Huck’s Boll Weevil cousins to save American capitalism in the 70s and defeat an evil empire.

Reality based conservatism wins every time it is contrasted with failed liberal policies. Been a long time since Americans got the 1970s-80s lesson of contrasts.

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

GOPUSA.com conducted an extensive poll of Republicans, focusing on everything from policy positions to a hypothetical 2012 candidate field.  The entire poll can be viewed here:

What is evident in the polling is that Republicans are pessimistic about their future, but oppose President Obama’s policies.

The survey shows what has happened as a result of turning away from core Republican beliefs. Conservatives still believe in those principles, but they don’t have faith right now in the party’s ability to carry through on those principles. When 27% of respondents feel that earmarks would not be a good issue because Republicans would look like hypocrites, then something is definitely wrong.  

–

Question 16 — Who is the future leader of the Republican Party? 

• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — 2%
• GOPUSA President Bobby Eberle — 4%
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — 17%
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — 10%
• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal —-%
• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — 20%
• Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — 19%
• South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford — 6%
• Other  — 8%

Question 15 — Who is the current leader of the Republican Party? 

• RNC Chairman Michael Steele — 37%
• House Republican Leader John Boehner — 2%
• Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell — 1%
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — 3%
• Radio Host Rush Limbaugh — 4%
• The Republican Party has no leader — 51%
• Other — 2%

Question 17 — What do you think is the most important domestic issue facing America today? 

• 2nd Amendment Issues — 5%
• Abortion — 5%
• Border Security/Immigration — 12%
• Deficit/National Debt — 7%
• Drug Trafficking — 0%
• Economy — 8%
• Education — 0%
• Energy Policy — 1%
• Environment — 0%
• Gay Marriage — 1%
• Government Corruption — 9%
• Government Spending — 12%
• Housing — 0%
• Health Care — 0%
• Inflation — 0%
• Judicial Reform — 0%
• Moral Decline — 7%
• Privacy — 0%
• Private Property Rights — 0%
• Social Security Reform — 0%
• Socialism — 24%
• Tax Policy — 2%
• Other — 6%

Question 13 — What are your feelings about Republican prospects for success in the 2010 elections? 

• Very confident — 8%
• Somewhat confident — 30%
• Somewhat worried — 26%
• Very worried — 30%
• Not sure — 6% 

Question 3 — Please choose the response which best describes how the recent events in Washington have affected you as a Republican. 

• I am motivated to help the Republican Party win back seats in 2010 because they have a better agenda than the Democrats — 24%
• I am motivated to help the Republican Party win back seats in 2010 because the Democrats are worse than the Republicans — 38%
• I am more discouraged than ever with the Republican Party and not likely to help Republicans in 2010 — 25%
• I am through with politics — 2%
• Not sure — 10%

Happy Birthday, Jason Bonham.

–

Update #1:

Happy 19th Birthday, Alex Knepper.

Cartoon courtesy of GetLiberty.org.

Okay, raise your hand if you remember last year’s brouhaha regarding Sarah Palin charging the state of Alaska $17,000 in per diem so that she could live in her Wasilla home while the governor’s mansion underwent renovations. I’m guessing that most of your hands went up (or would have, if we were actually in a room together). Well, one of the main people pushing that story was then-State Senator Kim Elton – who has since received a cushy presidential appointment as the Department of the Interior’s Director of Alaska Affairs. However, it now appears that Sen. Elton was himself charging the state even more in per diem. Not only that, it appears that unlike Palin – who was actually billling the state for legitimate expenses – Elton seems to have been abusing the process.

I have a source in Alaska who did some digging through the “Alaska Legislature 2008 Salary and Business Expense Report” – put out by the state’s Legislative Affairs Agency – and it’s truly amazing what was going on. According to my source, Elton charged the state a grand total of $20,681.25 in per diem for the year 2008 – several thousand dollars more than Gov. Palin. That comes out to $122.25 per day through the normal legislative session between January 15 and April 15. Then he charged $160.50 per day for two of the year’s four special sessions (30 days each). So, just on these facts alone, the man is far more “guilty” than the Governor when it comes to per diem.

But then again, travel and lodging costs a lot for legislators in Alaska. It’s a big state, and legislators from far-flung corners of the Great White North have to move to the remote capital of Juneau for the 90-day legislative session. So, for the most part, it is acceptable for these people to collect per diem for their services. It must have been horribly expensive for Sen. Elton, considering that he represents a town of only a few thousand people that is accessible only by boat. It must have cost an arm and a leg for him to get to work from his home town of Juneau!

Yes, you read that correctly. While he was ragging on Sarah Palin for expensing her commutes to Wasilla, Kim Elton was ripping off thousands of dollars from the State of Alaska. While what he did it perfectly legal, I fail to see why he needed more than $20,000 in food and lodging expenses to pay for the quick drive from his house to the Capitol Building. I might also add that, while I only have numbers from last year, Elton charged per diem every year during his decade in the State Senate. Palin, on the other hand, actually charged far less per diem than the previous two governors, who billed the state to live in hotels and rent apartments in Anchorage.

Now, this might seem like a regional story, but in this case, Palin’s per diem became a national issue. So, if Kim Elton wanted to ensure that the world found out all about Sarah Palin’s use of state funds, then it’s only fair that we examine Elton’s own use (and abuse) of said funds– especially since the man seems to have been handsomely rewarded for his efforts against Gov. Palin (he was head of the Legislative Council that “handled” the “Troopergate” mess). Then again, his new job may also be due to his close relationship with Pete Rouse – a former co-worker who served as chief of staff to a young senator named Barack Obama.

People who live in glass houses….

Mark Sanford drew the battle lines with the political left over the issue of fiscal responsibility.  No doubt, this will be the battle cry for the Republican party for at least the next two years, and expect the 2010 mid-term elections to be fought over spending, taxes and deficits. 

The facts behind the first shots taken in the political war between the new administration and minority Republican party are a little murky, so I decided to spend my evening reviewing the facts, principles and rhetoric that surrounded those initial shots taken in the battle over the future of the US economy. 

The Obama political machine (through the release of political ads and a smear campaign) has been portraying Governor Sanford as the Gavrilo Princip of the economic recovery plan, but after reviewing the facts, it appears as if Governor Sanford is the American taxpayers Paul Revere.

Governor Sanford warned the American taxpayer that the Obama administration was adopting the same economic theories as Robert Mugabe’s regime.  This brought a flurry of attacks from the political left including this memorable line from the Stalinist from South Carolina’s 6th district. 

“Sounds like he’s playing the race card,” said Clyburn, “[W]hy would he compare this country to Zimbabwe? Is he comparing this president to Mugabe? What is this about? It’s very strange to me.”

Governor Sanford’s Zimbabwe reference was more than just political flare.  The Governor was warning us that socialist economic policy and hasty/reactionary decisions will result in serious legislative errors and long-term harm to the US economy. 

Hasty Decisions

Immediately, Sanford was proven correct.  Ignoring Republican calls to slow down the drafting and voting on the February stimulus bill, President Obama and the Democratic leadership rushed through a bill that left open a loophole that paved the way for executive bonus’s and golden parachutes at AIG.  Since the initial reports of the bonus payouts, our political establishment has been paralyzed, trying to fend off public and media reaction and drafting unconstitutional legislation to win back the hearts and minds of middle-America.    

Even more disturbing, public, political and media focus has shifted from the current economic crisis and on to the AIG scandal and the players who purpetrated this fraud, such as Senator Dodd, President Obama, Tim Geitner and AIG Management and their families.  Sanford is much too classy for an ‘I told you so’, so our political establishment must take Governor Sanford’s lead and refocus the attention of the media and the public on resolving the financial crisis in our banking sector.   

Ignoring Lessons Learned

In the late 1980′s Africa’s bread-basket began first on a path of Keynesian, then extreme socialist economic policy.  The Government in Harare began to take over private corporations, introduce the minimum wage, adopt protectionist trade practices, drastically increase the public sector workforce, triple spending on health care and education and artificially capped interest rates (sound familiar?) 

The results that followed turned one of the most prosperous African nations in to a country in economic collapse.  Once a net exporter of food, Zimbabwe now relies on food aid to feed its citizens.  As the deficit increased (subsidies to publicly held companies and spending on social programs) the Government turned to higher taxes to off-set revenue.  This high tax regime, combined with unfavorable labor practices and the new policy of printing currency on demand, pushed the entrepreneurial class out of the country.  Many middle and upper class Zimbabweans either fled the country or moved their capital to more pro-investor jurisdictions.  Not only did the national debt increase to unmanageable levels, but unemployment in Zimbabwe significantly increased. 

As Governor Sanford pointed out, why would the Obama administration adopt the exact same economic policies of President Robert Mugabe?  Zimbabwe has shown us that the last thing a recession hit economy should do is increase spending on social programs, increases taxes, take-over private enterprise, discourage trade and strengthen unions?  This weekend, the full extent of the Obama administrations willingness to embrace Keynesian economics was announced.  The Fed is going to print an additional trillion dollars to buy ‘bad assets’ from private banks.  Econocon blog goddess Megan McArdle explains:        

So as Bernanke once promised/threatened he might, the Fed is turning to on quantitative easing.  The markets don’t seem to like it much, and why would they?  It’s like when your grammar school started having Fallout Drills.  On the one hand, it’s nice that they’re planning, but on the other hand . . . why bother finishing that math homework?  What do they know that we don’t?

The dollar is down, of course, since this means that there will be a lot more of them in circulation, making each individual dollar less valuable.  The stock market is also depressed.  The gold bugs are laughing all the way to the bank.

Not only has Obama not learned from Mugabe’s mistakes, but Mugabe has not learned from his own mistakes.  This was Mugabe’s response in July 2007 when asked how we will fund his large infrastucture projects.

“Where money for projects has not been found, we will print it,”

Both Mugabe and Obama believe that the solution to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to build bridges using public money.

Creating a Political Enemy to Distract Voters 

The most damgerous elements of Mugabe-Obama economic policy is not their pro-labor, high-tax, currency devaluing, record deficit spending legislation, but their choice to single out the wealthy and business class as enemies of the state.  Mugabe’s attacks on Zimbabwe’s entrepreuerial class are well documented, but it is clear that the Obama administration is already looking to distract voters from his failed economic policies by pointing blame to the most successful and entrepreneurial class in our society. 

As reported by the New York Times, on January 29th:

President Barack Obama branded Wall Street bankers “shameful” today for giving themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation’s most prominent financial institutions.

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,” Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

Just this week, Obama and the Democratic leadership have been threatening to publicly expose those who received bonuses from AIG, even though they were the power brokers who allowed for the executive compensation loophole in the legislation.    

Of course, Mugabe mastered the art of political distraction, by mobilizing the poor and disgruntled to attack the business class.  Although the economy of Zimbabwe will never recover, Mugabe was successful in retaining his political power and that is all President Obama is worried about.  You can only be classified as a successful President if you are re-elected.    

Like Mugabe, the Obama political team will not hesitate to brand conservatives and business owners as racists, enemies of the state, thieves and destructive to our economy.  They will continue to develop artificial anger from the working class to deflect criticism from their own failed policies.  I will not go as far to say that CEO’s will have their properties seized and families murdered, but how far away are we from Zimbabwe when just three months in to his administration, Obama and his populist friends are passing legislation to tax specific individuals at rates of 90% and assisting citizens to send treats to AIG Managers, by publicly releasing their names?

Like Morgan Tsvangiraim (a political hero of mine) who has exposed and opposed President Mugabe, Mark Sanford can continue to expect to be on the wrong end of the political billy club for as long as he confronts the Obama administration on these failed policies.

Paul Revere may not be warning us that the Red Coats are coming, but certainly the same tax and spend policies and accompanying intimidation already has.  

As calls for Tim Geithner to resign grow louder (see here, here, here, here, here, and here, among other places), a new Rasmussen poll shows just how much Americans dislike the job he’s doing.

According to Scott, Geithner’s job approval rating is a dismal -20 at 24/44, with the rest undecided.

And yet Obama keeps on making his “heckuva job, Brownie!” statements all over the place. This can’t last for long. There’s an Intrade contract on whether or not Geithner will resign by December, and in the last three days the value has shot up from around 22 to 41.

So I’d like to sponsor another R4’12 prediction contest: what day will Geithner resign/be fired from his position (or will he)? The winner gets front page kudos and a $50 prize (minus $50 shipping and handling fees).

In honor of our dear leader and his video message to Iran, I too would like to post a video to Iran, via Aryamehr, one that reminds them of what their lives were like prior to Ayatollah Khomeini, the Mullahs, and the appeasement of President Jimmy Carter.

It’s no longer just Republicans speaking out against Tim Geithner and his handling of the economic crisis.  From the heart of Obamamania comes harsh critiques from the left, first from Paul Krugman, then Frank Rich in a piece titled Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?, and now even Markos. Leave it to Kos to essentially ruin Geithner for all-time in the eyes of liberals with this tweet:

Geithner is starting to look like Obama’s Rumsfeld.

Ouch.  Getting compared to Rummy and Brownie from the LEFT. Unfortunately, it is likely to get even worse before Obama shows a little mercy and fires Tim Geithner.

I have a very unusual request of the Race42012 Community…

Is there anyone out there that can help me with the following physics problem? The question is as follows:

A space craft passes your planetary base going half the speed of light. Using special equipment, you transfer exactly enough momentum to that spacecraft to double its forward momentum. How fast is it going now?

I am starting off with P = momentum; m=mass;  v= velocity; c = 299792458 (speed of light). The formula for calculating momentum is P=mv over the relativistic factor which is the square root of 1-(v/c) quantity squared.

The person who posts the correct method of solving the above  problem wins the “Smartest Commenter” award and a front-page mention.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!

From WorldNetDaily.com:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich plans to launch a new outreach to Christians and religious conservatives, because Washington’s bureaucracy just doesn’t “get it,” he said in an interview.

Gingrich told Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News his organization, called Renewing American Leadership, has some of the nation’s top Christian activists on its board.

Gingrich said he’s been affected personally by the changes in America society; specifically the attacks on established Christianity and its traditions.

Read the rest of the article for more information. Sounds like some pre-run planning to me.