The Wall Street Journal says that six senators who have previously indicated support for card check are now showing signs of wavering, in varying degrees. Four are named in the article: Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Arlen Specter.

Lincoln makes the strongest statement: “”I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that’s my No. 1 priority,” she said. The legislation, she said, would be “divisive and we don’t need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important.” The others quoted say things more along the lines of “I’m rethinking things.”

The article notes that Lincoln and Specter may be influenced in their thinking by electoral considerations.

Conn. Group Files to Back Palin for President

A Connecticut group says it is the first in the nation to register to raise money to draft Sarah Palin for president.  Paul Streitz of Darien says the Federal Election Commission has confirmed the “2012 Draft Sarah Committee” is the first to file papers.

–

Governor Palin’s Address to the 2009 Special Olympics in Boise, Idaho

–

Palin Appoints Pro-choice Judge

So, of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes. Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she is back to being who she is.

–

Palin email Hacker Faces Additional Charges

David Kernell, accused of stealing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s password and posting her e-mail during the presidential campaign, faces new federal charges. The added counts came after records were deleted from Kernell’s laptop. The University of Tennessee student has pleaded not guilty in the Palin case and faces up to 20 years in jail.

In another shocker out of the Northeast, Public Policy Polling has released a poll showing Congressman Mike Castle trouncing state Attorney General Beau Biden in a hypothetical 2010 match-up:

Public Policy Polling (D) 2010 Delaware Senate Poll

• Mike Castle (R) 44%
• Beau Biden (D) 36%

Conducted 3/5-8/09; 782 registered voters, 3.5% margin of error.

Too bad this match-up will remain a hypothetical as it is highly unlikely that Castle will run.

Hat-tip: Tommy Boy

SHOCKER: Connecticut’s Dodd Tied With Simmons, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds

In an early sign that the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections may appear to be a repeat of the 1994 mid-term elections, a new poll from Quinnipiac shows Senator Dodd’s approval rating dropping as fast as the Dow.

In an early look at the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, Democratic incumbent Christopher Dodd gets just 42 percent to 43 percent for former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, a possible Republican challenger, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Dodd gets a split 46 – 45 percent favorability.

“These numbers have to worry Sen. Christopher Dodd. Former Congressman Simmons is not well known outside his district, yet he is running neck and neck with Dodd at this point,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.

In striking similarity to many of the 1994 Senate and Congressional races, male voters and independents learn heavily towards Republican candidates and based on comparisons with 2008 exit polls, a growing percentage of male voters who cast ballots for CT Democrat candidates last year, are now leaning Republican.     

Another shocking statistic from the Quinnipiac poll suggests CT voters are rejecting liberal economic policy. 

Connecticut does not need a tax increase to balance the budget, voters say 63 – 32 percent. Democrats say no new taxes 51 – 43 percent, joining Republicans at 79 – 19 percent and independent voters at 66 – 28 percent. Voters oppose tolls on state highways 61 – 35 percent. Opposition crosses all party lines and ranges from 50 – 45 percent opposed in Litchfield County to 73 – 23 percent opposed in Fairfield County.

I’ll take the good news were I can get it. Politico reports:

North Carolina congressman Heath Shuler (D) will not be running for the Senate, leaving Democrats currently without a challenger to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), according to local media reports.

“I can confirm that Congressman Shuler has officially stated he will not seek a Senate seat in 2010,” Shuler’s spokesman Andrew Whalen told the Asheville Citizen-Times.

Shuler was viewed as one of the Democrats’ leading recruits, given his conservative pedigree and ability to win a Republican-leaning district in western North Carolina. Shuler had nearly $1 million in his campaign account at the end of the year.

The party’s leading recruit is the state’s Attorney General Roy Cooper, best known for his handling of the Duke lacrosse scandal.

The chance of Democrats capturing Burr’s Senate seat just dropped by a ton and a half.

(Don’t know what this is about? Click here.)

First of all, regarding the whining about the need for a “new direction” in the Republican Party, George Neumayr has a fascinating article over at the Weekly Standard:

Did the Democrats achieve majority status by pitching a “Big Tent,” by thinking happy thoughts about their opponents’ policies, by turning over their rostrums to pro-lifers and tax-cutters? No, they achieved it by keeping their tent tight while maliciously counseling Republicans to erect a circus tent of willy-nilly inclusion and ideological irregularity.

Democratic leaders would send pro-life Bob Casey Sr. home from their conventions without a turn at the podium, then pop up a few weeks later on CNN to urge Republicans to keep the welcome mat out for gestating defectors like Jim Jeffords.

That tattered Big Tent now flaps pathetically in the wilderness of political defeat and out of it crawls its wounded confederacy of country-club dunces. Have they learned anything? Not much. Wowed by Obama’s popularity, they reflexively resume the me-too PC platitudes of “compassionate conservatism” and engage in what amounts to a big-government bidding war for the affection of the American people. Bad federal program A versus bad federal program B — that’s the debate between the parties at this point.

If victory is the Big Tent Republicans’ goal, why don’t they join the Democrats in calling for a one-party state? That way they could win every time.

The purpose of politics in a civilization is not simply to win but to win on sound principles. Otherwise, what’s the point? A party that seeks to win by discarding sound principles will have no wisdom left with which to govern once it does. And that’s how the Republicans got into this mess.

The Democrats win on their unsound principles, but at least they grasp the concept of winning as more than mere victory. They win office and implement their platform unapologetically; Republicans win office and timidly nibble theirs apart.

Do the Democrats have any hesitancy about rooting for the failure of Republican polices? Never. They will even root for failure in Republican-led military campaigns, as with Reagan and Bush, if victory threatens the perceived good of their party and the transcendent “parity” they think should prevail in the world.

Meanwhile, Republicans, suffering from a deep, largely media-induced inferiority complex, find “attractive” candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger who end up advancing Democratic policies better than the Democrats themselves. The pointlessness of the California Recall cannot be overstated. That “Republican victory” sealed California as a de facto one-party state — a microcosm of what could happen to the GOP nationally if it maintains the Big Tent model.

Republican leaders should either pull the Big Tent down and start taking their platform seriously, not just on one issue or two issues but on every issue, or they should just get out of politics and stop wasting people’s time and money. At this moment in American history, “bipartisanship” is just another complacent name for tyranny.

Really, this in a nutshell is what goes on with a lot of folks on this site. If you’re all about victory and don’t care about principles or the Republican platform, why are you Republicans? If you want to be winners, why not the Democrats and the Obama triumphalism?

If principle is removed, politics becomes little more than tribalism and our two party system, removed from principal is irrational tribalism equal to the irrationality of Seuss’ Butter Battle Book and his sneeches.

While, one could argue with Neumayr’s assertion that the Democrats have not used a big tent approach, there truly conservative choices have been tokens as evidenced by only seven Democrats opposing the Stimulus and not a single Senate Democrat rising in opposition to it. The Democrats have certainly “sounded conservative” when campaigning, but rhetoric and action have not matched up.

I will say that never have Democrats become public, loud, outspoken campaign to cannibalize people seen as too extreme such as a Michael Moore. They never blamed their defeats on Black Voters, on Unions, on Liberal Talk Radio. 

The time that has been spent on the blame game for people who had little to do with running this party into the ground has been stunning. From blaming Sarah Palin to blaming pro-lifers to blaming Rush Limbaugh, very little blame has been assigned in the discussion of what went wrong on election day to: Presidential Nominee John McCain, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, NRSC Chairman John Ensign (R-NV.), NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-Ok.). How is it that so many people would rather blame someone else other than the nominee for President, the leaders in Congress, the Campaign Committee Chairs, or the RNC Chairman? Is that just too obvious for folks? Sometimes, the butler really did it.

Speaking of the blame game, Copious Dissent has a post on David Frum and suggests that Frum’s site would be better named, “The New Minority.” pointing out that according to Alexa, Frum’s site is by far less popular than other conservative websites such as HotAir.com, National Review, and Michelle Malkin:

What one can clearly see is that David Frum’s ideas are not reaching anyone. In fact, since HotAir, Mark Levin and others have been linking to David Frum’s website this week, his entire audience is based on someone saying, “Hey, click here to see what this fool is doing now.”

Frum’s YouTube channel also gets no support. He started it on January 8, 2009, and already it has a whopping 9 subscribers! Conversely, I started my YouTube channel, HowTheWorldWorks, less than three months ago and it has 1555 subscribers and more regular viewers than Frum’s pathetic website that is purported to create a “New Majority.”

Frum’s YouTube channel even uses professional lighting and expensive cameras, while I have a giant ceiling fan over my head and speak into a pinhole in my computer. Nevertheless, I am able to reach that mystical college educated demographic, who have rated my videos as some of the top on all of YouTube. Frum’s videos on the other hand literally have been rated 1 out of 5 stars by the demographics he asserts Republicans need to reach. That is quite impressive David.

Personally, I wish I could generate an audience simply by people hating my guts. But, that is David Frum’s entire shtick. He writes a book about how Conservatives “can win again” by abandoning Conservatism, and it is only read by 25,000 staunch Conservatives who think Frum is full of crap. The truth is that liberals don’t read Conservative political strategy books, Conservatives do. And Conservatives don’t think Frum is a Conservative.

Ironically, Frum is the one who calls Conservatives, the “say it louder” Republicans, claiming that the American public already heard about limited government, and they do not want it. Yet, Frum fails to realize that Conservatives are the only people in American who have read David Frum and they do not want what Frum offers either. So who is the “say it louder” minority? I think the evidence demonstrates it is Frum.
(Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark. Frum clearly has designs for the GOP, but just like David Brooks or Kathleen Parker,  he’s given a big megaphone because he’s going at the conservative movement. He’s going on a quest to draw new voters to the party by driving the old ones out.

What’s gone on with many moderates in the Republican Party is the same thing that happened on a national level with the Stimulus bill. A national crisis was used as an excuse to push a lot of feel good liberal hooey that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy.  What’s gone on in the midst of the GOP’s political crisis is that Rockefeller Republicans are trying to use a political crisis as an excuse for moves that the crisis itself doesn’t justify as well as to remake the party in their own image.

Frum’s efforts will fail because there’s not a popular following for their ideas. Not even if Frum were to try and get all 9 of his You Tube subscribers to run for Congress would he have any major influence in the GOP, because the number of people who agree with his position are small and the people who actually are on the other side aren’t going to be bullied or bribed with promises of victory that are vain and ignore the fact that real victory should mean something.

Bottom line: In ten years the GOP will still be the GOP and David Frum will have joined the Democrats.

David Hill, at the Hill newspaper, alleges that Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has an extreme risk of “catching a cold” in his “breezy” role as host of Fox News’ snow, Huckabee. Hill contends that Huckabee is entering the world of entertainment, while Mitt Romney is out doing what Presidential candidates should do: giving speeches and campaigning for Republicans.

Rarely has a piece been so deserving of a Jim Cramer style, “You know nothing!”

First of all, Huckabee is giving speeches, campaigning for Republican candidates, and fundraising for them, too. He campaigned for Saxby Chambliss and has announced plans to campaign for Virginia Attorney Bob McDonnell in his bid for Governor. Huckabee’s TV gig requires one day a week in New York. Also Huckabee’s going to South Carolina for a Fair Tax rally. Huckabee isn’t spending the other six days fishing the lovely rivers and streams of Arkansas.

It’s doubtful that any of the potential 2012 candidates have a 2012 strategy at present,  because it’s too early to know for sure they’ll run in 2012. However, in his book Do the Right Thing, Huckabee writes that he began in 2008 with no organization, no name recognition, and no money. He’d not prepared sufficiently for what a presidential campaign would take.

To even have a chance of making a serious run for the White House, a person must have what I call a leadership strategy. They must advance their ideas and issues within the Republican Party and put themselves in a position where, if they run for President, they are known, they have money, and they have organization.

Romney’s strategy is fairly traditional. He’s delivering speeches to Congress, State Party Conventions, and conservative group conventions. He’s got a PAC, and he’s raising money. Romney’s got a 1977 strategy, which would be great if this were 1977. His efforts have focused on the establishment leaders of the conservative movement and state party leadership, groups that he already did quite well with in 2008. His 20% straw poll win at CPAC in 2009 is almost identical to the 21% he got 2 years ago.

Huckabee is taking a different path. Huckabee’s not only has a PAC, which has contributed to the campaigns of more than fifty Republican candidates, he’s doubling down in a way that Mitt Romney, or even Sarah Palin, isn’t. Last month, Huckabee’s PAC, “HuckPAC” held more than 100 house parties all across America. Huckabee already has 3000 volunteers (including myself) signed up to help out Republican Candidate in the 2009 and 2010 elections.

He also realizes he needs to reach out to the people that he failed to reach last time and improve his standing with conservatives who remain doubtful of him.

Huckabee’s media ventures are part of this leadership strategy. Huckabee’s show is far more infotainment than entertainment, with his songs and entertainment interviews sandwiched in between serious, but civil, discussions of politics and culture. The show has had some awkward moments, but nothing on the scale of Ronald Reagan “monkeying around” in Bedtime for Bonzo in terms of breeches of dignity.

One viewer complained when Huckabee dubbed the recent stimulus bill as “The Congressional Relief Action Program,” with the initials emphasized, but the same line earned applause at CPAC. Some alleged that Huckabee was undignified in a segment in which he made fun of Caroline Kennedy’s “Uh-uh-uh” interview problems. However, making fun of a Kennedy is unlikely to cost Huckabee any votes in the Republican Party.

Combined with Huckabee’s 3-minute thrice daily radio program as well as other media appearances, his TV show has four benefits:

1) Becoming better known.

In 2007, many voters decided that they liked Huckabee. What put a ceiling on his support was that he was so unknown he could be cast as a liberal tax-raiser by people far better known than he. He also could be cast in the mold of the stereotypical conservative evangelical preacher: intolerant, narrow-minded, and stupid.

2) Recasting himself.

The Premiere of Huckabee, set towards the end of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and around the time of bailouts, has allowed Huckabee to define himself as a fiscal conservative. Hardcore opponents of the TARP bill saw Huckabee stand up against big government when only he, Dave Ramsey, Ron Paul, and Neil Cavuto would oppose the TARP debacle on the Fox Business Network. Huckabee also opposed the auto industry bailout and lampooned the stimulus bill. On his radio program, Huckabee has taken a similar tact on earmarks, global warming, and the president’s tax plan. To those who will try to define Huckabee as some type of liberal after two plus years of Huckabee consistently taking conservative position on TV and Radio: Good luck.

3) Getting to show his character and personal style.

Through his choice of guests, he’s able to show himself willing to listen to and dialogue with a wide variety of people, while still sticking to his conservative guns.

4) Establishing connections with his audience and his guests.

Huckabee’s media ventures have opened the door for him to make numerous connections with people like Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore and Dave Ramsey. While not everyone who appears on Huckabee’s program will become a supporter of Huckabee’s future efforts, having made a personal connection will help.

Overall, Huckabee’s media efforts have gone well. He’s got a New York Times Bestseller, one of the top weekend Cable TV shows, and a radio show that’s now on more than 100 stations. Whether Huckabee runs in 2012 or not, of the three front-running candidates, he has by far done the most to help his future efforts.

Looking past the obvious bad blood between the McCain-Coulter entourages, Meghan McCain has penned a humorous and relevant editorial in The Daily Beast.  I believe this is a must-read for those interested in a ‘lessons-learned’ for Republicans.

What is becoming increasingly obvious to Ms. McCain and many other young Republican activists, is that the recycled rhetoric and the continued use of last decades communication methods and tools will continue to fail the Republican party.  Like many of you, I am a fan of Ms. Coulter and agree with her more often than I disagree, but promoting (in editorials and on networks) Islamophobia and referring to John Edwards as a “faggot”, may make Ms. Coulter wealthy and cause my father to sit up when she approaches a podium, but it will not reach or win over the multi-ethnic, ’The Hills’ watching, politically correct, generation-Y.  

Using obvious humor, Ms. McCain was making an important point.  Ms. Coulter is a brilliant and colorful conservative writer and speaker and her message has sex-appeal to the generation that listens to Donny Osmond, but her message, the same message being repeated by Republicans leaders across the country today, does not appeal to voters who listen to Katy Perry. 

Why is this important?  Because Katy Perry sells more records and has more fans (thus, more potential voters) than the ‘underappreciated’ Donny Osmond.  I am not advocating the shunning of Ann Coulter (we need her more than ever), but we also need a new, parallel message that appeals younger voters.       

Liberals have changed their message (hip, as per Meghan) and have moved beyond union newsletters and traditional big media outlets, to the new media and media not previously exposed to politics.  Most conservative writers and activists have acknowledged that that our failure to develop new rhetoric and embrace and exploit new technology, new media and non-political media, provided liberals with an upper-hand on reaching out to generation-Y.

Liberals have revolutionized social-networking components in telecom and online.  They are dominating non-political media (remember the magazine racks in grocery stores during the election?) and they have created trendy, new messages and talking points that resonate (and are common keyword searches) with younger voters (“Yes We Can“).  This is a lethal combination.     

Republicans have failed to understand that generation-Y voters differ significantly from previous generations on how they receive and absorb communication.  Generation-Y suffers from a short attention span and expect their information to be in real-time.  A single status change or announcement from the 2008 Obama campaign reached young voters via Facebook, Facebook mobile, text, general email, ping, MySpace, Twitter, automated phone call, video messaging, instant messaging and on bookmarked message boards.  Liberals are blanketing generation-Y with attractive and colorful new rhetoric, delivered through every possible communication method.  In a typical 2 hour span during the 2008 election, I would read a single Obama campaign announcement 4-5 times, through different communication methods, notified through the buzzing of my blackberry or through a pop-up on my laptop.    

The Obama/Liberal communication methodology is; Short-Catchy-Often-Everywhere

Why are we not doing the same?  

Marketing companies have also adopted the same approach as liberals have.  To sell products to a generation with an attention span of less than 30 seconds, the message must be simple, attractive and repeated enough so that when voting day occurs, or when the new Timberlake CD is released, young consumers/voters ‘line-up’.   

One of the few bright lights in 2008 was the McCainBlogette creation.  The strategy developed and hosted by Meghan McCain was more than just a daily blog update of behind the scene’s campaign fun.  The site (combining politics, music, family values, fashion, sex-appeal and comedy) was used as a launching pad by Meghan McCain to infiltrate non-political media and young voters who were casually interested in the political process.  Ms. McCain successfully introduced her fathers campaign to fashion magazines, MTV, Access Hollywood, non-political blogs and other media outlets dominated by Democrats.  Younger women visited her blog to read about Ms. McCain’s struggles to balance life on the campaign trail, with a proper diet, dating and what music to load on her iPod.  Of course, she was subtly selling her father at the same time.   

Many conservative-leaning writers have found this approach to be ‘beneath the movement’, but what they fail to understand is that Ms. McCain represents the demographic we must appeal to.  We should be listening to her and other like-minded Republicans.   

Ms. McCain has not been the only young activist warning Republicans of the need for a new message-new media strategy.  David All has been sounding the alarm for months and has suggested and developed new tools and methods for the GOP to compete for younger and tech savvy voters.  Last month, David penned a must-read on how to expose activists to more choices and how to increase their activism, through the use of new technology.

We are not suggesting that our goal should be to for teenage girls to paste Mark Sanford pictures in their yearbooks (although I am sure the Governor would not complain), but as the party of innovation, pragmatism and entrepreneurship, we can certainly find a way to reach young voters, on their terms, with an attractive and repeatable message, which will hopefully lead to a few extra ballots cast for Republican candidates in the years to come.       

_______________________________________
***Update: Anderson Cooper is now covering this story.  I will post the CNN video when it is available.

_______________________________________

***Update #2: Jay Leno and Elizabeth Hasselbeck are now questioning the views and delivery of Ann Coulter. 

1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. His financial advantage, his organizing ability, his economic expertise, his CPAC win, and the bridges he is building with his PAC to congressional Republicans will help Mitt stay atop this group well into the campaign. This time, the governor will be able to apply his resources to organization and message instead of introduction. The economy is helping shape Romney as a national leader who can speak in great detail about economics, and he should be well defined as an ‘economic expert’ as we enter 2012. Until some of the young stars show more poise, or until Jeb Bush decides he wants his shot at the throne, Romney is the man to beat.

2)  Bobby Jindal -  His recent decision to refuse a portion of the stimulus money shows that the young Governor has much more than reelection in mind. With more money in his war chest then any previous Governor in state history, it seems Gov. Jindal intentions are leaning more towards a presidential bid then another term as governor. His SOTU response wasn’t great, but those speeches never are. His subsequent appearances have been flawless.  Bad speech aside, Jindal still managed to finish second at CPAC without even showing up. Insiders, fundraisers, and activists like the young governor, and I believe he is Gov. Romney’s chief rival at this moment, edging former VP nominee, Sarah Palin. Plus, Limbaugh loves Jindal, and I would guess El Rushbo would prefer Jindal to Romney and Palin, and at the moment there are fewer stronger allies with the people you NEED to win nominations then El Rushbo. 

3)  Sarah Palin - Governor Palin’s media blitz has died down some after a furious few months. Thats either a sign thats she is not serious about a run, or that she is very serious about a run. Jindal’s bad speech will remind many in the party how important communication ability is, and no one connects as well as Palin. However, until she shows she can hold her own in the media gauntlet the way Romney and Jindal have proven they can, she reminds slightly behind them.  However, she has many in the party dreaming about their own version of Clinton/Obama:  Sarah Palin vs Bobby Jindal.

4) Mike Huckabee - Mike Huckabee was the surprise of 2008. His humor and charm garnered him some of the best media coverage of any republican, and his evangelical support made him an early surprise contender.  The media will take a harder look at him next time around, and his evangelical support is no longer a sure thing with Gov. Palin and other social conservatives in the race. I also think his t.v. show works against him.  Its not a good way to be taken seriously.  If he wanted to stay relevant without hosting a variety show, then he should seriously consider running for Senate in Arkansas in 2010. Defeating Sen. Lincoln would certainly win him many more friends than any t.v. show could provide. 

5)  John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012.  He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years.  His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the next GOP leader will come from outside D.C., harnessing most of the populist anger that is building against Washington bailouts. Thune is proving very skilled at coalition building as the GOP’s man on K Street. This will help him organize and keep up with the better known alternatives. Look for Thune to stand out in the upcoming debates on healthcare and card check. Still, expect the senator from South Dakota to top everyone’s VP list in 2012 should he not run himself. 

6) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative, pork-hating Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford is a rising star, but may be hurt by some bad economic news in his state.  The Obama stimulus plan is a perfect target for Sanford, but not if his state is losing jobs hand over fist for the next several years. However, the economic climate will likely help Sanford become a major player in 2012. South Carolina’s position on the calendar and historical importance will make it tougher to dodge, and the more socially conservative candidates won’t be able to avoid SC after the more moderate New Hampshire primary proves unsuccessful for them.  Sanford is a very skilled politician, with a key state in hand, and with a record that can both appease the base and attract Libertarians and moderates.      

(more…)

Two of Oregon’s big-time Republican leaders are most likely not running for Senate or Governor in 2010:

SEASIDE — After the shellacking Republicans suffered last fall, Congressman Greg Walden isn’t exactly jumping at the chance to run for Oregon governor next year.

Walden says the seniority he’s built up in Congress and the lopsided voter registration edge Democrats hold over Republicans give him pause as he looks at a possible gubernatorial bid.

“That’s part of the equation for me,” Walden said of the Democrats’ quarter-million voter registration advantage. He said he won’t decide right away.

The popular congressman made the comments Saturday before addressing Republicans at the annual Dorchester Conference. Several hundred party members gathered at the Oregon Coast this weekend to try to chart a future course for the GOP after last fall’s drubbing at the polls.

Missing from this year’s Dorchester lineup was former U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith, who was the only Republican to hold statewide office until he was defeated in his re-election bid in November.

Smith, who’s attended the last 15 or so Dorchester meetings, is going to work for a Washington, D.C., law firm and also is retaking the helm of Smith Frozen Foods, the frozen vegetables plant he owns in Eastern Oregon.

“He’s focused on the future, but the future has more to do with pea picking and the law firm than it does with politics,” said Dan Lavey, a longtime friend and adviser to the former senator.

(Hat Tip: Randy Stapilus.)

What does this mean? if Republicans are going to win, they’re going to have to win with what Stapilus calls the 2nd String. It seems a time for new blood, across the nation in tired party organizations.

it’s also worth considering that only a few Senators up in 2010 are vulnerable: The four appointees, Harry Reid in Nevada,  Chris Dodd in Connecticut, maybe Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. The dreams of knocking off Ron Wyden, Barbara Mikulski, or Pat Leahy simply aren’t going to happen. We may see some open seats come up, but I think GOP horizons are somewhat limited at this point.

It’s probably also time for Oregon Republicans to own up to the fact that they have a problem, not as much in the center or to the left of them, but on the right. The Oregon Constitution Party won 5% of the vote, Jeff Merkley was elected to the Senate by 3. Will moderates adjust and change positions in order to actively attraction Constitution Party voters?

1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern cut this ad for employeefreedom.org:

Today, the Economist has an interesting editorial, recommending drug legalization as the “least bad policy”. They write, in part:

The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe. This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate… Prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States. Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.

Drug legalization is one of the more contentious debates between academics and policy gurus, but there’s been some level of consensus, even among conservative academics, that the current policy is not working. National Review, the flagship conservative publication, has been in favor of legalizing drugs since 1996. Other prominent conservatives, such as Phillip Klein at The American Spectator, have taken a similar position. But, I am not aware of any large scale movements, in Republican Party politics, to legalize drugs. I don’t see any groundswell of public support for drug legislation. Even California is just now tepidly considering legalizing drugs, and then only for economic reasons (they can’t afford drug enforcement). In a poll taken after the Michael Phelps incident, just 40% of the public supported Marijuana legalization. Even Democrats were only mildly more likely then not, to favor legalization. And of course, marijuana isn’t cocaine, a drug which has been perhaps the key focus of the now widely panned drug war. Needless to say, public support for cocaine legalization is almost non-existent.

This is one of the biggest examples of a disconnect between the intellectuals/elites in a country, and the actual public, though it is not unique in this respect. But, it is unique in another respect: it’s being resolved in favor of public, not elite, opinion. Drug laws seem to more or less reflect public sentiment; the issue, for the most part, hasn’t been usurped by the courts. I have two comments about this, which I think are pretty relevant to our party’s future.

1. Whatever you think about the success of the Drug War, our drug debate has managed to take an enormously controversial issue, and bleed a lot of the passion out of it. There are drug lobbies (both for and against), but they’re far smaller then, say, abortion lobbies. Very few people join “Legalization” clubs in college. In short, we have a stable and respectful political climate on this issue. So, I’d say this illustrates a virtue of allowing citizens to work out controversial issues on their own, by electing politicians to represent their will. Support for drug legalization has increased in recent decades and may increase in the future. In contrast, support for legalized abortion hasn’t moved substantially since abortion was legalized by fiat 36 years ago.

2. Elite opinion-makers often don’t have much success in, you know, shaping opinion. The inner dialogues between the Brooks’ and Frum’s of the world, about shaping a New Center and the like- interesting as they may seem to most of us- are profoundly disconnected from how actual human beings behave. We belong to that special class of people who jump to “new” ideas quickly, and we’re often not too concerned about the ideas of the voters we’re trying to win over. Ultimately, I don’t accept that the GOP needs to “reinvent” itself because I think reinvention is a fundamentally intellectual conceit. People don’t reinvent themselves or their perspectives- not even to please their betters. They modify and they tinker and they progress, gradually, in all sorts of directions, but not to all sorts of degrees.

Anyone attempting to fashion out of whole cloth a new conservative movement needs to recognize that the people who liked the old conservative movement are still out there, and they haven’t moved as quickly or as fundamentally as you have. The task going forward is not reinvention, but re-engagement.

This is classic.

Funny how in all the Limbaugh hysteria no one bothers to ask Carville, Begala, and Emanuel why a majority of Democrats wanted George Bush to fail.

Is the main stream media saying it is OK to root for failure if the President is a Republican??? Rush Limbaugh is just one man with one opinion, but 51% of Democrats rooting for failure is as unpatriotic as it can get, according to the new liberal logic on the subject. Mr. Carville and Mr. Begala should be ashamed of themselves and their party.

A few days ago, Billy Valentine put up an analysis of the race for Congress in Kansas’ “Big First” district, offering a full-throated endorsement of Rob Wasinger in the GOP primary while slamming his opponent, Tim Huelskamp. In fact, from reading it, you’d think Huelskamp is a total slimeball who does nothing but sling mud. Now, I have never met Rob Wasinger and hence have nothing against him, but I have met Tim Huelskamp – and I was thoroughly impressed. The guy does not have a mean-spirited bone in his body, he’s one of the most solid conservatives I’ve met, and he’s put in years of good service in the Kansas state legislature.

Wasinger seems like a good guy, but there are some problems. First off, he has no record as an elected official. He’s worked for Sam Brownback for quite a long time, and I’m sure he’s in touch with Kansas issues, but nobody really knows how he’ll act once elected. Furthermore, I find it downright disturbing that, while Wasinger is the best-funded candidate in the primary, not a one red cent of that cash came from within the district (at least as of Feb. 5^th). I can understand that cash is required to reintroduce yourself after spending a lot of time in DC, but I would hope to see SOME money starting to flow from Wasinger’s potential constituents.

Tim Huelskamp, on the other hand, has a lengthy record as one of the State Legislatures most consistent fiscal and social conservatives, and he’s spent his life farming the same piece of ground that his father and grandfather worked before him. He’s what I like to call an “upright, downright honest man” (a term coined to describe President James Garfield), and we need more salt-of-the-earth people like him on Capitol Hill. He’s also demonstrated political courage by opposing the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary. Wasinger has yet to take a position, but his old boss, Senator Brownback, has decided to support the nomination.

Rob Wasinger is a good young conservative, and I think he has a future. However, he needs to take some time to shake off the DC dust and get back to his Kansas roots. Maybe one day he could even represent Kansas’ First District in Congress. However, Now is Tim Huelskamp’s time to shine, and I am proud to offer my endorsement.

The Straw Man Cometh! Did the White House think it could just attack private citizens without a backlash? Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money, has hit back at the White House and their most reliable shills, the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart and the New York Times’ Frank Rich.  Here is one line when he shreds Rich’s credentials as a news man in one fell swoop:

“I was shocked, however, that the rigorous Rich wouldn’t investigate further and relied on the show’s truncation of the truth. After all, how many times were the pull quotes from reviews by Rich used against him when he may have been panning a play in his former role as entertainment critic?”

BOOYAH

Is Specter a conservative at all? Is he? Is he? Well, here are ten conservative reasons why he’d be better than another Bob Casey:

* He supports personal accounts for Social Security
* He voted for Alito and Roberts
* He was given a 65% by the NTU, which is a hell of a lot more than we’d get from a Democrat
* He voted to repeal the AMT
* He voted against raising the minimum wage
* He voted yes on building a fence across the Southern border
* He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act
* He was given an 81% rating by the Christian Coalition in 2003
* He supports drilling in ANWR
* He voted for school vouchers in DC

BONUS:
* He voted against withdrawal from Iraq within 9 months back in 2008

So unless you want him to leave the party, which he is apparently considering given that he’s about to be ousted by Pat Toomey in a primary, you’d better tell him that you’re glad that he’s one of us!

If you’re a young person or a parent today, chances are you’re familiar with Nickelodeon’s likable cartoon, Dora the Explorer. She’s spunky, bold, fun, independent, and assertive. She and her monkey companion Boots embark on adventures using the tools that they have in their backpack. A bit of rudimentary Spanish is thrown into the mix here and there (si, se puede!). Seems harmless, right? But there’s something that’s just around the corner that simply has to compel a person familiar with the show to shake his head.

No, Mr. Buchanan, the problem is not that this show is too centered around Hispanics.

Here’s Dora. This is how she’s looked since the show began:

Here’s Dora, as she’s going to appear after her sexy new makeover (words that should never be affiliated with a children’s cartoon):

The shadow is all that’s been revealed, but it gives you a pretty good sense of what’s to come.

In the words of Michele & Lexie, writing at the Baltimore Examiner, who take note of the contrast between the current version of Dora with the slutty Bratz dolls, who have a “passion for fashion”:

There aren’t a lot of spunky, non-sexualized girl dolls and tv characters. Instead, preschoolers are bombarded with characters like Bratz and Barbie, two very adult characters. On top of that, Disney offers very gender-stereotyped Princesses like Sleeping Beauty and Ariel the mermaid, who use their smarts primarily to land a man and their happily ever after.

So when I find a little girl character who is smart, curious, spunky and NORMAL looking, trust me, I cling to her. Dora the Explorer is that girl. She solve mysteries by using her brain and her tools. She fearlessly explores the jungle and the rest of her world, learning new things along the way. And most important of all, she looks like a little girl, with a little pot belly and no curves. That is how little girls look. Is it so much to ask that a cartoon character of a little girl actually looks like a little girl?

This makeover for Dora comes hot on the heels of Strawberry Shortcake’s makeover:

The cartoon mouse Angelina Ballerina has also been given a slimmed-down look for a new generation of young girls.

There’s something utterly repulsive about sexing up cartoons marketed toward little girls. It’s difficult enough to raise a girl with a healthy body image with the Katy Perrys and Britney Spearses of the world sexualizing the concept of what it means to be feminine. Must we corrupt things further by injecting that same concept into something meant for children?

One of the only pitfalls of the free market is that sometimes people don’t need what they think they want. I’d never advocate regulation, of course, but what I do advocate is heightened awareness amongst parents, and, more importantly, speaking out against this sort of crap. Tropicana recently responded to complaints about its orange juice carton’s makeover by changing it back. If you have a daughter (or son!) who enjoys Dora the Explorer, you can contact Viacom, the company that owns Nickelodeon, at this page.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Reuters reported today that Iran test-fired a new domestically produced air-to-surface missile:

Iran’s Fars News Agency said the domestically produced missile had a range of 110 km and was designed for use by military aircraft against naval targets…

…The air-to-surface missile’s range of 110 km would be far less than that of the surface-to-surface Shahab missile, which Iranian officials say can travel about 2,000 km, enabling it to reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.

A top Iranian military commander last week said that Iranian missiles could now reach Israeli nuclear sites. Iran has often said it has missiles able to reach the Jewish state but had not previously mentioned such specific targets.

Although Iran claims that it intends the missiles for self-defense, particularly against Israel, Tehran’s growing technological capabilities in weaponry underscores the need for a robust U.S. missile defense system

On another subject, the Boston Globe did the American public a service today by publishing a Jeff Jacoby op-ed on recent evidence against climate alarmism.  We can only hope that other mainstream media outlets begin to grant serious consideration to the other side of the climate change debate.

Monday’s edition of the L.A. Times will contain an examination of potential GOP electoral gains in 2010:

Obama’s selection of Gov. Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security turned her office over to the Republican secretary of state, Jan Brewer.

That gives Brewer an edge to win a full term as governor and almost certainly ends the chances for a 2010 Senate race that Democrats would love to have seen: Napolitano vs. Sen. John McCain.

Similarly, the appointment of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as Agriculture secretary thwarted Democratic hopes he would take on longtime Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley. In Kansas, the selection of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services has greatly diminished Democrats’ chances of picking up that state’s open Senate seat.

Another seat that appeared secure for Democrats may be up for grabs in Colorado after Ken Salazar left to become Interior secretary. His replacement, former Denver schools chief Michael Bennet, is a political neophyte who could face a primary fight.

In New York, Gov. David A. Paterson chose former Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Clinton after a prolonged search consumed by the drama surrounding Caroline Kennedy’s desire for the Senate seat.

Paterson’s awkward handling of the process — followed by a clumsy effort to discredit Kennedy after he made his pick — hurt both the governor and Gillibrand. Worse, from a Democratic perspective, the party could lose Gillibrand’s House seat; a special election in her conservative-leaning district is set for March 31.

Even more embarrassing would be a loss in Illinois, where Democrats have been hurt by the scandal surrounding former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat. Already, potential primary challengers have lined up to face Burris if he should ignore strong hints from party leaders and decide to run in 2010.

From a local perspective, the Blagojevich disaster hasn’t seemed to have damaged the Democratic brand all that much.  Rather, it apparently confirmed the lingering suspicions many Illinoisans had about Rod since before his 2006 re-election (don’t ask me why on earth so many people voted for him).  The episode has also appeared to have caused many people to become even more apathetic toward Illinois government, instead of looking to the state GOP for leadership.  It’s a shame, because this represents an opportunity to regain some momentum in a place that was a swing state not too long ago.

Finally, the Hill had a nice article Saturday about the embrace of earmarks among many top Republican Senators.  They single out a few individuals:

A study of nearly 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus showed that showed that Vitter is the fifth-biggest recipient of earmarked funds in the Congress.

Vitter has sponsored or cosponsored nearly $250 million in earmarks, according to the study by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Two other Republicans topped the list of biggest earmarkers: Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee; and Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss). Of the ten lawmakers who sponsored or cosponsored the largest sums of earmarked funds, 6 were Republicans.

Several of them, such as Cochran and Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), are members of the Appropriations panel.

Behavior like this will not help the party revive its brand.  As critics in the article demonstrate, Republicans’ calls for fiscal responsibility will not take hold in the minds of voters if actions do not match words.  Now, one can argue that earmarks represent needed projects that secure a return on taxpayers’ investments, but Republicans cannot credibly criticize Democrats for prolifigate spending habits if prominent members of the GOP cannot keep their pens off the federal checkbook.

Not sure if we missed this, but The Hill is reporting that former Congressman and current Club for Growth President Pat Toomey will challenge incumbent Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter in the GOP primary.

With Republican ranks dwindling in Pennsylvania and primary voters increasingly more conservative, Specter will be in for a bumpy ride.

The funniest chick — chicks hate it when you call them girls, if you believe her — on our side has successfully brought out Keith Olbermann’s decades-long insecurities, and the results are deliciously amusing.

Keith, the super-smart guy that he is,  seems not to realize that he completely fell for Ann Coulter’s trap, but, well, so it goes with our modern-day Edward Murrow (can someone please tell Keith that it’s not cool, but embarrassing and revealing when he signs off with “good night and good luck”? If I rip off a respected journalist’s catchphrase, will that make me a respected journalist, too? That’s all I have to do, right?).

Ann, angry that Keith was belittling the educational background of certain religious conservatives, poked fun at Keith for constantly bragging about his Cornell University background. She pointed out that the college that he was admitted to — the ag school — was not, in fact, part of the Ivy League, and that he really ought to stop inflating his own pedigree before attacking someone else’s.

So what does Krazy Keith do? He drags his diploma to the set of his show to tell Ann that his diploma looks just like hers. Are you serious, Keith?

See, Ann? Keith really did go to Cornell!

And the award for Most Insecure Person in the World goes to…

The point of what Ann was doing, of course, was not to belittle Olbermann’s educational background. It was to point out that he’s a pompous jackass for attacking someone over their college of choice rather than for their ideas — and to expose him for the sniveling, insecure little child he is. It worked!

(One problem with this, however — and I know you read this site, Ann, because you’ve linked to us before: in your introduction to her book If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, you claim that there will be no jokes about Keith Olbermann in the book because you only make jokes about important subjects. Please address this glaring discrepancy. You wouldn’t want Keith to think he’s become important.)

The Grey Lady creeps a little closer to its eventual demise.  Charles M. Blow, a graphic artist, was given space to again sound stupid in the New York Times.  If anyone wonders why the Times is begging Carlos Slim to keep their pathetic existence going, here is another fine example.

Blow launches into a trifecta of ad hominem attacks against Governor Jindal, Chairman Steele, and Rush Limbaugh, droning on about Mickey Mouse and whatever else this lame art director can piece together to form a sentence.  Apparently Mr. Blow got his marching orders from Carville and Emanuel directly. Some more of that Post-Partisanship courtesy of Mr. Obama.

“He fumbled his facts and sealed his fate. He then scurried off to Disney World to lick his wounds…” Actually he was on the Today Show the next morning and then Larry King after that. Funny thing is, he still talks circles around these hapless journalists, no wonder you wanted no part of him Mr. Blow.

What is truly hilarious is reading some Grambling State clown attack the intellect of a man like Bobby Jindal, top graduate of Brown and Oxford, and Michael Steele, graduate of Johns Hopkins and Georgetown. If Mr. Blow is so confident in his own intellectual ability and so strong in his convictions, then perhaps he would have asked to interview the men he smeared. Instead, just more embarrassment from a slowly dying institution. I’ve been searching for similar columns from Blow regarding Tim Kaine’s awful SOTU response or Kathleen Sebelius’s or Harry Reid’s. So far no such luck. 

But what can we expect from a paper that relies on its art department for the Op-Eds. Chucky, just stick to drawing pictures, because commentating is clearly not in your skill set. 

Barack Obama’s offhand approach to Gordon Brown’s Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America’s economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

If he were to focus more on the economic crisis the DOW might reach zero. The man gives non-obesity a bad name. He is too tired to do his job? Maybe we should have chosen Septuagenarian McCain for JFK-like vigor?

Obama is also too tired to craft a plan to stabilize the banking industry; make a two sentence statement demanding that Congress eliminate earmarks from the Omnibus spending bill; or appear on Rush Limbaugh’s program after publicly challenging him.

I just wish he were too tired to demonize potential investors, producers and achievers in public; drive down the DOW with his public utterances; take over industries with socialist control; demonize banks; threaten the coal industry; and generally threaten the poor and lower and middle income families with the promise of drastically increased energy costs.

Maybe the President needs to play basketball twice a day?

He plays a ton of basketball and puts in his 45-60 minute workout day in and day out. He claims it sets the tone for his entire day- that it gives him the energy he needs to grapple with the world’s problems.

Just not with the United Kingdom part of the world.

Silence and inaction from Obama and Congress would do more to instill confidence in the private sector and lessen the risk of offending allies, than anything else.

Let’s insist The Tired One attend March Madness and the NBA playoffs and get back to us after Halloween, when at least we will be expecting a Big Scare.

________________________________________________________________________________

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

R4’12 is pleased to present the following guest post from RayinKY. Ray is a frequent commenter on Race42008 and ’12. Ray has made one previous guest front page post on Race42012. Ray is currently a corporate speech writer while awaiting the opportunity to become a police officer in a large metropolitan city and maintains a personal blog at Bluegrassliberative.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

NH is known as a wildly independent state and most Granite Staters take pride in that fact. John McCain can thank New Hampshire for his nomination in 2008 and in 2000 it was the Granite State gave him momentum as well. The state’s model is “Live Free or Die” and many true Granite Staters hold to that forcefully. New Hampshire is the only state to NOT require adult seat belt use; they have no helmet law for motorcycle riders, no income tax, and no sales tax.

New Hampshire has an open primary (I know this bothers many ultra hard-core “Republicans”) and its state constitution requires it to hold the first primary in the nation (even if that means holding a primary 12 months prior to the general election). New Hampshire will fight tooth and nail to maintain its “first in the nation” status and often requires presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle to clearly state their support for New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary.

New Hampshire’s senior senator is Judd Gregg who comes from a politically connected family and once served as the state’s governor. After Gregg accepted then rejected Pres. Obama’s invitation to become Commerce Secretary he announced he would not be seeking re-election in 2010. This will make for a very exciting 2010 as New Hampshire will have an extremely competitive Senate race, 2 Congressional races that have the potential for fireworks, and the possibility of a very heated Governor’s race.

NH Senate:

Congressman Paul Hodes (NH 2nd CD) has already announced his candidacy to replace Sen. Gregg. He is the favorite on the Democrat side (unless Gov Lynch decides to throw his hat in the ring). Hodes was one of the first Dems to support Obama for President so I see Obama pulling hard for Hodes and “rewarding” him for his early support [this sounds like something that would be common in Chicago].

The only possible wrench in Hodes’ plan to become the next NH Senator will be Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (NH 1st CD). Shea-Porter won her primary in 2006 against the establishment Democrat candidate and then beat the incumbent GOP congressman. She then beat him, again, in a rematch in 2008. Shea-Porter is wildly independent (yet quite liberal) and really couldn’t give two hoots about what D.C. or the NH Dem establishment wants or promotes. If she runs, she most likely will not win but she could damage Hodes amongst moderates as Hodes is ridiculously liberal.

It appears that former Senator John E Sununu will not be running as he has taken a number of positions on corporate boards of directors and is serving on the TARP oversight committee. This really is a sad happening as John E. was one of the most brilliant U.S. Senators this nation has ever seen and his loss in the Obama landslide was a detriment to not only New Hampshire, but the nation, as a whole. The only two names currently be floated are former Congressmen Bass (from the 1st CD) and Bradley (from the 2nd CD). I don’t see either of these men beating Hodes. Prediction: Likely Dem pick-up (99% likely if Hodes win Dem primary).

NH 2nd CD:

With Hodes not running for re-election this seat will be interesting. On the Democrat side, expect to see Katrina Swett (wife of former NH Congressman Dick Swett) win the primary (she may run un-opposed). Swett would have been a favorite to run against John E Sununu in 2008 but she bowed out to allow Jeanne Shaheen to run. Her loyalty will be rewarded in 2010 by the NH establishment.

On the GOP side expect to see 2008 general election candidate Jennifer Horn to give it a second shot as well as at least one of her primary opponents (most likely Bob Clegg from Hudson, NH). Charlie Bass may try to rejuvenate his political career and take back the seat he lost to Hodes in 2006. Fran Wendelboe (NH State Rep) is another name to watch in the 2nd CD on the GOP side.

Prediction: Swett holds onto the seat for Democrats.

NH 1st CD:

On the Democrat side all will be waiting to see what Rep. Shea-Porter decides to do. If she decides to run for the Senate seat then NH’s 1st CD will be a great race that the whole nation will want to watch. NH’s 1st Congressional District includes Manchester, the states largest city and home to many formidable politicians. If Shea-Porter passes on re-election in 2010 then expect to see state Sens. Maggie Hassan, Betsi Devries, or Lou D’Allessandro enter the race. Sen. Devries is loved by the Manchester Firefighters union and will most likely retain their support in a congressional race. Lou D’Allesandro is a prominent gambling supporter and it will be interesting to see how that plays out in the Dem primary. If Shea-Porter stays in then there will be no primary and Shea-Porter is most likely favored to win.

On the GOP side expect a large primary. Expect to see former state Sen. Chuch Morse or Sean Mahoney. Also, current state Sen. Ted Gatsas and state Rep. Will Infantine could throw their hats in the ring. Jim Wieczorek (son of former Manchester mayor and Executive Councilor Ray Wieczoreck). Personally, I would like to see former Health and Human Services Secretary John Stephen make a run but I don’t see going for the seat a third time. (Be sure to search John Stephen’s state health care reform proposals [Gov Carciari of RI is currently trying to get the “GraniteCare” passed in his state]). Mahoney and Gatsas have the most money already at their fingertips and would be the ones most likely to pay to play.

An interesting aside here is that current Manchester mayor Frank Guinta was recently invited to D.C. to meet with Rep. Boehner and the NRCC. Guinta would be a very formidable candidate and could quite possibly win this seat but his thoughts seem to be geared more towards the Governor’s house in Concord.
Prediction: If Shea-Porter stays in the race is very competitive. If Shea-Porter passes it becomes a likely GOP pick up.

NH Governor:

2008 may have been the last time Lynch wins the NH’s governor’s race. It is extremely difficult to win a 4th term (NH Governors only serve 2 year terms) and he might be having trouble on both sides. Lynch has been one of the most moderate governors in the nation and this has kept his approval ratings in the high 60’s and 70’s. However, Lynch has been unable to keep the Democrat legislature under control (they recently passed a 25 cent gas tax increase) and he also re-appointed a Republican to the position of Attorney General. Needless to say his attempts to keep everyone happy is starting to backfire.

On the GOP side expect to see Manchester mayor Frank Guinta announce his candidacy soon. Guinta has a great record in Manchester to run on and will likely be able to steal many moderates from Lynch. Also Ted Gatsas, John Stephen, Churck Morse and Jeb Bradley will likely get involved. It will be most beneficial for the GOP if they can decide early on who will be the most effective candidate and all the others can get behind that person.

If Lynch decides he is done with being Governor then expect to see State Sen. Maggie Hassan or Bev Hollingworth try to continue the democratic control of NH’s corner office. Neither of these candidates will have the name recognition of almost any of the GOPers. If Lynch does decide to run this will most likely be the most difficult re-election campaign he has faced regardless of who his opponent is. For too many years the state GOP has been lackluster, at best, at supporting their gubernatorial candidates. 2010 will be different.

Prediction: Best chance for a GOP pick up in the Granite State in 2010. If Lynch decides to not run then most likely a GOP pick up. If Guinta wins the primary against Lynch expect a lot of money to common in from all over the country for both sides. Could be one of the most exciting races in 2010.

-RayinKY

As detailed by Politics in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty will end this week hoping for better fortunes in the polls:

Tim Pawlenty logged a serious hit to his approval ratings in a SurveyUSA poll earlier this week: Just 48 percent of Minnesotans approve of the job he’s doing as governor, and 44 percent disapprove. The Smart Politics blog says that’s the third-lowest showing Pawlenty has made in 54 surveys done since the summer of 2005.

And this morning brings mixed news from Fox9-Rasmussen. Pawlenty garners better approval numbers here at 56 percent; besides old-fashioned statistical error, one possible explanation for the difference with SUSA is that Rasmussen offered two approval choices, “strong” or “somewhat,” while SUSA asked for a flat approve or disapprove.

But a whopping 61 percent say that Pawlenty should not run for president in 2012. Twenty-two percent think he should.

Perhaps Kavon or anyone else from Minnesota can offer some commentary or personal insight?

As reported in the Washington Post today, Monday Pres. Obama will announce an executive order removing restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research:

The signing of an executive order voiding the restrictions will allow thousands of scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place eight years ago.

Tony Perkins offers a pro-life rebuttal:

“Today’s news that President Obama will open the door to direct taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research that encourages the destruction of human embryos is a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life…It is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science. We should be increasing funding for adult stem cell treatments, which have been used to treat patients for over 70 diseases and conditions, and we should fund the historic achievements in reprogramming ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells without compromising ethics by destroying life.”

I side with Perkins on this issue, as I care deeply about preserving the sanctity of life.  If Obama’s poll numbers drop in time for the 2012 race, Republicans may have an opportunity to attract votes from Hispanics and Democratic-leaning or independent Catholics by emphasizing this issue, an important one to those groups.  Of course, the effectiveness of this tactic depends on the health of the economy; if it worsens, it will overwhelm the other issues during the 2012 campaign.

Continuing a pattern of making decisions first and considering alternative courses of action or unintended consequences later, Pres. Obama has also opted to defund the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.  For the sake of American energy consumers, it’s a shame that the President has chosen to cave in to environmental interests instead of facing the reality of the incredible advances in safety nuclear power has achieved over the past couple decades and the lack of cost-effectiveness of other alternative energy sources.  With continued decisions like these on energy policy, we will likely increase the amount of foreign oil we import as Obama’s term progresses.

Jed Babbin of Human Events recently conducted an interview with Mark Sanford.  Some excerpts:

“We’ve gotten ourselves into is this ‘boy crying wolf’ thing where if you put between $6 and $7 trillion worth of stimulus into the economy between bailout, Federal Reserve activity, Treasury Department activity, everything else over the last year, and now they are saying, ‘just trust me with another $1 trillion.’ So I’d say in terms of scale we need to take a breath, step back, quit pretending that the Treasury the Fed or whoever else can micro-manage a global economy that’s $67 trillion in size and six and a half billion folks in human scale…And so what I’d say is you need to send very clear and consistent messages, one of which is the truth.”

Sanford also objects to what he calls our devolution into a “savior-based economy,” endowing people such as Treasury Secretary Geithner with superpowers on the economic crisis that entitles them to require us to overlook their own real problems.  Sanford said Geithner would have been “slammed” for those problems.

“That’s the opposite of what our country’s been about. Our country’s always been about nation of laws, not of men. No one person was indispensable and we didn’t look for saviors,” Sanford said.

Sanford objects to the continued enlargement of government in every aspect of our lives. The economic intervention is only the latest evolution.  “It is symptomatic of a larger problem. With every crisis of late it’s been another excuse for the federal government to double down and to grow its level of control and influence or impact on people’s lives,” he told me.

Babbin then concludes with a firm declaration:

Mark Sanford is a smart, tough and articulate conservative.  He really is one of us.

Care for some more Sanford?  In a Friday interview with Newsweek, Sanford offered a nice quote – one that mirrors a statement from the Governor that I highlighted the other day – when asked for his desired strategy for the GOP:

There is an eternal tug of war within the party on where we go from here and how we find a way out. One camp says the key is to appeal to Hispanics and women and use technology more. The way out of the wilderness is to grow the tent. The other camp—and the one I fall in—says that you can build a big tent, but you have to make sure the poles can hold it up and that you’re working from a good foundation. In many ways, a political party is nothing more than a brand. The great brands of time have succeeded in as much is that they’ve done what they say they’re going to do. People buy a John Deere tractor because it does what it says they’re going to do.

And finally, for a different, more Washingtonian perspective, Newsweek also interviewed Eric Cantor Friday.  When asked what specific policy ideas or solutions currently excite him, Cantor responded:

On the job front the focus needs to be on job creators, and job creators are small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country. Seventy percent of the jobs come from small businesses, so we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to put incentives in place for people to get their small businesses back on track. You’ve got small-business owners right now who are not taking paychecks home. They are struggling to keep the lights on, much less sustain the jobs they’ve got. That is the critical, critical priority of the day.

This type of position could resonate with voters if coupled with detailed, pro-growth proposals to lift America out of the economic doldrums.  This becomes even more relevant if the economy fails to rebound by the midterm elections.

Obama’s tax increase scheme is being justified with the talking point that it’s not really an increase, but merely a ‘return to where the rates were during the Clinton years, which were very prosperous, after all.’ It’s just a rollback of sorts.

Well, fine. Argument accepted. And we hardcore capitalists don’t want tax “cuts.” Talking about “cuts” is avoiding the issue, now isn’t it? We just want a return to where the rates were during the Coolidge years, which were very prosperous, after all.

President Barack Obama has the most ambitious agenda of any American President. The only comparable ambitions of any other occupant were those of General George Washington before he took the oath.

Yet, it seems that Obama is having a harder time enlisting soldiers in his cause than even Washington at Valley Forge:

Three of Barack Obama’s nominations for key government positions have withdrawn from the running on a single day in another blow to his faltering attempts to fill his administration.

They are the latest in a string a appointments to back out of senior jobs since he came to power just six weeks ago.

The nominee for deputy in the United States Treasury Department withdrew herself from consideration after weeks of intensive vetting

Annette Nazareth, a former senior staffer and commissioner with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was said to have made “a personal decision” to pull out.

She had faced criticism for her SEC role in creating what Mr Obama himself has lambasted as lax oversight of the banking industry and her confirmation hearing threatened to be contentious.

The gap leave Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, battling the worst economist crisis since the Great Depression with none of his 17 deputies even named. Each one has to be confirmed by the US Senate, a process that usually takes weeks.

Paul Volcker, an Obama economic adviser and former Federal Reserve chairman, called the situation at the Treasury “shameful” last week. Mr Geithner has a 50-person “shadow cabinet” of intended appointees but they have no authority to take any decisions.

Gary Cooper couldn’t find one man to deputize before High Noon. They were cowards in the face of gunfighters.

What repels those Obama seeks to enlist? Is it tax probes alone? Hard to fathom, unless the non-payment of same is truly a common Democratic Party characteristic. We don’t rule it out. But with 17 vacancies at Treasury alone, we suspect it is something more visceral.

We are reminded of the R.M.S. Titanic.

Who wants to jump aboard a sinking ship?

Obama can talk all he wants about what he inherited. Markets look to the future, not the past, and even if he isn’t moved by the day-to-day tracking polls of the stock market, the losers of same are, and potential office holders understand that, unlike Dem party primary polls, these polls calculate actual losses of wealth and may not want to ally themselves with a man obsessed with the health care benefit of a currently unemployed man two years from now rather than alleviating the unemployed status today.

Can’t fill 17 deputy jobs?

This is serious.

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

Author’s note: A big thumbs up to boss Kavon for finally adding a search function to our site. It was desperately needed.

Since I am getting ready to leave for work this evening (it’s NCAA tournament time and I have to cover one of the tournaments now in session from our studios), I must divide this into two parts. The first part will be on the public reaction to a child exposed to the media, and the second will be on exactly why I don’t buy into child prodigies.

PART I
I feel it would be hypocritical of me not to write something about the new conservative “prodigy,” Jonathan Krohn. I made such a huge fuss about the children who sang for Dear Leader that I felt that my feelings on this are unavoidable.

Remember this song?

Unlike Jeremy Lott of the Spectator, I’m not going to criticize the young man’s writing style or the depth of the thought he put into his book. Although he is marketing this book towards adults (which makes criticism fair game), I will respect the fact that he is still legally a child, and spare him of any personal criticism of what he undoubtedly put a lot of time, effort, and thought into.

I want to share with you a small section taken from a press release:

“I don’t want it [the book] to be my own idea of conservatism,” said Krohn, “I want it to be the ideas that conservatives agree on. I don’t think that all conservatives agree on everything – I don’t agree with all of George Bush’s spending policies. Not all conservatives act conservative all the time. [But] to be a conservative, I believe that you have to base your core values in these principles.”

The book is not geared toward any age, said Krohn. It is a simple read that could appeal to children (should they be interested), but the content is detailed enough to keep an adult fully fixated with the facts and quotes. At just shy of 100 pages, it can be a quick read. Intended to be both a primer as well as a rallying cry for a new conservative revolution of the sort begun by Ronald Reagan, the book also throws in two appendices detailing firstly why John McCain is a conservative and why Barack Obama would not like Krohn. Both are entertaining as well as very informative of both candidates’ policies.

Krohn is convinced his book and the basic values within would lead to a better America if only conservatives would stick to them.

I will criticize, attack, and bully those on the right who have their panties in a twist, boldly proclaiming on blogs that this young man will one day be president or something to similar effect. I do have problems with seeing a child carted out on Fox News numerous times to debate politics. There is an arena for children under the age of eighteen to debate politics: it’s called the debate team. By putting a child on national television to discuss conservative ideology, the child is now a public figure, opening that child up to be torn apart by those who don’t agree with what he/she is saying.

This is not the 1960′s anymore. Any idiot with a computer can say whatever is on their minds (myself included). Were Jonathan Krohn to google search his own name, he would find many blogs praising his poise. At the same time, he would find people he has never met calling him things a child should not be called. You have websites such as Salon asking whether or not Krohn is just another brainwashed child, and anyone who is politically informed knows that when your child is the subject of a post on a website such as Wonkette, then the content of that post and the comments could be hurtful.

In the last few years, we have become more aware of the phenomena known as internet bullying, and there are tragic stories that show where this type of activity can lead.

The protection provided by the parents, the state, and the law for Jonathan Krohn has been thrown out the window. He is now fair game. For all those posts declaring him the future of conservatism, there will be just as many labeling him as a “wingnut.”

In the end, I don’t support those who say negative things about this young man. He’s a minor, but I don’t bother to criticize those who do. Why would I turn in the other direction and ignore it? Because then I would have to criticize everyone who has ever said anything negative about Jamie Lynn Spears, Mylie Cyrus, or any other celebrity under the age of eighteen, or else I’d be a hypocrite. That is the life of one decides to become a public figure at such a young age.

From the Associated Press this morning, more proof that folks are beginning to sour on Obama:

President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a “break from a troubled past.” But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama’s bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama’s agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Although the administration likes to say it “inherited” the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama’s still-young watch. Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

…

The president’s suggestion that it was a good time for investors with “a long-term perspective” to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed.

…

Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for “bold action and big ideas” with deeds.

In particular, they point to bumpy efforts to fix the financial system under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of “catastrophe” if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner’s public performance has been halting and he’s been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.

Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama’s proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

…

Even White House claims that its policies will “create” or “save” 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

“You created a situation where you cannot be wrong,” the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week. “If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would’ve lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs,” Baucus said. “You’ve given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.”

As they say, read the whole thing. This is why electing an inexperienced half-term Senator in the middle of a crisis was a bad idea. Now millions of Americans are beginning to realize that.