Indiana governor Mitch Daniels sometimes sees his name thrown about when lists of possible 2012 Republican contenders are mentioned. Michael Barone has already endorsed him, and he’s maintaining an active website, despite his proclamation that he will never be a candidate for public office “ever again.”

Domestically, Governor Daniels comes from the reformist wing of the party. In March, he correctly told the GOP to “stop whining” about President Obama’s agenda and forward positive ideas of our own instead. In Indiana, he has balanced the budget, trimmed the size of government, touted environmental issues at a time when most Republicans seem scared to death of them, and won an impressive 20% of the black vote in his 2008 re-election bid. Moreover, he is an Arab-American, a not-unimpressive ethnic quality in a time when the GOP direly needs a shot in the arm on the “diversity” front.

Quite frankly, he seems like my kind of candidate (and there’s no reason for religious conservatives to dislike the man, who says that “saving souls” is more important than politics), and a fairly obvious center-right choice for the next presidential race — especially now that Jon Huntsman is tied up and Charlie Crist shot himself in the foot by cheerleading the stimulus package.

And yet, Daniels, like most governors who did not come from the Senate, remains somewhat of a blank slate on the foreign policy front. But there are some upsetting signs on the outfront.

We know that he has both been honored by (in the late 1980′s) and addressed the Arab American Institute, a leading ethnic grievance lobby in the United States. Its endorsement was rejected by Mike Dukakis in 1988 and, in 2008, politicians like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean gave pro-victimology speeches to the Institute, proclaiming, essentially, that the United States engages in racism against Arabs and that the Republican Party attempts to make people afraid of Arabs. The head of the Arab-American Institute, James Zogby, is a notorious Israel-basher and Islamist sympathizer:

On the Oslo Accords…It is difficult to see what has changed. If there is peace, someone forgot to tell the Israelis at the checkpoints or their Palestinian victims. This is a classic portrait of power vs. Powerlessness. The daily humiliation of the checkpoint can’t help but create hatred…

[There is] significant leverage which [the Arabs] can use to check Likud’s [this means "the Jews'"...] policy and force the U.S. to use pressure.

As reported by Yehudit Barsky,

Specifically, he suggested that Arab states revert to using the secondary Arab boycott, that is, not doing business with firms doing business in Israel…

…

Zogby has come to the defense of extremist Muslim groups such as the Muslim [Brotherhood], Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, arguing that these groups are merely “politically” or “religiously” opposed to the peace process. He defends the American Muslim Council (AMC), a Muslim American organization based in Washington that forwards the cause of extremist Islamic organizations such as Hamas, as well as Islamic radical movements in Algeria, Sudan, and other countries. He also has the temerity to call upon Jewish organizations to follow his lead on these issues.

The Arab-American Institute also devotes itself to the creation of a “viable” Palestinian state. That means, for those of you who are unfamiliar with euphemistic anti-Israel sloganeering, that Israel either needs to give up Jerusalem or else much of its land — certainly moreso than just the West Bank and Gaza. (How do we know this for certain? Because Yasser Arafat already rejected, in 2000, an offer which would have offered all three to the Palestinians.)

This is the man whose institute Mitch Daniels addressed and, further back, accepted an award from.

This could be completely innocuous, of course: Governor Daniels may be unfamiliar with Mr. Zogby or his outrageous statements. Perhaps, despite this disturbing link, Daniels is a staunch supporter of the state of Israel and the war against militant Islam.

Or perhaps he’s not.

If he runs in 2012, security-minded conservatives ought to dog him until we get some straight answers.

Regardless, he has some explaining to do.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

RepublicanDepot.com has some state-of-the-art buttons, shirts, and posters for potential 2012 candidates, including some of the second-tier ones, like Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman.

For Matthew E. Miller…

A smile almost as exciting as the man himself!

For Adam Graham…

“With this white t-shirt, I’ll be as sophisticated as Huckabee himself!”

For commenter OHIO JOE…

“Pink is definitely my color…”

For my good friend IllinoisGuy…

A Mitt Romney cutout…gosh, it’s just like meeting the real Mitt!

For Gamecock…

Get your gear today!

EDIT: For all you jerks — yeah, you heard me…jerks! — out there who say that there’s no Rudy gear, look at the Spalding group, which has Rudy 2012 gear modeled on his 2008 gear.

FOR ME…

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

President Obama’s appointment of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. is being treated by the Beltway media as part of the Great Purge, the self-immolation of the GOP that is driving moderates to greener pastures in the Democratic Party.  In reality, this is all a con, masterfully executed by Obama’s Chicago-style politics.  Clearly, David Plouffe’s planted comments about being scared of Jon Huntsman were crafted with the full knowledge that Huntsman was going to be chosen as Ambassador to China. From observing this Obama team over the last few years, you understand that such a statement would not have been put out there unless there was a direct and distinct purpose, in this case to push the image of the GOP moving further right. By claiming to fear Huntsman as a GOP savior, and then installing him as Ambassador, it helps shape this false image. With the media all too willing to aid the Obama cause, the stories begin to be churned out about a moderate driven away by the evil minions of the far right. 

In reality, Gov. Huntsman had very little chance of winning the GOP nomination, not because of the far right, but because other republicans of his ilk out-shining him.  For example, Huntsman’s campaigns for Governor had been fully backed by Utah’s business community and the LDS church, but in a GOP primary those interests have committed to someone else, Gov. Mitt Romney.  Romney raised more money from Utah then any other state, and a recent poll had Romney well ahead of Huntsman in his own backyard.  I imagine on Huntsman’s trips to  Michigan, he received many ‘Thanks but no thanks’ from groups who would naturally fit with him, but had committed to Romney instead.  With Huntsman’s natural bases of support in places like Utah, New Hampshire , and Michigan firmly siding with Romney, it left him with very little room to run.

Now, some would argue that Huntsman could still run to Romeny’s left, like McCain, and win that way.  Perhaps, except for one problem: Gov. Charlie Crist.  The Florida Governor’s decision to run for the Senate has many insiders believe that Crist sees the Senate as a launching pad for a presidential bid.  Crist would easily be the biggest star of the 2010 midterms, making him the most ascendant moderate in the party; a popular GOP senator from the biggest of swing states. Again, Huntsman is outflanked. Who needs a moderate Utah Governor when there is the superior option of famous moderate Florida Senator?

With the prospects of likely being out-organized by Romney and Crist, and with no chance to capture the populism of a Sarah Palin(working mom), Tim Pawlenty(son of a truck driver), and Mike Huckabee(Baptist minister) due to his billionaire upbringing, Huntsman clearly saw his chances fall from slim to none.  That’s when Obama struck. The President sent out Plouffe to make his silly ‘I’m scared of Huntsman’ comments, and then offers him a job he would be unlikely to refuse.  In one fell swoop, Obama builds up a rival only to remove him from the equation, with us republicans having no say in the process.   Slick politics, to be sure, but far from the moderate purge the media will claim it to be.  

Jon Huntsman is Ambassador to China today not because of the alleged wingnuttery Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, but because of the  strategic positioning of Mitt Romney and Charlie Crist.

There are times — and this is one of those times — where I don’t know whether a liberal-socialist really believes what he writes, or whether he is just making stuff up.  I don’t know much about Thomas Frank or his background, but it’s clear he’s a socialist, and I’m guessing the Mission Hills, KS, resident is one of today’s rich leftists who might have been considered back in the day a “Rockefeller Republican.”  I do give Frank props, though, for deciding he was a Democrat far before Arlen Specter did.

As I first wrote today at RedCounty.com, the blog at The Wichita Eagle (McClatchy-owned) calls conservatives “anti-government” and gives credibility to a recent column by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal.  Frank wrote this:

“So this is how it works with conservatives at the helm: We starve government agencies of resources, we keep their employees’ pay well below their private-sector counterparts, we make sure they know what we think of them as they wait their turn at the photocopier.”

Come on, Frank:

• When were conservatives last running the federal government? It could be argued that the last conservative US Congress was the Congress of 1996 or 1998.  That was short-lived, and they couldn’t even get all the Republicans on board to pass a balanced-budget amendment.
• What government agency was starved under President George W. Bush? Under Reagan? When was the last time a federal agency was “starved?”
• One of the top government expenditures is for government-run education. At the K-12 level, it is a virtual government-forced monopoly that keeps private education stunted at unhealthy levels. There is not a true market in K-12 education. And it’s inaccurate to state that government schools “keep their employees’ pay well below their private-sector counterparts.” Not only do government employees often make more money, but many unneeded (or poorly-performing employees’) jobs exist — particularly in administration — in government that would not exist in an efficient, consumer-driven environment.

This article is very close to regular content written by another Mission Hills socialist named Steve Rose who endorses Democrats but still claims allegiance to the GOP, who wrote that Ronald Reagan today would have supported embryonic stem cell research, who talks endlessly about the flawlessness in local government-run schools but then purchased expensive private K-12 education when he had to make the choice, and who inherited from his father and later sold a now-mail-only, free paper called The Johnson County Sun, which recently asked readers for $25 donations, and which is probably the only paper in the state that openly does not care whether local governments follow The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA).  A good KC-area conservative blog called Kaw and Border looked at something Rose wrote about post-2010 years in Kansas under the leadership of our likely next governor, Sam Brownback:

And all the right-wing anti-tax organizations, basically ruled by the powerful Koch Industries family in Wichita, which would eliminate all taxes and take us back to the Stone Age, would have an ally in the governor’s office.

This kind of writing is almost what you’d expect to read in the Onion — “eliminate all taxes”? — but it passes for legitimate debate in elite leftist circles.

National Journal GOP Political Insiders Poll

Who among your party’s current crop of governors has the brightest political future?

• Bobby Jindal 21%
• Haley Barbour 20%
• Tim Pawlenty 17%
• Charlie Crist 13%
• Mark Sanford 8%
• Jon Huntsman 6%
• Mitch Daniels 5%
• Sarah Palin 5%
• Arnold Schwarzenegger 1%

(more…)

Is the conservative movement capable of putting together a cohesive plan?  Republicans may win seats in ’09 and ’10 due to the ineptness of Dems, but it could be so much bigger if they would just get on the same page concerning a few issues.  It would also help if they’d engage in a little bit of strategic thinking over ego-stroking and passing on running (Gov Ridge, please run! Gov Crist and State Rep Rubio, please run for different offices!).  Anyway, don’t let those topics constrain you.  What’s on your mind?

As noted by Aron Goldman in the comments section, both Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio have signed Grover Norquist’s taxpayer protection pledge:

Gov. Charlie Crist’s campaign announced this morning that he was the first candidate to sign the “taxpayer protection pledge” of the Washington-based group Americans for Tax Reform. Hours later, ATR announced that former House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, had sent in his pledge, too.

Crist evidently attempted to one-up Rubio by committing himself first, in an effort to appeal to primary voters.  As other sources have noted, the pledge might compel Good Time Charlie to veto the budget recently approved by state legislators.

Over in Kavon’s neck of the woods, a local news outlet published an article laying out Gov. Pawlenty’s approach to balancing the Minnesota budget:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has started his quest to cut billions of dollars from state government spending if budget negotiations fail in the legislative session’s final four days.

While saying he remains open to compromise with Democratic-Farmer-Laborite leaders, the Republican governor said he will use his line-item veto power and other budget-cutting authority to set a new state budget if the Legislature will not work with him “on a reasonable budget solution.”

“This year, politics as usual around this place is over,” Pawlenty declared in a late Thursday afternoon surprise announcement. “There will be no special session. There will be no government shutdown. And there will be a budget that lives within the means of Minnesota’s taxpayers and the revenues available to the state of Minnesota.”

Pawlenty said he will trim the budget two ways:– Line-item veto items out of budget bills lawmakers already have sent to him. That authority is limited to just some budget items.

– After the partial vetoes, he will unallot. That is a legal way to unilaterally reduce spending to match revenues, a procedure designed to balance a budget in changing economic times.

Bills lawmakers passed would spend $34 billion in the next two years, but just $31 billion in revenue is expected without new revenues.

Another example of the famous Pawlenty pragmatism, with principled fiscal conservatism to boot?  One has to respect T-Paw’s courage to take such a politically risky stance in an environment unfavorable to governors – especially Republican governors in Democratic-leaning states.

Wow! Jon Huntsman is resigning as governor of Utah in order to become the U.S. ambassador to China.

He’s certainly well-qualified for the post, being fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

I’m convinced that he’s running in 2012, so what does this mean for him, if anything?

In my estimate, it helps him in that it (1) gives him an additional credential, and (2) makes him look ‘above-the-fray’ in the partisanship game.

One can imagine a Huntsman comeback to any one of his presidential rivals complaining that he served in the Obama administration: “Are you a Republican first, or an American first? I was asked to serve my country by taking that post as ambassador, and I did. If you would have sooner denied the post simply to please your base constituents, then I would ask you to reconsider your priorities.”

EDIT: Max Twain makes a good point in the comments:

I imagine Huntsman also saw how the day-to-day issues a governor must face can intrude on a presidential bid, and this exorcises him of those duties.

It frees him!

More on Huntsman:

“…Kirk Jowers of the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics says, “Huntsman has positioned himself in a great place right now because he is the only presidential candidate really running in the middle right now.”

Huntsman spent the weekend in Michigan which is a key G.O.P. primary state.

And Jowers – who has advised three republican presidential candidates – says Huntsman has now, “…become a top five candidate for 2012.”

I can think of another candidate who could be the choice of centrists, pragmatists, and the center-right…

Quinnipiac Poll: Pro-Choicers Remain the Majority

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?

• Legal in all cases 15%
• Legal in most cases 37%
• Illegal in most cases 27%
• Illegal in all cases 14%

The percentages who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases:

• Jews: 86%
• Catholics not attending services weekly: 70%
• Democrats: 66%
• Income >$100K: 60%
• College degree: 57%
• Hispanics: 57%
• Age 35-54: 55%
• Independents: 54%
• Income $50-100K: 53%
• Women: 52%
• Whites: 52%
• Men: 51%
• Age 18-34: 51%
• Age 55+: 50%
• Blacks: 50%
• Income < $50K: 50%
• No college degree: 50%
• White Catholics: 50%
• White Protestants: 42%
• Republicans: 30%
• White born-again evangelicals 30%
• Catholics attending services weekly: 29%

Survey of 2,041 registered voters was conducted April 21-27. The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points.

H/T: Tommy Boy

That bastion of right-winged-theocrats, Gallup, finds some interesting news on abortion: 

And…

It’s too bad that so-cons, with their wacky minority social causes, are driving those staunch fi-con, freedom loving Americans into the arms of the Democrats.   Christie Todd Whitman searches frantically for a new narrative. 

I have a real soft spot for the island nation of Sri Lanka. I have personal friends there, so their decades-long civil war is – to a small degree – my problem as well. Hence, I have watched with great interest this year as the Sri Lankan Army has launched a new offensive against the terrorist rebels known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – who had set up a de-facto nation in the North of the island. A few months ago, the government began a new push to root out the LTTE. The rebel capital was captured, along with massive swaths of LTTE territory, and the rebels now hold only a small piece of land.

Today, President Mahinda Rajapaksa announced that all remaining LTTE possessions will be captured and the war ended within 48 hours. I sincerely hope that he can follow through that – as the LTTE has terrorized the country for decades, pioneered the use of suicide bombers (a tactic adopted by Islamofascist terrorists), and conscripted untold numbers of child soldiers. They are one of the world’s most prominent and deadly terrorist organizations – and it is high time that they are relegated to the ash-heap of history.

That said, assuming that President Rajapaksa can follow through on his pledge – the real war may just beginning. War-torn Northern Sri Lanka is in shambles, and there is still a lot of lingering tension between the minority Tamil ethnicity (who the LTTE claimed to “liberate” – although “enslave” might be a better term) and the majority Sinhala ethnicity. I am happy to see this long, hard war come to an end – but putting the nation back together could be just as daunting of a task.

Rasmussen GOP Leader Poll

Is the leader of the Republican Party Michael Steele, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, or is there no clear leader?

Among Likely Republican Voters

• There is no clear leader 37% (68%)
• John McCain 18% (5%)
• Michael Steele 14% (5%)
• Sarah Palin 10% (1%)
• Mitt Romney 8% (N/A)
• Rush Limbaugh 6% (2%)
• Dick Cheney 4% (N/A)

Among Likely Voters

• There is no clear leader 48% (65%)
• Michael Steele 15% (3%)
• John McCain 11% (3%)
• Rush Limbaugh 8% (4%)
• Mitt Romney 5% (N/A)
• Sarah Palin 5% (1%)
• Dick Cheney 2% (N/A)
• Eric Cantor 1% (N/A)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted May 12-13. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted March 6-7 are in parentheses.

     On April 30 of this year, Governor Lynch (D-New Hampshire) said the following, “I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil-unions.”

     Well, the New Hampshire Legislature recently passed same-sex marriage, and Lynch said he will veto the current version, but he will sign gay marriage if there is enough legal protection for religious groups and institutions.  For those of us who follow the popular Governor Lynch, this is typical of him.  He likes to have things both ways.  He provided legislative leaders with suggested wording that would satisfy him, and he has left it to the House and the Senate to move next.

     This raises the question.  Is it very hard for socially liberal people, like Governor Lynch, to actually veto same-sex marriage when push comes to shove.  I think they look at it as being on the wrong side of history.  You have to understand their mindset.

From Fox New York:

Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He’d been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United Stated for a seven-month visit in 1969.

The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people — like Romonini — who were never even part of the Social Security system.

Perhaps this will prove a harbinger of embarassing things to come for Obama and other Dems.  This shouldn’t exactly surprise us, coming from a Chicago politician.  After all, we’ve heard the stories about how involved the Second City’s deceased can get with the government…

In late 2007, I came within inches of endorsing Rudy Giuliani.  As Kavon Nikrad was kind to report in November 2007, I decided to endorse Fred Thompson.  I was a Fred-head.  Actually, I remain one, and, man, do I wish either KMBZ 980 or KCMO 710 in Kansas City would pick up Fred Thompson’s radio program (I did discover that one can download, for free, large portions of the program on iTunes).

I am pro-life, and I was elected with help from the pro-life community, and after consulting people whom I respect, I decided against endorsing Giuliani, primarily because of the issue of unborn life.  And that was too bad, because I believe a President Giuliani would be, mostly, a functional pro-life president.  I believed him when he promised to appoint judges in the mold of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts; I will hope that Ted Olson would not have supported him, if this were not the case.  I also believed his pledge to uphold the Hyde Amendment, barring the direct federal funding of abortions (of course, abortion providers unfortunately still find ways of securing federal tax money, and I do not find involuntary takings to be “pro-choice” with regard to any cause).

My recollection is that, as a presidential candidate, Giuliani distanced himself (I don’t recall how formally) on the partial-birth abortion ban that he had originally opposed during his 2000 US Senate run.  My expectation is that a future President Giuliani would veto any pro-abortion legislation.

On most other issues, I find Giuliani to be rock-solid.  The Club for Growth is certainly a fan of his on economic issues.  Nobody doubted his willingness to confront terrorism.  Government reform:  Giuliani has an record in New York that most politicians would love to have.  I remember seeing Giuliani quoted in an article, saying that the federal government could easily be reduced by 15% — what a bold statement to make in today’s Republican party.

I acknowledge that Giuliani’s record was not perfect.  I’m not sure the NRA ever warmed to him, for example.

As a bonus, though, he’s far ahead of his time on school vouchers.  One of the funnier moments of the past few years occurred during a Giuliani fundraiser in Hallbrook, Kansas (think Beverly Hills without the nearby ocean), where the candidate voluntarily brought up the merits of school choice.  Giuliani had been going through a talking-points list of major Republican issues about which everybody in the room had agreed — judges, how health care insurance should be modeled after auto insurance, etc.  But prior to the fundraiser at the suburban mansion, Giuliani had not been properly advised that Leawood, KS, is not Le Roy, KS.  With Johnson County elites, criticizing government-run education is perhaps THE most controversial action that a politician can take.  The fundraiser was full of liberal-socialist, wealthy Republican politicians.  Many of them are influential within the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, whose current chairman was Kansas City’s first bank bailout recipient, and which cheers on one of the most oppressive school districts in the nation — the 64% black, 20% Hispanic Kansas City (MO) 33, “Where Achievement is the Standard.” All of those present at the Giuliani fundraiser could afford to practice school choice.  But dare to question the effectiveness of the $12,000/student tax dollars now going to Kansas government schools — that is a no-no.  There were maybe three of us in attendance who were school choice proponents, and for about one minute, as he talked about school vouchers, Giuliani was campaigning to a brick wall.

To be clear, I would have enthusiastically supported Giuliani, if he had won the nomination.  He had a proven record and a mostly-consistent record.   Perhaps most importantly, there was little question with regard to Giuliani and the rule of law:  as George Will repeatedly pointed out, the Republican party’s eventual nominee’s chief domestic policy achievement — McCain-Feingold – is unquestionably unconstitutional.

But the primaries are the time to sort out one’s ideal candidate, and I decided that Sen. Thompson was the best man for the job (again, I viewed Giuliani to be, ”functionally” pro-life — mostly.)

I believe that he would receive stronger support among pro-life voters if he would clarify and/or adapt his pledges in the following areas.  Note my use of the word “pledges.”  What I mean:  While I do generally prefer candidates to “walk the walk” with regard to voting according to their worldview/convictions, I would rather a candidate be honest and state “I pledge to do X, even though I might personally prefer Y,” rather than disingenuously stating, “I’ve completely changed my opinion on X.”

1. Roe v. Wade:  Giuliani repeatedly stated that a constructionist judge could either overturn or uphold Roe.  I realize that there is a SMALL argument to be made among the conservative legal community that the idea of “precedent” carries some weight.  But, really, a bad law is a bad law, and bad laws need to be overturned.  I also realize that there is likely a small political liability to any presidential candidate committing to overturning Roe — certainly, the liberal media will try to damage any pro-life candidate on the issue of abortion, but, at the end of the day, I’m not sure this matters:  candidates must decide whether or not to stand on principle, regardless of “what might happen.”  Perhaps an acceptable compromise is for Giuliani to not explicitly commit to overturning Roe, but to at least STOP re-stating that Roe is an acceptable court decision.
2. Signing pro-life legislation:  If pro-life legislation were put on a President Giuliani’s desk, would he sign it?  Does this include limitations on the destruction of human embryos?
3. Taxpayer funding of research involving the cloning and the destruction of human embryos:  My recollection is that Giuliani never committed fully one way or the other on this issue.  I do remember reading a quote from him, indicating that he questioned the purpose of creating/cloning life, merely to destroy/research it, but I don’t recall a firm commitment.

Regarding points (2) and (3) above:  ESCR may soon be entirely unnecessary, if I have correctly understood this New York Times article, “Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It.”

If the stem cell wars are indeed nearly over, no one will savor the peace more than James A. Thomson.

…..

[H]is laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments for disease.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said. “I thought long and hard about whether I would do it.”

…..

Now with the new technique, which involves adding just four genes to ordinary adult skin cells, it will not be long, he says, before the stem cell wars are a distant memory. “A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote,” Dr. Thomson said in the interview.

…..

More work remains, but he is confident that the path ahead is clear.

“Isn’t it great to start a field and then to end it,” he said.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Republicans are diverse enough. In the last two elections our party has done poorly among the young, Asians, and Latin Americans.

However often the party’s situation is described like this:

“Republicans are all old white men. White men are a declining demographic.”

This sort of perspective isn’t helpful. It casts our lack of diversity in racial language where the problem is as much within the white racial category as outside of it.

In 2007 the Census Bureau recorded 74% of the population as “white”. They project 73% of the population will be white in 2050. This occurs largely as Hispanics immigrate and assimilate into America.

In the last few years, the Republican Party has done poorly with immigrants and their children of all races. That includes immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. Cubans, the Vietnamese and Filipinos were our bright spot but we’ve even lost support among them.

Instead of focusing on race perhaps we ought to focus on why immigrant groups feel excluded.

Beyond that we ought to recognize that ethnic loyalties to parties are temporary.

Republicans aren’t extinct because of the European immigrants that entered through Ellis Island although many Americans feared them. After a while Poles, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and others all began voting the same way as everyone else. Largely this happened as these groups assimilated into America. Many of these groups weren’t popularly considered “white” when they immigrated (although the Census Bureau differed then too).

We shouldn’t view our plight in racial terms. Our situation is one of being out-of-touch with many voters of all races. A revival of Republican fortunes won’t come from just moving right or center.

Our party has a problem with relating to a large number of newer voters. As Obama’s term continues we need to look for opening to offer those voters an alternative that will mean something to them.

For all the passion our rhetoric causes in our base it’s clear many voters just don’t get it.

I’m not sure if it will be enough but I’d like to see Republicans use their conservative background to speak an updated message addressing new issues. I don’t think muddling the difference between the parties will accomplish as much as exploiting the weak points and fractures in Obama’s coalition.

Right now many are focusing inside the Republican tent. They want to fight other Republicans and argue over blame. Instead we ought to focus outside the tent and look for opportunities to pull people in. Obama has been offering us opportunities if we’d only use them to reach beyond either side of the base.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Doug Forrester can be contacted at starvingecongradstud@hotmail.com or on Facebook.

Rasmussen Reports Rasmussen 2009 New Jersey Governor’s Poll

• Christie 47%
• Corzine 38%

• Lonegan 42%
• Corzine 41%

This national telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports May 12, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

A new Fox News poll just came out:

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll / May 12-13, 2009

4. I’m going to read a list of potential candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination. Please tell me which one you would like to see as the Republican presidential nominee:

Among Republicans:
Mike Huckabee – 20%
Mitt Romney – 18%
Newt Gingrich – 14%
Sarah Palin – 13%
Rudy Giuliani – 12%
Too soon to say – 7%
Don’t know – 4%
Mark Sanford – 4%
Jeb Bush – 3%
Bobby Jindal – 3%
Someone else – 3%

Among Independents:
Rudy Giuliani – 19%
Mike Huckabee – 16%
Too soon to say – 14%
Mitt Romney – 12%
Sarah Palin – 10%
Don’t know – 9%
Someone else – 9%
Newt Gingrich – 5%
Jeb Bush – 2%
Bobby Jindal – 2%
Mark Sanford – 2%

Overall (which seems to include Democrats):
Rudy Giuliani – 16%
Mike Huckabee – 15%
Mitt Romney – 14%
Don’t know – 11%
Someone else – 10%
Sarah Palin – 9%
Too soon to say – 9%
Newt Gingrich – 7%
Jeb Bush -3%
Mark Sanford – 3%
Bobby Jindal – 2%

Polling was conducted by telephone May 12 – 13, 2009, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.

LV = likely voters

Democrats n=375, ±5; Republicans n=274, ±6; independents n=213, ±7

Yes, the margin of error is large, even after combining the two, but…

Don’t forget, everyone: there’s no Democratic primary competition in 2012. Independents are going to mean a lot.

Can Rudy resist?

Over at Washington Whispers, Paul Bedard names Pawlenty, Cantor, Huntsman, and Sanford as the four dark-horses to watch for 2012:

You already know the names of the Republican stars expected to run for the 2012 presidential nomination: Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin. But with the party divided over the direction it wants to go and a slew of others eager to get in the presidential race, we’ve come up with a list of dark horses who could pull off an upset just the way 50-to-1 long-shot Mine That Bird did at this year’s Kentucky Derby.

Four topped our list: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, and Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Could an upstart shove the likes of Newt and Mitt—the expected front-runners—aside? Right now, the insiders say that’s unlikely…

It is still extremely difficult for me to imagine a candidate other than Mitt, Sarah, or Huck being the 2012 Republican nominee, simply due to the 3-5 year headstart those candidate will enjoy in organization–which is absolutely critical (and perhaps definitive) to any viable presidential campaign.

Nothing is impossible, of course. So if you feel that I am wrong in my assumptions, tell me so in the comments and outline the path to victory for a non-Big Three candidate.

As if Scott McClellan weren’t brave enough.

Washington liberals seem to have made a habit of bottling up their outrage. Nancy Pelosi has known for six years that waterboarding was used on Abu Zubaydah. According to the CIA (liars), Dick Cheney (mean), and Karl Rove (evil), Pelosi, along with other top Congressional leaders, were briefed and had no objections.

So what’s the deal?

A) The CIA is out to get Nancy Pelosi, in which case she should join up with Ron Paul’s supporters.

B) She had no choice:

But she said the fact that she did not speak out at the time due to secrecy rules did not make her complicit in any abuse of detainees.

Well, rules is rules, after all. ‘Torture’ is one thing; the Bush Administration’s secrecy rules are quite another. Is this the best explanation that Pelosi can give to the mob?

She accused the C.I.A. and Bush administration of lying to Congress about what was actually transpiring with the detainees.

“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Nancy? Darling, you believed Iraq had WMD, too.

Unless the CIA was engaged in a conspiracy to get you on that one, too.

The implications are clear: Nancy Pelosi thinks that waterboarding is torture. Nancy Pelosi was briefed as to the use of waterboarding. Nancy Pelosi said nothing. Nancy Pelosi, thus, was silent in the face of torture. But the mob is calling for her head now, so she’s backtracking, thinking it better to accuse the CIA of a conspiracy — how cliched, Nancy! — than to simply admit that she said nothing. Am I missing anything?

David Brooks gets it right:

Why can’t she just tell the obvious truth? She was influenced by the climate of the time. In retrospect, she wishes she had raised her voice in protest. Meanwhile, the 80 percent of the people who want to prosecute Justice Department lawyers have gone strangely silent as far as Pelosi is concerned.

My lesson of the day is that partisanship trumps everything.

Wonderful, though. We now know that the Democrats’ holy trinity of leadership — Obama, Pelosi, Reid — comprises a shameless sophist, a gutless liar, and an outright traitor. Just lovely.

Democracy Corps 2010 Missouri Senate Poll

• Robin Carnahan 53%
• Roy Blunt 44%

• Robin Carnahan 54%
• Sarah Steelman 42%

Democracy Corps survey of 800 likely voters in Missouri conducted April 28 – 30, 2009. The survey is subject to a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

The closest state during the 2008 presidential election, Missouri shows early signs of opportunity for Democrats to pick up the senate seat currently held by Republican Kit Bond. A new Democracy Corps survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows Secretary of State Robin Carnahan leading Republican Congressman Roy Blunt 53 to 44 percent and leading former Treasurer Sarah Steelman 54 to 42 percent.

After voters hear profiles of each candidate, Carnahan maintains a 7-point advantage over Steelman and a 9-point advantage over Blunt. After attacks on each candidate, Carnahan remains above 50 percent against both Republicans, and leads Blunt by 7 and Steelman by 6. At this early and uncertain stage, Carnahan starts off the contest with a strong personal and professional standing that puts her in a position to defeat either potential opponent. At the same time, it appears as if Steelman may be the tougher foe with a stronger profile than Blunt and the potential to run a fresh outsider candidacy that Blunt cannot offer.

President Obama provides a slight boost to Carnahan, even in a state he failed to carry, with a 56 percent job approval rating (compared to 58 percent nationally) and voters preferring, by a 49 to 40 percent margin, a senator who will mostly support Obama’s agenda to get things done rather than one who will mostly oppose his agenda to provide balance.

While the strength of the candidates will be critical, the senate campaign will also take place amidst pitched battles on President Obama’s top priorities – the economy, health care and energy. Voters divide evenly on the economic debate and the health care debate, while giving the President’s position an 18-point advantage on energy.”

Hat-tip: Tommy Boy

We’ve talked about a lot of races here at R4’12, and in the absence of an active presidential primary we’ve dwelt on a lot of Senate contests. However, we very rarely talk about one of the best potential pickups for the GOP in 2010: Michael Bennet’s seat in Colorado. Bennet, you may recall, was the Denver school superintendent appointed to serve out the term of now-Secretary Ken Salazar – and he has absolutely tanked in the polls.

While he does stand a chance, Bennet has extreme difficulty polling above 45% in any matchup, and loses to credible Republicans when polled against them. However, while I was back in Colorado last week for my little sister’s graduation, I was appalled to find that the local GOP is overly fixated on the upcoming gubernatorial race, and that the highly vulnerable Bennet may keep his seat simply because the Republicans can’t find a credible challenger. Up to now, only two candidates have entered our primary – and both poll behind Bennet (keep in mind that Bob Beauprez , who got positively squished by Bill Ritter when he ran for governor, polls slightly ahead of Bennet if he were to run).

In one corner, we have Ken Buck – the ultra-conservative D.A. from Weld County. He seems nice – but he is unknown and lacking in charisma. His campaign, up to now, has been a comedy of errors, and while I have nothing against him – he’s not going to win. In the opposite corner is the Ryan Frazier – a young city councilman from the Denver suburb of Aurora. He has the benefit of being young, charismatic, and black – drawing lots of Obama comparisons – but he simply lacks the gravitas to pull this off. Furthermore, he has a reputation as either “very moderate” or libertarian (depending on who you talk to) making it harder to play to the primary electorate out West. Let us remember that Obama, who at least managed to get into the State Senate before going national, only got his Senate seat because of the implosion of his opponents in both the primary and the general election – and Frazier will not be so lucky. He has potential, but he is not even close to ready.

So, we have a dilemma. Neither of the current candidates can win, and almost nobody else wants in. RNC Committeeman Mark Hillman took a pass, and State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry is leaning toward a run for Governor instead. I personally don’t like the idea of handing the seat to Bennet without a fight – so the only choice we have is to start thinking outside the box and looking for other willing, electable candidates. This brings me to the man I think we should be begging to get in the race. Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like you to meet Major General Bentley Rayburn, U.S. Air Force (Retired).

The general burst onto the scene in 2006, when he made a run for Congress in the state’s fifth district. Despite an absurdly late entry into the primary and a total lack of name recognition, Rayburn shocked everyone by coming third in a crowded six-man primary – besting the sitting mayor Colorado Springs, who came fourth. In my opinion, Rayburn only lost because he was still busy commanding troops while the top two candidates had been building massive local organizations. Personally, I thought he was a joke when he got into that race – but nobody was laughing when he pulled 17% of the vote in an election where the winner (Doug Lamborn) only got about 29%. After that race, I got to know the general personally, and I came to realize that he was the real deal – a solid leader, an honorable man, and the type of no-nonsense guy we need in Washington. The top three candidates from the 2006 race (Rayburn, Lamborn, and talk show host Jeff Crank) quickly started moving toward a primary rematch in 2008, and I knew immediately that General Rayburn was my guy (I had previously supported sixth-place Duncan Bremer, brother of L. Paul Bremer – and for the record I wouldn’t mind seeing Duncan back in politics either).

While Rayburn came third again in the 2008 primary, he improved his vote share to 26% (just 3% short of second place) and picked up a number of high profile endorsements – including Colorado Springs Mayor Lionel Rivera. He may not have made it to Congress, but after only two years in politics, Bentley Rayburn had clearly established himself as a force to be reckoned with.

The general’s name was floated for the Senate in 2008, and he has drawn a few mentions for the next cycle, but not many. However, with several leading contenders bowing out and only Buck and Frazier in the race, I would hope that we start talking about him. Seriously, if you had the choice between a rural D.A., a suburban city councilman, or a two-star general who used to be Commandant of the Air War College – who would you pick?

Bentley’s conservative credentials are impeccable on both the fiscal, social, and national security fronts – and he has an extremely tight grasp of both foreign and domestic policy. The only thing that might hold him back is that a lot of the state GOP leadership supported Jeff Crank in the 2008 congressional race, and Mr. Crank has vocally blamed General Rayburn for the fact that he is not in Congress today (an absurd claim, as Doug Lamborn finished way ahead of Crank in the 2008 primary with 45% – and a high number of Rayburn supporters preferred Lamborn over Crank anyway). Either way, when it comes to getting rid of Senator Bennet, I would hope that we can bury the proverbial hatchet and just put a good candidate in the race.

Bentley Rayburn has the experience, the gravitas, and the charisma to take down Michael Bennet – and there is no good reason why the National Republican Senatorial Committee should not be pounding down his door and throwing money at him.

Am I crazy for suggesting this? Maybe – but I’d like to hear from anyone who thinks they have a better idea. And no, “let’s take our chances with Buck and/or Frasier” does not qualify as a “better idea”. I don’t want a questionable candidate who will have trouble taking down one of America’s most vulnerable Senators – I want someone who can pound Michael Bennet into the ground without breaking a sweat. In my opinion, if he were to win the nomination, General Rayburn could do just that.

2008 Rayburn for Congress TV Ad:

If you don’t think this guy is marketable – you are out of your mind.

My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media:

How do you get conservatives to think your organization is worthless? A member quoted in the media suggesting it’s time to move past Ronald Reagan is a surefire way to do it. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, Governor Jeb Bush never spoke those exact words, but that impression has been left with conservatives around the nation.

Bringing back the Republican Party is a hard task. It’s tougher still when its members don’t trust those running around trying to save the party. It’s worse yet when leaders have no idea why they aren’t trusted. In the minds of many of our leaders, if we could move past Reagan, we could all be sensible adults and make a series of compromises that would get the majority of Americans on board with the Republican Party. The problem with this thinking is that it fails to understand how a party wins an election. It’s not through attracting enough people via a series of compromises of core values. Rather, victory depends to a great extent on money and manpower.

If we are to learn anything from the 2008 campaign, it should be that building a campaign around moderates and independents is a poor plan. Moderates and independents made John McCain the Republican nominee with their support in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, but their role in Republican politics ended with their vote. Many of the party’s faithful didn’t even decide to vote for McCain until the Sarah Palin pick, and only then were there any volunteer efforts. Even those efforts were far less than efforts on the left for their guy. Obama’s people had been involved and engaged throughout the campaign.

Republican elites have correctly guessed that they can count on the vast majority of conservative activists to vote for them. But they don’t just need our votes; they need our money, time, and effort. Unlike leftist interests such as labor unions, environmentalists, and “community activists,” the livelihood of most middle-class conservatives is not tied up in who runs the government.

For a time, Republicans may be able to inspire conservatives to action with fear. But after a while they get tired of reading ransom notes from the RNC threatening national doom should they not send in a $100 check while they watch Republican Party agenda track closely with the Democratic Party on issues such as the size of government and amnesty for illegal aliens. And then conservatives conclude that the Republican Party is not worth their time, money, or sacrifice.

A few weeks ago, an ABC-Washington Post poll revealed that only 21% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans. However, as one blogger pointed out, 35% of Americans in the poll still identify themselves as conservatives. Will the Republican Party win again if at least 40% of conservatives don’t identify with it? And this figure doesn’t even take into account the moderates in the Republican Party, so it’s probably even higher.

Read the rest here.

If the Republican Party hopes to reaffirm itself as a national entity ahead of the 2012 presidential election, success does not begin with Charlie Crist, Mitt Romney or Michael Steele. Forget Rush, Bobby Jindal and Newt Gingrich. Sure, it would be beneficial to retain Mel Martinez’s U.S. Senate seat and the vacant governorship left by Crist in Florida. Of course the party needs to develop the promising voices of Jindal and Romney. And would it be really to much to ask of Steele to show some steady and controlled leadership?

But, in the end, the only road back to respectability and electoral competitiveness comes through building a bond with voters and gaining their trust. Our prime opportunity in the coming 18 months is the conquest of the Eastern Triumvirate: New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia. In Chris Christie, Tom Corbett and Bob McDonnell, the GOP has three candidates with distinguished law enforcement backgrounds and high marks from in-state Democrats. If, come January 2011, Republicans hold even two of these three governor’s seats, it would be a golden ticket to reestablish the party’s brand in the Northeast Corridor.

That’s if they win and govern successfully. of course. Yet I have confidence that they can eclipse the track records of Jon Corzine, Ed Rendell and Tim Kaine, respectively. While these prospective gubernatorial triumphs may not immediately influence the 2012 presidential contest, a few terms of productive Republican governance in the Northeast could be pivotal in 2016. It’s far too soon to write off the Republican Party in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Alert to Michael Steele: Send resources ASAP to these three men!

That said, here’s where I would place our current odds:

- Christie (or Lonegan) beating Corzine in New Jersey: 45% (I know what you are saying, but Corzine has extremely low ratings).

- Corbett (or another Republican) taking back Pennsylvania: 50-55%

- McDonnell winning Virginia: 55%
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Stubel can be contacted at michael.stubel@gmail.com

In case you missed it, the following are the remaining pertinent polls of the day:

2010 Dartmouth New Hampshire Senate Poll

• Hodes (D) 31%
• Bass (R) 30%

• Hodes (D) 38%
• Sununu (R) 35%

This poll was conducted by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College between 4/27 – 5/1/09. Survey included 403 registered voters with a 5% margin of error.

Marist University New York City Mayor General Election Poll

• Bloomberg 51%, Thompson 33%
• Bloomberg 52%, Avella 27%

Mayor Bloomberg (R/i) Job Approval

• 59% Excellent/Good, 39% Fair/Poor

This poll was conducted by Marist University between 5/5-7/09. Survey included 578 registered voters with a 4.5% margin of error.

Gallup National Supreme Court Poll

Do you think it is essential that the next Supreme Court justice be a woman, is it a good idea, but not essential, does it not matter to you, or do you think it is a bad idea?

• 6% Essential
• 26% Good idea, not essential
• 64% Doesn’t matter
• 3% Bad idea

Among Women

• 7% It is essential
• 31% A good idea, but not essential
• 58% It doesn’t matter

This poll was conducted between 5/7-10/09. Survey included 1,015 adults with a 3% margin of error.

Rasmussen New Jersey GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Chris Christie 39%
• Steve Lonegan 29%
• Not Sure 29%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 75% / 12% (+63%)
• Steve Lonegan 71% / 16% (+55%)

Survey of 412 likely primary voters was conducted May 12. The margin of error is ±5 percentage points.

Quinnipiac 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 54% (53%)
• David Paterson 32% (32%)

• Andrew Cuomo 47% (53%)
• Rudy Giuliani 41% (36%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Andrew Cuomo 51% / 13% (+38%)
• Rudy Giuliani 56% / 32% (+24%)
• David Paterson 24% / 55% (-31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 61%

Survey of 2,828 registered voters was conducted May 5-11. The margin of error is +/- 1.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 1-5 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Independent voters have shifted from 49 – 38 percent for Cuomo April 8 to 44 – 40 percent for Giuliani today. In this latest survey, Giuliani leads 80 – 9 percent among Republicans while Democrats back Cuomo 78 – 16 percent. Cuomo leads 76 – 13 percent among black voters and 52 – 40 percent among Hispanics, as white voters go to Giuliani 47 – 42 percent.

“If the Republicans nominate Mayor Giuliani, he beats Paterson by a lot. Cuomo beats Giuliani but that lead is shrinking as independent voters shift to the Republican. That’s a trend to watch,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

That is the title of an article by a contributing author over at KansasProgress.com regarding HR 1913, the US House’s “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009,” legislation that was approved by the House with a vote of 249-175 on April 29 of this year. Democrats voted 231-17 in favor; Republicans voted 158-18 against.

The author writes:

Government’s first and foremost responsibility is to protect its most innocent and helpless; yet apparently the U.S. House of Representatives did not think that is their most urgent responsibility; they chose instead to give special protection based on behavior and inclination rather than protect our children. In addition, they left the door wide open for religious discrimination.

I’ll next reference Andrew Sullivan:  “The Case Against Hate Crimes Laws”

I’m for getting rid of all of these laws, as attacks on freedom of thought. I also think the current proposal is a bit of flim-flam that will likely make no difference in the real world. But the GOP hysteria over this hate crime law, as opposed to all the others, seems obviously a case of prima facie homophobia. That bigotry obscures the serious case to be made that all these laws are unnecessary infringements on freedom of thought and corrosive of equality under the law.

At National Review Online, David Freddoso provides some reassurance to religious conservatives:

Several attorneys and lawmakers have pointed out deficiencies and vague language in the bill, but it is important to note up front that some concerns are spurious. The specter of preachers being arrested for sermons against homosexuality appears to be one of them. (Unless, perhaps, the preacher happens to be committing a federal crime and using firearms to threaten someone in a protected class with violence at the same time he gives his sermon.)

But Freddoso adds:

But the two classic arguments against hate-crime legislation still apply to the Shepard bill, which expands the number of protected classes to include particular genders, sexual orientations and “gender identities,” without precisely defining all of the terms involved. The arguments are (1) hate crimes laws effectively place society’s valuation of some victims’ lives and well-being above that of others and (2) they create opportunities for prosecutions based on a defendant’s attitudes or opinions rather than his acts, effectively violating freedom of speech and thought.

He also writes this, about which I was not yet aware:

Another problem with this particular bill is that it explicitly encourages federal prosecutors to try defendants twice for the same crime, even if the first trial results in acquittal.

He quotes Wisconsin Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner:

“At the first trial, the person is acquitted of the violent crime, and at the second trial the person is convicted of the hate crime, meaning what the defendant says during the commission of that crime. And that ends up criminalizing free speech, because the actual act of violence the jury determined that the defendant was not guilty, but because of what the defendant said during the commission of the crime aimed at the victim, the person is convicted of saying that. That is where we have the First Amendment slippery slope. And I think if this ever happens, you will find this bill declared to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment in the blink of an eye.”

In another article, Freddoso asks, “Do criminals motivated by hatred get off easy when there are no hate crime laws?” Looking at the examples given by the bill’s proponents on the floor of the US House, Freddoso does not see validation to that question.

Again, these were the victims mentioned on the House floor. Their killers received or face sentences of life, death, and 50 years. Only in the California case could a hate-crimes law actually affect the penalty – in the Colorado case, it is effectively symbolic.

It is entirely possible that there are cases out there where hate criminals get away with slaps on the wrist, but I could find no such case presented on the House floor last week as the bill’s proponents made their case.

Cato Institute senior fellow Nat Hentoff, and a critic “of executive-branch lunges against the separation of powers in the Bush-Cheney years,” is no fan of HR 1913.  Hentoff writes in his column published today:

The extra punishment applies only to these “protected classes.” As Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. asked (Denver Post April 28): “Isn’t every criminal act that harms another person a ‘hate crime’?” Then, regarding a Colorado “hate crime” law, one of 45 such state laws, Corry wrote: “When a Colorado gang engaged in an initiation ritual of specifically seeking out a “white woman” to rape, the Boulder prosecutor declined to pursue ‘hate crime’ charges.” She was not enough of one of its protected classes.

Corey adds that the state “hate crime” law – like the newly expanded House of Representatives federal bill – “does not apply equally” (as the 14th Amendment requires), essentially instead “criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories.”

Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, think hard about Core’s warining that, “A government powerful enough to pick and choose which thoughts to prosecute is a government too powerful.”

From Politico:

Hoping to recapture the grassroots energy of last month’s “tea parties,” Republican Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas will host a tele-town hall Thursday that’s being dubbed “Tea Party 2.0.”

The Republican Governors Association said it is expecting 30,000 people to participate in the town hall, which will take place roughly one month after the much-publicized anti-tax tea party rallies held in hundreds of locations across the country on April 15, the tax filing deadline.

Sanford and Perry will each speak for several minutes before opening up the town hall to up to an hour-long question and answer session.

RGA Executive Director Nick Ayers said that while the effort Thursday will be on a smaller scale than the April tea party rallies, it still represents “a great opportunity to mobilize that support.”

Although I have reservations about the party trying to exploit the tea parties to attract supporters (lots of attendants showed just as much anger at the Republican Party as the Democratic Party), I do agree that if we venture down this route, Republican governors lacking strong connections to Washington must take the lead.  I wonder how the media will cover the event…

So this Saturday I’ll be biking 25 miles down the Jersey shore to support the fight against MS. I’m pretty good at biking (excuse me, cycling) so it should be a lot of fun and probably not deadly. But…we’re supposed to try to raise some funds, with a minimum of 100 dollars. I’ve already raised my 100; there’s nothing in it for me and I’d need to raise significantly more than even the Race community could manage to even win, like, a t-shirt. But, I know MS came up a lot during the campaign, given Ann Romney’s struggle, and since that coverage affected me enough to try this event…well, you know. Here’s the link to support me and a good cause.