That being the actions and words of people who choose not to defend conservative principles.

Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard calls Vice President Joe Biden the “Single Most Effective Republican Spokesperson on Stimulus.”

Well, it’s a close race with Nancy Pelosi, but Joe Biden is pulling ahead:

“We know some of this money is going to be wasted,” Biden said during a roundtable discussion in New York with business leaders aimed at promoting the two-year stimulus plan…

“There are going to be mistakes made,” said Biden. “Some people are being scammed already.”

And this press release was published today by the Club for Growth on Gov. Crist’s breaking his “No Tax Increases” promise for the second time in the past week:

Charlie Crist: Another Day, Another Tax Hike
Florida Governor Raises Taxes Twice in One Week

Washington – Charlie Crist would fit in well with Washington’s tax-and-spend crowd. This week, he increased the amount of unemployment taxes paid by Florida businesses by over 20 percent.

It is the second tax increase signed by Crist in one week, with the first being a cigarette tax hike of $1 per pack. The new law hits businesses on an additional $1,500 of an employee’s wages. Currently, employers pay unemployment taxes on $7,000 of each worker’s wages – now, that goes up to $8,500. (“Crist Signs Bill,” Jacksonville Observer, 6/3/09).

Crist had firmly committed to oppose new taxes as Governor, but he broke that pledge. He has made a similar promise on federal taxes (ATR Taxpayer Protection Pledge).

“Governor Crist should be upfront with Florida residents when it comes to his tax-and-spend agenda,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “Like Arlen Specter, he’s a flip-flopper. Senate Republicans ought to make sure he doesn’t intend to join the Democratic Caucus if elected.”

To be forthright, I don’t know any more details about this tax increase than those published above. But it seems that fiscal irresponsibility is a bipartisan effort these days.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

I’m scheduled to be on the Chris Stigall Show during the 6:30-7:00 a.m. (Central) period tomorrow morning, Friday, June 5.  I think it’ll be closer to 6:30 a.m.

Jack Cashill will be guest-hosting the program.

Click below to listen live on streaming radio (direct link; small box/radio opens)

The main topic I hope to discuss is the continued ethical cloud covering Kansas’ largest college, Johnson County Community College, where I am about to complete a four-year term as one of six at-large elected board members.  Under fairly-new president Terry Calaway, the college has quickly become the most openly-unethical government body in the state of Kansas.  I can almost guarantee you that there are government bodies in Kansas that are more unethical, but the difference is that, in a semi-Clintonian fashion, local governments in Johnson County abuse their authority and then effectively give themselves awards for it.

And where there are not ethical and legal troubles, there are also general shenanigans; for example, only now are we, after 40 years, doing a competitive bid for legal services, which has resulted with JCCC’s main attorney being a man named Mark Ferguson, who is a partner in the firm of the state Democratic party chairman.  Repeatedly, Ferguson been willing to engage in absurdly unprofessional and politically-motivated behavior, and there is no doubt in my mind that we would obtain higher quality services from any random paralegal student at JCCC.

One of my favorite opinions from him is his suggestion that the board go into an executive (closed) session to have a general discussion on how to follow the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

Of course, Ferguson is “a friend of JCCC” and of some board members, and what is up in the air, at this moment, is whether our “competitive bid” is merely for show.

Also, JCCC recently increased property taxes (I was the lone “no” vote on the budget), and then our board chair said, no, we didn’t increase taxes.

Chris Stigall is the host of the KCMO 710 Morning Show that runs daily from 5-9 a.m.  He is a frequent guest host for Rusty Humphries.  Join Chris Stigall’s Facebook page here.

Click below to go to the Chris Stigall section for KCMO 710 AM.

About Jack Cashill:

Jack Cashill is an independent writer and producer and, on a contractual basis, the Executive Editor of Ingram’s Magazine, Kansas City’s premier business magazine.

In addition to his work with Ingram’s, Jack has written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, and regularly for WorldNetDaily. He has had one collection of essays published-Snake Handling in Mid-America and one novel-2006: The Chautauqua Rising.

Within the last five years Jack has written five books of non-fiction – First Strike, Ron Brown’s Body, Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture, Sucker Punch: The Left Hook that Dazed Ali and Killed King’s Dream and his latest, What’s the Matter with California. Three of them have cracked Amazon’s top ten list. Jack has produced at least a dozen documentaries for regional PBS and national cable channels, including the Emmy Award-winning, The Royal Years.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

The main qualifications for a Justice of the Supreme Court are character and courage

This sixth DeVine Law analysis of the nomination process to fill the retiring Souter seat on in the nation’s highest court is less about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and more about refuting much of the conventional wisdom that even many conservatives accept concerning what is relevant in determining a nominee’s competence and other qualifications.

Supreme Court justices take an Oath to “uphold the Constitution”, so, let us focus on what makes it more likely that a nominee can be relied upon to so uphold the supreme law of the land.

Of course, a nominee must be “competent”, but too often, this component has been used to discredit nominees with false criteria so as to avoid the more relevant issues related to the Oath.

The liberal New Republic trashed Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual prowess and temperament weeks ago, soon after Justice Souter announced his retirement and word leaked that she was on Obama’s short list. These are red herrings that conservatives and Republicans would be wise to ignore, along with the recent talking point concerning the reversal rate of her Circuit Court opinions that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Reversal rates tell one nothing without knowing the specifics, especially given the ideological split on court and the too frequent occasions for Justice Anthony Kennedy to uphold liberal precedents. I suspect that the more telling statistic would be all the unconstitutional opinions of Sotomayor that have been upheld.

Now, to the more primal aspects of “competence” that get passed around thanks in large part to elitist snobbery, beltway loyalty and an America culture raised on the deification of lawyers.

We arrive at the issue of how “smart” is the nominee. Of course, the liberal culture that dominates the media, press and academia equate the term with agreeing with liberal positions on issues, but it is also trotted out on behalf those that matriculated at Ivy League schools.

Eureka! Reagan, but I digress.

One assumption also used as a straw man to suggest that we need the more erudite literary writers is that one has to be able to “spar with a Breyer or Scalia”. We heard this in derogation of Harriet Miers with respect to the imagined as persuadable Breyer and we hear it now with respect to Soto’ going mano y mano with Scalia.

Its all Poppycock now, just as was when President George W. Bush nominated his ten-year vetted crony.

No one can name one significant case whose result was changed due to superior logic in the past 50 years. Is it preferable, all things being equal, that more talented writers draft opinions to make the law more preciselt defined? Of course, but what matters in the first instance is what the result will be, and on that, we arrive at the main point.

The Constitution is not a puzzle devised by the Framers to be divined to us by geniuses. It is written in plain English for We the People, and the relative advantage of having a Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard vs a Texas graduate interpret it is quite miniscule.

What matters is if they accurately comprehend what the Constitution says and intend to uphold it, or if they don’t comprehend it and can’t, or as is more often the problem, that they wish to re-write the Constitution while pretending to uphold it.

With respect to Miers, there was no reason to doubt that she would vote the same as Alito, but conservatives were resentful that Bush didn’t pick from the widely known as reliable conservative bench on the Circuit courts. That was understandable. What wasn’t, was the way the elites used red herrings about her intellect to slander her.

And so, we arrive at Sotomayor, who is obviously intellectually qualified to serve, even if whe hadn’t been Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton.

What makes her unfit to serve concerns her lack of character and courage.

Why character? Because I assume she truly does understand the plain meaning of the Constitution but chooses to treat it as suggestion rather than the law. I recognize that some otherwise smart people can be brainwashed to believe that it is legitimate to treat the Constitution as liberals do, but I confess I can’t diagnose the cause, and so don’t even try. It doesn’t matter why liberals do what they do, only that they do.

And what they do is commit what ought to be the impeachable offense of not upholding the Constitution, ad this goes for Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens as well.

They usurp the the Liberty of We the People to govern ourselves and install themselves as Oligarchs ruling over us as surely as did the King of England that we threw off in the Revolution.

Sotomayor fits the “living constitution” mold with her promises to “make policy” from the bench, not to mention her obsession with her superior “Latina-ness” and race-based Ricci decision, but seriously, how could we trust anyone nominated by a man that seeks to “break free” from the constraints of a negative Constitution?

So, with respect to Sotomayor, we don’t even reach the issue of courage, given her well-documented allegiance to the character-challenged, illegitimate view of the document she would be sworn to uphold.

Indeed, we only arrive at the character issue with Republican nominees like Souter, Kennedy and O’Connor that “grow” out of their character through cowardice.

Ideology or judicial philosophy matters most. The sad fact is that there is only one legitimate such philosophy, given the umpire-like task at hand. Read the words of the contract between the people and its government and faithfully interpret it according to the plain meaning and intent of those words where possible (most places), much like the “philosophy” one would apply to one’s mortgage contract and to their own words uttered in opinions.

For would one want a judge to interpret their principle, interest and mortgage payment provisions of their own home mortgage so as to increase same based on some other philosophy? Would one want their own judicial decrees re-interpreted to make black be white?

The Constitution is written.

[Just to be clear, I have no information to conclude that Harriet Miers wasn't an intellectual giant.]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Probolsky Research/Capitol Weekly California 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Democrats

• Jerry Brown 24%
• Gavin Newsom 16%
• Antonio Villaraigosa 15%
• Not Sure 28%

Republicans

• Tom Campbell 13%
• Meg Whitman 10%
• Steve Poizner 8%
• Not Sure 64%

Survey of 751 registered voters was conducted May 25-29. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

In thinking about the 2009 election for New Jersey governor, if the election were held today, would you vote for Republican Chris Christie or Democrat Jon Corzine?

• Chris Christie 51% (47%)
• Jon Corzine 38% (38%)
• Some other candidate 5% (6%)
• Not sure 6% (9%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Chris Christie 54% (51%) / 35% (32%) [+19%]
• Jon Corzine 41% (44%) / 58% (53%) [-17%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 33%

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 50%
• Jon Corzine 27%

Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?

• Chris Christie 55%
• Jon Corzine 28%

Who is more likely to win the 2009 New Jersey Governor election?

• Chris Christie 43%
• Jon Corzine 41%

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 16% (9%)
• Somewhat approve 26% (31%)
• Somewhat disapprove 17% (19%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% (38%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted June 3. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 12 are in parentheses.

Democracy must come to China one day.

Stand with the Chinese people — not with China!

Except that we don’t have any leverage, because we owe them an infinite amount of money.

It has become the president’s trademark, perhaps, to engage himself inside the comforting realm of The World That Should Be. In that world, the answers to America’s conflicts with the Islamic world become easily resolvable, because we are one peoples with a shared destiny. Living in The World That Should Be, the Enlightenment in Europe came about, in large part, due to the contributions of Islam. In The World That Should Be, Islam has always been a part of America’s story. In The World That Should Be, Muslim communities “in our times” have been “at the forefront of innovation and education.” But while this game of equivalency might be comforting at a base level, it is simply not true. The Enlightenment in Europe had nothing to do with Islam. America’s story is one of Christianity and secularism, not of Islam. Islamic communities in our times are startlingly hostile to modernity.

That’s all irritating, but it’s typical boilerplate fodder. There’s a real scandal beneath all of this.

After today’s much-ballyhooed speech, it should now be blindingly apparent that President Obama is hostile to the cause of Israel. He subscribes to a completely ahistorical leftist narrative of Israeli history. This disturbing development reveals more than ignorance: it reveals utter hostility. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously put it: we’re entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. Anti-Israel forces have continually made up their own facts, and it appears that our esteemed president has swallowed the Kool-Aid.

It is not true that the Palestinian people have aspired to statehood for sixty years. The nationalist PLO, an invention of the Arab League, did not come to prominence until roughly forty years ago. Led by Yasser Arafat, the League transformed Palestinianism from an ethnicity into a nationality in order to legitimize the Arab cause. Before the PLO, virtually all Palestinians considered themselves rightly a part of Jordan or southern Syria. To this day, the majority of Jordanians are Palestinians.

Despite this rewrite of centuries of history, Israel has, in order to put this conflict to rest, accepted the cause of Palestinian statehood. The original 1948 United Nations partition of the Palestine Mandate actually created a Palestinian state — one that was promptly rejected by the Palestinians and all of the surrounding Arab states, all of whom declared war on Israel as soon as it declared independence. This Arab-initiated war was the cause of the Palestinian refugee crisis. There would have never been a refugee crisis if the Arab states had simply accepted Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, this is quite like the situation of blacks in the United States in the 1800′s, isn’t it, Mr. President?

The so-called “humiliations of occupation” that are gone through in the West Bank and Gaza also would never have existed had it not been for the oh-so-helpful Arab states. Egyptian president Gamal Nasser’s crazed mid-century quest for regional hegemony culminated in the lining up of troops on the Israeli border in 1967. Sensibly, Israel read the tea leaves and struck first. Israel’s famous six-day victory over Egypt and the other Arab states resulted in the annexing of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where attacks upon Israelis were taking place. If the Arabs had left well alone, the West Bank and Gaza would still be theirs today.

Ah, but it could have been theirs today, regardless! In the year 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a stunning peace deal: 98% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a shared capital in Jerusalem, and tens of billions of dollars that would be granted to the Palestinians in return for nothing more than an official declaration of an end to the conflict. Arafat rejected it without putting forward a counteroffer. All parties involved, including Bill Clinton and Saudi insiders, blamed Arafat for the deal falling through. Less than a year later, Arafat was back to ordering suicide bombings again. Prime Minister Olmert offered similar concessions that Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate on at all. Yes, compromise has truly been “elusive to both sides,” hasn’t it?

But if the PLO is awful, then Hamas is pure evil. All sensible people really need to stop pretending that there’s any chance that Hamas will ever “come around” on the question of Israel’s right to exist. The Hamas charter is available for all to read: the official doctrine of Hamas is that the infamous Russian forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, outlines Israeli policy, that the Russian Revolution was a product of Zionism, that the Rotary Club is a Zionist entity, and that jihad modeled after the Prophet Muhammad’s conquests is the only way forward when dealing with Israel. Good luck negotiating a compromise deal with that sort of lunacy.

With this sort of rhetorical appeasement, historical re-write, and moral equivalency, it’s no wonder that Mahmoud Abbas — who has also (surprise!) openly stated that he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state — has a cabinet member who declared just the other day that America finally has a president who is “sympathetic to the Arab cause.” Israel may just do well to ignore America whenever possible over the next four years. We’re not on its side right now.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Quinnipiac Survey on Sonia Sotomayor and Affirmative Action

As you may know, the United States Supreme Court will be deciding a case involving New Haven, CT’s use of promotion tests for firefighters. Because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion, the city decided to throw the test out. Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold the city or order the city to promote the 14 white and one Hispanic firefighters who scored high enough for promotion?

• Uphold the city 19%
• Promote firefighters 71%

As you may know, Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold New Haven’s decision as an appellate court judge. Does this make you more likely to favor her appointment to the Supreme Court, less likely, or doesn’t it make a difference?

• More likely 7%
• Less likely 28%
• Doesn’t make a difference 59%

Do you think affirmative action programs that give preferences to blacks and other minorities in hiring, promotions and college admissions should be continued, or do you think these affirmative action programs should be abolished?

• Continued 36%
• Abolished 55%

Which comes closer to your point of view – affirmative action programs seek out qualified minorities and do not disadvantage members of other groups or affirmative action programs result in members of some minority groups being advantaged at the expense of other groups?

• No disadvantage 44%
• At expense of others 46%

If affirmative action programs giving preference to blacks and other minorities do result in less opportunities for whites, do you think that’s a price worth paying to help blacks and other minorities, or not?

• Yes 29%
• No 59%

Which comes closer to your point of view regarding affirmative action programs in the work place – A) We should have affirmative action programs to overcome past discrimination, B) We should have affirmative action programs to increase diversity or C) We should not have affirmative action programs?

• A) Should have for past discrimination 20%
• B) Should have to increase diversity 27%
• C) Should not have programs 47%

Do you think members of some racial groups should get preference for government jobs so that the workforce has the same racial makeup as its community?

• Yes 25%
• No 70%

Do you think members of some racial groups should get preference for jobs in private companies so that the workforce has the same racial makeup as its community?

• Yes 21%
• No 74%

Does Barack Obama’s election as president make you more likely to support continuation of affirmative action programs, less likely, or does it not change your view?

• More likely 8%
• Less likely 10%
• Doesn’t change view 80%

In order to increase diversity, do you support or oppose affirmative action programs that give preferences to Hispanics in hiring, promotions and college admissions?

• Support 29%
• Oppose 64%

In order to increase diversity, do you support or oppose affirmative action programs that give preferences to white women in hiring, promotions and college admissions?

• Support 32%
• Oppose 62%

In order to increase diversity, do you support or oppose affirmative action programs that give preferences to blacks in hiring, promotions and college admissions?

• Support 33%
• Oppose 61%

(more…)

Mike Hendricks is one of six news columnists at The Kansas City Star.  On Sunday, May 31, Hendricks effectively blamed mainstream pro-life voters for the murder of George Tiller: 

They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.

Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”

…..

I’d suggest that if anyone is in need of salvation right now it’s the  anti-abortion movement in Kansas and across the nation.

Now, Bill O’Reilly has been a person who has consistently and unapologetically considered post-viable fetuses to be complete human beings; thus, he considers late-term abortions to be murder.  Naturally (and accurately), O’Reilly saw himself as among those whom Hendricks was targeting.

During a March 2006 TV program, O’Reilly had labeled The Star’s Hendricks as out of touch, because of a different matter.  And on Monday of this week, The Factor’s “Talking Points” on Fox News again included Hendricks (video here; the following is from the rough transcript which was also provided at that link):

Far left Kansas City star columnist Mike Hendricks wrote quote. The murder accomplices include everyone who was ever called — late term abortion clinic a murder mail wherever called killer killer that killer. Now it is clear that the far left is exploiting. Exploiting the death of the dock. Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like — that and — Fox News is the real agenda here finally if these people were so. — Passion so very compassionate so concerned for the rights and welfare mothers maybe they might have written something one thing. About the 60000. Fetuses. Who will never become American citizens.

On June 2, Hendricks wrote of O’Reilly:  “Turns out, he’s exactly the kind of flamethrower I was talking about.” 

Bottom Line Communications of Kansas City provides a summary of the events.

O’Reilly has a print column published today, June 3, in the New York Post:

(more…)

Harry on Sonia:

First the Dems force through the stimulus bill without anybody reading it, and now Reid, one of the party’s foremost leaders, admits that he hasn’t read ONE Sotomayor opinion?

The always honorable Hugo Chavez made a startling remark today:

During one of Chavez’s customary lectures on the “curse” of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM’s bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

This might have been funny if it didn’t have a shred of truth.

In another startling example of government incompetence:

The government accidentally posted on the Internet a list of all civilian nuclear sites and their activities in the United States.

The 266-page document was published on May 6 as a transmission from President Barack Obama to the U.S. Congress. According to the document, the list was required by law and will be provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Some of the pages are marked “highly confidential safeguards sensitive.”

While there is security at the facilities, the list could presumably be useful for terrorists or anyone else who would like to harm the United States.

The publication of the list was first reported in an online secrecy newsletter Monday.

The document details the location of the nuclear sites and what is being done there.

How on earth could the government let something like this slip through the cracks?  In my opinion, this has greater significance than the Air Force One NYC flyover, as it involves nuclear facilities.

The latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll shows a return of Obama’s approval ratings to the levels we saw before last Friday:

• Strongly approve/disapprove: 34/31 (+3)
• Total approve/disapprove: 55/44 (+11)

In more unwelcome news for Obama, Rasmussen also reports that 45% of voters think the administration should wait to focus on health care until the economy improves, as opposed to 46% who believe Obama should act now.  Furthermore:

Other data shows that 39% of all voters see cutting federal spending as more important than balancing the budget or cutting taxes. For 32%, balancing the budget is more important, while 22% rate tax cutting as the priority.

The last data I cited surprisingly suggests that voters may have a willingness to accept Goldwater-esque “root canal economics” – pain (cutting spending) now, comfort (balanced budgets and even tax cuts) later.

Sadly, it looks like a bright GOP star has declined to take on Obama.

Will Obama passover the plague of terrorism in Egypt?

Apologies for the tortured paraphrase of Rameses II oft repeated defiant commands in between plagues The God of Moses visited upon Egypt until Pharaoh let his people go in The Ten Commandments.

But wouldn’t it be appropriate to recount the benevolence of America toward Egypt and much of the Muslim world in combating the plague of Islamist terrorism?

Wouldn’t it be apropos if President Barack Obama visited the grave of the man that made peace with Israel and, in his much anticipated first American Presidential address to the Muslim World, said:

I have just come from honoring your late, great leader Anwar Sadat to demonstrate, on your soil, America’s solidarity with that great Muslim leader and the like-minded of Islam who seek peace and to make clear our shared contempt his assailants and for all enemies of peace, no matter their professed faith.

For this reason, we have never been stingy in American dollars for Egypt’s military defense, nor in American blood to defeat those that seek the murder and even genocide against Americans, Muslims and peace seeking peoples across the globe, whether it be in Bosnia and Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq, and Afghanistan. Whether it be in The Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, or Europe.

That those terrorizing the peace loving claimed to be Christians, Muslims or atheists, mattered not a whit.

Today, in Pakistan, we stand with the Muslim government against al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.

And we stand with all Muslims in Egypt and all people of all faiths or no faith across the world that seek peace and against all those that seek terror and totalitarianism.

We thank God for all those Muslims that are alive today due to the joint sacrifices of the armed forces of the United States and our allies, including the great sacrifices made at our side by Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Afghans, and Egyptians and all Muslims, Christians and Jews from around the world.

Saddam Hussein slaughters hundreds of thousands and starts wars killing millions no more. Osama bin Laden issues dated black market tapes rather than blowing Muslims to bits in Arabia and Africa. Mullah Omar no longer controls a nation-state to harbour mass murderers.

Thank God Muslims are so much more safe today.

On Memorial Day in America last week, I laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier where many Americans are buried that died defending the lives of Muslims so that they did not have the same fate as your beloved Sadat.

Praise be to God.

But, to more closely quote Yul Brenner (pictured above as Pharaoh Rameses II):

So, shall it be written? So ,shall it be done?

I suspect a plague of frogs is more likely, this time from the Celebrated Surrender Frog of Cook County!

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

AP-GfK Political Survey

Is your opinion of former Vice President Dick Cheney favorable, unfavorable, or haven’t you heard enough about Dick Cheney to have an opinion?

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

Dick Cheney 23% / 44% (-21%)

Haven’t heard enough about him to have an opinion 32%!!!

Flashback: Pew Poll, April 2007: 31 percent of Americans can’t even identify the Vice President.

As you may know, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring, and President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace him. Is your opinion of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor favorable, unfavorable, or haven’t you heard enough about Sonia Sotomayor yet to have an opinion?

Sonia Sotomayor 34% / 18% (+16%)

Do you think the U.S. Senate should confirm or should not confirm Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice?

• Should confirm 50%
• Should not confirm 22%

How do you feel about the use of torture against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism activities?

• Often justified 20%
• Sometimes justified 32%
• Rarely justified 18%
• Never justified 29%

If suspected terrorists are moved from Guantanamo Bay to high-security prisons in the United States, how concerned would you be about the chance that those terrorists might escape?

• Concerned 54%
• Not concerned 46%

Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion? Abortion should be…

• Legal in all cases 19%
• Legal in most cases 33%
• Illegal in most cases 24%
• Illegal in all cases 20%

Do you approve, disapprove or neither approve nor disapprove of Barack Obama’s decision to close the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay within a year?

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 47%

Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for women?

• Favor 63%
• Oppose 29%

Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial and ethnic minorities?

• Favor 56%
• Oppose 36%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted May 28-June 1. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% (D), 23% (R), 25% (I).

Hat-tip: Redstate

Susquehanna Polling and Research 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Poll

“If the General Election for United States Senator were being held today, would you vote for Arlen Specter, the Democrat, or Pat Toomey, the Republican?”

• Arlen Specter (D) 46%
• Pat Toomey (R) 37%
• Undecided 13%
• None/Other 4%

“As you may know, US Senator Arlen Specter recently switched from Republican to Democrat. Should Arlen Specter be the Democratic nominee for the 2010 election for US Senate or should he face a challenge from one or more other Democrats in the primary?”-Democrats only:

• Specter should be nominee 28%
• Specter should face challenge 63%
• Undecided 9%

“If the election for governor were being held today would you vote for Tom Corbett, the Republican candidate, or Dan Onorato, the Democrat candidate?”

• Tom Corbett (R) 34%
• Dan Onorato (D) 29%
• None/other 4%
• Undecided 225 32%

The live poll, conducted from our telephone call center in Harrisburg, was conducted May 26th-30th with 700 registered voters, all of whom have past vote history in at least one of the last four general elections or better from 2005 to 2008. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.7% at the 95% confidence level.

It comes as a shock to many black friends of mine when I reveal to them that for at least 25 years, possibly the worst social taboo among whites is to be labeled a racist. To be considered a racist has severe economic, social, personal and political consequences for white folks.

As a consequence, it is hard to find whites that utter racist epithets in private, much less in public; and much more so hard to find whites that act out racism in any venue.

The occasion of this long thought out exercise is, ironically, the blatantly racist words and acts of President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Sotomayor decision concerning job promotions.

No one has denied that her statement is racist on its face:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Defenders have said that she misspoke. Ok.

However, many people can make racist statements and not “be a racist.” And of course, the Drive-by left and leftist Democrats have convulsed over the racist label that the former Speaker of the House and the most prominent talk radio host have attached to Judge Sotomayor.

But, if one uses the criteria of the Left, specifically the criteria of liberal Democrats and the media against Republicans, then the racist label obviously applies.

Trent Lott (pictured) was forced to step down as Senate majority Leader position because he said that former (see 40+ years former) segregationist Strom Thurmond would have been a good president, on the occasion of his 100th birthday, as he was dying.

Robert Bork was denied a Supreme Court seat due to his academic suggestion that Brown v. Board relied upon the wrong argument in de-segregating schools. Mind you, Bork agreed with the result. He merely suggested that the best grounds would be to reverse Plessy and say that separate but equal was empirically not equal, rather than conclude that black children could only be equally educated if they occupied chairs next to whites in the classroom. Seems to me that Bork was opposing a racist rationalization.

Examples of racist appellations affixed to republicans by liberals are legion. But of course, the Left is not driven by logic or truth. Conversely, doesn’t the racist label attempt an impossibility, i.e to read one’s heart, and wouldn’t we be happier with a person who harbored racist ideas in his heart but who didn’t publicly express racist ideas nor, more importantly act upon them?

The classic definition of a racist is one that believes their race to be superior to another. Most whites in the 19 century believed this, yet slavery was outlawed by whites. Many believed this in the 20th, yet mostly whites outlawed de jure discrimination.

Many people would label a person as a racist for using the n-word, yet I have known many that use it, that have many black friends and hire black people and them well. Conversely, I know many, mostly liberal whites, who would ostracize people that would ever use the n-word, but who never hire blacks and have no close black friends.

We can’t read hearts; hence, I rarely label anyone a racist. But when I see a combination of statements and acts that lead to the inevitable conclusion, I have been known to affix it.

Surely Judge Sotomayor is guilty of same unless she can rebut the presumption her statements and acts have presented.

I don’t blame senators and other conservatives for not affixing the label as they state that the statement of Sotomayor was racist. But I don’t think it proper that they denounce those that verbalize the obvious conclusion one would draw from it.

What matters most is how this nominee will rule on cases that come before her, and on that, she has made it crystal clear that, not only that she cannot be trusted to dispense color-blind justice, but that she intends to start exacting racial and class reparations consistent with the leader of her party and the most powerful man on Earth.

A man that was elected by a majority white nation.

The burden of proof is on Sotomayor to rebut the racist charge.

Senator Cornyn and his colleagues would do well to focus on the outrageousness of her statements and acts than on those that state the obvious even by objective standards, by the usual standard the left applies to republicans.

Senator Cornyn as over the line in his NPR diatribe shot at Newt and Rush:

NPR REPORTER: “What do you make of the rhetoric that’s tumbling out of these people [Rush and Newt] these days, Senator Cornyn?”

CORNYN: I think it’s terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent. Neither one of these, uh, men (chuckles) are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I — I think it’s wrong.

My conclusion is that anyone is justified in calling Sotomayor a racist. The burden is on her to refute the obvious import of her words and acts. No one is justified in denying that her statement was racist, but anyone is also justified in refusing to conclude that she is “a racist”. No one is justified in denouncing those that conclude she is a racist given the evidence.

I don’t blame Republican senators, especially the GOP leader on the Judiciary Committee for not going there.

What I can’t abide are race based policies, hence my conversion from the Democratic Party to the GOP in 2000. No matter the condition of one’s heart nor the vile nature of one’s speech, what matters when it comes to lawmakers and judges is whether they promote race based policies.

The 14th Amendment outlawed such policies after a bloody war. Supreme Court justices with ideas akin to Sotomayor re-wrote that equal protection in Plessy and re-wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow race based policies and negate the 1th Amendment again even after Brown v. Board.

We now have a majority that rejects that racist policy with a Chief Justice that famously announced that:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts

I know that most Americans, including liberal democrats, reject policies that would deny them jobs, promotions, etc. based on racial reasons like those favored by Sotomayor in the Ricci case.

The problem is that no matter who Obama nominates, they will favor such policies, but a strong opposition to Sotomayor, whether she is conformed or not, is crucial in the long run for this country.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

With Tim Pawlenty opting against a re-election campaign, a slew of Minnesota Republicans are scrambling to decide whether or not to jump into the 2010 Governor’s race. I’ve been perusing some of the names being floated in the Minnesota media, and one in particular caught my eye.  Meet Laura Brod - a four-term State Representative who serves as an Assistant Minority Leader. I’ll obviously have to do some digging on her exact issue positions, as well as those of other potential candidates – but at first glance, she strikes me as a dynamic and articulate candidate who could put up a good fight against a strong Democrat. Is this the next Sarah Palin?

Picture this happening. No, it’s not a real news story, but think about it for a minute. Because this is exactly what the UK is going through right now.

Washington (AP) – With polls showing President Obama’s popularity plunging and the Democratic Party headed for a massive defeat in Tuesday’s midterm election, sources inform the AP that embattled Attorney General Eric Holder will resign his office on Wednesday. Holder has come under fire in recent days for using taxpayer funds to pay for his sister’s Georgetown townhouse.

Holder may be only the first of many post election cabinet cuts in the wake of massive corruption scandal that has already ended the careers of three cabinet member and numerous Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. A high ranking White House official told the AP that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may also have billed the taxpayers for personal luxuries, and is  likely to be dismissed Wednesday. Another White House source says that the President is considering replacing Hillary Clinton at the state department, but Clinton has publicly stated her desire to remain on the job, and is rumored to have told her closest aides that she will challenge Obama in the 2012 Presidential Primaries if she is fired.

Now, British politics are different from our system in many respects – but that is roughly what’s going on. Numerous members of Parliament are in hot water for billing taxpayers for personal extravagances, a lot of them have announced their retirements. Now, news has leaked that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will be resigning after Thursday’s European Parliament Elections – where the ruling Labour Party is expected to be badly beaten and may even slip to third place.

However, the carnage may not end there. Chancellor Alistair Darling (equivalent to our Treasury Secretary) may also be taken out as a result of the scandal, and Gordon Brown is said to be thinking of replacing Foreign Secretary David Miliband. If this happens – all of the UK’s “big three’ offices would change hands.

However, Brown may have to watch his back if he takes out the young and dynamic Miliband, who was once tipped as the future of the Labour Party and has stated his desire to keep his position. As the heir apparent, the young Foreign Secretary is likely the only one holding back an all out mutiny in Labour – and if he flips, I’m guessing that all hell will break loose.  However, Miliband has plenty of his own problems in the expenses scandal, so it’s unclear  whether he’ll be able to remain the Crown Prince of Labour.

Indeed, those currently calling for Brown’s head are not calling for Miliband to take over,  but are instead suggesting that the Prime Minister hand his Job to Health Secretary Alan Johnson.

In short – UK politics are going to hell in a handbasket, and frankly I’m laughing my head off. Normally I would feel sorry for someone in Gordon Brown’s position, but this time I think it’s poetic. Brown spat in the face of the British by refusing to call an election after he succeeded the resigning Tony Blair, and now his arrogance is coming back to bite him. The unelected pretender had hoped to hold off elections until his poll numbers went up – but things just got worse. Now, instead of merely losing an election to David Cameron’s Conservative Party, he is likely to be positively humiliated in next year’s election – assuming his own party allows him to remain in charge until then.

Nice going, Gordon!

Former United States Attorney Chris Christie won the GOP nomination for Governor of New Jersey tonight, defeating Mayor Steve Lonegan and Rick Merkt. Updates on the final numbers as they come in.

I can’t explain much of why the following is the case, but one of the great things about America is that it seems that, more than in any other place, if you do what’s right, life generally works out well for you.  Bad things happen to good people, yes, but that seems to be the overwhelming exception, and certainly not the rule.

I am of the opinion that this “policy” is across-the-board, which means that it applies to businesses, and to political parties.  While I don’t disagree that Republicans should make small, intensive, intentional efforts to target certain voters, I do believe that the significance of these projects can quickly become over-emphasized, especially if Republicans are not first focusing on “doing what’s right” and acting like a conservative/libertarian, honest, reliable, freedom-loving political party.

I don’t disagree with Alex that Republicans should be cognizant of polls like this Gallup poll which remind us that only 11% of Republicans are non-white, while 36% of Democrats and 27% of independents are non-white.  And I understand and accept the reality that any message (from businesses, political parties, etc.) must be adapted, depending on the audience, eras, and other factors.

And I somewhat accept the idea of changing policy decisions with the goal of “wooing” voters — but I’m also highly skeptical of these efforts.

• For one, “wooing” voters can quickly turn into, functionally, “buying votes,” which is unacceptable.
• Two, it seems to me that evidence suggests that the results are not only usually at best temporary or non-existent (a city’s TIF comes to mind, where one can almost never prove after-the-fact that the TIF was more favorable than merely forming a low-tax environment and waiting a couple of years for businesses to arrive on their own).  Worse, though, these efforts too often end up doing even more damage in the long-run.  Two things that quickly come to mind are No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan.  It’s altogether likely that both of those pieces of legislation helped Bush win re-election in 2004.  But a very, very short time later, these actions were, at best, ignored; at worst, Bush was being blamed for them.  For crying out loud, Ted Kennedy co-authored NCLB, but it’s now an anti-Bush rallying cry for the NEA; and Republicans are faulted, not thanked, for adding another entitlement program for which the US can’t afford to pay.
• And three, focusing on ways to win short-term victories takes away time from focusing on more permanent goals.

To re-iterate one more time, I support efforts to target Hispanic voters, or other minority voters.  But if that’s all we do as Republicans, we’re ignoring “the elephant in the room”:  Republicans today are not focusing on “first things first,” meaning that we’re not acting like Republicans.  Not only is the practice of acting like Republicans the right thing to do, but it will more permanently win over a greater number of minority voters, and it will simultaneously win BACK non-minority voters we’ve lost through supporting big government, hypocritical behavior, corruption, and inefficiency in government (I’ll include Iraq in that last one).

The overall electorate still wants a “Republican message,” and I’ll list several (non-exhaustive) Rasmussen polls to attempt to validate my point.

1. 31% Say Stimulus Package Helped, 27% Say It Hurt Economy
2. Just 21% Favor GM Bailout Plan, 67% Oppose
3. 52% Still Fear Government Will ‘Help’ Economy Too Much
4. Voters Put More Emphasis On Deficit Cutting Over Health Care Reform
5. 76% Support Showing Photo ID Before Voting

With most of these, and other, modern-day issues, Republicans have the Unaffiliated vote on our side.  But Republicans have lost the trust of these voters, and we lacked the ability/courage to impliment the policies when in power.  It’s not enough for the DC Republican establishment to “wait” for voters to tire of Democrats (which they will, of course, though we don’t know how long that will take).  It’s not enough for Republicans to be the default choice, the option that is merely tolerable.  We need to WIN voters with a 1994-style message.

Going back specifically to how to win/target minority voters, I’ll provide two thoughts:

• Open borders and the US’s welfare laws cannot survive simultaneously.  They just can’t.  I don’t object to an honest debate about how to address the border issue and how to address amnesty vs. deportation, but those who are more moderate on those issues must then offer solutions to the burden placed upon the entitlement/welfare system by illegal immigrants.
• Republicans must increase FREEDOM, rather than entitlements.  What stands out to me is school choice at the K-12 level.  In my opinion, one of the biggest moral failings in the US over the past century is the near-universal support for the “public” schools that keep millions of children annually in a cycle of poverty, particularly in minority-majority inner cities.  And not only is it right to support “the freedom to choose,” but it will be a successful message for political parties.  I’m very interested in seeing how the DC Voucher Program issue plays out.  Today, in the northeast, there are tens of thousands of black and Hispanic families who are are feeling disillusioned with President Obama because he is so clearly and so immediately taking away the freedom of 2,000 parents (nearly all minority) to choose where to educate their children.  While I can’t say for sure right now, the Republican-pushed 2004 DC Voucher Program may well prove to be an historic “turning point” for the Republican party, with regard to minority voters.

______________________________________________________________

You can contact Ben Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 GOP Nomination

• Mike Huckabee 22% (26%)
• Sarah Palin 21% (29%)
• Mitt Romney 21% (21%)
• Newt Gingrich 13% (N/A)
• Jeb Bush 6% (N/A)
• Someone Else 10% (10%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Colin Powell 70% / 18% (+52%)
• John McCain 58% / 37% (+21%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% / 25% (+20%)
• Mitt Romney 42% / 29% (+13%)
• Sarah Palin 46% / 43% (+3%)
• Newt Gingrich 36% / 35% (+1%)
• Michael Steele 20% / 24% (-4%)
• Jeb Bush 33% / 40% (-7%)
• George W. Bush 41% / 57% (-16%)
• Dick Cheney 37% / 55% (-18%)
• Rush Limbaugh 30% / 53% (-23%)

Survey of 1,010 adults, including a subsample of Republicans was conducted May 14-17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Favorability results are comprised of all adults surveyed. Results from the poll conducted February 18-19 are in parentheses.

H/T: Tommy Boy

FDU PublicMind New Jersey GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Chris Christie 54% (43%)
• Steve Lonegan 30% (21%)

Who do you consider to be the leader of the national Republican Party at this time?

• John McCain 20%
• Michael Steele 16%
• Dick Cheney 15%
• Rush Limbaugh 6%
• John Boehner 5%
• Mitch McConnell 2%
• None of the above 22%

(more…)

Imagine sitting at a business roundtable, discussing a failing product with your fellow board members. What, you ask your colleagues, must be done to save our product? “It’s the consumer’s fault if he doesn’t realize how great our products are,” someone says, defiantly. But won’t that force our company into bankruptcy? “Why should we change a product that has nothing wrong with it?” he asks, genuinely puzzled.

Absurd, no? Not so fast, though, dear reader, for that’s the state of the Republican Party. Seemingly vindicating Howard Dean’s 2005 remarks that the Republican Party is basically a “white Christian” one, a new Gallup poll reveals that 89% of Republicans are white.

As if it needs to be asked: what’s the problem?

Quite frankly, we white people (I do say we; after all, this is a Republican site) are quickly becoming outnumbered. Four states — including California and Texas — are already majority-minority ones, and the nation as a whole is projected to become this way in the next fifty years or so due to a booming Hispanic population and low birth rates amongst whites. The savvier political analysts out there have projected that Texas may very well become a battleground state by 2020. There is no equivalent on the Republican side. We are not emerging anywhere. We are shrinking. Everywhere.

So it’s time for our party operatives to do some research: why are we failing amongst Hispanics? Immigration alone cannot possibly the answer; a recent poll of Coloradans showed thirty-five percent of Hispanics (as opposed to thirty-eight percent overall) being prepared to vote for anti-immigration zealot Tom Tancredo should he make a 2010 run for governor. So unless things are earth-shatteringly different elsewhere, it would seem that it’s more than immigration that’s keeping Hispanics away. What is it? We have to answer this question. Businesses who don’t reach the consumers they need go bankrupt. And political parties who don’t reach fifty percent amongst the electorate become minority parties.

Adapt or perish, GOP: it’s your choice.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

According to the NYT:

Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, will announce today that he is not seeking a third term, his associates said. That decision signals that Mr. Pawlenty is strongly considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Mr. Pawlenty, 48, has worked to raise his profile at a time when his party has been struggling to find new leaders – and particularly find leaders outside of Washington. Most recently, he has been involved in high-profile maneuvering with his Democratic-controlled state Legislature that has permitted him to present himself as a champion of tax and spending cuts, positions that have earned him support among many Republicans.

2012 ahoy!

On the Hannity Show, Kasich said this at the end of an interview:

“When I’m governor we’re gonna run the state of Ohio like families run their budgets.”

Pawlenty has been saying a variation of this line for a very long time.

Pawlenty, who was re-elected in 2006 in a Democrat-leaning state, said Sam’s Club Republicans want optimistic leadership and fiscal discipline in government. He said they “want government to act like their families have to” and live within its means.

“Government will live within its means and not pile a big tax increase on families and businesses who are already struggling,”

Now this isn’t a big deal but I’d like to see where else Pawlenty-like rhetoric shows up in a Republican Party fighting entrenched and powerful Democrats. As we face Washington Democrats who assume their right to power we may see a lot of rhetoric similar to Pawlenty’s as he  faced the powerful Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.

Currently Democrats dismiss millions of  conservative Americans as useless except as targets of taxation. This sort of attitude is similar to the Minnesota DFL’s stance that conservative voters were unfeeling cruel people who should gladly offer more of their money in taxes to pay for government handouts.

This sort of attitude is fairly typical for Obama. He ignores actual conservatives and attacks imaginary conservatives who want to starve the poor and kick grandma to the curb. The demonization by Obama is pretty effective and it’ll require someone just as sharp as the Chicago rabble rouser to counter the deception.

Whoever that is I hope they look to Governor Pawlenty as a model of how to face down an arrogant Democratic Party that takes its power for granted and labels all conservative Americans as cruel and selfish.

1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. He gave a wide ranging speech on national defense spending and budgets to the Heritage Foundation, the most convincing sign yet that Romney is all in for 2012.  Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012.

2) Sarah Palin - The tabloid stories seemed to have quieted down, as Palin’s fans welcomed news of the Governor’s book due out next year.  Palin continues to weigh in on national issues, firing off press releases either countering the President’s policies or giving her own opinion on national events.  She continues to compile an impressive email list and grassroots network that could make her a juggernaut in the early states.  However, until she proves she can take the heat in interviews and debates without self-immolating, she will be on the outside looking in.

3) Mike Huckabee - Huck is staking out a solid anti-establishment position, attacking the GOP rebranding effort led by Rep. Eric Cantor.  He had decided to endorse Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, stoking his anti-establishment cred even further and setting himself up as the top populist in 2012. However, as long as Palin looks likely to run, Huck will likely end up on the losing end of a populist brawl with the former VP nominee.

4) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message.  I imagine T-Paw’s  Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012 after years of bailouts and debt. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters.  Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. Having decided against a third term bid, Pawlenty is now free to build a national organization and shape his message for a GOP primary. 

5) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative Governor of South Carolina is quickly becoming a favorite for both insiders and the Libertarian Ron Paul supporters. That kind of combination could make Sanford the real dark horse in 2012. His stimulus fight with Obama may be lost in the short term, but it could potentially set Sanford up with the moral high ground against the President. Sanford’s stance against both the Iraq War and the bailouts could position him as the major populist candidate, both on domestic and foreign policy.  

6) 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 Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation.  Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates.

7) Jeb Bush - Bush joined the National Council for a New America, signaling his desire to take on a larger role in the national GOP.  His name hurts now, but his popularity in Florida shows that he can outrun his brother’s shadow.  As of December his brother’s approval rating in Florida was 29%, while his was 65%. His passing on a guaranteed senate victory is telling though. The National Council for a New America gives Jeb a new forum to reintroduce himself and his family name in a much different light, showing people that he is much more the pragmatic and thoughtful leader his brother never was.  His name has started to come up from both welcome sources (the Daily Beast) and unwelcome sources (Dick Cheney) as a potential candidate.  Expect those calls to get louder and louder, especially with Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the SCOTUS possibly creating even greater losses for the GOP among Hispanics and Jeb’s proven appeal to the Hispanic community.

8 ) Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised.  Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness. 

9) John Ensign - On his way to Iowa for the first time in his career this week is rising Senator John Ensign, who is taking some very public steps to put his name forward as a potential 2012 candidate. Ensign is the popular junior senator from the increasingly important swing state of Nevada.   With Ensign’s deep Southwestern Nevada roots, his background as a veterinarian and business owner, and strong conservative principles can make Senator Ensign a solid candidate able of holding the base, expanding the electoral map, and winning over moderates.  

(more…)

I know that the left is too busy patting itself on the back for President Obama’s utterly groundbreaking resolution supporting Gay Pride Month, but back in the shadows, the evil extremist Darth Vader came out in support of gay marriage:

Appearing at the National Press Club, Cheney answered a question about gay marriage by coming out in favor.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”

The line on the left seems to be that “he’s only for gay marriage because one of his daughters is gay.” And thus, the concession that Dick Cheney is not an evil robot was narrowly averted!

The tide has shifted on this issue, quite frankly. The young overwhelmingly support it — that is to say: its opponents are quite literally dying off — prominent senators and governors support it, and state legislatures are legalizing it on their own, without any push from the courts. The Federal Marriage Amendment is about as likely to pass as a return to Prohibition, and it’s not even an electoral winner, anyway: racial minorities make up a significant amount of the ranks opposing gay marriage, and they don’t vote for us because they care about economic issues, and a majority of whites — that is to say, ahem, our party — support it.

Cheney isn’t alone in this. He just waited until now to say it. Don’t be surprised if lots of other Republicans end up supporting gay marriage by 2012.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.

According to Rachel Kapochunas of CQ Politics, Florida State Sen. Dan Gelber’s decision to forgo a Senate primary battle with Kendrick Meek may not clear the field for Meek in the end:

But that clear field for Meek may be just temporary. Corinne Brown, who like Meek is a member of Florida’s U.S. House delegation, stated over the weekend that she is exploring the possibility of running in next year’s race for the seat left open by retiring Republican Sen. Mel Martinez.

A bid by Brown, who had not previously been widely mentioned as a potential Senate candidate, would pit two of Florida’s three African-American House members against each other.

So perhaps we will see harsh primary battles on both sides in the Sunshine State.

Utah’s Deseret News reports that Josh Romney, Mitt’s son, would “seriously consider” accepting the office of Lt. Governor if soon-to-be Gov. Gary Herbert offers the position:

The two know each other through Mitt Romney’s unsuccessful run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Herbert headed up that campaign in Utah because Huntsman backed the eventual Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Romney, a real estate developer and the only one of the five Romney sons to live in Utah, considered his first run for political office last year when party leaders talked to him about challenging Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

Herbert had sought the younger Romney’s endorsement for his 2012 run for governor. Now, because of Huntsman’s midterm departure, a special election will be held in 2010.

Romney said he was not interested in running for governor in 2010. “There’s no chance of that happening,” he told the Deseret News.

Do we see the makings of a new Republican political dynasty?

For those who haven’t seen, Gov. Palin has released a statement regarding George Tiller’s murder:

“I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living.  Ask yourself, ‘What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today’s event in Kansas?’

Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller’s abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.”

In line with what Max Twain has advocated, I think Palin takes the right approach by condemning the use of violence as a means to promote pro-life causes.

In what may bring about the end to a contentious battle, Mark Sanford has stated that he will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling that the South Carolina Supreme Court should decide whether Sanford or the state legislature can control the $700 million in disputed stimulus funds.  With the state court likely ruling against Sanford, the governor has said he will “live by” the final decision.  Long term, Sanford can still use the ordeal to his advantage, should he decide to run for POTUS in 2012, as he can highlight the fact that he literally did everything in his power to refuse the funds in question.

The left is blaming Bill O’Reilly for the murder of abortionist George Tiller, and I’m evidently also complicit, according to a writer at Crooks and Liars.  I’ve heard of that site, but, to be fair to them, I’m not aware whether writer David Neiwart is an editor, or whether this is more of a un-edited diary:  “Bill O’Reilly has Dr. George Tiller’s blood on his well-stained hands”.

Mike Hendricks, one of the main columnists at the McClatchy-owned Kansas City Star, whose publisher recently was known to be registered to vote in both Kansas and Missouri (not his fault, but he doesn’t care, either), doesn’t disagree.

However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic  campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.

And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.

They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.

Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”

The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.

Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.

But blind hatred.

The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a  gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.

On Facebook, after I pointed out the comments made by Neiwart and Hendricks, I was challenged:

Is that what it said, Ben? Are you not being a little sensational? Gosh, come down to earth and don’t worry about yourself in this time of mourning for a great doctor for women!

This was my reply:

It’s absurd to blame Bill O’Reilly for Tiller’s death. It’s already over-the-top, whether or not I reference it.

And, really, “great doctors” don’t provide late-term abortions without giving the mother enough information (as former patients have publicly stated), they don’t decide that a “permanent health condition” is that the patient … wants to go to a rodeo or a concert (as Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh has testified about the records), and great doctors don’t lack post-procedure follow-up AFTER making the determination that the patient had a permanent mental health condition (again, as evidence shows).

My supporters know that I honestly welcome the pro-choice/libertarian mindset within the Republican Party — I was a strong Giuliani supporter during the 2008 GOP presidential primaries — but the evidence does not substantiate a claim that George Tiller provided “safe” or “legal” or “rare” abortions.

Tiller was not a typical abortionist, and we should not allow the left to pretend that he was.  For most women and at most abortion clinics, I will assume it is true to state that the women are fully-informed prior to receiving an abortion; that it is a true “two-party” decision.  But evidence clearly does not demonstrate that this is the case for Tiller.  At least one former patient of Tiller’s has come forward publicly — the woman I’m recalling testified before the Kansas House “Federal and State Affairs Committee” — to state that she was not given sufficient information prior to her abortion.

If the left is to be consistent — and we should require that they remain consistent — the left should not be championing unsafe and illegal abortions.  While we should agree with the left that any murder is unfortunate and wrong, we should not allow facts to be manufactured.

I’ll assume most of Tiller’s abortions were “safe” and “legal,” but strong evidence suggests Tiller also performed unsafe and illegal abortions.  Tiller’s office was one of the few “places to go” for women around the world who could not find a regional physician to perform.  It is a legitimate question to ask:  why is it so difficult to find a doctor to perform these abortions; why was Tiller an exception within the world-wide medical community?

Since Kansas’ yet-to-be-enforced 1998 late prohibiting post-21-week (post-viable) abortions except in the cases of “permanent medical conditions,” and where evidence can be obtained, evidence suggests that most of the late-term abortions performed by Tiller were because of a theoretical “permanent mental” condition; you will find few people who will honestly tell you that the intent of the 1998 law was to include this exception.  Furthermore, evidence suggests that Tiller rarely took sufficient measures to follow up with these patients post-operation — patients who, in theory, had life-threatening mental conditions.

Dr. Paul McHugh, a nationally-recognized, Harvard-educated psychiatrist who examined some of Tiller’s records, states that one abortion was apparently performed after the mother wanted to attend a rodeo, and that another abortion was performed after the mother wanted to attend a rock concert.

Via Jack Cashill’s Web site, you can view a professionally-recorded eight-minute interview with Dr. McHugh.

Here is the video of my interview with O’Reilly.

I have a transcript of the interview at my Web site.

______________________________________________________________

You can contact Ben Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

A diabetic with learning disabilities, raised by a single mother in a South Bronx neighborhood, rose to the top of elite Ivy League universities.

Lawyer Sotomayor was then given the power to prosecute criminal defendants and, for the past 17 years has wielded the gavel of a trial court judge before judging trial court judges from the second highest court in the land; apparently, if one believes the man that now would elevate Judge Sotomayor to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, all in a callous land devoid of justice:

This woman is brilliant, she is qualified, I want her confirmed, I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice.

Starting to provide some justice?

Sotomayor overcame all those odds despite the fact that justice remained in the starting blocks. But wait, DeVine Gamecock Law (pictured) in this fourth installment of our Sotomayor examination, three other factors may explain this late 20th and early 21st Century Alger Hiss story.

Did I mention that Judge Sotomayor is female and Puerto Rican? Did I mention that over 75% of the population of the unjust nation in which she was raised is Caucasian and that the legal profession in which she has achieved prominence has been dominated by white men?

Clearly, the gender and racial superiority combination of a Latina explains her better decisions that has her 51 Senate consent votes away from finally starting to provide some justice in America. Sotomayor admitted her advantage in 2001:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Too bad we can’t all raise our children to be Latinas, but how then do we explain the achievements of non-Latinas, especially the big non-Latina kahuna, Kenyan-Caucasian presently occupying the White House who seeks a Justice with empathy for superior Hispanic women? Can one achieve Latina-like superiority by empathizing with La Raza or many of the other race-based organizations with which Sonia has been obsessed most of her adult life? Has Obama’s dreams of his Marxist Kenyan father or Audacity of Reverend Wright’s hate-KKK America hope sufficed to elevate the President’s empathy and competence.

Rewinding the “start” of Obama-Sotomayor justice

One wonders what Latina tricked the exclusive white male electorate to outlaw slavery and demand equal protection of the laws by super-majorities in Congress and the states with the passage of the Civil War Amendments?

Was Chief Justice Earl Warren’s clerk a Hispanic woman who hypnotized her boss and eight other white men to end de jure racial discrimination across the fruited plain? Was Thurgood Marshall no good at starting justice?

Had justice not started in 1865, nor even by 1954? How about the overwhelming Republican white male and overall white male votes for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts?

Where those respective acts, unjust? Was it a nation lacking in empathy that welcomed Barry Obama’s African dad or that affirmatively provided him with an education with the nation’s elite?

Given the Latina supremacist views of Sotomayor, one wonders if she agrees that justice hadn’t started when African-American crowds cheered Orenthal James Simpson’s acquittal from murder charges in the wrongful deaths of two white people, even if one of them was a woman (one half of the secret formula for superiority after all, but I digress…).

Would the start of justice provision upon ascending marble steps mean reversing her own decision to deny white males and one chromosome-lacking Hispanic male, merit-based promotions based on their race?

How would Latina-Wonder Woman start justice for the ACORN-gun-wielding voter intimidation thugs that Obama’s political appointees at the Justice Department exonerated over the objections of career (read non-empathetic white males?) un-Justice Department lawyers?

If only Miguel Estrada had been Margarita he could have out-smarted pasty white male Patrick Leahy and started providing justice several years ago…

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Sure enough, the liberal media and the left wing blogs in particular will use the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller as a club to batter conservative pro-lifers over the head with.  However, those very same liberals are unlikely to discuss this. Two military recruiters were gunned down outside their office in Little Rock, Ark.  One recruiter later died from his injuries. I doubt that Mary Mapes or Andrew Sullivan will respond to the Anti-War Movement with the same vitriol and pettiness that they used to assault the Pro-Life Movement in the past 24 hours.  Is it Keith Olbermann’s fault that a radical in the Anti-War Movement decided to murder a military recruiter?  He has bashed the Iraq War far more than O’Reilly ever bashed Dr. Tiller, yet something tells me the same blogs who attacked Pro-Lifers and Fox News will not respond in kind to Olbermann and his ilk for a political killing that touches on their own anti-war beliefs.

So as Olbermann and Andrew Sullivan prepare to yuck it up tonight in what will likely be an overbearing O’Reilly bash-fest, remember that we can rise above their cheap attacks. We don’t have to blame them for the murder of this military recruiter just to score political points. We are better then that.

I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again today, I welcome these liberal blogs, as well as conservative and independent blogs to join with us in condemning these crimes without using such tragedies for political reprisal.