Jeb Bush, the son of President George H.W. Bush and brother of President George W. Bush, comes out swinging at President Obama and his policies in next months edition of Esquire.  The former Florida governor, who left office with sky high approval numbers, rips the Democrats for their poor ideas on healthcare and the economy while also leveling a tough critique on the GOP for it’s failure to upgrade it’s message for a new generation.

Bush takes aim at Obama’s economic policies, calling the president “a collectivist” who believes that “through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems… The debt that will be created in his four years as president will exceed the debt that was created by all presidents before him.”

He also critiques the administration’s health care reform proposals, stating “Under Obama, we’re going to create a system that’s not focused on quality; it’s focused on access to care… We’re like gerbils running in place

And he dismisses the president’s popularity, saying “First of all, who cares?” before claiming that Obama’s popularity is less than Bush’s brother’s was at the beginning of his first term.

But Bush takes a hard look at the state of the GOP, saying “We haven’t upgraded our message. We haven’t updated it. If you close your eyes and listen to most Republicans, most conservatives, the same speech could have been given in 1990… If people think our message is outdated, our message is not relevant to the world we live in, and I think a growing number of people may feel that, you lose your relevance.”

With the stumbles of Gov. Palin and Gov. Jindal, and the implosion of Sen. Ensign and Gov. Sanford, could another Bush, arguably the smartest and most politically savvy of the bunch, step into the leadership vacuum in the GOP? Could he become the nominee in 2012?  He certainly sounds like a candidate, even if it’s only out of habit.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Peter King’s whiny outburst against the media for covering Michael Jackson has been joined by the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Sitting here, watching Fox News, in just thirty minutes, the meme — why are we covering Michael Jackson so much when our troops are the real heroes? — has been repeated multiple times.

It’s, quite frankly, rather repulsive to watch the mere cynicism with which our soldiers are used as political shields like this.

News isn’t necessarily about heroism or goodness, but about notoriety. What would the coverage O’Reilly, King, and Hannity advocate look like? Non-stop coverage of every soldier who dies? The disregarding of every entertainer who passes away because they weren’t “heroes”? Everyone sane knows that our military is admirable and often very heroic — but there was only one Michael Jackson. He was a towering cultural figure; a once-in-a-lifetime sort of entertainer. He sold hundreds of millions of records and was among the most recognizable people on Earth.

The detractors of the coverage know this, and really just wish that the media would cover something else. They find the Jackson coverage boring. So they’re rationalizing it away — hey, aren’t our troops heroes? Dammit, where’s their 24-hour coverage? And no one is supposed to want to argue back because it’s taboo to be seen in any way to criticize the troops.

But calling out King and Hannity’s cynical commentary for what it is in no way diminishes the heroism of the American military. It’s simply to understand the actual purpose of the news.

USA Today/Gallup Sarah Palin Survey

If Sarah Palin were to run for president in 2012, how likely would you be to vote for her?

• Very likely 19%
• Somewhat likely 24%
• Not too likely 13%
• Not at all likely 41%

Among Republicans

• Very likely 35%
• Somewhat likely 37%
• Not too likely 14%
• Not at all likely 11%

Among Independents

• Very likely 19%
• Somewhat likely 25%
• Not too likely 14%
• Not at all likely 39%

Among Democrats

• Very likely 6%
• Somewhat likely 11%
• Not too likely 11%
• Not at all likely 70%

Would you, personally, like to see Sarah Palin be a major national political figure for many years to come, or not?

• Would 39%
• Would not 52%

Does Governor Palin’s decision to resign make you feel more favorably toward her, less favorably toward her, or does it not affect your opinion of her either way?

• More favorably 9%
• Less favorably 17%
• No effect 70%

Thinking now about the way in which the news media has covered Sarah Palin from the time she was announced as John McCain’s vice presidential running mate last August until the present time, do you think the news media’s coverage of her has been unfairly positive, about right, or unfairly negative?

• Unfairly positive 9%
• About right 28%
• Unfairly negative 53%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted July 6. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Two-thirds of Republicans want Palin to be “a major national political figure for many years to come,” while three-fourths of Democrats hope she won’t be.

Independents by 55%-34% would prefer she leave the national stage.

The findings underscore how polarized opinions of Palin were even before Friday’s surprise announcement. Seven in 10 Americans say their views weren’t affected by her decision. Among those whose opinions have shifted, Democrats by 4-1 and independents by 2-1 feel less favorably toward her. Republicans, however, are inclined to see her more favorably.

“For independents and Democrats, she’s already not their candidate, and with Republicans her support is not based on her record as governor of Alaska,” Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos says. “The basis of her support is that she represents the social conservative wing of the party, that she’s a new-generation working-mom conservative, and that she’s a victim of the news media. And she’s still those three things.”

(more…)

Some conservatives fear Sarah Palin’s political career is over with her recent decision to resign as governor of Alaska. Captain Ed Morrissey has even ripped into Palin for quitting and dismissed any reason she might have for resigning as nonsensical.

And he got slammed with 3000 comments on a thread filled with vitriol. Other bloggers came to Morrissey’s defense, including Patterico who, despite disagreeing with Morrissey’s analysis, thought it wrong to declare criticism of Palin verboten. Morrissey is a great blogger and shouldn’t be written off, but is the reaction to him merely for suggesting Palin made a poor move?

On Monday afternoon, I listened to a friend’s radio show. He also believed Palin’s career in public office to be over, however he emphasized not Palin’s decision to quit, but the unhinged nature of the far left’s attack on her that he deemed to have succeeded in forcing her out. Several people disagreed with him, and a few hoped he was wrong,  but he didn’t get any rude or angry callers. The difference in focus is key.

If one believes Sarah Palin was driven from office because of cruel personal attacks on her children and frivolous legal allegations that have become the bane of her and her staff’s existence, with thousands of state tax dollars and personnel hours being wasted responding to idiotic ethics complaints, Morrissey’s comments are far from sympathetic:

I’ve seen a myriad of excuses on Twitter and e-mail for this bizarre resignation: her legal bills are too high, she’s putting her family first, she doesn’t want to distract Alaskans because of cheap-shot ethics complaints that are distracting everyone. None of those make any sense. If the spotlight was too much, then she shouldn’t have run for office in the first place. If she’s quitting because people are taking potshots at her, then she’s not the kind of political fighter we thought she was.

 However, much of what Palin has received, she could not have possibly anticipated, including the unprecedented abuse of Alaska’s ethics systems and that the media has decided that every one of her children is open game, from her son who’s fighting to defend our country to her single mother daughter to her infant son, who has been the recipient of the most vile cruelty. No governor of Alaska has had this happen to them, nor has any former Vice-Presidential nominee.

Beyond that, Morrissey piled on a woman who has been trashed for the past eleven months because she’s a conservative. Who can honestly blame her for leaving? Apparently, Morrissey.

 Palin is the most popular figure among Conservative Republicans. They don’t just like her policies, they like her, they empathize with her. Most Palin fans find themselves divided between the disappointed and the uncertain. Except for the few true believers absolutely sure this is a brilliant political decision, Morrisey’s unkind political obituary hit a raw nerve.

In reading the Internet comments on Palin’s resignation, I find few people angry at her, a few people wanting to dance on her political grave, but a lot of people discomfited. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tx.) once told how, when he saw Barry Goldwater nominated, he thought that people like him could get elected, and when he saw Goldwater defeated, he concluded people like him could not win, it was the election of Ronald Reagan that changed his mind.

 What angry conservatives may not admit is that many of our hopes and dreams have been invested into Sarah Palin. To many of us, she symbolized the idea that the ordinary middle class person can make a difference. Now, we are left with haunting questions.

 Personally, I can’t blame Palin for stepping aside under the pressure she was under. I have friends who have suffered the vicious slings and arrows of the far left and have not run for office since. Former Congressman Bill Sali was vilified by the media and slandered by the Democrats with allegations that painted the false picture that a twenty-year-old tax lien was a current problem. On top of that they had his social security number and his wife’s “accidentally” were sent out to tens of thousands of homes. The Democrats initially excused the conduct by saying Sali had brought it on himself with the twenty-year-old, long settled tax lien. Congressman Sali probably won’t run again, and I can’t blame him.

 But here’s the problem we are left with. We can’t blame these people for not running, but if decent people will not run because they do not want to be reduced to rubble by our political processes, where does that leave our nation? If these conditions prevail, who would ever consider a run for political office? Sociopaths and the grinning tools of the political establishment, who know the political buzz words, but when they get in office will do nothing to advance conservative values. Is government “by the people, for the people, and of the people” dead, to be replaced by either government “by the sociopaths, for the sociopaths, and of the sociopaths” or government by “the cronies, for the establishment, of the establishment”?

 We can’t simply dismiss this with clichés. If the odds are too great, if the heat from the leftist fire is too strong for any to withstand, conservatism is done. No matter how good our ideas, we can’t win the game if we can’t put a team on the field.

Whatever Sarah Palin does over the next few months, she has to show us she’s still fighting. If she does more for the conservative cause out of office than in it, she’ll win and conservatives with her. Otherwise, the momentary leftist triumphalism will quickly turn into long-term conservative disappointment.

Hide your wallets America. President Obama and co. are back for the worst sequel in political history, and with Senator Smalley sworn in, your money is as good as gone.  

July 7 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an outside adviser to President Barack Obama.

The current plan “will have a positive effect, but the real economy is a sicker patient,” Tyson said in a speech in Singapore today. The package will have a more pronounced impact in the third and fourth quarters, she added, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not the administration.

$787 billion just doesn’t buy what it used to.

Tyson, 62, later told reporters that the U.S. can afford to pay for a second package, even as the fiscal deficit soars. She said the budget shortfall is “likely to be worse” than the equivalent of 12 percent of gross domestic product that the administration forecast for 2009 and the 8 percent to 9 percent it projected for next year.

The professor at the University of California’s Walter A. Haas School of Business downplayed worries from China and other countries with dollar reserves that the U.S. will let inflation soar as the deficit expands.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

One of the first things learned by newlyweds is that “me” is replaced by “us”. “I” is now “we”. Before the marriage, the prospective spouse was foot-loose and fancy free. Their choices primarily affected only themselves. With marriage, there are now two people involved. Spouses can no longer think just of themselves, they must now worry about their spouse’s concerns, as well.

Most newlyweds eventually make the transition. Some never do. They chaff at the restrictions now placed upon them. Too often they end the marriage so that they can return to those happy care-free days of singledom.

Political mavericks tend to follow a similar path. While they are outside looking in, they are relatively free to choose their own actions. They affect mainly themselves. But once they are in the inside looking out, they now find that their actions have consequences beyond their little sandbox. They have become, in essence, the establishment. They can be mavericks no longer. They often find the “inside” to be prison that is hard to escape. The strong, independent streak that made them mavericks in the first place now works against them. This causes them great stress. They often burn out.  Sometimes their marriages fall apart.  Such was the case of Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.

Newt had great success as a maverick. He spearheaded the great 1994 Republican takeover of the House. For the first time in half a century, the House was controlled by the GOP. A grateful party made him Speaker. His tenure there didn’t even last four years. He left under an ethical and professional cloud. His personal life was a total mess.

John McCain has always been a Maverick. He secured the 2008 Presidential nomination partly because of it. Once he accomplished that, he quickly found out that being a maverick was no longer an option. Now he had to answer to millions of faithful Republicans.

This was brought home to him in a big way when he was thwarted in his efforts to name Joe Lieberman his VP running-mate. When it became obvious that such a move would rip the party in two; he had to look elsewhere. He chose fellow maverick, Sarah Palin.

John gamely played on, but after awhile it was obvious to just about everyone that his heart wasn’t in it. By October, he was mainly going through the motions. By his own account and those of his closest advisers, the sense that Obama was inevitable permeated the campaign. It just wasn’t any fun anymore. He quit.  He couldn’t resign.  He just quit trying so hard.

The latest Maverick to burn out was Sarah Palin. She took on the GOP establishment in Alaska and won. She hit the National stage by storm. She was not your typical politician. She was fresh. She was exciting. But Sarah is now the establishment. Not only is she the sitting Governor of Alaska, she is one of the 2012 heir-apparents as well. Those positions bring with them obligations and responsibilities, the very things that Mavericks chaff under.

There have been many commentaries about her big speech last week announcing her resignation. One thing that her friends and foes both took away from it was that she just wasn’t having any fun anymore. It was time to bail.  Brilliant or stupid, it was time.

Maverick to the end, she resigned rather than fulfill her term. She is now free to do whatever she wants.

Some people say she quit. Mavericks tend to do that.  They just aren’t having fun anymore.

Rasmussen 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 25%
• Sarah Palin 24%
• Mike Huckabee 22%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Haley Barbour 1%
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Some other candidate 6%

Among those who list economic issues such as jobs and economic growth as most important:

• Mitt Romney 24%
• Sarah Palin 24%
• Mike Huckabee 20%
• Newt Gingrich 15%

Among those who list fiscal issues such as taxes and government spending as most important:

• Mitt Romney 34%
• Sarah Palin 24%
• Mike Huckabee 17%
• Newt Gingrich 14%

Among those who list national security issues such as the War in Iraq and the War on Terror as most important:

• Sarah Palin 29%
• Mitt Romney 26%
• Mike Huckabee 19%
• Newt Gingrich 16%

Regardless of who you would vote for, which candidate would you least like to see win the Republican nomination in 2012?

• Sarah Palin 21%
• Haley Barbour 21%
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Tim Pawlenty 15%
• Mike Huckabee 10%
• Mitt Romney 9%

In the 2012 election, how likely is it that a Republican candidate will defeat Barack Obama?

• Very likely 41%
• Somewhat likely 34%
• Not very likely 14%
• Not at all likely 4%

Does Sarah Palin’s resignation help or hurt her chances of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?

• Help 24%
• Hurt 40%
• No impact 28%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Mike Huckabee 78% / 17% (+61%)
• Sarah Palin 76% / 21% (+55%)
• Mitt Romney 73% / 19% (+54%)
• Newt Gingrich 65% / 29% (+36%)
• Dick Cheney 59% / 34% (+25%)
• Tim Pawlenty 38% / 33% (+5%)
• Haley Barbour 34% / 37% (-3%)

In terms of how you will vote in the next national election, are you primarily interested in National Security issues such as the War with Iraq and the War on Terror, Economic issues such as jobs and economic growth, Domestic Issues like Social Security and Health Care, Cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, or Fiscal issues such as taxes and government spending?

• Economic Issues 33%
• Fiscal Issues 27%
• National Security Issues 15%
• Domestic Issues 10%
• Cultural Issues 5%

Survey of 750 Likely GOP Voters was conducted July 6. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Kansas Sen. Brownback is retiring, and he will run for governor.  To replace Brownback, it’s virtually certain that the winner of the general election will be the winner of the Republican primary between two long-time congressmen:  1st District Rep. Jerry Moran and 4th District Rep. Todd Tiahrt.

Both Moran and Tiahrt are very nice, pro-life men.  But I’m not convinced that either is an economic conservative, or that either accepts just how little credibility DC Republicans have among the general population when they say that Obama spends too much money (“yeah, well so do you” is the common reply).

I have not decided for whom I’m voting.  I feel that the election is Bush 2004 vs. Bush 2004.  They’ll defend the country, protect the unborn, not increase taxes, confirm good judges, all the while increasing federal spending at 125% the rate of inflation and charging it to my future grandchildren.

The following is the first question offered by KansasProgress.com to the two campaigns:

It’s almost certain that the winner of the 2010 Republican Senate primary between Congressman Jerry Moran and Congressman Todd Tiahrt will then go on to win the general election. In 2011, one of them will be voting on the leadership at the NRSC.

Near the end of next week, we’ll let you know what we hear back from Congressmen Moran and Tiahrt.

This week, we will forward this editorial to the respective campaigns of Moran and Tiahrt, and ask them what their feelings are with regard to the current performance of the NRSC under John Cornyn. In particular: should the NRSC remain neutral in the Florida primary race between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio?

The accompanying editorial is after the fold: (more…)

Expect to see this again and again over the next year.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Barry Casselman has been writing about U.S. presidential nominations for nearly forty years and was the first national writer to predict the ascendancy of little-known figures such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, among many others.

His latest work on the implications of Sarah Palin’s resignation is required reading for obsessive 2012 watchers. You can find this essay over at The Prairie Editor Blog.

Overall approval 52%, overall disapproval 47%.

Rasmussen Reports’ Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 33% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –3. Those figures reflect the highest level of strong disapproval measured to date and the lowest level recorded for the overall Approval Index (see trends).

It remains to be seen whether this decline in the President’s numbers is a temporary aberration, statistical noise, or something more significant. Tomorrow (Wednesday) will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted since last week’s report showing higher than expected job losses in June.

Trends:

Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News wrote a great article today about Sarah Palin and the culture wars.  A key excerpt:

Rather than marking the twilight of the culture wars, however, the GOP’s love/hate relationship with Alaska’s outgoing governor illustrates a persistent conundrum for the party: The religious conservatives whom Palin represents are a Republican minority that can’t be counted on to deliver the presidency or congressional majorities, and yet they constitute the most crucial part of the party’s base.

Republicans can’t win with them alone, but they can’t win without them.

Successful Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush knew this. They mobilized the religious conservative base while managing to transcend it.

Sarah Palin is incapable of such transcendence. But no other Republican in the country touches her power to mobilize, to draw huge crowds. Without that, the Republicans may boast intellectual firepower, governing prowess, and smart messaging and they’ll still be out of power. Who will sign up new voters, knock on doors, and make phone calls—who will counter Barack Obama’s grass-roots army—in the lead-up to Election Day?

Lots of Republicans know this. It’s why the 2012 Republican presidential field is dominated by unabashed culture warriors like Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich; softer, George W. Bush-style religious conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty; and wannabe culture warriors like Mitt Romney.

Also today, Gallup published a report detailing some promising changes in ideology among voters since 2004.  The report deserves a read, but here are Gallup’s summaries of the findings:

And finally, some analysis:

Aside from the trends, Gallup’s recent polling from 2008-2009 indicates that a majority of Americans concur with the Republican Party’s general philosophy on the death penalty, defense spending, gay marriage, the role of government, environmental protection, and handgun legislation. Americans are about as likely to agree with the Republican Party’s general philosophy as they are to agree with the Democratic Party’s in terms of abortion, government activism, government promotion of “traditional” values, taxes, changing the power of labor unions, and certain aspects of the need for healthcare reform. They are more likely to agree with the Democratic Party’s philosophy on other aspects of healthcare reform, embryonic stem-cell research, government regulation of business, the Iraq war, and immigration.

This seems to lend more credibility to the argument that the party’s recent woes stem from its members’ failures to practice what they preach and implement conservative principles, with exceptions for certain issues.  But by and large, if the respondents of this poll have appropriate definitions of “conservative” and “liberal”, the GOP’s current course (perhaps most vividly displayed by Congressional Republicans) of re-embracing authentic conservatism may provide the best course for returning to power.

Perusing the comments section, one particular person noted that “both Israelis and Arabs” have been aggressors in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

It’s a common theme: “both sides” are to blame for something. The truth necessarily lies “somewhere in the middle.” We need to “split the difference” in some way. We’ve all heard it.

Your child is bullied at school? “Well, let’s look at both sides.”

A building is bombed? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

A man commits thievery? “Well, let’s look at why he stole — maybe it’s society’s fault in some fashion.”

No one’s ever really at fault.

Members of the cult think that it’s a mark of their unyielding rationality, pragmatism, and maturity. It is truly merely a gateway for evil men to get away with evil deeds. It’s a mark of the abdication of their duties as (allegedly) freedom-loving, moral men and women.

Of course, we live in an age where people scoff at the notion of evil. Truths are “relative.” Everything’s merely subjective, and who are we to say that any one set of moral values is better than any other? Reason, hard work, and personal responsibility — aren’t these all just archaic, outmoded “values,” holding us back?

The cultural Marxists, relativists, and subjectivists are using our open society to kill it. It’s a form of cultural and moral terrorism. They do not “mean well.” They mean to tear down man’s rights.

Virtuous men must remember what Richard Dawkins has noted: when two opposing views are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie “somewhere in the middle.” It is possible for one side to simply be wrong.

We need to start calling bullies by their name. We need to stop “splitting the difference” when it comes to evil. We need to identity predators for what they are. We need to call a terrorist a terrorist and stop apologizing for doing so. We need to stop “empathizing” with cruelty in schools and start caring about our children.

Most importantly, we must be as unrelenting as our enemies — we must not surrender to their tactics of intimidation and fear. Your arsenal is loaded: proper moral judgment, intellectual honesty, and the truth are in your toolbox. Deploy those weapons. They are strong in the hands of the virtuous.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper may be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

From out of New Mexico:

Robert McNamara was 93 years old.  A promising young auto executive, McNamara will be remembered as the US Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. 

McNamara’s most recent public exposure came when he starred in the 2003 documentary, The Fog of War, which provided excellent insight on the failed military strategy behind the Vietnam war.   

McNamara will be most remembered for implementing the disasterous flexible response strategy to US defense policy.   This policy weakened US influence globally and allowed for Soviet expansion in Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia.  McNamara’s core belief was that the US should not counter Soviet aggression with the threat of massive retaliation, but to fund counter-insurgency programs (Bay of Pigs) and develop advanced defense systems to protect American interests.  

It is also widely believed that Secretary McNamara engineered the mythical Tonkin Gulf attack in 1964, which provided the US government with the moral authority to escalate military conflict with North Vietnam. 

McNamara’s decision to restrict US military options in North and South Vietnam (including his unwillingness to prevent the flow of arms from the Soviet Union to the North), led to the deaths of over 58,000 US soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors.   Before his death, McNamara never apologized to US servicemen and their families who suffered from his policy of restricted and politicized military engagement.   

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Peter Roff makes a solid point over at U.S. News’ Thomas Jefferson Blog:

In her remarks bringing the debate over the climate bill to a close, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California urged her colleagues to vote in favor of the cap and trade bill, saying the measure was about four things: “jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.”

She was right—the House-passed version of cap and trade is all about jobs: jobs lost, jobs never created, jobs sent overseas, and, unbelievably, jobs people will be paid for doing long after they cease to exist.

According to Friday’s Washington Times, the legislation includes language that provides, should it become law, that people who lose their jobs because of it “could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits—courtesy of Uncle Sam.”

How generous are these benefits? Well, according to the Times, “Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill’s ‘climate change worker adjustment assistance’ program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.”

Instead of being a the source of millions of new jobs of “green jobs”—as House Democrats are fond of saying over and over again—the provision is a hidden admission that their effort is a job killer, not just a massive new tax on energy.

The Democrats may respond by claiming that there will be more than enough green jobs created to offset the lost of jobs in other industries. The problem there is that Spain when it tried to create Green jobs saw that every Green Job created came at the expense of 2.2 normal jobs. Get ready to spend billions to put hundreds of thousands of people who’d otherwise be working on the government dole.

Rush shows some wisdom here that’s lacking from a lot of the post-resignation analysis:

This took some guts, but there’s a lot of truth in what King has to say:

A New York congressman says Michael Jackson was a “pervert” and calls on society to stop “glorifying” the late entertainer in a YouTube video.

Rep. Peter King said Jackson — whom he called a “low-life” — is being glorified in the days after his death while society ignores the efforts, of teachers, police officers, firefighters and veterans. In the two-minute video, King claims the “day in and day out” coverage of Jackson’s death is “too politically correct.”

“Let’s knock out the psychobabble,” King said in the video taped outside an American Legion Hall on New York’s Long Island. “He was a pervert, a child molester; he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we’re too politically correct.”

King, a Republican who is among the possible contenders for the seat held by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, said Jackson “may have been a good singer” and “did some dancing,” but blasted the singer as someone who could not be trusted around children.

“There’s nothing good to say about this guy,” King continued. “But the bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room as Michael Jackson?”

The video follows:

Here’s an excerpt from my my latest Pajamas Media piece:

Myth: Sarah Palin is finished after resigning as governor of Alaska.

With Governor Sarah Palin’s  resignation as governor of Alaska, many feel that she is finished as a presidential hopeful. It may indeed mark the voluntary retirement of Sarah Palin, but I think her resignation is more likely to offend people in political circles than most voters.

Was it honorable for Palin to resign, to “bail out” on the people of her state, as Senator Lisa Murkowski put it? The fact of the matter is that if Palin chooses to make a presidential run, her approach may be more fitting than other political leaders in light of the reality that the preliminaries of the presidential campaign will require a lot of out of state travel in the coming year. Mitt Romney didn’t resign as governor of Massachusetts in 2006; he just spent 212 days out of state while holding the gubernatorial title. The question then is whether it is nobler in the eyes of men to quit a job you’re not going to have time to do, or to hold onto the job and not do it.

Perhaps we’d prefer Huckabee’s choice to ignore the presidential campaign until after his time as governor had lapsed. The result of Huckabee’s decision was that he found himself starting way behind Republicans who’d spent 2006 campaigning.

In Alaska, Palin faced an ethics system that allowed frivolous complaints to consume 80% of her time and energy as governor, as well as weighing heavily on her staff.  Perhaps the most relevant example was one that was filed against Palin because of her speech to Indiana Right to Life at the end of Alaska’s legislative session. The lawyer who dismissed the claim said, “The fact that the governor traveled to Indiana to attend a dinner (and a breakfast meeting the next morning) did not take significant time, if any, away from the governor’s duties.” What this implies is that if an action does take significant time from the governor’s duty, it could be an issue.

As for Alaska, it’ll be fine. Adam Brickley pointed out that Palin actually extended her influence over the state by allowing her Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to succeed her and thus extend her reforms. Parnell will run in next year’s gubernatorial primary as an incumbent. Parnell will be able to continue the agenda that both he and Palin shared without being distracted by an opposition that is determined to destroy Palin’s national career.

Some think Palin needed to seek a second term to increase her experience. In fact, in order to run for president she needed to not run for re-election. Alaska’s legislature meets for 90 days starting each January. The 2011 session would force Palin to delay announcing for president for a few months, a minor inconvenience. But the 2012 session would occur smack dab in the middle of the Alaska legislative session, and trying to do the work of a presidential candidate would definitely take significant time from a governor’s duties and lead to a more complex ethics case right in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Don’t know what John Cornyn was thinking going to a Tea Party, but the crowd had some choice reactions to him: constant booing.

A well-deserved response, not only for what Cornyn’s done but for having the hubris to show up.

(Hat Tip: Right Wing Video.)

Saudi Arabia, like every Arab state except Syria, is terrified of the prospect of a nuclear Iran and has apparently given the green light to Israel to bomb Iran, should they need to.

One of the most terrifying aspects of a nuclear Iran is the prospect of a nuclear arms race being triggered in the Middle East. In the short term, pro-American Arab regimes might shift to support Iran, lest they piss it off. Long-term, they might want their own nukes to deter Iran. “Could they be crazy enough to use them?” is not a question we want to be only 99% sure on.

But the question, of course, is not just whether the Iranian regime would use them. It’s whether anyone else in the Middle East might be interested in using them. (See: Pakistan, which Secretary Clinton has deemed an “existential threat.”) Once they’re there, they’re there forever. It’s not just about keeping nukes out of Iran. It’s about keeping nukes out of the Middle East. Pakistan, part of the Greater Middle East, having nukes, is bad enough. But Iran? Too much to contemplate. Those in the know — like the House of Saud — agree that this is not a game we want to start playing.

Kansas City-area resident Scott Roeder is charged with murdering late-term abortionist George Tiller, and Roeder is being held in Sedgwick County (Wichita), where the murder took place.

There’s a new article out from the Associated Press about Roeder and his mailing activities while in jail.  However, it turns out that there’s really nothing to that story. What is newsworthy is buried near the end of the article:  a Christian musician, who opposes violence and who has shared Scripture with Roeder, has been questioned several times by law enforcement, but one of Roeder’s biggest fans has not once been questioned.

McClatchy-owned The Wichita Eagle, in typical form, titled the article, “Tiller shooting suspect writing to abortion foes from jail.”

The following analysis is from The Kansas Progress:

The same Associated Press article, printed in two papers.  Both are owned by the same company, McClatchy.  Two very different headlines.  And not much to report.

Here is The Kansas City Star’s headline about Scott Roeder, who is charged with murdering Wichita late-term abortionist George Tiller:  ”Roeder mailings say killings justified.”

It’s difficult to out-abortion The Kansas City Star, which recently won a “Maggie” Award from Planned Parenthood (named after Margaret Sanger, the early 20th-century supporter of abortion and eugenics, and founder of Planned Parenthood).

But with its July 3 headline for the same AP article The Wichita Eagle one-ups The Star:  ”Tiller shooting suspect writing to abortion foes from jail.”

It’s not until — count them — SEVEN paragraphs into the article that one reads, “No one has accused Roeder of breaking any laws because of his jailhouse correspondence.”

So, ultimately, this entire article is on the topic of the legal activity of writing letters.

An important tie-in to this story occurred nearly a month ago, as this July 3 article states:

But local and federal law enforcement agencies took seriously a threat Roeder made during a June 7 interview with the Associated Press that there are “many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal.”

A judge raised Roeder’s bond to $20 million, citing his comment to the AP, after a prosecutor argued Roeder’s ability to get his message widely disseminated should lead a reasonable person to believe he is engaged in “alleged acts of American terrorism.

Roeder’s June 7 comments have already been well-reported.  With this new article about Roeder’s outgoing mail, one would hope to learn something new.  Surely, there’s something more to the story, right?

(more…)

Continuing to revise my likelihood rankings, here’s how it shakes out:

Probable Candidates

1) Mike Huckabee 60% (-1%)

Huckbaee still looks like a strong possibility if Republicans have a chance, but his public hesitation is a concern. In addition, Sarah Palin’s decision to step aside leaves some clear questions. Had Palin decided to run for a second term or not, we would have a very clear clue as to what was going on and it would have an inverse effect on the likelihood of a second Huckabee candidacy.

1) Mitt Romney 60% (+4%)

Mitt Romney may have been the biggest beneficiary of a Sanford withdrawl. Sanford, formerly of Goldman Sachs was a direct threat to Romney’s ability to raise Wall Street funds and get praise from establishment Fis Cons. Romney’s prospects have greatly improved, plus we’ve heard few Romney isn’t running stories in recent months.

3) Tim Pawlenty 58% (+5%)

Pawlenty’s decision to step aside as Governor coupled with out of state campaigning indicate a potential Presidential bid.

Plausible Candidates

4) Sarah Palin 49% (+1)

I don’t think we can know what Sarah Palin’s plans are. Expect this number to swing widely as news develops and we get a picture of what Palin’s post-gubeanatorial career looks like.

Unlikely Candidates

5) John Thune 43% (-2)

The relatively little action we’re getting on the John Thune front really doesn’t seem to warrant the high percentage I gave previously.

6) Haley Barbour 42% (-2)

Barbour said a Presidential campaign decision would come “probably never.” However, if Romney is the sole remaining frontrunner, a fairly wide door could open for Barbour who has passed pro-life legislation and led his state through a crisis. Imagine Barbour as a hybrid of Huckabee’s social conservatism and the disaster management skills of Rudy Giuliani, mixed with some Washington, DC insider connections.

7) Gary Johnson-36% (+1)

Haven’t heard a lot on this front, but the Sanford meltdown has to help Johnson.

8 ) Newt Gingrich-30% (+3)

Newt’s Catholic Conversion seems to have given a greater depth of spiritual awareness that could help him connect with voters.

9) Jon Huntsman-29%()

No change.

10) John Cornyn-19% (-2)

Support for Specter and Crist relaly not looking good right now.

10) Mitch Daniels-19% (-10)

Really enough indicators he’s not running. Sometimes, we should just take a hint.

10) Bobby Jindal-19% ()

13) Tom Ridge-15% ()

Be nice if he’d agree to support the GOP Senate Candidate in Pennsylvania.

14) Jim DeMint 13% (+2)

Has got a book out.

15) Charlie Crist 9%

16) Rudy Giuliani 9% (-1)

Making noise about running for Governor and fixing New York is a full time time.

Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…

17) Jeb Bush 5% (+1)

Slight bump for not being Mark Sanford.

18) David Petraeus 3%

No Change.

19) Mark Sanford 2% (-41%)

Yes, after all that Sanford’s done, it’d take a self-destructive narcissist to even think about running for president. But, hey, it’s Mark Sanford we’re talking about here.

20) Ron Paul 1% (-)

I think it’d be appropriate to take a look at what Huckabee actually said on Fox News Sunday contrary to the Politico Piece which seems to be the political equivalent of Yellow Journalism. From the transcript:

WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, almost every politician is on the firing line. You may not have been to the degree as governor of Arkansas that Sarah Palin was once she achieved national prominence. But what about this argument, “I’m doing this for my state because the attacks against me are getting in the way?”

HUCKABEE: Well, if that had been the case for me, I’d have quit about my first month, because I was a Republican governor in a state where 89 percent of my legislature were Democrats.

I had constant ethics complaints filed against me, even by newspaper editors, and a lot of it was because if they can’t attack you on policy, what they do — they just absolutely bombard you with personal attacks and keep you tied up in court, make you hire lawyers. Been there, done that.

Arkansas was a tough political environment, period, even tougher for a Republican, and one of the things you have to do is just decide, “Look, they’re not going to, you know, chase me out.”

Now, what they do — they throw all this stuff at you, and then they say, “Oh, there’s a pattern of ethical issues.” Actually, what the pattern is is a pattern of phony charges being filed by the opposition party.

The danger that Sarah Palin faces — and let me be very quick to tell you, in the way of full disclosure, I’m a Sarah Palin fan. I like her personally. I like her points of view. I think she’s right on the issues. The challenge that she’s going to have is that there will be people who say, “Well, look, you know, if they chase you out of this, it won’t get any easier for you at other levels of the stage.” (emphasis mine.)

Horrible slam? I don’t really think so. It’s analysis. More of the same with this.

WALLACE:  And let me throw one other point into the mix in support of Governor — Lieutenant Governor Parnell’s comments, and that is our very own Bill Kristol, who was pushing Palin as McCain’s running mate before McCain had seriously considered it, said that, you know, this is a risky strategy, but it’s crazy like a fox.

She doesn’t — she’s not going to convince the skeptics with another 18 months as governor. This gives her an opportunity to write a book, make speeches and travel around the country.

Governor Huckabee?

HUCKABEE: I think there’s — there’s some wisdom to that. It could be a brilliant strategy. The point is we don’t know. It’s risky in that there’s no forgone conclusion as to whether it will play out as to give her some sort of reprieve from the national stage or simply to give her opponents — and let me be very clear.

In a primary, this is going to be an issue she’ll have to face. Will she be able to withstand the pressure?

And I think that Governor Parnell’s comments regarding the Arkansas stage — I’ll be honest with you. The experience that I had in Arkansas politics was far more brutal than running for president. And in a primary, it may not be quite the same.

But I’m telling you, when your opponents within your own team spend millions of dollars to redefine you, it’s very, very difficult. And she’ll have to face that if she runs in 2012.

Again, it’s all analysis and nothing  in Huckabee’s statements in the least defames Palin. She will face these questions. And Huckabee is right. It’s a risk, but leadership itself is risk. It could work out great, or it could fail spectacularly.  The Politico once again is trying to manufacture controversy.

If Mitt Romney has anything to be happy about, it’s this statement:

WALLACE: Finally, Governor Huckabee — and we’ve got less than a minute left — when you take a look at Governor Sanford confessing his personal affairs, John Ensign confessing his personal affairs, Sarah Palin dropping out as governor, as a possible candidate in 2012 do you feel like you’re gaining by just staying on your feet?

HUCKABEE: Oh, I thought you were going to ask me if I had something to confess here today, Chris, and I was going to tell you…

WALLACE: Well, we all do.

HUCKABEE: … (inaudible) no.

You know, I just re-signed my deal with Fox for the next three years, so right now I’m very comfortable doing what I’m doing. And I know everybody assumes that I’m, you know, going to make another shot at it. But honestly, it’s a brutal experience. I’m not sure that that’s in my future. I just don’t know at this point.

But right now I know that, you know, it’s going to be a wide open field, and it may be a lot more narrow in the sense of the number of candidates, but the field itself is wide open. And I think we’ll see other people emerge that we haven’t heard from yet.

If Huckabee doesn’t run and Palin doesn’t run, it would tend to leave the field to Mitt Romney. Huckabee’s not in a hurry to get back in, and Palin’s iffy. Mitt Romney may be the Bob Dole of 2012.  Dole’s major potential opponents (Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, and James Baker) left the field to him and Romney could see the same situation. Of course, the reason the field was left to Dole was that there was no way Clinton was going to lose and Dole was so old that waiting for 2000 wasn’t an option like it was for the others.

Mild but strong. Mike Huckabee essentially laid out the questions he would pose Gov. Palin were she to seek the 2012 nomination.  Seems clear that Palin still poses a big challenge to Huckabee’s own presidential ambitions, so expect Huckabee to continue this line of questioning.  Somewhere Mitt Romney is smiling.

Mike Huckabee, himself once an object of significant media attention, has always chafed a bit at Sarah Palin’s rise.  And in two different bytes on “Fox News Sunday” today he didn’t mince words about her decision to resign.   

“In a primary this is going to be an issue she’ll have to face. Will she be able to withstand the pressure?” he asked.

And, referring to the ethics inquiries Palin faces, Huckabee said of his own time as a GOP governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state:”If that had been the case for me, I would’ve quit in my first month.  If she’s looking to be a national political figure, it’s not going to get easier.”

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

From Kansas City.com:

The New York Post’s Page Six reports that Bristol Palin‘s baby daddy is shopping a book about Bristol, her mama Sarah – now the lame-duck governor of Alaska – and their family.

The Post got the news from Levi’s bodyguard/publicist, Tank. “There are still many untold stories about the Palins,” said Tank, who said that until the tell-all comes out Levi is considering a “leading role” in some movie.

 

Probably timing it to the campaign… My question is why does this guy need a bodyguard?

First: did you, like me, for the first time, as a part of a neighborhood free-for-all fireworks show, witness the launching of miniature, flaming hot air balloons?  I’m at a small lake just outside of Kansas City right now, and our next-door neighbors were launching these balloons, and it’s quite a sight.  Some of the first thoughts one has: where do they land, and what if they’re still on fire when they land?

Second:  I’ll provide my brief, optimistic thoughts about the upcoming Palin resignation.

1. I’m going to make the assumption that this is not scandal-related.
2. Palin has a long, promising future in front of her, no matter what her short-term plans are.
3. If, as it appears to be the case, Sean Parnell is interested in running for re-election in 2010, then this is an enormous boost to his candidacy.
4. Parnell appears to, in his own right, have a promising future in politics, and this will likely be a good thing for American politics, as conservatives have few national leaders right now.
5. One must ask whether Palin’s move was heavily influenced by a concern that liberal Republicans would win the governor’s seat in 2010.  Meaning, she wasn’t planning on running for re-election, and it was going to be Parnell vs. a tough, anti-reform primary opponent.  If this is the case, then her move can be appropriately viewed as a self-less and shrewd act that is in the best interest of Alaska and of the national conservative agenda.
6. If the reasons are also largely personal ones — man, there is nothing wrong and everything right about wanting to be a great mom to her kids.
7. I like Alex Knepper’s recent take;  in essence, watch out, world.  If her reasons are, in part, political (personally/electorally), we may be about to witness something incredible.  Truly, the most effective leaders are those are willing to risk losing (personally) in order to fight for an agenda that they view to be correct.  Palin could play a significant role in shaping both the political and popular culture, if she decides to form an American Solutions-type group and take it “on the road.”  Forgive me for being intentionally optimistic with the following comment:  in terms of 2010 and 2012, Palin could quite literally be (appropriately) credited with adding 10-20 seats for House Republicans in swing districts, primarily through being a “Republican Obama,” and through increasing turnout among voters who would otherwise sit home.

______________________________________________________________

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.

Sometimes there are no reasons to explain something this horrible.  It’s been years since I’ve cried over anything, but today I shed a tear for Steve McNair.

1973-2009

From her Facebook.

On this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.

If I may, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the last 24 hours and share my thoughts with you.

First, I want to thank you for your support and hard work on the values we share. Those values led me to the decision my family and I made. Yesterday, my family and I announced a decision that is in Alaska’s best interest and it always feels good to do what is right. We have accomplished more during this one term than most governors do in two – and I am proud of the great team that helped to build these wonderful successes. Energy independence and national security, fiscal restraint, smaller government, and local control have been my priorities and will remain my priorities.

For months now, I have consulted with friends and family, and with the Lieutenant Governor, about what is best for our wonderful state. I even made a few administrative changes over that course in time in preparation for yesterday. We have accomplished so much and there’s much more to do, but my family and I determined after prayerful consideration that sacrificing my title helps Alaska most. And once I decided not to run for re-election, my decision was that much easier – I’ve never been one to waste time or resources. Those who know me know this is the right decision and obvious decision at that, including Senator John McCain. I thank him for his kind, insightful comments.

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change; I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America. I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint. I hope you will join me. Now is the time to rebuild and help our nation achieve greatness!

God bless you! And I look forward to making a difference – with you!

Sarah

“Sarah Palin will be the guest speaker at the Simi Valley RWF 50th Anniversary celebration on August 8.” 

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

I’m no hero. I served in the military until I wasn’t able to. Now I work for the military as civilian.

None of that makes me a hero but it gives me the privilege of seeing heroes with my own eyes.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we have selfless soldiers who surrender their lives for a cause their nation has sent them on. These soldiers just as often die to save the buddies next to them.

The bravery and devotion of our soldiers isn’t myth or romanticism. These are real men with warts and vices who nevertheless put their lives on the line and get things done for the nation that sent them. Most of these men aren’t saints but they are heroes.

I feel that when I look in the eyes of our warfighters that I can see glimmers of the men who fought on Bunker Hill. Glimmers of the men who fought at Gettysburg for freedom.

The American spirit still lives and I get the privilege to see it closer than most civilians.

On our Independence Day I don’t just treasure the freedom we have, or treasure the ambience of family, hot dogs, fireworks and cold beer.

On our Independence Day I remember that freedom cannot be maintained unless some men are willing to die for others. Even then freedom is a fragile thread from generation to generation. I praise God that despite all that has occurred in America that we still retain some freedom and we still have men who are willing to die for that freedom.

God Bless America and may our nation remain free.