There is no better example of the power of political rhetoric then seen through the support Governor Romney has been receiving from moderate Republicans in 2009.

Moderate Republicans are without a leader for the first time since 1964.  Governor Romney has successfully attracted the support of moderates, even though he has not changed his 2008 policy positions, but has done so by distancing himself from the talk-radio and Tea Party crowds.  So successful has been Governor Romney’s rhetorical reverse, that in many of the 2012 polls conducted in the last 6 months, Governor Romney been able to replace his conservative voters from last years primary campaign who have migrated to Palin and Gingrich, with many of the McCain supporters.

But who are these moderate Republicans and will they continue to support Governor Romney, even when a true moderate enters the 2012 race and who is this likely candidate to carry the moderate banner?

Moderate Republicans are;

• Ultra-pragmatists, who seek compromise with pragmatic liberals on the major domestic issues our society faces.  
• Are pro-choice, or are pro-lifers who are supportive of Roe.
• Believe that our leaders should draft legislation through the spectrum of aesthetic consequentialism     
• Believe that our government should be altruistic in nature when developing legislation
• Usually reside in ‘blue’ States, have worked in the private sector or the military most of their careers, or grew up in political families

In 2008, moderates were weary of supporting Governor Romney’s campaign, as his rhetoric focused on attracting conservative voters.  Moderates were aware of Romney’s narrow economic and pragmatic governance of Massachusetts, but he had shown little interest in competing with Senator McCain for these voters.  It was a massive strategic failure that cost him the nomination. 

With Hunstman and Crist in doubtful positions for a run at 2012, expect to see a politically experienced candidate emerge from a blue State or large urban center to carry the Republican center.  The campaign will mirror that of the 2000 McCain campaign, offering moderate positions on climate change, abortion, immigration and health care reform.  This candidate may publically distance him/herself from the religious right and campaign on a platform of fiscal and foreign policy conservatism, highlighting their career successes in promoting free market principles.  The composition of this candidate’s campaign will be anti-populist.      

The candidate in question is not one currently discussed in the media and blogosphere, but has probably already made the decision to seek the nomination.   In 2010, keep and eye on the talk-show circuit and see what names are re-appearing from the 1990′s.  This may be an early signal on who the candidate is.  

These are some of the possibilities;

• Christie Whitman
• Mike Bloomberg
• Frederick W. Smith
• Tom Ridge
• George Pataki

Despite changes in voter registration and a reinvigorated libertarian and conservative base, moderate Republicans and independents continue to be a powerful voting block in primary campaigns.  In 2000, Senator McCain unexpectedly became their candidate of choice and I predict a similar movement will occur in 2012 if the candidate field is less crowded then is currently projected.

The decisions and consequences of President Obama’s administration over the next 3 years may also alter the dynamics of the 2012 primary campaign and the opportunity for a moderate candidate.  If President Obama continues to ignore the abortion and equal marriage issues and moves to the left on fiscal policy and to the right on foreign policy (more troops for the Afghan mission and a harder line on Iran’s nuclear program), expect taxes, regulation and the deficit to become the signature issues of 2012, allowing for a moderate candidate, with a pro-growth economic record to emerge.

A viable moderate candidate could once again push Governor Romney to the political right, steal away the support Governor Huckabee is currently receiving from women and youth and lengthen the campaign to where a nominee is not determined until the second super-Tuesday.    

_________________________________________________________

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

Governor Huckabee will join the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Steve King, and Rep. Tom McClintock tonight at the “How to Take Back America” Conference in St. Louis today.

“How to Take Back America” Conference Website

Huckabee will be speaking at the dinner which starts at 7pm CST. You can watch Mike, and everything else that happens in main ballroom of the conference, on the live webcast at http://action.afa.net/Webcast/WebcastPlayer.aspx?id=2147486924.

I find it interesting that Huckabee would headline an event that has Phyllis Schlafly as a co-chair and Joseph Farah on the host committee as neither of them were too hot on Huckabee in 2008 although I sense that Schlafly/Eagle Forum in particular are becoming closer to Mike.

It is no surprise that some of Huckabee’s biggest supporters from 2008 are involved in hosting the event. They are listed below:
Janet Folger Porter, Faith2Action
Don Wildmon, American Family Association
Michael Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel
Rick Scarborough, Vision America

If this catches on I’d like for it to be a regular feature but, just in case I embarrass myself, I’m dropping the first one on a Saturday afternoon.  Here’s how it goes: I’ll present a political scenario and offer some potential responses, and you’ll make a choice and tell us why.  If you can come to a relative consensus, I’ll put up another post, 24 hours later, with your “decision” and some thoughts of my own.  Pretty simple and, I hope, an interesting way to get readers thinkin’. 

Scenario 1:  You’re Mitt Romney and it’s August of 2011, 5 months before the Iowa caucus.  Obama’s approval ratings have hovered in the mid-40′s for most of the year, but recently he made an apparent foreign policy coup when Iran pledged to officially end its nuclear weapons program in exchange for nuclear energy, financial incentives, and an end to all sanctions.  They’ve agreed to allow bi-monthly, limited UN inspections.  Do you:

A.)  Praise the development, while remaining critical on domestic affairs. 

B.)  Attack Obama for appeasing an untrustworthy Iranian regime.

C.)  Remain non-committal on the deal, while staying critical on domestic affairs. 

D.)  Attack the Iranian regime directly while ignoring Obama. 

Note:  This question asks you which choice is the best political play, given the information above, not which you’d personally prefer.  Also, for the sake of simplicity just assume the choices are mutually exclusive; you can’t do both A and B. 

Discuss!

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlenty-esque blog.

The Barrister over at Maggie’s Farm tackles health care, bemoaning our inability to agree to a number of small-bore reforms.  He writes:

The sad thing is that most of what people complain about in health care can be easily solved without giant government controls and bureaucracies:
1. Permit interstate competition among insurance companies so people can have a wide range of choices of types of policies including cheap major medical which is what makes sense for most people, and explain the basic fact that medical care has to be paid for, and even saved for, same as car repairs and house repairs and vacations (and legal costs). That is what grown-ups do. You can get major medical for a family for the price of a big-screen TV.
2. Portability of insurance – so you own it (that is complicated tho for companies that self-insure)
3. A law that says you cannot be cancelled if you get sick
4. State “pools” for the uninsurable, same as for uninsurable drivers. We already have (bankrupt) Medicaid for the poor.

How easy and non-controversial would those changes be? Abundant and high quality medical care is one of the great blessings and privileges of a prosperous society, and thus an important economic engine. Why kill it? People want these things.
Do Americans want to be grown-ups, or children? It’s our call.

I like all these ideas.  Numbers 3 and 4 are considerably better ways of addressing the problem of rescission (people getting dropped from the rolls when they get sick) than straight mandates requiring that insurance companies ignore pre-existing conditions.  This might not be exactly how I’d approach health-care reform but it promotes a series of pretty easy to understand changes that would actually lower health care costs.  What do you think? 

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlenty-esque blog

Again I come to you with an article about Sarah Palin. My turnaround regarding the former governor is perhaps as perplexing to you as it is to me. It is certainly so that the paradigm shift in the national dialogue and the sudden urgency that has arisen in the conservative base about the proper role of government has produced something of a change in what I perceive as a proper strategy. It has forced me to reassess what the practical should and could be — and the question of ends and means. But it is more than this, I think. It was certainly Palin’s Hong Kong speech that served as the catalyst for my soul-searching, but it is not that speech alone that has swayed my opinion. Upon evaluating her actions in the calendar year of 2009, I have come to the conclusion that I was honestly wrong about certain aspects of Palin.

When Sarah Palin resigned as governor, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal contended that her resignation had to do with how effective she could really be as governor while dealing with a barrage of frivolous ethics complaints. She essentially, in Fund’s words, was being paid to show up to work to defend herself. The state of Alaska was being drained of its time, money, and energy, and Palin determined that the overall costs of staying to fight outweighed the benefits of simply handing over the reins to now-Governor Parnell. For this, she was maligned as a quitter: if you’re a real fighter, then why don’t you stay around and, you know, fight? And the money wasn’t much, after all, in the grand scheme of things.

Doctor Zero at Hot Air provides the rebuttal that planted the seed within me to start warming up to Palin:

I don’t blame her for refusing to take any more personal or financial pounding from political operatives using Alaska’s odd government ethics system as a weapon. Some have said she was foolish to cite the cost to Alaskan taxpayers as a reason for her resignation, since it was a paltry two million dollars. To me, that doesn’t sound like a criticism – it’s a campaign slogan. Sarah Palin: She Still Thinks A Million Bucks Is A Lot of Money. If she runs for president in 2012, it will be against an incumbent who thinks a billion dollars of graft or waste is a rounding error in one of his big-government schemes. A lot of people will like the idea of voting for someone who doesn’t use rolls of taxpayer dollars to wipe the ink off their hands after signing legislation.

Indeed. Moreover, her newfound status as a national lightning rod made her a chief target for Alaska Democrats who wanted to earn a killing by taking her down. The maverick politician who once boasted a 90% approval rating was no more — and she could never come back in such an atmosphere. I have no reason to believe that Palin desired to govern as anything other than a pragmatic center-right Republican, and it’s rather, well, refreshing, in hindsight, to realize that there is actually a politician out there who would rather just get out of a system in which she can’t do anything productive.

Only a knave or a fool would think that she didn’t realize she’d be branded as a quitter. And yet, she decided that it wasn’t worth her blessed, almighty title to be ineffective. She stated in her resignation address that she could be more effective elsewhere: “Only dead fish go with the flow.”

She seems to have been vindicated. Her decision to leave certainly wasn’t nonsensical, in hindsight: she’s had a lot more of an impact on the national debate from behind her computer chair than she would have from the governor’s mansion. Just like she had more of an impact by resigning from the Oil and Gas Commission than by staying on it, the tool of resignation once again came in handy. From Facebook to Hong Kong, Palin’s words have echoed with force matched only by the president himself.

For a while now, I have judged the former governor as much by the words of her supporters as by her own words. In an article — which, by the way, I still think has some merit — I contended that Palin was America’s new victim-in-chief. My personal distate for self-styled victims overflowing, I attacked the role her supporters often attempt to cast her in: as a target of the wicked media, of sexism, of elitism. But what of the words of Palin herself? Her anger towards “bloggers in their mothers’ basements” can certainly be rationally chalked up to a mother’s instinct to protect her children from attacks by creeps over at the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. The inevitable cry arises: well, that’s not very presidential, is it? Well, no, I guess it’s not. In fact, hell, no — and thank God. Isn’t it refreshing to have a politician think of herself first and foremost as a mother and not as someone meticulously calculating how a decision will affect one’s political future? We saw similar sentiments arise from Sarah Palin, Mother, in the David Letterman ordeal.

Nobody’s perfect. Palin created a sub-cabinet department while governor to deal with ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or whatever it is we’re calling it this week. Bad. Her support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is annoying, although nothing of consequence (her record in government shows that she is anything but a crusader for hot-button social issues). Her glorification of ‘Joe Six-Pack’ during the 2008 campaign season still rests heavily on my mind, too — although I’ll take Joe Six-Pack over God’s Partner In Life and Death. But the time for parsing is quickly passing. The means of intellectual conservatism simply aren’t as important as the ends of individual freedom. When Sarah Palin contends in her Hong Kong speech that we don’t want fixes, but rather freedom, it sends my classically liberal heart a-flutter. When she has the audacity to go after the third rail that is the Federal Reserve, my eyebrow raises, and not in a bad way. When she simultaneously condemns protectionism and the human rights record of China, I can’t help but clap my hands. Yeah, yeah, she had a speechwriter. Just like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Mr. Intellectual himself, President Obama. Is Sarah necessarily, strictly speaking, as intelligent as any of the three? Probably not. But what’s her ideology like? It seems to be a lot more like Barry Goldwater’s than Richard Nixon’s. If it turns out that we can’t beat Barack Obama, I’d rather send a message with Sarah Palin than with Mitt Romney.

Now, I’m not turning into John Ziegler or Kristofer Lorelli, here, but my opinion of Sarah Palin is now officially positive. Freed of the McCain campaign’s fumbling and often bizarre calculations, Sarah, I believe, can be set loose to do what she really wants to do. I eagerly await her next speech and her upcoming book. If she can sway me, she can sway others. Go get ‘em, Sarah!

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

The news is out that Mitt Romney will be in Salt Lake City next Tuesday to host a fundraiser for his Free and Strong America PAC. As I suspected, gone are the days when you could meet and greet Mitt Romney for an affordable $50 a plate. Prices for this dinner are pegged at $1000 a plate with a VIP reception provided for those who donate the maximum $5000 allowed by law.

Mitt Romney’s schedule is definitely getting busier. I have posted more Romney news today than I usually have done in a week. Are the campaign preliminaries starting to heat up? Is Mitt starting to feel the heat from his competitors? Are those much ballyhooed “low” favorables starting to bother him?

Well, anything is possible, I suppose. Occam’s Razor aficionado that I am, however, I suspect a more prosaic reason:

I read just recently that his upcoming book is finished and is now in the hands of the publisher. So all that time Mitt has been spending working on it is now free. If ever there was a man who hated to waste a single minute, it is Mitt Romney. So what to do to fill that time and burn off that incredible energy he has? What could be better than to get out and press the flesh, raise a little cash, network other Republicans, and get his name, face, and message in the local media?

I suspect we are about to see a bit more of Former Massachusetts State Governor Willard Mitt Romney.

(Now if only someone could just convince him to come to Reno for a nice $50 a plate dinner.)

Tarrance Group (R) Colorado 2010 Political Survey

GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Scott McInnis 40%
• Josh Penry 13%
• Undecided 47%

GOP Senatorial Primary

• Jane Norton 45%
• Ken Buck 15%
• Undecided 40%

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Michael Bennet 41%
• Andrew Romanoff 27%
• Undecided 32%

Job Approval

Barack Obama

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 47%

Note: Obama’s job approval is higher in Denver (60%) and the north suburbs (65%), while less than half approve throughout the rest of the state. Approval drops to its lowest point in the eastern plains (35%).

Bill Ritter

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 46%

Note: Denver (65%) and north suburbs (60%) voters approve, while Colorado Springs (56%), west slope voters (52%) and eastern plains voters (53%) disapprove. While less than half, a plurality (49%) of Jefferson/Arapahoe voters approve.

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 16-17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

PPP (D) Arizona 2010 GOP Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Republican Senator John McCain’s job performance?

• Approve 65%
• Disapprove 25%

Among Men

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 36%

Among Women

• Approve 73%
• Disapprove 14%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Minuteman Project founder Chris Simcox?

• Favorable 44%
• Unfavorable 16%

Among Hispanics

• Favorable 24%
• Unfavorable 40%

If the Republican candidates for Senate were John McCain and Chris Simcox, who would you vote for?

• John McCain 67%
• Chris Simcox 17%
• Undecided 17%

Among Hispanics

• John McCain 64%
• Chris Simcox 12%
• Undecided 24%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Jan Brewer’s job performance?

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 40%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Treasurer Dean Martin?

• Favorable 36%
• Unfavorable 13%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of former Governor Fife Symington?

• Favorable 28%
• Unfavorable 44%

If the Republican candidates for Governor were Jan Brewer and Fife Symington, who would you vote for?

• Jan Brewer 39%
• Fife Symington 31%
• Undecided 30%

If the Republican candidates for Governor were Jan Brewer and Dean Martin, who would you vote for?

• Dean Martin 37%
• Jan Brewer 26%
• Undecided 37%

If the Republican candidates for Governor were Jan Brewer, Dean Martin, and Fife Symington, who would you vote for?

• Fife Symington 34%
• Dean Martin 26%
• Jan Brewer 22%
• Undecided 19%

Survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted September 18-21. The margin of error is +/-4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 89% Republican; 11% Independent. Political views: 76% Conservative; 22% Moderate; 2% Liberal.

The Washington State Republican Party has just announced that Mitt Romney will be their keynote speaker at their convention next June. The headliner for their Friday dinner will be Michele Malkin.

On a personal note, I lived in Seattle area during the 2008 Presidential cycle. Romney was scheduled to speak at a Republican get-together there in 2006. Mitt was just starting to rise above 5% in the polling. They were only charging $50 a plate. My wife and I planned to go. Then the Massachusetts floods came and Mitt had to cancel. We were very disappointed.

Now, if he came to a speak at a dinner here in Reno, NV or perhaps even Sacramento, CA, the price would likely be in the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a plate.

Oh well. Such is life.

Remember how Mitt Romney has been hosting quite a few fundraisers for a number of Republicans around the country? Well guess who is holding a fundraiser for Mitt next Wednesday?

I guess it is true what I have been hearing about these two becoming much closer since the primaries ended.

On a side note, John McCain’s PAC has been doing quite well this year. They reported receipts of more than half a million during the first half of the year. By comparison, Palin’s PAC brought in three quarters of a million dollars (albeit for only five of the six months) and Huckabee’s PAC brought in a third of a million. So McCain isn’t doing too shabby for someone who just lost the election in 2008 and doesn’t appear to be making any moves towards trying again.

In further PAC news, Romney’s Free and Strong PAC reported $169K worth of donations last month. This compares to a donation total of $125K for the month of July. They still spent more than they took in, so they are finishing the second straight month of deficit spending. They claim that donations are always down in the Summer. We shall see how things fare next month.

The Huffington Post circulates a Democratic memo which claims that, while an individual mandate is generally unpopular, it’s super-popular when added to a public option: 

Commissioned by the progressive-leaning Health Care for America Now – and obtained by the Huffington Post – the piece is based on three new polls conducted by reputable polling firms in swing House districts and the state of Maine.

“Nationally,” the memo reads, “voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%… Each [survey] found that likely 2010 voters oppose ‘requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a private health insurance plan’ but support ‘requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plans.’”

This reminds me of the old-saw that fascism now means “whatever I don’t like”.  Well, it seems to me that “choice” has come to mean “whatever I do like”.  Yes, it looks like this is a little bit of a push-poll but only a little bit.  It probably really is the case that when you throw the word “choice” into the works people go wild with approval.  Because, as a point of logic, referring to the public option as a “choice” is roughly as coherent as referring to pravda as an additional “choice” for Soviet-era Russians. 

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlenty-esque blog.

Found this at Free and Strong America PAC blog:

The video is uncut and is the entire “conversation”, nearly an hour long.

Be sure to read Jennifer Rubin’s recap of the event (click here).

Romney speaks at the Foreign Policy Initiative Luncheon 9/21/09

——————————————————————-
Instead of making an entire new entries (don’t want spam the front page) for these worthy posts, I’ll simply leave links here:
McCain to Host Fundraiser for Mitt Romney’s PAC in Phoenix, Sept. 30
The Real Dirt – an excellent write-up by Jayde Wyatt about the hypocrisy Obama administration (including Michelle) and the man-made drought of the San Joaquin Valley in order save the trouble Smelt Fish

• NFIB endorses Christie, saying he’ll benefit small businesses.
• NJOA Endorses Chris Christie for Governor 
• Christie gains endorsements of African-American activists
• Christie press conference adds to Latino Leadership Alliance endorsement

_________________________________________________________

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

The Washington Post reports today that the Democratic Congressional Election committees are experiencing a tremendous drop-off of donations this year compared to last year, while the respective Republican Committees see no such decline. This is odd because the party in power usually gets the most money from interests sucking up to them to gain access.

That begs two questions:

1. What did the Democrats expect would happen with their anti-business actions — attacking CEO compensation, demonizing motives, running roughshod over contract law to reward political cronies, etc? That their targets would just shrug it off and open up the checkbook?
2. What did big business expect the Democrats to do once they got into power in light of their anti-business rhetoric last year? What’s that story about a scorpion and a frog again?

Detroit News/Mitchell Research Michigan 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

GOP Primary

• Mike Cox 30%
• Pete Hoekstra 23%
• Mike Bouchard 11%
• Tom George 2%
• Rick Snyder 2%
• Undecided 32%

General Election

• Mike Cox (R) 45%
• John Cherry (D) 32%

Survey of 600 likely voters (including a subsample of 209 Republicans) was conducted September 13-17. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

USA Today/Gallup Survey on Afghanistan

Would you favor or oppose a decision by President Obama to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan? (If oppose) Which would you rather see President Obama do — keep the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan about the same as now, or begin to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan?

• Favor sending more troops 41%
• Oppose sending more, keep number of troops same 7%
• Oppose sending more, begin to withdraw troops 41%

Among Democrats

• Favor sending more troops 30%
• Oppose sending more, keep number of troops same 9%
• Oppose sending more, begin to withdraw troops 53%

Among Republicans

• Favor sending more troops 63%
• Oppose sending more, keep number of troops same 6%
• Oppose sending more, begin to withdraw troops 24%

Among Independents

• Favor sending more troops 38%
• Oppose sending more, keep number of troops same 6%
• Oppose sending more, begin to withdraw troops 43%

Survey of 1,053 adults was conducted September 22-23. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points: +/- 7 percentage points for each subsample.

In our first batch of nuclear news today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has offered a surprising proposal:

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants talks between Iranian and US experts to allay fears about his country’s nuclear program as international pressure mounts on Tehran.

In an interview with the Washington Post and Newsweek magazine Wednesday, Ahmadinejad also said Iran would offer to purchase enriched uranium for medical purposes from the United States at talks with world powers on October 1.

“Why not just let them sit and talk and see what kind of capacity they can build? I think it is a good thing to happen,” Ahmadinejad said of Iran’s readiness to allow its nuclear experts to meet with international scientists.

A meeting of nuclear scientists, which Iran has not previously allowed, would be a historic first.

Ahmadinejad’s overture came on the sidelines of a UN General Assembly session that saw stepped up pressure on Iran to yield to international concerns that it is developing nuclear weapons.

Russia signaled it could back biting sanctions if Tehran fails to make concessions at the October 1 meeting with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

Purchasing uranium for medical purposes? Can someone with more knowledge of nuclear power explain to me why someone would want uranium for medical purposes? On the positive side, Russia has actually signaled some concrete willingness to help the U.S. address Iran’s nuclear program.

In our next story, Brazil’s Vice President has publicly come out in favor of the country building nuclear weapons:

Jose Alencar says “a nuclear weapon has great importance” to prevent attacks on Brazil because of its extensive borders and maritime holdings. Alencar tells Brazilian newspapers that Brazil doesn’t have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should.

Alencar’s influence is relatively limited and he is not a member of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s party. Brazilian officials insist they are developing nuclear energy only for peaceful means.

Alencar aide Adriano Silva confirms the comments published Friday by newspapers including O Globo and O Estado de Sao Paulo. He says they are personal opinions and not a position of the government.

One can’t help but suspect Alencar arrived at his position due at least in part to Hugo Chavez’s nuclear aspirations. If so, this story illustrates the possibility of a nuclear arms race sparking in Latin America if Chavez gets his wish.

And lastly, Monday, President Obama got smacked in the face with the discovery of a second uranium enrichment facility in Iran:

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” Obama said, detailing how the facility at Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Association. “International law is not an empty promise.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Iran of “serial deception” that he said “will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.”

“We will not let this matter rest,” Brown said. ” . . . Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear programs.”

Iran acknowledged the existence of the facility for the first time on Monday, in a letter to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. The letter said “a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country,” said Marc Vidricaire, a spokesman for the watchdog agency. “The letter stated that the enrichment level would be up to 5 percent.”

Vidricaire said the agency responded by asking Iran to quickly provide more specifics about the facility — “to assess safeguards verification requirements.” He said Iran told the IAEA “that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility.”

White House officials said Western intelligence agencies have been tracking the facility for years. Obama said officials from the United States, France and Britain briefed the IAEA in Vienna on Thursday on what they knew about the facility. The three heads of state decided to publicly disclose the existence of the facility after learning that Iran had become aware the site was no longer a secret.

How will the President respond?

Rasmussen Ohio 2010 Political Survey

2010 Senate Race

• Rob Portman 41%
• Lee Fisher 40%
• Other 6%
• Not sure 14%

• Rob Portman 40%
• Jennifer Brunner 38%
• Other 5%
• Not sure 18%

2010 Gubernatorial Race

• John Kasich 46%
• Ted Strickland 45%
• Other 3%
• Not sure 7%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Portman 45% / 23% {+22%}
• John Kasich 47% / 25% {+22%}
• Lee Fisher 42% / 34% {+8%}
• Ted Strickland 48% / 46% {+2%}
• Jennifer Brunner 37% / 36% {+1%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 33%
• Somewhat approve 15%
• Somewhat disapprove 10%
• Strongly disapprove 40%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 27%
• Somewhat favor 17%
• Somewhat oppose 7%
• Strongly oppose 45%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 26%
• Worse 51%
• Staying the same 16%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 50%
• Cost will go down 21%
• Stay the same 22%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 61%
• Reduce the deficit 9%
• No impact on the deficit 22%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 57%
• Somewhat likely 20%
• Not very likely 13%
• Not at all likely 4%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 49%
• Federal government will not do enough 36%

How would you rate the job Ted Strickland has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15%
• Somewhat approve 32%
• Somewhat disapprove 24%
• Strongly disapprove 26%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 23. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Among Democratic voters, Fisher runs slightly better than Brunner against Portman. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Portman against either Democrat.
Kasich carries 81% of the Republican vote, while the incumbent picks up 80% of Democrats. The GOP challenger has a 14-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party.

Rasmussen California 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Barbara Boxer 49% [45%] (47%)
• Carly Fiorina 39% [41%] (38%)
• Other 4% [7%] (10%)
• Not sure 8% [7%] (5%)

• Barbara Boxer 46%
• Chuck DeVore 37%
• Other 7%
• Not sure 10%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Barbara Boxer 51% [50%] (50%) / 42% [47%] (46%) {+9%}
• Carly Fiorina 32% [30%] (39%) / 35% [35%] (31%) {-3%}
• Chuck DeVore 31% / 37% {-6%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 41% [42%] (38%)
• Somewhat approve 19% [15%] (18%)
• Somewhat disapprove 8% [8%] (15%)
• Strongly disapprove 31% [35%] (28%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 35%
• Somewhat favor 20%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 35%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 31%
• Worse 40%
• Staying the same 24%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 42%
• Cost will go down 23%
• Stay the same 24%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 54%
• Reduce the deficit 16%
• No impact on the deficit 18%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 51%
• Somewhat likely 21%
• Not very likely 20%
• Not at all likely 5%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 52%
• Federal government will not do enough 40%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 1%
• Good 5%
• Fair 42%
• Poor 52%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 29%
• Worse 43%
• Stay the same 19%

How would you rate the job Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 8%
• Somewhat approve 25%
• Somewhat disapprove 32%
• Strongly disapprove 31%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 23. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 22 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 9 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Male voters give DeVore a eight-point edge over Boxer in that match-up and break even with Fiorina in the race. Women prefer the Democrat by double digits in both contests.

Voters not affiliated with either party favor the Republican in both races.

I’ll still be posting here, a lot.  In fact, I don’t expect my output to vary at all.  But, I’ve created a sort of Pawlenty for President blog, which will also double as a blog for my personal thoughts about all kinds of random things.  In other words, it’ll bea  lot of stuff that doesn’t fit on race anyway.  Head over there, if you like, and give me a little support and feedback.  I’m hoping to have at least 5 loyal readers by the end of next week.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his blog Aguynamedtim.wordpress.com

Featuring Charlie Rangel.

Just when Gov. Huckabee couldn’t appear in any more places, he signs another media deal, this time with RedLasso.

Here’s an excerpt from the official release:

Redlasso signed an agreement with 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who is currently the host of the number one rated weekend hit HUCKABEE on the Fox News Channel, and is heard three times daily across the nation on the “Huckabee Report” on the ABC Radio Network. Redlasso will create a custom media center for Huckabee, as well as a widget for viral syndication of all of his broadcast content.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

So the reach of the conservative message continues to expand into new media. I’m all for that, oh and I like Huckabee.

Sarah Palin fanatic John Ziegler waxes astonishment at the former governor’s star power:

[I]t must be noted that it is rather incredible that this speech got as much play as it did. Remember, this is a private citizen from Alaska who was a “failed” vice-presidential candidate, who has given no official indication she is ever going to run for anything ever again. The speech was a private affair in a foreign country and contained no real “news” whatsoever. The news media was barred and were forced to cobble together bits and pieces of what was said from the paying customers who attended. And yet, nearly every major publication gave the event heavy play and links to FOUR of those articles were displayed prominently on the Drudge Report all day long.

This is simply extraordinary, a true testament to Palin’s enduring star power and just how much the media still desperately wants/needs their favorite target to stick around. It is also a vindication of her much maligned post-resignation strategy.

Maybe. Palin became fascinating because she had an interesting life narrative, had an “exotic” appeal to her insofar as most Americans hardly even think of Alaska as part of the United States, was a virtual unknown, and became known as an ideological conservative. Some of her missteps in the press gave ample fodder for her to be lampooned — sometimes with more than a little justification — as well.

When the 2008 election ended and Palin had been around for all of two months, though, she’d not yet exhausted her novelty. So how is a person to stay fresh? Well, she could go into hiding, making all of the world sit on edge simply because she’s like, doing her job, and pop up half a year later with a big bang, throwing the media mere scraps in the meantime. A compelling figure who remains aloof retains novelty, a key component of emotional aesthetic appeal (and what is “star power” but a form of aesthetic?).

After her ‘bang’ — the resignation — reignited her novel appeal, she continued to lay low until she became the first serious Republican to actually utilize Facebook with actual seriousness. It could be said without exaggeration that Palin’s chief mode of communication to her supporters has been through social networking sites. She’s penned op-eds here and there for the Wall Street Journal, sure, but her Facebook notes have driven the conversation surrounding her.

It was from Facebook that she launched the “death panels” debate that quite literally changed the course of the health care debate. Sarah Palin, as a “quitter” and a private citizen, wrote a little Facebook note and the President of the United States and his entire crew had to devote their time and efforts to shooting down what was, yes, a half-truth, but one with so much weight behind it — so much weight from a Facebook note.

It’s unprecedented. We’ve heard so much about the promise of social networking from crusty old conventional wisdom types, but it was Palin who actually used it to change the course of a national conversation.

So what next? A few ordinary Facebook notes — sound the Drudge siren! — and an ostensibly private speech in Asia. Ziegler puts it well: little new to say, a few policy tid-bits, and yet — sound the Drudge siren! Sarah Palin said, well, I don’t know — something! Anything! (What did she say? What did she say?) She’s behind the opaque purple curtain, showing the drooling media boys a little leg here and there — but not too much. Never too much. Always leave ‘em wanting more. It ain’t news when Mike Huckabee makes a speech, folks.

This is why I believe that, if she wants to, Palin can revive and revamp her image. She’s got media currency to spend, and when she’s ready to return with a new, coherent, classical liberal message — and I hope and pray that she will be — she can perform an absolute media blitz that could let her fulfill the promise so many of us so very badly hoped that she had when we advocated for her in the spring and summer of 2008.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

We’ve all seen the polls from the upcoming New Jersey gubernatorial election. Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie are duking it out for the lead, but we have also started seeing the name “Chris Daggett” in third place – far behind but breaking into the double digits. So, naturally, we are starting to wonder who this guy is and what effects his renegade candidacy will have on the race.

On one hand, Daggett is a veteran of New Jersey politics and tied closely to former Gov. Tom Kean. He entered public service as Kean’s deputy chief of staff in 1982, then he became a Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1984. He returned to the Kean administration in 1988 as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, then left public service in 1989. So, he should appeal primarily to moderate Republicans and drain votes from Christie, right? Well, yes, but it’s not that simple.

Daggett also has serious environmental creds, and has snatched the endorsement of the New Jersey Sierra Club away from Corzine.  He’s also a big school-choice advocate. So – his campaign is centrist, but he’s running to Christie’s right on education and Corzine’s left  on the environment.

In other words, he’s exactly the sort of oddball ideological crazy-quilt who can effectively campaign as a true independent – and he has the added benefit of being totally unconnected to the political scene for the the last twenty years. Not a bad start if you want to run a populist independent campaign. Personally, I think we need to stop treating this guy as a spoiler and start looking at him as a contender.

 I wouldn’t have said that a month ago. Even though he polls in double digits despite having very low name recognition, I didn’t really see him gaining the recognition to compete. I mean, he has message that resonates and both of the major party candidates have issues – but let’s face it, Chris Daggett is a pretty boring, wonkish-type guy (not good if you want to play the renegade).  So – why am I suddenly so bullish?

Three words: North Woods Adverstising.

North Woods is well known for irreverent political ad campaigns for unconventional candidates.  Past clients include Jesse Ventura, Paul Wellstone, Ned Lamont, and the infamous (if unsuccessful) Kinky Friedman for Governor campaign. These people know a thing or two about taking candidates who have no business even competing and turning them into Senators and Governors. Now, they’ve taken on the task of turning milktoasty Chris Daggett and making him New Jersey’s newest superhero.

It’s a bit of a tall order – he doesn’t have Kinky’s panache and he can’t grind your bones to  dust like Ventura – but it’s also not like he’s running against top-shelf opponents.  Ventura had to beat Norm Coleman and Hubert Humphrey III. Daggett has to beat John Corzine, a governor who is hated by his constituents; and Chris Christie, who is losing ground to said hated governor.

Let’s not kid ourselves  – Daggett is way back in the polls and he has bad name recognition. That said, he’s hitting the airwaves with a kick-butt TV ad, and it’s probably not his last. His numbers seem to be going up (one poll has him at 13%), and he already polls insanely high compared to his name recognition numbers. If he can get his name on TV enough to get more recognition, his poll numbers will go up – it’s that simple.

I wouldn’t vote for Chris Daggett, and I’m not saying that he will win. I am, however, saying that he can win if he does it right.

Rasmussen New York Political Survey

2010 Gubernatorial Race

• Rudy Giuliani 50% (55%)
• David Paterson 39% (33%)
• Undecided 2% (5%)

• David Paterson 38%
• Rick Lazio 38%
• Undecided 11%

• Andrew Cuomo 58% (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 37% (41%)
• Undecided 3% (6%)

• Andrew Cuomo 65%
• Rick Lazio 26%
• Undecided 5%

2010 Senatorial Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 44%
• George Pataki 41%
• Undecided 4%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 68% (64%) / 25% (32%) [+43%]
• Rudy Giuliani 55% (56%) / 44% (39%) [+11%]
• George Pataki 46% / 48% [-2%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 39% / 42% [-3%]
• Rick Lazio 33% / 49% [-16%]
• David Paterson 38% (38%) / 57% (60%) [-19%]

How would you rate the job David Paterson has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% (5%)
• Approve 25% (27%)
• Disapprove 27% (31%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% (36%)

Last week the White House told Governor David Paterson that he should not run for Governor in 2010. Should the White House get involved like this in New York state politics?

• Yes 29%
• No 60%

Should Paterson drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Yes 44%
• No 41%

How likely is it that Paterson will drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Very likely 17%
• Somewhat likely 31%
• Not very likely 31%
• Not at all likely 8%

Does the White House’s pressure on Paterson not to run in the 2010 Governor’s race make you more likely to vote for Paterson, less likely to vote for Paterson or have no impact on your vote?

• More likely 18%
• Less likely 16%
• No impact 64%

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 48% (39%)
• Approve 13% (24%)
• Disapprove 11% (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 27% (27%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 34%
• Somewhat favor 24%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 32%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 37%
• Worse 34%
• Staying the same 15%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 36%
• Cost will go down 20%
• Stay the same 30%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 56%
• Reduce the deficit 8%
• No impact on the deficit 24%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 51%
• Somewhat likely 21%
• Not very likely 16%
• Not at all likely 6%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 38%
• Federal government will not do enough 43%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 22. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

When Barack Obama slapped a 35 percent tariff on tires shipped from China, many people saw this move as a direct parallel with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed by Congress on the eve of the Great Depression. Of course, being that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff is soundly condemned by most economists for worsening the Great Depression, this is a comparison that should not be taken lightly.

One of the nation’s top trade economists, Douglas Irwin posits in a paper entitled “The Smoot-Hawley Tariff: A Quantitative Assessment,” that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff reduced America’s imports “by about 12-20%.” And that disaster did not include, of course, the loss of exports that were a result of other countries matching American punitive tariffs.

So for a nation that now imports 2.112 trillion dollars worth of goods, it might be worthwhile to be extra hesitant when possibly starting a trade war with one of our largest trading partners – and the world at large, as well.

That being the case, it’s good thing the Founders set up the American Constitutional Republic to be a slow process, with what they hoped were ironclads safeguards. The Constitution states in the first line under the powers of Congress that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” and later “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…”

Yet, lo and behold, even with the high important issue of international trade and the constitutional safeguards put in place, Barack Obama defied both with one hastily move: Proclamation 8414.

In Proclamation 8414, Obama writes, “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including but not limited to sections 421 and 604 of the Trade Act…” And it goes on to stamp that 35 percent tariff on imported Chinese tires because they allegedly “threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers…”

So in one swift move — and without Congressional approval as required by law — Barack Obama implemented an unconstitutional action (while citing the Constitution nonetheless), starting a trade war, and defying more than a few vital economic laws that many people have understood since the days of Adam Smith.

It’s all part of a transparent pay-off by Barack to his union cronies. In 2008, union boss of bosses Andy Stern (of the ACORN-created SEIU) boasted, “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” No doubt, Mr. Stern is even prouder of the Obama tariff payback.

And now the trade war has begun with the recent investigations by the Chinese into the American chicken market. Richard Lobb of the National Chicken Council stated to the Chicago Tribune that “This is clearly a government-to-government dispute, and we’re innocent bystanders getting caught in the middle.”

The chicken farmers and producers, of course, are not the only bystanders that will be caught in the middle. Every American will face soaring prices and lower domestic production, since we depend on China and other countries both for what we buy and for what we sell.

History records that after Smoot-Hawley’s ill-conceived tariffs, U.S. imports plummeted a staggering 66 percent from 1929-1933. Exports fared only slightly better, collapsing some 61 percent during the same time period. Not so coincidentally, unemployment soared from 3.2 percent to 24.9 percent.

And, oh, by the way, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was only 13.5 percent – less than half of the 35 percent Obama has cobbled together as a pay off to his union cronies.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Justin Williams is the Senior Commentary Editor of ALG News Bureau, and, as always, he accepts any questions or comments on the Barstool at jwilliams@libertyfeatures.com. The Barstool Economist is syndicated through Liberty Features Syndicate.

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 47.9%
• Creigh Deeds 44.2%

Among Democrats

• Creigh Deeds 88.7%
• Bob McDonnell 7.9%

Among Republicans

• Bob McDonnell 79.4%
• Creigh Deeds 12.1%

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 54.9%
• Creigh Deeds 33.3%

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 51.0%
• Creigh Deeds 40.1%

Among Women

• Creigh Deeds 48.0%
• Bob McDonnell 45.1%

Survey of 602 registered voters was conducted September 23. The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 35.1% Republican; 33.1% Democrat; 31.8% Independent.

Inside the numbers:

Deeds commanded 91 percent of the black vote and 58 percent of the Hispanic vote. McDonnell meanwhile leads 58-34 percent among white voters.

Democracy Corps (D) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

If the general election for Governor were held today and the candidates were: Democrat Jon Corzine, Independent Chris Daggett, and Republican Chris Christie, for whom would you vote?

• Chris Christie 40% {41%} (43%) [40%]
• Jon Corzine 39% {38%} (41%) [35%]
• Chris Daggett 11% {10%} (7%) [10%]
• Undecided 9% {10%} (8%) [15%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 41% {45%}
• Jon Corzine 32% {25%}
• Chris Daggett 15% {16%}
• Undecided 12% {14%}

Among Men

• Chris Christie 46% {43%}
• Jon Corzine 37% {37%}
• Chris Daggett 11% {11%}
• Undecided 6% {9%}

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 42% {39%}
• Chris Christie 35% {40%}
• Chris Daggett 11% {9%}
• Undecided 12% {12%}

Favorable (Warm) / Unfavorable (Cool) {Net}

• Barack Obama 57% {55%} (57%) [54%] / 28% {32%} (30%) [30%] {+29%}
• Democratic Party 42% {44%} (45%) [40%] / 38% {37%} (34%) [39%] {+4%}
• Chris Christie 32% {33%} (35%) [32%] / 34% {33%} (34%) [31%] {-2%}
• Chris Daggett 8% {5%} (4%) / 10% {11%} (8%) {-2%}
• Republican Party 31% {33%} (32%) [29%] / 40% {39%} (43%) [43%] {-9%}
• Jon Corzine 35% {36%} (37%) [32%] / 47% {48%} (48%) [47%] {-12%}

Thermometer – Mean Temperature

• Barack Obama 61 {59.3} (61)
• Democratic Party 51 {51.0} (52)
• Chris Christie 47 {48.7} (48)
• Republican Party 46 {45.5} (44)
• Jon Corzine 42 {41.5} (43)
• Chris Daggett 44 {40.1} (44)

Survey of 601 likely voters was conducted September 22-23. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Party ID breakdown: 37% {38%} (40%) [37%] Democrat; 34% {31%} (29%) [34%] Independent; 28% {29%} (29%) [27%] Republican. Political views: 39% {45%} (41%) [41%] Moderate; 36% {32%} (31%) [35%] Conservative; 20% {19%} (23%) [19%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 8-9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 11-12 are in square brackets.

MMM, Mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama!

From Fox News:

A video posted on YouTube appears to show a New Jersey elementary school class being taught to sing praises of the “great accomplishments” of President Obama.

The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for “Barack Hussein Obama,” repeatedly chanting the president’s name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his “great plans” to “make this country’s economy No. 1 again.”

The video identifies the kids as students at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., with taping taking place last June.

There are actually 2 videos.
#1

Even though it’s got a nice jingle to it I’d be furious if this were my kids’ school. What am I saying? I’m furious anyway. Here are the words:

Here are the words:
Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

#2 This has the first song plus another..

Words to second song:

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

HERE IS ONE… It’s not new, it’s actually a very funny mash-up. Same idea though.

If you ask Americans about campaign finance reform, most likely they’ll answer something about the need for it because “there’s too much money in politics,” not realizing that to many the freedom to donate to the political candidate of their choice is a right equated with everything else granted by the First Amendment. It’s quite possible those free speech advocates will soon be pleased as a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package may be overturned by the Supreme Court.

In what began as a quite innocent case brought out as a clarification request by the producers of “Hillary: The Movie” asking whether they were bound by McCain-Feingold’s 60-day pre-election prohibition on independent groups airing campaign ads and other campaign financing laws in buying commercial time to advertise their documentary, the argument was widened by the Supreme Court into a much more broad discussion on whether the century-old ban on direct corporate and labor union electoral donations should be lifted.

A clear sign of their possible intent came in questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts, who compared the government’s interference in campaign finance as akin to “Big Brother” and dismissed the federal government’s argument by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, noting sharply that the power to enforce the First Amendment doesn’t belong in the hands of Federal Elections Commission bureaucrats.

When it was enacted seven years ago, McCain-Feingold was supposed to take the money out of politics. But we need only look at the vast monetary advantage enjoyed by President Obama once he reneged on a promise to use public funding for the 2008 Presidential election to see where these reforms failed. Obama outspent Republican John McCain – who played by the public funding rules he ironically helped create and was thus hamstrung in general election campaign spending – by a factor of better than 2-to-1 over the yearlong campaign, with the total on all sides exceeding $1 billion.

Critics charge that overturning the longstanding ban will result in corporations and unions “purchasing” House and Senate seats – in essence, government to the highest bidder. However, current law only prohibits direct donations; instead, various special interests on both sides of an issue create front groups with innocent-sounding names such as Healthy Economy Now, a group favoring Obamacare, or Patients United Now, which opposes nationalization, to solicit donations. It’s doubtful this sleight-of-hand would abate even if restrictions on corporate and union donations were lifted.

It’s also taken for granted that corporations would donate to Republicans as unions traditionally favor Democrats. But that wouldn’t necessarily be so – some major corporations may see the large federal government favored by Democrats as an advantage as they pursue rent-seeking opportunities in fields like “green” energy or health insurance. Most of the major players cater to the party in power at the time in order to find advantage over competitors or seek protection from regulation.

With the freedom of lifting prohibitions, though, will come the responsibility of the media to be watchdogs and unearth the situations where corporations, unions, or – if individual donation limits are struck down in the future – people invest heavily in a race and favor a specific candidate. There’s already a number of good websites which track campaign finance on the state and federal levels and their work will surely continue whether the rules are changed or not.

Yet even if the prohibitions on corporate and union donations are lifted by Supreme Court edict, there will still be the need to follow an unyielding centuries-old rule – caveat emptor.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.