From the Palm Beach Post;

“In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people,” Rubio said. “You know what happened, in addition to becoming 11 million a decade later? There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no no no , I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”

—-

While criticizing amnesty for those illegals, he also rejected the idea of a massive “police-state” roundup. He suggested requiring tamper-proof residency and guest-worker cards and fining employers who don’t verify that their workers are legal. That, Rubio said, would bring the 11 million figure down “dramatically by attrition.”

Asked later about about Reagan’s support for amnesty, Rubio said, “I think he did it for the right reasons, but I think it ended up working the wrong way.”

Rubio’s no-amnesty stance on illegal immigrants has drawn some criticism from immigration hard-liners who say Rubio didn’t advance the issue when he was House speaker and the collapse of federal immigration reform efforts led state legislators around the U.S. to propose a variety of state-level immigration measures.

More Crist V. Rubio:

• 5 Ways Charlie Crist can beat Marco Rubio
• No More Mr. Nice Charlie?
• How conservative is Senate candidate Marco Rubio?
• Will The DeMint Revolution Amount To Much?
• RINOs beware
• Good time Charlie’s got the Republican blues
• Glenn Beck Stakes Out Activist Role in Politics
• Jeb’s op-ed bashing Crist’s is part of mounting campaign

_____________________________________________

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

My Congressman, Democrat Dennis Moore in Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District, just announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010.  The timing of this decision was not expected.  The most common assumption was that six-term Congressman Moore would seek re-election in 2010, but retire in 2012.

Right now, it’s unclear whether or not this means something significant with regard to the national outlook for Democrats in 2010.

Here’s a Politico article on the topic, and separately a Kansas City Star article.

Prior to today, Charlie Cook rated this seat as R+3 and a “likely Democratic.”

Moore succeeded in large part because he was the right person, in the right place, and at the right time.  Moore’s success speaks to the importance of candidate recruitment for Republicans in 2010.  The 3rd Congressional District is typically a Republican-voting district (it voted for Bush with roughly 55% of the vote), but it did narrowly support Barack Obama in 2008.  The district contains only 2 and 1/2 counties, and most of the district’s voters live in the suburban Johnson County, whose voters supported Republican presidential candidates Dole 1996, Bush 2000, and Bush 2004 with 60% or more of the vote, but then voted only 53% for John McCain.

Before entering Congress, Dennis Moore had been elected as the long-time Johnson County District Attorney, and later a Trustee at Johnson County Community College.  In 1998, Moore beat first-term Republican Congressman Vince Snowbarger; Moore also skillfully took advantage of the liberal-conservative divide within the Johnson County Republican party.  Moore won re-elections in 2000 and 2002 with less than 50% of the overall vote.  Moore’s 2004 Republican opponent was a conservative who beat Moore’s 2002 opponent in the 2004 primary by a mere ~200 votes, which led to the common “small tent” actions by key moderate leaders.  Moore’s margins of victory grew to comfortable levels by 2006 and 2008.

In Washington, Dennis Moore is a “Blue Dog” Democrat who until 2006 had voted in what could be called a less-radical, center-left manner.  But without a doubt, he is now a committed leftist, and he follows every step made by Nancy Pelosi.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former trustee at Johnson County Community College. You can joinHodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

An interesting experiment in knee-jerk reactions occurred in Slate Magazine’s Forum, “The Fray” the other day. In the middle of the lambasting of Sarah’s latest book, a contributor inserted the following:

“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”

Wow! That wouldn’t make it through freshman English class, and I mean high school, not college. What’s the sentence about anyway? The apartment? The gas station? The Doberman? How about sticking with one complete thought before going on to three more? Just goes to show that some people should stick with politics and give up any presumptions of being a writer.

The commenters immediately jumped on it, howling about how poorly it was written. One wrote, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest.”

The original poster eventually confessed:

I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of Dreams from My Father, written by Barack Obama.

Oops!

Folks, here we go.  From the Des Moines Register:

HT to Aron Goldman for this article breaking things down a bit more.

Sarah Palin could expect a lot of support in Iowa’s Republican caucuses if she launched a campaign for the 2012 presidential nomination, according to The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll.

But the rising national figure, who is scheduled to stop in Iowa next month on her national book tour, would also have to contend with a lot of doubts about her — unlike her potential rivals, the poll found.

The first public poll to test Palin’s favorabilty in the leadoff nominating state found 55 percent of all Iowans hold an unfavorable opinion of Palin a little more than a year after the last election. Only 37 percent feel favorably about her.

And those feelings are intense: More than twice as many Iowans feel very unfavorable toward her as feel very favorable.

But more than two-thirds of Republicans like what they see, making her a credible candidate for the 2012 caucuses should she decide to run for president, strategists say.

“These numbers put her in a position where she can obviously look at Iowa,” said David Winston, a national Republican pollster. “But she has this big jump that she’s got to overcome. People like her personally on the Republican side, but there’s this policy substance question.”

Only 8 percent of Iowans are unsure about Palin just 15 months after the former Alaska governor burst on the national scene.

The 45-year-old self-styled “hockey mom” ignited the Republican National Convention as an establishment outsider, and quickly became a focal point of the media during the 2008 campaign’s final months. Iowa Republican activists raved when John McCain named her his running mate and later turned out in big, enthusiastic audiences as she campaigned solo for the ticket in Des Moines, Dubuque and Sioux City.

Iowans’ feelings about Palin track generally with the national mood. A Washington Post-ABC News national survey taken this month showed 52 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Palin, compared to 42 percent favorable.

Dear Senator Orrin Hatch,

Let me be blunt.  Unlike a lot of my fellow bloggers on the right, I generally do not like politicians, whether or not they agree with me.  Tingly feelings don’t run up my leg when I hear a speech, and just because someone has a respectable ACU Rating, it does not automatically earn them a warm place in my heart.  Most of us veterans of the 2007-08 primary campaigns (especially here at this site, where things were as wild as an old western shootout)  are fully aware that even though a politician may have an (R) beside their name, they are just as likely to stab you in the back when it is personally convenient.   It may be that it is even harder for a Republican to earn my respect and/or admiration than a Democrat.  I can forgive a Democrat for their liberal voting record if he shows that he has principles… because he’s a Democrat and doesn’t know any better.  Republicans, on the other hand…  For a politician with an (R) beside their name, not only do they have to generally say and vote the correct ways for me to like them, but they have to show me that they won’t abandon those principles when things don’t go their way.

You have an impressive voting record, you are well thought of by your peers, but… you have just earned an “F” in Tommy Oliver’s gradebook because you have no problem with the government interfering in things it has no business getting involved in.

Granny Holtz

Bill Keller- What a spooky picture

 Seeing that I’ve been posting a couple of times a month this year, opposed to every day, I was somewhat taken back to find that one of my posts on this guy has found it’s way back to front page discussions this far out of the 2012 primaries.  So, I figured I would clear up just what I said about Bill Keller, so there is no confusion among the masses about the self appointed replacement of St. Peter guarding the pearly gates.  Without taking sides in the current debate that is going on here at this site, I wanted to make a few points about what my posts said in full.

Since the first post is apparently now unavailable on this web site, I will quote David’s post.  The “claim” is in referral to Kristofer’s post, while the “truth” is David’s response:

CLAIM: “Tommy Oliver highlighted the vicious anti-Mormon bigotry this Huckabee-aligned group has engaged in.”

TRUTH:

The link to Tommy’s article which is here, says nothing about anti-Mormon bigotry, in fact it talks about a statement by pastor Bill Killer where he says:

Sadly, Michael (Jackson) grew up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. This is the cult born out of the depraved mind of Charles Taze Russell and denies the very deity of Christ. You can go to Google and type in “cults Jehovah’s Witnesses” and it will give you many websites to document their false theology.

• Does Lorelli know that Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness is not the same faith?
• Does Lorelli think that pastors are not allowed to address belief systems that they believe are false? To not address the truth claims of various faiths would be intellectual ignorance.
• Also, how is a statement by pastor Bill Keller evidence that ARTL is an anti-Mormon group?
• What evidence does he have that connected Bill Keller with ARTL?

What are the SPECIFIC “anti-Mormon” acts by ARTL?

While technically the post which is linked by David that I authored does not specifically point out what Keller stated about Mitt Romney, the LDS faith, Gays, Guns, Rock and Roll, or the plot to sabatoge America, some of my previous posts have.  David may not be aware that the particular post (written by me) that was linked to was, in fact, a follow up to a few earlier posts that I had written.  At the time, Kristofer had done an interview with Steve Deace for this website, and had stated that one of the groups leaders was Mr. Keller.  He also posted a video that was produced by this group, the ARTL, which tore into Governor Romney, Ann Coulter, and just about everything else on this side of black helicopters, UFO sightings, and Jonathan Christian (J.C.) Webster III.  In this interview with Mr. Lorelli, Mr. Deace also tore into Governor Romney.  

Now, as most of our readers who followed this site during the last primaries probably remember that I went after both the Romney and the Huckabee camp, so I have no dog in this fight.  However, at the time of those interviews, I followed up with posts concerning Mr. Keller’s attacks on a whole bunch of different denominations, including Mitt Romney’s, Fred Thompson’s, Michael Jackson’s, and just about anyone else who Mr. Keller deemed unworthy of entrance into the pearly gates. 

On June 27, 2007, I wrote an article for this site which quotes Mr. Keller saying the following about Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson’s religions:

2 John 7 says, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”  So Christians who stand on true Biblical principles are faced with bleak choices for the moment in Thompson and cult member Mitt Romney.Voters beware.

He also said this about Mr. Thompson’s religion:

Christians looking for a Presidential candidate in Fred Thompson ought to think about it a bit more before jumping on the bandwagon. Thompson has been very elusive about his faith since Focus on the Family’s James Dobson suggested that Thompson should declare his faith. At that time, a Thompson spokesman said that the prospective candidate was baptized into the Church of Christ- a sect that some consider a dangerous cult because of its teachings on baptism and works based doctrines that question the atonement of sins through Jesus Christ.

Mr. Keller, who is one of the people behind the ARTL video about Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney (as Kristofer pointed out on this post), became somewhat notorious during the 2007 primaries for his insistance that “a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Satan.” 

Originally, I had a post up here at race42008 (as it was called then) that highlighted Mr. Keller’s quote at the time he was referring directly to Governor Romney.  Since I cannot currently find it, I will quote his website directly.   Here is exactly what  Mr. Keller said, quoted word for word, on Governor Romney:

If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan! This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.

I’m not taking sides here because I have no clue what is going on in this current argument, but I wanted to clear up this point about what I said about Mr. Keller because, apparently, he takes it upon himself to educate us on just who he will let enter Heaven, and who he (Mr. Keller) will personally cast into the pits of Hell.  By the way, I forgot to mention that he is a convicted felon for… you guessed it… insider trading.

A former businessman convicted of insider trading in 1989, Keller served two years in federal prison, was released and later earned a degree in biblical studies from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

UPDATE: Apparently some folks have forgotten that I am not some sort of “Rombot in Disguise.”  I am neither Rombot nor Huckster.  I personally could care less who won Iowa in 2008 since I didn’t vote there and would not have voted for either of them if I had.   So… in all fairness, I will provide links to some of my pieces that I’ve written about Governor Romney, such as this one, this one, this one, and  this one.

It is a popular thing on Race42012 to slam the folks at Huck’s Army, representing the grassroots supporters of Governor Mike Huckabee. It gets tiresome, particularly the classless whining by the Romney camp about how Governor Huckabee’s supporters had stirred up anti-Mormon hatred and that’s how they won the Iowa Caucuses and set Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on its road to ruin.

I do not address everyone who voted for Mitt Romney. Most Romney supporters have moved on, and I have yet to meet a Romney person in real life whose conduct matches some of the behavior of the real bad actors we see among political insiders, as well as most of the Romney supporters on this site.

We’ve had lies and inneudeno thrown about attacking the integrity of good people from the political establishment figures in Washington and across America that writes Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign success off as merely anti-Mormon bigotry.

This is not an assault on Mike Huckabee’s integrity and that of his campaign. Rather, it is spoil sport slander of hardworking folks who came from all over the country because they were concerned about its future.

Huckabee said it well at the Iowa Strawpoll, “I can’t buy you, I can’t even rent you.”  He didn’t have an unlimited budget with which he could rent an unlimited number of yuppy yes-men. His success came entirely from folks who sacrificed and worked hard for no pay. They made the difference.

The question is why? The wounded Romneyites will have you believe that they came for one reason: To get the Mormon.  They infer that the Huck’s Army folks are little different than the KKK, except they were less violent. They infer that Huckabee supporters came to Iowa only for a political lynching.

They didn’t come with concern for their country. They didn’t come because they were concerned with right to life or the Fair Tax, just because they hated Mormons. That is the narrative from Washington, DC, that is the narrative of the Romneyites. To them, Mike Huckabee was just a grinning modern-day Father Coughlin, and the Huckabee supporters, his drooling inbred followers.

Of course, the Romney supporters who make this attack deny that they’re inferring any such thing when they allege that anti-Mormon bigotry won Huckabee the Iowa Caucuses and the seven other contests he won, but that is exactly what they imply. It is a brutal assault on the character and reputation of good people who wanted nothing more than to help their country.

I’ve been a member of Huck’s Army for a year and a half and I can’t even recall reading any anti-Mormon statements on that site. The biggest concerns has been whether Romney can be trusted and the conclusion has been that he can’t be.

For my part, I’ve been clear that Romney’s religion isn’t an issue and shouldn’t be an issue. I admit some people made it an issue, just as some people made race an issue for President Obama. 

President Obama’s supporters accused Sarah Palin of stoking the fires of racism. We  had President Obama’s supporters compare John McCain to George Wallace. And they infer that if we deign to disagree with President Obama it’s racism.

And Mr. Romney’s supporters who suggest that to support Mike Huckabee and not be behind Mr. Romney is a sign of anti-Mormonism are no better.

There are Black Candidates that I’ve supported and given money to. There are Mormon candidates I’ve supported and given money to. I’m an American citizen and I’m entitled to support who I like. And the attempt to say, “This person is a racial or religious minority, you must support them or you’re not a good person” is as unAmerican as saying, “This person is a racial or religious minority, you shouldn’t support them for that reason.”

I’m an American citizen and I’ll support who I like.

There are folks who love to bring up, Huckabee asking the question to the New York Times reporter as to whether Mormons believed that Jesus and the Devil were brothers.  However, they fail to note that Governor Huckabee apologized for this and Mitt Romney accepted the apology:

On CNN, Huckabee said he told Romney “face to face” after today’s debate in Iowa that he was sorry for the quote from an article to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

Huckabee told CNN that he had asked if Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers because it was something he had heard, adding that he never thought his query would appear in the story. On NBC’s “Today” show, Romney said “attacking someone’s religion is really going too far.”

Huckabee says he told Romney today that he would never make an issue of any point of Mormon doctrine, adding that the former Massachusetts governor’s response “was gracious.”

Of course, this hasn’t been enough for Romney’s most virulent supporters. They’ve wanted Huckabee to apologize for what they imagined  he meant or “what he must have meant.”  We’ve seen innuendo and rumors stated as facts with no links or substantiation, like the neighborhood gossips spreading rumors. And where that have been links, the arguments have been as coherent as Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. All of this is aimed at discrediting the grassroots supporters of Huckabee and what they really did.

The fair question that must be asked about Iowa is this. If Mitt Romney were the exact same person except instead of being a Mormon, he was a Lutheran, would he have won the Iowa Caucuses? I have to conclude no, he wouldn’t have. To believe Mitt Romney would have won, if only he were a Lutheran, we’d have to conclude that 1 in 11 voters (and 1 in 4 Huckabee voters) who cast a vote in the Iowa Caucuses were doing so out of malice to over come the 9 point margin by which Romney lost Iowa. However, given the money that Romney spent, if all Huckabee had going for him was hate, then in reality, it would require more like 20% of the electorate voting based on religious bigotry.

But that’s where the establishment apologists and Romney’s most virulent supporters get it wrong. The story of Iowa wasn’t one of hate, but of love for one’s country. It was the political equivalent of the miracle on ice, where outnumbered and outspent, with everything against them, a group of ordinary Americans beat the establishment in a state where organization was everything.

Of course, these forces will do anything to diminish the work of Huckabee’s grassroots volunteers. Why? For two reasons. First, if Romney didn’t lose because of religious bigotry, he had to lose because of something else. They could blame McCain being “the next in line.” But the real explanation is the Republican voters in their heart of hearts couldn’t trust Romney because he didn’t seem real to them.

The challenge for Romney is illustated by the response, Huckabee suggested Governor-Elect Chris Christie give to Governor Jon Corzine’s attack on Christie’s weight. “I’m fat, I can go on a diet. He’s incompetent, what he’s going to do?”

With the Romney-Huckabee contast, it’s the same thing. Huckabee was underfunded, he can raise more money. Romney wasn’t viewed as standing for anything, what’s he going to do?

The second reason is that the GOP political establishment and Romney’s virulent supporters doesn’t want it to be known who these people are and what they really did is that the lesson it teaches us is immistakable.  Huckabee supporters proved Chapter 12 of Johnny Tremain right, “A man can stand up.”

The political establishment in Washington cares not for our issues or concerns. We are there political pawns, to be manipulated, and moved according to their will, to advance the aims of their career. But what Huckabee’s supporters showed in 2008 in Iowa was that against a phalanx of well-paid professionals, people could stand up and even win a little.

It is far more convenient to the establishment and its apologists to have us believe that rather than being a grassroots reaction, it was all a nefarious anti-Mormon conspiracy. It protects their power for us not to learn the real lesson of that campaign.

People can stand up.

From a RedState article: “Nobody smart in American politics messes with the Scouts. Boy or Girl Scouts.”

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former trustee at Johnson County Community College. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

Des Moines Register Iowa Survey on Barack Obama

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

Among Likely Voters

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 49%

Among Adults

• Approve 49% (53%) [64%]
• Disapprove 44% (41%) [29%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with the economy?

• Approve 41% (47%)
• Disapprove 55% (48%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with health care?

• Approve 34% (42%)
• Disapprove 55% (49%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with the budget deficit?

• Approve 30% (36%)
• Disapprove 61% (56%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

• Approve 38% (54%)
• Disapprove 49% (35%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with relations with other countries?

• Approve 58% (62%)
• Disapprove 33% (31%)

Survey of 800 adults, includes responses from 539 likely voters, was conducted by Selzer and Co. November 8-11. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points among adults; +/- 4.2 percentage points among likely voters. Results from the poll conducted September 14-16 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 30 – April 1 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

The overwhelming majority of Iowa Democrats, 82 percent, approve of the job Obama is doing. Yet their support has dropped 8 percentage points, and that has driven Obama’s overall decline. In September, 90 percent of Iowa Democrats said they approved of the president’s performance.

Iowa independents, who fueled Obama’s leadoff caucus victory and his general election victory here, grew more disapproving this fall. Approval stalled at fewer than half of independents, while disapproval grew to 46 percent.

Republican approval, which began the year above 40 percent, has fallen off dramatically and remains low at 16 percent.

Of all partisan groups, Democrats’ disapproval of Obama’s job with the budget deficit has grown most, up 9 percentage points since September.

Support from Republicans was already low and independents had ebbed earlier, in light of the $800 billion stimulus package in Congress and continued bailouts of the financial and automotive industries.

Obama carried Iowa last year by 8 percentage points, winning 54 percent of the vote.

As widely reported, after stubbornly hanging above the magic 50% mark for weeks, Pres. Obama’s Gallup approval finally broke the threshold yesterday. Today, the number has declined even more, to 48%.

However, as the President’s numbers with Rasmussen, Pollster.com and RealClearPolitics have generally moved sideways in the past couple weeks, he probably doesn’t have much more room to drop.

With that in mind, I wanted to take an informal survey among R4’12 readers. How long do you think it will take for Obama’s Gallup approval to drop into the low-40s – defined here as 43% or below? Nate Silver has compellingly argued that a President’s “breakeven number” for re-election lies at 44% (with respect to their Gallup approval). And where does everyone think Obama’s numbers will sit at the time of the 2010 midterm elections? I look forward to hearing your thoughts, so have at it!

_____________________________________________

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

I’m only halfway through Sarah Palin’s tome so I’m not going to write any sort of review right now- anyway, Alex has that covered.  Still, internal disputes aside, Sarah Palin is the most interesting thing happening this week (we always knew the health care bill would clear this hurdle).  So I figure this is as good a time as any to lay out some general thoughts/worries about Sarah Palin.  Here’s the dilemma or, one of them anyway: Sarah Palin’s existence, as a potential Presidential candidate, radically diminishes the possibility that any other Republican can lay claim to grassroots conservatives.  More than that, it radically dimishes the chances that grassroots conservatives will even be satisfied with anyone besides Palin.

2008 was an interesting year in some ways. We had an incredibly flawed batch of candidates, especially from the perspective of the “true conservative”, but ironically, this gave “true conservatives” more time to resign themselves to a less than ideal nominee.  If you’re forced to spend 2 years deciding between RudyMcRomAbee. you’re going to adjust your perspective about the possibility of the perfect.  And there’s substantial evidence that, after the Palin pick, most of the grassroots came aboard.  Despite the fact that John McCain was John McCain.  Despite the fact that conservatives were reeling from 8 years of Bush.  Despite the fact that the Democratic nominee, while politically radical, was personally charming and not, traditionally, the sort of nominee you can get the disgruntled opposition to vote against.

All they needed was a sop.  A relatively meaningful sop, true, but considering McCain and Palin spent the following two months railing against Wall Street, it shouldn’t have made up for all the heresies.  But, it did.  Would that have worked as well if McCain won the nomination after fending off, I don’t know, a non-Maccaced George Allen in the primary?  Would conservatives, who’d spent two years preparing themselves for the emergence of a “pure conservatism”, have welcomed a still Maverick McCain because… he’d plucked an Alaskan Governor out of obscurity?  I have a good deal of respect for Sarah Palin’s window into the conservative id, but I don’t think so.

The Sarah Palin problem is simple: as long as she exists, and her supporters can hold out hope for a glorious triumph of an earthy populistic boot stomping punch-a-Democrat-in-the-head conservatism, no one else will measure up.  Tim Pawlenty’s terrific fiscal record and his sterling cultural conservatism will count for nothing.  Mitt Romney’s common sense conservatism- his competence and intelligence- will be third rate qualities.  Mike Huckabee’s folksy social conservatism won’t be hard hitting enough.

Alex seems to think that Rudy would have an easier time in 2012, because “it’s all about fiscal issues”- I think the exact opposite is true.  It’s not about issues at all where Palin’s concerned- it’s about tone, about the ability to throw off 1.21 gigawatz of cultural spark and set fire to entire institutions.  Democratic elites?  Skewer them or perish.  Republican elites? Skewer them or perish.   Big City RINOS?  Skewer them…or perish.  Rudy may be better at skewering, in general, than someone like Romney, but he doesn’t have the political positions or cultural background to be credible- he’s a “big city RINO” himself.

Some of this appeals to people like me.  There’s a sense in which I agree with the grassroots about the inveterate hopelessness of the folks who control the Republican Party and who, increasingly it seems, try to mold it for their own gain.  There’s a sense in which burning down is more appealing than building up.  You don’t have to go far back in the archives to find me tearing down the Republican establishment.  But, I’m more than a little leery about betting on a movement that believes this is the only way.  Because no one else can live up to that measure.

The road to the conservative id is lined with perils and obstacles and it may well be that you need 6 inch stillettos to make it through.  Better we kept the gate locked and the party’s grassroots learned to love a more broad-based conservatism; one that can engage Democratic ideals, not Democratic individuals; one that can dodge as well as punch; one that can govern without becoming the gummit.

We all have moments in our lives where we have an epiphany, a sudden awakening to a truth. I will not soon forget one of mine which occurred just about thirty-five years ago.

I had a room-mate at the time whom I could not stand. He was always doing things that annoyed me. It was almost as if he was deliberately trying to get under my skin. It was rapidly approaching the point where I hated his guts. As is often the case in such situations, he didn’t think very highly of me, either.

The situation was such that we couldn’t get out of our housing contract for several more months. So it was a matter of finding someway to deal with it or end up killing each other.

He and I talked about it. We agreed that the best way to deal with the problem was to deal with the actual problems, the things we did that bugged the other. As a starting point we agreed to write up a list of the traits we found most annoying in the other guy. We would prioritized them so that the most annoying would be on top. We would then sit down and talk them over.

I wrote my list with considerable gusto. Here was an opportunity to really nail the guy for the jerk that he was. The list didn’t take much thought. I knew exactly the things that annoyed the snot out of me, and which ones annoyed me the most.

When we were through, we compared lists and got a shock. They were the exact same list!! We had both listed the exact same items in the exact same order!!

That lesson has stuck with me most of my life. When I find myself being annoyed by someone else’s behavior, I often try to honestly ask myself if I am not just seeing my own behavior reflected back at me. And guess what? Too often it is.

Think about my experience the next time you are tempted to comment something along the lines of, “The supporters of _______ are always _______”, or “So-and-so’s sole purpose in life is to such-and-such”. It might be a good idea to make blankity-blank-blank sure that you aren’t really talking about yourself.

Remember, “It takes one to know one”, is not just a school-yard retort. It is a very real ingredient in human nature.

Sadly, my fellow contributor to this website, Kristofer Lorelli, has decided to make some false statements and attack me. I hate to see this happen in the first place and I hate to see it play out on the front pages of this respected blog.  I compelled to defend  my reputation and the truth from this spurious attack and I am truly sorry for everyone who has to wade through this mess.

In my recent post, I said:

Race42012 doesn’t investigate anything as a website to my knowledge, only individual writers do.

I was simply pointing out that I had never heard of an official “race42012″ investigation and I am a contributor to this website. Kristopher called my statement a “bizarre accusation”. It wasn’t an accusation in any way. Who was I accusing? I was simply stating what I knew to me true. Notice that I said “to my knowledge”. The term “official investigation” or “race42012 investigation” is a term that I have never heard before now and that is wwhat I was trying to communicate.

While the above is mostly nitpicking by Lorelli, I want to respond to the real meat of his post. He says:

I am not suggesting that David is a member of ARTL, but he did assist with coordinating the efforts of Huckabee’s grassroots and the ARTL post-Iowa caucus

I can tell you categorically:

1. I am not a member of ARTL. I have no connection with the organization whatsoever. I have visited their website and that has been the extent of my interaction with them. Period.
2. I have NEVER assisted in coordinating efforts between Huckabee’s grassroots and the ARTL post-Iowa caucus.

Lorelli points out that I posted almost 2 years ago what looks like a press release from ARTL to a personal blog that I started and never really used (I made a total of 4 posts). Just because I posted a press release doesn’t mean I have any special connections to ARTL. I have no idea who Donna Ballentine or Ray Greybar are. I have never had ANY communication with them or anyone else at ARTL. In another post I posted a part of a CNN article, does that mean I coordinate with CNN? That is ridiculous.

Lorelli post goes on to say that:

David may respond to this post by stating that the grassroots has never coordinated with Governor Huckabee, but if that is the case, why did Governor Huckabee meet with his most important grassroots organizers (including Michael Brown) on November 18th of this month?

What are you meaning by coordination? I can tell you that if Huckabee or his staff posts a need or an announcement on his public Huck PAC blog then we do try to help out. In that sense we do coordinate but in no way does Huckabee or any of his staff have any control of HucksArmy. We are our own grassroots website. I don’t get the point of your statement here.

Lorelli also asks:

David, were you also at the meeting with Huckabee and Brown?

No. I was not in attendance. I had no foreknowledge of this meeting and Brown did not meet as a representative of HucksArmy. I am the director of HucksArmy so no authorized HucksArmy meetings, etc can take place without my knowledge. Our site has thousands of members who are free to meet with people as individuals but I can tell you that they do not as HucksArmy representative. I did hear about Huckabee meeting with Brown after the fact as Huckabee himself mentioned it during a recent book signing interview. I don’t get what is so crazy or wrong about Huckabee personally meeting with a guy who supported him?

What was discussed and what are Governor Huckabee’s plans for 2012?

I have no idea. I wasn’t there. I can also say that I have heard no reports from the meeting nor do I expect to as I nor HucksArmy were involved.

In closing, statements like…

David Schmidt continues to mislead the readers of Race42012.

…are very unhelpful. If I have mislead readers in any way, please show me how and I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Just accusing me that I am misleading others without evidence is a despicable attack on my character and I strongly denounce it.

Reid makes Louisiana purchase: Mary Landrieu.

Senator Harry Reid takes on David Broder.

Democratic Congresswoman: Catholic Bishops have no right to offer input on abortion in health care. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Christians come together across denominational lines to stand up for common values. (Click Here to Sign the Manhattan Declaration.)  (Hat Tip: Crunchy Cons.)

Leahy sees no need to question Bin-Laden.  (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Jackson: You can’t be Black and vote against Obamacare.

Senate Ethics committee to Burris: Naughty boy.  (Hat Tip: The Campaign Spot.)

Ohio taxpayers paying to defend state employees who invaded Joe the Plumber’s privacy for political purposes.

Yawn! Another $2.3 billion in TARP tax dollars down the drain.

Union head rolls after messing with the Boy Scouts. (Hat Tip: Red State.)

Second Amendment update

The cost of train maintenance: the DC subway death trap.

Smart Growth: expensive and inefficient.

On politics: listen to Heinlein.  (Hat Tip: Third World County.)

Taking Christ out of Christmas: It was a Nazi thing. (Hat Tip: Clayton Cramer.)

New Jersey school district suppresses Pro-Life speech. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)

Music by Dunebilly via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Blade cuts the Reid bill to shreds.

PS: Rick Perry has the ‘Dubya Squint’ down cold.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

David Schmidt continues to mislead the readers of Race42012.  I usually shy away from calling out my teammates for misleading our readers, but in this case I have no choice but to tell the truth, since so many people appear to be accepting David’s false statements.

David also made the bizarre accusation that we do not work together as a team to investigate other web sites, issues and rumors. 

Race42012 doesn’t investigate anything as a website to my knowledge, only individual writers do.

We DO investigate as a team and in fact some of us are usually in contact with writers from other sites to pool resources.  Three members of the senior R412 staff have been in contact with one of the sources that has made many of the accusations against Governor Huckabee and his team.  Many members R412′s senior staff also work together to coordinate interviews with political figures and beltway insiders.

As an example; twelves months ago I was given a tip that members of the Club for Growth had aggressively confronted Governor Romney at a meeting in Florida, over alleged liberal economic policies he introduced in MA. I contacted writers from other sites, the Director of Communications from the CFG and sent a message to three members of R412′s staff to assist me in verifying this tip. 

We determined that the information I received was mostly false and did not warrant a front page post. This of course did not prevent USA Today from publishing the false accusations later in the week.

David, just because you have not been included, does not make it false.

——

David is a professional political hack, only loyal to the Presidential campaign of Governor Huckabee.  I have always turned a blind eye to his false statements on the relationship between hucksarmy and Governor Huckabee.  I am also guilty of not telling the truth to the rightroots, when I defended David and Governor Huckabee from the accusations made by pro-Romney websites, that Governor Huckabee had full knowledge of many of the anonymous anti-Romney web sites that David and his team developed on behalf of Huck.  In fact, I failed to tell the truth to some of our own 2nd page contributors, such as Illinoisguy on email when I stated, “Governor Huckabee probably has never even logged in to hucksarmy“.  

The reason why I did this was because I wanted our readers to provide David with an opportunity to contribute to this site without constantly attacking David for his smears of Governor Romney and his family.

I apologize to Illinoisguy and the other Romney supporters for not telling the truth, and in fact I can tell you that the viciousness of the attacks against Governor Romney from Huckabee’s grassroots went further than a couple of slimy web sites.    

David would have you believe that there are no ties between Governor Huckabee, his grassroots organizers and American Right to Life.  This is also a false statement. ARTL was a front group for Governor Huckabee during the 2008 campaign.  Team Huckabee and Huckabee’s grassroots organizers (including the leadership of hucksarmy) coordinated their attacks with ARTL.  Ironically enough, David (D.R.) Schmidt was one of the grassroots organizers that is guilty of playing a role in this coordination (notice how the information David posted was identical to the talking points used by Deace, Enyart, Jackson and Keller in March of this year), minus the comparison of LDS and Muslims.

I am not suggesting that David is a member of ARTL, but he did assist with coordinating the efforts of Huckabee’s grassroots and the ARTL post-Iowa caucus.  David sent the following message to Huckabee supporters just after the New Hampshire primary;

Please Contact Donna Ballentine
American Right To Life Action

1-888-888-ARTL (2785)
office@ARTLaction.com

Ray Greybar
Ross Mountain Public Relations
Rjrossmountain@aol.com

What is significant about this coordination, is that Donna Ballentine and Ray Greybar were the organizers behind the most disgusting attacks on Governor Romney, which included campaign literature distributed in Super-Tuesday States covered with images of Governor Romney and aborted, decaying fetuses. 

David may respond to this post by stating that the grassroots has never coordinated with Governor Huckabee, but if that is the case, why did Governor Huckabee meet with his most important grassroots organizers (including Michael Brown) on November 18th of this month? 

David, were you also at the meeting with Huckabee and Brown?  What was discussed and what are Governor Huckabee’s plans for 2012?

——————-

Editor’s Note: Based on the gratuitousness of the anti-Romney abortion literature, I decided not to post the images on this site.  They can be located through a google search.  

_____________________________________________

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

One of the most interesting aspects of the 1990s was the manner in which the Clinton-led Democratic Party was able to co-opt, albeit for a short time, the issues of taxes and fiscal responsibility from Republicans. Democrats did so by triangulating on the tax issue and moving away from a position of higher taxes, which the party had advocated for most of the 1980s, and towards a position of targeted tax relief. Prior to Bill Clinton, middle class Independents, who wanted their own taxes to remain low, but who feared that massive tax cuts would lead to a budgetary fallout, were forced to choose between the Republicans, who advocated sweeping, across-the-board tax cuts, and Democrats, who proposed tax relief for no one, and who often suggested raising taxes on those same middle class Americans. Given this choice, voters favored the GOP on the tax issue, because some sort of relief was better than no relief.

But Bill Clinton changed all of that in the late ’90s, when his post-Gingrich Revolution position on taxes became one that favored “targeted tax cuts” that would focus on spurring economic growth and making it easier for Americans to live their lives without increasing the deficit or threatening popular domestic programs. That triangulation changed the calculus for middle class Independents: now they had a choice between a party that wanted, in their view, massive, budget-busting, entitlement-threatening tax cuts for everyone, and a party that advocated tax cuts for those very middle class Independents when they bought a home or sent their kids to college or tried to start their own business. To swing voters, Democrats then became the party whose position on taxes was more prudent, more cautious, and more small-c conservative given its reliance on actual revenue to maintain a balanced budget and not on theoretical revenue created by future growth. Or to put it another way, the Clinton position divided those Americans who favor low taxes for utilitarian reasons, i.e., to keep the economy strong and/or to maintain their own standard of living, and those who favor low taxes for ideological reasons, i.e., to starve the beast and force government to shrink and/or because it is morally or constitutionally inappropriate for government to levy taxes on individuals.

With President Obama and a Democratic Congress prepared to enact a massive overhaul of the American health care industry that will almost certainly raise the cost of health care for the middle class through higher health insurance premiums as well as through the inevitable tax increases that will eventually have to be enacted to pay for the governmental role being proposed, Republicans now have an opportunity to pull a Clinton on the health care issue and co-opt health care reform in much the same way Democrats co-opted tax cuts during the Clinton years. In other words, Republicans should become the party of “targeted health care reform,” in contrast to the Democrats’ massive, sweeping, budget-busting health care overhaul. In so doing, Republicans will drive a wedge between voters who want health care reform for practical reasons, such as the cost of or accessibility to health care, and those who want action on health care for ideological reasons, i.e., those on the Left who want government and not individuals, medical providers, or the market to be in charge of health care decision-making.

Republicans already have all the ideas they need to put forth a comprehensive package of targeted health care reform. They just need a strong national leader or cohesive Contract with America type document in order to get their message out to the American people. The sum of the ideas that have been put forth by congressional Republicans, as well as those GOPers running for president in 2008 and 2012, would present voters with health care reforms that would solve most of our nation’s health care problems — which exist largely due to cost and to outdated regulations — without busting the budget or taking away too much freedom. A combination of tax credits to help Americans purchase health insurance, allowing Americans to shop for health plans across state lines, making health insurance more portable, creating new ways to pool risk (such as high-risk pools and association health plans), incentivizing preventative care, and caps on non-compensatory damages in lawsuits against medical professionals would lower the cost of health care for everyone, make it easier for folks to buy insurance, and would help the uninsurable get insured. And all without a new middle class entitlement, mandates, guaranteed issue, or the fear of rationing.

When middle class Independents were forced in the past to choose between Democrats’ intrusive, messy, bossy health care overhaul, and Republicans’ insistence that we presently have the Finest Health Care System in the World, they quite predictably chose the party that offered them a solution over the one that did not. This is comparable to the way voters chose big tax cuts over no tax cuts. But when swing voters are presented with cheap, effective reforms targeted to them, they will choose those reforms over expensive, massive overhauls filled with empty promises and unintended consequences.

By making targeted health care reform the official Republican position, Republicans both end the notion that the Democrats are the party of health care, and leave Democrats with just those voters who want government to be in charge of health care decision-making in this country. The Left has long wanted a state takeover of health care because leftists believe that since there’s only so much health care to go around, it should be distributed as equitably as possible, by a central authority, hence the constant stream of rationing ideas we’ve seen come out of the political and media establishment over the past few months, from delaying mammograms to finding natural ways to alleviate pain. As such, Democratic solutions on health care generally involve reducing demand for health care from the top-down by essentially telling people that they can’t have it. Republicans, then, need to become the party of choice on health care. Through tax credits and new ways to pool risk, Republicans should say, you can more easily choose your health plan. Through preventative care, demand will be reduced for the most expensive types of care, not because Americans are told they can’t have it, but because they won’t need it. And so on. All of the sudden, Republicans become the party that want people to go do the doctor, and Democrats become the party standing between Americans and medical care.

I am sure many of you have read Kristofer’s two recent posts (see here.)

If you read the posts, his basic allegation is that Huckabee is connected with American Right to Life which has recently called into question some of Sarah Palin’s pro-life credentials.  In short, he is insinuating that Huckabee is using American Right to Life to attack Palin for political gain (to knock her down as potential 2012 competition).

There is no evidence to suggest there is any truth to this claim yet Kristofer is willing to post these wild speculations. Let me break down what Kristofer has written point by point. I will start with his latest post that can be found here:

Kristofer alleges that Huckabee is connected to ARTL because his website links to an Iowa newspaper article about Huckabee appearing on an Iowa radio station almost a year ago where Huckabee talked about his disappointment in some cultural conservative leaders like Gary Bauer not backing his campaign.

SMEAR: “One way for Governor Huckabee to distance himself from this group is to stop linking to them on mikehuckabee.com”

TRUTH: Huckabee’s website does not appear to link to American Right to Life in any way. The link that Kristofer references is to an Iowa newspaper article, not ARTL.

CLAIM: “Huckabee joining in on the ARTL rhetoric by attacking mainstream Christian leaders who supporter Mitt Romney or other POTUS candidates.”

REALITY: Kristopher provides no evidence that ARTL attacked “mainstream Christian leaders” so why should I believe his argument when a major premise of his argument is unsubstantiated? Second, even if Huckabee and ARTL both expressed disappointment in the actions of some “mainstream Christian leaders”, how is that evidence that Huckabee is controlling ARTL? If I speak out against illegal immigration and Nazi groups speak out against illegal immigration is that evidence that I am connected with Nazi groups and am controlling them? Of course not.

Now on to Kristofer’s equally ridiculous other post. Because the post is no longer on the race42008 website, I will only respond to what is quoted from that post here.

CLAIM: “Race42012 began investigating the political organization, American Right to Life (a.k.a. Huckabee’s Iowa firewall) in March of this year, exposing their planned campaign to smear Governor Romney ahead of the 2012 campaign.”

TRUTH:

1. Race42012 doesn’t investigate anything as a website to my knowledge, only individual writers do.
2. There is no evidence that ARTL is “a.k.a. Huckabee’s Iowa firewall”. Kristofer is making it sound like ARTL is some sort of official Huckabee or Huckabee controlled entity. There is 100% false. Where is the evidence man?
3. What is the ARTL campaign to smear Romney? What is this campaign called? I just looked at the American Right to Life website and didn’t see anything on their home page about Romney. While their “Prolife Profiles” site has a profile of Romney, they have profiles of many significant pro-life people.

CLAIM: “Tommy Oliver highlighted the vicious anti-Mormon bigotry this Huckabee-aligned group has engaged in.”

TRUTH:

The link to Tommy’s article which is here, says nothing about anti-Mormon bigotry, in fact it talks about a statement by pastor Bill Killer where he says:

Sadly, Michael (Jackson) grew up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. This is the cult born out of the depraved mind of Charles Taze Russell and denies the very deity of Christ. You can go to Google and type in “cults Jehovah’s Witnesses” and it will give you many websites to document their false theology.

• Does Lorelli know that Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness is not the same faith?
• Does Lorelli think that pastors are not allowed to address belief systems that they believe are false? To not address the truth claims of various faiths would be intellectual ignorance.
• Also, how is a statement by pastor Bill Keller evidence that ARTL is an anti-Mormon group?
• What evidence does he have that connected Bill Keller with ARTL?
• What are the SPECIFIC “anti-Mormon” acts by ARTL?

Finally, how is this group “Huckabee-aligned”? It sounds like he is trying to make it seem like they are together in some sort of official alliance. Just because Huckabee is pro-life and ARTL is pro-life doesn’t connect Huckabee any more than the fact that Palin, Romney, Gingrich, etc all describe themselves as pro-life. This claim by Lorelli is utterly ridiculous and I can’t even believe it was ever posted to this respected website or that I had to waste some of my Saturday responding to this drivel.

My rules for testing political claims:

1. Look for source documents. Find out the exact words that a candidate, etc wrote or said. Don’t just listen to talk about what somebody said.
2. Look at the whole body of evidence. It is not uncommon for someone in the public eye to make a misstatement here and there. The real test is how do they respond to a misstatement. Do they correct mistakes quickly and honestly? Are their poor choice of words something that was planned or an off-the-cuff blunder that they quickly regret?
3. Be patient. Sometimes determining who is telling the truth can not be discerned immediately. In those cases, reserve judgment and find/wait for the additional information you need to make a wise judgment about a situation.

Saw this on the Political Wire:

A new Zogby poll in North Dakota finds Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) would be crushed if challenged by Gov. John Hoeven (R), 55% to 36% with 9% undecided.

Dorgan, however, leads another possible challenger, Duane Sand (R), 60% to 28% with 10% undecided.

That North Dakota hasn’t elected a Republican to either the House or Senate in 30 years is a huge incongruity as it’s voted Republican for President in every election since 1964 and has had a Republican Governor for 14 years.

We can complain all we want about Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins in Maine, but as long as the Dakotas are sending 3 Democrats to the U.S. Senate and two to the U.S. House, conservatives are going to have a hard-time getting anything done.

Cornyn should be making regular trips to North Dakota to pursuade Hoeven to run. When you’re dealing with Senate seats, it doesn’t matter whether it’s in North Dakota, New York, or Delaware, they’re all worth the same thing, and from a cash perspective North Dakota would be a heck of a lot less expensive to run a successful campaign in.

The Democrats have been working overtime to label the Republican party the “party of no”. There is no doubt that move by the Democrats is a high-level, coordinated effort brought about after strategy sessions with political consultants. In a move to propagate this message, the official Democrat Senatorial Campaign is telling lies in a Facebook ad I viewed and screen captured last night.

The negative ad claims that Republicans have no plan for health care although the House Republicans did put forward a Republicans health care reform plan although it failed because every Democrat voted no. You can see the details of that vote here.

In short, this ad shows that high-level official Democrat organizations are willing to lie to advance their agenda. It is the worst form of politics and manipulation of the public and should be called out whenever it occurs by either political party.

______________________________________

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy.com and can be contacted at david.schmidt@evercor.com, on Facebook and Twitter

Kind of crazy week, with book tours, interviews, and healthcare debates.  A few items that caught my attention:

• PM Mahmoud Abbas is talking about resigning again.  It’s a sign of the turmoil within the region, which isn’t really news.  I’m worried, however, that something is getting ready to surface in the region.  I can see Pres Obama blundering into this and getting involved in a disaster the same way Pres Carter did with the hostage crisis.
• Gov Palin did an interview with Bill O’Reilly, of which I read a little bit of the transcript.  Despite the claims of some commenters on this site, she DID own up to mistakes in the campaign, specifically in her interview with Katie Couric.  I will still need to see her get out there if I’m to be convinced to vote for her (and I’m not sure she wants to run).
• We have a healthcare vote tonight in the Senate.  Based on public statements, I’d THINK they don’t have the votes (due to Sen Lieberman), but the fact that they’re pushing the vote says otherwise.  Something doesn’t smell right here…

Anyway, that should get you started.

Alright, it’s been months since I’ve put one of these up on the front page, and it always gets a good response. It gets a good response because people like to talk about themselves, mostly, but in the spirit of community, I’ll say that it also is a wonderful opportunity to get to know your fellow contributors better.

And to those who don’t usually comment — jump in! The community would love to have you, and this is a great way to introduce yourself. We know that there are tens of thousands of you who read us at least sometimes, so leave us some feedback.

Okay, here are the rules. You are to rate your alignment with the standard modern conservative position on the following issues on a 1-10 scale. A “1″ indicates liberal sentiment, while a “10″ indicates conservative sentiment. When I say the “standard position,” that means — none of this “My position is the true conservative position!!11one!!” crap. The mainstream conservative position is to support the Iraq War, for instance. Got it, Justin Raimondo? Alright, here we go.

Here’s mine. Erase my numbers and fill in your own.

Abortion: 5

ANWR/Oil Exploration: 10

Death Penalty: 4

Deficit Spending: 10

Drug War: 3

Economics (general): 10

Education: 10

Free Trade: 10

Global Warming: 10

Guantanamo Bay & Waterboarding: 10

Gun Control: 10

Health Care: 10

Immigration: 6.5

Iraq War: 10

Israeli-Arab Conflict: 10

Judicial Philosophy: 9

Religion In Public Life: 1

Same-Sex Marriage: 2

Social Security Privatization: 10

Taxes: 10

United Nations: 9

And for the following figures who have strongly hinted at 2012 runs, tell me whether you view them (very) favorably, neutrally, or (very) unfavorably? Put an asterisk by your current presidential choice, if any, and write, in parentheses, your vice-presidential choice, if any.

Newt Gingrich: Favorably

Rudy Giuliani: Very favorably* (Paul Ryan)

Mike Huckabee: Very unfavorably

Gary Johnson: Favorably

Sarah Palin: Favorably

Tim Pawlenty: Neutrally

Mike Pence: Favorably

Mitt Romney: Very unfavorably

Rick Santorum: Very unfavorably

Pragmatism or principle? (That is, would you more often run a safe center-right bet with a 90% chance of winning or a solid conservative with a 50% chance of winning?): Pragmatism, usually

Finally, what do you describe yourself as, ideologically?: Classical liberal Republican

PS — Optional — recommend a book on politics or philosophy: Discourses of Epictetus, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom

—

Yeah, that last one was shameless on my part. Forgive me; I’m a bibliophile, you see. Anyway, have at it.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

A simple result tells the tale. It’s the 2008 Arizona Republican Presidential Primary:

Now, mind you this 47.17% came after McCain won Florida, and the “let’s go ahead and nominate someone so we don’t end up with a brokered convention” vibe was going.  If he only got 47% then, what will he get in a normal primary in the age of the Tea Parties?

The Arizona exit poll provide two interesting pieces of information that I find fascinating.  First, is that McCain won 33% of Arizona’s GOP primary voters who favored deportation. That relatively high percentage had to include some “rally ’round the flag” vote and would be considerably lower.

If there’s any upside for McCain, it’s a religious one. Part of the closeness of the 2008 contest was the LDS vote which went for Romney by an 88-8% margin. J.D. Hayworth wouldn’t beat McCain by that type of margin among LDS voters, which could change numbers around, but I think only slightly. Given the trouble that Senator Bob Bennett’s (R-UT) having in in the State of Utah, I’m not share how much McCain will be able to increase the 8% of the LDS vote he got in 2008, and if the anti-immigration and tea party groups swing hard against him, any minor shifts will probably be inconsequential.

I think McCain could be on the ropes if Hayworth ops to get in in January. He got less than a Majority in his own home state’s Presidential primary. And since that primary he hasn’t done a whole lot to improve his position.

Pat Robertson has been a big supporter of Virginia Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell.

Bob McDonnell has received thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Pat Robertson. McDonnell also attended Regent University founded by Pat Robertson.

Pat Robertson has a history of some rather outrageous remarks.

Recently he’s called Islam “not a religion,” but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination”.

Now McDonnell has disavowed those comments but he hasn’t disavowed Pat Robertson.

Should McDonnell have to disavow Robertson over this?

My inbox is flled with messages from angry Huckabee supporters, accusing me of smearing Mike Huckabee and suggesting that there are no ties between the radical ARTL group and the former Governor.  One way for Governor Huckabee to distance himself from this group is to stop linking to them on mikehuckabee.com. 

One of the links, a get-together with Steve Deace after the Presidential election was rather interesting, with Huckabee joining in on the ARTL rhetoric by attacking mainstream Christian leaders who supporter Mitt Romney or other POTUS candidates.  

What are your thoughts?  Should Governor Huckabee disavow this group and its leaders and remove all links from his personal website?

_____________________________________________

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

Oh, what a fall for a man being considered a top candidate for the GOP…

Very little in the way of detail, but even discussing this action is serious enough.

I just read this by James Taranto:

An Associated Press dispatch, written by Erica Werner and Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, compares the House and Senate ObamaCare bills. We’d like to compare this dispatch to the AP’s dispatch earlier this week “fact checking” Sarah Palin’s new book. Here goes:

Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11

Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432

Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3

On a per-page basis, that is, the AP devoted 52 times as much manpower to the memoir of a former Republican officeholder as to a piece of legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. That’s what they call accountability journalism.

Rasmussen California 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Barbara Boxer 46% {49%} [45%] (47%)
• Carly Fiorina 37% {39%} [41%] (38%)
• Other 5% {4%} [7%] (10%)
• Not sure 12% {8%} [7%] (5%)

• Barbara Boxer 46% {46%}
• Chuck DeVore 36% {37%}
• Other 5% {7%}
• Not sure 13% {10%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Carly Fiorina 40% {32%} [30%] (39%) / 29% {35%} [35%] (31%) {+11%}
• Barbara Boxer 51% {51%} [50%] (50%) / 41% {42%} [47%] (46%) {+10%}
• Chuck DeVore 31% {31%} / 25% {37%} {+6%}

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 29% {35%}
• Somewhat favor 22% {20%}
• Somewhat oppose 8% {6%}
• Strongly oppose 37% {35%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 23 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 22 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 9 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 49% (47%) {48%} [47%] (48%)
• Mike Huckabee 44% (43%) {41%} [44%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 48% (48%) {48%} [47%] (49%)
• Mitt Romney 43% (40%) {39%} [40%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 51% (52%) {53%} [52%] (51%)
• Sarah Palin 43% (40%) {38%} [38%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 46%
• Ron Paul 38%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 44% (41%) {46%} [41%] (42%)
• Mitt Romney 42% (40%) {35%} [41%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 49% (43%) {46%} [42%] (44%)
• Mike Huckabee 42% (40%) {33%} [41%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 43%
• Ron Paul 35%

• Barack Obama 51% (47%) {52%} [50%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 42% (35%) {35%} [34%] (41%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 44% of the Independent vote (29% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Independent vote.

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 87% (79%) {77%} [80%] (76%)
• Barack Obama 5% (10%) {13%} [11%] (12%)

• Mitt Romney 83% (77%) {72%} [74%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 6% (10%) {14%} [11%] (18%)

• Sarah Palin 84% (77%) {70%} [74%] (79%)
• Barack Obama 7% (15%) {18%} [15%] (14%)

• Ron Paul 74%
• Barack Obama 5%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 90% of the Republican vote (32% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 93% of the Republican vote.

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 59% (60%) {57%} [57%] (56%)
• Mitt Romney 31% (28%) {30%} [30%] (32%)

• Barack Obama 57%
• Ron Paul 26%

• Barack Obama 62% (61%) {58%} [56%] (58%)
• Mike Huckabee 30% (29%) {31%} [32%] (32%)

• Barack Obama 65% (66%) {68%} [63%] (62%)
• Sarah Palin 28% (25%) {23%} [25%] (31%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 39% of the Moderate vote (44% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the Moderate vote.

Among Men

• Barack Obama 43%
• Ron Paul 39%

• Barack Obama 49% (43%) {44%} [43%] (43%)
• Mike Huckabee 44% (47%) {47%} [49%] (49%)

• Barack Obama 48% (46%) {44%} [44%] (46%)
• Mitt Romney 42% (46%) {46%} [44%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 52% (50%) {50%} [48%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 42% (42%) {41%} [41%] (47%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 48% of the Male vote (47% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 55% of the Male vote.

Among Women

• Barack Obama 47% (50%) {52%} [50%] (51%)
• Mitt Romney 44% (36%) {34%} [36%] (35%)

• Barack Obama 49% (51%) {50%} [50%] (53%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% (39%) {36%} [39%] (36%)

• Barack Obama 51% (54%) {55%} [56%] (54%)
• Sarah Palin 45% (37%) {36%} [35%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Ron Paul 37%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 43% of the Female vote (53% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Female vote.

Northeast

• Barack Obama 53% (50%)
• Mitt Romney 41% (38%)

• Barack Obama 55% (52%)
• Mike Huckabee 42% (39%)

• Barack Obama 57% (54%)
• Sarah Palin 39% (38%)

South

• Barack Obama 47% (37%)
• Mike Huckabee 45% (48%)

• Barack Obama 48% (41%)
• Mitt Romney 43% (47%)

• Barack Obama 51% (45%)
• Sarah Palin 42% (46%)

Midwest

• Mike Huckabee 53% (44%)
• Barack Obama 41% (47%)

• Sarah Palin 50% (38%)
• Barack Obama 44% (55%)

• Mitt Romney 46% (38%)
• Barack Obama 41% (47%)

West

• Barack Obama 53% (56%)
• Mitt Romney 40% (38%)

• Barack Obama 57% (58%)
• Sarah Palin 38% (35%)

• Barack Obama 59% (57%)
• Mike Huckabee 30% (37%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 36% (33%) {38%} [45%] (42%) / 37% (29%) {36%} [28%] (33%) {-1%}
• Mitt Romney 30% (34%) {33%} [37%] (37%) / 39% (34%) {38%} [34%] (37%) {-9%}
• Sarah Palin 40% (36%) {37%} [40%] (47%) / 49% (51%) {55%} [49%] (45%) {-9%}
• Ron Paul 23% / 34% {-11%}

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 31% (38%) {38%} [40%] (45%) / 37% (28%) {33%} [31%] (28%) {-6%}
• Mike Huckabee 32% (34%) {32%} [48%] (44%) / 41% (27%) {38%} [24%] (30%) {-9%}
• Ron Paul 29% / 38% {-9%}
• Sarah Palin 36% (34%) {33%} [37%] (45%) / 49% (48%) {59%} [49%] (43%) {-13%}

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 75% (72%) {69%} [72%] (76%) / 15% (18%) {22%} [16%] (19%) {+60%}
• Mike Huckabee 65% (56%) {70%} [66%] (66%) / 11% (13%) {12%} [13%] (19%) {+54%}
• Mitt Romney 48% (54%) {50%} [52%] (54%) / 19% (20%) {21%} [18%] (25%) {+29%}
• Ron Paul 26% / 25% {+1%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 80% (65%) {69%} [68%] (73%) / 12% (19%) {22%} [20%] (18%) {+68%}
• Mike Huckabee 66% (53%) {59%} [61%] (65%) / 8% (12%) {15%} [13%] (16%) {+58%}
• Mitt Romney 46% (49%) {46%} [49%] (53%) / 22% (16%) {20%} [22%] (20%) {+24%}
• Ron Paul 31% / 20% {+11%}

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 26% (29%) {32%} [34%] (33%) / 37% (37%) {41%} [36%] (39%) {-11%}
• Mike Huckabee 25% (24%) {29%} [40%] (34%) / 45% (34%) {43%} [30%] (36%) {-20%}
• Ron Paul 20% / 37% {-17%}
• Sarah Palin 23% (22%) {20%} [29%] (33%) / 62% (66%) {71%} [58%] (58%) {-39%}

Northeast

• Mike Huckabee 31% (27%) / 45% (29%) {-14%}
• Mitt Romney 25% (32%) / 44% (38%) {-19%}
• Sarah Palin 34% (33%) / 55% (53%) {-21%}

South

• Mike Huckabee 31% (40%) / 37% (29%) {-6%}
• Sarah Palin 39% (44%) / 48% (43%) {-9%}
• Mitt Romney 29% (37%) / 40% (31%) {-11%}

Midwest

• Mike Huckabee 45% (36%) / 30% (27%) {+15%}
• Sarah Palin 47% (34%) / 41% (52%) {+6%}
• Mitt Romney 33% (32%) / 34% (31%) {-1%}

West

• Mitt Romney 35% (35%) / 35% (34%) {0%}
• Mike Huckabee 31% (27%) / 40% (30%) {-9%}
• Sarah Palin 37% (31%) / 59% (58%) {-22%}

Survey of 1,066 registered voters was conducted November 13-15. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% Democrat; 33% Republican; 26% Independent. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.