[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4ITJVzwNJQ[/youtube]
Everyone seems to have forgotten about the “Doc Fix.” Krauthammer reminds us it’s still around.
Gallup 2009 Political Winners & Losers Poll
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,025 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 11-13, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
As is well-known by now, last week there was a suicide bomber attack on a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit. The attack, fortunately, failed, as the explosive device failed to go off. The alleged terrorist is suspected to be connected to at least one terrorist organization. He claimed, initially at least, to be connected to Al Qaeda.
This, obviously, is both good news and bad. First, it’s good in that nobody died, a terrorist was captured and now we know where to concentrate more efforts on the international scale. The bad news is that some people are just plain stupid, including Think Progress’ Matthew Yglesias, who wrote the other day that, “Ultimately, it does no favors to anyone to blow this sort of thing out of proportion. The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.”
Even worse, however, is the reaction from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “The system worked,” according to Napolitano. Given that it took a failed attempt plus civilian passengers to subdue the attempted terrorist, I’d say the system failed. Plus, the guy was on a watch list, which is particularly poignant given his father reported him as a potential threat two years ago. (See the video of Napolitano’s inane comments here.)
To quote Jonah Goldberg from The Corner yesterday, “If the White House wants to assure people that it takes the war on terror seriously (a term Robert Gibbs used this morning by the way), they could start by firing this patenly unqualified hack.” Personally, I think “man-caused disasters” are a worse threat than conservatives, Secretary Napolitano. You had better figure that out soon, or your job will be gone. Unfortunately, this will probably not happen until after Americans have died as a result of your incompetence. Yes, as they said on the Real Clear Politics blog, it’s your job to reassure the American public as part of an overall security standpoint. However- and I’ll finish with a quote from the RCP blog- “…she should be smart enough to find a way of doing that without treating the American people like a bunch of morons and dupes.”
This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.
Update: According to The Washington Monthly blog, President Obama has been paying close attention to the Al Qaeda threat from Yemen. Kudos to President Obama for doing so.
Update II: The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell points out the continued failure by the Obama administration to take the proper steps to protect this country from terrorists, and offers three steps going forward.
Update III: A friend pointed out on Facebook that I misspelled Secretary Napolitano’s name- it is corrected.
This is a long one, guys, but I think that this is one of the best pieces I’ve written this year. So read on!
–
A week ago, while watching Sean Hannity’s television program, I witnessed a professor of political science declare, attempting to defuse Hannity’s other-people’s-money argument, that she donates to charity, but that it doesn’t really matter either way, because she performs her duties to others because she pays her taxes.
It is a standard argument, one that I’d heard before. This delegation of perceived individual duty to others to the state is a hallmark of economic liberalism. But what are its underlying assumptions? For the most part, this piece is not an attempt to judge the validity of the mindset that leads to support the outsourcing of duty to the state, but to understand its origins. Reading between the lines, the discerning reader will understand my objections to it.
The announcement that a Congressional panel had declared that it was more cost-effective for women to be screened for breast cancer at the age of fifty rather than forty caused an outrage amongst the left. Why, it was asked, should any women be denied a mammogram because of cost? How can we put a price tag on human life? Indeed, this uproar was a microcosmic look at the entire argument coming from the likes of Congressmen Alan Grayson and John Conyers: why should anyone have to go without? As human beings with inherent dignity, are they not entitled to the same care as anyone else? Hence their wisecrack: sure there are death panels — they’re called insurance companies.
Congressman Grayson’s staff has launched a website listing names of those who have purportedly died because they could not access insurance. The implications are clear enough: if someone would grant them insurance, all of these men and women would still be alive. This someone is you, me, and everyone else who lives here. As a consequence of living in a free society, we have duties to others that we should fulfill without complaint. We live in an age of prosperity, and we ought to make sure that no citizen is left out of it.
The subtext of Grayson’s argument is this: all of those people could still be alive, without any other consequences, with a simple change in policy. A government-run plan is not a trade-off between imperfect alternatives, but as a solution to a problem. It is not seen as an obstacle, in this worldview, that health care is a necessarily finite resource or that man has restricted capabilities. This mindset rejects that it is simply the nature of things that some people will have to go without some aspects of health care. Instead, it is believed that experts, centrally delegating duties, can make health care essentially equitable. It is not considered that there may be unintended negative consequences that go along with delegating health care to a central authority — and if it is, they are seen as negligible (“You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette”). Government lacks the profit motive, which is seen as the source of inequity. Hand over health care to disinterested experts and watch equity and quality improve. Since this solution is so patently obvious and perfectly simple, it is little wonder why Grayson would consider the state of American health care a ‘holocaust.’
Grayson, Michael Moore, and others who support a single-payer health care plan rightly feel despondent upon witnessing people who go without. They desperately wish that something could be done to solve this social ill, and upon witnessing a disproportionate distribution of care, they see that the tweaking of numbers could change the graph: simply chop off some of the elective care that the rich and upper-middle classes receive, redistribute it to the poor, and everyone has quality care. It’s incredibly simple. All that’s needed is the authority of the government to make it happen. The only reason it doesn’t happen is because others have become intoxicated by their privileges: wealth, power, prestige. Take it away, and you take away the social ill.
The rank-and-file conservative or libertarian, seeking to pounce on the charge of hypocrisy, immediately hits with the rejoinder of: why won’t Grayson or Moore organize a charity to help distribute health care to the poor? Each of them, after all, are each multi-millionaires with comfortable jobs.
It is likely that the thought has crossed the minds of both men. But each of them likely dismissed the thought without thinking twice. To quote Pascal: “Man would fain be great and sees that he is little.” How much can one man do? For all of the time, money, resources, and energy one man can put into one organization, how many people could actually be given coverage? Better to spend one’s time, then, advocating for a government plan that covers all. Advocacy is a lot easier than starting a charity. And, conveniently enough, it’s something that doesn’t require a lot of exertion on the part of the individual. The thought that charity to the poor is an individual, not a collective, mandate — a view echoed by figures from Jesus to Jefferson — is too difficult to accept, because it also requires accepting all of the imperfections and inconveniences that go along with it. And because that inward duty is too inconvenient to fulfill and too limited to bother fulfilling, it is instead delegated outward. And as long as that duty is a collective one, the guise of virtue is still upheld, so long as the advocate is mouthing the right words.
Intentions are enough. “Why should anyone have to go without?” is the sentiment, and a government takeover is the simple, elegant, and pain-free solution. Everyone is covered, so the problem is solved. The duty thus fulfilled — ostensibly, nobody is going without — the inevitable unintended consequences are swept under the rug. Arbitrary rationing, extended wait times, and the fact that the doctor’s career is under the control of the state are not problems, because equality has been instituted. In this sense, the notion of “Why should anyone have to go without?” is not quite complete. It is better expressed as “Why should anyone have to go without something that another has?” The socialist historian Howard Zinn once remarked without irony that “at least there were no billionaires in the Soviet Union.”
It is thus appropriate to conclude by noting that the quote by Pascal mentioned above was incomplete. The fuller version is this: “Man would fain be great and sees that he is little…would fain be perfect and sees that he is full of imperfections…The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust…passions imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults.”
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
Violence erupts in the Iranian capital for a second day during a Shi’ite Muslim religious mourning ritual and unrest also spreads to other parts of Iran.
Where is our media and our Leadership?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9TX-TcgfRg[/youtube]
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
The first is a Salvation Army Major who was accosted and shot in front of his three very young children on Christmas Eve. See the linked article for where to send donations.
Secondly, a father who was sent to Iraq- he was only a few days from his actual deployment, training at a base stateside- was unable to be with his family over Christmas despite his house burning down last week. I heard about it on a local radio station based in Littleton, New Hampshire, where the man’s family lives. The father was able to come home for one day and then had to go back to his unit. The family lost everything, though none of the three young children- all five years old or younger- were injured, nor was the childrens’ mother. Donations may be made by calling the Littleton Police Department at (603) 444-2422 and asking to speak to the dispatcher.
Iranian officials are still cracking down on those brave enough to protest. Contact your Members of Congress- Senate and House- and the White House to urge our leaders to support the protesters before it’s too late.
A bridge has collapsed in India, and dozens are feared dead. I don’t know how to offer support here, other than prayer.
Of course, there are always the military service members overseas, their families, those the soldiers are fighting and their families- prayers and support for all sides so there may be peace and justice I’m sure would help.
I know these kinds of incidents and occurrences are not happy things to think about during the Christmas season- especially when we all have our own troubles in this recession. However, as those fortunate enough to be able to celebrate Christmas in relative peace and happiness, I hope we can remember to go out of our way to help those we run into and those we don’t while the spirit of the season is still upon us, and we get too caught up in the necessities of our normal daily lives once Christmas and New Year’s vacations are over.
No, Janet, it didn’t.
Luckily for the innocent people aboard the plane, the detonator apparently failed, but so did our security systems. The sheer luck of the failure of the detonator, combined with quick action by passengers and flight crew, prevented the loss of almost three hundred innocent lives after the systems set up to protect them failed.
How much, if any, of the blame for the failures — most obviously for the very presence of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on that flight — should be laid on Napolitano and her department is unknown at this point. For example, Abdulmutallab’s father says he warned the US embassy about his son — did the State Department pass on the warning? We don’t know.
But we do know that the system did not work, and for Janet Napolitano to say it did is sheer idiocy. Unfortunately, her statement is typical of her performance throughout the year she has held this important position as a payoff for her early endorsement of Obama.
Update: Now she admits that the system “failed miserably” and whines that her earlier comments were taken out of context. In the initial interview, the CNN interviewer gave the chance to backtrack, asking follow-up questions.
We seem to be talking a lot about Erick Erickson here lately. However, in all honesty, the argument has little to do with Erickson himself and everything to do with what he supposedly represents – a mysterious spectre that has come to be known as “purgism”.
Supposedly, a “purgist” is one who demands rigorous ideological purity and insists on pushing anyone left of Jim DeMint out of the Republican Party. Such people are unconcerned with ever winning an election and would be willing to lose every vote in every district it meant having candidates that meet their narrow-minded set of conditions. According to their detractors, such people are an insidious cancer on the party, dooming us to future failure, and must be pushed away from mainstream discussion at all costs. At the very least, they should be dismissed as idiots and forced to shut up by any Republican with sense . These rigid ideologues are determined to concentrate control of the party into the hands of a small cabal of rabid rightists, and their conspiracy must be neutralized in order to save the party.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I had personally hoped to leave this kind of rhetoric in the 1950s where it belongs. The John Birch Society has been largely left in the ash-heap of history and honestly I wish they would stay there. The idea that Erickson and his supporters need to be “purged” is ridiculous, especially considering that the entire argument against Erickson is that he is too much of a purgist (vocabluary word for the day: “hypocrisy”). Anyone should feel free to disagree with Erickson – but to take it to the level of intra-party McCarthyism is absurd.
I have great respect for my colleague Alex Knepper – but in this case I am going to have to both disagree with him and use his arguments in my examples. Alex, please don’t take this as an attack – because in all honesty I’m using your reasoning because it is eloquent and well-thought out – and furthermore I think you are far more reasonable than most of the people I’m addressing.
That said, the last time we had this argument, it concerned David Frum. Mr. Knepper told me that Frum and his compatriots – who rail against Erickson for daring to go after established moderate incumbents – are not unconservative, but rather harsh pragmatists who want to stop Erickson from “cutting off the nose to spite the face.” I actually agree with him on his assessment of Frum, but I fail to see how you accomplish anything if you cut off the hand to prevent it from cutting off the nose to spite the face. Either way, you lose an important appendage – and in political terms, there is no operational difference between purging centrists and purging “purgists”.
If we want to be a big-tent party (and I think we all do) – then we have to accept that occasionally we have ideological disagreements about who the best candidates are. This is why we have primaries, this is why I value primaries, and this is why we should almost always allow primaries to go forward without the threat of either candidates supporters being purged.
On my side of this argument, I adamantly refuse to shun Newt Gingrich for his support of Dede Scozzafava, nor will I begrudge anyone for supporting Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, nor will I hold animosity toward anyone who backs Parker Griffith over my candidate Les Phillip. Erick Erickson himself seems to agree with me on this. In fact, he wrote recently that Conservatives could indeed come to the conclusion that people like Mark Kirk or Kelly Ayotte are the best candidates in Illinois and New Hampshire. His issue is with those who say that we must support these two individuals and that we must expel those who dare to support primary challengers like Patrick Hughes and Ovide Lamontagne. He’s also stated that he can live with candidates that he may oppose – his issue is with the idea that people want to shut down the process. See this comment from a recent blog post:
As I have said before, conservatives may decide that Kelly Ayotte is better than Ovide LaMontagne. Conservatives may decide Jane Norton is better than Ken Buck. And conservatives may decide that Mark Kirk is better than Pat Hughes.
Or, conservatives may decide one is more viable than the other.
But we should not rely on the group that chose Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio and Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey to tell us.
So, even a “rabid arch-purgist” like Erick Erickson admits that there is room in the party for people he might oppose. My question is why we can’t expect the same level of courtesy from the people who hold the opposite view. I have yet to hear any Scozzafava supporter say that there is room in the tent for Doug Hoffman, or a Specter supporter say that there is room in the tent for Pat Toomey. To the contrary, such people are labelled as malignancies who must be eliminated from the party.
Now, the argument against my position would be that we should indeed purge those who “want to lose” by “shrinking the tent”, which is different from purging those who “want to win” by “expanding the tent”. Or, they could merely assert that they are right, they have a plan to win, and that we are worthy of being purged because we hold the wrong priorities. Setting aside the sheer petulance of these arguments, let’s looks at their validity.
To return again to my debates with Mr. Knepper, I recall many times being told that the Republican Party must have the goal of becoming a “center-right American Kadima”. I found this reference to th Israeli Kadima Party interesting, because I often cite the Israeli Likud Party as the type of party we should strive to emulate. The interplay between those two parties has been in the news this week, and I think they provide an interesting example of how both the moderators and the purists are proven right.
Kadima was, of course, the centrist party founded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005. He broke his party off of the conservative Likud because many in the party opposed his plan to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza. In addition to moderate “Likudniks”, he also drew moderate members of the leftist Labor Party into the fold to create a seemingly unstoppable centrist force. Indeed, even after Sharon’s debilitating stroke, his successor Ehud Olmert led Kadima to electoral victory and left the hard-line shell of Likud in a distant third place. Kadima was the future, and both Likud and it’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu were politically dead.
Of course, that was before Olmert imploded in a wave of corruption scandals and his government was accused of not being aggressive enough to score a decisive victory in Lebanon. Kadima’s poll numbers tanked, and Netanyahu’s Likud (which no longer had a moderate wing) surged into government. In fact, the only reason that Kadima remains the largest party in the Knesset is that Netanyahu lost votes to radical right-wing parties who wanted even more aggressive solutions. As of this week, Kadima appears on the verge of collapse – as Netanyahu is negotiating defections with as many as 14 of Kadima’s 27 parliamentarians. Meanwhile, a rift had broken open between the left wing of Kadima (led by Tzipi Livni) and party’s right wing (led by Shaul Mofaz). Indeed, it seems that Kadima’s attempt to build a “non-ideological centrist” party has merely created a monster – as none of their leaders agree on anyything and all of them seem to have joined the party as way of following political winds. Kadima has ceased to be a party of leadership and stands for nothing other than opportunism - which is why it is about to implode. Netanyahu and Likud, meanwhile, stuck to conservative principles, purged the entire moderate wing, and surged back to government. In fact, they are now in position to literally kill off Kadima as a party – and are threatening to do so if Livni does not cooperate with their government.
For me, Likud is an example of why people like Erick Erickson may indeed be right. Voters value a party that knows what it stands for and maintains a strong commitment to its core principles. On the contrary, they reject calculators lie Kadima, who purposefully eschew principle in order to maximize their vote. Kadima won one election, but ultimately it was doomed to failure because it had no driving belief. So, when somebody tells me that we must create an, “American Kadima”, I see that as a potential quick-fix for 2010 – but a prescription for electoral collapse in 2012 and 2014. If we waste too much time trying to lure Democrats across the line, we lose both the conservative base and any independent who values honesty and committment.
I refuse to say that the “American Kadima” crowd is evil or even wrong – they have a point and their plan could indeed work in the short term. However, I remain a firm believer in an “American Likud” strategy – where we place a high value on principle and present a clear, honest choice to the people. This may lead to smaller gains in the 2010 elections, but it presents a more sustainable growth model and leaves us in a better position for 2012 and 2014.
Who is right may be a matter of debate – but I think the debate needs to happen. Luckily, we are not prone to party-splits here in America and we have these fights in the primaries. If you want an American Kadima strategy, I won’t begrudge your support of Charlie Crist, Mark Kirk, and Parker Griffith. However, I would ask that you pay the same respect to those of us who want a Likud model when we back Marco Rubio, Adam Andrzejewski, and Les Phillip.
Yes, the tent must be big enough for David Frum, but it must be big enough for Erick Erickson as well. We are a big party, and on occasion we agree going to have heated arguments about the future of our big party. We must let these arguments go forward if we wish to survive as a strong, grounded political force. Far be it from me to demand silence from David Frum – in fact, I welcome his intelligence and his contributions to the debate. However, far be it from anyone else to demand silence from Erick Erickson. So far, he has proven to be a very smart man, and he has vital role in ensuring that the party stays grounded.
So, let’s stop acting like a bunch of paranoid John Birchers an accept that these wars we fight are good for the party. Gold is refined through fire – and so are we. If my candidates can’t stand up to a blistering criticism from Mr. Frum, then they aren’t good enough. However, if your candidates can’t stand up to a little ribbing from Erick Erickson – do you really think they can combat the DNC attack machine? We can’t tell the Democrats to shut up in the general election, and we do ourselves a disservice if we try to shut down the fiery intra-party critics who refine our primary candidates.
I personally have gotten to a point where I value and look forward to these fights. So, let’s have them. Let the games begin, and may the best man win.
So many candles… so little cake.
-
Five things you don’t didn’t know about Kavon W. Nikrad;
1 – is so madly in love with his wife, he sings the song, “Julia” by Chantal Kreviazuk, as he cooks dinner, does the dishes, does the grocery shopping, does the lawn-work, shovels the driveway, cleans the house, pays the bills, does the laundry, builds her a home office…
2 – rumored that his first online experience was an October 1989 page he created, promoting Herschel Walker for Super Bowl MVP.
3 – has not missed a Vikings game in 2 decades, and plans on never missing another. When I asked him; “what if your wife went into labor during a game”, he stated, “I am prepared to plan those events around the NFL schedule”.
4 – was so excited at the possibility of electing a conservative as governor of Minnesota , he sported a pawmullet in October and November of 2002. Unfortunately, the hair only grew backward, not forward.
5 – following a national trend in 2000, he officially changed his name from Kavon Nikrad, to Kavon ‘W.’ Nikrad… Little did he know…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU8T0lvMUtg[/youtube]
‘This Charming Man’, performed by The Smiths.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Merry Christmas from Kansas.
Did you know that federal regulations are slowing down Santa’s operations?
The video below comes from LeRoy, Kansas, home of 9th District Representative Bill Otto (right), one of the nicest guys you’ll find in the Kansas Legislature.
Some of the potential legal problems for Santa:
Santa endorsed Huckabee on this video in December 2007. Of course, Santa was ahead of his time, as Huckabee won the Republican caucuses in February 2008.
Below is the video in which Mrs. Claus informs Santa about all of the federal oversight.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFeBOk369k8[/youtube]
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes KansasProgress.com, based in Greater Kansas City. From 2005-2009, Hodge was a trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC), representing 300,000 voters and 40,000 students. He was a state representative from 2006-2008 and was elected in 2008 as a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party. Hodge’s record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Connect with Hodge on Facebook, at Hodge’s political Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.
Erick Erickson, over at Red State, fights back against critics who say that he’s shrinking the Republican tent by calling for Parker Griffith to be primaried. He points out that William Daley of the Chicago Machine agrees with him that the GOP is growing — independents are turning against Obama, they provided the margin of victory for Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and besides, Democrats are turning Republican — see Griffith — but not vice-versa.
Now, every time I write something critical about a liberal Republican or point out that maybe we should aggressively primary Parker Griffith, the whiny little girl [David Shuster] on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow both mock the GOP as a small tent growing smaller.
In fact, whenever an unkind word is said about Olympia Snowe, it is just further proof that the GOP is a party made of intolerant, close minded white guys.
But here is the thing — the one story the media can never report is the flood of Republicans becoming Democrats. Why? Because it does not happen.
Under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama we have seen lots of Democrats become Republicans. We have seen lots of liberals become conservatives. But we rarely, rarely more rarely than a snow leopard in the Himalayas see a Republican or a conservative going over to their side.
In other words, they are projecting.
Nope.
While independents are fleeing the Democratic Party and Obama, they still hate Republicans. They are not fleeing Democrats to join Republicans — they’re just pissed off at everyone now. We’re still down by 2 in the generic ballot in the latest Wall Street Journal poll. In the latest Quinnipiac and Pew polls, Republicans in Congress have a 29% approval rating. We’re not winning anyone over. We’re just becoming the lesser of two evils. Getting everyone to hate the Democrats doesn’t sound like victory to me.
Individual candidates will have to fill in where the party cannot — but candidates that might appeal to moderates and independents, like Mike Castle and Mark Kirk, for instance, cannot win the endorsement of our party’s base because they don’t pass the purity test put forward by people like Erickson. Sarah Palin denied overtures from Kirk to endorse him, to take one embarrassing example.
Additionally, why invite Democrats to join the GOP if we’re just going to kick them out as soon as they arrive? Let’s wait to see how Parker Griffith votes before we decide whether we can do better. When Democrats switch, they usually become remarkably more conservative. If he votes with us 70% of the time, why on Earth would you primary him in a historically Democratic district? Can’t we just wait?
The base is once again reading something into the polls that just isn’t there. There’s movement away from the Democrats, but not movement toward the GOP. We’re just creating a society of disillusioned independents. We could grab them — we really could! — but we haven’t yet. And it’s not going to happen by kicking out people like Mark Kirk and Parker Griffith.
Talking Point: Polls show that while independents are moving away from Obama, they are not moving toward the GOP.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
If you’ve got anything to say about this, say it here!
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He was a committed Islamic jihadist with supposed links to al-Qaeda, and he fit the typical profile of a (non-Tamil Tiger) suicide terrorist: young, well-educated, fairly well-off, male. He said he was heading to the United States for a “religious ceremony” — and he wasn’t lying!
The proper response to this? One, use it as a wake-up call: Islamic jihadists still want to kill us and instill fear in us. Two, don’t get too worried about your Christmas travel: it was one trip of hundreds of thousands since 9/11. You’re a lot worse-off if you drive home.
BREAKING (12:24 PM): From the AP — US has known for two years that suspect in the plane attack could have terrorist ties. Just saw on Fox. Developing…
Rasmussen Survey on Economic Stimulus
Earlier this year, Congress and the president enacted a $787 billion economic stimulus plan. So far, has the economic stimulus plan helped the economy, hurt the economy or had no impact on the economy?
- Helped 30% {36%} [33%] (36%)
- Hurt 38% {34%} [31%] (28%)
- No impact 28% {24%} [29%] (28%)
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted December 20-21. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17-18 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 20-21 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 18-19 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Men, by a 42% to 27% margin, believe the stimulus effort has hurt the economy. Women are evenly divided.
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats believe the stimulus plan has helped the economy while 47% of Republicans believe it has hurt. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 52% believe the stimulus plan has had a negative impact.
Fun, quirky & strange Christmas traditions around the world
Bring your roller skates to Caracas, Venezuela, where they block the streets on Christmas Eve so that locals can roller-skate to church for Christmas service. Don’t swat the tree in Ukraine, where a fake spider and spider’s web are placed on Christmas trees for decoration. It is believed that a spider web found on Christmas morning is a sign of good luck for the coming year. On Christmas Eve in Norway, all the brooms in the house are hidden because it was believed that witches and evil spirits would come out on this night to steal their brooms for riding. Make a wish when stirring in all the ingredients for Christmas pudding in England – but it will only come true if you stir in a clockwise direction. In Japan, it’s considered bad luck to give red Christmas cards or envelopes as funeral notices are usually written in red. In Italy, locals celebrate Christmas – not by decorating a Christmas tree with tinsel and ornaments – but by decorating small wooden pyramids with fruit. When in Belgium, you celebrate two Santa Clauses: St. Nicholas, the Santa that spies on children to sort them into naughty and nice; and Pere Noel, who does all the Christmas delivery work. In Brazil, it’s believed that Santa lives in Greenland, that the shepherds that sought out Jesus were actually women, and that the animals in the manger spoke when Jesus was born. The oldest Christmas tradition in Estonia takes place on Christmas Eve when the whole family goes to visit the sauna together. In Latvia, “Big Zimmer,” the Latvian Santa Claus, brings presents not on just one day, but 12 days in a row. It’s also here in Latvia that the Christmas tree tradition was first celebrated, although the holiday doesn’t celebrate Jesus, but the re-birth of the Sun Maiden. In the town of Urbania, Italy, an ugly witch named La Befana parades around town on her broomstick bringing gifts to children on Christmas Day. The tradition is believed to have come from the Vatican – who couldn’t prove the existence of Santa Claus so decided to tell children that it was witches that delivered the presents. During the Middle Ages, boar’s head was known as a traditional Christmas dish. The custom began when a boar attacked a student who saved himself by forcing Aristotle’s books into the boar’s mouth. The boar choked to death and the student cut off his head and brought it back to college. In coastal towns like Brighton and in London’s Serpentine Lake in England, many communities take part in a Christmas Day swim in frigid waters. On Christmas Eve in Remedios, Cuba, locals celebrate Parrandas, a religious festival remembering the priests who would send altar boys into the streets to bang on pots and pans to awaken the townspeople for mass at midnight.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
…your aunt gets you a copy of Foreign Affairs as a stocking stuffer.
Merry Christmas, Race4 community!
Pope Benedict XVI gave the traditional Mass yesterday after being knocked down by a woman who is suspected to be mentally unstable. He was apparently unhurt, and finished the ceremony with no further incident. However, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray broke his leg after falling when the woman jumped over security barriers.
In Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus Christ, a very diverse and joyous celebration was held, utilizing various Christmas traditions. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, a Muslim, attended an Orthodox Christmas Mass.
Others had greater difficulties, including Christians in the Phillipines who are dealing with an erupting volcano and troops in Iraq.
Despite the difficulties, threats and general negatives in the world, the fact that the troops and those in danger in the Phillipines are able to find some way to celebrate Christmas is yet another sign that God is watching out for those who trust in Him. Too, a diverse celebration in Bethlehem attended by a President of Palestine- following in the tradition of attendance started by former president Yassar Arafat- gives me some hope for the future of that part of the world. Things don’t always go as we want them to, but the power of prayer, faith, hope and love can and do create wonders for Christians and the world as a whole.
Again, Merry Christmas, everyone.
Merry Christmas, everyone, and God Bless. May He watch over you, your families and loved ones, those who cannot be with their families today and those who are otherwise struggling with difficulties.
I stole the following from The New Hampshire Union Leader:
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following editorial, first published in The New York Sun in 1897, has become a Christmas favorite for its poetic defense of faith. We hope you enjoy it as much as we do. Merry Christmas.
DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.”
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?Virginia O’Hanlon
115 West Ninety-Fifth St.Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except (what) they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
I know this is a political blog – but this is not a terribly political day. So, for those of you who are actually in front of your computers on Christmas, I’d like you to meet my Uncle Joe (vocals) and Aunt Jana (piano). Guitar accompaniment provided buy Aunt Jana’s significant other, Alan (off camera).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAsrrYFIZyg[/youtube]
Hey – what’s the use of contributing to a big blog if you can’t use it to embarass your relatives? And yes, this video really was taken last night at the annual Ross/Brickley family interfaith Christmas party. Special thanks to my sister Kat for being quick with the cell phone camera – brothers who live away from home appreciate that sort of thing. Oh, and the lady with the black Jewish head covering who you see in the beginning – that’s my mom (Hi Mom!)
And for what it’s worth – I have an excuse to be at my computer because Hanukkah is over. The rest of you, however, are hereby ordered to turn off the machine and return to your eggnogg and cookies.
Merry Christmas.
This morning the Democrats in the Senate passed their healthcare bill. It looks as if they’ll be able to bribe or threaten enough Democrats in the House to get the bill passed.
But it’s Christmas time. A time we recall the miraculous birth of our savior from a virgin (no not Obama). This is a time of hope and joy.
For those of you who prefer the secular X-mas here are a couple videos to give some sort of comfort:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3DyxaCYlfg[/youtube]
Thanks Jonathan Coulton.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQyVGhdyD7c[/youtube]
Thanks Parker Griffith and the people of the 5th district (I guess all those tough phone calls to his Huntsville office finally paid off).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esx0KHSCDcA[/youtube]
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:
1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?
2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.
3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.
4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?
5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.
It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.
This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.
Anwar Al-Awlaki, the jihadi recruiter/evangelist linked to Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, has received an early Christmas gift from the Yemeni Air Force. They gave him 72 virgins.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUsmGpwUPbQ[/youtube]
Cutest family on the planet?
PPP (D) Minnesota 6th Congressional District Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Tim Pawlenty’s job performance?
- Approve 52%
- Disapprove 39%
Among Independents
- Approve 53%
- Disapprove 38%
Among Republicans
- Approve 79%
- Disapprove 12%
Would you like to see Governor Pawlenty run for President in 2012?
- Yes 32%
- No 50%
Among Independents
- Yes 30%
- No 52%
Among Republicans
- Yes 53%
- No 20%
Do you approve or disapprove of Michele Bachmann’s job performance?
- Approve 53%
- Disapprove 41%
Among Independents
- Approve 51%
- Disapprove 42%
Among Republicans
- Approve 86%
- Disapprove 8%
Do you think that Michele Bachmann is more focused on advocating for your district in the US House or being a national leader in the conservative movement?
- Advocating for District 32%
- Leader in National Conservative Movement 48%
Among Independents
- Advocating for District 32%
- Leader in National Conservative Movement 48%
Among Republicans
- Advocating for District 51%
- Leader in National Conservative Movement 29%
Do you consider Michele Bachmann’s political views to be extremist?
- Yes 37%
- No 54%
Among Independents
- Yes 35%
- No 56%
Among Moderates
- Yes 51%
- No 38%
Do you think that Michele Bachmann is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?
- Too liberal 8%
- Too conservative 36%
- About right 56%
Among Independents
- Too liberal 8%
- Too conservative 36%
- About right 56%
Among Moderates
- Too liberal 10%
- Too conservative 50%
- About right 41%
Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?
- Approve 39%
- Disapprove 55%
Among Independents
- Approve 34%
- Disapprove 58%
Do you support or oppose the health care bill the House of Representatives passed last month?
- Support 29%
- Oppose 56%
Among Independents
- Support 26%
- Oppose 59%
If the candidates for Governor next year were Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Mark Dayton, who would you vote for?
- Norm Coleman 50%
- Mark Dayton 36%
If the candidates for Governor next year were Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat RT Rybak, who would you vote for?
- Norm Coleman 49%
- RT Rybak 36%
If the candidates for Governor next year were Republican Marty Seifert and Democrat Mark Dayton, who would you vote for?
- Marty Seifert 40%
- Mark Dayton 33%
If the candidates for Governor next year were Republican Marty Seifert and Democrat RT Rybak, who would you vote for?
- Marty Seifert 40%
- RT Rybak 34%
If the candidates for Congress next year were Republican Michele Bachmann and Democrat Tarryl Clark, who would you vote for?
- Michele Bachmann 55%
- Tarryl Clark 37%
If the candidates for Congress next year were Republican Michele Bachmann and Democrat Maureen Reed, who would you vote for?
- Michele Bachmann 53%
- Maureen Reed 37%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Norm Coleman 41% / 42% {-1%}
- Maureen Reed 7% / 11% {-4%}
- RT Rybak 29% / 34% {-5%}
- Tarryl Clark 13% / 19% {-6%}
- Marty Seifert 11% / 19% {-8%}
- Mark Dayton 25% / 44% {-19%}
For those that think the Obama health care bill can be fixed by future Congresses, think again. In the bill are provisions that make part of the bill unchangeable. The provisions make it “out of order” for the Senate or House to amend or repeal parts of the bill. This section of the bill could see Constitutional challenges. For the Senate to change how they operate, a two-thirds vote is required. Watch the following video to understand this better:
DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmvVo_itT0[/youtube]
Nebraska Governor Wants Sen. Nelson’s ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ to Be Undone
H/T: Breitbart.tv
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lYHUwx1hpc[/youtube]
Senator Cites New Budget Letter to Argue Health Care Bill Will Hike Deficit
A Progressive group is also slamming the bill in a new ad:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk[/youtube]
Conclusion: With the Constitutional issue of individual mandates unresolved and solid opposition from the American people, this bill is far from being in the clear.
PPP (D) Kentucky Senatorial Survey
- Trey Grayson (R) 40%
- Jack Conway (D) 33%
- Rand Paul (R) 42%
- Jack Conway (D) 36%
- Trey Grayson (R) 44%
- Dan Mongiardo (D) 35%
- Rand Paul (R) 42%
- Dan Mongiardo (D) 36%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Rand Paul 26% / 23% {+3%}
- Trey Grayson 19% / 17% {+2%}
- Jack Conway 19% / 18% {+1%}
- Dan Mongiardo 25% / 37% {-12%}
Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?
- Approve 35%
- Disapprove 59%
Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?
- Support 28%
- Oppose 62%
Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Steve Beshear’s job performance?
- Approve 36%
- Disapprove 39%
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mitch McConnell’s job performance?
- Approve 48%
- Disapprove 41%
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Jim Bunning’s job performance?
- Approve 29%
- Disapprove 44%
Survey of 1,199 Kentucky voters was conducted December 18-21. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 52% Democrat; 38% Republican; 11% Independent. Political ideology: 45% Conservative; 43% Moderate; 13% Liberal.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGcaaJRK868[/youtube]
There was quite a dust up on this site yesterday over Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith’s defection to the GOP and Erick Erickson’ subsequent call for Griffith to be defeated in the primary. For those of you who were involved in that heated debate, you will remember that my position was that Griffith is welcome in the GOP but that Erickson is entitled to his opinion and that there are already solid, well-funded Republican candidates in the race. Hence, the question is not whether we should or should not demand a primary challenge to Rep. Griffith, but whether or not we should reward him by forcing other candidates out of the GOP primary – and whether loyal Republicans are under an obligation to endorse Griffith in the primary.
I contended we should not clear the field, and that no such obligation exists. And after the argument concluded, I decided to see who the two other candidates were. One is County Commissioner Mo Brooks, who has a decent-if-unprofessional campaign site, but disturbed me with the fact that he literally copied his campaign art and slogan from Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. The other is businessman and former Navy fighter pilot Les Phillip, who is running a very professional, very well-funded campaign and has already received the endorsement of Mike Huckabee (who delivered a major speech on Phillip’s behalf in September).
Indeed, as a powerful orator, a veteran, and a black Republican running in the Deep South - Phillip seemed likely to be one of the national GOP’s marquee candidates in 2010. I’m certainly impressed with both the man and the campaign he has put together, and Gov. Huckabee went so far follow up a Phillip speech by calling it ”a magnificent address not only by a future Alabama congressman, but by one of our national leaders in the Republican Party for a long time to come.”
Phillip said yesterday that he is staying in the race, and I for one am leaning heavily toward supporting him – not because I have any particular desire for Parker Griffith’s head, but because I think Les Phillip is an absolutely stellar candidate.
So, now that we have put a face on this issue, can anyone here say with a straight face that we should dump this guy in order to placate Parker Griffith? Judging by the operation he’s put together, I would not be surprised if he entered the primary as the favorite – and until yesterday morning he seemed poised to become one of the national stars of the 2010 campaign.
As I have said multiple times, Parker Griffith is welcome in our party – and if he can get by Les Phillip in a competitive primary then he will have earned my respect. However, if you’re asking me to dump a star candidate and a future national leader, force him out of the primary, and disown any Republican that dares support him , the answer is HELL NO.
Nobody has to manufacture a bloody primary for Parker Griffith – Parker Griffith jumped head-first into an already-strong primary field by switching parties. If there hadn’t been stong candidates in the race, perhaps I would feel differently. However, I think it would be ridiculously undemocratic and counterproductive give Phillip the axe just so that Griffith doesn’t have to deal with an uncomfortable primary. The democratic process is already well underway in Alabama’s 5th District – and far be it from us to stop that process from going forward.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v3HY5FQ850[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThRaJBz_n48[/youtube]
Quinnipiac National Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
- Approve 46% {46%} (48%) [50%] {50%} (57%) [59%]
- Disapprove 43% {44%} (42%) [41%] {42%} (33%) [31%]
Among Independents
- Approve 41% {37%} (43%) [45%] {45%} (52%) [57%]
- Disapprove 46% {51%} (46%) [44%] {45%} (37%) [30%]
Among Men
- Approve 42% {42%} (44%) [46%] {45%} (54%) [54%]
- Disapprove 49% {50%} (47%) [45%] {46%} (38%) [36%]
Among Women
- Approve 50% {51%} (52%) [54%] {54%} (59%) [64%]
- Disapprove 38% {38%} (37%) [36%] {38%} (29%) [26%]
Among Whites
- Approve 38% {38%} (41%) [42%] {43%} (51%) [52%]
- Disapprove 50% {51%} (49%) [48%] {48%} (39%) [37%]
Among Blacks
- Approve 91% {89%} (89%) [93%] {91%} (94%) [93%]
- Disapprove 5% {6%} (6%) [3%] {8%} (0%) [2%]
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?
- Approve 46% {46%} (49%) [49%] {52%}
- Disapprove 44% {45%} (42%) [37%] {38%}
Among Independents
- Approve 43% {42%} (45%) [46%] {49%} (54%)
- Disapprove 48% {51%} (49%) [42%] {41%} (37%)
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?
- Approve 47% {45%} (38%) [42%]
- Disapprove 43% {45%} (49%) [40%]
Among Independents
- Approve 44% {43%} (30%) [41%]
- Disapprove 45% {47%} (57%) [43%]
Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
- Doing the right thing 51% {57%} (48%) [52%]
- Should not be involved 41% {35%} (41%) [37%]
Among Democrats
- Doing the right thing 39% {47%} (31%) [38%]
- Should not be involved 52% {46%} (58%) [49%]
Among Republicans
- Doing the right thing 68% {71%} (68%) [72%]
- Should not be involved 27% {21%} (22%) [21%]
Among Independents
- Doing the right thing 51% {58%} (51%) [56%]
- Should not be involved 40% {34%} (39%) [35%]
Among Men
- Doing the right thing 62% {66%} (52%) [61%]
- Should not be involved 33% {29%} (39%) [32%]
Among Women
- Doing the right thing 41% {49%} (44%) [45%]
- Should not be involved 48% {41%} (43%) [41%]
Among Whites
- Doing the right thing 57% {62%} (53%) [57%]
- Should not be involved 36% {31%} (35%) [32%]
Among Blacks
- Doing the right thing 34% {42%} (25%) [34%]
- Should not be involved 55% {50%} (67%) [55%]
Survey of 1,616 registered voters was conducted December 15-20. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 1-6 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 9-16 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 29 – October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 3 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 23 – 29 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 26 – June 1 are in square brackets.
The switch of Rep. Parker Griffith (Alabama) to the Republican Party recalled a couple things to my mind.
First of all, what came to mind was a post by Larry Sabato in which he analyzed how conservative the Blue Dog Democrats were and found that most weren’t all that different from the rest of their caucus:
At the end of the day, contrary to the current media narrative, over two-thirds of Blue Dogs solidly support the Democratic agenda, with 36 of the 52 members voting the party line on over 90 percent of the time. In fact, only three Blue Dogs (Gene Taylor, with a 78 percent party voting score; Bobby Bright, AL-2, with 71 percent; and Walt Minnick, ID-1, with 68 percent) vote with the party on less than 80 percent of votes.
Where does Parker Griffith fall in this scale. The Washington Post puts his party unity score at 84.5% about 9% less than the average Democrat. And not all those votes were entirely meaningless as Andy Roth chronicles:
Griffith’s voting record is far from conservative, too. Granted, he voted against the Big 4 – Obama’s first budget, the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and ObamaCare. However, his vote on the budget is slightly deceptive since he originally voted for 9 of the 12 spending bills that make up the budget. And he voted against all the Stimulus amendments that would reduce its size.
But just a quick perusal of 2009 shows that he voted YES on the 2009 pork-filled Omnibus; YES on Cash for Clunkers,NO on waiving the harmful Davis-Bacon provision, and had a pathetic 0% score on the 2009 RePORK Card.
So, with Griffin, we have a pro-pork moderate Congressman, and as the NRCC reminded us in 2008, he has some naivete on the issue of terrorism:
Daniel Foster at the Corner dug up this video along with an accompanying story from the Politico:
Democratic State Senator Parker Griffith has been under fire in recent weeks for comments made to a local Baptist association in which he suggested radical Islam isn’t a threat to the U.S. “We have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam,” Griffith said, according to an audio tape made of his appearance. Adding insult to injury, Griffith had already pointed a finger at American culture: “I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its materialism,” he said.
While I agree materialism’s a problem, ignoring radical Islam is naive. The second thing this whole incident reminds me of is Congressman Greg Laughlin, a Democratic Congressman who switched parties in 1996 only to lose the Republican Primary. It can happen.
And Republicans have a great candidate. Someone’s who has been a Republican for years, as opposed to hours. Les Philip is young, Black, and Conservative, the type of person most Republicans would avow we need in Congress. Exactly why should the rug be pulled out from beneath Philip to make room for a guy who just realized his lifetime affiliation with the Democrats was about to cost him his career? This is why we have primaries.
If Parker Griffin is the Republican Nominee, then I will fully support him. (As much as I fully support Congressional Candidates in Alabama.) But it’d be downright pathetic if a district that went for McCain by double digits would elect a pro-pork Republican who voted with the Democrats 84% of the time.
In other notes:
