According to Gateway Pundit, Illinois gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski announced at a rally today that an internal poll, conducted by a DC-based conservative group, showed him surging to within two percentage points of the lead (inside the margin of error).

Now – the standard disclaimer here is that this is and INTERNAL poll and that the results have not actually been released (expecting that tomorrow). However, I would guess that this is probably an accurate picture considering all of the dynamics that I’ve seen in this race.

For one, the last two polls showed Andrzejewski at 11% – which is itself a significant up-tick from polls the preceding weeks showing him in single digits. So, we know he was going up.

Second, Andrzejewski has been running rings around the other candidates in the national conservative online media – appearing on Andrew Napolitano’s web TV show and drawing glowing hagiographies at The American Spectator, BigGovernment, RedState, and other prominent blogs. In a GOP primary in the dead of winter – we expect a more informed and active electorate.

Third, all recent polling has showed a huge chunk of undecided voters (17% according to PPP). Andrzejewski has the most late momentum and should pick up late deciders. Furthermore, most of the undecideds I’ve seen on the blogs are either Tea Partiers trying to decide between tea-friendly candidates Andrzejewski and Dan Proft – or downstate conservatives  trying to decide between Andrzejewski and Bill Brady. Proft has languished in last place in all polls AND almost the entire Illinois Tea Party apparatus has endorsed Andrzejewski. Therefore I expect tea-drinking wafflers to pick Andrzejewski. Brady has shown strength recently, but that was before Andrzejewski’s online surge. So, I’m  expecting Brady’s support to tick down (Brady people like Adam a lot but just didn’t think he was competitive) and Brady-Andrzejewski wafflers to settle on Adam.

Fourth – the wheels are coming off the Jim Ryan campaign according to the last numbers, which showed Ryan sinking like a rock. A lot of Ryan’s people may have bled to McKenna or Dillard – but Ryan is really attacking McKenna, so further bleeding may not be in that direction, and Dillard is taking a LOT of hits for his appearance in an Obama campaign ad. So – not expecting much momentum from either Dillard, Ryan, or McKenna. All of these three are having issues, and McKenna will be ther only one with any potential upward movement (moving up slowly and only by virtue of his ability to buy LOTS of TV ads)

Fifth - according to RedState, the last debate turned into a five-on-one attack session against Andrzejewski. If Andrzejewski were not gaining quickly in THE OTHER CAMPAIGNS’ internals, then they would have trained more fire on Brady and McKenna. Since they ALL treined fire on Andrzejewski, that would be a sign that he’s an emerging threat.

So – I’m expecting to see Moneybags McKenna hold a slim lead when Andrzejewski releases his numbers, with Brady falling into a competitive third behind Andrzejewski and Proft and Ryan both collapsing. I’m also expecting the numbers to continue rolling Adam’s way as we head into a big upset on Tuesday.

Alas, university culture is often as crazy as the stereotypes one hears. This is my latest column for the American University Eagle.

===

Hearing the complaints of college students, one might imagine himself to have wandered into the ghettoes. Now, it may be confusing at first glance to think that one of the most expensive universities in the country harbors anyone other than the luckiest twenty-year-olds on Earth — or, in their own words, the most ‘privileged’ — but this is silly talk. To understand the collective psyche of university political culture, one has to realize that one walks among the oppressed, the damned, the downtrodden.

Most of us who have managed to remain grounded in something resembling sanity are familiar with someone who walked into college a political moderate and emerged as a radical one year later. It’s inevitable, really. From the second the freshman stumbles onto campus, he is introduced to one million and one reasons why he should feel slighted by fate. The mild-mannered DLC Democrat is transformed into a postmodern radical once he learns that the world is out to get him; the mainstream liberal woman becomes a “radical queer feminist” once she understands that she is about to get raped (if not physically, metaphorically). The vicious offenders at hand — The Man? — are everyone and no one; the problem is is “institutional,” not anyone’s fault in particular. (Huh?)

For some bizarre reason inexplicable by standard logic, people want to be victims. When I explain the statistical fallacies of feminist grievances, one would think that this would be a relief to the activists, but, well, it’s not. Example: It is objectively incorrect to claim that women make twenty-five cents fewer than men for the same work. It is not a “debate.” One side is correct and the other side is incorrect. The figure at hand is obtained by averaging the annual incomes of all men and comparing the result to the average income of all women, the problems of which should be obvious to anyone who has ever taken STAT-202 — or has a functioning brain. Shouldn’t the proper response to such a revelation be “Oh, I didn’t realize that. Thank you for clearing that misconception up”?

Alas, that would remove the impetus to march. One must understand that campus activists are not fighting for social justice, but for ice cream socials. Campus activists stand for the interests of campus activists, not of the oppressed. Pinatas are constantly being constructed to hit: smash them and your guilt gets relieved! Feminists march for “a world without rape” because they know — as well as everyone who witnesses their march — that a world without rape is impossible. But this assures that their club — and their grievances — will never perish. The war against human nature doesn’t end. (On second thought, concealed-carry laws would assure that rape is at least improbable, but feminists hate guns, the one Great Equalizer of the sexes.)

The grievance lobbies are interlinked. Queers and Allies advertises the coming of the president of La Raza, Women’s Initiative sponsors S&M seminars with Queers and Allies. But little gets done for people who have real problems. More money is spent on gaudy drag shows and the trashy Vagina Monologues than on education — the one thing that can actually improve people’s lives. The rationalizations that they make — “it raises awareness!” — are as cynical as they are transparent. I might — might! — have a modicum of respect for them if they just came out and admitted that this is a giant charade to allow them immerse themselves in identity-based subcultures. That’s no evil in itself. But please, please, let’s stop this patronizing nonsense about “social justice” being the impetus behind the recreation.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com.

Since November 5, 2008, I have criticized Fox News for jumping off the deep end in its criticisms of the Obama administration and for going from relatively “Fair & Balanced” to unprofessional, over-the-top and reactionary. However, I must now applaud Fox for nailing the Obama administration on its recent no-bid contract with a Democratic campaign contributor. Why? Because the administration has decided to cancel its contract with the donor’s company, and put the contract out to bid. Kudos to Fox for being the first major news network to call out the administration on this- after all, President Obama criticized no-bid contracts on the campaign trail and after being elected as President- but also, most importantly, because such contracts are another symbol of the collusion between government and business that happens far too much in Washington. It was wrong under President Bush, and it is wrong under Obama. As a news source, Fox did its job. Furthermore, as a watchdog of the government (which all press should be), Fox also did its job.

Regarding the cancellation of the contract, though, I have a couple of questions. First, should the administration have canceled this particular contract after signing it? Whether it’s good, ethical business or not, conservatives have rightly gone after the Obama administration for not honoring the rule of law and contracts with General Motors investors. In this case, the contract was already signed. It was unethical for the administration to assign a no-bid contract to this contractor, but it wasn’t illegal. Additionally, the donor and company owner, Vincent V. Checch, told Fox that he did now know it was a no-bid contract until after it was awarded to his company. Since we have no evidence to corroborate or contradict Checch’s statement on the matter, can we assume he did nothing wrong? Or is that naive, considering that sweetheart deals are given as easily as candy in Washington, DC?

Longer-term, what solutions should conservatives offer to prevent no-bid contracts, especially as tit-for-tat campaign and donor trade-offs? Should we allow this breach of ethics this one time, and then try to pass a law limiting how contracts can be handled? Or, better yet, pass a constitutional amendment banning no-bid government contracts? Or, perhaps, shrink the size of government (by getting out of Iraq, for one) so that fewer contracts are signed while passing a constitutional amendment or law banning no-bid government contracts? After all, laws are well and good, but taking away the opportunity for corruption and ethics violations- through transparency and lessening the size and scope of government- would be even more effective.

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

Senate Democrats vote to increase America’s debt limit to $14.3 billion. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Obama touts 50 green jobs created at $2 million a piece. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)

Obama Administration gives $26 million no-bid contract to top Democrat donor.

Washington considers law letting Planned Parenthood design regulations for pregnancy centers.  (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)

Alaskans to vote on parental consent.

China’s one child policy leads to “missing girls.”

Arne Duncan speaks truth on New Orleans education. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Pro-life told to remove her pin before entering a federally funded museum exhibit.

German homeschoolers awarded asylum. (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)

School requires parental permission to watch movie challenging Global Warming but not for watching Inconvenient Truth or getting an abortion. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)

Mobster runs criminal empire on Facebook from prison.

Music by Elmen Authement via Music Alley

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I was wondering how Saturday Night Live was going to handle Scott Brown…and they came up with a doozy.

Host Jon Hamm was SPOT ON as Senator-elect Brown – and loved Bill Hader as Robert Byrd (sketch also features Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank) .

Caution to SoCons: this sketch draws heavily on certain things Scott Brown did in the early 1980′s and definitely qualifies as “off color”.

SurveyUSA New York Poll on 9/11 Terror Trials

Should the September 11 terror trials be held in Lower Manhattan? Or should they be held somewhere else?

• Lower Manhattan 23%
• Somewhere else 69%

Should the September 11 terror suspects be tried in a civilian court? Or a military court?

• Civilian court 26%
• Military court 69%

Survey of 500 adults in the New York City metropolitan area was conducted January 29, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

PPP (D) Alaska Political Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 47%
• Unfavorable 45%

Among Independents

• Favorable 36%
• Unfavorable 55%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 78%
• Unfavorable 15%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 24%
• Unfavorable 74%

Among Men

• Favorable 50%
• Unfavorable 42%

Among Women

• Favorable 44%
• Unfavorable 49%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Sean Parnell’s job performance?

• Approve 58%
• Disapprove 19%

Among Independents

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 20%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mark Begich’s job performance?

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 51%

Among Independents

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 56%

Among Independents

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 49%

Survey of 710 Alaska voters was conducted January 27-28, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 50% Independent; 32% Republican; 18% Democrat.

Meant to put this up last night, but things didn’t work out like I planned s0….

-Fox News Chicago put up video of the entire Walesa speech – I love this guy!

- ABC 7 did a full video report on Andrzejewski and his rally of “far right” supporters – but conveniently left Walesa entirely out of the story (one of the more ridiculous acts of yellow journalism I’ve seen recently). Although – in their defense – they did post a separate article on their website about Walesa (no video on the news though)

-Chicago Sun-Times labels the GOP nomination “up for grabs” in the wake of Walesa.

Okay, okay, I apologize for the corny title, but I’ve become rather fed up with Obama and the media perpetuating the “Party of No” meme about the GOP. As Gov. Palin noted yesterday, House Republican Leader John Boehner presented the President with a comprehensive compilation of alternative solutions. As stated on the House GOP website, the list includes:

• The GOP Healthcare Alternative provides affordable access to all Americans, instead of mandating a one-size-fits-all health system;

• The American Energy Act promotes affordable energy, more well-paying jobs, energy independence, and a cleaner environment;

• The GOP No-Cost Jobs Plan stops wasteful spending and tax hikes, helps small businesses, and removes unnecessary barriers to American energy production.;

• The GOP Budget controls the national debt, does not raise taxes, and achieves lower deficits than the President’s.

People can disagree with the specifics of the proposals, but the fact of the matter remains that Republicans have indeed striven to bring new proposals to the table, instead of simply rejecting the Democrats’ policies. Now, if only the media would tell both sides of the story…

I just saw this image on Facebook:

While Wikipedia views obviously do not provide a complete representation of a candidate’s following, they do paint at least part of the picture. Adam’s campaign has peaked at just about the right time, with three more days until the Republican primary. If he does manage to secure the nomination (I feel more hopefully about this every day), prepare to see some fireworks in Illinois.

Special thanks go out to our own Adam Brickley, for once again showcasing his impeccable candidate-scouting skills and first alerting us to Andrzejewski’s candidacy way back in September.

Rasmussen Post-State of the Union Survey

During his first year in office, did President Obama accomplish most of the goals he set out to achieve?

• Yes 19%
• No 70%

Over the past year, have taxes been cut for 95% of working families in America?

• Yes 21%
• No 53%

Is it true that, “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again”?

• True 35%
• False 50%

Is it true that steps taken by the Obama Administration have created jobs for two million people who would otherwise be unemployed today?

• True 27%
• False 51%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 28-29, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

-R4’12 is pleased to publish an Op-ed from one of our second page contributors, Jon Keeling, AKA “DJ Tablesauce”-KL

_____________________________________________________________________________

Six months ago, there was a buzz around Ohio about the massive fundraising edge Gov. Ted Strickland had over John Kasich.

The Columbus Dispatch characterized Strickland’s 8-1 cash-on-hand advantage this way:

At this rate, you are bound to see Gov. Ted Strickland in 30-second TV spots next year far more than you’ll see his Republican rival, John Kasich.

But after Kasich reported raising 63% more than Strickland over the last six months of 2009, $4.55M to $2.8M, the newspapers have changed their tune.

The success by Kasich in the all-important money chase portends a competitive race through Election Day. Both candidates apparently will have the resources to saturate the airwaves and field huge grassroots operations.

Back in July, with Kasich only able to report a little over one month of fundraising totals, I reported on my blog, Third Base Politics, that the easiest way to gauge fundraising success in incumbent vs. challenger races as they begin is to determine how much each candidate pulled in per month.

At the last reporting period, Strickland was raising $416,000 per month.

And now? Strickland is up to a mere $466,000 a month. An improvement of only 12%.

For comparison, Kasich raised $467,000 last June, his first full month in the race. In other words, Kasich was raising more per month in his first month in the race than Strickland has averaged the entire 2nd half of 2009.

And now, Kasich is up to a whopping $758,333 a month – an improvement of 63%.

Now, if there is any “bad news” for Kasich supporters in this race, it’s that Strickland still has a $2.1 million cash-on-hand advantage.

However, if Kasich continues to outraise Strickland at a rate of nearly 3:2, at the end of the day Strickland may very well be the low man on the fundraising totem poll.

That’s almost too amazing to even consider possible. An incumbent Governor has every advantage in the world. A challenger coming in and absolutely obliterating an incumbent over the course six months nearly a year out from the election simply should not happen.

And yet, it did.

A few more random thoughts:

• Strickland’s campaign announced their numbers on Friday afternoon. And as we all know, if you want your coverage minimalized, you release it on a Friday afternoon. Interestingly enough, this is the second major campaign announcement in a row that was hidden in the news cycle; the first being the Governor’s campaign kickoff/Lieutenant Governor announcement occurring the same day as the Massachusetts Miracle that brought Scott Brown into the Senate. It says a lot that the first two major news stories of the Strickland campaign need to be strategically hidden from major media coverage.

• It’s common knowledge that the Ohio Democratic Party has essentially been carrying a large chunk of Strickland’s campaign expenses, thereby enabling his campaign to inflate their cash-on-hand number. Meanwhile, the Kasich campaign has been using their own funds to pay for campaign operations. How much longer can the ODP float their incumbent Governor?

• There isn’t a more significant datapoint that signifies how a race is trending than fundraising. If contributors are giving, they think you’re going to win. If they aren’t giving as much, things aren’t looking that good. The budget fiasco and polling numbers have severely damaged the Governor’s ability to fundraise. Meanwhile, Kasich has received glowing coverage and has become a symbol of the 2010 Republican Revolution.

With polls showing Kasich with a solid 8 point lead over Strickland and fundraising clearly favoring the GOP candidate, it’s clear that momentum has quickly swung to favor John Kasich.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Jon Keeling is the Editor of Third Base Politics, which was named one of Ohio’s best political blogs by the Washington Post, and can be followed on Twitter and Facebook.

In reality, this is less about Andrzejewski, and more about the miserable state of the American news media.

Lech Walesa, a genuine world hero, a man who did as much as anybody (right up there with Reagan and John Paul II) to bring down the Soviet empire, a winner (and deservedly so) of the Nobel Peace Prize, came to Chicago this week. He came here to endorse Adam Andrzejewski for governor, but the reason is irrelevant — this is an important person coming to our city, worth a bit of attention.

How did our leading papers treat the event? They pretty much ignored it. The Tribune ran (get this) an article from AP – seven sentences, 113 words. At least that’s what’s on their website, I have no idea if they mentioned it in the paper at all.

The event took place in the Loop, within a mile or two of the Tribune Tower, and they couldn’t send an intern over to cover it — they let AP cover an event in their city?

The Sun-Times had no news coverage of it at all, just a brief mention on a columnist’s blog.

If they are wondering why newspapers are seen as increasing meaningless to people who actually want news, this is a good example.

With that rant out of the way, please treat this as a Saturday open thread (Richard Murray, please come home!)

I am hosting a webinar this afternoon on how to use all of the exciting features on our future home, Rightosphere.com, this afternoon at 3pm EST. Originally, this was just going to be training for the frontpagers. But since our Page 2 contributors will have just as much opportunity to generate content and foster debate on the new site as the Page 1 writers, I decided it is best to invite anyone who would like to get a leg up on how to navigate the new site. Sorry about the short notice.

Here are the instructions on how to attend.

1. Go to LogMeIn.com and download their free software (you can always uninstall it as soon as we are finished.) This software will allow you to see my computer desktop as I demo the new site’s features.

2. Shoot me an email that you wish to attend at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com no later than 2pm EST.

3. Call in to our conference call so you can hear our discussion while I demo the site. The conference call numbers are:

-Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7200
-Participant Access Code: 900878#

If you haven’t signed up for the new site, please do so here.

I hope to speak with you all then!

EPIC-MRA Michigan Gubernatorial Survey

GOP Primary

• Mike Cox 32%
• Pete Hoekstra 25%
• Mike Bouchard 16%
• Rick Snyder 3%
• Tom George 2%
• Undecided 22%

Democratic Primary

• Denise Ilitch 23%
• Gary Peters 9%
• Andy Dillon 8%
• Virg Bernero 6%
• Dan Kildee 6%
• Bart Stupak 6%
• Bob Bowman 2%
• Tony Early 2%
• Undecided 38%

Gubernatorial Election

• Mike Cox 48%
• Denise Ilitch 30%

• Mike Cox 47%
• Andy Dillon 30%

• Mike Cox 50%
• Virg Bernero 28%

• Pete Hoekstra 42%
• Denise Ilitch 35%

• Pete Hoekstra 40%
• Andy Dillon 32%

• Pete Hoekstra 45%
• Virg Bernero 27%

Job Approval

Barack Obama

• Approve 41% {48%} (48%) [57%]
• Disapprove 58% {51%} (48%) [42%]

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 57% percent of the vote in Michigan.

Jennifer Granholm

• Approve 32% {33%} (32%)
• Disapprove 68% {66%} (68%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Bouchard 33% / 10% {+23%}
• Mike Cox 41% / 20% {+21%}
• Pete Hoekstra 30% / 12% {+18%}
• Bart Stupak 19% / 9% {+10%}
• Denise Ilitch 19% / 10% {+9%}
• Dan Kildee 11% / 4% {+7%}
• Barack Obama 50% / 44% {+6%}
• Rick Snyder 7% / 2% {+5%}
• Andy Dillon 14% /11% {+3%}
• Gary Peters 12% / 9% {+3%}
• Virg Bernero 7% / 4% {+3%}
• Bob Bowman 6% / 3% {+3%}
• Tom George 6% / 3% {+3%}
• Tony Early 3% / 2% {+1%}
• Jennifer Granholm 39% / 58% {-19%}

Survey of 600 registered voters was conducted January 24-26, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. For matchups in the Democratic and Republican primaries, 400 respondents, margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 11-15, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted in September 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted in June 2009 are in brackets.

Former NYC Mayor also berates Barry for bad manners during SOTU; chastises CinC for baseless criticism of SCOTUS. Rousing response for Hizzoner in SLC prompts Cavuto to raise prospect of Rudy-Romney technocratic ticket in 2012.

Rasmussen Florida Gubernatorial Survey

• Bill McCollum (R) 46% {44%} [46%] (42%)
• Alex Sink (D) 35% {39%} [35%] (34%)
• Some other candidate 5% {5%} [5%] (7%)
• Not sure 13% {12%} [15%] (18%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill McCollum 53% {54%} [49%] (53%) / 30% {30%} [31%] (25%) {+23%}
• Alex Sink 39% {45%} [41%] (50%) / 34% {31%} [30%] (32%) {+5%}

How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 10% {9%} [13%] {17%} (15%)
• Somewhat approve 41% {43%} [36%] {42%} (45%)
• Somewhat disapprove 30% {25%} [29%] {21%} (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 17% {20%} [20%] {19%} (16%)

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

• Strongly approve 25% {29%} [29%] {27%} (32%)
• Somewhat approve 17% {15%} [13%] {15%} (14%)
• Somewhat disapprove 11% {9%} [11%] {10%} (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 47% {46%} [47%] {47%} (38%)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 14, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 20, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 22, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

McCollum picks up 75% of the GOP vote and leads by 21 among voters not affiliated with either party. Sink has support from 65% of Democrats.

The Boston Globe sat down with Scott Brown. Here are some highlights:

First, his comments on Mitt Romney:

“He’s changed, he’s changed. You know, he’s actually — before he was an outsider coming in and he was, you know, kind of, you know, stiff. But he’s actually, like, funny, he’s like — when he was at my events he was cracking jokes, when we were on the bus — I was like, who is this guy? He’s really kind of, I think, settled into his role kind of being the elder statesman of the party and everything he went through as president. It’s kind of, and once again it’s my opinion but he’s really a different guy than I knew when he was here, and I certainly appreciate everything he did for me. And it wasn’t a lot, he was just there as the initial — you know, ‘here’s a check, go get em!’ And that says a lot, you know, when I signed my contract with the team, you know — I worried about, how am I gonna pay for this? And he was one of the first guys that helped me towards that obligation. And I remember those people who took a chance.”

Three things come to mind. First, he is impressed by how much more relaxed and “cool” Mitt is now. Second, his acknowledgment of Mitt’s help. Third, look at all the “you knows”, “likes”, etc. When was the last time you saw such an unedited transcript from the Boston Globe for a Democrat? President Barack “Where’s my teleprompter” Obama is terrible at off-the-cuff remarks, yet the Globe duly cleans up for him. But Senator Elect Brown shouldn’t feel bad. It’s the same treatment or lack thereof that Sarah Palin gets, too. The upside is that it makes him seem all the more “real”.

Second, his response to the question if he had planned to use that “people’s seat” line:

“No, no. The trigger — I had said it before, in passing. Yeah, I had said it before, but I didn’t plan like, ‘OK, how can I work this in?’ But just when I was backstage speaking to him [David Gergen], he didn’t like really even know who I was. It was like, ‘Yeah, I’m here.’ ‘Yeah, OK, thanks Scott, good to meet you.’ I was kinda like, ‘I’m the nominee for the United States Senate!’ And then when he was like, I just felt that he was like, he didn’t know about me, he didn’t know a lot about the issues, and everyone, everyone always says, it’s the Kennedy seat, Kennedy seat, Kennedy seat, and I’m like it’s not, it’s not, it’s not. So that’s it, it just kind of came out. I had used it before but not at length. I didn’t say it much.”

So his most memorable quote was unplanned and essentially off the cuff. Not bad, not bad at all.

And finally, when asked about the friendly, non-partisan reception he has received so far (emphasis mine):

“Yeah, it’s refreshing. People have told me who are down there that there’s a whole new way of thinking now that people know that if they keep doing things like they are they’re vulnerable in the next election. And maybe that’s gonna make them say you know what? OK, we had the 60-40 thing — they’re almost relieved that there’s not the 60-40 thing anymore because now they can kinda just — they don’t have to all be 60 and all be 40 — now once in a while you can be 60, once in a while you can be 40, so it’s a little different.”

Obama may refuse to bow to political reality, but his fellow Democrats who are up for reelection this year are thinking hard about it.

From The Note;

The Republican Party steered clear of passing a so-called “purity test” proposed by a handful of conservative members of the Republican National Committee and instead passed a toothless watered-down resolution that “urges” Republican Party leadership to consider a candidate’s record and statements and fidelity to the party platform before providing financial support or an endorsement.

In the wake of the special House race in upstate New York last November where the Republican Party candidate DeDe Scozzafava found her campaign derailed by conservatives, several RNC members proposed the idea of passing a resolution where GOP candidates would have to agree to eight out of 10 stated policy positions before being eligible for support from the RNC.

The proposal, initially drafted by Indiana national committeeman James Bopp, was met with strong resistance by state party chairs concerned about such a one-size-fits-all approach.  This week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made clear that he, too, opposed the proposed resolution.

That sent members of the RNC scrambling to come up with an alternate proposal that could win the support of the full national committee. At a time when Republicans are feeling bullish about capitalizing on their victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts at the start of this midterm election year, nobody seemed interested in putting the intra-party rift on full display.

Bopp attempted to paint the watered down alternative that passed by unanimous voice vote today as a more stringent requirement for Republican candidates, but the language of the adopted resolution makes clear that there is no binding litmus test in place for a candidate to garner Republican Party financial and political support.

After the vote, Oregon Republican Party Chairman Bob Tiernan and Bopp got into what became a heated exchange over the resolution.

“I would say read the resolution,” Tiernan said. ”It says what it says.  It is a suggestion, it’s common sense, we do stick to our principles, but there’s nothing mandatory down there, there’s nothing required. I am a chairman and I’m not going to take that back and make my candidates sign it.  That’s ridiculous.  We rejected the litmus test today.”

Bopp quoted from the resolution: “This is binding, you are to determine — determine — that the candidate wholeheartedly supports the core principles.”

When Tiernan again asserted that there is nothing binding in what passed today, Bopp told him to “shut up.”

Republicans may have avoided a divisive purity test for their candidates today, but it clearly doesn’t mean that the differences among and between party loyalists have disappeared, no matter how good the political climate is for them right now.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at kristofer.lorelli@rightOsphere.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

This is Mitt Romney being interviewed while the vote for Ben Bernanke was taking place.

He covers a number of topics about the economy: Bernanke, TARP, the “stimulus” bill, and ObamaCare. He briefly mentions the election of Scott Brown and how Obama is refusing to recognize it for what it is. He talks of the lack of leadership in the Administration as they seek scapegoats instead of actually dealing with the problems.

One of the highlights for me was when he was speaking of TARP:

Well, it was the right thing to do. You know, I remember talking to Senator McCain — and he was in the middle of a presidential campaign — he said “Look, it is very bad politics to be for TARP. On the other hand, it’s the right thing for the country.”

And that’s why he voted for it. That’s why a lot of Republicans voted for it — they knew it was bad politics. But they also recognized that if we saw a cascade of bank failures — one after the other, after the other — that the entire free economy would grind to a halt in this country and probably in various places around the world.

We were on a precipice which, you know, now we can sit back and say “Oh, it wasn’t so scary.” Well, frankly, it was a very scary time for a lot of people. And that’s something which was resolved.

Another great point he made was when he said that Bernanke wasn’t perfect — he missed the housing bubble, but he kept the economy from collapsing — but he is far better than anyone else that Obama might appoint.

Conservatives who are anti-Bernanke should really keep that in mind. He may not be perfect, but would any of them expect Obama to appoint someone better?

This is probably the one thing Illinois gubernatorial candidate Kirk Dillard did NOT want to happen before Tuesday’s primary.

Just to jog your memory – when Obama says Dillard “said nice things about me”, he meant “starred in one of my campaign ads”.

So, unless I’m misreading the primary electorate – Kirk Dillard is currently watching in shocked horror as the President of the United States flushes his gubernatorial ambitions down the toilet. So, we can put more votes in the “undecided” column for Andrzejewski to snap up.

UPDATE: Great write up on the event from ABC 7 in Chicago. Lech joked that he won’t have to visit Gov. Andrzejewski in jail and commented on the chances of and upset victory, “Nobody gave us a chance to win over the communists. Nobody. And we proved them wrong”

—

Probably will get a lot more later -  but WJBC in McLean County, Illinois has posted the first publically released audio of Lech Walesa’s campaign appearance for Adam Andrzejewski. Only a 20 second clip, but a good 20 seconds.

You may have noticed the ads appearing within many posts for a group called TheTeaPartyIsOver.org. This is a group funded in large part by SEIU.

It is paid for by the American Public Policy Committee. Well, according to opensecrets.org, the two donors for American Public Policy Committee this year are Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West.

However, according to opensecrets.org, the 2nd largest contributor in 2008 to Patriot Majority was SEIU and other top Unions around America.  I imagine the diversion of Union money gets much deeper than this.

HT: HotAir

You spoke for over an hour to Congress about your agenda, and your cohorts in Congress are still confused.

A day after President Obama called on them to renew efforts to pass his ambitious agenda, congressional Democrats remained in disarray Thursday about how to move forward, with at least some pointing at the White House as the cause of the legislative standstill gripping Capitol Hill.

Democrats left town early Thursday weighing their next steps on everything from the stalled health-care bill to competing job-creation packages. Before they departed, some criticized Obama for casting blame on the Senate, where moderates felt singled out for ridicule. Others sought to shift the burden to the GOP, latching on to Obama’s call for Republicans to share responsibility for governing after a devastating special-election loss left Democrats a vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Still others said the president’s calls for bipartisanship were wishful thinking and suggested that daring Republicans to block their ambitious agenda would set up a “liberating” contrast for November’s midterm elections.

Do you wish to regale us again, Mr. President, with great paeans to your mighty leadership skills?

T-Paw’s Freedom First PAC has published its fundraising totals for the final three months of 2009:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of the early front runners for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, raised nearly $1.3 million for his political action committee in the final three months of 2009 from more than 2,750 donors, according to papers to be filed with the Federal Election Commission this weekend.

The figures, impressive in the early going for the 2012 nomination, highlights the organizational strength of Pawlenty’s political action committee, “Freedom First.”

…The committee spent nearly $400,000 during that period, including contributions to the campaign committees for Senator-elect Scott Brown, Rob Portman, Doug Hoffman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. and the Minnesota Congressional delegation.

By comparison, former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin’s PAC took in $732,000 during the first six months of 2009. She has yet to file her year-end report.

In the past few months, Pawlenty has also visited both Iowa and New Hampshire, two crucial early test states for presidential campaigns. Advisers say Pawlenty will not travel as much over the coming months because of the legislative session in Minnesota, where some have accused him of shirking responsibilities as the state’s governor while he mounts his presidential bid.

After spiking around the time the Governor announced the formation of the PAC, media coverage of his activities has died down as of late. Fortunately for him, this story should get some attention. People who ignore and write off Pawlenty do so at their own peril. With arguably the most impressive governing record of any potential 2012 candidate (considering context), top-notch skill for retail politics and blue-collar appeal, he could surprise a lot of people.

Here’s an excerpt from an article about the stimulus package, trying, in essence, to justify it.

The White House typically invites Americans to sit with the president’s spouse in an elevated box overlooking the floor of the House; presidents typically point to the seats and discuss the guests’ stories. Obama will do likewise, when he calls attention to people sitting with his wife, Michelle Obama, in the gallery.

Take Tina Dixon, a former stay-at-home mom whom Obama met when he visited a jobs training site in Allentown, Pa., that received funding from the economic stimulus package.

Or Dan Karner, the chief of an Arizona company that received $99 million from the stimulus bill, which helped him create at least 50 permanent clean energy jobs and saved others.

Using the advanced mathematical technique of plugging $99,000,000 into a calculator and dividing it by 50, that comes out to about two million dollars to create one job.

h/t Ann Coulter

Some atheists are intent on having no friends outside their small community, according to Fox:

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring “individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings.”

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the “darker side” of Mother Teresa.

The stamp — set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa’s 100th birthday — will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.

“Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years,” the Postal Service said in a press release. “Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations.”

But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.

//

“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did,” Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

“In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith,” Betts told FoxNews.com.

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure,” she said.

“And he’s not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific.”

Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an “anti-abortion rant” during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.

“There was criticism by the end of her life that she turned what was a tiny charity into an extremely wealthy charity that had the means to provide better care than it did,” Gaylor said. “…There’s this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian, and I think many people would differ that what she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn’t have a secular purpose for a stamp.”

But the Postal Service said the commemorative stamp has nothing to do with Mother Teresa’s religion.

“Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she’s being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief,” Betts told FoxNews.com.

“Her contribution to the world as a humanitarian speaks for itself and is unprecedented,” he added.

Some atheists, too, spoke out against the group’s objections, including Bruce Sheiman, author of “An Atheist Defends Religion.” He said the Freedom from Religion Foundation is being “hypocritical” and really “stepping over the line.”

“Clearly there are a number of things that you can point to and say it’s religious and a number of things you can point to and say that it’s areligious,” Sheiman told FoxNews.com. “So it really doesn’t make sense to protest it.”

He said the Foundation’s campaign stems from concern that the abundance of humanitarian work done by believers will overshadow that done by atheists.

“Like billboards and bus ads, this is just part of the whole campaign that they’re doing to make non-belief more visible,” he said.

Gaylor said the foundation’s only concern is the “other things that deserve to be commemorated but are not because the people behind it didn’t have the power of the Catholic church.”

“It’s enormously difficult to get them,” she said, referring to commemorative stamps, “and people have huge campaigns, and to me this speaks of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in hierarchy.

“They want to make her a saint and this is part of the PR machine.”

The Foundation is encouraging its supporters to purchase the new stamp honoring the late actress Katharine Hepburn, who was an atheist, instead — or any of the other 2010 stamps, which include cartoonist Bill Mauldin, singer Kate Smith, filmmaker Oscar Micheaux, painter Winslow Homer and poet Julia de Burgos.

Betts said that despite the Foundation’s accusations and letter-writing campaign, “The response to Mother Teresa has been overwhelmingly in favor of this stamp.”

He said the Mother Teresa stamp, like other stamp subjects, will “stand the test of time, reflect the cultural diversity of our nation and have broad national appeal.”

With the rise of Tom Campbell in the polls and Carly Fiorina’s battle with cancer affecting her ability to campaign as vigorously as she would like to, it’s worrying to think that what I have been looking forward to for a year now may not come to fruition.

I have read Carly Fiorina’s memoir, Tough Choices, and I have watched her spar with Democrats on Sunday morning talk shows. I see in her the same qualities I see in my favorite leaders like Rudy Giuliani: a visceral loathing of bullies of all stripes, a willingness to make unpopular decisions with the long-run in mind, and the ability to stand up to entrenched interests.

Carly’s background is in philosophy, medieval history, management, and business administration. She has headed multiple companies and was, at one point, arguably the most powerful woman on Wall Street (although she has written that she loathes the fact that she was tagged as a “woman CEO” rather than simply a CEO). While business outlets have given her tenure at HP mixed reviews in hindsight — especially for her controversial merger of HP with Compaq — her philosophy of management shows that she’s unafraid to tell entrenched interests that things have to change. She stands up for controversial causes with vigor — watch her defend outsourcing (which she called, bluntly, “rightsourcing”) and you can see her articulation in action — and is unusually persuasive on television. Boxer’s campaign will attack her for the downsizing and stock decline that occurred under her watch — but Carly will run circles around her with her own side of the story.

Oh. And another thing: it can’t be simply written off as irrelevant that she has bottomless pockets. She can self-fund this race against Boxer, whose approval ratings have slipped below 50%. It will not only allow the national party to fund races elsewhere, but it will give us a leg up in fighting SENATOR Boxer.

Carly’s campaign has been less than amazing, so far. The “CarlyFiorina Dreaming” pun that originally adorned her website was called by some media outlets the worst campaign launch ever. But she is resilient and she is bold. Once this campaign gets into full gear, California ought to pick her.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Here’s Mitt’s appearance on Good Morning America yesterday where he responded to Obama’s SOTU address the night before.

My favorite part was when the questioner sneeringly asked Mitt if he really honestly thought that unemployment would have been better if John McCain had been elected. Mitt nailed him with solid facts and reasoning. The host immediately changed the subject.