One of the most interesting side-effects of seismic, sudden change within a society is that it almost always creates a counter-culture bent on either resisting the establishment’s efforts to exact that change or forcing the establishment to allow that change. The last major counter-cultural movement took place in the mid-20th Century. Then, a number of cultural changes — including the advent of the nuclear family, the rise of mass media, and the coming of age of a sizable generation in the Baby Boomers who lacked any psychological connection with pre-WWII, pre-Depression America and its traditions — resulted in a movement that led Americans to take to the streets in order to enact major societal changes that many Americans felt the establishment of the time was resisting. The cultural revolution that resulted changed the social landscape of the nation quickly, dramatically, and irreversibly.

A year ago, the Tea Party movement seemed like a motley crew of partisans and pseudo-secessionists, a vocal yet tiny minority of McCain/Palin voters who weren’t ready to peel the bumper stickers from their cars just yet. But since then, the Democratic government’s leftward movement combined with continued economic, fiscal, and international travails have caused the Tea Parties to go mainstream. All of the sudden, freedom is cool again. Ayn Rand’s books are flying off the shelves as a new counter-culture is born. Like the last significant counter-culture that our nation experienced, Tea Partiers are organized, raucous, and have an affinity for a good public demonstration. Unlike the Boomers of the ’60s, though, Tea Partiers are marching not for social progress, but for economic (and thus personal) freedom. As mainstream disaffecteds see the right to make their own medical decisions threatened, as they begin to fear a future in which they are taxed out of existence due to the unsustainable growth of government, and as the state and the nation’s large corporate interests, such as banks, auto manufacturers, and health insurance companies that are all “too big to fail,” start to become one and the same — bailed out with taxpayers’ money, protected from a true market with real competition, and made overlords of a new feudalism and a new road to serfdom — those same mainstream Americans who once looked at the Tea Partiers with smirks on their faces are now joining the party.

But is there a presidential candidate who embodies the principles of the Tea Partiers, with their opposition to big government, high taxation, debt and spending, and collusion between the state and too-big-to-fail institutions? The conventional wisdom is that Sarah Palin will be the Tea Party candidate in the GOP primaries, running as a symbol of rebellion against Obama and Obama-ism. I suspect that Palin will receive a significant amount of Tea Party support, and perhaps even become the favored candidate of Tea Partiers. But I also think that, should he choose to run, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson would give the Alaskan a run for her money amongst the disaffecteds and is a much more natural fit for the Tea Partiers inasmuch as Johnson, not Palin, is the candidate who is least like Obama in the race.

I would distinguish Gov. Palin and Gov. Johnson thusly: Sarah Palin is the Republican Obama, while Gary Johnson is the Anti-Obama. In other words, it is Palin who is the right-wing version of President Obama, while Johnson is the polar opposite of Obama in every way. Palin, like the president, was elected statewide once in one of her party’s base states. Both are in their 40s. Neither completed their first and only terms in office. Both became popular not for their positions, but for their charisma and because of their cultural cues, with Obama as the effete academic that liberals have always wanted as president, and Palin as the religious working-class hero that today’s conservatives want. Both champion a supposed new kind of politics, yet neither actually deviate from party orthodoxy on any major issues, with Obama’s presidency starting where LBJ’s left off and with Palin giving no indication that her presidency wouldn’t begin where Bush’s ended, complete with more tax cuts not paid for with spending cuts and vibrant neoconservatism. As such, Palin, while being a heroine of the anti-establishment, is viewed by many as a Trojan Horse of that very establishment that disaffecteds despise.

Gov. Johnson, meanwhile, comes out of the gate as a more mainstream version of Ron Paul, and he brings with him Paul’s mix of classical liberalism and classical conservatism. A two-term governor of a purple state, Johnson championed school vouchers and shifted Medicaid to managed care, all while advocating the de-criminalization of marijuana. Johnson is personally supportive of abortion remaining legal, but would send the decision on the issue back into the political process. On foreign policy, Johnson is opposed to continued U.S. involvement in the Middle East and believes that America should use its military only to advance U.S. interests. And Johnson, like the disaffecteds, opposes the recklessness that has led to our fiscal situation and believes that action must be taken to dramatically reduce deficits (one of Johnson’s claims to fame is his record of vetoing over one thousand spending items as governor).

If I’m reading Palin right, and it’s certainly possible that I am not, I suspect that she will run a traditional Republican campaign on tax cuts without spending cuts, on endless war in the Middle East, and on replacing Obama’s cultural bossiness with her own. In that sense, I would opine that it is Johnson, not Palin, who should be, and could be, the candidate of the disaffecteds. Obama and Palin will continue to run up the bill for future generations; Johnson would cut off the tab and pay it. Obama and Palin would regulate Americans’ lives “for their own good;” Johnson would pull back the state’s interference with individual autonomy. Obama and Palin will continue to use the military to modernize the Middle East; Johnson would use the military to defend the United States and her interests. Obama and Palin differ only regarding the values which they would promote via government; Johnson’s values are those of the classical liberal (the primacy of the individual) and of the classical conservative (realism, limits, thrift).

A perfect example of all of this can be found in the various candidates’ approach to the environment. Obama, of course, is a student of the left-wing school of thought that promotes enacting policies that benefit the environment even if the impact on humans is a negative one. Individual rights and economic growth then become less important than nature because, to leftists, nature should be revered as a deity. Sarah Palin’s response to Obama’s environmental policies, though, was striking inasmuch as while it rightly opposed the president’s plans, it still left the human will in bondage to the world around it. Palin’s “tweet” on the subject was as follows:

Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature’s ways.MUST b good stewards of God’s earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature

Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

I don’t necessarily disagree with the policy implications of this statement but the underlying ideology seems no different than Obama’s. To both Obama and Palin, man must submit to nature. That’s because to Palin, nature is under the control of a deity and, to Obama, nature is a deity. To both, man is a slave. And how does Gary Johnson approach the seemingly insurmountable obstacles of nature? He climbed to the top of Mount Everest. With a broken leg. Obama and Palin submit to nature. Gary Johnson conquers nature.

It’s possible that Johnson, like Ron Paul, will fade into the background as a quirky candidate whose views are unacceptable to the majority of Americans. In fact, it may even be probable that this will happen. But given the nature of today’s disaffecteds, given the things that are causing them to be disaffected, and given that the nation may be looking for a president who reminds them the least of President Obama in 2012, it shouldn’t be a foregone conclusion that Palin and not Johnson will capture the hearts of Tea Partiers everywhere. Johnson’s admiration for acts of the human will combined with his hardcore fiscal conservatism and foreign policy skepticism makes him a balanced fusion of classical conservatism and classical liberalism, while Obama is the antithesis of both of those things. If the Tea Party movement becomes about changing the underlying assumptions of government rather than simply replacing a left-wing version of it with a right-wing version, anything could happen.

Scott Brown believes that our laws are meant to protect this nation, not our enemies. You can help Scott Brown mobilize voters by signing up for our Call From Home Program.

UNH/Boston Globe Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

If the election for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for — Republican Scott Brown, Democrat Martha Coakley, or Independent Joe Kennedy? [WITH LEANERS]

• Martha Coakley (D) 53%
• Scott Brown (R) 36%
• Joe Kennedy (I) 5%

Among Those Extremely Interested in Election

• Scott Brown (R) 47%
• Martha Coakley (D) 47%
• Joe Kennedy (I) 2%

Among Those Who Have Definitely Decided to Vote

• Martha Coakley (D) 54%
• Scott Brown (R) 44%
• Joe Kennedy (I) 1%

Among Registered Independents

• Martha Coakley (D) 48%
• Scott Brown (R) 42%
• Joe Kennedy (I) 6%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Martha Coakley 61% / 26% {+35%}
• Scott Brown 44% / 25% {+19%}
• Joe Kennedy 11% / 21% {-10%}

Among Registered Independents

• Scott Brown 53% / 19% {+34%}
• Martha Coakley 54% / 33% {+21%}
• Joe Kennedy 13% / 18% {-5%}

Regardless of which candidate you plan to vote for, which candidate do you think will win the election for U.S. Senate?

• Martha Coakley 74%
• Scott Brown 11%
• Joe Kennedy 3%

As you may know, all of the representatives to the U.S. House and Senate from Massachusetts are Democrats. Do you think this is a problem for the people of Massachusetts?

• Yes, it’s a problem for Massachusetts 41%
• No, it’s not a problem for Massachusetts 56%

Among Those Extremely Interested in Election

• Yes, it’s a problem for Massachusetts 51%
• No, it’s not a problem for Massachusetts 47%

Among Those Who Have Definitely Decided to Vote

• Yes, it’s a problem for Massachusetts 45%
• No, it’s not a problem for Massachusetts 54%

The U.S. House and Senate have just passed overhauls of the nation’s health care system that they say will cover people without insurance and lower health care costs. Based on what you have seen or heard, do you favor or oppose the health care reform legislation that is going through Congress?

• Strongly favor 18%
• Somewhat favor 25%
• Somewhat oppose 10%
• Strongly oppose 26%

Among Registered Independents

• Strongly favor 12%
• Somewhat favor 25%
• Somewhat oppose 14%
• Strongly oppose 29%

Which candidate do you trust most to handle health care?

• Martha Coakley 51%
• Scott Brown 29%
• Joe Kennedy 5%

Among Registered Independents

• Martha Coakley 46%
• Scott Brown 35%
• Joe Kennedy 4%

Which candidate do you trust most to handle the War in Afghanistan?

• Martha Coakley 35%
• Scott Brown 34%
• Joe Kennedy 4%

Among Registered Independents

• Scott Brown 37%
• Martha Coakley 32%
• Joe Kennedy 3%

Which candidate do you trust most to handle the economy?

• Martha Coakley 42%
• Scott Brown 36%
• Joe Kennedy 3%

Among Registered Independents

• Scott Brown 44%
• Martha Coakley 36%
• Joe Kennedy 3%

Which candidate do you trust most to handle taxes and spending?

• Martha Coakley 42%
• Scott Brown 37%
• Joe Kennedy 5%

Among Registered Independents

• Scott Brown 44%
• Martha Coakley 36%
• Joe Kennedy 5%

Which candidate do you trust most to handle the environment and energy?

• Martha Coakley 48%
• Scott Brown 26%
• Joe Kennedy 6%

Among Registered Independents

• Martha Coakley 43%
• Scott Brown 32%
• Joe Kennedy 6%

Survey of 554 likely voters was conducted January 2-6, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points. Party registration breakdown: 36% Democrat; 13% Republican; 51% Independent.

PPP (D) Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown (R) 48%
• Martha Coakley (D) 47%

Among Independents

• Scott Brown (R) 63%
• Martha Coakley (D) 31%

Among Moderates

• Scott Brown (R) 49%
• Martha Coakley (D) 42%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott Brown 57% / 25% {+32%}
• Martha Coakley 50% / 42% {+8%}
• Democrats in Congress 33% / 55% {-22%}
• Republicans in Congress 21% / 59% {-38%}

Among Independents

• Scott Brown 70% / 16% {+54%}
• Martha Coakley 36% / 54% {-18%}
• Republicans in Congress 21% / 55% {-34%}
• Democrats in Congress 13% / 72% {-59%}

Among Moderates

• Scott Brown 62% / 21% {+41%}
• Martha Coakley 51% / 41% {+10%}
• Democrats in Congress 30% / 57% {-27%}
• Republicans in Congress 18% / 60% {-42%}

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

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 43%

Among Independents

• Approve 30%
• Disapprove 54%

Among Moderates

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 43%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 41%
• Oppose 47%

Among Independents

• Support 27%
• Oppose 59%

Among Moderates

• Support 38%
• Oppose 48%

Survey of 744 likely voters was conducted January 7-9, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 17% Republican; 39% Independent. Political ideology: 47% Moderate; 27% Conservative; 26% Liberal.

Inside the numbers:

Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state.

Beyond that 66% of Republicans say they’re ‘very excited’ about turning out while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment.

Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters.

Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama’s health care plan by a 47/41 margin and only narrowly express approval of the President’s overall job performance 44/43.

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”

Imagine if Sarah Palin had said it…

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized today for saying in 2008 that Barack Obama should seek — and could win — the White House because Obama was a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Obama quickly accepted, saying “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”

According to a new book, Reid made the comments in private during the long 2008 campaign, which elevated Obama from first-term Illinois senator to the first black president.

After excerpts from the book appeared on the website of The Atlantic, Reid released a statement expressing regret for “using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments.”

Oh, dear. It’s time for him to go. But not yet. He can go at the beginning of 2011, when Sue Lowden replaces him.

I’ve received two e-mails today from the Democrats concerning Scott Brown. One was from the Democratic National Senatorial Committee, and the other was from organizing America. They were stressing the importance of how Scott Brown would obstruct the agenda, and how “right-wing money” is making Scott Brown a contender.

They wouldn’t be doing this if she were a shoo-in. There’s something to this; she’s legitimately within single digits.

Keep an eye on the new polling…

As an addendum to my post the other day about the new IRS tax preparation regulations from The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carner:

President Obama did not voluntarily disclose the financial relationship.

Reporters didn’t ask.

Surely, MIT leaders knew, but they did not adequately inform us.

For months, The Boston Globe has known but has not reported it.

The Boston Globe on MIT economic Jonathon Grubar:

Gruber has not disclosed the details of his relationship with the administration in many instances and his failure to do so became the talk of Washington bloggers today, after news of his two contracts with the US Department of Health and Human Services first surfaced on the DailyKos and Politico. Gruber is being paid to analyze the costs and effects of various health reform proposals.

For example, he wrote an Op-Ed piece last month in the Washinton Post on a proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans and was quoted in an online Atlantic Monthly article in November, and in neither case was his tie to the administration disclosed. Gruber, however, did disclose his paid work for the administration in a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a phone interview with the Globe today, Gruber said that he never attempted to hide his government contracts and in fact disclosed them whenever he was asked by reporters. But he said he could only recall three or four instances in the past year when reporters even asked him whether he was under contract with the Obama administration…

Gruber disclosed to a Globe reporter last year that he was a consultant for the administration and the Globe has described him in stories as an advisor to the administration, but the details of his paid consulting work had not previously been reported.

______________________________________________________________

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 Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.

Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason-Dixon Nevada Senatorial Survey

If the 2010 Republican primary election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were:

• Danny Tarkanian 28% {24%} (21%) [33%]
• Sue Lowden 26% {25%} (23%) [14%]
• Sharron Angle 13% {13%} (9%) [5%]

If the 2010 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Harry Reid, the Democrat and Sue Lowden, the Republican?

• Sue Lowden 50% {51%} (49%) [45%]
• Harry Reid 40% {41%} (39%) [40%]

If the 2010 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Harry Reid, the Democrat and Danny Tarkanian, the Republican?

• Danny Tarkanian 49% {48%} (48%) [49%]
• Harry Reid 41% {42%} (43%) [38%]

If the 2010 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, for whom would you vote if the choice were between Harry Reid, the Democrat and Sharron Angle, the Republican?

• Sharron Angle 45%
• Harry Reid 40%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Danny Tarkanian: 33% {32%} (30%) / 16% {12%} (11%) {+17%}
• Sue Lowden: 32% {33%} (31%) / 17% {13%} (15%) {+15%}
• Sharron Angle 21% / 11% {+10%}
• Barack Obama 34% {44%} (46%) / 46% {43%} (43%) {-12%}
• Harry Reid: 33% {38%} (38%) [37%] / 52% {49%} (50%) [50%] {-19%}

Survey of 625 registered voters was conducted January 5-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. For the GOP primary, survey of 300 Republican voters has a 6% margin of error. Results from the poll conducted November 30 – December 2 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 6-8 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 17-18 are in square brackets.

Over the course of the race for 2008, I often quipped that I was “waiting for Perot” with regard to the dearth of a meaningful third party candidate in the race. The pun, of course, referenced the play, “Waiting for Godot,” which involved two characters waiting in vain for a third character (Godot) who never manages to show up. The Perot of 2008, I suggested, would fill the vacuum in a race between Bush Republicanism and a standard issue Democratic ticket by providing voters with a small-government, anti-war alternative. Had Ron Paul decided to run third party in 2008, he probably would have filled that void, though in the end, the market for a third party candidate dried up as Obama managed to present himself to the public as an ideologically amorphous managerial candidate whose claim to fame was that he wasn’t George W. Bush.

As we approach the race for 2012, the market for a third party candidate once again has the potential to develop depending on how things play out over the next couple of years as each major party struggles to find its voice in post-Clinton, post-Bush America. The Democrats appear to be moving decidedly leftward, embracing bigger government, more central planning, more debt, cultural bossiness on issues like the environment, and a traditionally liberal foreign policy. The GOP could go in a variety of directions in response to all of this, with its final destination yet to be determined. Republicans could go the conventional route and nominate a Sarah Palin, who will likely call for more tax cuts, social conservatism, and military involvement in the Middle East, thus making the Republican Party seem no better than the Democrats to the growing throngs of voters who want less government both at home and abroad. Or the GOP could nominate the candidate most dissimlar to President Obama in former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who, like Ron Paul, wants the U.S. out of the Middle East, and wants to scale back government in both the economic and cultural arenas. Or Republicans may decide to nominate a Romney to run from the center-right and talk both about modest tax cuts and modest deficit cuts, leaving an opening for a fire-breather to run third party.

As such, there are three potential major third party candidates that I can see rising in 2012. In the event of the nomination of a perceived mushy moderate — say, a Romney-style bean-counter — Sarah Palin would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by being the candidate who garners 12 percent of the vote by running on the “Tea Party” ticket. Should both parties nominate candidates who couldn’t care less about spending/debt/deficits and who fail to recognize the growing America-First sentiment within the general public, someone like Gary Johnson could easily run a more mainstream version of Ron Paul’s campaign and make a real splash in the general. Finally, should both John McCain and Joe Lieberman decide that their respective numbers are up when it comes to re-election to the U.S. Senate, these two larger than life personalities just may go for broke and launch an independent third party run regardless of the GOP’s choice of nominee in 2012.

This scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. Polling suggests that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth would give Sen. McCain a run for his money in a GOP primary for McCain’s Senate seat. And Lieberman’s dismal 25% approval rating in Connecticut makes retirement seem more likely than re-election. As such, these once and future presidential candidates, ever thorns in the side of their respective parties, may decide to go out not with a whimper, but with a bang.

The once and possibly future positions of McCain and Lieberman would allow the two to fill the void that will exist on many domestic issues should President Obama continue his current course and should Republicans nominate someone who insists on running using the GWB playbook. McCain’s past opposition to tax cuts, combined with Lieberman’s current opposition to ObamaCare, will allow the two to run as the eat-your-vegetables candidates on fiscal issues, promising to tackle the nation’s fiscal woes with serious action on spending, the deficit, and the national debt. This would create a stark contrast between the McCain/Lieberman independent ticket and the platforms of the two major parties, with Obama running as the tax-and-spend candidate and with Palin (or whoever) running as the tax-your-kids-and-spend candidate. The growing numbers of Americans sick of hearing giddy optimism from tax-cutting Republicans and entitlement-creating, nationalize-everything Democrats would respond well to the sobriety and prudence of a message that doesn’t involve kicking the can of fiscal ruin yet farther down the road.

On social issues, Obama has demonstrated that the supposed freedom-loving Democrats will run as the recycle-or-die party, and while social conservatives and libertarians have reached entente at present, a presidential campaign, complete with a few national issues that get under libertines’ skin, has the potential to cause a rift to resurface, which would create a market for a leave-me-alone third party. Neither McCain nor Lieberman are social libertarians, but both are especially hands-off when it comes to social issues, with neither demonstrating an interest in using government to advance his respective party’s social agenda.

The major stumbling block for McCain/Lieberman would be foreign policy and international issues. It’s hard to find a reason that a hawkish third party ticket would be needed when both major parties will likely be running on continued military involvement in the Middle East. And McLieberman has not exactly been the best friend of Lou Dobbs voters who may feel that neither party takes them seriously on immigration. The one opening I could see for McCain and Lieberman in this area would require Obama to preside over a series of foreign policy failures, and for the GOP to nominate a candidate not particularly well versed in military issues, thus making McCain seem like the obvious choice to lead the nation out of the mess. Further, if the Democrats pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2010, the issue will be taken off the table for the Arizonan.

The notion of two senators at odds with their respective parties, each nearing the end of his career, giving the establishment a run for its money via a third party presidential campaign may seem absurd. But stranger things have happened. Like Sen. McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, both of these maverick senators have long been defying the conventional wisdom. If the Democratic Party continues to lose the public trust, and if the Republican establishment insists on a traditional check-the-boxes Republican campaign, and if Obama’s approval rating continues to drop, and if blood continues to be spilled and treasure continues to be lost at home and abroad, all bets are off.

The Omaha World-Herald is reporting that:

The former Republican presidential contender is set to attend a noon fundraiser Feb. 23 for Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.

Bruning served as state chairman of Huckabee’s presidential campaign in 2008 and also campaigned for Huckabee in South Carolina. Bruning is currently running for his second term as Nebraska’s top prosecutor.

Attorney General Jon Bruning | Campaign Website

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

Here is the video of the interview. He spoke about Obamacare, it’s problems, and how it relates to MassCare. He talked terrorism and the response of the Obama Administration to the Undie-bomber. He talked about the economy and how to get it moving again.

In the last segment, he praised several Republicans by name. Sarah Palin was one of them. He mentioned the Massachusetts Senate race, and he talked a little about his future plans.

On that topic, he stated that he would have no serious discussions about running or not until after the November elections, maybe even not until next year. I believe the first part of that, but if you seriously believe he is going to wait until next year to discuss it, I’ve got some ocean-front property to sell you right here in Reno, Nevada.

Part #1

Part #2

All in all, a good interview.

In recent days, the public has received a clearer picture of what was known, and when, about the attempted Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his plot to destroy an American-bound airliner in its descent to Detroit. From the National Security Agency to the Central Intelligence Agency to the National Counterterrorism Center, pertinent information was scattered across the national security spectrum. While the Obama Administration has insisted there was no “smoking gun” prior to the attempted attack, the government report detailing the systematic breakdown highlighted the inability of the intelligence community to connect the dots on the suspect’s background and deadly intentions.

In fact, the report often cites the shortcomings of the government and the deficiencies of particular agencies, communities, or organizations in protecting the homeland. Yet, what the report does not remind its audience, and what is absent in the furor over the White House’s response to the terrorist plot, is that these institutions, no matter their power, are made up of error-prone individuals. Human systems, despite technological advances and computer intelligence, are inherently flawed and, thus, could be compromised. For all that has been done to establish a centralized federal government capable of intercepting, decoding, and making sense of valuable intelligence in the name of security, an all-knowing and efficient entity is not within reach. David Brooks of The New York Times put it this way in his column, “The God That Fails”:

Bureaucracies are always blind because they convert the rich flow of personalities and events into crude notations that can be filed and collated. Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity.

This is not to suggest that we give up or stop trying. For all the money expended on security measures, the public rightfully demands results (and they get them in the vast majority of cases). We should never cease in our efforts to improve our methods at the same time we remain aware of unavoidable holes in the net. Sadly, regardless of our preparations or the amount of money we dole out, perfection will never be achieved. As the old cliché goes, we must be forever vigilant and bat 1.000 when dire situations do arise. Those who wish to do us harm, however, need only succeed one to win.

Criticism is warranted, of course, when failures occur. The buck, as Obama channeled Harry Truman, stops with him. But the chattering classes’ incessant finger-pointing for the sake of finger-pointing is not synonymous with the useful tasks of delegating responsibility and placing blame. No one denies that public officials like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy National Security Adviser for Counterterrorism John Brennan now have to redouble their efforts to secure our interests and counter threats to the United States. Nevertheless, insisting that someone, anyone, be fired or forced to resign after the system is exposed for its weakness does not guarantee change. Substituting one official for another is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Whether it is an argument over the appropriate leadership and direction from Washington or airport regulations across the country, a reasoned and rational approach is not possible unless people understand who is running the Great Bureaucracy: Us, we, you and me—simple, imperfect human beings.

Recently the National Journal queried “political insiders” as to whom they thought would win the GOP nomination in 2012. Among them Mitt Romney was the overwhelming favorite (reported here and with additional info here.) A smaller poll was also done with not “insiders” but political bloggers with similar results.

Rank the top 5 candidates, 1 through 5, in terms of who you think is most likely to capture the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Results:

I transposed the methodology from the insiders poll to match this poll:*METHODOLOGY: 18 right-leaning bloggers participated. In tallying the rankings, a first-place vote was worth 5 points, a second-place vote 4 points, and so on. The Insiders Index reflects the percentage of points that each contender received out of the maximum possible. For example, Mitt Romney scored an Index rating of 66, meaning he received 66 percent of the possible 90 points, the number he would have had if all 18 participants had ranked him first.

List of the right leaning bloggers: Dan McLaughlin, Baseball Crank; Bob Parks, Black And Right; Bookworm, Bookworm Room; D.S. Hube, The Colossus Of Rhodey; Bruce Carroll Jr., GayPatriot; Skip Murphy, GraniteGrok; Robert Miller, JoshuaPundit; Soren Dayton, The Next Right; Jon Henke, The Next Right; James Joyner, Outside The Beltway; Walter Olson, Overlawyered; Steven Taylor, PoliBlog; Debbie Hamilton, Right Truth; John Hawkins, Right Wing News; David Gerstman, Soccer Dad; Martin Solomon, Solomonia; David Kopel, The Volokh Conspiracy; Susan Duclos, Wake Up America

A group of left wing Democrats participated in a small survey as well:
Who would be the Republicans’ strongest presidential nominee in 2012?

Discussion: I personally don’t care whether people place a lot of stock in these “insiders” and bloggers’ opinions, its mostly human interest and I’m glad to see Romney well in any case. I’m interested in what people make of the disparity amongst the groups in relation to Sarah Palin. Why does she do well with the right-leaning bloggers, but doesn’t register with the left-leaning bloggers nor any of the “political insiders”? I don’t mean that as a knock on Palin at all, nor is it an invitation for a bash fest. It’s just an honest question hoping for some civil and thoughtful replies.

Note: The images above only show the top 5 from each category though there were many more names included. Click here for the full results.

Today on Good Morning America, the Mayor erred badly by stating:

“What [Obama] should be doing is following the right things Bush did. One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” Giuliani said.

TPM comments:

Even if you don’t count 9/11, there were several domestic attacks during the Bush presidency. In the fall of 2001, anthrax sent through the mail to senators and news organizations killed five people. And in December 2001, Richard Reid attempted to blow up a commercial plane with explosives packed into his shoes.

I wouldn’t consider this as much of a big deal if it didn’t come from Rudy, someone who has used his leadership after September 11th as an integral selling point in his post 9/11 campaigns. Although I don’t think that this will by any means kill his hopes for a future run for office, it will open him up to biting attacks from Democrats. Not the best day for America’s Mayor.

UPDATE: A spokesman for the former Mayor clarifies, saying that the remark “didn’t come across as it was intended” and that he was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”

By “on our soil,” the former mayor is not including either Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas Day attack or Richard Reid’s December 22, 2001 attempt to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami.

So the spokesman says that the “one” attack that Giuliani says took place during the Obama administration was a reference to the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan.

The Giuliani spokesperson says the former Mayor does not consider the events with Hadayet, Muhammed, or the anthrax attacks Islamist terrorist attacks since “he was referring to what are known Islamic terrorist attacks.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This has been tangentially mentioned. Here it is in all its glory:

National Journal Magazine polled a number of “political insiders” on both sides of the aisle on the 2012 Presidential Election. Since Barack Obama is the presumptive Democrat candidate, the poll centered on the possible Republican candidate. Here are the results:

To the Democrats (111 votes):

Q: Who would be the Republicans’ strongest presidential nominee in 2012?
Rank/Candidate
1. Mitt Romney 29 percent
2. John Thune 15 percent
3. Tim Pawlenty 13 percent
4. Mitch Daniels 11 percent
5. Newt Gingrich 6 percent
6. Haley Barbour 5 percent
6. Jeb Bush 5 percent
8. Mike Huckabee 3 percent
8. Bobby Jindal 3 percent
8. Sarah Palin 3 percent

Also receiving votes: Dick Cheney, 2 percent; Michael Bloomberg, Eric Cantor, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Colin Powell, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, no one, 1 percent each.

---

To the Republicans (109 votes):Q: Please rank the top five candidates, 1 through 5, in terms of who you think is most likely to capture the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Rank/Candidate/Insiders Index*
1. Mitt Romney 81
2. Tim Pawlenty 46
3. John Thune 38
4. Haley Barbour 28
5. Mitch Daniels 25
5. Sarah Palin 25
7. Newt Gingrich 14
7. Mike Huckabee 14
9. Jeb Bush 6
10. Bobby Jindal 5

*METHODOLOGY: All 127 Republicans among National Journal’s Political Insiders were asked to name and rank the top five contenders for their party’s 2012 presidential nomination; 109 participated. In tallying the rankings, a first-place vote was worth 5 points, a second-place vote 4 points, and so on. The Insiders Index reflects the percentage of points that each contender received out of the maximum possible. For example, Mitt Romney scored an Index rating of 81, meaning he received 81 percent of the possible 545 points, the number he would have had if all 109 participants had ranked him first.

The first thing that leaps out at me is the questions. It is not, “Whom would you vote for”, or ,”Whom would you like to see”? The question to the Democrats was, “Whom would be the strongest opponent”? The question to the Republicans was, “Who is the most likely to obtain the nomination”? Note the difference? None of this “favorables” touchy-feely stuff.

The second thing that strikes me is the term “political insiders”. The grass roots like to sneer at them, but it has long been my experience that the middle layers of any organization are the ones who really run things. They are the ones that make things work in spite of the ravings from the top. The top determine policy. The middle actually sees that it gets done in spite of the top echelon in many cases. So don’t blame them for the policy screw-ups during the Bush years.

These are not part-time political junkies. These are the guys whose very jobs and careers depend up their political judgment. If outsiders such as us call a political shot wrong, we lose face. If they call a political shot wrong, they lose their jobs.

The final thing that strikes me is that I pretty much agree with them. As I see it now, the two people most likely to win the nomination are Pawlenty and Romney. They are the ones making the right moves in order to lay a foundation for a successful run. Huckabee and Palin are acting more like celebrities than candidates. If they are truly going to run, I see them making the same mistakes now that ultimately cost Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson the nomination last time.

ON THE RECORD with Greta Van Susteren (Fox 10:00PM)

“Former Gov. Mitt Romney sits down with Greta for wide-ranging interview you won’t want to miss!”

It promises to be a good interview. One source I saw mentioned that Health care is to be a major topic discussed. So will be Terrorism. Obama’s first year will also be discussed. So all the hot-button issues will be addressed.

If her name wasn’t Mrs. Robinson…

A top politician’s 58-year-old wife, her 19-year-old lover and allegations she raised money on the sly so the young man could open a restaurant.

First Minister Peter Robinson vowed Friday he wouldn’t quit as leader of Northern Ireland’s Catholic-Protestant government following revelations that his wife, Iris – like him a British Parliament member – solicited 50,000 pounds ($80,000) from businessmen to launch a riverside cafe for her young boyfriend.

“I will be resolutely defending attacks on my character and contesting any allegations of wrongdoing,” Peter Robinson said after a BBC investigation team in Belfast exposed the scandal. He stressed that he hadn’t known key details of his wife’s affair before the program.

Robinson, who in 2008 succeeded the Rev. Ian Paisley as leader of Northern Ireland’s government and the major Protestant political party, was expected to address journalists in Belfast later Friday as pressure grew for him to resign.

The Robinsons, aware that the BBC expose was coming, had issued a series of stunning – but in retrospect selective – admissions in recent days.

First, Iris Robinson, now 60, announced she would not seek re-election because she was suffering clinical depression that left her unable to function in public life. Then she issued a second statement admitting her affair, revealing that she attempted suicide, and begging forgiveness from her husband and the public.

“Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions… I am so, so sorry,” she said.

Her husband, in turn, invited four journalists to his home Wednesday night to offer his own agonized account of his family’s private turmoil – an unprecedented display from a man renowned for an icy demeanour.

But the Robinsons neglected to mention the nub of the BBC program’s allegations: That Iris Robinson’s lover, 39 years her junior, had received third-party cash from her that should have been disclosed to Parliament because she is a British lawmaker.

The BBC interviewed the former boyfriend, Kirk McCambley, now 21, who had a several-month relationship with Iris Robinson in 2008. She had been friends with the boy’s father, who died earlier that year.

“She looked out for me to make sure I was OK,” McCambley told the BBC.

He said Iris Robinson gave him two checks for 25,000 pounds each, but asked for 5,000 pounds back in cash, possibly to donate to the evangelical Protestant church she attends.

Critically, the BBC accused Peter Robinson of being aware of the financial deal – which should have been reported to British parliamentary standards authorities in both Belfast and London. Peter Robinson denies having known about the deal.

In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he didn’t want to comment on what he considered a private matter.

Robinson’s many political rivals in Northern Ireland have questioned whether he can remain head of a shaky coalition with Irish Catholics -the central achievement of the province’s 1998 peace accord. Many within Robinson’s own Democratic Unionist Party – a movement with a deeply conservative Protestant base – expressed doubts about his political survival as well.

Read the entire article here;

_____________________________________________

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

Rasmussen NFL Survey

Which team is most likely to win the Super Bowl this year?

• Indianapolis Colts 28%
• Dallas Cowboys 14%
• Minnesota Vikings 13%
• San Diego Chargers 11%
• New Orleans Saints 9%
• New England Patriots 5%
• Philadelphia Eagles 4%
• New York Jets 2%
• Green Bay Packers 2%
• Cincinnati Bengals 2%
• Arizona Cardinals 2%
• Baltimore Ravens 1%

Note: Colts fans are the most confident—74% expect their team to win it all. Just 34% of Saints fans say the same.

Regardless of who you think will win the Super Bowl, who do you want to win?

• New Orleans Saints 17%
• Indianapolis Colts 16%
• Dallas Cowboys 16%
• Minnesota Vikings 15%
• New England Patriots 9%
• Philadelphia Eagles 5%
• New York Jets 4%
• Green Bay Packers 4%
• Arizona Cardinals 2%
• Cincinnati Bengals 2%
• Baltimore Ravens 0%

Who is the best quarterback in the National Football League at this time?

• Peyton Manning 44%
• Brett Favre 18%
• Drew Brees 11%
• Tom Brady 9%
• Tony Romo 4%
• Aaron Rodgers 3%
• Philip Rivers 2%
• Some other quarterback 6%

Who will win NFL Coach of the Year?

• Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints 25%
• Norv Turner of the San Diego Chargers 15%
• Brad Childress of the Minnesota Vikings 15%
• Jim Caldwell of the Indianapolis Colts 13%
• Marvin Lewis of the Cincinnati Bengals 6%
• Wade Phillips of the Dallas Cowboys 5%
• Andy Reid of the Philadelphia Eagles 3%
• Some other coach 9%

Do you agree or disagree with Indianapolis Colts coach Jim Caldwell’s decision to rest most of the starting players against the New York Jets, thus costing his team a chance at an undefeated season?

• Agree 43%
• Disagree 47%

Should the NFL expand its regular season game schedule to 18 games and reduce the number of preseason games played?

• Yes 54%
• No 35%

Survey of 719 NFL fans was conducted January 5, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

The various reports about such and such politician attending/not attending this or that convention or conference has stirred some pretty ugly rhetoric here and on other sites. It would appear that if a certain candidate is not going to a particular gathering, then his or her supporters seem to feel duty-bound to denigrate that conference, trying to make it as bad as possible.

Come now, people. Get a life. We are all in this together. This dumping on one convention to justify our particular candidate’s choosing to skip it only serves to divide us and help maintain majority Democrat control of the country.

Give it a rest.

Yesterday, I had breakfast with a friend who works off Capitol Hill. After I sat down, he handed me a printout of the Gallup analysis of political idealogy of 2009 and the entire “aught” decade. The analysis showed the continued decline of the so-called “moderate” and the rise of the so-called “conservative.” According to the Gallup analysis, for the first time since 2004 the number of “conservatives” outnumber “moderates,” and additionally the number of “liberals” has grown over the decade. The result? From 1992-2009, the annual trends show that conservatives hold 40% of the American public, moderates 36% and liberals 21%.

This past year has shown what Americans as a whole want from their government. As Austin Russell put it today, Americans want “a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.” America didn’t vote in President Obama on the promise of sweeping change to America’s foundations and traditions- they voted him and a Democratic Congress in on the promise of reversing the Bush and Republican trends of big government, corruption, secrecy, irresponsible spending and the inability to effectively run foreign policy.

This leads to the daily-asked question since Senator McCain (R-AZ) lost to President Obama fourteen months ago: “How can Republicans win?” Certainly, we can’t win by acting like Governor Sarah Palin, a conservative who lacks an in-depth policy platform, political leadership skills and thick skin, and says “common-sense” as much as Rudy Giuliani said “a noun, a verb and 9/11.”. We certainly can’t win by following in the footsteps of the honorable Senator McCain, by being “Democratic-lite” and violating the First Amendment, bad immigration policies and cap-and-trade. We may not even be able to win with someone like Governor Mitt Romney, who has a great business and governing background but has become known as something of a “flip-flopper” on abortion and gay marriage, and will be forced to hardily defend himself on his “MassCare,” which resembles the Democratic Senate’s health care bill just a bit too much. Admittedly, we are in a tough spot with nationally-known conservatives and Republicans.

Fortunately, there are multiple ways to win elections. President Obama won on “Hope & Change” and a Republican implosion. Conservatives, however, should not wait for a single figure to bring together the movement, the party and Americans. These Gallup polls, combined with the plethora of evidence from the last 12 months on what Americans want, leave Republicans with an easy course of action on how they can win, and what they can win on, in 2010 and 2012. All we have to do is win 18% (half) of the moderates in America, something that is very doable considering that statistically speaking half of American moderates lean conservative, anyway. That would give us a greater-than-Obama margin of victory of 58% in many elections, particularly the 2012 presidential race. The course of action for Republicans and conservatives follows below:

1. Promote de-regulated (or regulated to the states) domestic drilling and nuclear power. France has used nuclear power effectively- surely we can, too. Support this policy stance by explaining how drilling domestically is environmentally safer than drilling overseas, helps lower unemployment for the long-term, lowers prices for oil and gas through supply and demand, and how supporting domestic energy sources would help crush and break the dictators who hate us and support terrorists, and who manipulate energy prices at the expense of Americans.

2. Promote transparency on legislation.

3. Kick out corruption on both sides of the aisle.This was something that really hurt Republicans in 2006.

4. Put forth health care solutions and ideas that lower cost, increase competition, increase tax fairness and decrease the size of government. (Also, make them constitutional.)

5. Take a serious look at waste and fraud in government spending and programs, particularly in the military, Medicare, and Social Security. (For clarification, Social Security fraud and waste is otherwise known as Congress taking the tax revenues for Social Security and using them for other purposes.)

6. Promise to cut the “low-hanging fruit” in ineffective and unused government funds and programs, and purely wasteful funds. Take a good look at all programs, in a transparent fashion. In short, balance the federal budget as soon as possible.

7. Get rid of McCain-Feingold and instead institute a simple policy that all Members of Congress will have on their campaign and government websites the following: first, who their current sponsors, supporters and financial backers are; second, how much each sponsor, supporter and financial backer has donated over time and by individual year; and what each Member’s vote was by year and over time. Lastly, all of that information should be on the wall of the Member’s office.

8. Get out of debates that belong on the state level, such as gay marriage and marijuana policies. Federalism exists for a reason.

9. Support a national ban on abortions. Americans are increasingly pro-life.

10. Stop subsidizing and bailing out  farms, financial firms, the auto industry and other private-sector industries. That’s a liberal idea, not a conservative one. After all, since when has government accurately picked the most efficient winner in the economy?

11. Keep a sharp, intelligent eye on terrorism around the world and in the country. No, you can’t and won’t stop everything- but you can do your best and own up when you make a mistake. Don’t make war unless you have a strategy for all aspects of the war, especially an exit strategy and accurate intelligence.

One probable criticism of the above platform policies are that they are partially populist ideas. To those who say so, you are right. That is, unfortunately, part of how politics works. We have to push policies the public will support while not not backing down on our principles. Obviously, some parts of the above platform are going to be flexible in certain areas of the country- you almost have to be a RINO in Maine or Vermont to win, after all- but by and large the Republican platform and the conservative platform should be one and the same. As Alex Knepper put it, “The Gift of Obama” has helped his opponents immensely, even though many of them have offered few constructive ideas. It’s time we took that swing in conservative popularity and re-established the big tent of Republicanism with effective, principled conservatism.

Update: In my original post I did not include a link to the Gallup poll analysis. That has been corrected in the second line of the post. That data can also be seen here.

Rasmussen Kentucky Senatorial Survey

• Trey Grayson (R) 44% (44%)
• Dan Mongiardo (D) 37% (37%)

• Rand Paul (R) 49% (43%)
• Dan Mongiardo (D) 35% (38%)

• Trey Grayson (R) 45% (40%)
• Jack Conway (D) 35% (40%)

• Rand Paul (R) 46% (38%)
• Jack Conway (D) 38% (42%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Trey Grayson 57% (53%) / 21% (20%) {+36%}
• Rand Paul 57% (51%) / 25% (23%) {+32%}
• Jack Conway 46% (49%) / 36% (27%) {+10%}
• Dan Mongiardo 44% (41%) / 44% (43%) {0%}

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

• Strongly approve 22% (29%)
• Somewhat approve 19% (18%)
• Somewhat disapprove 13% (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 46% (41%)

How would you rate the job Steve Beshear has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% (17%)
• Somewhat approve 39% (42%)
• Somewhat disapprove 31% (25%)
• Strongly disapprove 13% (16%)

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

• Strongly favor 16% (25%)
• Somewhat favor 18% (14%)
• Somewhat oppose 12% (12%)
• Strongly oppose 50% (45%)

If the health care reform plan passes, should individual states have the right to opt out of the entire plan?

• Yes 52%
• No 34%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 9%
• Good 23%
• Fair 34%
• Poor 31%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 6, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 30, 2009 are in parentheses.

Going to CPAC? (I am; it’s great fun!)  Then you won’t be seeing Sarah Palin. She’s refusing to affiliate herself with David Keene, the head of the American Conservative Union.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Pain is turning down an invitation to speak at one high-profile conservative gathering while accepting another.

Palin is declining an invitation to address the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because, a source said, she does not want to be affiliated with the longtime organizer of the traditional movement confab.

At issue is the role of David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union which organizes CPAC. In September, POLITICO reported that Keene asked FedEx for between $2 million and $3 million to get the group’s support in a bitter legislative battle with rival UPS.

A source close to the Palin camp says that request led to a decision to stay away from the upcoming CPAC conference, calling it a forum that will place “special interests over core beliefs” and “pocketbook over policy.”

“That’s not what CPAC should be about and people are tiring,” the source said. “Palin is taking a stance against this just as she did in Alaska.”

When asked about the move, Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said: “We support those who advance our core beliefs and lead by principle.”

Me-ow! Claws are out. Girlfight between Sarah Palin and David Keene.

Personally, I’m glad she’s not going. I like CPAC, and Sarah would have made it too crowded. It was enough of a madhouse during Rush Limbaugh’s speech last year. Mittens will, as is par for the course, be there, though. I attended his speech last year, where he opened it with the unforgettable line “I’d better stop before they arrest me for practicing capitalism!” (What the heck does that even mean?)

Anyway, Palin’s not going. But if you are, drop a message in the comments or shoot me an e-mail and we can talk about meeting up for lunch or something if you’re curious. A then-Rightosphere get-together? What joy!

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

It looks like JD Hayworth is really going to run against John McCain.

Ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) is seriously exploring a bid against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), according to sources with knowledge of his plans.

Hayworth has been in touch with consultants to gauge their interest in working for his potential candidacy, and he has made several high-profile appearances of late. That indicates the buzz about a bid is more than just a ploy to pay off old legal debts, as many AZ politicos had suspected.

“Hayworth’s biggest obstacle is his personal finances, but being in the U.S. Senate is a lifelong pursuit for him,” said one GOPer familiar with AZ politics. “I’d be surprised if he didn’t run.”

Hayworth lost his seat to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) in the ’06 Dem wave. But in recent months, he’s made several indications he may challenge McCain. Hayworth uses his daily radio show to lambast McCain regularly, and one public poll, from Rasmussen, indicated he could have a chance if he ran.

McCain aides are planning as if Hayworth will run. As an indication they are aware of the threat, McCain’s campaign has just purchased advertising time on the radio station where Hayworth hosts his show, KFYI, and they plan a major ad buy while Hayworth is on air, said a source with knowledge of the plans.

McCain has 2 radio ads running on stations around the state, according to a top aide.

Hayworth visited DC in Dec. to meet with supporters, and he has already contracted a polling firm, sources familiar with his thinking say. He was the headliner at a holiday fundraiser held by popular Maricopa Co. Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Money from that event went to help pay down Hayworht’s legal debt.

This is incredibly depressing. Are we really going to see a serious challenge to our party’s former presidential candidate — a titan of the Senate, a popular national figure, a war hero — for some Jack Abramoff-connected hack? This is not just a quixotic challenge; McCain’s aides are taking it very seriously. That is a shame. McCain will pull through this handily, I imagine, but it’s irritating to know that such a situation even exists.

My friend James Agresti- whose column on New Jersey budget cuts I posted last month- has come out with a book called Rational Conclusions. Reviews of the book and interviews Mr. Agresti has done for his book can be seen here.

Here is the introduction to the book: 

How do we establish our spiritual beliefs? Many follow in the footsteps of their parents or other influential figures in their lives. Some embrace their views on the basis of emotional appeal. Others invest a certain amount of thought into the process but often do so without performing substantive research. If you were to ask the people you know why they believe what they do, how many do you think could give you a rational answer? For many people, spiritual beliefs are a matter of personal preference or blind faith.

The great irony here is most people would agree spiritual beliefs impact our lives in significant ways, and many, including me, think they have eternal importance. Why then would anyone entrust the formation or rejection of such views to whim or speculation? Given what is at stake, shouldn’t careful investigation and serious thought be a part of the process?

The purpose of this book is to examine facts that can be used to arrive at rational conclusions regarding the Bible. Surprisingly, many of these facts proceed from academic disciplines such as:

Genetics

History

Archaeology

Paleontology

Physics

Cosmology

Embryology

Neurobiology

Microbiology

In the realm of spirituality, one of the easiest things to do is make simplified and unsupported assertions that are accepted by people who share the same mindset. The real test for any work that stakes a claim to truthfulness, however, is whether or not it can withstand the scrutiny of a judicious audience.

Hence, this is not a book for those who uncritically accept what they want to believe and robotically deny what they don’t. It is for people who ask, “How do you know that?” and then follow up by asking, “How do you know that you know that?” Legitimate answers to such questions do not typically make for leisurely reading material, but the alternative of blindly embracing that which appeals to our notions or emotions is woefully inadequate for an issue of such magnitude.

I first met Mr. Agresti at a Leadership Institute public relations seminar over a year ago. He had just committed full-time to his think tank, Just Facts, and I found him to be dynamic, optimistic and ready to bring what he could offer to the world in order to improve it. This is a guy, and organization, worth keeping tabs on, especially if you want the full picture of national debt, Social Security, abortion, gun control and many other aspects of important debate among American policy makers. Just Facts covers all of the above and more with great depth and thorough citations and sourcing, making it an invaluable resource for people all over the political and policy spectrums. (Mr. Agresti actually saved me from making a factual error in a column on this site last October, based upon research from Just Facts.)

Some ruminations in the dark of the year.

The Democrats are doing badly. It must be good for the GOP. What should the GOP do to take maximum advantage of Obama’s steep fall in popularity and public revulsion against the (misnamed) stimulus and the deplorable health-care legislation?

One opinion is that Republicans will rise without having to do anything: ‘They have Obama’, as Charles Krauthammer said on Bret Baier’s ‘Special Report’ on Fox News, disagreeing with Mort Kondracke’s view that they need to offer positive ideas.

Newt Gingrich opined to Sean Hannity that the GOP needs to be ‘the alternative party, not the opposition party’, and announced that he’ll soon present another ‘contract with America’, the first one having worked well for him and the Party.

So who’s right? Just let the Democrats fail and the GOP will have an easy ride back into power? Or make promises, set out a program, announce policies?

Some say a change of leadership is needed; that Michael Steele is lackluster and bereft of ideas.

That may be the case, but ideas are not what Republicans need. They’ve always had the right ideas and only lack the resolution to stand by them and implement them. A reminder of what they are: small government, individual freedom, strong defense, a free market economy, low taxation, strict constitutionalism, rule of law.

Perhaps the less innovative and exciting the Republican Party looks and sounds, the better.

Am I murmuring into the ear of the GOP, ‘Be passive, be negative’? Yes, I am.

Conservatism is, at its best, the politics of inertia. Change is not good, rarely a necessity. Stability is liberating. People should not have to think much or often about the res publica, but be enabled by the state to go about their business freely, without fear of having to adjust to new circumstances; confident that they, their families and possessions are protected by laws reliably enforced, and distant inconspicuous military might. Conservative rule should ensure such ease for them, keeping itself unobtrusive, so the citizens may expect peace-and-order to be as natural a condition of their lives as the air they breathe.

The only active step that the GOP should energetically take as soon as it’s back in power is to undo the wrong that the Democratic regime has done. Shrink government. Repeal socialist legislation, such as the health-care act if it is passed.

It’s a very hard task. Once an entitlement has been granted it’s almost impossible to take away. Governments of West European welfare states have known for at least three decades that maintaining state pensions is actuarially impossible now that people live longer and have fewer children, but what are they doing about it? Nothing. Helplessly they go on borrowing or printing money, and getting poorer.

It’s too late for Europe to save itself. But here in America – imagine if brilliant new leaders were to arise who had the nerve to say to the people: ‘Stand on your own two feet. Don’t look to government to provide you with anything, not health care, not food stamps, not ‘affordable housing’, not even education.’ We could be led back to full employment and prosperity. But – nah! These are just figments of fireside dreams.

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

Cafferty hopes voters remember “this crap” when it comes time to vote. Indeed, they will.

Obama and the Democrats have been doing some impressive work. They ticked off Cafferty, a big time liberal. And they ticked off Brian Lamb of C-Span, who has made his career being painfully non-partisan.

The Obama non-conference is killing the Democrats. They think that it will make passing Obamacare easier, but they’re wrong. The basic problem is that they’re sucking credibility out of the process and they’re going to build a popular narrative against their own party.

Bottom line? Obamacare is going to face  its Gandalf the Gray “You shall not pass” moment with a coalition of Democrats Obamacare. Either Senate Blue Dogs who’d like to be re-elected or Bart Stupak and pro-life Democrats will kill this beast, and the public narrative will help.

The Politico is reporting on a new book’s claims:

Sarah Palin’s charming opening debate line for now-Vice President Joe Biden — “Hey, can I call you Joe?” — was scripted after she repeatedly referred to him as “O’Biden” in preparation sessions, former McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt told “60 Minutes.”

Schmidt was interviewed by Anderson Cooper for a segment about “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime,” a book about the 2008 presidential campaign by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to be published Monday.

CBS News said in a release previewing the segment, to be broadcast Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT, that Schmidt recalled a reflexive tendency by Palin to refer to Biden as “O’Biden.”

“It was multiple people — and I wasn’t one of them — who all said at the same time, ‘Just say, “Can I call you Joe,”’ which she did,” Schmidt recalled.

Gosh, this sounds really familiar. Maybe it’s because Sarah Palin already revealed this explosive, earth-shattering bombshell in her book? As I reviewed back in November:

5. Can I Call You Joe? Folksy populism? Yeah, right! Nothing but self-interest. During debate prep, Palin kept accidentally calling him “Senator O’Biden” — starting with Obama’s name by accident but segwaying into Biden’s. So, asked Scheneumann, why not just ask to call him Joe instead? And so it went.

Why didn’t they get one of the AP’s thirty-nine fact-checkers on this one? Did anyone in the mainstream media actually read the book? Hellooooooooo? CBS has got the scoop! It may have taken us two months, but we got the scoop! And nine years from now, we’ll finally learn that Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’ house.

Rasmussen Reports:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 45% of likely U.S. voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress. That’s up 12 points from October 2008, just before the last congressional elections. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree, and another 19% are not sure…

In October 2008, only 33% said a group randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the sitting Congress, while nearly half (49%) of voters didn’t believe that to be true. Again, 19% were undecided.

By September of last year, however, voters were evenly divided on the question. Forty-two percent (42%) had more confidence in the random group from the phone book, but another 42% trusted the current Congress more.

______________________________________________________________

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 Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.

Could this be the final blow to embattled Obama Treasury secretary Tim Geithner?

I am interested to hear what Geithner has to say about this matter.

Also, a very interesting and honest comment by Shepard Smith:

It’s clear the banks run the country, the country doesn’t run itself.