In case any of you missed it, here is Stewart bashing Chris Matthews for his, “I forgot he was black” comment.

It is most refreshing to see lefties like Stewart feeling free to mock other lefties like Matthews for their hypocritical sanctimoniousness. Have you ever noticed that the only people in America that keep talking about race are those people who insist they are beyond race, all the while insisting that those of us who don’t talk about race continually are the racists?

When I look at Obama, I see a person who is in over his head. I see a total incompetent who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand without running it into the ground trying to hold down the most demanding executive job in the world. I see an insecure thumb-sucker who has to have his teleprompter and his Presidential podium to speak a few words to a committee meeting in the White House. I see a guy who holds his nose in the air so much he would drown if an aide didn’t hold an umbrella over him when it rains. The fact that he is black is about as important to me as the fact that he has a short haircut. Yet all Matthews and his ilk seem to see is a black man in the Oval Office. They just can’t get over it. Just whom are the racists here?

Stewart was right to skewer Mr Leg Tingle.

I couldn’t agree more with Erick Erickson’s take on the James O’Keefe controversy:

Much has been written and said about James O’Keefe’s incursion into Mary Landrieu’s office in Louisiana. It is interesting to me how Landrieu, through MSNBC and the mouth of David Shuster, made sure to get its spin out quickly before O’Keefe could get out of jail and to a microphone.

More interesting to me is how many on our side raced out immediately to condemn O’Keefe without knowing any facts other than those reported by MSNBC. Even a cursory glance at the initial written charges and statements made it clear that there was no wiretapping — and those documents were released nearly at the same time as the story broke. Undeterred, many on our side and the left attacked based on mis-truths generated by the left.

While we should recognize the uniqueness of the right in its effort to maintain its righteousness (the left would never have reacted in the same way), there should have been a willingness to give James O’Keefe the benefit of the doubt. Agree or disagree with his actions, think it wise or unwise, smart or stupid, it seems now pretty clear that there was no intent to commit the crimes alleged by Senator Landrieu and MSNBC.

O’Keefe’s explanation that this was essentially an attempt at a bit of “docu-comedy” which went wrong is far more plausible than the contention that he attempted to wiretap the telephone lines of a sitting U.S. Senator:

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetuated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

I share Erick’s astonishment as to why so many Conservatives/Republicans were eager and willing to buy the liberal media’s framing of this event without even hearing an explanation from “our guy.”

Even if you haven’t been paying attention to the Mainstream Media for say, the past 40 years or so, wouldn’t the media’s shenanigans during the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections at least give someone pause enough to at least hear O’Keefe out?

I guess some people will never learn.

This is what James O’Keefe says about being busted in Senator Mary Landrieu’s office on BigGovernment.com:

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

O’Keefe is correct that the mainstream media violated all sorts of ethical and other standards, as Andrew Breitbart, founder of Big Government, said here, but O’Keefe is clearly making excuses for himself. Why would members of his group (also arrested) pretend to be telephone repairmen? Why didn’t he just go in as a reporter and ask legitimate questions? Yes, I understand why he targeted Senator Landrieu, but many offices are incredibly busy with their phones right now, and since Landrieu was bribed to vote for the Senate health care bill in December, I imagine her more than most. (As a point of comparison, I called Senator Tom Coburn’s office last December, but the mailbox was full.) Furthermore, phone lines “being jammed” does not mean they are down. It means they are jammed by callers. Louisiana is a good-sized state; didn’t this occur to O’Keefe?

Lastly, and I look forward to being corrected on this, when did the government “confirm what has always been clear?” I have seen or heard nothing of the sort, and even some digging around on Google, Huffington Post, Hot Air, Daily Kos, Media Matters, Drudge Report and other sources brings up nothing. Sorry, Mr. O’Keefe, but you’ll have to provide some proof here. The FBI affidavit is pretty damning (pardon the language). It should not have taken “reflection” to stamp on the line between investigative journalism and illegal activity. This is not “sensitivity” in the negative sense you have described above. This is you almost certainly ignoring the law. Period.

Again, I look forward to being corrected on what I have said above. I understand my language has been harsh, and if evidence comes out that that the media, the affidavit and blogs have misrepresented the situation to the extent O’Keefe indicates, than I will offer a full-fledged apology. Until then, I look forward to the case going to court, and seeing if O’Keefe is found guilty. I hope he has done nothing illegal, but I’m not holding my breath.

Lech Walesa at a fundraising luncheon  for Adam Andrzejewski this morning – Lech will also be speaking on Adam’s behalf at a Tea Party rally this afternoon (and I would say he knows a thing or two about popular uprisings).  Now this is what I call Solidarity!

Rasmussen North Carolina Senatorial Survey

• Richard Burr (R) 47% (48%)
• Elaine Marshall (D) 37% (38%)

• Richard Burr (R) 50%
• Cal Cunningham (D) 34%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Richard Burr 56% / 32% {+24%}
• Elaine Marshall 41% / 36% {+5%}
• Cal Cunningham 34% / 29% {+5%}

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

• Strongly approve 31% (36%)
• Somewhat approve 17% (11%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 42% (43%)

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 10%
• Good 21%
• Fair 24%
• Poor 41%

Which is a better way to create new jobs – cutting taxes or increasing government spending?

• Cutting taxes 61%
• Increasing government spending 16%

How would you rate the job Bev Perdue has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 11% (16%)
• Somewhat approve 28% (24%)
• Somewhat disapprove 31% (29%)
• Strongly disapprove 29% (29%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 15, 2009 are in parentheses.

I am pleased to present the following interview with Frank Guinta, who is the former Mayor of Manchester and a candidate for Congress in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District. The seat is currently held by Democrat, Carol Shea-Porter. I wish to say a big “thank you” to Nate Gunderson and Bob Hovic for transcribing this interview.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Dustin Siggins: The first question is just a general question. I’m a former New Hampshire citizen. I was wondering – perhaps you can give me a two minute summary – why you think you’re the best person to win the Republican primary, and also why you think you’re the best Republican to run against Carol Shea-Porter.

Frank Guinta: Well, I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to serve New Hampshire for the entire last decade in different capacities. I started as a state legislature and then moved into city governance as an alderman for two terms, and then for the last four years serving as the state’s largest city’s mayor. I had a great and unique experience over the last ten years in elected office serving people of our city and of our state in different capacities. And I think what people are looking for, not just in their member of congress but in their government, I think they’re looking for a forthright, open and honest, transparent approach to solving problems. Which is how I’ve tried to address issues here in Manchester? I think people, even though they don’t always agree with the outcome, I think they appreciate the process that I have taken to try to get things accomplished, most notably trying to reform government, to be focusing on its basic responsibilities. Secondly, cut spending and cut taxes, which we have been able to accomplish for the first time in more than a decade here in the city of Manchester. And then prioritizing the responsibilities of government, and ensuring that the people receive the services they expect to receive, also to receive them in effective and efficient manner. You look at what is going on in Washington today and I think nationally people are concerned about the very same issues. We have the highest debt and deficits that our country has ever experienced. We have a lack of commitment to providing small and efficient government. Right now there is an approach in Washington to expand the size of government, to take over people’s freedoms and liberties, and to take over certain business sectors, and provide things that are not within the confines and responsibilities of the government. So I think with what’s going on in the country, with what I’ve demonstrated and how I’ve been able to address issues has put me into a very strong position. Not only to be the nominee for the Republican Party, but also to win and serve as the next congressman for the district.

DS: You mentioned the responsibilities of the government. Would you be able to go into more detail where you think those responsibilities lie and what there are limited to?

FG: Well sure. First of all one of the basic responsibilities is to keep people safe. Beyond that we have an obligation, whether you’re at local, state or federal government to adhere to the basic principles of either, in Manchester’s case the charter, in New Hampshire’s case the State Constitution, in case of federal government our U.S. Constitution. I think there are blatant violations of that, of what is articulated in the Constitution, and I think people are angry about it. I’ll give you a good example; look at the health care bill. Not only has the process and procedure been very different from what has been promised, but there has not been a clear articulation of where in the Constitution people feel, or members of congress, or this the majority party feels that its not only right, but it’s the responsibility of the federal government to provide and pay for health care. And if you look at, for example, what happened with Senator Ben Nelson and the fact that he was essentially bribed for his vote. There are at least 13 state Attorney Generals, and probably more, who are willing to sign onto a letter saying that not only is this unfair, because states across the country are being treated unequally, not fairly, which is a requirement of federal legislation.

I think the general public, everyday Americans, fell that not only is there a lack of transparency, but there is a lack of basic fairness in how our country is being governed. When I speak with people throughout the district that is what’s on peoples minds, and I believe its on peoples minds throughout the country as well. I’ve always tried to be an individual A) who would take positions, and I’ve never been afraid to take positions as a Mayor. I think when you are leading that people are demanding that leadership and wanting to know what exactly is important to you and why it’s important. I’ve always taken that approach. Whether it’s having a town hall meeting –we had almost 20 town hall meeting while I was mayor. We had twice a month people had an opportunity to come to city hall and express their public opinion about anything. During our budgets we would have open processes where people could come to budget hearings and make their positions known. Believe me, I’ve done four budgets here as the Mayor. I think that everyone but one of them had more than a thousand people show up at the budget hearings to express their opinions one way or the other. That improved the process. It ensured that the people had the opportunity to have their opinion and their voice heard. Then ultimately at election time people would decide – Ok is this leadership, is this individual the person who is best leading our city, or should we be making a change?

And obviously I was fortunate enough to be reelected, I think because of that leadership, that transparency, and the commitment to making decisions on behalf of taxpayers. And you can counter that with what is going on in Washington. I don’t think people feel that tax payers are being considered. I don’t feel that people feel that there is an open and transparent process going on, and I think that people feel that their freedoms and liberties are being infringed upon.

DS: I saw you speak at Plymouth State University to the Grafton County Republicans. I remember there being rumors you were going to run for Governor. This year you are obviously running for Congress instead. Why the switch?

FG: Well, back at that time there had been a small movement of people encouraging me to run for Governor. I think it was because was leading the states largest city and I was speaking out against issues that were critically important to people. This was back, um I became mayor in ’05. Rather, I won the election in ’05 and started in January ’06. This was a period of time you’ll have to remember, that people weren’t happy with the Republican Party. I came in as a young mayor, I was I my mid 30’s, I was 35 years old. I came in cutting spending, cutting taxes, reforming government, making it more efficient, more accountable. Which is exactly what Republicans expected of Republican, but people in the city, and this is a Democrat city, it leans Democrat and the voter registration is Democrat. I think people in the city appreciated the fact that I, it wasn’t just Republicans it was everybody, was appreciative of the fact that I was focusing in on taxpayer rights and the responsibility of government. When you contrasted that, at the time with what Governor Lynch was doing; he just came off of a 17.5% spending increase for the biannual budget for the state of New Hampshire. People were looking for an alternative to that approach, and I was leading in that area and people were encouraging me to run. So I did publicly explore the idea of running for Governor, and came ultimately to the conclusion that the people of Manchester elected me to serve as Mayor and I’m going to continue doing that. And personal family situation was such that, it’s tough with small children. Our children today are 6 and 5, but back they were obviously younger, and while it’s always difficult to determine how you can best serve and raise a family it just didn’t fit in at that time with the age of the children and the time that was necessary that I spend with them at that young, young age.

And finally, I loved being mayor. You know it was a great job and a great opportunity. There was a lot of work that needed to be done. While I was very honored to be considered to run, and people wanted me to run for Governor, I continued to focus my energies as Mayor. Back in May of 2009 when I had to make the decision whether to run for re-election or not, I had been watching what was going on with the state government and the federal government. And essentially I felt that rather than run for Governor my interest was at the federal level because of the massive changes that were occurring at the federal level. We were coming fresh off the stimulus issue. The federal government appeared to looking for states to be reliant on the federal government. I don’t believe that that’s the way our country and states should be functioning. I got very frustrated like many people that the spending was out of control. The way that the majority was trying to solve the economic issues was by infusing dollars into the economy that people were claiming wouldn’t work, and obviously it hasn’t worked. Our unemployment numbers are over 10% and they have been for several months and they’re going to continue to remain there. I said – you know what? The best place I can serve, the best place I can try to be part of the solution is by running for Congress and tying to bring regular everyday solutions that I’ve had to deal with as a Mayor, and bring those ideas to a congress that doesn’t particularly care about the amount of money they spend. They don’t particularly care about the effectiveness of government, and they don’t care about what taxpayers are concerned about or what they are feeling. So I felt that this would be the best way I could serve.

DS: Ok, we’ll take a little bit of a shift. I was looking on your website and I couldn’t find anything on your views on abortion. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

FG: I’m pro-life.

DS: Also I doing a background Google search on ‘Mayor Frank Guinta’, and I thought I saw that you had voted against parental notification.

(more…)

Thanks to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and Robert Costa at National Review Online for the heads-up warnings from Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), respectively, that Democrats are still going for reconciliation. See the NRO piece here, and the Hot Air piece here. (For those who don’t know, reconciliation is a Senate tactic utilized to avoid needing 60 votes to pass legislation. However, as Chris Matthews explained to Rep. Alan Grayson (R-FL), it does not apply to health care reform because HCR would not be a budget-related bill.)

I heard about Ryan’s warning a few days ago, but brushed it off as an overreaction. After all, Democrats might be able to pull it off, but it would really hurt them in November, and it appeared until Wednesday afternoon to be a 50-50 tie between the Democrats in favor of the process and the eight Democrats and one Independent joining Republicans against it. Yes, Vice President Biden would break the tie in favor- but is that the way the administration wants to be seen? Pulling more gimmicks and tricks? (The change Wednesday was the news that Senator Nelson (D-NE) might be in favor of using reconciliation for passing health care reform. Nothing like keeping yourself popular, huh, Senator?) However, Kyl’s warning adds some serious weight to the possibility, though I still find it unlikely.

As explained in-depth here and here, reconciliation rules say that any health care bill would have to be broken down into two bills. One would consist of the regulations, one would consist of the budget-related items, and only the budget-related items would be able to get in by reconciliation. Given the anti-incumbent, “Washington represents itself not me” attitude pervading America, and the post-partisan, “let’s all get along” message President Obama tried to spin out Wednesday night in between attacks on former President Bush and the current batch of Congressional Republicans, is that really where Senate Democrats want to go? Their “Party of No” label only stuck for the first half of 2009, until Americans learned what might be in the final health care bill, and since then the prevailing attitude amongst potential voters has been that Washington leaders need to have this health care process take whatever amount of time the Senate would normally allot.

In the final analysis, no, Americans don’t like how Washington works, but after all the deals regarding Senators Landrieu (D-LA) and Nelson, the unions’ avoidance of the “Cadillac tax” and the behind-closed-doors conference discussions, one more unusual, “sneak it by the people” tactic would be a deathblow to many a vulnerable Democrats’ chances in November, or perhaps even earlier, in the primary season. Too, if Republicans keep reminding Americans that the final cost of any bill will not include the prohibitively expensive “Doc Fix,” and therefore any estimate of a final bill’s cost is underrepresented by hundreds of billions of dollars, the public relations disaster of reconciliation would be horrendous for the Democratic Party.

Just hours after a gushing endorsement from RedState’s Erick Erickson – Adam Andrzejewski is now writing on BigGovernment.com. In the space of less than a week, he has come from nowhere to become the movement’s next Marco Rubio.

And yes…for those of you who are wondering…I have every intention of liveblogging Andrzejewski’s every move until Tuesday’s primary. I’m pumped  up in a way that I haven’t been since Sarah got the nomination – and that’s going to come out here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dXJ-8TC8E8[/youtube]

President Obama made an empty State of the Union speech, short on new ideas, and long on old rhetoric. He did not “pivot” on the critical issues, that is to say, he did not draw on any lessons from President Clinton’s experiences in 1994, and decide to go to the operative political center on healthcare, trade, domestic legislation and foreign policy.

It was a “brave front” type of speech, the kind which says “I am following the policies I believe in even if they are not popular.” The problem with this approach, however, is not simply that his agenda is unpopular, but that it is wrong-headed as well. No matter what political “sweetmeats” or other favors he offers senators and congresspersons, he no longer has the votes for his agenda. Democratic incumbents can easily see the electoral handwriting on the wall, and nearly all of them are not ready for premature involuntary retirement by angry voters.

So now there will be a period of verbal maneuvering and grandstanding by the Democratic leadership until what is obvious to the rest of us even becomes clear to them as well. In the meantime, opinion polls will continue to disclose diminished support for most incumbent Democrats, increased numbers for Republican challengers, and a persistent decline of the president’s popularity. This may not go in exactly a straight line, but over the spring and summer the numbers for the majority party will be bad news.

At the same time, the unprecedented grassroots organizing effort for the conservatives will grow. The upset special U.S. senate election in Massachusetts demonstrates that conservative voters will not be applying so many “purity” tests that Democrats and their media followers have predicted. Yes, there will be battles. For example, Congressman Rubio will probably prevail in Florida, as will Governor Perry in Texas. Other conservatives will likely win in primary contests with establishment moderates in some race across the country. In other cases, especially in centrist states, the moderates will win. Almost all Republicans, however, will express conservative economic ideas in November.

This presents the Democrats with a much more formidable challenge. They had counted on a weak, unorganized and polarized-to-the-far-right opposition. They thought they could win the battles of 2010 with rhetoric, as they had done in 2008.

Almost a month ago (before Massachusetts), I wrote in The Prairie Editor that the GOP could pick up 12 senate seats and 55 house seats. Most of my readers, including conservative Republicans, probably thought I was daft. (I did request that no one call 9-1-1.) Now I notice that many of my colleagues are suggesting the potential for similar outcomes.( I may have even understated the numbers!)

At some point, cooler and savvier heads in the Democratic Party will prevail over the amateur “true believer” crowd now in charge of strategy, and President Obama WILL pivot.

Otherwise, the voters will clean Congress as it not has ever done before.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Sen. Judd Gregg destroying these two soon-to-be-canceled bimbos.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6NFjwdAz8g[/youtube]

Andrew Breitbart forcing a retraction from David Shuster, hours after Shuster was reprimanded by MSNBC brass.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or-_ARBMDC4[/youtube]

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

PPP (D) Illinois Senatorial Survey

• Alexi Giannoulias (D) 42%
• Mark Kirk (R) 34%

• Mark Kirk (R) 37%
• David Hoffman (D) 36%

• Mark Kirk (R) 38%
• Cheryle Jackson (D) 36%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Alexi Giannoulias 31% / 19% {+12%}
• Mark Kirk 27% / 22% {+5%}
• David Hoffman 16% / 11% {+5%}
• Cheryle Jackson 16% / 17% {-1%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Roland Burris’ job performance?

• Approve 14%
• Disapprove 60%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Dick Durbin’s job performance?

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 39%

Survey of 1,062 voters was conducted January 22-25, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 47% Democrat; 31% Republican; 23% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 38% Moderate; 36% Conservative; 26% Liberal.

PPIC California Political Survey

GOP Senatorial Primary

• Tom Campbell 27%
• Carly Fiorina 16%
• Chuck DeVore 8%

Senatorial Election

• Barbara Boxer 45%
• Tom Campbell 41%

• Barbara Boxer 48%
• Carly Fiorina 40%

• Barbara Boxer 47%
• Chuck DeVore 39%

GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Meg Whitman 41%
• Steve Poizner 11%

Gubernatorial Election

• Jerry Brown 41%
• Meg Whitman 36%

• Jerry Brown 44%
• Steve Poizner 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Barbara Boxer is handling her job as U.S. senator?

• Approve 49%
• Disapprove 44%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Dianne Feinstein is handling her job as U.S. senator?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 41%

Survey of 1,223 likely voters was conducted January 12-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points; for the 425 Republican primary likely voters, it is ±5 percent. Party registration breakdown: 45% Democrat; 31% Republican; 24% Independent/Other.

Gov. Palin is back again, with another of her famous Facebook notes. This time she adds her two cents on last night’s address:

He [Obama] called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

…He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

I couldn’t have said it better, Governor!

In related news, today, the Cato Institute published a fact check of the speech. My favorite part:

Cato Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards: “When the president says that he has ‘cut taxes’ for 95 percent of Americans, he fails to note that more than 40 percent of Americans pay no federal incomes taxes and the administration has simply increased subsidy checks to this group. Obama’s refundable tax credits are unearned subsidies, not tax cuts.”

I don’t, by any means, consider myself an authority on SOTU’s. However, I viewed last night’s display as nearly crystal-clear proof that the President is NOT “a different type of politician”, as so many people (especially those my age) believed during the 2008 campaign. He is a liberal ideologue, through and through, habitually prone to invoking straw-man tactics and pointing the finger elsewhere.

Paul Streitz, the Connecticut activist whom I called out previously for his Buchananite leanings, has turned on the woman he loves. He now wants no part of the Draft Sarah 2012 movement he helped begin. Why?:

She has now chose to align herself with several bad actors. What should this be called, the Rinoization of Sarah Palin.

At the time of the election, perhaps Sarah Palin could have been forgiven for her ideas on immigration (and lack of knowledge) because she was governor of Alaska, not Arizona. But in the intervening months, she has done little but promote herself as a celebrity, known because her brief time on the national stage..

She is certainly entitled to write a book and make money for her and her family, but other than what has she has done to support Republican and patriotic candidates.

Where was she in VA?
Where was she in NJ?
Where was she in Mass?

Giuliani showed up in Mass because he knew what was at stake. Perhaps, Sarah was too busy talking to her agent about her Fox deal. Where the hell was Sarah?

Napoleon once said that he wanted Generals that went to the sound of the cannon. That they instinctively were fighters. He also said he wanted generals that had bon chance, good luck. Well, Sarah has had good luck, but she has not gone to the sound of the cannon, where critical battles were fought in 2009.

Sarah Palin, he says, is turning into a RINO, looking out for herself and not for the conservative movement.

To be fair, none of those candidates wanted her near their campaigns. She’s toxic in those states, where Giuliani is not. But that’s no excuse. Because that only begs the question: why is she toxic? And why is Giuliani wanted everywhere? More than Romney, more than Palin, more than Huckabee, it’s Rudy who has been a GOP campaign staple post-Obama.

Activist leaders — even this paleoconservative — are taking note of what Rudy has been doing for the party. Our own DaveG suggests that Rudy could become a favored candidate of the Tea Party movement should he run again in 2012, which is looking increasingly probable. I have dismissed this sentiment as ludicrous; he’s not populist enough. He’s a city-slicker, appeals to moderates, and is not a crusader for “the people” against “the powerful.”

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s too two-dimensional a view of the Tea Party crowd. Maybe their definition of a RINO is someone who puts himself first, before any principles. Maybe 2012 can be a perfect storm for Rudy if he keeps up this sort of work.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Rasmussen Iowa Senatorial Survey

• Charles Grassley (R) 59% (56%)
• Bob Krause (D) 26% (30%)

• Charles Grassley (R) 59%
• Roxanne Conlin (D) 31%

• Charles Grassley (R) 61%
• Tom Fiegen (D) 25%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charles Grassley 67% (68%) / 30% (30%) {+37%}
• Bob Krause 27% (33%) / 35% (30%) {-8%}
• Roxanne Conlin 35% / 45% {-10%}
• Tom Fiegen 23% / 37% {-14%}

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

• Strongly approve 28% (30%)
• Somewhat approve 16% (18%)
• Somewhat disapprove 13% (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% (40%)

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 54% of the vote in Iowa.

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 9%
• Good 24%
• Fair 32%
• Poor 31%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 26, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 22, 2009 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Illinois GOP Senatorial Primary

• Mark Kirk 53%
• Patrick Hughes 18%
• Some other candidate 12%
• Not sure 18%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mark Kirk 58% / 22% {+36%}
• Patrick Hughes 34% / 21% {+13%}

Survey of 527 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted January 25, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of conservative Republicans who plan to vote on Tuesday support Kirk versus 20% who are for Hughes.

Ladies and gentlemen – the cavalry has officially arrived. This is currently the top post at RedState:

Late in the Day, a Growing Movement in Illinois Rallies to the Politically Numinous

For weeks and weeks my email has been peppered with notes from people in Illinois along the lines of this one:

You keep talking about Pat Hughes, but what about Adam Andrzejewski? He’s a dream candidate. He’s a Rubio.

Everyone these days calls their candidate a Rubio. Guess what? Andrzejewski is a Rubio — well spoken, attractive, conservative to his core, and with a zealous band of conservative supporters.

Oh, and he strikes fear and dread into the heart of the old guard Republicans who led Illinois off the cliff into the hands of an even more corrupt Democrat Party.

Let me say one more thing about Andrzejewski that I have not said about Marco Rubio. In his uniqueness as a candidate, his story, and the sheer dread he instills in the corrupt old guard of Illinois, he is politically numinous.¹

Yeah. I’ve become convinced. That is a very bold statement, but the ferver for this guy is, among desperate voters in Illinois hungering for truth, honesty, and transparency in government, overwhelming. The movement to elect Adam Andrzejewski elected is akin to a quest. And outside of Illinois, he is on very few radars.

Stacey McCain has joined the bandwagon. Polish hero Lech Walesa is on board too, and going to campaign for Andrzejewski.

With a Republican and Democratic establishment tired, corrupt, and morally bankrupt in Illinois, the state is in a world of hurt. This past week, Adam Andrzejewski debated his rivals in the Republican primary and it became all against Adam. One went so far as to lecture Andrzejewski on his call for transparency saying Andrzejewski just must not know what’s going on and that’s why he wants transparency. Duh.

Then there is this article from 2006. Read it. (PDF) Read it all. This guy is an American success story. He’s the type of guy we always say we want in politics, but then ignore once he enters the arena. Except this time people are not ignoring him.

The race in Illinois is exceptionally close with little time left. Adam Andrzejewski has a real, solid, tangible chance of winning. He has given hope to a disenchanted base of people — conservatives and independents — who want the best of themselves reflected in those who lead them.

---

1. For those of you rushing to the dictionary, “numinous” is an adjective “suggesting the presence of a divinity” — particularly the fear, awe, and trembling. See e.g. C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain. I use the word intentionally here. No, Andrzejewski is not divine, but among the political elites and the base in Illinois, he is conjuring up the same awe, dread, trembling, and passion. His presence in the race is spooking a lot of people and turning others to passionate evangelism for him.

It seems to me that too few in the ranks of the Republican Party take any serious interest in foreign affairs.

Americans cannot ignore the rest of the world.

Almost exclusively it is those nations that have been shaped by the Anglo-Saxon tradition who hold up democracy and liberty as the necessary ideals of civilization, foremost among them the United States.

In terms of answerable government, non-discriminatory enforcement of the law, and protection of individual freedom, some states certainly are better than (most) others and it is foolish and dangerous to pretend otherwise.

How shall America defend itself if its citizens underestimate their enemies such as militant Islam, and allow their government to pretend, as the current administration does, that no such danger exists?

I hope this post stirs up comment of the thoughtful rather than the exclamatory or diversionary kind among my esteemed fellow Republicans and conservatives.

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

Still awaiting final official numbers from the campaign, but people in the know tell me that the final  total is over $32,000. That’s well over the goal of $24,000 in 24 hours. Not bad at all considering the low profile of the Illinois gubernatorial race.

It’s becoming more and more obvious that Adam Andrzejewski has national traction and is gaining in local polls. At this point it should be crystal clear that Adam is the only candidate who can really marshal the troops this November against the Chicago Democrats.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dpkBDro_Ik[/youtube]

Good luck on that Governor.

(I think this the website he meant to say: StopTheSpendingBinge.com)

HotAir is just reporting that Michele Bachmann is withdrawing from next week’s Tea Party Conference in Nashville. She cites concerns over the questionable financing of the event.  This leaves Sarah Palin alone as the only featured speaker for the troubled conference.  That has to put her in an uncomfortable spot.

I remember her supporters talking a few weeks back about wonderful it was for her to be eschewing the “tainted” CPAC event and her being the only 2012 hopeful going to the Tea Party Convention — the “real” event for “true conservatives”.  Comments like have a nasty habit of coming back and biting you. I warned at the time:

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.

For the record, I don’t think Palin’s decision to headline the TBC was any particular reflection on her judgment. She accepted the offer in good faith. She wants to do her part in furthering the Tea Party movement. What better way to do that than to support their first ever event? It isn’t her fault that questions about the organizers’ shady dealings are coming out now.

To repeat: we are all in this together. Overblown rhetoric can come back and bite you. Let’s all be a little more careful next time, shall we?

Cato’s fisking of last night’s State of the Union speech is essential viewing:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5MfEG9xmE [/youtube]

Hat-tip: Bijiluvr

Love. It.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiaUdzsgvq0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The camera then cut to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who leaned over to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and appeared to whisper, “Blame it on Bush.” The two men then laughed.

Hat-tip: Gateway Pundit

P.S. Here is just a little visual reminder for our “accuracy deficient” POTUS (courtesy of the Heritage Foundation’s “Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit“):

Every schoolchild who has taken fifth grade civics knows that the Executive Branch competes with Legislative Branch, and the Supreme Court acts as referee.

If a basketball player bad-mouths a ref, he draws a technical foul. Two of these, and he is ejected from the game.

Obama made the mistake of dissing the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night. Not only is this a serious breach of decorum, it is a very foolish thing to do. Does Obama think that the court won’t remember this when they are deciding a case in which Obama has an interest? While we all hope and pray that the Justices will put petty indignities behind them and decide the cases on the merits, they are human.

“Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.” Benjamin Franklin

Still more momentum for Adam Andrzejewski with an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch”. Also – waiting for final totals on a very successful moneybomb. The $24,000 goal was easily exceeded, with the total standing at $ 31,054.46  as of 11:45 last night – but there was a last minute tweet about a very generous donation so we’re waiting to see how generous. And I can’t wait for the just-announced Tea Party rally on Friday with Lech Walesa!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1OPFVrL_Gg[/youtube]

Can another major endorsement be far behind?

Miami, FL – U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio today announced he has earned the endorsement of Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine.

Making today’s announcement, Forbes said, “Throughout his career, Marco Rubio has demonstrated an unshakable faith in free markets and limited government that have earned him the trust and admiration of supply-side conservatives everywhere.  Marco Rubio is the only true fiscal conservative in Florida’s U.S. Senate race, which is why I am proud to support him.

“With Floridians suffering through the worst economic situation in decades, Marco Rubio has proven he has the right principles, ideas and energy to get us back on track.  Marco Rubio will not only stand up against the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda in Washington, he will also unite all who believe America should stay true to the principles of limited government and individual freedom.”

Welcoming Forbes’ endorsement, Rubio commented, “Steve Forbes is one of the leading lights in America’s business community, and I am proud to have his support.  Throughout his career, Steve Forbes has built an exemplary business and been an effective advocate of free enterprise and greater freedoms at home and abroad.

“Our campaign is built around the goal of empowering individuals and entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams and create jobs in the process. I am honored to have the support of Steve Forbes who, while devoting his career to highlighting the millions of entrepreneurs that make our American economy exceptional, became a great success story himself.”

What can be done to get Thompson into this race?

Rasmussen 2010 Wisconsin U.S. Senate Poll

• Tommy Thompson (R) 47%
• Russ Feingold (D) 43%
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not Sure 4%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Tommy Thompson 56% / 39% {+17%}
• Russ Feingold 47% / 48% {-1%}

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

• Strongly approve 26%
• Somewhat approve 20%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 46%

Note: Barack Obama won 56% of the vote to carry Wisconsin in November 2008.

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 9%
• Good 23%
• Fair 26%
• Poor 37%

Which is a better way to create new jobs – cutting taxes or increasing government spending?

• Cutting taxes 59%
• Increasing government spending 15%

How would you rate the job Jim Doyle has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 11%
• Somewhat approve 25%
• Somewhat disapprove 20%
• Strongly disapprove 42%

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Wisconsin was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 26, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Inside the numbers:

Thompson leads by 10 points among male voters and breaks nearly even with Feingold among women.

Voters not affiliated with either major party break for Thompson 53% to 36%.

You decide:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oty9yv03vPE[/youtube]

(H/T to Hot Air)

The transcript of President Obama’s speech can be found here. Any quotes below from the speech are found in the transcript.

1. I missed the first few minutes of the speech. Did he do the traditional shout-out to members of the audience? I thought I saw the two Fort Hood heroes next to First Lady Obama. (According to the transcript, he did not do it in the beginning of the speech, and I don’t remember it happening at any other time.)

2. He wants to help grow America’s economy by raising taxes on those who outsource. On the one hand, he’s rewarding those who stay. However, without other incentives to stay- such as a practical tax structure- he is asking/telling them to stay out of fear, not out of the dynamic opportunities America offers businesses. This is equivalent to punching someone in the nose who leaves, and telling the rest you’ll not punch them in the face. Thus, you are doing them a favor, or so it appears. Unfortunately for America, business leaders generally aren’t stupid, and they will leave the country completely or simply find a way around the laws.

3. He promised to pay more money for education, more money for community banks to lend- the latter, mind you, out of what the big banks and lending institutions have paid back to the taxpayer- to spend money on green initiatives and to balance out the massive spending increases the Democratic Congress has put on this country in the last twelve months. How would he balance these seemingly contradictory proposals? By freezing discretionary spending for three years and “not continu[ing] tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year.” For fun, let’s see how much he cuts from trial lawyers (huge Democratic supporters) and see how much he raises on those making less than $250,000, as he did last year, breaking a campaign promise. Too, freezing discretionary is to freeze only about 18% of the budget, and he is only targeting $25 billion, a relatively paltry amount. According to MarketWatch, non-military discretionary spending is about $447 billion. Doing the math, we see he is supporting freezing about 1/18th of the discretionary budget, or approximately 5.5%. I am definitely not complaining about the effort, but why is he pretending it’s going to be enough to pay for the new programs and monies he and the Democrats have saddled us with this past year? Perhaps if he were to support real efforts to cut back spending as supported by Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, we could begin the long road back to fiscal sanity.

4. He said “health insurance reform” again, not health care reform.

5. He called for the lifting of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. *Big Yawn* While I have yet to see enough evidence to support lifting DADT, it’s right around the 80th issue back on the list. Too, I think he announced his support for lifting it to get the same kind of energy from the base President Bush was looking for when he called for the Federal Amendment banning gay marriage in his 2006 State of the Union speech. Gays are increasingly incensed with the president, so he had to throw them something. After all, they put thousands of hours and millions of dollars towards his election, and he has pretty much ignored them since that happened, except for some of the requisite events to re-ingratiate himself with them. I don’t see, however, DADT being lifted in the next few months, what with re-election the major concern of most Democrats.

6. He supported nuclear power and offshore drilling. Yes, he still wants cap-and-trade (which won’t happen in an already-tough election year for Democrats), but supporting nuclear power and drilling was one of the few bipartisan ideas he offered, and I was both surprised and glad he supports them.

7. Actually, this might be the Lie of the Day: “That’s the leadership we are providing: engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people.” Given that he was ridiculed by France’s Sarkozy for being soft on Iran, ignored the protesters who were dying in Iran for quite some time, did not support the legal coup by the Honduran people and their government and military, snubbed Germany’s Merkel at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, snubbed Britain’s Prime Minister and Queen once each and broke a missile shield contract with Poland, how can he say he is using engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people?

8. I was surprised at the enthusiasm and wide-ranging efforts he talked about. I thought he would be both more mild and more cognizant of the fact that his policies are unpopular and Congress is not going to take political risks right now. Will he convince politicians to be more concerned about the state of the country versus their own survival? I expect Democrats will make some noise in that area, then blame their opponents for not wanting to work together and thus continue this ridiculous and harmful cycle of politics we have in DC.

9. Chuckle of the Day: He wants people to stop campaigning and lead in Washington. Because, you know, he stopped campaigning on November 5, 2009. (As Jonah Goldberg noted today, the president brought back his old campaign manager this week to retool his message. You know, because he’s stopped campaigning.)

10. For all his talk about education, he still has not supported the DC School Voucher program.

11. Last but not least, his “jobs will,” or third stimulus in the last two years, not only won’t do anything positive but will coincide with the current stimulus, only $172 billion of which has been spent. Since we have $600 billion still to utilize, why not use that first before putting more debt on us?

Update: 12. Enough with the SOB stories. Please. Use evidence to convince us, not a story about adding 1,200 jobs, because most Americans know at least 1,201 were lost at the same time these 1,200 were brought into play. Please? Treat us like adults, not starry-eyed children. THEN you will be a president we might be able to follow.