Below is an excerpt from my latest Pajamas Media piece:

Matt Yglesias of Think Progress took a lot of heat from the right last month for stating that America has become ungovernable. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey said Yglesias wasn’t making these complaints when the Democrats were in the minority and obstructing judges and social security reform. Kim Priestap of Wizbang suggested that Yglesias was trying to make excuses for Obama’s flailing agenda.

Yes, Yglesias was being hypocritical. Yes, Yglesias was making excuses. Nonetheless, Yglesias was essentially right. America is ungovernable. It has been for the better part of its history.

Regarding the U.S. Senate, Yglesias complained: “It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.”

Yglesias hit on the left’s problem, but he stopped short. Yglesias and the left complain about the bind in which they find themselves. They can spare 40 votes on any House vote, and they have a Senate majority, but they can’t get anything done. It’s as if a genius schemed against them to thwart their efforts and require impossibly large majorities to accomplish something.

A genius did conspire against the left, but their foe isn’t Karl Rove. In fact, he’s been dead for 173 years.

By fingering the system as the problem, Yglesias identified the system’s creators as the enemy and James Madison in particular. But our founders didn’t set out to frustrate any specific people. They were concerned with one big question: how does one prevent a republic from degenerating into tyranny, as all historical republics had?

While Yglesias worries about the minority ruining a Democratic stampede, Madison worried about something else entirely. In Federalist 51 he writes:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. …. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

Madison’s solution was simple.

Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

Read the rest here:

Derek Jensen of The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

At turns charming about his New York mayoral stint then chippy toward President Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani delivered a red-meat speech on leadership to a receptive Utah audience Wednesday before a direct question made him pause.

“Could there be a Romney-Giuliani ticket in 2012?” Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, asked the failed 2008 presidential candidate.

Giuliani waited for the anxious laughter to fade, then framed a toothy grin.

“There could be anything in 2012, who knows?” he told a crowd of nearly 1,000 at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. “Things change in American politics almost instantly.”

He should know. The one-time 2008 Republican front-runner became a campaigning cautionary tale after staking all his hopes on winning Florida, before finishing third. Giuliani said he never thought “in a million years” Obama would eclipse Hillary Clinton to top the Democratic ticket.

But if Utahns assembled for the Utah League of Cities & Towns “local officials day” at the Legislature are any measure, perhaps “America’s mayor” (after his post-9/11 leadership) has a political future.

“He’s a genius. He’s a guy you would follow to the ends of the earth because you trust him,” Douglas Wixom, a Ph.D. who runs after-school programs for South Salt Lake, said after the speech. Wixom said he is partial to Mitt Romney, but would not object to a President Giuliani. “They’d make a great ticket. Obama’s a con man.”

Winking, Sen. President Michael Waddoups also offered an endorsement of sorts. “He’s obviously a leader. We could certainly do worse than a president like him someday.”

Invoking Ronald Reagan, and arguing government cannot be efficient without making people accountable, Giuliani recounted successes in cleaning up New York, while transitioning the city’s 1 million welfare recipients to “workfare.” Leaders, he said, must have a set of beliefs, courage and communication skills.

But the former prosecutor from the Reagan Justice Department had stern and sober words for Obama regarding the war on terrorism.

“I try not to be partisan; I’m just saying this as an American,” he offered. “The president has done some things that have hurt our intelligence gathering. The president has finally acknowledged we’re at war.”

Later, Giuliani said the nation must stay one step ahead of terrorists by taking the war to them. “When we capture one of them, we should interrogate them forever,” he said. “Not just for 10 hours, 12 hours. Most of them are professional liars.”

Giuliani said he is not talking about torture.

“To try to treat this thing as a criminal-justice matter makes no sense,” he added. “The president’s got to get around to that way of thinking.”

The line drew whoops and applause.

“I actually love this guy,” Brighton High’s Christina Bracken said. “He’s really informative.”

Classmate Jeremy Ashby said Giuliani’s address taught him a key principle of leadership: “It’s better to have ideas than to ask for ideas,” he said. “Don’t follow.”

“If the Republican primary for president of the United States were held today… for whom would you vote?”

• Sarah Palin 22.2%
• Mitt Romney 19.4%
• Newt Gingrich 12%
• Mike Huckabee 11%
• David Petraeus 5.4%
• Scott Brown 5.2%
• Tim Pawlenty 4.9%
• Jeb Bush 3.9%

The Newsmax-Zogby poll suggests the rumble for top dog among GOP candidates is anything but static.

In early December, a CNN/Opinion Research poll found Mike Huckabee led the Republican field of presidential candidates with Palin trailing him for second place.

The latest data is clearly good news for Palin.

“It suggests to me that reports of her political death are exaggerated,” political strategist and Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen tells Newsmax. “In American political life, politicians have not only second and third lives, they have nine lives. And Sarah Palin is on her third or fourth life.”
-
The poll indicates that, among Republicans at least, Palin has overcome the various and sundry attacks leveled against her in the media and remains a powerful political force.

She recently kicked off a series of campaign appearances on behalf of Republican candidates who hope to ride the current wave of anti-incumbent animus into Washington.

GOP political leaders are taking notice.

California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the chief deputy whip for the GOP, tells Newsmax he’s not surprised by Palin’s strength in the Newsmax-Zogby poll, “but I imagine there are a few networks, that it might surprise them.”

McCarthy says Palin has become the voice of an electorate increasingly frustrated with federal governance.

“She has the common sense to go out, to listen, to talk, to tell exactly how she feels from the heart,” McCarthy tells Newsmax. “They can try to go out there and say whatever they want about her but she’s really the voice of the people. She raises a family, she understands those challenges. … I think that’s what America is looking for.

“America is not looking for a party,” McCarthy says. “They’re looking for a leader and those who will help change Washington.”

Read the entire analysis here.

The poll’s margin of error was 2.2 percent.

_____________________________________________

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

CNN/Opinion Research State of the Union Survey

What was your overall reaction to President Obama’s speech tonight?

• Very positive 48% (68%)
• Somewhat positive 30% (24%)
• Somewhat negative 15% (6%)
• Very negative 6% (2%)

Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?

Pre-speech (Jan. 22-26, 2010)

• Right direction 53% (71%)
• Wrong direction 43% (26%)

Post-Speech

• Right direction 71% (88%)
• Wrong direction 27% (11%)

So far, would you say Barack Obama has had the right priorities, or that he hasn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems?

Pre-speech (Jan. 22-26, 2010)

• Right priorities 49%
• Hasn’t paid attention to most important problems 51%

Post-Speech

• Right priorities 55%
• Hasn’t paid attention to most important problems 44%

How confident are you in Barack Obama’s abilities to carry out his duties as president?

• Very confident 38% (55%)
• Somewhat confident 28% (32%)
• Not too confident 22% (10%)
• Not confident at all 12% (3%)

Do you think that President Obama’s plan will or will not succeed in:

Improving the economy

• Will succeed 67% (80%)
• Will not succeed 32% (18%)

Reducing the federal budget deficit

• Will succeed 49% (68%)
• Will not succeed 47% (30%)

Improving the nation’s health care system

• Will succeed 51% (75%)
• Will not succeed 46% (23%)

Creating or saving millions of jobs

• Will succeed 59% (82%)
• Will not succeed 39% (17%)

Do you think President Obama’s speech tonight shows that he will have the same goals and priorities that he had last year, or do you think his speech shows that he will move his administration in a new direction this year?

• Same goals and priorities 50%
• New direction 49%

Survey of 400 adults who watched the president’s State of the Union address was conducted on January 27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009 are in parentheses. Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of a random national sample on January 22-26, 2010. In those interviews, respondents indicated they planned to watch tonight’s speech and were willing to be re-interviewed after the speech. Party ID breakdown: 38% Democrat; 25% Republican; 36% Independent.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

So Alito had his “Joe Wilson” moment?  Where do I send money to his campaign?

Seriously, I could understand some of the controversey over Joe Wilson’s, “You lie” statement as it actually interrupted the President’s speech. However, this?

The President speaks with “respect” for the Seperation of Powers and then proceeds not just to criticize the court’s ruling, but to lecture them and Alito says something quietly or even just mouths the words and Politico is trying to stir up a controversy and compare it to shouting down the President.

No wonder most Americans skip this silly event.

The president’s State of the Union address to the nation tonight demonstrated why Obama and his policies are incapable of moving the nation forward. The president’s record, as well as his plans for the future, suffer from a combination of using band-aids where blowtorches are necessary, of assuming that government and not free people is the engine of economies and societies, and, as in the case of ObamaCare, of proposing the wrong policies where big seismic policy changes are needed. For all of these reasons, regardless of his rhetoric, the reality is that the remainder of Obama’s presidency is unlikely to outshine his lackluster first year in office.

First, the band-aids. Obama is probably correct that without the bailouts, the economy would’ve collapsed to an even greater extent than it did. But along with the bailouts should have come the blowtorches. Why were these companies too big to fail in the first place? What is stopping real competition from taking place within the financial sector? Any market that contains players that are too big to fail is not a real market. I’m not enough of a financial guru to know what could have been or should have been done to end the too-big-to-fail dynamic within the American economy, but it seems to me that restoring a genuine market should have been front and center along with the bailouts. Another band-aid comes in the form of a freeze on discretionary spending that completely ignores the primary reason for the coming fiscal calamity — the unsustainable entitlements. Aside from being largely incidental to the nation’s fiscal health, it seems curious that the president has developed a newfound interest in this freeze immediately after losing his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The president then moved on to a discussion of his previous stimulus bill and a potential jobs bill. Interestingly, the underlying assumption in this portion of the speech appeared to be that government is the engine that allows our economy and society to operate and function. According to the president, it was the government’s actions via the stimulus bill that saved millions of jobs from being extinguished. Further, without more government to better educate Americans in math and science, to spur the development of clean energy, and so forth, the U.S. will be surpassed by its economic competitors across the globe who are doing all of these things as we speak. It was at this point that the president announced to his audience that he would not accept second place for the United States. Implicit in that statement is the notion that the American people are incapable of achieving anything higher than second place without the assistance of and direction of the state.

The president claims that it took government to save jobs, but the majority of the president’s examples of job-saving superhero actions involved tax credits being given to individuals and businesses. That’s not government action — that’s government getting out of the way. The president says that our economic competitors are creating green jobs because that’s where the money is. Well if that truly is the case, then presumably private citizens, armed with the profit motive, will do the same thing here in the U.S. if government simply pulls back and allows them to do so. The president laments the poor performance of U.S. students in math and science. I wonder how that performance level would change if the K-12 public school system was disbanded entirely and parents were given vouchers to send their kids to the private school of their choice, with scores of private schools, both religious and secular, popping up in the place of the archaic public schools. The president says that we need to be smart enough to follow the lead of our most successful economic competitors. That we need to “seek new markets aggressively.” And he assumes that Americans are too stupid to do so without being led around on a leash by the state.

When the famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he answered, “because that’s where the money is.” The innate desire of human individuals to acquire the resources they need to survive and thrive is not limited to the citizens of the new economic powerhouses of China and India. The key to America’s economic revival is not for government to tell Americans what to do, but for the state to remove itself from the path of the individual will so that Americans, like Willie Sutton, will be able to find “where the money is” and will be able to best India and China and renew the economic prowess of the United States, as they always do.

Finally, the president made one last ditch effort to sell ObamaCare to the nation. He challenged his audience to put before him a better proposal than the Democratic one that would still meet the goals of expanded access to care, lower deficits, and lower costs of care. The president presumably hasn’t seen the plethora of Republican proposals that do all of those things with fewer unintended consequences by reducing government, not expanding it.

The nation is at a crossroads, and we have once again reached a time for choosing. Is America going to trust free people and free markets to save its economy, or the commands and controls of government? Is America going to take real action on the dinosaurs that we call entitlements that are bankrupting our nation, or are we going to become a failed state? Are we going to modernize sectors of the economy like health care by removing regulations and enhancing freedom, or are we going to retreat into the false security of failed notions of collectivism? The choice is ours. The time is now.

ICYMI:

The president looked battle-weary, more than anything, but he still managed to slip in some particularly egregious remarks…

1. Referring to Iran as “The Islamic Republic of Iran.” It is a slap in the face to the democrats in Iran who struggle against those who have kept their country mired in its current “Islamic republican” state. Would Obama refer to North Korea as the “Democratic People’s Republic”?

2. Saying that the answers from the Republican Party to help reduce our deficit will be: “Don’t invest in our people…maintain the status quo.” That’s the Republican argument? “Don’t invest in our people?” And then, without skipping a beat, he quickly pivoted and spoke about how he wants to return respect and civility to the chamber.

3. The problem with the health care debate, said the president, was that he “didn’t explain it well enough” to the American people, who were too busy asking, in Obama’s words, “What’s in it for me?” But Obama, good and just, will not turn his back on them. The man is a saint.

4. The turn to protectionism is frightening. He says that he plans to create millions of jobs via export-driven work, and that he will raise taxes on companies that outsource work. Is he trying to raise prices? Does he want to start a trade war?

5. “I’m not interested in punishing banks,” he said, ten minutes after saying that banks have “behaved badly.” So either we don’t want to punish bad behavior, or…well, I won’t say it.

Have at it in the comments.

Good evening. I’m Bob McDonnell. Eleven days ago I was honored to be sworn in as the 71st governor of Virginia.

I’m standing in the historic House Chamber of Virginia’s Capitol, a building designed by Virginia’s second governor, Thomas Jefferson.

It’s not easy to follow the President of the United States. And my twin 18-year old boys have added to the pressure, by giving me exactly ten minutes to finish before they leave to go watch SportsCenter.

I’m joined by fellow Virginians to share a Republican perspective on how to best address the challenges facing our nation today.

We were encouraged to hear President Obama speak this evening about the need to create jobs.

All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it.

Many of us here, and many of you watching, have family or friends who have lost their jobs.

1 in 10 American workers is unemployed. That is unacceptable.

Here in Virginia we have faced our highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years, and bringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration.

Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector’s ability to create new jobs.
(more…)

Today, the Heritage Foundation did us all a huge favor by disseminating the numbers contained in the CBO’s ten-year budget baseline:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released a ten-year budget baseline showing $6 trillion in deficits over the next decade. Yet because Congress requires the CBO to include all sorts of unrealistic assumptions (that all tax cuts will expire, that the AMT will never again be patched, that discretionary spending will barely move for a decade), some adjustments must be made.

After building a true budget baseline, the sobering result shows ten-year deficits of $13 trillion. The annual budget deficit never falls below $1 trillion. By 2019, the debt is projected at $22 trillion, or 98 percent of GDP.

These deficits are driven by spending. Even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were extended and the AMT were patched, 2020 revenues would be just 0.7 percent of GDP below the historical average. Yet 2020 spending would be 5.2 percent of GDP above the historical average. This means that 88 percent of the additional deficits would come from higher spending and only 12 percent would come from lower revenues.

The numbers are truly staggering. Between 2009 and 2020, the national debt would increase by $130,000 per household. By 2020, net interest alone would cost $1 trillion – one-quarter of all tax revenues. Federal spending would reach 25.9 percent of GDP, shattering the post-war record. And these estimates do not include the cost of the president’s health-care and cap-and-trade proposals. His spending agenda — which would be unaffordable even in good budget times — is completely unrealistic given this sea of red ink.

Of course, the media fell over its collective self in an effort to praise President Obama’s proposed discretionary spending “freeze” (of numbers already inflated by the so-called stimulus). The fawning will likely continue in the next couple days, as the networks offer analysis of tonight’s State of the Union address. However, as Heritage shows us, Obama’s “plan” amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.

P.S. I don’t mean to say that I oppose the President’s freeze. I support virtually ANY attempt to restrain the runaway growth in federal spending. I simply wish the fiscal restraint would extend to EVERY area of the federal budget.

NPR/POS/GQR National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Strongly approve 29% (33%)
• Somewhat approve 19% (20%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 38% (34%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing?

• Strongly approve 6% (7%)
• Somewhat approve 23% (25%)
• Somewhat disapprove 19% (19%)
• Strongly disapprove 48% (42%)

If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?

• Republican candidate 44% (43%)
• Democratic candidate 39% (42%)

Thinking now about President Obama’s first year in office, would you say Obama is doing a better job than you expected, a worse job than you expected, or is his job performance about what you expected?

• Better job 10%
• Worse job 29%
• About what expected 60%

Is President Obama making progress addressing the problems facing the country, or is Obama not making progress addressing the problems facing the country? (If ‘making progress’) Is Obama making major progress or minor progress addressing the problems facing the country?

• Yes, major progress 20%
• Yes, minor progress 28%
• No, not making progress 49%

Do you think the changes President Obama is seeking are mainly the right changes or mainly the wrong changes for the country?

• Mainly the right changes 50%
• Mainly the wrong changes 46%

I am going to read you two statements, and please tell me which one comes closest to your opinion… Some people say that President Obama’s economic policies were successful in averting an even worse crisis and are laying the foundation for an eventual economic recovery…while other people say that President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses. Which statement comes closest to your own opinion?

• Obama’s economic policies were successful 48%
• Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit 50%

As you may have heard, President Obama has proposed a plan to change the health care system that recently passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate. From what you have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama’s health care proposal?

• Strongly favor 19% (25%)
• Somewhat favor 20% (17%)
• Somewhat oppose 10% (8%)
• Strongly oppose 45% (39%)

(more…)

It’s about time for this. Every other modern country’s military seems to have men who are mature enough to handle the presence of gay men. I would hate to think that the United States’ men are an exception — or that we as a country believe that gay men shouldn’t be allowed to serve their country if they want a picture of their boyfriends by their beds. We’ve actually removed Arabic translators from military service for their sexual orientation. What could possibly be more insane?

As Barry Goldwater put it: to serve your country, you shouldn’t have to be straight — just shoot straight.

From CBS:

President Obama in his State of the Union address tonight will ask Congress to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibits openly gay servicemen in the military.

…

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod reportedly confirmed to CNN that Mr. Obama will ask for the repeal tonight.

Mike Pence fires the first bullet:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said that Republicans “will use every means at our disposal” to block a legislative change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“I would hope we would be able to block it,” he said.

As he walked into the House chamber, he said that the 15 year old compromise policy is working, and that Obama would be making a mistake to push “an ideological agenda” that undermines military readiness.

“There’s nothing more important in a military unit than unit cohesion,” Pence said.

I would really hate for this to become the New Big Issue. It hurts to see my party’s leaders so horribly wrong.

Public Policy Polling (D) 2010 Illinois Governor Poll

2010 Governor: General Election

• Dan Hynes (D) 38%,
• Andy McKenna (R) 36%

• Dan Hynes (D) 40%
• Jim Ryan (R) 35%

• Andy McKenna (R) 42%
• Pat Quinn (D) 36%%

• Jim Ryan (R) 42%
• Pat Quinn (D) 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Dan Hynes: 26 / 24
• Andy McKenna: 20 / 21
• Jim Ryan: 30 / 36

Job Approval / Disapproval

• Gov. Quinn: 25 / 55

Survey conducted between 1/22-25/10 among 1,062 likely voters with a 3% margin of error. Party ID breakdown: 47% Democrat; 31% Republican; 23% Independent. Political ideology: 38% Moderate; 36% Conservative; 26% Liberal.

“The View” follows in its traditionally unclassy commentary on anything conservatives do in this take on the Tebow “pro-life” advertisement:

I should note that the clip does not have opposition from Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar- Ms. Behar’s comment was merely totally inappropriate and should never have been on the show. I think she was actually defending the ad as non-controversial, since we do have freedom of speech in this country, and the ad never explicitly is pro-life. (Goldberg also defended Tebow. I’m glad, if shocked.)

ICYMI, JD Hayworth is running again John McCain.  Hayworth is touting himself as a common sense conservative, but in reality he is a reckless authoritarian, not a conservative.  Most observers usually equate authoritarianism with socialist ideology, not the American conservative movement.

An Authoritarian, not a Conservative

Hayworth attempted to circumvent the constitution and the right to free speech by attempting to rescind the press credentials of reporters from the New York Times.

Of course rescinding the credentials of the NYT’s is a common fantasy shared by conservatives, but the difference between Hayworth and actual common sense conservatism, is that reasonable Republicans do not go public with the idea (and legislation), trying to make the dream a reality.

“The New York Times is a guest in the Capitol that, sadly, in my view, has worn out its welcome. This does not prohibit them from watching congressional activities on C-Span, or from the corner across the street, or from calling members of Congress by telephone.”

A Record of Corruption (Jack Abramoff)

From the most damaging scandal to hit the Republican since Watergate, the words ‘Jack Abramoff’ are set to make their way back to the headlines, as we witness the reappearance of JD Hayworth to the national scene.

No other elected official had received more gifts, perks and money from Abramoff, than JD Hayworth.

Refreshing your memory;

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington that monitors the influence of money in politics, Mr. Hayworth was the largest single Congressional recipient of donations from Mr. Abramoff and his family, his associates, his Indian tribe clients and a gambling cruise ship line that he owned, with more than $101,000 going to Mr. Hayworth and his political action committee since 1999. Mr. Hayworth was also a frequent guest in sports skyboxes controlled by Mr. Abramoff and his clients, and at Signatures, a Washington restaurant owned by the lobbyist.

Embarrassing Statements and Insults of Foreign Leaders

And let us not forget JD Hayworth’s mature and responsible approach to foreign policy.

Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth is warning the Mexican government that if they do not play ball when it comes to establishing a guest worker program to document migrating laborers, there will be financial consequences. -  he [Hayworth]  may seek to cut foreign aid to the country.

Correct me if I am wrong, but how is it the responsibility of Mexico for the failure of the US government to build a fence along the border, enforce civil law and leave the immigration system in need of reform?  I am not sure how constructive it was to go public with a threat of financial sanctions against the Mexican government when we won’t even push for stronger sanctions against nation members of the Axis of evil.

That same year, Hayworth also told then President of Mexico, Vicente Fox,  to ‘shut up’, in a bizarre rant about a Mexican invasion of the United States;

“What’s disgraceful is President Fox presuming to lecture the United States on how best to protect itself against an invasion — an invasion that has his wholehearted advocacy. . . . He needs to stop his advocacy of an invasion of his countrymen into our nation. What’s shameful is that, as the president of the Republic of Mexico, he does nothing to stem this invasion. He actively endorses it.”

False Accusations Against Chinese Americans

In March of 2002, JD Hayworth’s cultural sensitivity skills were on display during a debate over a House amendment that would have barred legal permanent residents from making political campaign contribution.  Instead of making a common sense argument that only citizens of the United States should have the right to participate in elections, Hayworth decided to attack Chinese Americans, by implying that they would assist with establishing of;

“sham corporations operated by the Red Army of China”,

and for providing;

“enemies of our state access to our political system.”

The Asian Chamber of Commerce (a pro-business organization that has endorsed Republican candidates)  was not impressed with Hayworth’s comments;

“Current laws already prohibit foreign money from flowing into the United States political system,” said Adrienne Pon, Executive Director of ALC. “Rep. Hayworth should apologize for inflammatory remarks that can create a backlash against Chinese Americans.”

Attacking President Bush on 9/11

Many of you may have wondered where the post-September 11th, Michael Moore/Liberal elite “Bush was gone fishing”, and “on vacation” attack lines originated from.  In fact, they came from the mouth of then Congressman JD Hayworth.

From an article published on September 11th, 2001;

Several Republicans said that Representative J. D. Hayworth of Arizona complained that it was hard for Mr. Bush to get his message out if the White House lectern had a ”Gone fishing” sign on it.

Not only was Hayworth’s smear campaign against President Bush unacceptable, but his timing could not have been worse.  To have his statements go public the same morning our nation was attacked was unfortunate for President Bush and the Republican party, and a gift to the looney left and media elite that pushed this theme in the years that followed.

_____________________________________________

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

My roommate jumped up from his bed. “Oh my God!”

Whatever could be the matter?

“Have you seen this new Apple iPad thing?”

“Yeah. Too expensive! Anyway, all I need is one more thing. One more screen to look at.”

“But look at all the things it does.”

“I can do those things already with what I have.”

This segued into a conversation about the Kindle, the iPod-like device for books. Since I’m a bibliomaniac with approximately thirty thousand books in my room, he says to me: “You probably spent about $1,000 on those books. You could have spent far less on the Kindle.”

“Yeah, and then what? My book collection would be what? A little piece of plastic? Books are a spiritual experience! I enjoy the texture, the joy of browsing a dusty old used-book store, the aesthetics of a filled bookshelf, the gorgeous cover art, the ability to get away from screens.”

“The Kindle has the cover art. And have you seen the screen?” (It’s not very “screeny.”)

“Yeah, in black-and-white, and that’s not the same, besides. A screen is still a screen.” (To see what I mean, ask yourself: why go witness the Sistine Chapel in person when you can see it on your laptop?)

Our culture is obsessed with compactness, gadgetry, screens, and stuff — mostly for its own sake. These Apple fanboys are the worst. They wait breathlessly on their hands and knees waiting for the newest Apple toy, which is promptly discarded as soon as something new is given to them by the gods a few months later. We can now browse our e-mail and read the newspaper on a new, 2010 piece of plastic! The iPod Touch is so passe.

Suckers.

Heard on Sarah Palin Radio last night hosted by La Donna Hale Curzon :

LA DONNA HALE CURZON: Glenn Beck said last week on his radio program that he thought it was Mitt Romney’s turn to be the next Republican nominee for President. What’s your thoughts on that?

PALIN: Well, I don’t think it’s anybody’s turn ever.

We’ve got to really, really work hard to build up that trust in the people for the people to elect you in a primary and general.

But Romney’s a great guy. Glenn Beck’s a really great guy, and I appreciate the diverse views and opinions that these fellows are going to be sharing with the rest of America through these next few years before a candidate does rise to the top of the GOP.

Good for Sarah. I fully agree about it not being anybody’s turn and her bit about Romney being a great guy. Her gracious, mature comment concerning Mitt and her dead-on comment about us needing all views and opinions in the next few few years puts the lie to her critics’ caricatures of her.

(Of course, I have to wonder if she has been on C4P recently where they are not nearly so gracious towards Mitt. )

Politico reports that the knives are out amongst the Democratic Leadership. It doesn’t look pretty:

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be all smiles as the president arrives at the Capitol for his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, but the happy faces can’t hide relationships that are fraying and fraught.

The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.

But sources say there are also signs of strain between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters the legislative process in the Senate is “broken” — prompting Reid to later quip: “I could give you a few comments on how I feel about the House.”

Pelosi and her allies blame the collapsing health reform negotiations, in part, on Obama’s reluctance to sacrifice political capital to seal a final deal in mid-2009. House Democrats also resent that Emanuel and other White House officials forced them to take tough votes on cap and trade and health reform while allowing Reid and Senate Democrats months of fruitless frittering on the details.

In recent days, Pelosi and her team have struck a new, tougher tone with the White House, resisting pressure to quickly accept the Senate’s health bill, even with assurances that it would later be altered.

Emanuel, several Senate and House aides said, hasn’t been shy about assigning blame, either. He’s been especially critical of moderate senators, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for wasting months negotiating with Republican senators, such as his friend Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

While shouldering some of the blame for the Massachusetts debacle, Emanuel has reportedly criticized Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey — and, on occasion, even Reid himself.

Reid and his staff were infuriated when they got word Emanuel was apparently telling associates the majority leader did too little to force Baucus to accelerate his work, according to two people familiar with the situation.

More out of the Party of No from the future president, Paul Ryan:

Here are the principal elements:

• Health Care. The plan ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs, and shifting the control and ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.

It provides a refundable tax credit—$2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families—to purchase coverage (from another state if they so choose) and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. It establishes transparency in health-care price and quality data, so this critical information is readily available before someone needs health services.

State-based high risk pools will make affordable care available to those with pre-existing conditions. In addition to the tax credit, Medicaid will provide supplemental payments to low-income recipients so they too can obtain the health coverage of their choice and no longer be consigned to the stigmatized, sclerotic care that Medicaid has come to represent.

• Medicare. The Road Map secures Medicare for current beneficiaries, while making common-sense reforms to save this critical program. It preserves the existing Medicare program for Americans currently 55 or older so they can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives.

For those under 55—as they become Medicare-eligible—it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.

The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs. Enacted together, these reforms will help keep Medicare solvent for generations to come.

• Social Security. The Road Map preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older. For those under 55, the plan offers the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to federal employees. This proposal includes a property right, so those who own these accounts can pass on the assets to their heirs. The plan also guarantees that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.

The plan also makes the program permanently solvent by combining a modest adjustment in the growth of initial Social Security’s benefits for higher-income individuals, with a gradual, modest increase in the retirement age.

• Tax Reform. The Road Map offers an alternative to today’s needlessly complex and unfair tax code, providing the option of a simplified system that promotes work, saving and investment.

This highly simplified code fits on a postcard. It has just two rates: 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers, and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. It also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four), and no tax loopholes, deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit).

The proposal eliminates the alternative minimum tax. It promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. It eliminates the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax—currently the second highest in the industrialized world—with a business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is roughly half the average in the industrialized world and will put American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in a global economy.

Paul Ryan’s going to pop up on all of the 2012 VP shortlists.

• Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty on The State of the Union
• Pawlenty, Bachmann, Paulsen rally against abortion
• Pawlenty’s Serious Steps on the Economy
• Pawlenty on Obama’s spending “freeze”:

• Pawlenty turns down Jindal’s invitation
• First Take: Ford CEO, Gov. Pawlenty, Haiti Survivor’s Tale
• Pawlenty Makes Another Move Toward 2012
• More [2012] Paw prints
• Pawlenty: The man who wasn’t there
• Pawlenty: No ‘pork barrel’ projects in $685 million bonding bill
• 2012 caucus possibilities: Palin, Romney, Pawlenty and Gingrich

_____________________________________________

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

You just have to love to the demagoguery displayed by the women protesting the Focus on the Family/Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad.

“Corporate Bias Sucks”? I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw that…

Quinnipiac Florida Gubernatorial Survey

If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Alex Sink the Democrat and Bill McCollum the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Bill McCollum 41% {36%} [38%] (34%)
• Alex Sink 31% {32%} [34%] (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill McCollum 35% {34%} [42%] (40%) / 15% {14%} [13%] (13%) {+20%}
• Alex Sink 24% {23%} [23%] (25%) / 8% {8%} [8%] (7%) {+16%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill McCollum is handling his job as Florida’s Attorney General?

• Approve 56% {53%} [53%]
• Disapprove 20% {19%} [16%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Alex Sink is handling her job as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer?

• Approve 39% {38%} [37%]
• Disapprove 22% {23%} [21%]

From what you’ve heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress?

• Approve 32%
• Disapprove 57%

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says that if Congress passes a health care bill that requires all Americans to buy health insurance he will file a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality. Do you think filing a lawsuit is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 49%
• Bad idea 42%

In general, do you support or oppose the United States increasing the amount of drilling for oil and natural gas in offshore waters?

• Support 63%
• Oppose 33%

Some state officials have suggested lifting the bans on drilling in federal waters off Florida. Do you think lifting those bans is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 55%
• Bad idea 38%

(more…)

Your eyes are not deceiving you. Pat Toomey leads Snarlin’ Arlen by 14% among likely voters:

Daily News/Franklin & Marshall 2010 PA Senate Poll

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 30% {30%} [37%] (33%)
• Joe Sestak 13% {18%} [11%] (13%)
• Some other candidate 7% {5%} [6%] (6%)
• Don’t know 50% {47%} [46%] (48%)

Senatorial Election

Among Registered Voters

• Arlen Specter 30% {33%} [37%]
• Pat Toomey 30% {31%} [29%]
• Some other candidate 5% {6%} [9%]
• Don’t know 35% {30%} [25%]

• Pat Toomey 28% {28%} [26%]
• Joe Sestak 16% {20%} [22%]
• Some other candidate 5% {4%} [6%]
• Don’t know 51% {48%} [46%]

Among Likely Voters

• Pat Toomey 45%
• Arlen Specter 31%
• Some other candidate 4%
• Don’t know 20%

• Pat Toomey 41%
• Joe Sestak 19%
• Some other candidate 3%
• Don’t know 37%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob Casey 32% {32%} [41%] (32%) / 20% {21%} [18%] (17%) {+12%}
• Pat Toomey 15% {16%} [18%] / 7% {10%} [10%] {+8%}
• Joe Sestak 8% {11%} [13%] / 6% {5%} [4%] {+2%}
• Barack Obama 44% {45%} [55%] (57%) / 44% {39%} [37%] (27%) {0%}
• Ed Rendell 42% {37%} [32%] (42%) / 45% {47%} [53%] (40%) {-3%}
• Arlen Specter 35% {28%} [35%] (31%) / 43% {46%} [42%] (37%) {-8%}

Would you say that you are more likely or less likely to vote for Senator Specter because he switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat?

• Much more likely 9%
• Somewhat more likely 10%
• Somewhat less likely 12%
• Much less likely 27%
• Made no difference 38%

Would you say that you are more likely or less likely to vote for Senator Specter because he voted for the president’s healthcare plan?

• Much more likely 15%
• Somewhat more likely 13%
• Somewhat less likely 11%
• Much less likely 31%
• Made no difference 23%

How would you rate the way that Arlen Specter is handling his job as U.S. Senator?

• Excellent job 5% {4%} [8%] (10%)
• Good job 29% {25%} [27%] (24%)
• Only a fair job 31% {36%} [35%] (37%)
• Poor job 27% {28%} [22%] (18%)

Do you believe that Arlen Specter has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change?

• Deserves re-election 29% {23%} [34%] (28%)
• Time for a change 60% {66%} [54%] (57%)

Pennsylvania’s constitution establishes the fundamental law of the state, ensuring basic rights to citizens, outlining the structure of state government, and providing rules by which state legislators are elected and how they conduct the state’s business. The state’s current constitution was adopted in 1874 and the last constitutional convention was held in 1967. Would you favor or oppose a state constitutional convention to review the state’s constitution?

• Strongly favor 45%
• Somewhat favor 27%
• Somewhat oppose 10%
• Strongly oppose 10%

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Excellent job 11% {17%} [14%] (20%)
• Good job 27% {23%} [33%] (35%)
• Only a fair job 32% {31%} [29%] (25%)
• Poor job 29% {28%} [24%] (19%)

Do you think that abortion should be…

• Legal under any circumstances 23% {20%} [21%] (18%)
• Legal under certain circumstances 50% {54%} [54%] (58%)
• llegal in all circumstances 24% {23%} [23%] (22%)

Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?

• The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word. 47% {49%} [48%] (56%)
• The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 34% {33%} [32%] (25%)
• The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men. 16% {15%} [17%] (17%)

Survey of 1,165 adult residents of Pennsylvania, including 993 registered voters, and 395 likely voters, was conducted January 18-24, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. The sample error for registered adults is +/- 3.1 percentage points and is slightly higher for registered Democrats (+/- 4.7 percentage points) and registered Republicans (+/- 4.8 percentage points). Party registration breakdown: 46% {49%} [48%] (52%) Democrat; 43% {39%} [39%] (36%) Republican; 9% {10%} [10%] (8%) Independent. Party ID breakdown: 31% {36%} [34%] (37%) Democrat; 30% {27%} [28%] (23%) Republican; 37% {33%} [34%] (35%) Independent. Political views: 42% {39%} [43%] (37%) Conservative; 30% {36%} [36%] (34%) Moderate;19% { 16%} [16%] (19%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 20-25, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-31, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 16-21, 2009 are in parentheses.

She is against the freedom of speech regarding a Super Bowl ad that talks about a successful young man whose mother chose against her doctor’s advice to have her child, and O’Reilly demolishes her. Laura Ingraham is destroying her right now, additionally, on the radio.

I posted this in early November, but nobody believed that Obamacare was actually dead. Now that I’ve been vindicated, I’d like to re-post it.

It’s safe to admit it, now: Obamacare, in any meaningful sense of the term, is dead. There’s not going to be a public option, the House Bill is dead on arrival in the Senate (and vice versa), and the two chambers of Congress appear to be at a total impasse. It’s safe now to start performing the autopsy of the “public” “option” and other statist schemes. They aren’t zombies; they aren’t being buried alive. They’re dead. The American people have rejected them.

Why?

We already know that Obamacare was handled abysmally from a political standpoint. From the beginning, the president punted by sending the mission of crafting a bill off to the wildly divided Democratic caucus — and then was stunningly silent when it could not come to a clear consensus. The president then proceeded to stupidly squander almost all of his political capital by refusing to fight for any particular aspect to be included in the bill. Do we know, to this day, whether he wanted a public option?

He furthermore did not reply effectively to his critics, from Sarah Palin on down. For all of Obama’s ubiquitous presence, he was bizarrely absent from the health care debate. What did the president actually stand for beyond “reform”? We’ve truly taken the spouter of platitudes off of the campaign trail and stuck him in the White House.

But yet, half-baked ideas have gotten through Congress before, especially in times of one-party rule. Does anyone really need a recap of the Delay-Frist years? And indeed, the country handed Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress a mandate for top-to-bottom reform. The polls are unequivocal in expressing the dissatisfaction by the public with the current state of the health care system. With such a sweeping mandate, it is truly astounding that a progressive Democrat president and a Congress headed by the representative from San Francisco and a sycophant like Harry Reid could not cobble together enough votes to pass any meaningful changes to our health care system. And at this point, it looks like nothing will come of this. All in all, this has been, against all odds, a resounding victory for conservatives and for free enterprise. The health care ball has once again been kicked down the road.

So what went wrong for the progressives? Why has the entire West adopted a socialist-style system while America has refused to jump on board? Why won’t, asks the left, America join the rest of the civilized world and start giving out free state-organized health insurance to all of its citizens?

The simple answer is that culture counts — and America’s culture is unique among the West. Just as writers of the time erroneously conflated the French Revolution with the American Revolution, contemporary progressives think that America can simply be lumped in with the rest of the West, as if their histories were essentially a shared one.

They’re not. The quick, simplified version is this: America was the first modern republic, and for almost two hundred years, it was the only successful one. We think of Germany, France, and Spain as obvious democratic allies today, but their histories show us nothing of the sort. They are not rooted in the democratic tradition. France, for several generations, was as unstable as Syria in the 1900’s, while Germany was a hotbed of utter craziness until we pacified them after World War 2. Spain has only been democratic for thirty-some years. Only America, since the beginning, has been rooted in a tradition of individualism, republicanism, and free enterprise.

The human condition is mostly a collectivist, nationalist one; this is what mass-men are naturally led to. America has a specific intellectual tradition that is unique to it because it is so new and was not tied to these prejudices. It was founded on the traditional concepts of British liberty, but evolved from there in its own way. But most importantly, it was founded upon these ideas qua ideas — as we expanded as a country, we integrated others based not on nationality or history, but on the abstract concepts of self-reliance, individual merit, and free enterprise. We emphasized the ‘liberty’ part, rather than the ‘British’ part. An American was defined not by his lineage of blood, but by his adopted, self-selected lineage of thought. This is why people can choose to be Americans in ways that they cannot choose to be French or German. This is truly a uniquely American conception that we simply do not appreciate sometimes, much like the fish who asks: “What water?”

These ideas evolved and are part of our national consciousness in a way that they simply have not in other Western cultures, the unity of which are still rooted in a sense of nationalism. American patriotism, on the other hand, is defined by our adherence to these ideas, rather than how we share a plot of land or similar bloodlines. Those ideas are not infinitely malleable; when we move forward as Americans, it is only by working within the framework of these concepts.

Much as the multiculturalists, cultural relativists, and blame-America-firsters have tried, they have not yet succeeded in killing that uniquely American spark of individualism. It is ingrained in the American culture: we just don’t want the government telling us how to live our lives. If snuck in through the back door, if held up to us in the name of helping our neighbors, we might allow it to pass. But to so blatantly advocate, in such precarious times, with such crushing debt, a takeover of such a crucial part of our industry — and moreover, an industry that has truly set us apart as a country — is too much for the American people to handle. And the vital center, that cultural thermometer, burst. The plan fell through, and the last to get on board with Obama — blue-collar workers, the elderly (truly, the preservers of our culture at its most fundamental level) — have been the first to get off.

Republicans didn’t kill Obamacare. The American tradition did. It ain’t dead yet.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Donate at Give2424.com! Andrzejewski has the momentum – let’s make him governor!

His Great Overreach Fails. Napoleon Retreats From Moscow.

Erica Werner of the AP writes:

Congressional leaders are taking health care legislation off the fast track as rank-and-file Democrats, wary of unhappy midterm election voters, look to President Barack Obama for guidance in his State of the Union address.

House and Senate leaders said Tuesday they need time to determine the best way forward on health care in the wake of last week’s special election loss in Massachusetts, which cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate majority.

“We’re going to find out how to proceed,” Reid told reporters Tuesday. “But there is no rush.”

The New York Times reports:

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”

He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

Mr. Reid said he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months.

With the American public hardened against it, it is difficult to foresee ObamaCare arising again anywhere close to its present form during an election year. If the Democrats swallow their pride and reach out to Republicans and work with them in a truly bi-partisan manner there might be a chance for passing some sort of bill. Some of the ideas the Republicans brought forward last year only to see them shot down immediately by the Democrats were:

• Medical liability tort reform, to cut down on absurd malpractice verdicts and reduce the need for “defensive medicine.”
• Greater flexibility for insurance companies to coordinate small businesses, groups, and clubs to bring like-minded customers together into blocs for more affordable rates.
• Take care of the poor with refundable tax credits used to buy health insurance.
• Insurance portability, to allow moving coverage from job to job and from state to state.
• Allow insurance policies to be bought and sold across state lines.
• Removing all government mandates on health-insurance policies, allowing insurance companies to offer a range of policies from minimalist to “Cadillac” plans; you buy what you want and think you can afford.

If the Democrats were to include some of these proposals, we might see a Health Care reform bill pass this year. If they don’t, the Democrats will have to live with the fact that they wasted over a year’s worth of time, effort, and money for nothing.

Rasmussen Illinois GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Andy McKenna 20%
• Jim Ryan 16%
• Kirk Dillard 13%
• Bill Brady 11%
• Adam Andrzejewski 11%
• Dan Proft 8%
• Some other candidate 4%
• Not sure 17%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andy McKenna 54% / 20% {+34%}
• Jim Ryan 56% / 26% {+30%}
• Kirk Dillard 41% / 22% {+19%}
• Adam Andrzejewski 36% / 19% {+17%}
• Bill Brady 36% / 20% {+16%}
• Dan Proft 31% / 21% {+10%}

Survey of 527 Likely GOP Primary Voters was conducted January 25, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

JD Hayworth appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and demanded that President Obama produce his birth certificate.  Soon after, the former Congressman made an unprovoked jab at newly elected Senator Scott Brown.

Are conservatives and Republicans going to support a birther in the Arizona primary?

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

H/T: Tommy Boy

_____________________________________________

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