-R4’12 is pleased to present the following guest post from Matthew Newman.-KWN
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Delegate James King (R) has proposed HB660, which would bring up to a vote a Constitutional amendment to implement 2 term limits for the General Assembly, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Governor. Over at Red Maryland, Brian Griffiths makes some very valid arguments about term limits, but I will have to respectfully disagree.

The central point of Mr. Griffiths’ argument is that Maryland will become like California, where deficits are out of control because the only memory left in the system is that maintained by unelected political insiders. While partially true – it fails to note a few key elements of the term limit proposal. First, the assumption is thatMaryland will automatically fall into the trap that California has fallen into – he fails to note the number of other States which are doing just fine with term limits. Only 30% of States have legislative term limits, yet 4 of the lowest unemployment rates in the US are from States with legislative term limits. The number one and number four lowest State budget deficit as a percentage of their general fund…have legislative term limits.

Second, the system does not work well as is. We have the same people in office for decades voting the same way in a rarely changing legislature. With term limits it allows people the freedom to enter into office with their own individual agenda to hope to accomplish, and not be as beholden to the party establishment. People will be able vote based on their conscience and not merely based on party whipping. The concept of citizen legislators is something to which we should all strive. Politics should not be a career path – politics can not be the only thing that defines ones life. But, I’ve discussed this before, so I digress.

Third, I agree with Griffiths on his other proposed reforms. Single member legislative districts and independent redistricting are great ideas. I feel that a combination of reforms are necessary to fix our legislature and our government. Term limits will minimize permanent politicians; single member districts would make each legislator more directly accountable; and independent redistricting will prevent the Democratic establishment from removing all the Republican leaning districts.

Now, to deal with the undue influence of lobbyists? I propose that we require State legislators to publicly declare any relative, former staff member, or personal connection who is a declared lobbyist on any level of government. By publicly declare, I mean that they should list those connections on the official webspace provided them by the State ofMaryland . Also, we should require that State legislators and their staff are required to wait at a minimum of 24 months following the end of their service to the State to become a State or federal lobbyist. These are just two proposals, but I am sure there are other common sense, Constitutionally sound reforms we can come up with reasonable limits and open information.

Preventing undue influence by “professional staffers” I think is less of an issue than Mr. Griffiths seems to appear. Historic Congressional data suggests that the average staff person serves in office for approximately 5 to 6 years, compared to the average term of a Congressman of 10 years. I’ve never worked in a legislative office, so I can not discuss with confidence on the culture. All I know is that if I were a newly elected legislator that I would only want minimal carryovers and staff that was dedicated to assistance with legislative research. With term limits, aides would be focused less on those activities that many legislators do to bolster reelection bids (the press releases, mass mailings, etc) and more on the job of helping the legislator…legislate.

Now, this is not the perfect proposal, I think bringing this idea forward is the right idea. I would be more supportive of 3 terms for State Legislatures to allow for more memory in the Legislature, but even openly discussing the possibility is a step in the right direction. Openly debating the pros and cons of term limits is good and healthy.

-Cross posted to Old Line Elephant.

The following was written by my brother Aaron and is duplicated here by permission.
————————————————————————————
One of the first reviews of Mitt Romney’s new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness came out yesterday from a fellow named David Bernstein from The Boston Phoenix. As it was (and still is) one of the only reviews of Mitt’s newest publication to hit the web, I found it to be quite insightful.

That said, the analytical tone Bernstein uses is rather tendentious and the picture he attempts to paint for Mitt’s future, especially with regards to the conservative south, is as abstract as a Picasso:

A critique of Bernstien’s misleading review and a more accurate synopsis of Mitt Romney’s future involvement in the South is provided by Mathew Continetti in his piece: Romney and the South:

[Bernstein] makes the questionable claim that “Romney is going to try to win without” Christian conservatives. And that means “skipping the South.”

Really? Religious conservatives make up a significant portion of the GOP electorate; winning the nomination without them is clearly a next-to-impossible task (McCain squeaked through because at first the religious conservatives split their vote among the various candidates). The South, moreover, is the geographic base of the Republican party — could a politician win the nomination with the Northeast, Midwest, Great Lakes, and Mountain States? Maybe, but he or she would have to sweep all those regions, which seems unlikely.

Romney is no dope; he understands how important the South is both in the Republican primary and in the general election.

Bernstein bases his claim on two pieces of evidence: (a) “Romney’s PAC has started ignoring southern pols” and (b) “most revealing is Romney’s decision not to attend this year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in April in New Orleans.”

Let’s look at these in reverse order. A spokesman for Romney’s Free and Strong America political action committee tells me the governor isn’t attending the SRLC because of a scheduling conflict. “The reason Mitt Romney is not attending the SRLC is because of conflicts with his book tour,” says Eric Fehrnstrom. “The book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, comes out March 2 and he’s on the road promoting it the entire month of March and half of April. During the SRLC, he’ll be in Philadelphia (World Affairs Council speech), New Hampshire (St. Anselm’s Institute of Politics speech and remarks to Politics and Eggs breakfast), Boston (Ford Hall Forum speech) and Minneapolis (book signing, Freedom Foundation speech).”

Nor does missing one conference signify rejection of an entire constituency. Sarah Palin made a highly publicized decision to skip next week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. Does that mean she thinks she can win the nomination without conservative support? Hardly. The same rule applies to Romney.

Despite Bernstein’s assertion to the contrary, Romney seems also to be paying attention to “Southern pols.” In 2009 he campaigned and fundraised for South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, the Georgia House Republican Caucus, and the Duval County, Florida, GOP. This month, he’s scheduled to appear at a joint fundraiser for Georgia congressmen Westmoreland, Gingrey, and Price, and another for Florida Republican Rep. Connie Mack. Romney’s book tour (the full schedule hasn’t been released) will also take him through a variety of Southern locales.

Since losing the 2008 primary to John McCain, Romney has been expanding his political network. That expansion has not been limited to a particular area. Listen to him and his advisers: Romney will compete in the South.

Will southern Republicans vote for him? Now, that’s an entirely different question…

Does this group have a web presence yet?

~Aaron G.

Well, Alex beat me by two minutes in posting the bombshell Medina 9/11 truther comments – but I had to at least leave half of this post up. 

So – this is a creative visual interpretation of what just happened to Mrs. Medina’s gubernatorial aspirations as a result of these comments.

Oh – and if you were wondering – that’s real footage of Tsar Bomba – the biggest nuke ever detonated (Soviets in 1961)

Figures:

#$*#)$*)#*~!@

Well, back to supporting Kay.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

The political heirs of President Franklin Roosevelt have turned his most famous inaugural phrase on itself 75 years later. On March 4, 1933, FDR reassured Americans that “that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” That hour was a moment of maximum national anxiety. Outgoing President Herbert Hoover had not, in the waning hours of his single-term presidency, been able to stem the mounting banking crisis. Everything seemed hopeless. For perhaps the only time in modern American history, there were serious signs and talk of some kind of “revolution.” Roosevelt’s phrase articulated hope at the same time it dashed the national anxiety with common sense.

Many of the liberal Democrats today (and to be fair, some Republicans), however, have adopted a whole amalgam of issues, under the rubric of environmentalism, which are based on fear itself. They have misleadingly contended that their concerns are based solely on science, and therefore irrefutable. This has been developing for some time, and initially these were not political issues. Remember the controversy over DDT, brought on by Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring?” Pesticides were, it was claimed, irrefutably carcinogens. A series of issues subsequently arose, most of them “proven” by scientific evidence, and gradually environmentalism became a political issue. I remember, for example, the brief fear that cranberries were dangerous to eat, because of alleged radiation (based on a “scientific” study). It turns out that cranberries are one of the most healthful fruits to consume. DDT has now been shown NOT to cause cancer, but only after decades of banning DDT pesticides in Africa, with the result that tens of millions have died there from hunger and malaria.

The newest environmental “scientific” cause has been so-called “global warming.” The world was told that overwhelming and irrefutable scientific evidence confirmed that the fact of the (temporary) melting of the Arctic polar caps was caused by man-made industrial pollution of carbon dioxide, and that unless the world’s leading industrial nations voluntarily cease their activity, the world is doomed. It turns out that much of the “scientific” evidence was doctored, that short periods of alternating global warming and cooling are normal and natural, that the connection between melting ice caps and industrial production is NOT irrefutably proven, and finally, that the motivations behind the “global warming” movement are not primarily scientific and humanitarian, but are primarily political; specifically, the redistribution of the world’s wealth and productive capacity. It is important, however, to point out that not all environmental concerns and environmentalist claims are bogus. When the action was taken many years ago to reduce lead levels in gasoline, the quality of the air was dramatically improved as was national health. Tobacco smoke does cause cancer and heart disease, and the restrictions on smoking have clearly improved national and international health. Industrial smoke and chemicals, the use of asbestos, and other toxic materials have also been restricted to the undeniable benefit to workers and urban society. Vaccines and medicine have made extraordinary gains against previously uncontrollable epidemics and disease.

International organizations, most notably the United Nations, have joined the efforts of the bogus environmentalists to try to impose a redistribution of global industrial wealth and activity. Is it any surprise that this is so when the U.N. is controlled by the very nations which stand to gain economically and politically by this redistribution? Does the United Nations have any credibility when its own Commission on Human Rights is controlled by the very countries in the world who are committing the worst abuses of human rights on their own populations?

Most persons in the world are not scientifically trained and expert. There is a need for credibility and common sense when scientific claims are made. Citizens of the world have a right to know what are the motivations and consequences of environmental “movements.” Arrogant manipulation, elitism, and bullying have no place in the international community, especially when it hides behind the rhetoric of science.

All of us are susceptible to normal anxieties and concerns. The world of today, with all of its true scientific advance, still holds many dangers, vulnerabilities and threats. We need to act to diminish these threats and problems when we can. But “fear itself” is no cause for action. When we act out of fear alone, we almost always make matters worse.

________________________________________________________________________________

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

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) will announce today that he is not seeking re-election. This brings up two interesting questions: The first is who will take the reigns in his heavily Cuban-American district and (by default) become one of the leading voices in GOP Hispanic outreach. The second is whether we have seen the last of “LDB” or whether he is planning something bigger.

As for the race for LDB’s seat, there is some speculation that his brother and fellow congressman  Mario Diaz-Balart will switch to LDB’s district in order to give himself a slightly safer Republican seat. Personally, I think that’s too clever by half, reeks of opportunism, and is likely to backfire – and my guess is that MDB knows this as well.

However, I am very excited  about one of the other names being mentioned – State Rep. Anitere Flores. You might remember that I have profiled Rep. Flores before, when she had an outside chance of being appointed to succeed Mel Martinez in the U.S. Senate. I said then that Flores, a 32 year-old conservative spitfire, had the potential to become a powerful voice nationally – and that would be still true if she runs for the lower house.

Flores would be only the second Republican Latina in the current Congress (after fellow South Floridian Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) and probably the youngest female member in the House.  She gives us a voice to reach out to young people, and more importantly, gives us a solid communicator of conservative principles to other Latinas (we have other dynamic Hispanics, but all are male). She would be a fantastic sidekick for Sen. Marco Rubio in our outreach to the Hispanic community, and she would  be a strong voice on the issues in Congress.

So, in my opinion, there is really only  one choice to take LDB’s seat, and her name is Anitere Flores.

Now, as for LDB himself, one has to wonder whether or not this retirementis permanent. I happen to think that it is not. For one, the Diaz-Balarts are essentially the Cuban Kennedys – a multi-generational political family that once held a lot of power in pre-Castro Cuba (Lincoln’s father was a senator) and then made the transition to American government after the revolution. Politics is what they do best – and it’s in their blood. It’s possible that LDB is really just tired of Congress, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, let’s remember that LDB was Charlie Crist’s first choice to serve as temporary replacement to Mel Martinez – but did not accept the offer. If he was planning to step aside anyway, why would he pass on the opportunity to take a victory lap as a U.S. Senator in his final year?

My guess is that he’s planning on taking a more permanent seat in the upper house in 2012. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is likely going to be GOP’s top target, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart would be the dream challenger in the mind of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NRSC has already been in contact with LDB about a potential run. So, if I had to guess, I would say that Diaz-Balart is stepping out now in order to focus full-time on building the machinery for a Senatorial campaign over the next year – as he will have to be up and running in time for a tough primary that is likely to include the incumbent placeholding Senator,  George LeMieux.

Gallup 2012 Survey

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,025 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 1-3, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 942 registered voters, the maximum margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 490 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the maximum margin of error is ±5 percentage points.

Timothy Carney writes an interesting and informational piece in The Washington Examiner yesterday about Dan Coats, recently announced candidate for the Republican nomination to run against Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, and why he may not be the best candidate for Republicans:

Republicans in 2010 have an opportunity to capitalize politically on popular anger with elites in Washington and Wall Street and with an exploding government that tramples on the little guy in service of the well-connected. But now, in a competitive Senate race, Republicans have tapped a corporate lobbyist who has grown wealthy inside the Beltway by begging for government favors on behalf of the biggest banks, drug companies, automakers, and other leeches in the Washington swamp.

Former Sen. Dan Coats wants to pass through the revolving door again, leaving his plush job at a K Street lobbying firm to challenge two-term Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., for the Senate seat Coats held for a decade before he cashed out.

Democrats have been quick to attack Coats as a lobbyist who has done the bidding of the fattest fat cats. But, ironically, the policies Coats advanced on behalf of his corporate clients are the same bailouts, regulations, and overspending that President Obama has championed in the name of “change.” And Coats’ biggest clients — Google and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — have been intimate Obama allies.

Coats represented Bank of America in the third quarter of 2008, when the collapsing bank begged for and received tens of billions of bailout dollars — a bailout that was passed with Obama’s blessing and that enflamed the populist anger that led to the tea-party rebellion of 2009.

For Coats, that was just the beginning. Acting on behalf of Cerberus Capital Management, the hedge fund that owned Chrysler, he lobbied to expand the Wall Street bailout to Detroit, according to the October 2008 lobbying report filed by Coats’ employer, King & Spalding. Presidents Bush and Obama agreed with Coats and Cerberus, and taxpayers soon bailed out Chrysler.

Coats also was on the side of domestic manufacturers who convinced Obama this year to impose tariffs on steel tubing from China. Coats represented the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from China, the group of steel-pipe manufacturers who sued Chinese pipe manufacturers in the World Trade Organization. In January, that group struck gold when Obama announced tariffs on steel pipe from China — consumers and other manufacturers lost with Obama’s big-government action, while labor unions and Coats’ clients won.

Another Coats client was billionaire private-equity mogul Julian Robertson. But Coats wasn’t lobbying on the taxation of private equity managers or regulation of the finance industry. He was lobbying for the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill that would restrict energy use in the name of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Robertson was invested in Chinese biofuels and in nuclear power, both of which would benefit from a cap-and-trade scheme, such as the one included in Lieberman-Warner and in the current Waxman-Markey climate bill, that would constrain the use of fossil fuels like coal.

Coats’ other clients include a lineup of subsidy sucklers and regulatory robber barons, many of which spent 2009 at President Obama’s side, fighting for the Democrats’ “reform” agenda. For instance, Google is one of the president’s closest allies — Fortune magazine, for instance, carried a story last October headlined “Obama & Google (A Love Story),” with the thesis, “In Google, the $22-billion-a-year online-advertising Goliath, Obama appears to have found a corporate kindred spirit.” Google is also a Coats client. Lobbying filings show Coats has lobbied on Google’s behalf for “Openness and competition in the online services market,” which presumably means he worked for Google’s coveted “net neutrality” regulation — effectively price controls on networks, to the benefit of Google and other content giants.

Democrats have attacked Coats for representing drug makers Amgen and the Medicines Company as well as PhRMA, the biggest spender of all single-industry lobby groups over the past decade. But it’s the GOP and its conservative base that should be upset about this dossier — PhRMA was an early and enthusiastic backer of Obama’s health care “reform,” which would have profited the industry. And MDCO’s priority for which they hired Coats — a tailor-made five-year extension of MDCO’s monopoly on one drug, Angiomax — was slipped into the final reform bill by Democrats just before Scott Brown’s election torpedoed it.

Populist anger is burning over bailouts, overspending, government growth, and the closed-door Washington collusion between the wealthy and the powerful. This anger has Democrats worried. But if Republicans nominate Coats, a Beltway insider specializing in corporate welfare, the Tea Party might be tarring and feathering the GOP as well.

Washington Post-ABC News Survey on Sarah Palin (Quayle Edition)

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

• Favorable 37% (43%)
• Unfavorable 55% (52%)

Note: 18% (20%) Strongly Favorable; 38% (34%) Strongly Unfavorable.

Regardless of whether or not you’d vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?

• Is qualified 26% (38%)
• Is not qualified 71% (60%)

Among Republicans

• Is qualified 46% (61%)
• Is not qualified 52% (36%)

Among Independents

• Is qualified 29% (37%)
• Is not qualified 67% (59%)

Among Democrats

• Is qualified 6% (22%)
• Is not qualified 91% (76%)

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the political movement known as the Tea Party?

• Favorable 35%
• Unfavorable 40%

Given what you know about the Tea Party’s positions on the issues, would you say that overall you agree with them; or disagree with them?

• Agree 45%
• Disagree 36%

Survey of 1,004 adults was conducted February 4-8, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 12-15, 2009 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 32% Democrat; 26% Republican; 39% Independent. Political ideology: 37% Conservative; 36% Moderate; 24% Liberal.

Inside the numbers:

Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party’s presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a “strongly favorable” opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

Among Democrats and independents, assessments of Palin also have eroded. Six percent of Democrats now consider her qualified for the presidency, a drop from 22 percent in November; the percentage of independents who think she is qualified fell to 29 percent from 37 percent.

In her speech at last week’s tea party gathering in Nashville, Palin said she will campaign on behalf of conservative candidates-some backed by tea party groups-in contested Republican primaries, even if doing so might split the GOP electorate.

The new poll shows Republicans divided about the tea party movement, which threatens to cause a rift in the lead-up to November’s midterm elections. Two-thirds of those calling themselves “strong Republicans” view the movement favorably, compared with 33 percent among “not very strong Republicans.”

Overall opinion is about evenly split, with 35 percent of all Americans holding favorable views of the movement and 40 percent unfavorable ones. A quarter expressed no opinion. Nearly six in 10 Democrats have unfavorable views, while independents are split, 39 percent positive and 40 percent negative.

The new poll offers a portrait of tea party supporters as overwhelmingly white, mostly conservative and generally disapproving of Obama.

• Johnson: GOP prez candidates ‘all sound alike’
• Podcast:  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson
• Ex-Gov: Brown victory isn’t GOP mandate
• Gary Johnson releases ‘Three Point Plan For Economic Prosperity’

1) SLASH EXPENDITURE: Excess spending is rampant in the U.S. budget, producing an unsustainable path for federal debt. The U.S. must restrain spending across the board:

– Scale back entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation’s future.

– Eliminate the costly and ineffective military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; target defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States.

– Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus.

– Reduce subsidies for agriculture, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests.

2) CUT TAXES: The U.S. tax system imposes an enormous toll on productivity through high marginal rates, absurd complexity, loopholes for the well-connected, and incentives for wasteful decisions. The government must lower the tax burden to stimulate the economy. This means:

– Eliminate punitive taxation of savings and investment.

– Simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior.

– Adopt a flat tax on income or consumption.

3) SHRINK FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY: Much federal intervention is a payout to special interests or counterproductive meddling that stifles competition, innovation, and growth. We should:

– Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interest rather than benefiting consumers or the economy.

– Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability, not bailing out financial firms or propping up the housing sector.

– Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie.

– Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools.

– Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana; emphasize harm reduction for other drugs.

– Expand free trade and legal immigration

• Reason TV Interviews Gary Johnson

In 2000, George W. Bush reclaimed the presidency for the GOP (albeit by a whisker) by co-opting such Democratic ‘kitchen table’ issues as education. Granted, in 2000, with relative peace and prosperity, such a softer message could far better resonate. But today, with a shaky world economy, the need for real education reform is as strong as ever, and conservatives, once again, can take the lead in addressing a problem that has, sadly, remained dormant for much of the last decade.

President Bush’s No Child Left Behind produced a mixed bag of results, but his remarks about the “soft bigotry of low expectations” highlighted the educational ghetto that has trapped so many poor, inner-city students in cycles of low test scores, high dropout rates and poverty. A post-9/11 world slowed the momentum toward greater reform, and the Obama Administration has, predictably, reversed some positive trends toward offering disadvantaged students the same choices enjoyed by wealthy liberals (President Obama, for the record, sends his daughters to an elite, private school).

The Democrats, by way of Senator Dick Durban of Illinois, cut funding for the District of Columbia’s voucher-based Opportunity Scholarship Program, an initiative that supporters claim raised student test scores. Voucher opponents, including President Obama, fear the effects of taking money out of the public system.

Interestingly, liberals, to whom ‘choice’ is all the rage in sexual matters and who preach the wonders of diversity in the workplace and higher academia, are dead set against allowing education dollars and students to venture outside the NEA’s cookie-cutter ghetto. Obama, despite his support for charter schools and greater emphasis on math and science, mouths feel-good platitudes, such as “rewarding good teachers, stop making excuses for bad ones and demanding results from government at every level.”

But neither left nor right in 2010 appears serious about reform. As long as primary education is a public monopoly, no one can expect the public sector to reform itself out of a job, outside of the occasional tweaks in time for elections. Not even the D.C. school system, notorious for low test scores, crime and high dropout rates, elicits the national outrage it would if it were a private company failing its customers with such alarming consistency. According the The Washington Post in July of ‘09, only about one half of elementary students in the District’s public schools were deemed proficient in math and reading. This was an increase from about one-third in 2007. Gains at the middle and high school levels were more modest, with proficiency rates around 40%. Also disturbing, the Post reported in June of last year a study that put on-time graduation rates below 50%.

Howard Rich, of Americans for Limited Government, notes that there aren’t enough choices out there to create a real constituency for change. When fed mediocrity long enough, one considers it the norm. He writes that nationally, only about 60,000 students receive scholarships. Parental choice simply isn’t available in most states and usually consists of government controlled means-tested programs.

True education reform is not a mere ‘issue’ that could gain traction. It speaks to the individual needs and potentials of all American students. Some will excel in technical trades, some will shine artistically, and some will require the strict discipline of religious instruction. The next leg of the Tea Party movement could ask why the Democrats, who campaigned on ‘change’ and a ‘yes, we can’ chant, are unwilling to defy a status quo that inner city students and their parents have already confronted. The American Right could do well with leadership to step forward and side with the students of the District of Columbia and all students and their parents across the land. Sometimes being on the winning side of an issue is not as important as determining yourself what the defining issues are.

Like it or not, our economy is no longer industrial-based. Many if not most jobs of the technical and information age require 21st Century training, and the future, whether one is discussing education, the economy or politics, belongs not to those who merely react but to those who ACT. Whichever side steps up to speak for students will own the education agenda for the upcoming decade.

__________________________________________________________________________

-David Bozeman, former North Carolina Libertarian Party Chairman, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

No one has his finger more firmly planted on the American people’s pulse than public opinion pollster Scott Rasmussen. His popular Rasmussen Reports have taking polling to a new level of accuracy, prompting Washington Examiner columnist Michael Barone to observe, “the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com.”

And now, Rasmussen has penned an incisive new book on what Americans really believe – and where they want their country to go – that promises to be a dark-horse bestseller. Short (only 76 pages from cover to cover); fact-filled, yet delightfully philosophical; both revealing and predictive; In Search of Self-Governance promises to be the type of provocative and compelling tome for the decade to come that The Third Wave and The Tipping Point were in decades past.

As with many of the seminal works that have spurred thought and spawned change, the theme of the book can be summed up in a single passage at its very inception: “The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, right, or center. The American people want to govern themselves.”

Simple, yet sublime, that unencumbered observation encompasses all that Rasmussen has learned as one of America’s top public opinion pollsters for more than ten years. It portends all that he recommends for those who wish to occupy positions of political power in the defining years of the 21st Century. And it sets the stage for a riveting discussion that will have readers often shaking their heads agreement – and occasionally shaking their fists in anger.

Rasmussen pulls no punches in placing the blame for much of the outrage that now manifests itself in the general populace. His polls have told him that a large majority of Americans do not like the direction in which the country is moving: away from individual freedom, towards collectivism; away from self-governance, towards government control. And his insights tell the reader who is to blame, pure and simple:

“In the click that revolves around Washington, DC, and Wall Street, our treasured heritage has been diminished almost beyond recognition. In that world, some see self-governance as little more than allowing voters to choose which of two politicians will rule over them. Others in that elite environment are even more brazen and see self-governance as a problem to be overcome”

“In these early days of the 21st Century, our system of self-governance is in trouble. We are in danger of becoming a nation where big business and big government work together against the rest of us. They write the rules, we pay the bills. And then they wonder why we get upset.”

Driving home his point, Rasmussen – in a tone belying the severity of its intent – condemns Bush and Obama for ignoring “overwhelming public consensus” to push through bailouts. He says the House of Representatives has become “the embodiment of the alliance between government and big business.” And he suggests that politicians want citizen involvement “about as much as mischievous teenagers want chaperones at a high school dance.”

He concludes, “We need to put the chaperones [in this case, the American people] back in charge.” And he then offers six specific recommendations for restraining Big Government and restoring self-governance. They are proposals guaranteed to resonate with a Washington-weary American people. Among them:

1. “Require that all legislation be posted and available to the public in final form for a week or so before a vote.” This would be an end to last-minute legislative horse-trading, he posits. And it would make it more difficult to slip in pet projects. Tough to argue with that kind of reasoning.

2. “Voters should have the right to approve all pay increases for legislators, governors, and Presidents.” And he goes a step further by saying that this approval should be on the same ballot as when the people vote for the politicians. That should increase turn out!

3. “When the IRS sends back a refund or an acknowledgement of payment, it would provide a summary of the taxpayers’ total tax bill from all levels of government [including] federal income taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes paid by the employer, and whatever else we pay taxes on.”

Plus, he adds, “All taxes, at any level, should require voter approval before implementation.”

Clearly, those are the kind of recommendations that could keep politicians up at night. And help other Americans sleep much better. As are his remaining proposals. And that’s why this pint-sized publication could well become the handbook for a revolution.

Keep in mind, Scott Rasmussen is a pollster. In fact, many consider him the prince of pollsters. So, while he may write from the bottom of his heart, he doesn’t write off the top of his head. His opinions – and more importantly, his proposals – are based on solid research and grounded in public opinion.

In short, he knows whereof he speaks. That’s why Scott Rasmussen’s In Search of Self-Governance could soon become for “right” thinking Americans what Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has long been for the hard left. Check it out at Amazon. And chalk one up for “We the people.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

-Carter Clews, Communications Director of Americans for Limited Government, is a guest Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

PPP (D) Texas Gubernatorial Survey

• Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) 45%
• Bill White (D) 38%

• Rick Perry (R) 48%
• Bill White (D) 42%

• Debra Medina (R) 44%
• Bill White (D) 38%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s job performance?

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry’s job performance?

• Approve 33%
• Disapprove 50%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Debra Medina?

• Favorable 32%
• Unfavorable 13%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Bill White?

• Favorable 34%
• Unfavorable 17%

Survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted February 4-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% Republican; 36% Democrat; 24% Independent. Political ideology: 51% Conservative; 34% Moderate; 15% Liberal.

Quinnipiac National Survey (DADT Edition)

Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?

• Yes 57%
• No 36%

Among Independents

• Yes 56%
• No 37%

Among Republicans

• Yes 40%
• No 53%

Among Democrats

• Yes 72%
• No 23%

Among Men

• Yes 51%
• No 44%

Among Women

• Yes 62%
• No 29%

Some people say that not allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military is discrimination. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 66%
• Disagree 31%

Among Independents

• Agree 65%
• Disagree 32%

Among Republicans

• Agree 50%
• Disagree 46%

Among Democrats

• Agree 80%
• Disagree 18%

Among Men

• Agree 58%
• Disagree 40%

Among Women

• Agree 73%
• Disagree 23%

Some people say that allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military would be divisive for the troops and hurt their ability to fight effectively. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 30%
• Disagree 65%

Among Independents

• Agree 31%
• Disagree 64%

Among Republicans

• Agree 44%
• Disagree 50%

Among Democrats

• Agree 17%
• Disagree 81%

Among Men

• Agree 38%
• Disagree 59%

Among Women

• Agree 23%
• Disagree 71%

Do you think the military should aggressively pursue disciplinary action against gay service members whose orientation is revealed against their will by third parties or should this practice be ended?

• Disciplinary action 10%
• End practice 82%

(more…)

-R4’12 is pleased to present the following guest post from Matthew Newman.-KWN
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,025 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 1-3, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

The closeness of the two parties over the past several months on this “generic ballot” measure is similar to that found in most Gallup readings from 1994 through 2005 (spanning the period when Republicans won control of the U.S. House and subsequently maintained it for more than a decade).

Obama Whitehouse makes up limits on use of government photos.

Captain America takes on the tea parties,

Additional thoughts on Sarah Palin and the word “retarded

Click here to download, click here to subscribe in Itunes.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Yesterday, at The Heritage Foundation Bloggers Briefing, Heritage education researcher Lindsey Burke presented on a number of education funding increases- and one decrease- in President Obama’s FY2010 budget that were not backed by the evidence the president and Education Secretary Arne Duncan said they would use.

Burke cited several examples of this government waste and unnecessary size increase. First, she handed out a Backgrounder by Heritage’s David Mahlhausen, Ph.D., and Dan Lips explaining how Head Start not only doesn’t work, but is one of 69 federal preschool and child care programs that receive about $25 billion annually. Of course, that’s not enough for the federal government, which is trying to put another program into the system for eight billion dollars more. (Burke’s own Web Memo about the increased federal role in early education goes into more detail about H.R. 3221, which is the bill that added the new bureaucracy and eight billion dollars.)

The second example of government inefficiency comes from Lips, who put out a Heritage Web Memo explaining President Obama’s plans to cap student loan payments and provide loan forgiveness after 20 years in the private sector or 10 years in the public sector. Also explained were how federal student aid probably does not help college affordability and actually may hurt it. The most important point, though, that Lips makes is that two basic market-based reforms to colleges could very well save a lot of money(Lips does not state how much would be saved).The first is to institute credit-by-exam programs more frequently. The second is to increase online education programs at universities and colleges across the country, thereby encouraging more people to take part in higher education courses without the egregious cost of being in the classroom.

The third part of Bruke’s presentation was her analysis of how the DC Opportunity Scholarship (the DC School Voucher Program) is ending. According to Burke, the program, which puts 1,700 poor minority residents of Washington, DC into a voucher education program, is to receive only nine million dollars in President Obama’s budget, despite requiring $12 million annually to function. Furthermore, explained Burke, this is expected to be the final infusion of federal dollars into this very successful and popular education program, despite the president’s promise to at least let the current batch of students graduate before cutting off funding.

As Benjamin Hodge analyzed earlier this year, the voucher program has a plethora of supporters across the political spectrum. In my own following of the debate, I have seen Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Collins (R-ME) introduce a bill last year to reinstate the vouchers, Heritage and CATO fighting tooth and nail to keep the program going, and The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal using their pages to support the program. George Will, the DC City Council and numerous RedState contributors have also supported the program, and it has a 70% popularity among parents whose children participate. Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats have decided to kill the bill rather than face down the teachers unions.

To me, the DC Voucher debate is the most important of the three education issues Burke raised. According to Burke, it is the only federally-funded voucher program in the country. While some may see it as only a small program (according to numbers Heritage ran, the $7,500 per student cost is half the cost to educate the average student in DC. Burke said the average cost in America is about $10,000 per year), it not only saves the taxpayers millions every year (about 1,700 students are currently in the program), but it starts the process to reforming our very broken education system. Burke, the Post, CATO and numerous other sources have cited data published by Obama’s own Department of Education showing the program has measurable results, particularly reading and math, and it keeps students out of high-risk schools where they are both unsafe and unsuccessful.

It is a travesty that this very successful program is being allowed to die. It helps many hundreds of poor students (particularly minorities) get a better, safer education. It helps these students be better prepared to move forward in careers, healthier lives, etc. It saves the taxpayers money. It sets an example of how a voucher program should work, an example to which states across the country should pay attention. Lastly- and let’s be honest here- it gives Republicans and conservatives the opportunity to show how our ideas are better than that of the Democrats and liberals for education reform, improving the lives of poor minorities, blunting the destructive teachers unions and bringing real competition and efficiency to how federal dollars are spent on education.

This is almost certainly the last gasp for the voucher program. It has the support of the Lieberman/Collins bill, but not that of the vast majority of Congress (which is why it is expected to be phased out). Given the study Heritage did on the high number of Members of Congress who have attended private school, or have their child attending private school, one has to wonder why Congress, especially with a massive majority of Democrats in power, is letting teachers unions have more input on their votes than poor minorities looking to improve their station in life. (Oh, and President Obama’s daughters also attend private school…) It is up to us, the voters, to protest and advocate on behalf of DC’s young people, and make certain our Representatives and Senators know to ignore the president on the DC Voucher Program, both for the moral reasons adn the fact that we will hold this against them come November.

For more information on why we should support the DC Opportunity Scholarship, go to VoicesofSchoolChoice.org, where the Heritage-produced video “Let Me Rise” can be found, as well as a link to the Washington Post editorial stating that a majority of the DC City Council supports the voucher program.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Our virtuous president is trying to speechify his way out of problems again, calling for us to “transcend” petty politics.

“The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics,” Obama said after the meeting, as he made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room.

The word transcend does not mean “stick to,” although you might not know if it you’ve been following the news for the past year. It’s awfully difficult to transcend petty politics when, during Obama’s State of the Union address, he sucker-punches the Supreme Court, and then says that his “opponents will argue that we shouldn’t invest in America’s people” and that we “should stick to the status quo.” Pettiness for me but not for thee!

So after a long trek through the slush and snow, I make my way to Barnes and Noble yesterday. I browse through the philosophy section, my usual hideaway, but find nothing worth blowing twenty bucks on. Right next to it, though: the history section. Well, I think, I don’t really know enough about American history, in all honesty. I could use a refresher, and a good outline. So I see what I think looks like a good read: A Patriot’s History of the United States, by the conservative historian Larry Schweikart and his co-author, Michael Allen. I’ve read Schweikart’s 48 Liberal Lies About American History, and, pleased that he devoted a chapter of that book to debunking libertarian criticism of Lincoln, I trusted him enough to buy his doorstop of a book, the 1,000-page History.

I bring the book to the counter, plop down my twenty bucks, and, as of now, I’m about one hundred pages into it. Curious about the reception the book received, I log onto Amazon.com to see what the reviews look like. Oddly, Amazon had the book ranked as their #1 bestseller. Given that the book came out six years ago and never landed on the New York Times bestseller list, I had no idea why this was: a glitch? Something weird going on with my computer? I’d looked at the book before; maybe there’s something going on..?

No, no — it was a much simpler explanation. After a quick Google search, I found out that Glenn Beck has been hawking the book on his show. And when Beck speaks, people listen. And then they read.

This is great! A talk show host who gets America reading — reading quality conservative literature! — gets a thumbs-up in my book. The bibliophile in me (I have about three hundred books in my college dorm room) is euphoric that someone with such clouts values books so highly.

I wonder if he’s also the one who catapaulted Thomas Sowell’s excellent A Conflict of Visions onto the Top 100. If you’re a Beck listener, let me know whether that’s the case.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

In case any of you have been in a communications blackout since last weekend, Sarah Palin got caught at the Tea Party Convention cribbing notes on the palm of her hand. The overreactions have been about as one would expect. Her detractors have been thoroughly enjoying themselves with their over-the-top mockery and scathing criticism, and her supporters have been thoroughly enjoying themselves with their over-the-top reactions of shock, horror, and outrage at the mockery and criticism their hero is receiving. Situation normal, in other words. Lost in the uproar, in my opinion, is the deeper meaning of her actions.

“What?”, I can hear you say. “There is deep meaning in writing crib notes on the palm of your hand? What sort of deeper meaning can there be in an action straight out of junior high school?”

To which I reply, “Exactly”. It is a junior high trick. The fact that it is a junior high trick signifies its deeper meaning.

Whether or not it was a sign of stupidity, genius, wisdom, or foolishness is truly beside the point. Sarah is a private citizen who can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, however she wants. If she wants to write notes to herself on her palm, who cares? I certainly don’t. However, it is not the sort of action one would expect from a future President of the United States — a junior high student, absolutely, but not a President. Therein lies the deeper meaning.

Sarah Palin — unless she is totally clueless (which she is not) — had to have known that when she was about to write those fateful words upon her palm. Yet she scribbled them there anyway. Why?

It’s really quite simple. Sarah Palin isn’t that worried about being seen as Presidential. And why not? It’s because she isn’t that concerned about being Presidential. And why is that? Because she isn’t terribly concerned about being President.

And there you have it. That writing on her palm is just so much more writing on an already crowded wall — the writing that says, “Come the 2012 primaries, Sarah Palin’s name will not be on any of the ballots.” She has no intention of running in 2012. Oh she may hint at it — just like Newt Gingrich has hinted and even has threatened to run since the ’90s. But will she actually run? Nope, I’m afraid not.

I hear what you are saying. “He got all this from a few words scribbled on her palm?” No, it’s more than that. I’ve been watching Palin closely since 2008. I have seen her do a whole host of things that suggest she is planning to sit 2012 out. Those cribbed notes are only the latest. Individually they don’t mean much, but when considered altogether, they add up to her taking a pass on 2012.

[UPDATED] Big thanks to Tommy Boy, who has found the full release. Aron has graciously updated the poll numbers for me.-KWN

Politico has the full details of this soon to be released poll of 1,007 “respondents” regarding the 2012 Alabama GOP presidential primary. If you recall, Alabama was a Super Tuesday state in the 2008 cycle:

Public Strategy Associates 2012 Alabama GOP Primary Poll

• Mike Huckabee 33%
• Sarah Palin 23%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Undecided 24%

Survey of 1,007 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 3-4, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Inside the number (once again, per Politico):

If Huckabee chooses to run again in 2012, something that is far from a sure thing, he will again be formidable in early states such as Iowa and South Carolina, where much of the Republican base consists of social conservatives.

According to the poll, Huckabee also leads Palin by 10 points among Republicans who describe themselves as “very conservative.” His lead grows to 16 points among Republicans who say they’re “somewhat conservative.”

Rasmussen Pennsylvania Senatorial Survey

Democratic Primary

• Arlen Specter 51% <53%> (48%) {46%} [47%]
• Joe Sestak 36% <32%> (35%) {42%} [34%]

Note: In the Democratic primary, Specter now carries male voters by 19 points and female voters by 13. He leads among likely primary voters who characterize themselves as conservative or moderate and breaks even with Sestak among liberal Democrats.

Senatorial Election

• Pat Toomey (R) 47% <49%> [46%] {45%} (48%)
• Arlen Specter (D) 38% <40%> [42%] {40%} (36%)

• Pat Toomey (R) 43% <43%> [44%] {37%} (43%)
• Joe Sestak (D) 35% <35%> [38%] {38%} (35%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Pat Toomey 57% <57%> [51%] {52%} (54%) / 28% <27%> [29%] {27%} (26%) {+29%}
• Joe Sestak 33% <37%> [36%] {37%} / 42% <37%> [38%] {34%} {-9%}
• Arlen Specter 41% <43%> [44%] {46%} (43%) / 54% <54%> [50%] {52%} (54%) {-13%}

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

• Strongly favor 28% <28%> [27%] {32%} (29%)
• Somewhat favor 16% <18%> [23%] {19%} (22%)
• Somewhat oppose 11% <14%> [10%] {10%} (12%)
• Strongly oppose 43% <39%> [38%] {38%} (35%)

How would you rate the job Ed Rendell has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% <14%> [11%] {9%}
• Somewhat approve 30% <29%> [28%] {28%}
• Somewhat disapprove 22% <27%> [21%] {24%}
• Strongly disapprove 32% <29%> [38%] {37%}

Survey of 1,000 likely voters (including 425 likely Democratic primary voters) was conducted February 8, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points; +/- 5 percentage points among Democratic primary voters. Results from the poll conducted January 18, 2010 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 13, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11, 2009 are in square brackets.

Yes, that’s harsh of me to say (though half the country and 99% of the Press Corps are thinking it), but frankly the man’s antics are beneath the dignity of the White House. He apparently has no respect for the offiice he holds, he is is a black mark on our government’s reputation, and I have no intention of letting him off the hook for that. Two out of every three words this guy says justify a smack in the mouth, and I fail to understand why he is still employed – as he reflects horribly on President Obama.

So, why am I so ticked at him? Well, honestly I’ve been ticked at him since he took office, but he pushed me over the edge today with a childish, petty, unsolicited shot at Sarah Palin. 

Dude, you’re standing behind the lectern in the White House Press Room, not on the  set of Saturday Night Live. Leave the classless jokes about your rivals to David Letterman and act like an adult. Otherwise, you should be flipping burgers along with all of the other cocky teenage punks. 

You are the public face of the government and no one other than the President himself gets more airtime than you do. Grow up!

(and for the record – yes, it would have been equally deplorable had he done this to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc.)

Public Policy Polling invites everyone each month to help determine who will be the fourth Republican to join Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin in their forthcoming 2012 presidential survey.

The seven candidates under consideration for February are:

Rudy Giuliani

Scott Brown

Haley Barbour

Mitch Daniels

Dick Cheney

John Thune

Glenn Beck

PPP (D) Texas GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Rick Perry 39%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 28%
• Debra Medina 24%
• Undecided 10%

(Among Medina supporters) Would your second choice for Governor be Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry?

• Rick Perry 43%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 39%
• Not sure 18%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry’s job performance?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 36%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s job performance?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 28%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Debra Medina?

• Favorable 40%
• Unfavorable 9%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 33%

Do you think that Congressional Republicans are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 34%
• Too conservative 12%
• About right 54%

Survey of 423 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 4-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 75% Republican; 22% Independent; 3% Democrat. Political ideology: 76% Conservative; 20% Moderate; 4% Liberal.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa seems to be growing more despotic by the day (see my post from yesterday for background). Just 24 hours after the arrest of “losing” presidential candidate Gen. Sarath Fonseka, President Rajapaksa has dissolved the nation’s parliament and ordered new elections. Again, there is a democratic veneer to his actions, but in this case, the “elections” will be little more than a coordinated effort to stack the legislature with Rajapaksa loyalists.

How can I be so sure Rajapaksa’s people will win? Well, frankly, it looks like many of the potential opposition candidates will be in jail. As more information surfaces on the yesterday’s events, it has become apparent that Gen. Fonseka’s arrest was the tip of the iceberg. At least 37 former military members who supported Fonseka have been arrested,  as have a number of journalists.  A dozen pro-Fonseka military officials  have been forced to retire, and two newspapers have been shut down.

I sincerely hope that the international community takes note of Rajapaksa’s actions and moves swiftly to condemn them. In the meantime, it looks like the voice of the opposition is Anoma Fonseka, Gen. Fonseka’s wife, who issued this tearful statement to the media:

By the way - I would warn Rajapaksa that wives of martyrs and political prisoners can become even more powerful symbols than their husbands (note the case of Corazón Aquino toppling the Marcos regime in the Philippines). The longer Gen. Fonseka is jailed, the more powerful Mrs. Fonseka becomes -  so if Rajapaksa wants to continue with these shenanigans, he should definitely watch his back.

Rasmussen Tea Party Movement Survey

Suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?

• Democratic 36% (36%)
• Republican 25% (18%)
• Tea Party 17% (23%)

Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement?

• Favorable 41% (41%)
• Unfavorable 28% (22%)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted February 7-8, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 4-5, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Shifts in voting by Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party are key to the Tea Party’s new third-place showing. In December, 39% of GOP voters went for their party’s candidate, but 33% opted for the Tea Party. Now, 48% of Republicans are sticking with the GOP, and just 23% favor the Tea Party candidate.

Among unaffiliateds, 33% supported the Tea Party congressional candidate in December. Now, only 23% are voting that way. Interestingly, however, most of that shift seems to go into the undecided category rather than into support for the Republican.

The Tea Party candidate continues to earn just single-digit support from Democratic voters.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans now view the Tea Party movement favorably, down from 70% in December. A modest plurality (41%) of unaffiliated voters agrees, marking little change from the previous survey. One-in-five Democrats (19%) has a favorable opinion of the movement, up five points from December.

Just when you thought is was safe to carry on an affair via text messaging and Facebook….

If you thought the John Edwards and Mark Sanford sex-capades were twisted and intriguing, and just to prove that it is not only American politicians who suffer from ego-impaired judgement, a HUGE sex scandal is breaking in Canada this morning, involving one of the left-wings most promising young politicians.

Background;

Not unlike the power held by New York City, Toronto is the financial, media and political center of Canada.  The Mayors office (which has been held by a socialist for the last two terms) has major influence over provincial and national policy.

Adam Giambrone is was viewed as the rising star of the Canadian far left.  The unions adore him, the artists play with him, and the activists view him as one of their own.

Adam (age 32), a Toronto City Counselor and chairman of the powerful Toronto Transit Commission (a powerful post) , just launched a savvy campaign to become the next Mayor of Toronto.  The current mayor (his mentor) has decided not to seek reelection.  Adam (who launched his campaign at the end of January of this year) is up against an openly gay, former provincial cabinet minister.

This morning, Canada’s largest national newspaper introduced voters to Adam’s teenage mistress.  Apparently this candidate has been carrying on an affair with a 19 year old student (just turned 20), which included sexual activities on the coach in his public office.  Like many other 32 years old men, Giambrone used text messaging and Facebook as his method of communication with his mistress.

The published discussions from the text and Facebook messages are more shocking than the Tiger Woods voice mails, and provides us with insight to the working mind of a politician with an over-inflated ego.

Not only was his mistress unaware she was a mistress (she believed she was his girlfriend and that Giambrone was single), but Giambrone admitted that the only reason why he was with his common law spouse was because she would be more politically useful to his campaign.  In fact just a few days ago, Giambrone introduced his ‘partner’ to 33 million Canadians at a campaign kick-off event.  The story includes confidential city business shared with his mistress and her mother (I am guessing though an episode of pillow talk), mild sexting, and Giambrone’s attempt at continuing the relationship, even after he admitted to his mistress that he was not single.

Mayoral candidate Adam Giambrone admitted Monday night he had “an inappropriate relationship with a young woman.”

Calling it “a serious lapse in judgment,” the Toronto city councillor offered his “deepest apology to my partner, Sarah, my family and friends for the pain and embarrassment my indiscretion will cause them.”

His statement came after the Toronto Star asked him a series of questions about his relationship with university student Kristen Lucas, who said she had an intimate relationship with Giambrone for more than a year. Lucas, now 20, was 19 when she began dating Giambrone.

She told the Star Giambrone had told her his live-in partner of many years – who’s been at his side for public events during his fledgling mayoral bid – is there for “political” reasons.

“You know I will be announcing I have a partner,” Giambrone, 32, wrote in a text message to Lucas Dec. 27. “It is someone named Sarah (McQuarrie), who I’ve been involved with in the past. It is important for the campaign.”

Giambrone told Lucas he hoped they could continue to see each other, assuring her: “I had to have someone political.”

In recent interviews with the Star, Lucas said she’s been involved with Giambrone since late 2008 and, on several occasions, had sex late at night on a couch in his City Hall office.

Giambrone, who launched his first bid for the mayor’s chair Feb. 1, is also chair of the troubled Toronto Transit Commission.

In a statement Monday night to the Star, Giambrone said the relationship with Lucas “consisted of text messages and conversations in public places only. I met her mother, having dropped her off at home.”

Further, Giambrone wrote; “Realizing the mistake this relationship was I tried to end it some months ago and finally broke off all contact.”

Lucas provided the Star with what she said were text messages between the pair dating back to last year, as well as Facebook correspondence.

She alleged Giambrone revealed secrets relating to his work – “I knew a long, long time ago about the (TTC) fare hike” – and shared his “negative” opinions of several councillors. She offered no details, but said Mayor “David Miller is like a god to Adam.”

Lucas said she told only her mother, non-profit social worker Lori Lucas, about the TTC hike, which was announced in mid-November and took effect Jan. 1. Her mother said she kept the secret.

Curled in an armchair in her mother’s living room Sunday, Lucas, slight with curly black hair, said she was shocked in December to learn about McQuarrie, whom Giambrone describes publicly as his “longtime live-in partner.”

McQuarrie, wearing pearls and narrow glasses, strode onto the stage after Giambrone’s speech at his campaign launch last week, doing air pumps with him before descending into the crowd for a joint meet-and-greet with supporters.

“I really wanted to tell you (about McQuarrie) when we met,” Giambrone writes Dec. 27, 2009, according to text messages taken from Lucas’s phone. “I hope this does not change things.

“We’re still going to meet like we said next week, right?” he asks.

Replies Lucas: “No, it changes everything. Why couldn’t it have been me?”

He insists he had to have someone “political,” and asks: “Do you mean we can’t talk?”

In another text message, Giambrone tells her: “I still think of you when I need … um … stimulation.”

Further: “I like you because you’re smart and interesting. You’re also good-looking naked.”

Lucas insisted Giambrone “told me he didn’t have a girlfriend.”

Although he never took her to his apartment, she believed he was concerned his elderly parents, who lived nearby, might drop by unannounced.

“I am actually pretty transparent,” he told her, in an early Facebook message, Dec. 21, 2008. “I live with my brother. I swim a lot and like to spend time travelling. How’s that for a beginning.”

A year later, she reacted angrily to the news about McQuarrie, texting: “Please don’t tell me you’re doing this for the campaign. You’re actually going to build a life you don’t want? That’s mind-blowing.

“You HAD to choose someone good for your campaign. That’s f—— ridiculous.”

Later Giambrone insists, “I am NOT marrying (Sarah).”

According to Lucas, they had sex for the last time Jan. 2, this year, in her bedroom. Later, lying in bed and talking, she says she agreed to keep seeing him – provided he told McQuarrie about their relationship.

Earlier that evening, Giambrone had attended a function with McQuarrie at Wanza, an Ethiopian restaurant on the Danforth, where the couple was photographed about to sample his favourite dish of onions, red peppers and spare ribs.

Lucas, who’d written she’d “wear something nice,” waited at her place.

When she messaged him to ask where he was, Giambrone replied: “Yes, still here at the restaurant, see the photo in the Sun tomorrow.”

Later, a text says he’s en route to her home, first 15 minutes away, then five.

Monday night, Giambrone said in his statement Lucas had “earlier sent an email I thought was threatening.”

His campaign sent the Star a copy of an email that it claimed had been sent to Giambrone by Lucas on Jan. 7.

In the email she threatens to track down “ur `girlfriend’ and let her know about the affair we’re having. It doesn’t have to be true … ha! I hope U become mayor so that I could become TTC chair!”

Lucas denied sending the email and pointed out her name is spelled incorrectly.

She said Giambrone called her Saturday morning and kept telling her he was sorry. He also insisted he and Lucas had always been just friends, she said.

Each time she challenged a statement as mistaken, he backed down and apologized again, she said.

Before they hung up, she said she asked if he was sleeping with McQuarrie while he was sleeping with her. According to her, he said he had been.

In his statement Monday night, Giambrone said: “I called her on this past weekend to ask her not to reveal the relationship.”

-

* Common-law partnerships in Canadian civil law are essentially another form of government recognized marriage, applied when two involved parties (straight or gay) live together for a period of at least 6 months

Rasmussen Ohio Gubernatorial Survey

• John Kasich 47% {47%} [48%] (46%)
• Ted Strickland 41% {40%} [39%] (45%)
• Other 5% {4%} [3%] (3%)
• Not sure 8% {8%} [11%] (7%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Kasich 47% [45%] (47%) / 30% [24%] (25%) {+17%}
• Ted Strickland 44% [46%] (48%) / 51% [46%] (46%) {-7%}

How would you rate the job Ted Strickland has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 13% {15%} [11%] (15%)
• Somewhat approve 33% {28%} [37%] (32%)
• Somewhat disapprove 28% {28%} [26%] (24%)
• Strongly disapprove 25% {26%} [24%] (26%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 5-6, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 12, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 7, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 23, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Kasich carries male voters by 23 points over Strickland, while the first-term governor holds a 10-point lead among female voters.

Voters not affiliated with either of the major parties prefer Kasich by 16 points.

Race42012 is proud to present Jon Keeling’s analysis on the state of the Ohio gubernatorial race:

Despite Democrat attacks, Kasich maintains lead

Since the January 12th Rasmussen poll showing presumptive GOP nominee John Kasich up seven points, four major events have happened in the Ohio gubernatorial race.

1. Kasich announced Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor as his running mate.
2. Ted Strickland announced his campaign for re-election and his choice of former County Judge Yvette McGee Brown as his running “partner”.
3. Ted Strickland gave his State of the State speech.
4. Ohio Democrats unveiled their first major coordinated attack against John Kasich.

As you can imagine, three of those four should have had a positive net effect on Governor Ted Strickland’s numbers.

The reality says otherwise as the new numbers from Rasmussen released this morning show Kasich dropping a statistically insignificant point, and still leading outside the margin of error 47-41.

Most interesting of the four listed above is the last one; the coordinated attack from Ohio Dems designed to preemptively define Kasich. Headlines from newspapers across Ohio over the past two weeks included the following:

• “Pry calls Kasich tax plan devastating”
• “Democrats oppose Kasich income tax plan”
• “McNally Blasts Kasich Tax Cut Plan”
• “Treasurer rips Kasich goal of tax phase-out”

These headlines were the result of the 2010 Ohio gubernatorial campaign’s first aggressive attack – in this case, an impressively coordinated effort by the Strickland campaign to have local Democratic leaders across the state host press conferences with the intent to define Kasich as extreme and irresponsible. It yielded substantive earned media and provided the Democrats the exact headlines they were looking for in newspapers from Toledo to Portsmouth.

And it failed.

How do we know? Kasich’s total favorable number among likely voters one month ago was 47. And today? 47.

Totally and completely unchanged.

What did change? The number of Independents who have a “very favorable” opinion of Kasich – going from from 18 to 26.

It’s particularly amazing that these numbers didn’t drop when considering the Kasich campaign never took the bait and counterpunched these claims. But a number released in Rasmussen’s Ohio Senate poll yesterday may explain why the Kasich campaign was happy to sit back and take a few jabs – when Ohioans were asked whether they believe tax cuts or more federal spending is a better way to create jobs, tax cuts were preferred 54-17.

Now take into consideration that Ohio Democrats just went on a massive media push to inform voters that John Kasich will cut their taxes (admittedly, it was framed in a way designed to be highly negative). On top of that, Strickland has repeatedly stated in the Ohio media that his efforts to solve Ohio’s jobs crisis rely completely on obtaining more federal stimulus dollars.

With a strategy like this, it makes you wonder if Governor Strickland even wants to win this election.

The fact is this, with nothing more than an innovative new media strategy and aggressive grassroots efforts among the activist base, Kasich has found himself consistently ahead. Once the Ohio Republican Party and Kasich campaign begin spending some of the millions of dollars they have on hand, they’ll be able to highlight not only Ted Strickland’s failures in ways never considered by Ohioans, but they’ll be able to highlight John Kasich’s solutions.

This election, like so many others around the country, will be about jobs. Unless Ted Strickland can turn things around, and fast, he will not win on 11.2.10.

For more on John Kasich’s campaign, visit KasichforOhio.com .