Look at how the fascists at the White House try to suppress dissent, the highest form of patriotism!!!!

In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan — Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism — responds to critics of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies by saying “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

This is Orwellian!!!! Remember, those who would trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither!!!!!!! Patriotic dissenters, stand strong in your courage and will we defeat this oncoming police state!!!! I can’t believe people say it can’t happen here!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up, sheeple!!!

Huffington Post is reporting that Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) is releasing his hold on all but a few of President Obama’s nominees. Shelby had instituted the hold last week because he wanted pork for his state.

Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has released the “holds” he had placed on every one of President Barack Obama’s nominees, his office said Monday.

“The purpose of placing numerous holds was to get the White House’s attention on two issues that are critical to our national security – the Air Force’s aerial refueling tanker acquisition and the FBI’s Terrorist Device Analytical Center,” Shelby spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement released to news organizations Monday night.

Shelby wants the tanker and the new FBI explosives center to be built in Alabama. Senators frequently block individual appointments, but Shelby’s blanket hold was unusual.

Now that he has gotten Obama’s attention, Graffeo said, “Sen. Shelby has decided to release his holds on all but a few nominees directly related to the Air Force tanker acquisition.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday, “If you needed one example of what’s wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold up 70 qualified individuals to make government better because he didn’t get his earmarks.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last week that Shelby’s move was holding up about 70 appointments, including a critical top Defense Department position overseeing deployments to the war in Afghanistan.

A senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Shelby has built his career on steering spending “earmarks” to Alabama.

Shelby can’t single-handedly defeat Obama’s nominations. But by forcing time-consuming votes on each one, he can delay them indefinitely.

Of course, as Gibbs’ comment insinuates, the problem with the senate is clearly the filibuster and the fact that the Senate requires 60 votes just to sneeze. The problems are not in the earmarking process, or the fact that the Department of Defense is full of unnecessary dollars through waste and fraud. Nope. As Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week, all of America’s problems lie with the filibuster.

Shelby’s hold was not something Republicans and conservatives should be proud of. It was done for pork spending, not out of concern regarding the nominees or to promote the Republican Party’s goals. However, it is nearly as irresponsible for Democrats to continue to say the filibuster is one of the major blocks to the Democratic agenda. This is because, first, Democrats had the ability to get rid of the filibuster over the last year, but never did for various political reasons. Secondly, Democrats had the votes, right from the start, for literally any legislation and nomination any Democrat could think of. It has only been since Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) was sworn into office that this dynamic has changed.

Unfortunately for Democrats, not enough change has not come to Washington, DC since President Obama’s election as president. Thank goodness for that. While our political system does need some major reforms, America can’t afford the cost of this president’s change. Furthermore, Democrats can talk all they want to about the non-democratic fashion in which the filibuster is used, but as Brian Darling of The Heritage Foundation wrote on RedState this morning (emphasis mine),

ObamaCare can’t pass right now, because the American people hate the bill and have pressured just enough Members of Congress to stall the legislation.  The House that operates on majority rule, can’t pass the Senate passed ObamaCare bill right now.  Krugman can’t blame that situation on the filibuster.  Ironically, a minority of Senators is protecting the majority of the American people’s views on ObamaCare.

In case you were wondering, the United States does not need to launch defensive strikes from bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.  The bulk of the Iranian military infrastructure is situated along its western and northern regions, a legacy of the Iran-Iraq war that occurred between 1980 and 1988.

Most of Iran’s chemical and nuclear weapons infrastructure is located in the provinces that surround the capital, Tehran.  I term this area, ‘danger alley’, as this is where a majority of Iran’s SAM sites are located.  Because this area is densely populated, our political leadership would probably rule out a nuclear strike with the objective of destroying the bulk of Iran’s air defenses and weapons of mass destruction program sites.  This would result in a contemporary strike option as our only  alternative to the current policy of negotiating with Iran’s dictatorship, while threatening further economic sanctions.  Although this would place our airman at high risk from the Iranian SAM’s, it is a mission that our highly technical and effectively trained armed forces are capable of succeeding at.

Some links for those who are interested in learning about Iran’s defense capabilities;

• Iran Defense Industry
• Taking On Iran’s Air Force | Defense Tech
• Iran develops air defense system comparable to Russia’s S-300
• ‘Iran’s military deterrent is unimaginable’
• Iran has defense headache
• Iran begins military exercises to protect nuclear facilities

-

This is the theme being pushed in much of the international media;

The next time I say something negative about Sarah Palin and her Baghdad Bobs tell me to “go back to the Huffington Post,” please consider that they’re warming up to her over there:

Indeed, at times in her speech, Palin sounded like the second coming of Huey Long. “While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses,” she said. “And everyday Americans are wondering: Where are the consequences? They helped to get us into this worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Where are the consequences?”

I was within an inch of singing along: “Yeah, where are the consequences!? You tell ‘em, Sarah!

Well, it’s no wonder Arianna Huffington’s on board with Palin’s economic rhetoric. Game Change revealed that, during a McCain conference call about the financial collapse, Palin spouted “populist, anti-Wall Street cliches.” During her vice-presidential debate, she insisted that the ‘predator lenders’ were solely at fault for the problems we face. She absolutely loves the fact that “the people” own Alaska’s oil, as a “collective” resource — that’s why she supported a “windfall profits” tax against “Big Oil” and inspired a tome called “Sarah Takes On Big Oil,” after all. And now, she has decided to side with Martha Coakley and Barack Obama against the idea that banks ought to be profitable again — which is even more baffling, in light of the fact that she supported the bailout in the first place! (What for, may I ask, if she doesn’t want the banks to make money?)

How much longer can this woman get a free pass from economic conservatives?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

No, not him, President Calvin Coolidge makes the case for limited government and other than his numbers being far lower than what we face in the 21st Century, Silent Cal’s argument is right on, 86 years after he made the first Presidential talkie.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

TBQ Arkansas Political Favorability Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mike Huckabee?

• Strongly Favorable 32%
• Somewhat Favorable 29%
• Somewhat Unfavorable 9%
• Strongly Unfavorable 23%

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

• Strongly Favorable 27%
• Somewhat Favorable 22%
• Somewhat Unfavorable 8%
• Strongly Unfavorable 33%

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 13-15, 2010.

The TBQ Poll is a bi-partisan poll constructed by Democratic political strategist Robert McLarty of The Markham Group, Republican political strategist Clint Reed of The Political Firm, and TBQ Editor-in-Chief Roby Brock. McLarty serves as an advisor to Democratic incumbent Attorney General Dustin McDaniel.  Reed is an advisor to GOP Senate candidate Gilbert Baker.

Inside the numbers:

Only 17% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Palin compared to 71% unfavorable. Republicans favor Palin by a 82%-16% margin.

Independents have a more favorable impression of Palin versus an unfavorable impression. 57% of independents support Palin, while 31% do not.

Gallup: Obama Job Approval on Issues

(more…)

Marist Political Survey

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

• Barack Obama 44%
• Sarah Palin 29%
• Michael Bloomberg 15%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 31%
• Sarah Palin 27%
• Michael Bloomberg 24%

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 57%
• Michael Bloomberg 20%
• Barack Obama 11%

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 52%
• Michael Bloomberg 21%
• Sarah Palin 15%

Among Men

• Barack Obama 37%
• Sarah Palin 31%
• Michael Bloomberg 17%

Among Women

• Barack Obama 51%
• Sarah Palin 26%
• Michael Bloomberg 13%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 44% {46%} [55%] (56%)
• Disapprove 47% {44%} [35%] (32%)

Among Independents

• Approve 29% {41%} [47%] (51%)
• Disapprove 57% {44%} [37%] (32%)

Overall, has Barack Obama met your expectations, exceeded your expectations, or fallen below your expectations as president?

• Met expectations 42% {44%}
• Exceeded expectations 7% {9%}
• Fallen below expectations 47% {42%}

Overall, would you describe the direction in which President Barack Obama is moving the country as:

• Change for the better 37% {44%}
• Change for the worse 38% {35%}
• No change at all 22% {18%}

Overall, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 50% {55%}
• Unfavorable 44% {41%}

Among Independents

• Favorable 39% {49%}
• Unfavorable 52% {43%}

Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 62%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 29%

Among Independents

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 55%
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 33%

Survey of 910 registered voters was conducted February 1-3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 2-3, 7, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 3-6, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 1-3, 2009 are in parentheses.

Do the Democrats who run the federal government have the constitutional right to mandate that Americans purchase a Congress-approved health care plan?  According to Democrat Senator Ron Wyden, Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett’s reply is, “Get over it, they’ve got a point.”

Club for Growth:

WASHINGTON – The Club for Growth PAC today responded to comments by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who yesterday attacked the non-partisan Club for not blindly supporting all Washington Republican incumbents. At an event in Utah yesterday, Gingrich endorsed Senator Bob Bennett and criticized the Club PAC for opposing the three-term incumbent, sponsor of the Wyden-Bennett government health care takeover bill, and advocate of the Bridge to Nowhere and the Wall Street bailout.

“Last fall, as conservatives around the country rallied to help Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd district special election, Newt Gingrich supported the ultra-liberal Dede Scozzafava, right up to the day she dropped out of the race and endorsed the liberal Democrat,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “Newt has proven time and again that he will support any Republican, regardless of policies and principles. That’s his right, but the Club for Growth PAC puts principles over party.”

“Newt was wrong about New York-23, and he’s wrong about Utah,” Chocola said. “And pretty soon, Bennett will wish Newt never gave him the kiss of Dede.”

The Club for Growth PAC announced last month that it opposes Sen. Bennett’s re-nomination for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, citing the Utah Republican’s history of troubling votes on economic issues. Specifically:

· Bennett voted for TARP, the $750 billion Wall Street bailout;

· Bennett voted for the disgraceful “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark;

· Bennett refused to block funding for any further bailouts of auto manufacturers;

· Bennett voted against redirecting wasteful Defense earmarks toward improved health care for disabled veterans;

· Bennett voted against a resolution stating the Senate had a “moral obligation” to cut spending;

· Bennett’s health care proposal would impose an unconstitutional individual mandate, increase federal taxes and spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, and force Americans to pay their insurance premiums through the IRS.

###

The Wall Street Journal explained the Wyden-Bennett bill in this June 2009 article:

The plans favored by Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Barack Obama rely on a “public option” in which government insurance would supposedly “compete” with private insurers, a move many see as leading to a single-payer system. By contrast, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act relies on the private insurance market while imposing a series of regulations to squeeze savings from the private sector. It also requires individuals to buy coverage for themselves, the controversial “individual mandate.”

For more on Club for Growth vs. Newt Gingrich, see CNN, Politico, NPR, The Deseret News, Politics Daily, and The Salt Lake Tribune.

______________________________________________________________

Connect with Hodge on Facebook, his Web site, Twitter, and KansasProgress.com. From 2005-’09, Hodge represented 300,000 voters and 50,000 students at Johnson County Community College. He served in the Kansas House from 2006-’08. His record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

H/T: CP4

One of the few advantages a parliamentary system has over our form of government is that all parties have their own leader who is empowered to for the party as a whole. In our system, the closest thing we have to a unitary party leader is the President of the United States. The Congressional leaders can only speak for their party in their respective houses, not their party members in the other house. For example, Harry Reid can only speak for the Senate Democrats, not the House; and Nancy Pelosi can only speak for the House Democrats, not the Senate.

The upshot of this is the only time a party has anything close to a unified leader is when they control the White House. When they don’t, they are stuck with divided leadership. This is only relieved for the limited time between when a candidate has been chosen as the party’s Presidential candidate and the time of the election. For those few short months, the nominee is the party’s leader. If the nominee wins, he remains the leader. If he loses, he ceases being the leader, and the party falls back into divided leadership.

This causes a number of difficulties. For example, look at the ritualized response of the party out of power to the President’s State of the Union Address. There is a reason why it invariably pales to the SOTU. It is never given by a top-tier party member. Such an honor would confer status and prestige upon the person giving the response — an honor the other jealous top-tier members aren’t about to allow to anyone who could threaten them. Hence the duty of giving the party’s response is always given to a less prominent party member who is important enough to carry some weight, but not important enough to threaten anybody.

The result of this little kabuki dance? The President invariably wins the exchange.

Obama and his councilors know this fact of political life full well. Hence their shrewd offer to publicly meet with the Republicans and hash out Health Care. The Democrats will have one person speaking for them, the President. The Republicans will be forced at best to have a committee, a committee that must work through consensus, a committee that will be afraid of stepping on anyone’s toes.

I would love to see one such as Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani going toe-to-toe and nose-to-nose with Obama on Health Care. These three have proven their debating credentials on the National stage. But it will never happen. One, neither of these fine people have any real say in the party, nor will they have until one of them wins the 2012 nomination — and that’s certainly no given. And Two, none of them would allow the limelight to shine on any of their rivals in any meaningful way. It won’t happen.

So if we accept Obama’s invitation, we would be stuck with the committee, and in any contest between a single mind and a committee, the committee almost always loses.

***Updated***
The House Republicans have given their reply:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

There’s much, much more. Be sure and read the whole thing.

The Democrats’ future in the U.S. Senate looks even gloomier following Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. “Beau” Biden’s announcement on January 25 that he would not run for the seat vacated by his father, Vice President Joseph R. “Joe” Biden, Jr. Democrats at the national level, unnerved by a recent series of Republican victories in special elections, had looked to the younger Biden as their best hope for keeping both of the First State’s Senate seats in Democratic hands. The refusal of the vice president’s son to run for Senate in the nation’s second-smallest state says a lot about the current political climate.

Delawareans have been voting for (or against) Bidens since 1969, when 26-year-old Joe Biden ran for county council and won, only to run for U.S. Senate two years later, bypassing the usual political ladder of state offices and scoring a tremendous upset victory over Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs. In 2006, his son ran for state attorney general, successfully relying on family name recognition to defeat an opponent that was significantly better qualified. Of course, most followers of national-level politics probably have one question about the goings-on of Delaware: Who the heck cares?

The Obama administration cares. So does the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democrats across the country who see their Senate majority slipping away, one seat at a time. The fact is, Biden was their only hope to defeat Delaware’s Republican candidate, current U.S. Representative Michael Castle, a former two-term governor whose moderate status has earned him nine House terms in a strongly Democratic state. Barring a miracle for Democrats, Castle will occupy a seat held by their party since 1972.

Sound familiar? Massachusetts, anyone? If Democrats have learned anything from recent losses, it is that they do not own certain states or offices, regardless of history or tradition. Their compliance with the president’s radical agenda is fueling a popular nonpartisan tea party movement, and awakening citizens who have previously stayed out of politics. Just as the Senate seat recently won by Scott Brown has been called “the Kennedy seat,” so could Delaware’s, temporarily held by placeholder Ted Kaufman, be called “the Biden seat.”

No longer. The younger Biden’s wise decision not to run, thereby protecting his political future, should be a warning sign for other Democrats, as well as the White House. A prominent figure in a tiny state is unwilling to run despite his party’s urging, while the current administration and Congress are losing popularity. It is not a coincidence. How will Democrats fare in more moderate, evenly-divided battleground states, with candidates that cannot lean on local popularity and power like that of the Biden family?

Republican Scott Brown’s recent upset victory taught us a lesson, or should have. Political parties or families do not own seats, and dissatisfaction with a White House agenda can affect local races. The lesson from Delaware, in the form of “Beau” Biden’s refusal to run, is that at least one Democrat has learned from what happened in Massachusetts, and now, faced with the prospect of a loss in the November election, is unwilling to wager his political future for the sake of a floundering party. In the coming months, as campaign filing deadlines draw closer, how many other would-be candidates will discover that, like Biden, they are not gamblers?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

-Chris Slavens, former member of the Wilmington New Journal Community Board, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Full details here.

…and Erick Erickson, who drops some wisdom on the House GOP Caucus:

Nonetheless, from that speech in September until today, Barack Obama has insisted the GOP had no proposals. He insisted the Democrats work behind closed doors and shut out the GOP.

Now, because the House Republicans gave the President a chance to improve his image at their retreat, Obama wants to sit down with Republicans at his guest house in front of TV cameras and discuss the proposals the GOP has had all along that he pretends he knew nothing about.

If Barack Obama cannot be genuine and interested in Republican ideas when the cameras are turned off, there is absolutely no way he can be genuine and sincere with the cameras turned on.

The GOP is often referred to as the stupid party. Let’s pray they aren’t stupid enough to sit down with a President who has for six months dismissed them as having no ideas. Barack Obama says he wants a bipartisan approach to health care now. Well, there is bipartisan support for scrapping the current proposals and starting over.

Unless Barack Obama says they should scrap the present plans and start over, the GOP should not entertain his invitation to use a gaggle of Republicans to rehabilitate our socialist President.

Rasmussen Colorado Gubernatorial Survey

• John Hickenlooper (D) 49% [42%]
• Scott McInnis (R) 45% [45%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott McInnis 52% [60%] {52%} (42%) / 29% [26%] {33%} (22%) {+23%}
• John Hickenlooper 56% [57%] / 36% [32%] {+20%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 4, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 6, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8-10, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 9, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Hickenlooper edges McInnis among both male and female voters. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Democrat by five points.

The Associated Press reported ten minutes ago that Representative John Murtha (D-PA) has died. Rest in peace, Congressman, and God Bless you and your family.

Fox News has an obituary, as does the New York Times.

I track politics in a lot of foreign countries, but I actually have friends in Sri Lanka – so I tend to take a keener in that nation than I do in most places.  As such, I am horrified at  what is going on there.

Earlier today, General Sarath Fonseka, the losing candidate in last month’s presidential election, was arrested. He stands accused of plotting a coup against President Mahinda Rajapaksa, but in all honesty it appears that nothing of the sort was in the works. Fonseka has indeed refused to recognize Rajapaksa’s victory in the elections, and says he is planning to challenge the result in court – but that is hardly an excuse to accuse him of military takeover. And, in all honesty, there WERE a lot of irregularities in the way the votes were counted and results were released (Sri Lanka has as many corruption problems as any developing country).

In fact, this is not totally unexpected – as Rajapaksa’s first act after “winning ” re-election was to order th military to surround the hotel in which Gen. Fonseka was watching  the results (again on the accusation that he was planning a coup).

In all honesty, I have no clue who “really” won the election – and while I was rooting for Fonseka based on the advice of my friends, I didn’t see any clear reason to believe he would be much better than Rajapaksa. However, I’m now prepared to take sides for no other reason than that Rajapaksa seems to be moving to install himself as head of a dictatorial, semi-authoritarian regime.

While this is a bit of an odd occurrence for the Indian Subcontinent – they actually have a term for these sorts of shenanigans in Latin America. They call it an “autogolpe” ( “self-coup”), implying that an incumbent leader stages a coup against the institutions of democracy to become a dictator. The best example of this was Peru’s “FujiGolpe” of 1992, where legitimately elected President Alberto Fujimori suspended the nation’s democratic institutions and claimed absolute  power for himself. 

While this move by Rajapaksa is a little more subtle, and supposedly done in the name of democracy, it is essentially just a move to concentrate power in the hands of the President and dismantle the opposition. So, while many will say this was a legitimate move to protect democracy from a coup, I say that these charges were likely drummed up to eliminate Fonseka and any other opposition to President Rajapaksa.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has proven himself to be an Asian version of Alberto Fujimori by staging a  FujiGolpe-style coup against his own government. This is not a defencse of democracy, it is merely “The RajaGolpe”.

Rasmussen Nevada Gubernatorial Survey

• Brian Sandoval (R) 45%
• Rory Reid (D) 33%

• Rory Reid (D) 40%
• Mike Montandon (R) 36%

• Rory Reid (D) 44%
• Jim Gibbons (R) 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Brian Sandoval 53% / 30% {+23%}
• Mike Montandon 39% / 29% {+10%}
• Rory Reid 40% / 52% {-12%}
• Jim Gibbons 35% / 63% {-28%}

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

• Strongly approve 27% (27%) {29%} [29%] (37%)
• Somewhat approve 16% (19%) {20%} [17%] (9%)
• Somewhat disapprove 15% (9%) {9%} [11%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% (45%) {41%} [44%] (45%)

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

• Strongly approve 11% (9%) {9%} [7%]
• Somewhat approve 21% (30%) {26%} [28%]
• Somewhat disapprove 27% (17%) {27%} [24%]
• Strongly disapprove 40% (42%) {36%} [37%]

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 2, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 11, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 9, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Male voters prefer all three Republicans over Reid but support Sandoval by a near two-to-one margin. Female voters give a solid double-digit edge to Reid over both Gibbons and Montandon but break even when Sandoval is the Republican in the race.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party in the state, Reid is tied with both Gibbons and Montandon but trails Sandoval 46% to 26%.

At long last, she uses humor rather than bitterness in replying to her critics. Check out this hilarious image of Palin from the recent Rick Perry rally.

Rasmussen Ohio Senatorial Survey

• Rob Portman (R) 43% {44%} [38%] (41%)
• Lee Fisher (D) 39% {37%} [36%] (40%)
• Other 5% {4%} [8%] (6%)
• Not Sure 13% {14%} [18%] (14%)

• Rob Portman (R) 42% {43%} [40%] (40%)
• Jennifer Brunner (D) 38% {40%} [33%] (38%)
• Other 5% {5%} [7%] (5%)
• Not Sure 15% {13%} [20%] (18%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Portman 45% {49%} [48%] (45%) / 24% {25%} [21%] (23%) {+21%}
• Jennifer Brunner 43% {37%} [34%] (37%) / 32% {39%} [36%] (36%) {+11%}
• Lee Fisher 38% {41%} [36%] (42%) / 39% {39%} [35%] (34%) {-1%}

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

• Strongly approve 29% {29%} [31%] (33%)
• Somewhat approve 20% {17%} [15%] (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {13%} [12%] (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% {41%} [41%] (40%)

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 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.

Sarah Palin has gone after Rahm Emanuel and also Rush Limbaugh over their use of the word retarded. Does she have point or is she engaged in silly political correctness?

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

Links of the Day:

• Mark Crutcher has an encouraging word to pro-lifers as he imagines what America would be like if the pro-life movement didn’t exist.
• Gerard Alexander asks why liberals are more condescending than other political groups.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Yesterday, Hot Air posted the pre-Super Bowl ad of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother. The ad was easily the least controversial I saw throughout Super Bowl Sunday- especially compared to the many Bud Light and men in underwear commercials, or the taxpayer-funded census ad and the American debt commercial, during the actual Super Bowl.

However, nobody in the general public had seen the real ad until the game. You know, the one feminists and pro-abortionists went crazy over because Tim and Pam Tebow, along with CBS, were allegedly pushing a radical pro-life agenda. So after seeing the pre-game ad, I was prepared for anything- you know, maybe a mention of God or perhaps even a a hug between a mother and her son?

Turns out I was wrong. Tebow actually tackles his mother- which is pretty funny, no matter what the fruitcakes say- while she is expressing concern about his safety and toughness. She then pops up before he does and “lectures” him about interrupting her sharing their story. He apologizes, stands to her left with one hand on each shoulder, and asks her if she still worries about him. She says that she does, because he’s “still not as tough as I am.”

All in all, this is a knockout, home run, touchdown, hat trick, whatever you want to call it, for Focus on the Family and the pro-life movement. Whether intentional or not, by not releasing the ad’s content until the Super Bowl, Focus on the Family let the crazies on the left run wild with speculation. The pro-life movement now looks kind, gentle and loving, if you even picked up on the sub-text of the ad. Focus on the Family, which has the background of the Tebow ad on its main page, in particular looked like a non-controversial organization to those who have never heard of it. The only mention of the organization is a few seconds at the end directing people to the Tebow’s story on Focus on the Family’s main page.

However, the victory does not end there. The Tebow ad has been discussed for some time on blogs, in articles, on The O’Reilly Factor, The View, The Laura Ingraham Show, Megyn Kelly’s “America Live” and of course on the websites of Life News and Planned Parenthood. Why? Because feminists and pro-abortionists went off the deep end to take the ad down. Had they waited for the commercial to come out before making a statement, they could have attacked from a base of knowledge. Had they ignored it, the ad might have caused a piffle of notice among Super Bowl watchers and been promptly ignored. However, by taking the path more traveled by attacking the ad with every weapon possible as soon as possible, they guaranteed the ad would be carefully observed by millions of Super Bowl commercial watchers.

When it comes down to it, the pro-life movement is increasingly in line with the views of Americans, especially young Americans. By making the Tebow ad a mainstream point of discussion for many days before the Super Bowl, pro-abortionists have made themselves look both the fools and out of touch with mainstream America, and placed the pro-life movement squarely in touch with the softer, kinder side of Americans, who by and large only want what’s best for everyone. This ad, or more precisely the pro-abortion reaction to it, will most certainly guide Americans to the side of the abortion debate that is truly about helping women and children, and helping families make the right decisions about life.

Although there was some controversy about the Tea Party meeting in Nashville because its organizers made it a for-profit event, and it was expensive to attend, there should be no serious illusions that the grassroots movement it represents, at least in part, is a movement spent of its energy, ambition and ability to shake up the political establishment.

Since it is not a political party, nor even an organization with membership cards, dues and strict definitions of its beliefs and goals, there is no real way at this time to measure the true Tea Party impact on current politics. In the Illinois GOP gubernatorial primary just concluded, for example, there were two serious candidates who appealed to Tea Party voters. Predictably, they split that constituency, but if there had only been one candidate, their combined totals suggest that a Tea Party candidate would now be the Republican nominee for governor.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, herself a figure already prematurely dismissed by many as a spent force in American politics, was the keynote speaker at the Tennessee meeting, and her remarks indicate she continues to be one of the most tuned-in politicians in the U.S. to the undercurrents of the public mood.

President Obama, ironically, is the best political personality going for the Tea Party. His continued refusal to adapt his agenda to the hard facts of the special election in Massachusetts, the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey last year, and now the overwhelming contemporary trend of poll numbers coast-to coast constantly refuels the voter discontent which is the engine of the Tea Party movement.

I have already predicted that Mr. Obama will change his tune soon enough, but instead of changing it on his terms, his delay will make his actions seem desperate and insincere. This is the price he is paying for being a political amateur, in fact (as I have also written in this space previously) the first amateur president of the United States.

To be fair, the organization of the Tea Party is a bottom-up populist phenomenon, and thus an “amateur” movement itself, but it does not bear any responsibility to govern (as do presidents, governors, senators and house members). The Republican Party is the natural heir to the results of the Tea Party movement, but except in Massachusetts, we have little hard evidence yet that the GOP knows how to fully harness this grass roots energy to its political advantage, especially with so many party elders and conservative pundits putting the movement down.

Let’s cut to the rhetorical chase. The Tea Party has arisen because of the ideas, behavior and agenda of the Obama administration and its far left base in the Democratic Party. Tea Party folks are utterly opposed to government-run healthcare and the other radical “social-democratic” laws and programs now proposed and promised ahead.

Mark these words, the longer Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid insist on their agenda, the more rapidly not only will the conservative Tea Party grow, but so will a separate movement among unaffiliated centrist independent voters, many of whom voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008. Rhetorical disguise and costumes will not alter this reality. (Mardi Gras will be over soon.)

The only ones who can rescue the Democratic Party now are its centrist leaders in the Congress and in the state capitals. So far, they have shown little gumption or imagination, and have been rolled over again and again by their more radical colleagues. Apparently, they have a delayed sense of survival because in the election this November coming, it will not be the most liberal politicians (most of them in safe urban districts and states) who will be the first to go. It will instead be these silent centrists, just trying to get along with their noisy and presumptuous more liberal colleagues.

This is what happens to invertebrate politicians, and to regimes which do not seek the consent of the governed.
______________________________________________________________________

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

(more…)

The Green Police:

Tim Tebow + Mom:

This last week I has the good pleasure of joining my family on a Bahamas cruise packed with Christian musicians and organized by Royal Caribbean, Premiere Christian Cruises, and KLove Christian Radio Network.

About 2,500 people were on the cruise and they had the option of bidding on various items with proceeds going to the James Fund, a Christian on-profit organization dedicated to meeting the needs of orphans and widows around the world.

When I saw that a signed book from Huckabee, Palin, and Beck were part of the mix, I figured I would document how the bidding on those items ended up. Here are the results:

(more…)

In my previous posting on 2009 PAC results, I neglected to include the donations each PAC gave to non-Federal campaigns. Here is the updated tally:

The Percentages represent the ratio between the donations made to the Total Contributions Received.

As can be seen, Huck-PAC gave the biggest chunk of their incoming donations to other campaigns, Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC gave the smallest. Sarah PAC trailed Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC.

The lagging of Sarah-PAC and FF-PAC is understandable since this is their first year of existence. They had to build up some operating capital and spend some money just getting up and running. Hence they have less to spend on other campaigns.

No matter how you slice or dice it, Huck-PAC gave the largest percentage to others in spite of having the least amount to spend. Kudoos go to them.

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

South Carolina’s third Congressional district is one of the few in 2010 where the Republican candidate is not running for reelection. Congressman Barrett is currently a candidate for Governor of South Carolina. This creates an open seat and already it’s turning into an interesting primary. Current candidates include a local attorney Neal Collins, a Pastor Richard Cash, Ron Paul activist and local physician Mike Vasovski, and three State legislators – State Representative Rex Rice, State Representative Jeff Duncan, and State Senator Shane Massey. The incumbent has won in the past with over 60% of the popular vote, so a good look at the Republican primary because that winner will most likely become the next Congressman from that district.

First, let us look at the State Legislators. For the Legislators, one can look right to their records and their historic approval rating from outside organizations such as the Club for Growth, to determine their conservative credentials. Here are the approval / interest group ratings for Rice, Massey, and Duncan. The first thing I notice is that all three men are grade A NRA supporters. Also, Rice has a much larger record than the other two legislative candidates and, in 2006-2007, shifted sharply left on fiscal issue garnering below a 50%rating from the Club for Growth in 2007 and a 55% in the 2008 legislative session. On the other hand, Duncan started at the 75% in 2005 and has since had arating of over 90% from the Club for Growth. Massey has an approval rating of above 90% as well, but a much shorter record to look at. In 2008, Massey and Rice both dropped below 70% support for “South Carolina Business and Industry Political Education Committee,” a SC specific “pro-business growth” PAC. Duncan remained above 70%. From these records alone, Duncan has the better record on fiscal issues. Rice and Massey have decent record – but Rice is more spotty and Massey’s is less complete, having only been elected in 2006.

To determine the benefit of the other three candidates – we need to review their platform and take them at their word. Collins specifically calls out spending federal funds on high-speed rail through SC-03 (pork) and increased spending on higher education by the federal government. Both of these platform items are not consistent with a fiscally conservative platform.

Vasovski has a very vague platform which mostly states, “I support small government.” He also states that he supports a non-intervention platform in his essay on the topic. He specifically states that this is not the same as isolation – which is good to mark that distinction. He’s also apparently been a candidate since 2008 for this office. Before I can make a serious analysis of the candidate – I would need to know more.

The final non-legislator candidate is Pastor Richard Cash. As expected, Cash spends a great deal of time discussing faith and God. He actually has an entire bullet point in his platform entitled “God.” He makes very clear his views on the issues – including support of laws which would prohibit pre-marital sex and homosexuality, and supporting Congressional intervention in the Supreme Court to pre-decide if cases are eligible for judicial review. I oppose those entire platform points – thefederal government especially has no place in trying to police people’s personal lives and his idea on Congress goes against the entire spirit of separation of powers.

Based on this quick analysis of their platforms – none of the non-legislative candidates are truly all around conservatives. Based on their fundraising potential – none of the three of them are viable candidates. Of the Legislative candidates – Massey has the most money on-hand, but as you will notice over 50% of that is a loan from himself. Rice and Duncan have comparable amounts of money remaining on-hand.Both received around the same amount of PAC money. The difference? Duncan’s other donations have been primarily organic with a $10,000 loan to himself and nearly $100,000 of individual contributions. Rice loaned himself over $50,000 to his campaign. Sure, he’s raised more money – but only about 20% more than Duncan thus far.

Back to platform review for our legislative candidates. Rice mentions that he’s a gun rights supporter, pointing to his A rating from the NRA. Rice supports the Fair Tax – i.e. a federal sales tax combined with a “prebate” given to everyone at the beginning of the year. I, personally, oppose this venture – once people find out that the government can pay them money, they’ll actively try to vote themselves more money.

Massey and Duncan have similar platforms on fiscal issues. Both support tax reductions, both are “Taxpayer Heroes” from the South Carolina Club for Growth. What’s interesting is the entire lack of discussion of social issues in Massey’s platform. Massey does not mention gun rights, he does not mention abortion, and he does not mention immigration. While his platform is complete on most fiscal issue – many of the issues that matter to all around conservatives appear to be ignored. Duncan’s platform discusses that he’s pro-life, support of private parternships on energy independence, support of second amendment rights, and support of the State’s rights to enforce their own immigration laws.

Now, I’ll be honest – I don’t live in South Carolina and am not fully familiar with the district, but based on how these candidates look on paper alone – Duncan appears to be the most capable and qualified with a solid platform. Anyone who knows more and has additional insight would be greatly appreciated. This six way primary is an interesting one to watch.

-Cross posted from Old Line Elephant.

-

-

-

-

America held hostage by Richard Shelby. (Hat Tip: Fort Boise.)

Paul Ryan’s tough fiscal medicine.

Two Canada’s: 12 year old boy in vegetative state after tonsilectomy while Newfoundland Premier heads to the U.S. for heart surgery.  (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)

Patients in persistent vegetative state can communicate. (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)

Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls.

Maine’s abusive anti-male laws.

Two Indonesian Churches ordered shut.

Music by Stone’s Shadows via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download