Sorry to interupt a spirited debate on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” - but Scott Brown is scheduled to be sworn in at 5:00 PM  (in about one minute) and Fox News’ Boston affiliate is streaming it.

I have spoken with enough of my readers — many of whom are gay and thank me for the perspective I bring — to know that I can’t let Adam’s vile piece of hatred pass without saying something about it. Perhaps it’s imprudent for a skinny, city-dwellin’ gay boy to take on a rugged, bearded Idaho mountain-man (at least he doesn’t have to worry about me raping him — don’t flatter yourself, Adam) — and indeed, perhaps this sort of trash doesn’t even merit a response — but against my better instincts, here I go.

First, let me state that there are certain legitimate arguments in favor of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The military, first and foremost, must be about defending the homeland. The argument against allowing open homosexuality is legitimate in that perhaps the culture cannot accommodate it, in the same way that the military culture could not accommodate the integration of the races during World War II. This is not, prima facie, a stupid argument. (Somehow, we survived that, though, despite the social conservatives’ resistance to the executive order — and still remained the best fighting force in the world.)

But this is not the argument that Adam makes.

I don’t know exactly why Adam Graham, ostensibly a supporter of our military, harbors so much hatred and resentment toward our honorable gay — notice that he prefers the cold and clinical “homosexual” — soldiers, though. The implication that “homosexual predators” who want to rape our soldiers are going to start flowing into the ranks if we allow them to serve is at once without evidence, without merit, and incredibly disturbing. The accusation says more about Adam than about our gay soldiers, who serve us with honor. As he rightly points out, men indeed do get raped — but most of the male-on-male rape in this country occurs in prison, where heterosexual predators turn other, weaker heterosexual men into makeshift women. This is an alarming problem and subject to too many thoughtless jokes in our culture. Adam’s more concerned, though, about imaginary gay people who exist to rape straight men. — Now, in case you didn’t know, Adam — and I know that you don’t — there are already tens of thousands of gay servicemen. You ought to thank them for protecting the homeland, rather than denigrating them as perverted rapists-in-waiting.

But it goes beyond that. Adam also hates our heterosexual soldiers, claiming that they won’t be able to help but assault gay people! This is, first of all, contrary to the reports I’ve read and the soldiers I’ve listened to, who tell me that, in many units, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is actually ignored because our soldiers are mature enough to handle the presence of openly gay men — men whose sexuality is incidental to their lives, but would still like to be allowed to read a card from their significant others without fear of losing his job. But worse: what disgusting disdain toward service, what awful sense of life one must hold to look at our soldiers in this way! Gay ones are rapists-in-waiting, straight ones are waiting to assault. I hold a little more pride in our nation’s military than Adam does.

And now, the sky falls:

I think in 20 years, I believe this policy will degrade the quality of our troops, and perhaps put an end to our all-volunteer army. I think morale will be dramatically less. I think the military as an institution will have spent too much time trying to make people comfortable with bathing with and sleeping with people who are attracted to the same gender. We will have seen countless lawsuits and countless lives destroyed.

Funny. Every other fighting force in the industrialized world has soldiers that are mature enough to withstand the evil, wicked Pink Menace. Apparently it’s only our soldiers who are immature, dishonorable, and incapable of fighting if they know that a gay person is their neighbor. The only way out of this is to denigrate other honorable Western militaries — which a brief perusal of the comments in Adam’s piece will show some of us are not beyond.

Poor Adam. He just can’t handle that fundamentalist Christianity is not accepted by this country (even those who support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell don’t tend to make arguments about how gays will literally destroy our military)  — and that the classical liberal principle of tolerance is. Indeed, the military is not about “affirming lifestyles” — and that’s fine. Because being gay is not a lifestyle. Being obsessed with tearing down gay people to affirm one’s own masculinity is.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

* Also, his note about gay people having more STDs is misleading. This is true, but it is highly dependent upon population. Gay people who join the military are not in that promiscuous, urban subculture that fosters that kind of depraved lifestyle.

UPDATE BELOW

The Military will lift the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the Armed Services. At this point, I don’t think there’s much that can be done to stop it, and really the significant battles surrounding the issue have been lost long ago.

If one examines the policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, there is but one really good argument.

I don’t think a basis for excluding homosexuals from service can be made on a moral basis. Whatever one thinks of homosexuality, the military doesn’t require a perfect moral life. Chastity is not required for service in the military.I think medical concerns are limited. While homosexuals have a much higher rate of STD infections, this will have a negligible impact on the service.

The strongest argument against homosexuals in the military is the creation of extra sexual tension which makes a dangerous situation even more dangerous, and complicates the U.S. military’s goal in dangerous situations and can degrade morale.

However, we’ve already gone down this road with the Bush Administration streteching, if not breaking the rule against  women in combat. The results have been many female soldiers becoming pregnant as well as giving the predatory members of the military convenient targets.

Given the same set of circumstances, I expect the military to repeat the same mistakes. Homosexuals in the military? Yes, we can.

What will the consequences be?

Truth be told, in the short term, not much. Like with same sex marriage, a lot of activists will demand it but few will actually enlist.  Most of those will do their time without a whole lot of discomfort.

However, there will be bad actors in the midst . For predatory homosexuals, the military is an inviting place to do business. Men make up 10% of rape victims but rarely report. The pressure to keep silence would be especially strong there. So you can expect a huge increase in men being raped by other men in the nation’s military, but it will be a silent statistic for the most part.

Of course, eventually, after a number years, a story will get out. And gay rights opponents will pounce on the stories as proof of why the military allowing homosexuals to serve as a bad idea. It will be blown up out of proportion to a cultural event, and many parents who would have been supportive of their children joining the military will imagine them being raped by a giant gay guy in their bunk.

It’s also predictable that you’ll see violent attacks on homosexuals in the service, particularly aboard ships during long deployments. Gay rights activists will blame the religious right. The military will spend precious man hours of sensitivity training to try and smooth things out. It won’t work.

I’m not calling for these things to happen, but these are foreseeable consequences.

Homosexuals in the military will happen and will be devestating to our nation’s national defense. This is about civilian politics, not what’s best for those who serve in uniform.

I think in 20 years, I believe this policy will degrade the quality of our troops, and perhaps put an end to our all-volunteer army. I think morale will be dramatically less. I think the military as an institution will have spent too much time trying to make people comfortable with bathing with and sleeping with people who are attracted to the same gender. We will have seen countless lawsuits and countless lives destroyed.

The military is not about affirming people’s lifestyle. It’s about keeping America secure, and the policy that is about to be enacted by this Administration will not make America more secure.

UPDATE

How wrong can some people get it? In the comments, I’ve been accused of insulting our men and women in uniform, and of suggesting the majority of homosexuals who would enlist would be predatory. That’s nonsense, I never suggested any such thing.

I explicitly said that the vast majority of homosexual soldiers would not serve without issue. However, there would be some bad actors. Is that unreasonable?

No, the fact of the matter is that female soldiers have been raped by male U.S. soldiers.  Are we to suppose that at the end of the day that there are no Homosexual rapists, only Hetrosexual rapists who would join the military?

This leads me to the second accusation that I’ve somehow besmirched our military by suggesting there would be some folks in the military who might respond violently to the presence of homosexuals in the service.

That’s total nonsense. There’s a difference between supporting the mission of the military and believing that the moment you slip on the uniform, you enter a magic “can do no wrong” zone.  That’s nonsense, if it were true, we wouldn’t have a Judge Advocate General’s corps. There are bad actors within the military. As a Unit, they have a noble mission and a purpose. As individuals, they are flawed human beings and sometimes those flaws run deep.

I’m glad to hear from so many readers that they have “gay ——s” and they’re not gay rapists. This is very encouraging. I have a lot of hetrosexual friends who aren’t rapists, therefore there are no hetrosexual rapists according to this logic.

My point is not that the vast majority of straight or homosexual soldiers would engage in rape or attacking homosexuals, but that it would happen, and there would be a very polarized reaction. When stories of homosexual rape in the service come out, you’ll have the American Family Association sending out e-mail blasts to their members urging them to call the President to get the ban re-instated. People will read the letter and think less favorably about a military career for their children.

At the same point, when we read about the attacks on openly homosexual solider assaulted, it will lead to attacks on the religious right from the HRC and “enhanced sensitivity training” for all soldiers.

These incidents need not be many, and indeed the vast majority will behave themselves well, but the publicity that will surround this issue for years to come will hurt our nation’s military.

Announced this morning by the Tiahrt for Senate campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Michelle Schroeder

February 4, 2010 785/249-8095

DR. JAMES DOBSON ENDORSES TIAHRT IN US SENATE PRIMARY

Conservative Leader Backs True Conservative Champion

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today secured the high profile endorsement of Christian radio commentator, best-selling author and family advocate Dr. James Dobson. Dobson is the founder of the pro-family non-profit organization that produces his internationally syndicated radio programs where his commentaries are heard by more than 220 million people every day.

“I believe it is imperative that we elect Christian leaders who will fight for the principles that promote strong family values,” Dobson said. “Todd has never cowered in the face of a tough fight. Whether it is defending the lives of the unborn, working to preserve parental rights or standing up for traditional marriage, he has been willing to fight important battles at a time when many chose to sit on the sidelines.”

Dobson continued, “Todd not only votes the right way, but he also speaks out and helps lead the fight to get conservative policies enacted. His activism is not a recent development, but a mark of his entire political career.”

Dobson joins the growing list of conservatives who have endorsed Tiahrt including former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, Sen. Jim Inhofe, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Congressman Mike Rogers, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, former Congressman Jim Ryun, and conservative talk radio icon Mark Levin. Tiahrt also has the support of groups such as; Concerned Women for America PAC, Kansans for Life PAC, Family Research Council PAC and Eagle Forum.

Tiahrt is the conservative candidate running to replace Sam Brownback in the United States Senate. He has been recognized throughout his career for fighting for lower taxes, traditional values and limited government.

###

______________________________________________________________

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.

So, my guy didn’t win the Illinois gubernatorial primary, but that doesn’t mean I’m crying in my beer. In fact, there are a lot of things to be excited about.

For one, pending a recount, downstate conservative Bill Brady appears to have won the GOP nomination over moderate establishmentarian Kirk Dillard by about 400 votes. Brady is himself quite an underdog story, having been outspent by both Dillard and Andy McKenna, but apparently coming from nowhere to seize the nomination. He did it by allocating his resources toward building a strong ground game and consolidating support in downstate Illinois. So, his strategy was brilliant, and he proved that the Chicago machine politicians can’t buy elections anymore. Brady was probably my second choice in this race, and I’m happy to have him as the nominee.

As for the general election, it’s going to be dicey for either Brady or Dillard to beat Pat Quinn – but Quinn’s win over Dan Hynes does give the GOP some hope, as Hynes clearly would have been a stronger opponent. Dillard would probably have a rough go of it, as he focuses on gravitas, experience, and moderation - to such an absurd extent that he comes off as an uber-establishmentarian and fails to present a clear contrast to the incumbent.

Brady, on the other hand, does provide a clear contrast to Quinn on both substance and style. His campaign themes are anti-establishment, he comes off as an optimistic breath of fresh air,  he wants big tax cuts and spending cuts, and he does a good job of playing up his business experience as a homebuilder. I like Brady a lot and, if he does pull the upset, I think he’s going to get a a lot of national press as a solid conservative in the muck that is Illinois. That said, I do realize that his emphasis on his conservatism and downstate origins could hurt him in Chicago and the suburbs. I thought Andrzejewski could do well (despite being right of Brady) because of his novel and radical anti-corruption plans – Brady’s message is more traditionally conservative and hence I think he may be harder to sell in the ‘burbs. That said, I think he will be a much stronger nominee than many people expect.

Now, as for Andrzejewski, I am NOT terribly disapointed with his showing. Yes, he technically finished fifth, but ultimately he was less than six points behind the winner and he won nine counties. That is not bad at all for an underfunded neophyte who was being totally written off just two weeks ago. He also managed to double his vote from roughly 7% to almost 15% in the last two weeks of the campaign. All in all, it was a strong coming out party, and frankly I think the only issue was that he caught fire a little to late. Two more weeks of frenzy (a la Scott Brown) and he very well could have won.

Andrzejewski made serious national news  – drawing mentions from both Limbaugh and Beck, and generating support in the American Spectator, National Review, RedState, BigGovernment, and other conservative media.  If he ever runs for anything again, he will not go unnoticed. So, in my mind he was very successful and remains a force to be reckoned with – the only question being what his next move is.  I would also note that Andrzejewski himself was very  upbeat in an interview with Politico.

Some would probably suggest a run for Congress – although I don’t know which district covers his hometown of Hinsdale and hence can’t judge his chances. This wouldn’t be a bad move, and would be a very viable option if Brady does indeed win the governorship. However, Andrzejewski is heavily focused on local Illinois issues and has a very executive personality that may not be suited well to congressional service.

So, my suggestion would be for him to use his newfound popularity to pump up the non-profit he founded, “For the Good of Illinois”. This organization has already suceeded  in getting many local governments across the state to post their spending online – and now that Andrzejewski has national name recognition, it has the potential  to raise a lot of money and position itself as the unquestioned leader of the movement for transparency and good government in Illinois.  In fact, it could be very successful in generating a movement to adopt Andrzejewski’s two main campaign pledges – the posting of all state spending online and a full forensic audit of state government.

If Andrzejewski positions himself at the effective head of a new and improved “For The Good Illinois” – he will gain a LOT of popularity and will likely be the frontrunner for governorship in 2014 should Pat Quinn win re-election. Quinn is moderately unpopular now, and is likely to be even more vulnerable in the future if he is re-elected.  

Anyone suggesting that the final result was some sort of embarrassment for either Andrzejewski or the Tea Party movement is being intellectually dishonest. No, we did not finish as strong as we had hoped, but we achieved many of our goals and did indeed finish stronger than expected. I personally am very proud of my involvement as an Andrzejewski supporter and will continue to be a vocal supporter of any future effort he pursues. I will also continue to assert that he remains a viable future leader for both the State of Illinois and the national conservative movement. I am, and always have been, an incrementalist when it comes to political success.

 As someone who has supported many, many underfunded anti-establishment candidates, I have learned that it is utter lunacy to assume that anything short of winning is a failure. Adam Andrzejewski took his first steps into statewide politics this year, and he offered himself a huge challenge by choosing to start his career with a longshot campaign for the state’s highest office. While he did not win, he DID wage an extremely strong campaign against very strong opponents – and he finished far stronger than anyone expected him to.

Adam Andrzejewski WILL be back, and he WILL be stronger the next time around. If you doubt that, I would remind you that four years ago, a little known state senator ran for Illinois’ governorship and suffered a crushing 19% loss in the GOP primary at the hands of Judy Baar Topinka .  His name was Bill Brady.

Hot Air had this on their aggregation list- the column can be seen in its entirety here.

To start off:

On Day One of his vow to take “meaningful steps to rein in our debt,” Barack Obama asked Congress to freeze portions of discretionary domestic spending. This would follow an astonishing permanent expansion: Republicans on the House Budget Committee say appropriations bills Obama has signed, along with his stimulus spending, have increased discretionary domestic spending 84 percent. He almost certainly will not keep his promise to veto spending bills when Congress, as it almost certainly will, largely disregards his request.

And later:

The budget reveals that the deficit emergency is not so great as to preclude another stimulus, a.k.a. “jobs bill.”Or to require that middle-class tax cuts enacted under The Great Alibi (George W. Bush) be allowed to expire. Or even to scrub from the budget such filigrees from olden days as $430 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which perhaps made some sense 42 years and 500 channels ago, when public television meant for some Americans a 33 percent increase in channels, from three to four.

Still later:

The depressing minutiae of the moment pale next to two large possibilities anticipated by Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. They concern the rise of American health spending and the even more dramatic rise of China’s economy.

And in closing:

The 20th century radically reduced deaths due to acute infectious diseases, which were concentrated in infancy and early childhood. In 1900, more than 33 percent of all deaths were of children under 5; today they are less than 2 percent. In 1900, deaths of persons 65 and older were only 18 percent of all deaths; today they are 75 percent.

This demographic destiny might entail starving every other sector of society — including national defense, at great cost to America’s international standing. It had better not, given what Fogel argues in another essay, this one in the current issue of Foreign Policy. It carries the headline “$123,000,000,000,000.” Fogel’s subheadline is: “China’s estimated economy by the year 2040. Be warned.”

He expects that by 2040 China’s GDP will be $123 trillion, or three times the entire world’s economic output in 2000. He says China’s per capita income will be more than double what is forecast for the European Union. China’s 40 percent share of global GDP will be almost triple that of the United States’ 14 percent.

Fogel finds many reasons for this, including the increased productivity of the 700 million (55 percent) rural Chinese. But he especially stresses “the enormous investment China is making in education.”

While China increasingly invests in its future, America increasingly invests in its past: the elderly. China’s ascent to global economic hegemony could be slowed or derailed by unforeseen scarcities or social fissures. America’s destiny is demographic, and therefore is inexorable and predictable, which makes the nation’s fiscal mismanagement, by both parties, especially shocking.

I find it just a tad disturbing that Will practically advocates ignoring the elderly, his comment on how our fiscal mismanagement is a major part of the quality and quantity of life issues the elderly face notwithstanding. Nevertheless, his point is well-taken. America must get its fiscal house in order and produce highly-educated, dynamic and hard-working young people in order to continue being a military, economic and cultural leader. For our elected officials to ignore these priorities, and for private citizens to not insist said officials reform the federal budget and America’s educational programs soon, would be a dereliction of the duty we owe future generations.

Are they capable of nominating someone without mob ties or a criminal record?

Scott Lee Cohen — a pawnbroker who shocked state Democratic leaders Tuesday night by winning the party’s nomination for lieutenant governor — was arrested about four-and-a-half years ago and accused of holding a knife to a former live-in girlfriend’s neck, newly obtained court records show.

The misdemeanor charge against Cohen was dropped weeks later when the woman — who had just been found guilty of prostitution — failed to show up to testify, according to those records. …

Cohen’s Oct. 14, 2005, arrest came five months after his wife filed for divorce and convinced a judge to give her a temporary order of protection, records show. A status hearing in the divorce case took place Wednesday, hours after Cohen’s election-night triumph.

Cohen — who records show also had federal tax troubles that he says he has settled — denied in a written statement that he ever hurt the ex-girlfriend or his family. Cohen disclosed his domestic violence arrest when he announced his candidacy, but the details about the knife and prostitution case didn’t surface in the campaign, as Cohen was considered a longshot.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

If you are watching the new “demon sheep” ad by the Carly Fiorina campaign and thinking “This can’t be serious,” then you should probably trust your instincts. From the can’t-pronounce-it acronym to the ultra-dramatic film music to the strange narrative, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Its message is serious — Tom Campbell’s a fake, Fiorina’s the one — but it’s breathtakingly clear that the advertisement is meant to be light.

The Fiorina press list is sending me e-mails with sheep puns and demon sheep t-shirts. The ad is meant to be light-hearted. You’re laughing with it, not at it. But although some may believe that no publicity is bad publicity,  it was probably an incredibly awful idea for the Fiorina campaign to think that the chattering classes would get the joke.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Per The New York Times:

When Senator Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties last year to become a Democrat, he offered to refund campaign contributions from anyone who felt betrayed by his leaving the Republican Party.

The total amount he has refunded was about $850,000, according to the Specter campaign. About 900 people requested refunds, his campaign said.

If he did not have to return the money, he would have a daunting $9.4 million in the bank.

But even with the refunds, Mr. Specter, always a prodigious fundraiser, has $8.66 million in cash on hand _ far more than Representative Joe Sestak, his Democratic challenger in the May primary, or former Representative Patrick Toomey, the all-but certain Republican nominee in November.

The bad news for Mr. Specter is that Mr. Toomey took in more money than he did in the last three months of the year.

Mr. Toomey raised $1.67 million, compared with Mr. Specter’s $1.15 million. Mr. Sestak raised $650,000.

The Club for Growth has more:

WASHINGTON – According to news reports, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) was forced to refund $600,000 in campaign contributions during the fourth quarter of 2009, following a mailing from the Club for Growth PAC to Specter’s donors notifying them of his refund policy.

“I don’t think Senator Specter’s party switch is going exactly as he planned,” Club President Chris Chocola said. “This refund campaign has proven more successful than we could have hoped, blowing a $600,000 hole in Arlen Specter’s campaign, and we thank all the citizens who followed through on their refund requests who made it a success. Hopefully, this will send a message to all Washington politicians – there is a price to pay for putting your career ahead of your constituents.”

Chocola also noted that Specter would miss the money more than most candidates, as the political winds continue to turn against liberal Washington insiders like Specter. “Both the news of campaign finance report and polls show that Pennsylvanians are tiring of Arlen Specter’s self-serving style and big-government policies,” Chocola said. “Voters are looking for principled leadership, and in the Pennsylvania Senate race, they are finding it in Pat Toomey.”

In August, Club for Growth PAC received permission from the FEC to contact Specter’s contributors, notifying them of Specter’s promise to refund money contributed prior to his party switch. In late September, the PAC’s mailing went out to thousands of Specter contributors, including a pre-printed refund request letter along with instructions on how to request a refund.

News of the refund total was reported yesterday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

______________________________________________________________

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.

Public Opinion Strategies for John McCain (R)

2010 Senate Republican Primary

• John McCain 59%
• J.D. Hayworth 30%

Survey conducted from 1/11-13/10 among 600 likely Republican primary voters with a 4% margin of error.

McLaughlin & Associates for J.D Hayworth (R)

2010 Senate Republican Primary

• John McCain 49%
• J.D. Hayworth 33%

Survey conducted from 1/12-13/10 among 500 likely Republican primary voters with a 4.4% margin of error.

Oh. My. Gosh… Is Carly Fiorina’s “Demon Sheep ad” the worst political advertisement of all time? It’s so bad, that it’s hard for me to believe this isn’t meant to be a parody of a bad political ad. See for yourself (fast forward to 2:26 to skip directly to the “demon sheep”):

As long time readers of this site know, I make it a policy to always adhere to the 11th Commandment. So this is not meant to be an attack on the Fiorina campaign. This is meant as constructive criticism. Someone in the Fiorina campaign has to “take the reins” on their web strategy ASAP.

Hat-tip: Linkiest

Rasmussen Illinois Senatorial Survey

• Mark Kirk 46% {39%} [41%] (41%)
• Alexi Giannoulias 40% {42%} [41%] (38%)
• Some other candidate 4% {3%} [4%] (4%)
• Not sure 10% {15%} [13%] (17%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mark Kirk 55% {50%} / 33% {32%} {+22%}
• Alexi Giannoulias 46% {48%} / 39% {36%} {+7%}

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

• Strongly approve 33% {40%} [41%] (37%)
• Somewhat approve 21% {18%} [15%] (19%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {9%} [11%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 35% {33%} [33%] (34%)

How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 8% {8%}
• Somewhat approve 37% {43%}
• Somewhat disapprove 31% {25%}
• Strongly disapprove 22% {22%}

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.Results from the poll conducted December 9, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 14, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, the Republican holds a sizable 59% to 22% lead.

Yesterday, Politico led with an article describing some deep hypocrisy among so-called fiscal hawks among both parties. According to Politico, the “hawks” are very much for cutting spending…unless it’s within their state’s limits. Senators DeMint, Enzi, McCaskill and Tester, among others, are targeted for their support for fiscal discipline outside of their state.

Today, Politico targeted Democratic deals designed to pass health care reform. Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” has been taken out of the picture…but Senator Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) “Louisiana Purchase” is still on the table. According to Politico:

But there is no visible movement to erase a Medicaid deal with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that she has said is worth $300 million, three times the amount of Nelson’s agreement.

Or to strike a line item that exempts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from a 40 percent tax on insurers that provide expensive health plans. Or to remove a provision that sends an extra $500 million in Medicaid funding to Massachusetts and $600 million to Vermont for being leaders in providing health insurance to their residents.

Politico snags statements from a number of Democrats senators regarding their state’s deals. Below are two:

“It is very clear from the process that took place in the final days of the bill that Americans are disturbed about the process,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “I believe it would be important for us to take out the egregious items.”

Does that mean he might forfeit the money for Massachusetts?

Not at all. Kerry argued the funding was completely legitimate because Massachusetts has already used significant state resources to extend benefits beyond what the current federal Medicaid rules require.

“I don’t think adjusting for Medicaid costs for states that have already done some things is inappropriate,” Kerry said. “I’m not for a single-state fix. I’m for every state in the country that has taken action, to have that reflected somehow, and that should be part of the fix.”

Kerry’s remark highlights an axiom of Washington: Every deal is egregious except your own.

On the labor deal, Levin said he signed off on it initially “in the context of trying to get the bill passed.”

But now that party leaders have gone back to the drawing board, he said critics want another chance to eliminate the tax completely. Barring that, he said they would like to raise the threshold on plans that would be taxed and exempt additional benefits — under the terms of the labor deal, only basic coverage would be taxed, exempting things like dental and vision coverage.

Other senators and several representatives are noted as getting their own deals in as well. While this is the way Congress works, and thus no bill is ever free from deal-making…this is pretty shortsighted of Democrats to make more of the same kinds of deals that hurt them so much in Massachusetts.

I first heard about the deals when Politico’s Mike Allen was on Morning Joe today. Arianna Huffington was on the show, and after Allen pointed out the Massachusetts, Vermont and Michigan deals, she made the observation that (and this is as best as I can remember, 25 minutes after the fact, so please excuse the lack of an exact quote)) beyond what was in the deals, Democrats are using the same secretive processes that made them so devastatingly vulnerable in Massachusetts. It’s the process, she noted, that is anathema to Americans most of all.

Following Huffington’s statement Joe Scarborough, the host of Morning Joe, offered some advice to President Obama on how to get rid of these backroom deals and get health care reform back track. Again, from memory, Scarborough said that President Obama should call each and every troublesome Democrat- and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)- in and inform them that they will support the health care bill he likes. If they don’t, he will veto their appropriations. Secondly, for those who are up for re-election this year, he should threaten to primary them if they don’t get in line. With his experience as a representative from Florida, Scarborough claims he knows that each senator will flinch at these threats.

I have to agree with Huffington; beyond making deals, which I think most Americans grudgingly accept as part of the political system- of course, that acceptance becomes significantly easier to bear when money comes to their state or district- we want the kind of transparency offered by C-SPAN, open dialogue, etc. Secondly, I agree with Scarborough. Elections and money to their own state are the lifeblood of U.S. Senators, and threatening both will lead very quickly to Democrats (and Joe Lieberman) falling into line. (Also, threatening to away Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would probably help Democrats.)

This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

Today, the Financial Times published an article about a topic that may create millions (or even billions) of headaches in the future:

Moody’s Investors Service fired off a warning on Wednesday that the triple A sovereign credit rating of the US would come under pressure unless economic growth was more robust than expected or tougher actions were taken to tackle the country’s budget deficit.

…Steven Hess, senior credit officer at Moody’s, said the deficits projected in the budget outlook presented by the Obama administration outlook this week did not stabilise debt levels in relation to gross domestic product.

“Unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigorously than expected, the federal financial picture as presented in the projections for the next decade will at some point put pressure on the triple A government bond rating,” the rating agency added in an issuer note.

…Crucially, projections of the overall debt-to-GDP ratio for the US are seen rising from 53 per cent in 2009 to 73 per cent in 2015 and 77 per cent by 2020.

Moody’s, however, says this understates the overall US debt level.

“Using the general government measure, including state and local governments as well as the federal government, which is used internationally, this ratio would be well over 100 per cent in 2020.”

If those numbers don’t scare you, I don’t know what will. Think about how much of the global financial system touches U.S. Treasury Bonds, Bills and Notes. Now, think about the mass hysteria that would ensue if credit agencies officially downgraded the worthiness of the instruments long regarded as the safest investment in the world. Massive sell-offs would lead to higher interest rates across the board, spiking the cost of the government’s interest payments on the debt and further increasing the deficit. Governments and investors would lose even more faith in the dollar. Inflation would rear its ugly head with a vengeance. And the U.S. would see its standing as the world’s economic superpower placed into even more question.

Unfortunately, our elected officials in Washington still don’t seem to get it. They have yet to show an authentic desire to tackle our entitlement obligations. Democrats sing their familiar Keynesian refrain and characterize government spending as key to resuscitating the economy. Republicans seem more interested in scoring political points than regaining credibility on spending (witness their flat-out rejection to cuts in defense spending and recent pledges to “protect” Medicare). And the end result? The individuals truly concerned about the issue and doomed to bear the brunt of the fallout – everyday people – feel scared, ignored and angry. This can’t continue. Something has got to give.

What does Al Gore, Hollywood actors, Osama Bin Laden and President Obama have in common?

-

Rush Limbaugh dances to Lady Gaga at Miss America Pageant

-

No joke – Will Smith considering a run for President

-

Bill O’Reilly vs Jon Stewart On The Factor

-

Retro Reagan: Gipper Tips His Hat and Heart To James Cagney

Sarah Palin has two dates set up in Arizona soon. In March, she will be visiting to campaign with John McCain. In  April, she will be returning to keynote an event for the Center for Arizona Policy.

Earlier today, Ed Morrissey let Hot Air visitors know about “Demand Question Time,” which is a website founded by a compilation of liberal and conservative bloggers, politicos, etc. who want the Friday Obama/GOP question-and-answer session to be the beginning of a new era of dialogue between a sitting president and Congress. According to Politico,

Original endorsers include Grover Norquist and Eli Pariser, Joe Trippi and Mark McKinnon, Markos Moulitsas and Ed Morrissey, and many more, including Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ana Marie Cox and Nate Silver. The steering committee is made up of Micah Sifry, David Corn, Mike Moffo, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke and Glenn Reynolds.

Corn, of Mother Jones, and Finn, a Republican blogger, were on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” presenting the idea. Pressed by Matthews regarding some of the limitations of “Demand Question Time,” Finn and Corn explained very thoroughly how the effort would not be the be-all and end-all of the problems facing our country, but it would be a great start to at least begin both ending the polarization of our national politics and opening up the lines of communication and understanding between Washington, DC politicians and the American citizenry. Democratic Underground has more, with a full list of original supporters and an open letter from Corn to the American people.

Unfortunately, AllahPundit explained this evening that the White House does not want to continue this kind of dialogue. Apparently, as White House adviser David Axelrod explained, Friday’s spontaneity would be hard to replicate and therefore would not continue. According to Huffington Post,

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton relayed the news during Wednesday’s briefing, calling the idea of standardizing “question time” good in concept but impractical in practice.

“David Axelrod has talked about this a little,” Burton said. “And what he had to say is: part of the reason Friday was so successful with the GOP conference was the spontaneity that occurred there. And it is going to be hard to recreate the spontaneity that happened.”

Burton added that the president “thinks that there is space for more open dialogue, and he is going to look for more opportunities to do things on camera and have open discussions on important issues.”

The petition to “Demand Question Time” can be found here. Perhaps if a few hundred thousand Americans demand the kind of low-energy transparency and inter-party dialogue that promote a better state of our nation, President Obama will continue what he and the GOP started last week.

From the Hill:

Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R), the successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), will be sworn in to office Thursday afternoon, giving Republicans 41 seats in the upper chamber.

“Once we get his certificate, we expect to swear him in tomorrow afternoon as early as 5 o’clock, which is earlier than he suggested,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in an interview Wednesday.

A senior GOP aide said he expected Brown to be sworn in around 5 p.m. on Thursday although a precise time has not yet been set.

UPDATE: Oh, wonderful. It turns out that Debra Medina talks to Alex Jones, too. What is wrong with these people? Well, for now, I’m standing by my support of Medina. Let’s see if she’s “the right kind of crazy” for Texas…

Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom I have been backing until now, has no chance of becoming the next of governor of Texas. She’s run a boring, lackluster campaign, she’s given no good reason why she should replace Rick Perry, and she’s not doing anything wrong in the Senate. She shouldn’t have run. I’d still take her over Rick Perry, but she’s becoming increasingly irrelevant.

My colleague Adam Brickley likes to talk about how it’s important that there are a couple of “flies in the ointment” of any elected body — and I think I’ve found the the perfect candidate for that position. Debra Medina, the gadfly libertarian who has recently skyrocketed to 16% in the polls and raised $500,000 after a strong showing in the gubernatorial debates, could be an interesting little fly on the national stage. Perry, for all of his name recognition and money, is only at 44% in the polls. In a three-way race, Medina could scrape by if she does a little more than double her current support. And Texas is leave-us-alone enough to consider this oddity of a candidate.

Who is Debra Medina? She is, more than any other candidate running for a prominent office, a product of the Tea Party Movement. She carries a gun in her car. She sued the Republican Party of Texas to make it follow the letter of the law — and won. She quotes the Constitution by section and article in her debates with Perry and Hutchison. She wants to abolish property taxes, eliminate state mandates for health care, respect — really respect — the 10th Amendment, slash taxes, deregulate, and wield her veto pen. And she means it. She quotes Frederic Bastiat on her official website in her section about the proper role of government. Check her out — she even blasts Rick Perry as supporter of big government!:

She has been called a “Ron Paul Libertarian” by some, and that’s essentially true, if we accept the dubious proposition that Ron Paul has a monopoly on respecting the Constitution. She has been a friend of Paul’s for a while and works with his Campaign for Liberty organization. But this simplistic tag unfairly lumps her in with the Alex Jones crowd. That’s the real implication of that tag.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I may not be willing to support her if she were running for Senate — it is quite possible that she has repulsive foreign policy views. And I don’t mean probable, by the way; I do mean possible — we have nothing to go by; she, to my knowledge, has not made any public statements bashing Israel, not affiliated herself with racists or anti-Semites, and has not mingled with conspiracy theorists. If evidence emerges to the contrary, I will reconsider my support for Debra Medina. But her foreign policy is irrelevant: she’s running for governor, not for the Senate. Right now, I have no reason not to support this woman. She’s got the right stuff, and in a climate like this, she can win.

I would love to see Texas become a national laboratory for libertarian ideals, and Medina has a real chance to make it happen if her supporters spread the word about her candidacy via word-of-mouth. And she — not Rick Perry, not Kay Bailey Hutchison — can enact real, small-government change in Texas. Because she is fundamentally not a calculating, business-as-usual politician. She’s a citizen and an activist, and she echoes Goldwater in not wanting to go to the governor’s mansion to make laws, but to get rid of them. And what will she replace them with? Nothing. Sweet, beautiful nothing. If Texas Republicans want to shake things up, they’ll send Debra Medina, not a self-serving career politician, through this primary.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Rasmussen Connecticut Senatorial Survey

• Richard Blumenthal (D) 54% {56%}
• Rob Simmons (R) 35% {33%}

• Richard Blumenthal (D) 56% {58%}
• Linda McMahon (R) 36% {34%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Richard Blumenthal 70% / 27% {+43%}
• Rob Simmons 60% / 26% {+34%}
• Linda McMahon 51% / 34% {+17%}

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

• Strongly approve 32% {39%} [36%] (44%)
• Somewhat approve 19% {17%} [21%] (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {8%} [10%] (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 39% {35%} [33%] (30%)

How would you rate the job Jodi Rell has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 22%
• Somewhat approve 45%
• Somewhat disapprove 23%
• Strongly disapprove 10%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted January 6, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 6, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 7, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 10, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Simmons and McMahon run slightly stronger than Blumenthal among male voters, but both lose female voters to the Democrat by nearly 40 points. Among voters not affiliated with either party, Blumenthal and Simmons run even, while the Democrat wins by eight against McMahon.

Mitt Romney will be in Sioux Falls, SD February 19 to headline a fundraiser for John Thune. The news has really started the speculation buzzing. Thune is a popular Republican Senator in a fairly conservative state who already has a sizable $6M warchest with few if any real credible Democrat opponents in sight. To make things more interesting, Thune is getting more and more play as a possible 2012 Presidential candidate.

Thune’s campaign manager had this to say:

“Sen. Thune has been through 2 grueling and very expensive Senate races, and if there is one lesson he took away from those contests it’s that you can never be too prepared.”

Nor can you have too few high-profile endorsements, I might add. For Mitt, the very least that happens is he picks up another IOU from a prominent Republican. The facts that that Republican’s home is next door to Iowa and that Sioux Falls shares a media market with the conservative enclave of Sioux City, IA only sweeten the deal.

Will Mitt pop down and visit the state which holds the first caucus of 2012?

Stay tuned.

Interesting play by Baby Paul, considering that Papa Paul’s signature issue was opposition to the war (although this really isn’t the same issue). I think Rand is going to be very interesting to watch in that, while there are not many differences between him and his father, Ron Paul had the luxury of running as a wild-eyed outsider, where Rand Paul now finds himself a frontrunner trying to consolidate support among people who may not agree.

Oh…and yes I will be writing soon on Andrzejewski and the IL primary but I had hoped to wait until we had a GOP nominee before commenting…so much for that idea. So my Andrzejewski recap will be tomorrow.

Racist. Sexist. Ableist. Ageist. These are left-wing smear words that pervaded college campuses and Democrat rags for ages — long after the words lost their proper punch. Overuse of the terms rendered them dull swords, and now, when one wields them, a simple “get a life” is usually a good enough shield against them.

There are few things that bother me more than whining. I am deeply suspicious of those who are constantly offended by every little slight, every little slip of the tongue, every folly man inevitably stumbles into. The perpetual victim is, without fail, highly insecure and has a warped understanding of the human condition. When I hear, for instance, that Rahm Emanuel threw around the term “f**king retarded” as an insult, I instantly think, If someone chronicled my every off-color remark, I wouldn’t come up smelling like roses, either. Not Saint Sarah. She’s angry. She’s offended. She’s politically correct.

In a Facebook post titled “Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?,” Palin wrote, “Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the ‘N-word’ or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable,” adding, “it’s heartbreaking.”

Palin added, “As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better… Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Oh, what a whiner! Is Sarah angling to be the next Jesse Jackson or Abraham “Did I hear you use the word Jew, you anti-Semite?” Foxman?

First of all, the word “retarded” is not equivalent to the word “nigger.” The latter has historical connotations that imply the inherent inferiority of black people. To use it conjures images of slavery, segregation, and Southern police brutality. The word “retarded,” while somewhat mean, is roughly the same as the contemporary usage by young boys of the word “gay” to mean “stupid.” “Retarded” falls into that same category. It’s clear how it evolved, and consequently, it’s rude — but it’s not something to erupt over. Nobody actually thinks that Rahm Emanuel harbors any animosity toward people who are, well, retarded.

Second, isn’t Sarah Palin supposed to be the moose-huntin’, pistol-packin’ mama of the North? A tough-as-nails woman in a man’s domain? — And aren’t we supposed to be the “grow a spine” party? Apparently not, because this is not an isolated incident. Remember this?

“The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate,” Palin wrote on her Facebook page. “When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation.”

“The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context,” she adds.

Get a grip, girlfriend. (Also, a copy of The Elements of Style: “the irrelevant rather than the relevant” — omit needless words, omit needless words…) I’m tired of whining. I don’t want a Republican Sensitivity Police. I want a fighter. I’m not interested in going after liberals because they’re “ableist, sexist, and elitist.” I’m interested in going after them because they want to enforce their distorted morality at the point of a gun. So with all due respect, madam: this is the national stage — put up with it or shut up. We’re not professional victims — we’re supposed to be the opposite: we’re supposed to be conservatives.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Reid Wilson at HotLine on Call is reporting that the Republicans have narrowed their 2012 Convention choices to four cities: Tampa, Houston, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix. Let’s look at all four.

• Tampa: Florida is an important swing state whose 27 electoral votes we lost in 2008 by 3%.
• Houston: Texas is a solid Republican state with a high Hispanic population. It went to McCain by 11%.
• Salt Lake City: Utah is in the heart of the Inter-mountain West, a region vital to the GOP’s 2012 hopes. While Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming are solidly Republican; Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are not. They and their 19 electoral votes went to Obama in 2008 by more than 10%. We need to win them back in 2012.
• Phoenix: Arizona is still a fairly strong Republican state with a large Hispanic population. It went to McCain by 9%.

A couple of comments:

1. We definitely want to do what we can to appeal to the Hispanic vote. However, while I can see how holding the convention in Houston or Phoenix might affect the Hispanic voters in the area of the convention, I don’t really see how that would help us that much with the Hispanic vote nationwide.
2. 2012 appears to be a Republican year. If time bears that out, the close swing states such as Florida, Ohio, and Indiana should swing our way anyway. We will have a much steeper hill to climb with CO, NM, NV, and maybe even AZ.

What about infrastructure? Could the four mentioned cities provide the logistics to support a major event like the GOP Convention? Well, they all have excellent convention facilities, and each city has tens of thousands of hotel rooms. Phoenix has the largest Convention Center, with Houston as a close second. Salt Lake has the third largest, and Tampa has the “smallest” — if you can call a 600,000 sq ft facility with a 200,000 sq ft exhibition hall “small”.

Airports? Tampa handles 1M passengers a month, SLC handles 2M, Phoenix 3M, and Houston 4M.

What about recent experience in handling major events? Houston hosted the 1992 GOP Convention, and Salt Lake hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics.

If I were to handicap the race, I would say that Salt Lake City would be in the lead with Tampa Bay a close second.

Thanks to talk show host Laura Ingraham’s website for linking a Life News release that explains how President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget includes funding for abortion funding in Washington, DC. Additionally, the budget overturns the second pro-life regulation in the short time Obama has been president and increases funding for Planned Parenthood.

I know I’ve been harping on abortion for a couple of weeks now, but President Obama’s policies, and in fact the entire pro-abortion movement, are really making a strong push. I have to think this is because of the upcoming Tebow ad and the massive numbers that showed up for the March For Life almost two weeks ago. Given that the pro-abortion movement that relies on killing young people, if they don’t make the push now, while Obama is in office, they may not have another good chance to hold back the upcoming tide of pro-life voters and get a pro-abortion judge or two in the United States Supreme Court.

UPDATE: At the request of a spokesman for Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), I am now providing a source for the fact that he has raised money for Hamas — a fact that otherwise would have been buried in the excerpt. About a decade ago, Mr. Islam was booted from Israel over this very problem. Read away!

Since I came out publicly for Carly Fiorina, I’ve been hit with a lot of e-mails from all three campaigns — and about them. I was going to post the new advertisement below, but Kristofer beat me to it — and goodness, it’s an odd one. It’s campy, over-the-top, and is sure to spark a lot of controversy. It leaves the viewer a little bit skeptical — is Tom Campbell really such a phony? — but wanting to find out more. (There have been catchier phrases invented than “FCINO,” I must say, though.)

Alas, I don’t even particularly care; it’s a meaningless point. The real problem with Tom Campbell is not his apparently dubious fiscal record, but that he has allied himself with the shadiest Islamist figures around. The man shares a deep commitment to defending evil figures. I apologize for the lengthy excerpt here, but I feel that it’s necessary:

Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version of Campbell’s disturbing record on these issues [concerning Israel and Islamic terrorism].

Sami Al-Arian is the indicted U.S. front-man for terrorist group Islamic Jihad. Documents and wiretaps show that Al-Arian raised funds for and planned homicide bombings in Israel…

When Al-Arian was fired from the University of South Florida, from which he ran his terrorist network, Campbell wrote a letter of support praising Al-Arian and asking the University president to reconsider her decision. In the letter, Campbell noted that Al-Arian helped him raise money for his failed U.S. Senate bid.

…

Those are Campbell’s donors. Then, there are Campbell’s former employees.

Suhail Khan held several key positions for Campbell, including Press Secretary and Policy Director.
But Khan is an Islamist who invited terror supporters and anti-Semites to the Bush White House (where he once worked) and whose father brought Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri into the United States to raise money for Al-Qaeda. His father, Mahboob Khan, late founder and head of the Santa Clara Mosque, brought Zawahiri into the U.S. twice on a fake passport in the mid-’90s to raise money for Al-Qaeda.

It would be different if the junior Khan did not share his father’s views. But Khan invited his father’s former congregant and Islamic leader, Hamza Yusuf, to the White House to meet with President Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal. That, despite this Yusuf utterance: “The Jews would have us believe that God has this bias to this little small tribe in the Middle of the Sinai desert and all the rest of humanity is just rubbish. I mean that this is the basic doctrine of the Jewish religion and that’s why it is a most racist religion.” Yusuf is an associate of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), who is on the “no fly list” and was kicked out of Israel for raising and distributing money for HAMAS.

With a policy director like Suhail Khan, it’s no surprise that Campbell consistently voted against Israel while in Congress.

I find it impossible to trust Tom Campbell with these kinds of problems. It’s just one thing after another piling on top of each other. I trust Carly Fiorina, despite her obvious shortcomings, and I have warmed up to Chuck DeVore. But a standard minimum for holding public office would seem to be not having anti-Semitic prejudices (and ignorance of the views of one’s colleagues is no excuse; that merely shows that you have poor judgment). Campbell does not pass the smell test. Fiorina’s probably right to attack his fiscal record, but the real reason to vote against him is his background in allying himself with Islamic supremacists and their allies. California voters should remember that when they head to the polls later this year.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

There is a new political site called;

Architect of the bloated 2005 state budget that relied on borrowing and was the largest ever increase in state general fund spending

Refuses to sign the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”

Supported a $16 billion increase in state taxes

Championed a 32-cent increase in the gas tax and supports Internet taxes, a carbon tax and the business net receipts tax

Ron Paul has endorsed State Senator Tim Huelskamp in Kansas’ First Congressional District.  I do not recall another Ron Paul endorsement in our state, off the top of my head.

While I have not seen any primary polls, I consider it reasonable to call Huelskamp the front-runner, based on fundraising and other factors.  Though, Huelskamp is running with very little support from establishment Republicans.

Huelskamp’s strongest opponents appear to be State Senator Jim Barnett and US Senator Sam Brownback’s former Chief of Staff Rob Wasinger.  Senator Barnett is a partially-self-funding physician, and a moderate-turned-conservative-turned-moderate who lost 60-40% to Kathleen Sebelius in the 2006 governor’s race.  Wasinger is supported by John McCain and David Kensinger, the current Brownback for Governor campaign manager.  To provide further clarity on the McCain endorsement, remember that in the 2008 presidential primaries, Brownback endorsed McCain over Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, even though McCain was the only candidate known to support federal funding of human cloning and ESCR, and even though McCain-Feingold is one of the most offensive, unconstitutional pieces of federal legislation in American history.

From Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp:

DODGE CITY – Senator Tim Huelskamp is proud to announce the endorsement of current Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul (TX-14).

Dr. Paul said: “I am proud to endorse Republican candidate Tim Huelskamp for Congress.”

“Tim Huelskamp will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. I have been very impressed by Tim’s record of fiscal responsibility. We need people like Tim Huelskamp voting with me in Congress.”

…

Congressman Paul finished 3rd in the 2008 Kansas GOP Presidential Caucus. In endorsing Huelskamp, Paul joins former Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the Kansas Caucus with almost 60% of the vote, in endorsing Tim Huelskamp. Other key endorsements that Huelskamp has collected include The Club for Growth, Kansans for Life, Gun Owners of America, Concerned Women PAC, Ken Blackwell, as well as more than two dozen Kansas legislators.

Kansas has four congressional districts.  First District Congressman Jerry Moran is running for the US Senate, along with Fourth District Congressman Todd Tiahrt.  The First District is the most heavily Republican district, and it’s the only one that effectively goes uncontested by Democrats year after year, so the once-in-ten-years primary is well-fought-for.

______________________________________________________________

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.

Today’s Washington Examiner included two columns and an editorial cartoon that supported the principles and ideas that I believe our government officials–and citizens alike–should all ascribe to.

First, the editorial cartoon:

Secondly, Cal Thomas’ column:

Obama doesn’t see government as a last resort, preserving liberty in order that citizens might rise to whatever level their character, education, talent and persistence permit. Rather, he sees the needy as the norm and the wealthy as a source of income for his and his fellow progressives’ expensive and unworkable agenda.

Still, it is hard to disagree with what the president said in his opening remarks to the Republicans:

“I don’t believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. I don’t think they want more gridlock. I don’t think they want more partisanship. I don’t think they want more obstruction. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. … They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done and to solve the problems that they’re grappling with every single day.”

A real debate about who is best equipped to solve those problems (and what created them) is what the country needs. We are fellow citizens, after all, not each other’s enemies.

Obama promised to continue the public dialogue. He should. It’s good for him, for the Republicans and for the country.

Lastly, the very principled, philosophical and correct Gene Healy of CATO:

The lesson for all of us, north and south of the border, is watch our presidents closely, and check them when they try to slip their constitutional bonds.

In the interest of full disclosure, Healy’s primary focus was on the so-called “cult of the president” philosophy in South America, and he uses Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales- among others- as examples of leaders obsessed with the cult of their leadership. Thomas criticized President Obama’s liberal/progressive policies, and really hammers the progressive worldview. However, both of their columns, and the editorial cartoon, provide a reminder of what should be the basis of the application of conservative philosophy and policy. First, stick to principle even if it’s politically tough to do so or politically easy not to do so. This was what really hurt Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Secondly, act like the adults in the room when debating policy, and show America Republicans and conservatives are going to bring our country past this very rough stretch in history. Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell won by being mature, sophisticated and seemingly above the fray, as did President Obama. Being the party and movement of negativity will not bring the country up. It will only bring it down, especially as our example encourages Democrats to do the same. While we can’t expect them to act as classy as we generally do, we can set the bar and do our best not to fall below it.

Thirdly, the issue Healy points at is as crucial to our country as principles and leadership- following the rule of law and the Constitution. Under Bush, questionable things were done, and many (most?) congressional Republicans in power ignored the signs. Now, congressional Democrats do the same and in fact actively promote going around the Constitution with the Nelson compromise and the individual insurance mandate. When Republicans get back into power, they should be very careful to keep the power of their fellows and the president within the constraints of the law. To ignore this responsibility is to commit a massive dereliction of duty, and will quickly lead to their losing power yet again.

The Examiner is certainly no Wall Street Journal or any number of other publications, conservative or otherwise. However, it provides an excellent array of writers, opinions and editorial cartoons. I encourage people to read the Examiner columns by Healy, Thomas, Byron York, as well as those of Peggy Noonan, Mark Steyn, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg, among others, to provide themselves with the philosophical, political and policy ammunition the conservative movement so desperately needs.

Rasmussen Texas Gubernatorial Survey

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 49% (52%)
• Bill White 36% (37%)

• Rick Perry 48% (50%)
• Bill White 39% (40%)

• Debra Medina 41% (38%)
• Bill White 38% (44%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 57% (61%) / 39% (35%) {+18%}
• Rick Perry 54% (55%) / 44% (42%) {+10%}
• Debra Medina 44% (39%) / 34% (32%) {+10%}
• Bill White 46% (49%) / 38% (35%) {+8%}

How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 11% (16%)
• Somewhat approve 39% (37%)
• Somewhat disapprove 24% (23%)
• Strongly disapprove 24% (23%)

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

• Strongly approve 27% (29%)
• Somewhat approve 14% (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 48% (46%)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted February 1, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 17, 2010 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

All three possible Republican candidates post broadly similar results among both Democrats and unaffiliated voters. However, Medina currently attracts only 62% of the GOP vote, well below the totals for Perry and Hutchison. With Medina as the nominee, 23% of GOP voters say they would either prefer a third-option or are undecided.

All three Republican contenders carry male voters over White by double-digit margins. Women favor Hutchison over the Democrat but break even when Perry is the Republican in the race. White wins female voters by six points against Medina.