Audio: Mitt Romney Reads the Introduction to No Apology

Transcript of Mitt Romney’s audio introduction to the book:

Running for President of the United States is an extraordinary experience. New profound friendships are unquestionably the greatest reward. They will last a lifetime. And there were moments of laughter, such as when Ann got up from a collapsed stage in Dubuque Iowa, dusted herself off and later ad-libbed, “Well, I fell on dubutt in Dubuque.” There were times of exhilaration. Winning the Michigan primary, the state where I was raised and where my dad had served three terms as Governor was one of them. Then there were the inevitable ‘lessons learned’. My dad, George Romney, use to say of his 1968 presidential campaign that it was like a mini-skirt: short and revealing. Mine was a little longer, but just as revealing.

I’ve run for office three times, losing twice and winning once. Each time when the campaign was over I felt I hadn’t done an adequate job communicating all that I intended to say. Some of that is because debate answers are limited to 60 seconds, ads are 30 seconds, and lengthy position papers are rarely read at all. This book gives me a chance to say more than I did during my campaign.

That being said, my interest in writing the book goes back well before my political life. My career in the private sector exposed me to developments abroad, and conditions at home, that were deeply troubling. At the same time, I saw that most of us were not aware of the consequences of blithely continuing along our current course. We’ve become so accustom to the benefits of America’s greatness that we cannot imagine any significant disruption of what we have known.

I was reminded of a book I had read when I was in France during the late 1960’s. Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber was a journalist and a business person, and from his perspective he became convinced that France and Europe were in danger of falling far and irretrievably behind the United States. His book, The American Challenge, stirred his countrymen to action and helped to galvanize Pan-European economic and political collaboration. While I am sufficiently realistic to recognize that this volume is highly unlikely to have as great an impact as did his, it is my hope is that it will affect the thinking and perspectives of those who read it.
Thus, this is not a collection of my positions on all the important issues of the day. In fact, a number of issues that I care about are not included. This is not a policy book that explores issues in greater depth than do scholars and think-tanks. I treat topics in a single chapter that others have made the subject of entire volumes. Nor is this an attack piece on all the policies of the Obama administration. Criticism is unavoidable, however, with policies which I believe are the most harmful to the future generations of America.

This is a book about what I believe should be our primary national objective: to keep America strong, and to preserve its place as the world’s leading nation. It describes the course I believe we must take to strengthen the nation in order to remain prosperous, secure and free. There are some who may question the national objective I propose. I make no apology for my conviction that America’s economic and military leadership is not only good for America, but also critical for freedom and peace across the world. Accordingly, as I consider the various issues before the nation, I evaluate our options largely by whether they would make America stronger or weaker.

In my first chapters I consider geo-political threats and lessons from the history of great nations of the past. In subsequent chapters I describe domestic challenges to our national strength and propose actions to overcome them. My final chapter is intended to provide a means for future Americans to gauge whether we have been successful in setting a course that will preserve America’s greatness throughout the 21st century. It describes, as well, the source of my optimism for America’s future.

These are difficult times. Homes have lost value, nest eggs have been eroded, retirees have become anxious about their future, and millions upon millions of Americans are out of work. Inexcusable mistakes and failures precipitated the descent that has hurt so many people, but even as we endure the current shocks we know that this will not go on forever. We know that because America is a strong and prosperous nation the economic cycle will eventually right itself, and the future will be brighter than the present. While I will touch upon today’s difficulties my focus is on the growing challenges to the foundations of our national strength. How we confront these challenges will determine what kind of America, and world, we will bequeath to our children and grand-children. This is a book about securing that future of freedom, peace, and prosperity in the only way possible: by strengthening America. A strong America is our only assurance that prosperity will follow hardship, and that our lives and liberty will always be secure.

The strength of the nation has been challenged before: at its birth, during the civil war, in the peril of world wars. It is challenged again today. In our past Americans have risen to the occasion by confronting the challenge honestly, and by laying their sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. We must do so again.

We’ve been keeping an updated reference for anything related to the book here. It includes where to buy it, a review, book tour dates and other news.

Is this Barry Goldwater’s party? On the heels of a bizarre poll that shows that Republicans almost unanimously want to bar openly gay men and women from teaching in government schools, we get a strange and scary outburst from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

Who is Peter Sprigg?

Peter S. Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sprigg joined FRC in 2001, and his research and writing have addressed issues of marriage and family, human sexuality, the arts and entertainment, and religion in public life.

And tonight, in the year 2010, Mr. Sprigg called for the criminalization of homosexuality:

Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Well, I think certainly..

Matthews: I’m just asking, should we outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Yes!

Beneath the gloss, our current big tent lays on a gossamer foundation. How can we reconcile the fact that Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani share the same party as Peter Sprigg? We can fuse our factions on certain issues — tax cuts, deregulation of business, anti-jihadism– but what do we do when we come to an issue so fundamental to liberty as personal autonomy? Worse yet: this is what the Spriggs of the world are involved in politics for in the first place. If the political environment suddenly were only to be about clashes over capitalism and anti-jihadism, these people would exit the political scene. For them, this is fundamentally a crusade to take the government for Christ — and the Republican Party is the best vehicle to hijack to get there.

This is no delusion, and it has nothing to do with our main enemy, modern liberalism. It has to do with the clash between the traditions that emerged from the Enlightenment and the Middle Ages. The former holds Adam Smith, David Hume, and Edmund Burke in esteem; the latter are more disposed toward a centralized authority operating from religious motives. In modern terms: it’s the clash between those who identify with Friedrich Hayek — and those who identify with Phyllis Schlafly.

Indeed, Sprigg’s remarks are not unprecedented. There is an entire wing of the party that is deeply hostile to personal liberty. Take Mike Huckabee:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said…

The word “God” is not found in the Constitution. This is because the founders wanted to keep a wall between the authority of the church and the authority of the state — both so the church would not corrupt the state and the state would not corrupt the church. It was rooted in an abiding skepticism toward power. Huckabee has no such reservations about power.

More frighteningly, Huckabee has called libertarianism — which Ronald Reagan famously called the heart and soul of conservatism — anti-American, and worse than liberalism:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.

Huckabee’s toxic collectivist blend means managing your social life according to God’s standards — as he understands them, of course — and what’s “good for the children” — again, as Huckabee understands it.

Former Senator Rick Santorum, like Huckabee a 2012 contender, has also displayed disturbing anti-liberty sentiments. Jonathan Rauch chronicled the worst of his offenses, finally deeming him “the anti-Reagan“:

Quite different is “the conservative view of freedom,” “the liberty our Founders understood.” This is “freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self.” True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

This kind of freedom depends upon and serves virtue, and virtue’s indispensable incubator and transmitter is the family. Thus “selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans.” If government is to defend liberty and promote the common welfare, then it must promote and defend the integrity of the traditional family. In doing so, it will foster virtue and rebuild the country’s declining social and moral capital, thus fostering liberty and strengthening family.

…

Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with “what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right” and “this whole idea of personal autonomy.”

Anyone seeking to cloak their hatred of the good always steals the language of the good and prefaces it with “true” or “actual.” Thus, what rank-and-file small-government advocates take to mean liberty is actually not “true” liberty — not any of “this whole personal autonomy” stuff. Notice the horrifying manipulation of language:  liberty means “the freedom to attend to one’s duties.” And there’s no skepticism toward power to be found here, either: indeed,  it’s the government’s job to foster virtue. (And the power will only be used benevolently, by those that philosopher-king Rick Santorum approves of.)

How many people have thought ‘If only people did exactly what I told them to, the world would be a better place’ — and believed themselves?

The question now becomes: is there any ‘there’ there? Do these forces of authoritarianism have any sway amongst the crowd following Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — two voices that are far more classically liberal — or, for that matter, those following Sarah Palin? From my vantagepoint, it looks as though their paths rarely cross. The Family Research Council-style “conservatives” rarely intersect with the leave-us-alone Tea Party movement. But they occupy the same party based upon loosely-related goals that they’ve reached independently, and with different motives.

Still, it ought to be distressing to any lover of liberty that we count these fellows as our compatriots. The fundamentals are conflicting: one side harbors skepticism toward power, the other wants to use it to attain Christian ends; one side supports the idea of personal autonomy, the other dismisses it as a myth of modernity. One side values reason, the other side values force. These are irreconcilable viewpoints. In the final analysis, the real question at hand is: how long until we clash?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Former United States Senator Dan Coats (R-In.) is getting in to the GOP Primary for U.S. Senate:

INDIANAPOLIS – Informed and reliable sources are telling Howey Politics Indiana that former U.S. Sen. Dan Coats will announce Wednesday he will challenge U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh.

The source, former aide Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute, said that Coats knows he has about two weeks to gather the 4,500 signatures – 500 per Congressional district – in two weeks.

Coats was up for re-election in 1998 when he decided to retire, citing the pressures of constant fundraising. Bayh went on that year to defeat former Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke to reclaim his father’s Senate seat.

Coats is an interesting guy. A solid conservative (90% ACU Rating) who in the face of Bayh’s run in the slight Democrat year of 1998 said, “bye bye.”  However, 2010 is another kettle of fish.

There are big downsides to a Coats run. Disadvantage #1 is that Coats hasn’t been elected to office in 18 years, and has been out of the Senate for 12 years. However, that’s probably more of a plus than a minus. In addition, Coats has won statewide and he’s won all seven elections he ran in (1980, ’82, ’84, ’86, ’88 U.S. House and ’90 Special and ’92 Senate elections.)

Former Congressman John Hostettler (R-In.) is a good man, but I think he’d have a harder time of it against Bayh, given that Hostettler supported the Constitution Party Candidate for President in 2008 and has written book railing against the Iraq War, and could some division in the GOP. If I were in Indiana, I would take a serious look at Dan Coats.

White House aide Rahm Emanuel compared liberal Democrats to retarded people….

…and then apologized to retarded people!!

The Democrats have dropped any hint of civility. The president mouths off to the Supreme Court to their faces when they can’t say a word in reply, Rahm Emanuel curses up a storm about the 2010 environment, and now an official Democratic Governors’ Association e-mail blasts the following message:

Do you see that? Those Republicans will even so go so far as to try to win elections!

What a joke. It’s one thing to see Keith Olbermann pull this crap, but for official Democratic Party mailings to be using this immature and idiotic phrase is just embarrassing. Stick a fork in these desperate losers.

Enjoy.

Gallup Survey on Government Regulation of Business

Survey of 972 adults was conducted January 26-27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

PPP (D) National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 48% (46%) [49%] {49%} (51%) [52%] {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 49% (47%) [47%] {46%} (43%) [44%] {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 48% (43%) [46%] {47%} (46%) [52%] {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 48% (45%) [47%] {46%} (44%) [40%] {42%} (42%)

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 36% (40%) [39%] {40%} (42%) [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 51% (49%) [52%] {52%} (45%) [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 35% (40%) [39%] {36%} (40%) [46%] {35%}
• Oppose 53% (47%) [52%] {58%} (47%) [44%] {49%}

Generally speaking this fall will you vote Democratic or Republican for Congress?

• Republican 43%
• Democrat 40%

Among Independents

• Republican 40%
• Democrat 27%

If the Democrats don’t pass their health care bill will you vote Democratic or Republican for Congress this fall?

• Republican 43%
• Democrat 38%

Among Independents

• Republican 40%
• Democrat 26%

If the Democrats pass their health care bill will you vote Democratic or Republican for Congress this fall?

• Republican 45%
• Democrat 41%

Among Independents

• Republican 42%
• Democrat 34%

Who did you vote for President in 2008?

• Barack Obama 52% (47%) [47%] {47%}
• John McCain 45% (46%) [45%] {45%}

Survey of 584 registered voters was conducted January 29-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% (36%) [39%] Democrat; 34% (35%) [34%] Republican; 28% (29%) [27%] Independent. Political ideology: 41% (39%) [41%] Conservative;40% (47%) [41%] Moderate; 19% (14%) [18%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 18-19, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16, 2009 are in parentheses.

ABCNews tells us the following:

Democrats joined Republicans today introducing legislation to deny President Obama money to transport suspected 9/11 conspirators stateside and try them in civilian courts.

It is unclear when or how this measure would come to a vote, but it is abundantly clear that President Obama’s plan to use the American justice system to try suspected 9/11 conspirators is in serious jeopardy.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark, who faces a tough reelection bid, was asked by a reporter at a press conference today if the President is being “tone deaf” in asking moderate Democrats to support his plan.

“I’d be tone deaf if I didn’t speak for the people,” said Lincoln, questioning the “cost, security and appropriateness” of using civilian courts to try suspected terrorists.

Senators voted overwhelmingly in May of 2009 to strip funds for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison from a war funding bill.

Lincoln was today joined by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, whose state includes the federal court where 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui was tried.

Obama, in his inexperience, has violated the number one rule of leadership. If you want people to follow you willingly, you have to make it in their best interests to do so. Constantly pushing your own agenda for your own aggrandizement with nary a thought for the concerns of your followers will eventually lead to you being a leader in name only. You may have all the trappings of office, but your ability to lead will be gone.

Obama stands at the precipice of a failed Presidency. His fellow Congressional Democrats are showing greater and greater reluctance to follow him over the cliff. If he swallows his pride, admits he is mortal, and retreats from the cliff, he can still recover. Otherwise, it is a mighty long drop to the bottom.

***UPDATE***
More signs that the bloom is off the Obama rose. From Politico (see my post below):

Last year, Obama drew criticism from Nevada politicians for criticizing junkets to Las Vegas by bailed-out banks – and Reid’s political opponents accused him for not taking a tough enough line against the president.

But on Tuesday, Reid responded with a swift criticism of the president’s comments.

Even the Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate is becoming less deferential to Obama.

Rasmussen Texas GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Rick Perry 44% [43%] <46%> {38%} (46%) [42%]
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 29% [33%] <35%> {40%} (35%) [38%]
• Debra Medina 16% [12%] <4%> {3%}
• Not Sure 11% [11%] <14%> {19%} (14%) [13%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Perry 80% [72%] <75%> {72%} (76%) [72%] / 19% [26%] <24%> {26%} (23%) [27%] {+61%}
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 67% [73%] <75%> {71%} (72%) [73%] / 31% [25%] <23%> {26%} (25%) [24%] {+36%}
• Debra Medina 50% [43%] <16%> {18%} / 29% [29%] <29%> {29%} {+21%}

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

• Strongly approve 18% [22%] <25%> {20%} [25%]
• Somewhat approve 56% [46%] <48%> {49%} [47%]
• Somewhat disapprove 16% [20%] <14%> {17%} [16%]
• Strongly disapprove 9% [11%] <11%> {12%} [10%]

Survey of 538 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 1, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 17, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 11, 2009 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 16, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 6, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Perry leads Hutchison by 18 points among conservative primary voters, and conservatives dominate Republican primaries in Texas and throughout the nation. Hutchison leads by 11 among moderate voters.

Turnout is often difficult to project for primaries. However, for Hutchison to win with the current attitudes, she would need more than 50% of the primary voters to be politically moderate.

Perry leads Hutchison by 24 points among men and five points among women.

Medina picks up 20% of the male vote and 12% support from women.

Obama just took another jab at Las Vegas today. According to “The Hill”:

President Barack Obama took another dig at Las Vegas at his New Hampshire town hall Tuesday after similar remarks got him into hot water last year.

Obama said that people should no[t] “blow a bunch of cash in Vegas” during a tough recession. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman called for Obama to apologize after he made comparable comments last February.

Normally I would be the first to agree with our President that wasting money gambling is not the most productive use of it. However, I see two problems with his comment:

1. His remarks were not limited to gambling per se, but were an attack on the tourist industry in general, an industry which has been particularly hit hard during this recession. Obama made a similar comment last year and his press secretary tried to clean up the mess by saying (again quoting “The Hill”): “…that Obama meant to target banks and other firms that received federal bailout funds. Gibbs said that the president believes in a strong tourism industry.”
2. Obama is planning on traveling to Las Vegas later this month to campaign for Harry Reid. Now I am no expert, but I don’t think that dissing the way your future audience earns its money is the most effective way to win them over to your point of view.

I’m sure Harry is pleased.

It is fairly obvious that the goal of the Kos push poll was to paint Republicans as intolerant and extremist.  James Carville himself could not have written a better push-poll.

The GOP remains a big tent party, with more diverse views than what is found in the Soros-controlled Democratic party.

That said, why don’t we make another attempt at the Kos poll, but with slightly more balance to the questions asked:

1. Have President Obama’s national security policies made American more safe? Yes or No
2. Should the Justice Department investigate allegations against ACORN of voter registration fraud? Yes or No
3. Do you believe President Obama is a citizen of the United States?Yes or No
4. Is Barack Hussein Obama qualified to be President of the United States? Yes or No
5. Does President Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and his criticism of the Cambridge police lead you to question his commitment to race-neutral policies? Yes or No
6. Do you believe your State has the right to veto Federal legislation that creates new entitlement programs with mandated State funding participation? Yes or No
7. Should Unions be required to receive an employee’s written authorization to direct their union dues to political organizations? Yes or No
8. Do you support legislation which prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation,  race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? Yes or No
9. Same sex couples should be allowed to; A) Marry B) Register in civil unions C) Neither A or B
10. Should States have the right to allow schools to teach both evolution and creationism in the classroom? Yes or No
11. Abortion should be; A) Legal in all cases, B) Legal in some cases, C) Illegal in most cases, D) Illegal in all cases
12. Does the federal government have the right to outlaw birth control? Yes or No
13. Do you believe Christians are respectful of other faiths and belief systems? Yes or No

_____________________________________________

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

Thanks to Hot Air for catching this absolutely devastating ripping apart of the Tebow haters in today’s Washington Post.

I’ll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won’t endear me to the “Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep,” otherwise known as DOLL, but I’ll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow’s pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We’re always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.

“Are you saving yourself for marriage?” Tebow was asked last summer during an SEC media day.

“Yes, I am,” he replied.

The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.

“I think y’all are stunned right now!” he said. “You can’t even ask a question!”

That’s how far we’ve come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

Obviously Tebow can make people uncomfortable, whether it’s for advertising his chastity, or for wearing his faith on his face via biblical citations painted in his eye-black. Hebrews 12:12, his cheekbones read during the Florida State game: “Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.” His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

Rasmussen Arkansas Senatorial Survey

• John Boozman 54%
• Blanche Lincoln 35%

• Gilbert Baker 52% {51%} [47%] (47%)
• Blanche Lincoln 33% {39%} [41%] (39%)

• Kim Hendren 51% {47%} [46%] (44%)
• Blanche Lincoln 35% {39%} [39%] (41%)

• Curtis Coleman 50% {48%} [44%] (43%)
• Blanche Lincoln 34% {38%} [40%] (41%)

• Tom Cox 50% {48%} [43%] (43%)
• Blanche Lincoln 36% {38%} [40%] (40%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Boozman 51% / 24% {+27%}
• Curtis Coleman 39% / 19% {+20%}
• Gilbert Baker 40% {42%} [40%] (39%) / 22% {20%} [19%] (27%) {+18%}
• Kim Hendren 35% {37%} [41%] (38%) / 19% {20%} [19%] (22%) {+16%}
• Tom Cox 36% / 22% {+14%}
• Blanche Lincoln 36% {38%} [43%] (45%) / 59% {56%} [52%] (52%) {-23%}

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

• Strongly approve 20% {20%} [21%] (28%)
• Somewhat approve 13% {18%} [13%] (9%)
• Somewhat disapprove 7% {8%} [14%] (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 59% {53%} [51%] (52%)

How would you rate the job Mike Beebe has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 22% {23%} [23%] (27%)
• Somewhat approve 51% {45%} [47%] (42%)
• Somewhat disapprove 17% {21%} [22%] (22%)
• Strongly disapprove 7% {8%} [6%] (8%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 1, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 5, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 1, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 28, 2009 are in parentheses.

Also posted at BigGovernment and linked at HotAir.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Republican Survey

If the 2012 Primary for President were held today, which of the following would you vote for?

• Sarah Palin 16%
• Mitt Romney 11%
• Dick Cheney 10%
• Newt Gingrich 7%
• Mike Huckabee 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Ron Paul 2%
• John Thune 2%
• Undecided 42%

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

• Yes 39%
• No 32%

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

• Yes 36%
• No 42%

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

• Yes 63%
• No 21%

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

• Yes 24%
• No 43%

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

• Yes 21%
• No 24%

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

• Yes 53%
• No 14%

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

• Yes 31%
• No 36%

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

• Yes 23%
• No 58%

Should Congress make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions?

• Yes 7%
• No 68%

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

• Favor 26%
• Oppose 59%

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

• Yes 26%
• No 55%

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

• Yes 7%
• No 77%

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

• Yes 11%
• No 68%

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

• Yes 8%
• No 73%

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

• Yes 42%
• No 51%

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

• Yes 77%
• No 15%

Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?

• Men 13%
• Equal 76%

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

• Yes 31%
• No 56%

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

• Yes 34%
• No 48%

Do you consider abortion to be murder?

• Yes 76%
• No 8%

Do you support the death penalty?

• Yes 91%
• No 4%

Should women work outside the home?

• Yes 86%
• No 4%

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

• Christ 67%
• Other 15%

Survey of 2,003 Republicans was conducted January 20-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/-2 percentage points.

Every election cycle, it seems like like Illinois voters get the same thing. No matter how many times they vote – the same corrupt politicians keep rising to the top. But on February 2nd, ONE MAN tries to break the cycle.

Adam Andrzejewski makes his political debut in the surefire blockbuster, “Groundhog Day”. Coming soon to  a state capitol building near you!

–

Yup, I’m in the tank for this guy. But on the other hand, you can’t tell me that SOMEBODY wasn’t going to make a Bill Murray joke when you hold your primary on Groundhog Day.

PPP (D) Arkansas Senatorial Survey

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican John Boozman and Democrat Blanche Lincoln, who would you vote for?

• John Boozman 56%
• Blanche Lincoln 33%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican John Boozman and Democrat Bill Halter, who would you vote for?

• John Boozman 53%
• Bill Halter 30%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican John Boozman and Democrat Wesley Clark, who would you vote for?

• John Boozman 51%
• Wesley Clark 36%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican John Boozman and Democrat Mike Ross, who would you vote for?

• John Boozman 48%
• Mike Ross 37%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican John Boozman and Democrat Mike Beebe, who would you vote for?

• John Boozman 44%
• Mike Beebe 43%

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Republican Gilbert Baker and Democrat Blanche Lincoln, who would you vote for?

• Gilbert Baker 50% (42%)
• Blanche Lincoln 35% (40%)

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican Gilbert Baker and Democrat Bill Halter, who would you vote for?

• Gilbert Baker 45%
• Bill Halter 34%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican Gilbert Baker and Democrat Wesley Clark, who would you vote for?

• Gilbert Baker 45%
• Wesley Clark 39%

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Republican Gilbert Baker and Democrat Mike Ross, who would you vote for?

• Gilbert Baker 39%
• Mike Ross 39%

If the candidates for Senate this fall were Republican Gilbert Baker and Democrat Mike Beebe, who would you vote for?

• Mike Beebe 46%
• Gilbert Baker 38%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Boozman 32% / 25% {+7%}
• Mike Ross 32% / 25% {+7%}
• Wesley Clark 29% / 29% {0%}
• Gilbert Baker 9% (7%) / 16% (15%) {-7%}
• Bill Halter 21% / 29% {-8%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln’s job performance?

• Approve 27% (36%)
• Disapprove 62% (44%)

Do you think that Blanche Lincoln should run for reelection this year?

• Yes 33%
• No 57%

Among Democrats

• Yes 63%
• No 29%

Do you think that Blanche Lincoln is too conservative, too liberal, or about right?

• Too liberal 52%
• Too conservative 14%
• About right 28%

Among Democrats

• Too liberal 18%
• Too conservative 25%
• About right 50%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mark Pryor’s job performance?

• Approve 29% (47%)
• Disapprove 46% (32%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Mike Beebe’s job performance?

• Approve 59% (63%)
• Disapprove 22% (17%)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 38% (40%)
• Disapprove 58% (56%)

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 30% (29%)
• Oppose 61% (60%)

(more…)

Imagine an America with no Tea Party Movement. An America where Harry Reid’s seat is safe, where Charlie Crist is leading the polls, Dino Rossi and Tommy Thompson aren’t being lured into Senate races, and the government is expanding without anyone getting angry about it. Where Ted Kennedy’s seat was succeeded by Martha Coakley…

Welcome to an America under the McCain Administration, 2010. The economy is lagging and people are upset that the government hasn’t done enough for them. We tried a hands-off approach, implementing some tax-cutting and budget-slashing, against the wishes of an irritated progressive Senate. It has actually helped, but it was watered down — thanks to both President McCain and the Democrats — and it hasn’t helped quickly enough. There’s honestly only so much that a president can do, after all. And so, the public is upset. Conservatives are demoralized because McCain has let them down: he’s using his veto pen, but why isn’t he pushing for more aggressive capitalist measures? This is exactly what we’d feared: that the ‘maverick’ wouldn’t fight for those capitalist ideals. He bailed out the car industry — after swearing he wouldn’t! Couple that with his rhetoric against bankers, entrepreneurs, and libertarians, and what’s coming from the White House isn’t making us want to stick up for our president. …Our president. This is our party’s president? What is happening? And where, oh where is Vice President Palin? She’s silent. We should have seen this coming; this was the woman who supported a windfall tax on oil companies, after all.

Damn. And now the public is blaming this on us, on capitalism. And the Democrats are going to sweep up a victory in 2010. How can this be happening? What has happened to this country? How did we get here? A neo-New Deal is on the horizon once the inevitable kicks in and a Democrat gets elected in 2012, able to work with his 62-seat Senate. This is useless. Our slate of candidates — think Charlie Crist — might be okay if they were balanced out by some conservative stalwarts, but in this environment, it’s hopeless. The American people have lost confidence in conservatism, because they look at McCain and think that he is what “conservatism” is about. How much longer can we keep protesting the charge without looking like fools? No, we’re not about Bush, not about McCain — we only elected them! What is going on here? Farewell, Reagan; farewell, Goldwater. Hello, Bush and McCain, refusing to fight for any solid conservative principles, refusing to steer the capitalist ship back on course. Welcome to America in Decline.

…

Okay, wake up — this didn’t happen. We stopped Obama’s agenda dead in its tracks, the conservative movement has been revived, capitalist sentiment has swept the base again, and we could win ten Senate seats and even take back the House, if things keep going well. Health care “reform” didn’t happen, cap-and-trade didn’t happen, Guantanamo is still open, the president’s approval ratings are under 50%, we took Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. America could plausibly get back on track — because it has looked at liberalism in the face — stared into the abyss — and did not like what it saw. Sometimes you win by losing. Conservatism wasn’t in decline; it was only making a tactical retreat. And we have Obama and his progressive cabal to thank for its new ascension.

Illinois heads to the polls today to decide primaries for both parties’ nominations to the U.S. Senate and Governor’s office. At this late juncture, the attention has shifted dramatically from the senatorial race (likely an easy win for Mark Kirk on the GOP side) to the hotly contested gubernatorial primary.

As of this moment, I have  every reason to believe that Adam Andrzejewski  enters the race today as the favorite. There have not been solid polls for a week, but I’ve talked to well-placed people on the ground and it is becoming obvious that the writing is on the wall – people expect Andrzejewski to win. In fact, based on some of what I’m hearing, he may win rather convincingly, but I’m not going to count any chickens before they hatch.

From what I hear, the final sprint will likely be a three-horse race between Adam Andrzejewski, Kirk Dillard, and Andy McKenna – with Bill Brady falling short, Jim Ryan in freefall, and Dan Proft collapsing. Of course, those are only rumors based on the situation on the ground – but my sources are pretty good.

So, as of now, my prediction is that we will indeed nominate Adam Andrzejewski for Governor tonight. Mark Kirk appears set to storm to victory in the GOP senatorial primary, while Alexi Giannoulias will  fend off a smattering of Dem challengers for Dem nomination to Obama’s old seat. The Democracratic gubernatorial primary is a nail-biter, but conventional wisdom seems to be that Dan Hynes will score a close victory over incumbent Governor Pat Quinn.

Thanks to Hot Air for showing the clip of Megyn Kelly demolishing feminist and pro-abortion advocate Gloria Allred over the Tebow Super Bowl ad.

Before the pro-choice comments start accusing me of using inappropriate language, watch the video at the link above (I am unable to embed the video, unfortunately- hopefully, the Internet-savvy Aron Goldman will be able to find it so you can see Kelly and Focus on the Family’s president in all their glory ripping Allred to shreds). At any rate, Allred shows herself to be rabidly pro-abortion, particularly when she said around 4:05 that she if someone wanted to defend “mandatory motherhood, compulsory motherhood,” that was the person’s right. Apparently, she forgot that pregnancy is often a choice as well, not something forced on over 98% of women who have an abortion.

SurveyUSA Kansas Senatorial Survey

• Jerry Moran 40% [43%] (38%)
• Todd Tiahrt 33% [27%] (32%)
• Undecided 27% [30%] (30%)

Survey of 519 likely GOP primary voters was conducted January 29-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 2-4, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 7-9, 2009 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 88% Republican; 12% Independent. Political ideology: 63% Conservative; 29% Moderate; 6% Liberal.

Inside the numbers:

Tiahrt, who represents Kansas’ 4th US Congressional District, in Southeastern Kansas, leads by 17 points in that part of the state. Moran, who represents Kansas’ 1st Congressional District, which takes up most of the Western two-thirds of the state, leads by 35 in Western KS, down from a 52-point lead 2 months ago. In Northeastern KS, home to half the state’s population, Moran today leads by 15. In 5 previous polls, Moran has led in this neutral ground by margins ranging between 8 and 23 points with between 1/3 to 1/2 of voters undecided; 2 months ago, Tiahrt held a nominal 1-point lead here.

Kansas political parties decide before each primary whether the primary will be open to voters who are not affiliated with any political party; SurveyUSA includes unaffiliated voters here, where they make up 12% of the electorate. Moran today leads by 5 points among these unaffiliated voters and by 7 points among Republicans.

Monmouth/Gannett New Jersey Survey on Governor Chris Christie

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chris Christie is doing as governor so far?

• Approve 33%
• Disapprove 15%

Among Republicans

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 4%

Among Independents

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 13%

Among Democrats

• Approve 21%
• Disapprove 24%

Do you feel you have a clear idea, some idea, or not much of an idea about the specific policies Chris Christie will pursue as governor?

• Clear idea 16%
• Some idea 39%
• Not much of an idea 32%
• No idea at all (Vol.) 10%

How confident are you that Governor Christie will be able to get state spending under control?

• Very confident 10%
• Somewhat confident 44%
• Not too confident 25%
• Not at all confident 18%

Some say that that thousands of state workers may have to be laid off to balance the budget. Would you support or oppose the governor if he laid off state workers?

• Support 40%
• Oppose 47%

Among Republicans

• Support 56%
• Oppose 26%

Among Independents

• Support 47%
• Oppose 40%

Among Democrats

• Support 24%
• Oppose 67%

Survey of 803 adults was conducted January 27-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown 39% Democrat; 38% Independent; 23% Republican.

… but not for their rulers.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is coming to the US to have heart surgery.

If Republicans winning statewide elections in New Jersey and Massachusetts wasn’t proof enough that there’s change afoot in the country and in the Republican Party, this story about the grassroots attempt by Tea Partiers to create a new “Contract for America” should remove all doubt:

(Former Rep. Dick) Armey quit a lucrative lobbying job to head up FreedomWorks, a small nonprofit that’s been at the center of the tea party movement. Last weekend, FreedomWorks hosted a group of 60 leading Tea Party activists in its downtown D.C. office to chart the future of the movement headed into the 2010 midterm elections and to discuss what should go into a new contract.

For tea party activists across the country, who turned out by the thousands to protest big spending initiatives pushed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, there’s no love lost for Republicans, either. Nor is there much consensus on where to try to steer the decentralized and occasionally chaotic movement.

The Contract for America is intended to help remedy that, said Ryan Hecker, the developer of the contract idea and a board member of the national umbrella group Tea Party Patriots, which sponsored a website that allowed people to submit and vote on ideas for inclusion.

“The goal of this document is to create the biggest tent around economic conservatism as possible,” said Hecker. “This is a bottom-up document. It is from the people, and that is a very powerful idea,” he said, implicitly contrasting his contract to the original, which was pulled together by politicians and operatives using polling and focus groups.

The foundation of the new coalition, then, seems to be economic freedom and fiscal sanity (and the two, of course, are related, as you can’t have economic freedom without fiscal sanity, as fiscal insanity eventually has to be paid for). Given recent developments, I would add to this new tent a third pillar, and that’s a strong foreign policy that provides for a secure America. As the Scott Brown campaign showed, in the wake of the underwear bomber and with Iran posing a large enough security threat to make even President Obama pay attention, a Republican can win an outright majority in Massachusetts while running in support of Gitmo and enhanced interrogation techniques.

This Republican tent is quite different from the one erected by President Bush during the previous decade. That tent was built on the pillars of a strong social conservatism and the idealistic pursuit of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. And that was a tent that had no chance of taking root in Massachusetts or New Jersey or anywhere else in the Northeast (not to mention the snowier parts of the Midwest and pretty much every state that borders the Pacific). But with that tent folded up and shelved after the race for 2008 eradicated President Bush’s Republican Party, the new party that is being built at the grassroots level is one with a very different focus, which will lead to a different substance, and a different coalition. The 2009 and 2010 elections thus far have shown just that.

What’s interesting is that not only is the new big tent a national one, but it is succeeding in electing Republicans in blue territory who are much farther to the right on economics and national security than most pundits ever thought possible. The Frum/Brooks theory that was developed in the wake of 2008 — which suggested that the only way the GOP could ever go national again would be to go Rockefeller — has been pretty much eviscerated by the election of Christie and that of Brown. And the theory that many Giuliani ’08 supporters touted on this blog several years ago turned out to be correct: blue states will elect a hard-right Republican on fiscal and defense issues as long as that Republican is supportive of personal and social freedom.

The new Republican tent, then, is built on a foundation of economic freedom rather than cultural preservation, and is determined to keep America strong and secure rather than being an international Good Samaritan. None of this could have happened without President Obama and a Democratic Congress, of course, which, like the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, showed Americans the end result of a government that was big enough to give them everything that they wanted. Additionally, the election of a new president changed the foreign policy dichotomy in the country. In 2008, the GOP was the party of the Bush Doctrine, and the Democrats were the party of a foreign policy other than the Bush Doctrine. Because NeoConservatism had largely been discredited in the minds of the majority of Americans, the party running against the Bush Doctrine was going to win the argument. But now, Obama is the one formulating the nation’s foreign policy, and the current dichotomy consists of Obama’s weak and hapless foreign policy on one side and the Republican alternative on the other side. And as Scott Brown showed, running on a strong and competent foreign policy, while jettisoning the Bushie idealism, defeats a weak and hapless one even in Massachusetts, despite its Democratic tribalism, its blue-as-a-blazer hue, and its distinct New England isolationism.

As such, I suspect that in November, the party of economic freedom and to-hell-with-them hawkishness will triumph over the party of national bankruptcy, international incompetence, and of the new road to serfdom. And once it does, the question is whether a national leader will arise to take the reins of this new coalition in 2012 and potentially dramatically re-draw the electoral map. And a big part of me wonders whether this once and future candidate hails from the Big Apple…

Marist New York Senatorial Survey

Democratic Primary

• Kirsten Gillibrand 44% (43%)
• Harold Ford Jr. 27% (24%)
• Jonathan Tasini 4%

Senatorial Election

• George Pataki (R) 49% (42%)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 43% (45%)

• George Pataki (R) 52% (42%)
• Harold Ford Jr. (D) 35% (36%)

• Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 52%
• Bruce Blakeman (R) 30%

• Harold Ford Jr. (D) 39%
• Bruce Blakeman (R) 35%

• Chuck Schumer (D) 67%
• Larry Kudlow (R) 25%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

Among registered Democrats

• Kirsten Gillibrand 37% (48%) / 15% (20%) {+22%}
• Harold Ford Jr. 20% (34%) / 13% (14%) {+7%}

Would you rate the job Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

Among registered voters

• Excellent 2% (2%)
• Good 22% (22%)
• Fair 33% (33%)
• Poor 18% (18%)

Would you rate the job Senator Charles Schumer is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 11% (13%)
• Good 36% (38%)
• Fair 31% (24%)
• Poor 17% (18%)

Survey of 838 registered voters (including 360 Democrats) was conducted January 25-27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points; among Democrats, +/- 5.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 13-14, 2010 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) Alaska Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Lisa Murkowski’s job performance?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 36%

Among Republicans

• Approve 77%
• Disapprove 13%

Among Independents

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 44%

Among Democrats

• Approve 33%
• Disapprove 56%

Among Men

• Approve 53%
• Disapprove 37%

Among Women

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 35%

Generally speaking this fall will you vote for Republican Lisa Murkowski or her Democratic opponent?

• Lisa Murkowski 52%
• Generic Democrat 25%

Do you approve or disapprove of Congressman Don Young’s job performance?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 41%

If the candidates for Congress this fall were Democrat Harry Crawford and Republican Don Young, who would you vote for?

• Don Young 49%
• Harry Crawford 34%

Survey of 710 Alaska voters was conducted January 27-28, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 50% Independent; 32% Republican; 18% Democrat.

In case you missed it: Russ Feingold and Patty Murray are now in trouble, too. Polls show that Tommy Thompson and Dino Rossi could knock off those two.

This astonishing news would bring the list of states in play to the following, in no particular order: Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, California, Delaware, Illinois, Arkansas, North Dakota, Colorado, and maybe even Indiana. Could we conceivably win eleven seats in the Senate, bringing our total to 52 seats?

Only if we get our candidates all-in. We need George Pataki to run in New York, Tommy Thompson to run in Wisconsin, and Dino Rossi to run in Washington. What do we need to do to get Pataki, Thompson, and Rossi into these races?

Whenever I mention Rudy Giuliani to Republican colleagues, I’m always met with “Why doesn’t he run against Kirsten Gillibrand?” I have some stock answers: he doesn’t want to be a legislator, there are plenty of other candidates on the bench (George Pataki, Pete King), and besides — he might want to run again in 2012.

No, he can’t run again in 2012! I always hear. Why can’t he just take out Gillibrand? But why, oh why, is there a Rudy double-standard? Why doesn’t anyone instinctively reply to mentions of Mike Huckabee with Why doesn’t he take on Blanche Lincoln? — Huckabee’s a surefire winner, and the bench is fairly weak in Arkansas. There are other candidates that can win, to be sure — but there are others in New York, too. Do people just grant Mike Huckabee a free pass because everyone simply assumes that he’s going to run for president again? Is Mike Huckabee entitled to run for the presidency? He doesn’t have to put in any more time? — Can someone address this?

Usually, when I mention this double-standard to friends, they concede the point and say that Huckabee should run against Lincoln, leaving the presidency to others. But it’s not natural for people to think of it that way. Huckabee has kept up his 2012 profile, and people give him a free pass. Rudy, despite his hints, despite his ubiquitous presence on the ’09-’10 campaign trail thus far, is not getting that same kind of treatment.