Let’s get the least well liked number out of the way first. In the latest Quinnipiac Poll of registered Ohio voters, Gov. Ted Strickland leads John Kasich 44-39.

And at the end of the day, what the topline reads is what matters.

But this isn’t the end of the day.

In fact, we’re 252 days from the end of the day.

So what is most informative is how the electorate is positioned for 11.2.10. And that is virtually all good news for John Kasich.

So let’s get to it…

Name ID
This is John Kasich’s biggest challenge. According to Quinnipiac, 62% of Ohioans don’t know enough about John Kasich to have an opinion. While this has improved from the 69% in the last Q poll in November, it still highlights the most important distinction between Quinnipiac and Rasmussen – who they are polling.

Rasmussen’s polling focuses only on Likely Voters. Quinnipiac focuses on Registered Voters.

So while 62% of Q’s voters don’t have an opinion of Kasich, that number goes all the way down to 22% in Rasmussen – thus, the 11 point swing between polls.

But among the voters who do have an opinion, what has happened to Kasich’s approval rating since the last Q poll in November? With the left wing assault on Kasich, you’d expect his disapproval numbers to have exponentially risen.

They haven’t. Kasich’s approval to disapproval ratio still stands at 2.5 to 1. Among Independents, his approval numbers have increased more than his disapproval numbers.

The Issues
This is the big one. With all re-election campaigns being first and foremost a referendum on the incumbent, these questions help shape how Ohioans will vote come November.

Quinnipiac asked:
In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in Ohio today?
Do you think that Ted Strickland has kept his campaign promises so far or not?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling the economy?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling the state budget?

On every single question, dissatisfaction and disapproval of Governor Strickland worsened from the last Quinnipiac poll last November.

And on the number one issue on everyone’s mind, who would do a better job rebuilding Ohio’s economy – Ted Strickland or John Kasich – Kasich is up 6.

Who would do a better job managing Ohio’s budget? Kasich is also up 6. In conjunction with Rasmussen, this is the second poll in a row that confirms the Democrat attack vs. Kasich on taxes/budget issues doesn’t resonate.

Obama
With 52% of Ohioans disapproving of the President, 57% disapproving of his job on the economy, and 58% disapproving of his job on health care, one thing is clear – Obama isn’t going to be helping Ted anytime soon.

Summary
One frustration I have with Quinnipiac is that there is no way to measure voter enthusiasm. For example, a candidate’s “strong approval” is far different from “approval” in general. Rasmussen and the Ohio news poll highlighted an enthusiasm gap with Strickland that we don’t see measured in Quinnipiac. Voter enthusiasm = GOTV, and all signs from other polls indicate it being a major challenge for Strickland in November.

But with all these numbers siding towards Kasich, why do registered voters still prefer Ted Strickland? Simple. If voters don’t know the incumbents opponent, they feel less comfortable voicing their support. Need evidence? Look at the Rasmussen numbers that consistently show Kasich ahead in a sample that includes voters that actually know who he is.

It’s also clear that the massive Democrat efforts to define Kasich first have so far failed. Additionally, Strickland and the ODP have failed at improving Strickland’s reputation as a manager of Ohio’s economy and its budget.

Expectedly, Kasich still has a long way to go. In order to take advantage of Ohio’s nasty feelings towards its Governor, Kasich needs to improve his name ID and define himself as the viable alternative. The question then becomes, when should Kasich start spending the gobs of money necessary to communicate that message? I’m not so sure 252 days out from election day is the smartest way to spend those dollars.

Ultimately, there is little evidence that the one thing that can help Strickland’s chances, a substantively improved economy, will happen over the next few months. But what can change is voter understanding of John Kasich, his record, and what he can do for Ohio.

And how that pans out will determine who wins on 11.2.10.

———————————————

-Jon Keeling is the Editor of Third Base Politics

• Shakira Goes to Washington
• Joslyn James (Tiger Woods‘ porn-star ex-mistress): Talk of Pregnancy and Abortion *Goldman Special
• Bristol Palin to appear on The Secret Life of the American Teenager
  
• Evan Bayh Gets Rough Treatment on ‘The View‘
• Is Roman Polanski really no different than Leni Riefenstahl?
• Dalai Lama speaks — at Universal Studios
• Clueless in Hollywood and Washington
• Canada targeted by the IIPA. Again.
• Jay Leno Nabs Sarah Palin
• Actor falls for true-life political romance
• Senator Mellencamp? Grassroots Campaign Urges Rocker to Run

In other words, he’s worthy of the consideration that has led to talk of a “Draft John Mellencamp” movement. In fact, he might be just enough of an outlier to energize base votes and to make independent voters look again at the Democratic column.

PPP (D) Texas Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rick Perry 40%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 31%
• Debra Medina 20%

In a runoff between Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who would you vote for?

• Rick Perry 52%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 35%

In a runoff between Rick Perry and Debra Medina, who would you vote for?

• Rick Perry 55%
• Debra Medina 36%

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

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 41%

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

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 43%

Would you rather have Kay Bailey Hutchison as Governor, in the US Senate, or out of elective office?

• Governor 24%
• Senator 37%
• Out of office 31%

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

• Favorable 36%
• Unfavorable 30%

Do you think Debra Medina believes the Bush administration played a role in the attacks of 9/11?

• Yes 21%
• No 50%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush?

• Favorable 79%
• Unfavorable 14%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Ron Paul?

• Favorable 38%
• Unfavorable 30%

Do you approve or disapprove of the current direction of the Republican Party?

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 40%

Do you think the Republican Party has gotten too liberal, too conservative, or do you think it’s about right?

• Too liberal 48%
• Too conservative 19%
• About right 26%

Do you consider yourself to be a Libertarian?

• Yes 8%
• No 81%

Do you support the goals of the Tea Party movement?

• Yes 74%
• No 12%

Survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 19-21, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 80% Republican; 2% Democrat; 18% Independent. Political ideology: 73% Conservative; 25% Moderate; 2% Liberal.

Mitt Romney has announced his support for John McCain’s reelection campaign. The Boston Globe reports:

“For years, I’ve been an admirer of John McCain,” Romney said in a statement this morning. “Then we became competitors. Today, I’m proud to call him my friend.”

Romney also said, “It’s hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain,” and added that the country needed McCain in troubling times.

“I am constantly reassured by Senator McCain’s continued involvement in the affairs of our nation, and I am honored to support him,” Romney said.

“Governor Romney is among the brightest and most dynamic leaders in our Party, and I am proud to have his support,” McCain said. “I look forward to working with him to advance our shared vision for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America.”

Another Massachusetts Republican — US Senator Scott Brown – has also endorsed McCain, and is planning to campaign with him next month in Arizona.

I might add that Sarah Palin has also thrown her support behind Senator McCain.

Mitt’s endorsements follow a curious pattern. Toomey of Pennsylvania was a strong critic of Romney in 2008, yet Mitt was one of the first to endorse him. McCain was more that a strong critic, he was a rival who defeated him. Yet Mitt has little trouble endorsing him. It makes Mitt’s steady refusal to back Charlie Crist (who also criticized Mitt in 2008) all the more interesting. He is also staying clear of Rubio so far.

For the second time is as many days, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels sounds like a potential 2012 candidate, however reluctant he may be to fill that role.

Daniels, meeting with reporters at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, says he wants to encourage and be part of “a grown-up conversation” about the nation’s fiscal future, and he notes a presidential campaign is one way to do that. “I’m just very concerned about the direction of the country,” he says. “I would like to have some input into a Republican alternative.”

Daniels, 60, has a sterling resume: Chief of staff for Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar; White House political adviser to President Ronald Reagan; head of the Office of Management and Budget for President George W. Bush; a top executive for Eli Lilly and Company. He was elected governor in the Hoosier State in 2004 and re-elected by an 18-point margin in 2008 — which was not a good year for many Republican candidates.

Many would say “very concerned about the direction of the country” translates to “I’m seriously considering a run for President”.  It should also be noted that  many people have discussed on this blog the lack of a national security candidate in the field.  That would change if Gov. Daniels entered the race, having been chief of staff to Sen. Lugar, who is the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and due to Daniels having been a part of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council during his time in the Bush Administration.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Quinnipiac Ohio Gubernatorial Survey

• Ted Strickland (D) 44% (40%) [46%] {43%} (51%)
• John Kasich (R) 39% (40%) [36%] {38%} (32%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Kasich 26% (23%) [22%] {26%} (22%) / 10% (7%) [10%] {7%} (7%) {+16%}
• Ted Strickland 45% (38%) [43%] {42%} (53%) / 36% (37%) [34%] {37%} (25%) {+9%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 48% (45%) [48%] {46%} (57%)
• Disapprove 40% (43%) [42%] {42%} (29%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Ted Strickland is handling the economy?

• Approve 35% (33%) [33%] {33%} (43%)
• Disapprove 53% (52%) [54%] {53%} (43%)

Do you think that Ted Strickland has kept his campaign promises so far or not?

• Yes 34% (32%) [37%] {34%} (44%)
• No 45% (43%) [40%] {40%} (32%)

Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job rebuilding Ohio’s economy – Ted Strickland or John Kasich?

• John Kasich 41% (41%)
• Ted Strickland 35% (33%)

Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job handling Ohio’s state budget – Ted Strickland or John Kasich?

• John Kasich 42% (42%)
• Ted Strickland 36% (34%)

Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you trust more to do in office what they say they will do during the campaign – Ted Strickland or John Kasich?

• John Kasich 36%
• Ted Strickland 35%

Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you believe most shares your values – Ted Strickland or John Kasich?

• Ted Strickland 40%
• John Kasich 36%

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

• Approve 44% (45%) [53%] {49%} (62%)
• Disapprove 52% (50%) [42%] {44%} (31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 39% (42%) [48%] {46%} (57%)
• Disapprove 57% (53%) [46%] {48%} (36%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 34% (36%) [44%]
• Disapprove 58% (57%) [45%]

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 40% (40%) [49%]
• Republicans in Congress 37% (40%) [28%]

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

• Mostly approve 33%
• Mostly disapprove 56%

Generally speaking, do you think the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress go too far, not far enough, or are they about right?

• Too far 43%
• Not far enough 29%
• About right 18%

Do you think President Obama and Congress should continue to try to pass a health care overhaul plan or do you think they should give up and go on to other matters?

• Continue health care 53%
• Go on to other matters 44%

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Doing the right thing 55% (48%)
• Shouldn’t be involved 39% (43%)

Among Republicans

• Doing the right thing 72% (71%)
• Shouldn’t be involved 21% (22%)

Among Independents

• Doing the right thing 53% (46%)
• Shouldn’t be involved 41% (43%)

Among Democrats

• Doing the right thing 43% (32%)
• Shouldn’t be involved 52% (61%)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 39%

Among Republicans

• Approve 67%
• Disapprove 29%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 41%

Among Democrats

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 45%

Survey of 1,662 Ohio voters was conducted February 16-21, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 5-9, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 10-13, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 26 – July 1, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 28 – May 4, 2009 are in parentheses.

Adam Andrzejewski’s campaign for governor may be over, but his impact on the 2010 election may be just beginning.  Andrzejewski ran an ideas-based campaign based on a full forensic audit of Illinois State government, and those IDEAS are working their way into the platforms of other candidates. This became evident today when Robert Enriquez, GOP nominee for Illinois Secretary of State, invited Andrzejewski to spearhead a forensic audit of the the Secretary of State’s office if he wins election. Ultimately, this represents a small percentage of the State’s bloated budget, but we’re still talking about  a massive $2 billion in spending – not exactly small potatoes.

Those of us who supported Adam Andrzejewski need to remember that the effort was NOT about putting one man in an office – it was about cutting off the oxygen to the Chicago corruption machine. True, the easiest way to do this would have been to install Andrzejewski in the governor’s mansion, but there are still other avenues to pursue. Now that the primaries are over, we should make a point of supporting candidates for state offices who, like Enriquez, are willing to implement full transparency and forensic audits in their individual departments. 

Enriquez has led the way and now we should focus on extracting similar audit pledges from every other Republican (and even Democrats) running for statewide office in Illinois. Ultimately, the goal should be to extract such a pledge from likely gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady. If we can get Brady to promise that he will order a full forensic audit of Illinois state government (hopefully headed by Adam Andrzejewski), then we will ultimately achieve the same result as if Andrzejewski had been  the nominee himself. After all, who cares if it’s “Governor Andrzejewski” or “Special Investigator Andrzejewski”, as long as the audit is done and the “Chicago Way” waste and corruption is gutted from the budget.

I know that down-ticket candidates like Enriquez usually  don’t create national groundswells. However, considering that the stakes are so high in Illinois, I think that the national attention focused on Andrzejewski should now be shifted to any  down-ticket candidates who embraces his ideas. Just because our guy lost one primary does not mean we give up the goal of smashing the Chicago machine.  We may now have to attack it with down-ticket chisels rather than a gubernatorial chainsaw, but we CAN and MUST continue to attack it.

Rasmussen Florida Senatorial Survey

• Marco Rubio 51% {49%} (49%) [46%] {43%}
• Kendrick Meek 31% {32%} (35%) [31%] {30%}
• Some other candidate 7% {6%} (4%) [8%] {8%}
• Not sure 11% {13%} (12%) [15%] {19%}

• Charlie Crist 48% {48%} (42%) [46%] {48%} (46%)
• Kendrick Meek 32% {33%} (36%) [34%] {29%} (28%)
• Some other candidate 11% {10%} (11%) [9%] {10%} (12%)
• Not sure 9% {9%} (11%) [11%] {13%} (14%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Marco Rubio 51% {51%} (51%) {41%} / 27% {31%} (29%) {31%} {+24%}
• Charlie Crist 55% {58%} (59%) {64%} (57%) / 41% {40%} (38%) {35%} (36%) {+14%}
• Kendrick Meek 42% {38%} (41%) {37%} (37%) / 33% {36%] (33%) {34%} (36%){+9%}

How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15% {10%} (9%) [13%] {17%} (15%)
• Somewhat approve 37% {41%} (43%) [36%] {42%} (45%)
• Somewhat disapprove 30% {30%} (25%) [29%] {21%} (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 15% {17%} (20%) [20%] {19%} (16%)

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

• Strongly approve 31% {25%} (29%) [29%] {27%} (32%)
• Somewhat approve 14% {17%} (15%) [13%] {15%} (14%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {11%} (9%) [11%] {10%} (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 44% {47%} (46%) [47%] {47%} (38%)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 27, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 14, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 19, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 22, 2009 are in parentheses.

I was checking out the online version of The New Hampshire Union Leader, and saw an article about NH Republican Judd Gregg’s effort to modify the tax code with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). I am not interested in any kind of progressive income tax, even the simplified one Gregg and Wyden offer, so I skimmed through it quickly.

Below the article, however, I ran across a brilliant analogy to the American tax code. I don’t know if the commenter, one Jay of Manchester (NH), came up with it…but it’s really, really good.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 total.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!“

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!“

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!“

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Steve Forbes has pushed the flat tax for well over a decade, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, talk show host Neil Boortz and Republican Georgia Congressman John Linder have pushed the Fair Tax for many years. Gregg’s idea is better than what we currently have- it gets rid of many special interest tax breaks, among other things- but it is not nearly as good as either the flat or Fair taxes. Increasingly progressive tax systems are always bad.

Personally, while the Fair Tax would be the best way to institute a tax- it gives you a choice of how much you want to be taxed, among other benefits, being a sales tax- I think the flat tax is the most politically palatable. The flat tax pleases Democrats, because of its innately progressive nature, but it does not become increasingly progressive, which should please Republicans. Furthermore, like the Fair Tax, it gets rid of the class warfare that permeates our current tax structure. The same rates are applied to all taxpayers, and any changes would thus affect all taxpayers.

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

In the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s, IBM ruled the computer world. They didn’t exactly have a monopoly, but their market share was so huge that others had difficulty competing with them. They were the Microsoft of their day. One of their favorite tactics against competitors was the “market freeze”. Here’s how it worked.

Say some competitor noticed a market niche that IBM was not serving. This competitor would invest a great deal of money developing a new computer to serve that niche. (That was back in the days when computers were discrete transistors and/or IC’s with a few dozen transistors each. They represented a huge investment.) They would then announce it to great fanfare.

How did IBM respond? Rumors.

IBM sales people would tell potential customers of the new computer that, “We’re working on a computer just like that only better. We expect it to be available sometime next year, maybe two.” IBM might even start up such a project and staff it with people.

This would freeze the market. Few people wanted to purchase the new computer before seeing the new IBM offering. Sales of the new computer would shrink to nothing and would eventually die. It would then be withdrawn from market. Once it was canceled, IBM would then halt all work on the supposed competing product and continue on much as they were before.

This strategy worked a number of times for them. It worked best against startups. They seldom had sufficient start-up capital to outlast the freeze. It was less effective against established firms with deeper pockets.

---

I got to thinking of this last night after reading E.J. Dionne’s editorial in the Washington Post. I don’t necessarily agree with every point he makes, but he does provide some food for thought:

And I am starting to think that Sarah Palin is Mitt Romney’s other best friend. First, compared with Palin, Romney is a plausible president. Many conservatives won’t say that publicly for fear of alienating Palin or her followers, but they believe it. Suddenly, Romney’s looking like a bit — or more than a bit — of a technocrat becomes an asset to him.

Second, Romney is a kind of front-runner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, and Palin’s huge presence in the media blocks out alternatives to Romney (notably Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who appeared at CPAC today). The media don’t have much time or room for a long list of GOP candidates, and the media obsession with Palin leaves space for only one other candidate. Romney has the best claim on that spot.

Third, I am absolutely convinced that Palin will not run for president, but that it’s in her interest not to say so until the very last moment. Attention is what she needs for all her other enterprises, and being a possible candidate for as long as possible will get her lots of attention. Romney wants her out there as long as possible as his blocking back. This will make it harder and harder for the alternative to him to emerge.

His first point — Sarah not being a plausible President — is debatable. Personally, I don’t think she is ready for the job either, but the way he put it smacks of leftist condescension. If the far less qualified Barack Obama was considered to be a plausible President in 2008, he’s got little ground from which to assert that Sarah Palin wouldn’t be a plausible President in 2012.

His second and third points are the essentials of the “Market Freeze”. With Sarah sucking up the excess media oxygen in the room, it leaves precious little for second tier candidates such as Pawlenty, Thune, or Daniels to gain much traction with the populace at large. This can only work to the advantage of Mitt Romney, and I would add Mike Huckabee to the list. I think those two are well-enough established “brands” that they can thrive just fine with or without Sarah Palin.

College attorney sends second malicious “cease and desist” threat to Hodge

I’ve written before about the “League for Innovation,” which claims to represent the best community colleges in America.  I encourage you to visit its Web site, to find out if your state has a member on the board of directors, and to ask why they employ a CEO who is unwilling to speak to a former elected member of one of the League’s board member schools.  I must conclude one of two things by the fact that the League’s CEO Dr. Gerardo E. de los Santos first agreed, and then later refused, to speak to me on the telephone:  he is either a coward, or else that he is so accustomed to incompetence and low standards in higher education that he is genuinely uninterested in learning about ongoing retaliation, free speech violations, fraudulent contracts, and general corruption at Johnson County Community College in Greater Kansas City.

JCCC serves 50,000 students a year, and for a government-run school and for the price, it’s a good quality of education.  But the quality of education is there despite the college leadership, not because of it.  For proof, one only needs to look back at the college in 2006, when for a period of several months there was no permanent president.  The quality exists for two primary reasons.  First and most importantly, because unlike K-12 “public” schools the college must compete for the right to serve its students.  Secondly, most of the staff and faculty are not at JCCC because of a personal or political agenda; rather, they simply want to provide a good education to students.

For President Calaway and other leaders, though, it’s not about education.  It’s about advancing reputation, needless building projects, diverting money to friends through contracts, a left-wing political agenda, and other non-public-oriented matters.  For four years, I did my best to work with them, many of them self-described “moderate Republicans.”  But near the end of my tenure, college leaders chose to engage in unethical actions in an attempt to destroy me.  They won the first round, but with the help of legislators, activists, and the press, I have won every round since.  It is because we’ve been effective that JCCC leaders have now — twice — attempted to intimidate me with a malicious, baseless threat of a “defamation” lawsuit.  The first occurred while I was still elected, in April 2009.  The college president had the audacity and arrogance to instruct the college attorney to send me the threat, without any kind of vote or authority to do so.  This time, it’s theoretically from the college attorney, himself, but I doubt that.  Regardless, every day that the attorney — a law partner in the firm of the Kansas Democratic Party chairman — continues to work on behalf of JCCC is another day that education is under attack in the state of Kansas.

Below is my public response to the latest threat by JCCC’s attorney.  You may click here to read it as a Web page.

Benjamin Hodge

Kansas Representative, 2006-’08

JCCC Trustee, 2005-’09

Monday, February 22, 2010

Abuse of power: JCCC attorney again proves to be a threat to free speech & education by sending malicious, frivolous lawsuit for second time in a year

JCCC President Terry Calaway & the elected JCCC Board send you a clear message: It doesn’t matter whether you are a student, faculty member, student, staff, or even a private citizen. They will do what they want with your tax dollars, they will ignore your laws, and you will not question them, or you will be attacked.

My question to you: Will you continue to let them bully you?

Dear {FIRST_NAME},

Never before at Johnson County Community College has learning quality been less valued. Education does not come first at JCCC. It might come in third or fourth. No, what comes first today at JCCC, the largest college in Kansas, is the reputation of a few of its leaders, who continue to demonstrate that they will engage in brute intimidation against those who are trying to do their jobs. Education cannot thrive at a place where the First Amendment is ignored, and where college leaders repeatedly engage in retaliatory behavior. During the last five years, JCCC leaders have approved of the attempted intimidation of people who fit under the following categories: female administrators, a faculty member, a staff member, a student, a public official, and now, for the first time, a private citizen. Their behavior is reckless, it is dangerous, and it is offensive.

This is the local government whose arrogant, open attempt in early 2009 to break the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which led Kansas City’s ABC affiliate KMBC to editorialize, “Calaway and the trustees should be ashamed of their blatant and clumsy attempt to circumvent state law.” The Kansas City Star, the Kansas Press Association, and the Kansas Association of Broadcasters agreed that JCCC leaders violated the law. The Gardner News, Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal, and Kansas House Judiciary Chairman Lance Kinzer have also examined the facts, and have reached the same conclusion. Yet to this day, President Terry Calaway continues to defend his practice of distributing detailed budget information during closed meetings that involve “performance reviews.”

Before I continue, I would like to mention that if you are bothered by what I write about in this letter, I encourage you to contact:

• JCCC at 913-469-8500 (press “0″ and ask for the president’s office)
• JCCC Board Chair Jon Stewart at 913-544-1208 or jon.stewart@kc.rr.com
• JCCC Treasurer Lynn Mitchelson at 913-432-5757 or lynn@jccc.edu

At JCCC, this recklessness is also is very expensive to taxpayers. Soon after I was elected as a JCCC trustee in 2005, it became known that JCCC leaders, including the still-serving Trustees Lynn Mitchelson and Jon Stewart, for years had virtually never questioned the decisions of 25-year President Charles Carlsen, who abruptly resigned after four women accused him of sexual harassment. For unexplained reasons, JCCC’s main building is still today named “The Carlsen Center,” named by Carlsen after himself in the 1990s. After the resignation, trustees spent $600,000 on legal fees for what today should be considered a disingenuous effort to “investigate” internal college procedures. Also, it’s been shown to me that Calaway — who barely hangs on to his presidency through hand-outs to the left-wing faculty — broke his 2009 promise of a “hiring freeze” by recently adding an unneeded “diversity” administrator to work under Vice President for non-Diversity Carmelita Williams, who:

• Is on record supporting Calaway’s decision to violate the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
• Failed to act when a fellow faculty member was illegally reprimanded for engaging in protected First Amendment speech, by merely stating that many Muslim nations have terrible human rights records.
• Failed to act when President Calaway promoted the dean who illegally reprimanded the above faculty member for speaking his opinion.
• Is on record praising President Calaway.
• Functionally answers to nobody.

That $600,000 I mentioned in legal costs: it should have been lower, perhaps much lower. During the post-Carlsen investigation, we were paying three lawyers. We had an attorney to investigate internal matters (at $500 an hour), we had our attorney from our insurance company (in theory, to protect the college from lawsuits), and we had our permanent contract-based attorney, for whom I later learned the college had never performed a competitive bid. At the conclusion of the investigation, the trustees had planned on releasing a report to the community, given the situation’s high profile and high cost. To produce the report, the board had initially decided to trust those three lawyers, but we later regretted that decision, after the first “report” contained nothing new that the public did not already know. It was even ridiculed by the far-left Johnson County Sun, which rightly criticized it as being “12 pages of nothing” and being a “$40,000-a-page document.” In retrospect, it now makes sense that the process produced “nothing”: the investigating attorney wanted more, the protect-JCCC attorney wanted less, and JCCC’s permanent attorney Mark Ferguson was supposed to find an acceptable middle ground. But Ferguson apparently chose to prefer to be more interested in protecting the reputation of “the college” (read: Charles Carlsen and a few others), and it caused a great deal of embarrassment to the college, and it cost the taxpayers money when the three attorneys had to “go back to the drawing board.”

As another note on JCCC’s tremendous cost to you, the taxpayer, I’ll point out that in 2009 JCCC increased the property tax mill levy from the 2008 level. I was the lone vote against that decision.

Now, to the main reason why I am writing this letter: From 2005-2009, I was the lone voice at JCCC for the rule of law, for low taxes, for cutting wasteful spending, for questioning the college president, and for the true “diversity” that requires free speech for all, and not just for group-think professors who think “that makes me uncomfortable” equals “unconstitutional.” As I challenged them, college leaders didn’t like to have “their” college intruded upon. Repeatedly, these high-paid PhDs and elite elected liberals were either afraid or unable to engage in actual debate, and so they attacked me. So far, I have chosen to avoid replying through legal channels, even though I could, and that is largely out of respect to you, the taxpayer (your taxes pay for any lawsuit against the college). Instead, with your help, I have fought back through political and press-related means, and we’ve been thoroughly successful.

But it is because of our success that I continued to be threatened by JCCC’s attorney.

I received an unexpected letter a week ago. It was from attorney Mark Ferguson, whom Kansans pay lots of money so that he can be the lawyer for the two largest education entities in the state of Kansas: JCCC and the K-12 Kansas State School Board. Ferguson is mad at me because I continue to talk about the lawlessness and waste at JCCC, and Ferguson has made a silly “cease and desist” threat towards me, and for the second time in less than a year. He continues to falsely claim that I have made “defamatory” comments about JCCC leaders and him. He doesn’t like it that I’ve called him “unprofessional,” and that I don’t think he’s done a good job, so he is threatening to sue me. Let’s be clear about something: serious government officials do not send “cease and desist” letters to one another, and that is why the few government agencies around the US which do engage in meaningless threats toward reform-minded Americans are then appropriately mocked in subsequent news reports. But these are not serious people who are running JCCC.

I mentioned that Ferguson is frustrated with me. Actually, Ferguson may be more mad at himself than at me, because he may now regret taking all of the bone-headed actions over the years at the direction of JCCC’s leaders. In particular, though, I will guess that he’s currently motivated by my discussing with you two things: his participation in a failed cover-up of a relatively minor legal violation (the Kansas Open Meetings Act), and Ferguson’s decision to engage in the defamation of a public official and his client, me. I served as one of seven at-large trustees at JCCC from 2005 through 2009, and during those four years more reform occurred than during any similar period in the college’s 40-year history, including the needed replacement of former President Carlsen. I also served a two-year term in the Kansas House, during which time I voted on the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) and other good-government legislation. (more…)

More bad news for Gov. Charlie Crist.  Following Monday’s Ramussen poll showing the governor falling far behind conservative Marco Rubio, the news of key staffers for the Crist campaign leaving are now becoming public.

Political director Pablo Diaz, one of the first two staff members hired for the Senate campaign, is departing at the end of the month for “a new opportunity.” Sean Doughtie, a well-regarded new media consultant who had worked with Crist for years, stopped working for the campaign at the end of January.

“The campaign was going in a different direction,” said Doughtie.

We are fast getting to the point when the question is no longer about Crist competing for this seat, but instead about when will he announce he is dropping out of the race.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Rasmussen Georgia Gubernatorial Survey

• John Oxendine (R) 45% (44%)
• Roy Barnes (D) 37% (42%)

• Nathan Deal (R) 43% (42%)
• Roy Barnes (D) 37% (43%)

• Karen Handel (R) 45% (42%)
• Roy Barnes (D) 36% (43%)

• Eric Johnson (R) 37%
• Roy Barnes (D) 37%

How would you rate the job Sonny Perdue has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 13% (14%)
• Somewhat approve 38% (44%)
• Somewhat disapprove 27% (22%)
• Strongly disapprove 21% (18%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 20, 2010 are in parentheses.

The future—that vast expanse of hopes and dreams—was once reserved for restless Americans out to improve their lot. There was going to be bigger houses, faster cars, and better paying jobs in a peaceful world. The fall of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the prospect of widespread prosperity well into the 21^st century.

The realities of the last decade, however, spoiled the promise of tomorrow. There was Enron and Iraq, suffocating debt and partisan gridlock. Government and the market, the two prevailing institutions driving America, experienced monumental declines in their reputations. In drawing conclusions from increasing electoral polarization and the ongoing recession, levels of public trust in the powers that be point to a rocky road ahead.

A recent CNN poll found that 86% of Americans believe that government is broken. Tucked away in the findings was a more revealing statistic: 81% of those who say government is broken also insist that it can be restored. But after years of incompetence, how can two battered pillars of our society, Washington and Wall Street, regain our faith in their abilities?

Since the Great Depression, the electorate has shifted between its acceptance of greater social programs and an affinity for accelerated investment in the private sector. Of course, this trend can be partially explained by the actions of ruling coalitions; staples like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were introduced and refined under Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Conversely, the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged in the age of deregulation ushered in by Ronald Reagan and continued under Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, there has been a consistent pattern of placing our fortunes in the hands of others, whether bankers, bureaucrats, or stock traders. The trouble is that the demand for more safety nets and sound investments now exceeds our supply capabilities.

Individual empowerment is often dismissed as the impossible goal of libertarian knuckleheads and Tea Party enthusiasts. Voices on both sides of the political spectrum deride decentralization as a crackpot scheme to abolish government and disrupt the modern way of life. In fact, I want nothing of the kind. Government, like the private sector, should maintain an integral role in the daily lives of everyday Americans. Until life’s opportunities our open for all, our country will always need referees to act as mediators and social advocates. Then again, government cannot be fixed or work efficiently again until individuals, the very people who elect representatives to serve their interests, dramatically alter their needs and behavior.

Sacrifice and self-restraint, embedded in generations tested by economic hardship and world war, are foreign ideals to most of us born since the end of the Vietnam War. Materialism and short-term gratification have replaced modest living and a long-term outlook. Government spending and reckless practices on Wall Street occurred because the public acted in a similar manner, albeit on a smaller scale. We bought things we could not afford and demanded better returns without paying higher taxes. Our desire for freedom at one moment and dependence at the next was bound to collide.

Living within our means is the key to repairing trust in public institutions. Political and financial leaders will only change their ways if we change ours. So make prudent decisions, plan for the years ahead, and lead a healthy lifestyle. Be realistic about what government and the market can and cannot accomplish. If nothing else, we should know that life grants no certainties, expect for the right of individuals to persevere in the face of great unknowns.

CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Gays in the Military

Do you favor or oppose permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military?

• Favor 69%
• Oppose 27%

Do you personally think that homosexual relationships between consenting adults is morally wrong, or not a moral issue?

• Morally wrong 48%
• Not a moral issue 50%

Survey of 1,023 adult Americans, including 954 registered voters, was conducted February 12-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

“That’s a dramatic turnaround from the early 1990s, when the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy was first being implemented,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “In 1994, only a bare 53 percent majority felt that gays and lesbians should be allowed to openly serve in the military.”

Support for allowing gays in the military is much higher among Democrats than Republicans, but the policy wins support from a majority of Republicans as well. More than eight in ten Democrats say that gays should be allowed to serve; 62 of Republicans and 63 percent of Independents agree with that view.

The poll’s release follows Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announcement Monday that he would be a sponsor of legislation next week to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has been in place since 1993.

“The change in views on gays in the military dovetails with overall changes in public attitudes toward gays and toward homosexual behavior,” adds Holland.

In 1994, a majority of Americans thought homosexual relationships were morally wrong; only 41 percent believed that homosexuality was not a moral issue. Now, for the first time since polls began asking this question in the 1970s, half the public thinks that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

As anyone who’s been paying attention to conservative politics over the past 72 hours is well aware, Ryan Sorba is angry. He’s angry at CPAC for inviting a gay conservative group to its event. He’s angry at GOProud for existing. He’s angry at our own Alex Knepper for being smarter than him. And so on. But the thing that Sorba is the most angry at is that, like Nelson Rockefeller 35 years ago, the Republican Party seems to be leaving him. And the barbarians are at the gates, threatening to infuse his tired, old, dinosaur of a party with new life and new blood for a new decade with new challenges.

I remember reading an article a few years ago where an old-line Republican activist described what he witnessed at the Reagan Revolution in 1976 and 1980. According to the activist, he knew something was up when the folks who usually showed up to vote in the Democratic primary in his precinct — blue collar types, evangelicals, middle class Catholics, etc. — showed up in droves to the Republican primary, presumably to vote for Ronald Reagan. This naturally made the Rockefeller Republicans who thought they owned the Republican Party quite uncomfortable. After all, if this riff raff started showing up regularly to vote in GOP primaries and became active in local Republican politics, they would change the Republican Party. And that’s exactly what happened, as Americans who were once considered moderate Democrats actually moved the GOP to the right, as they were eons more conservative than the old-line Republicans on issues like taxes, the Soviet Union, and abortion.

Now, another group of former moderates, or in many cases, voters that you’d expect to be staunchly Democratic, threaten to change the Republican Party again, and today’s old-line Republicans — the Sorba crowd — are terrified that they will see the Republican Party taken away from them, and that their fate will be similar to that of the Rockefeller and Ford Republicans of yesteryear. And their fears, from the purely selfish standpoint of Sorba, etc., are understandable. In a world where Joe Lieberman becomes the vote that kills the public option, in a world where Christie Whitman defends the Tea Partiers while Mike Huckabee attacks them, and in a world that includes Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), there exists the very real possibility that a new group of voters is prepared to take the GOP by storm and may very well succeed in changing the DNA of the party into something far more amenable to Alex Knepper than to Ryan Sorba.

These voters threaten to have an impact similar to the Reagan Democrats because like the Reagan Dems, they are far more conservative than the current Republican establishment on a variety of issues but have long been barred from the GOP for tribal reasons as well as due to moderation or liberalism in other issue areas. The Southerners, the working class white ethnics, and the evangelicals that comprised the demographic bulk of the Reagan Democrats had long been told that the GOP was no place for people like them. Similarly, their support for the larger components of the New Deal, such as Social Security and Medicare, and their union-friendly nature seemed to be deal breakers amongst the pre-Reagan Republican elite. Yet once they made their way into the party, they succeeded in becoming the most conservative Republicans, replacing detente with destruction of the Soviet Union, Justices like Stevens with Justices like Scalia, and 70 percent tax rates with 30 percent ones. They ended up being no more liberal on entitlements than their Rockefeller predecessors, though possibly less concerned about debt. And they transformed the Republican Party from a snowbelt party into a sunbelt one.

Today, instead of Reagan Democrats we have Brown Democrats. These are voters who are largely white collar, educated, from outside the South, and who often feel that the GOP is no place for voters “like them,” whether that be because of their secular nature, or their sexual orientation as in the case of the GOProud folks. The Brown Democrats are very conservative on issues of economic freedom, spending and debt, and size and scope of government issues, as well as on national security and law and order. They run moderate to liberal on many social issues, which has also made it difficult for them to enter GOP politics. But President Obama and current events are giving them little choice. A Republican Party infused with their blood would be eons more conservative than the current Republican establishment on entitlements, spending, and the national debt, and would probably begin giving new and better arguments for tough national security measures that Republicans no longer know how to sell. With their support, the GOP would become more regionally balanced, and the center of gravity of the party would no longer be in the buckle of the Bible Belt.

This scares guys like Sorba. It probably scares the power-for-the-sake-of-power wimps at the RNC more, as they’re the real contemporary Rockefeller Republicans who would prefer continuing to tax your kids and spend and still can’t figure out what all this Tea Party nonsense is about. But Sorba, even if he agrees with the Brown Democrats on economics and national security, still can’t abide the notion of something “intrinsically evil” entering his party and potentially changing it. The Rockefeller Republicans would have preferred eternal co-existence with the Soviet Union abroad and perpetual status in the minority at home to a Republican Party that was run by those “religious wackos” and “gun nuts” and the practitioners of “voodoo economics.” Similarly, the Sorba Republicans would probably find the complete collectivization of our society less appalling than the entry of “godless heathens” and “sodomites” into the GOP. And in both cases, the political was also personal, as the Rockefellerites dreaded the transformation of the GOP from the party of the country club into the party of Sam’s Club, and as the Sorbans fear working alongside folks who are spending the weekend at the casino instead of at a spiritual retreat. But just as it took new blood to save the GOP before, so will it again, and 2010 and 2012 will prove that. As for Sorba and his ilk, it’s time to man up.

Rasmussen Iowa Political Survey

Senatorial Election

• Charles Grassley (R) 55% [59%] (56%)
• Bob Krause (D) 33% [26%] (30%)

• Charles Grassley (R) 53% [59%]
• Roxanne Conlin (D) 36% [31%]

• Charles Grassley (R) 56% [61%]
• Tom Fiegen (D) 28% [25%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charles Grassley 68% [67%] (68%) / 29% [30%] (30%) {+39%}
• Bob Krause 27% [27%] (33%) / 31% [35%] (30%) {-4%}
• Roxanne Conlin 35% [35%] / 45% [45%] {-10%}
• Tom Fiegen 22% [23%] / 34% [37%] {-12%}

Gubernatorial Election

• Terry Branstad (R) 53% (54%)
• Chet Culver (D) 37% (34%) 

• Bob Vander Plaats (R) 46% (43%)
• Chet Culver (D) 40% (39%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Terry Branstad 57% (64%) / 38% (29%) {+19%}
• Bob Vander Plaats 43% (45%) / 34% (30%) {+9%}
• Chet Culver 42% (43%) / 55% (50%) {-13%}

How would you rate the job Chet Culver has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% (14%)
• Somewhat approve 27% (29%)
• Somewhat disapprove 20% (25%)
• Strongly disapprove 37% (28%)

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

• Strongly approve 24% [28%] (30%)
• Somewhat approve 21% [16%] (18%)
• Somewhat disapprove 11% [13%] (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 43% [41%] (40%)

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 54% of the vote in Iowa.

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 26, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 22, 2009 are in parentheses.

Yeah – I know – CPAC has been over for two days, so this is a little late. However, I spent all day yesterday sleeping after running on sleep deprivation for the entire conference – so now I’m finally alert and have had time to digest the experience.

I’ve already written about the most of the speeches I heard and candidates I met, but honestly the busiest and most educational part of the conference didn’t start until several hours after Glenn Beck’s cloing remarks.  

The best place to start is where Alex left off in his now-infamous post about his run-in with Ryan Sorba (a tar baby of an issue on which I will  refuse to comment). To jog your memory, Alex wrote:

After deliberating for a few seconds, I decided to let Adam Brickley and a couple of guys from The Lobbyist walk to Murphy’s, where the FrumForum party was being held, by themselves. I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to meet this guy.

Indeed I did find myself following The Lobbyist‘s  RJ Caster and Nick Brown to Murphy’s Irish Pub, where I purchased my usual poison and planned to make a brief appearance before heading home for some overdue shut-eye.

…At which point I ran into Robert Stacy McCain and saw my entire evening turned upside down.

For those of you who don’t know, Stacy is a wildman who blows through CPAC like a tornado and draws a lot of people into his orbit (For the record, Stacy, this is meant as a compliment). And after talking with him for a few seconds, he said that he had someone he wanted me to meet back at the hotel bar. This was unexpected and spur-of-the-moment,  but when Stacy McCain tells you to follow him (especially at CPAC), you follow.

Back at the hotel, we met up with Alabama congressional candidate Les Phillip (Parker Griffith’s primary opponent), his campaign team, and a who’s who of conservative bloggers including Stacy’s trusty sidekick Smitty, Da Tech Guy, and Little Miss Atilla. This was when I figured out that I was in over my head – but in a good way. After chatting for a while, the remnants of the group (including both Phillip an McCain) found their way to a mind-blowing Greek restaurant which shall remain nameless.  

The next few hours were spent eating  well, laughing, and discussing old political war stories (I was the youngest person and only non-Southerner in the group).  Somewhere around 11:30 PM we rolled out of the restaurant – loaded down with far too much Spanakopita, lamb, rice, and various other accouterments. Stacy, Les Phillip, and company rolled on to the annual post-CPAC “Reaganpalooza” - you can read all about that in Stacy’s recap. On many nights I would have followed them, but in this case I had sleep-deprivation headache, and overly-full stomach, and a need to get home before public transportation shut down. So, I may have departed early, but I still need to thank Stacy McCain for dragging me along for a wonderful night on the town. 

It’s also worth noting that Les Phillip is a total class act in person. He was very quiet and thoughtful compared to the rather brash set of bloggers and campaign operatives that made up our little group – but he was very congenial and very real. I definitely think he belongs in Congress, and while I hold no malice toward Parker Griffith, Les has definitely secured my support in that primary – and I think anyone who has met him will say the same. I have said it before and I will say it again - I see no need to “purge” Congressman Griffith, but it’s not about Griffith. This is about the fact that Les Phillip is a good man and a first-rate political leader – one who deserves a seat in out nation’s halls of government.

So, thanks to Stacy McCain for the evening and thanks to all of the wonderful people who made may CPAC what it is. I came away very enthused about the direction of the conservative movement, and with a few new names to add to my list of preferred candidates. Out of all the people who made the rounds through the blogger’s lounge, three in particular caught my eye. They are (no particular order):

Les Phillip (AL-5)

Joel Pollak (IL-9)

Katherine Jenerette (SC-1)

If you can, please donate, volunteer, blog, or tweet for these fine candidates – and expect to hear more about them from me.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been steadfastly against a White House bid — until now:

Add one more name to the list of possible 2012 Republican candidates for president: Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Two months ago, in an interview in his state capitol office, Daniels said explicitly he was not interested in running for president and dismissed speculation that he might be a candidate. That has now changed. During an interview at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association here over the weekend, Daniels said he has now been persuaded to keep open the door to a possible candidacy.

Daniels said he has had a number of conversations in recent months–”none initiated by me”–where the question of a 2012 campaign came up. “Just to get them off my back, I agreed to a number of people that I will now stay open to the idea,” he said.

Apparently, the recruitment effort on the part of influential Republicans is beginning to take it’s toll, including a recent call from former President George W. Bush.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

See it here.

I haven’t looked at it yet, but reports are that it closes the “Donut Hole,” keeps the Louisiana Purchase and gets rid of the Cornhusker Kickback. It also creates an insurance company Rate Czar (I stole that from Laura Ingraham) and costs $950 billion over 10 years.

• Columnists, athletes take sides on Lindsey Vonn photo shoot *Goldman Special
• Olympic Security Tops $900 Million
• Joe Biden ‘never in danger’ despite Olympic breach
• About those mittens
• Foreign Policy: Cold Wars
• Stephen Colbert Interview Video with Bob Costas at 2010 Winter Olympics
• Cannabis Culture’s Olympic Coverage
• Iraqi, Iranian Musicians Collaborate at Olympics
• Politics and the Olympics
  
• Olympics News: Support Our Troops Banned in Vancouver
• THIRTY YEARS AFTER U.S. OLYMPIC BOYCOTT, ATHLETES ADDRESS PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
• Obama: I check my BlackBerry every 30 minutes for Olympics results
• Olympic Politics At Heart of Whistler Luge Death
• US-Canada men’s hockey live on MSNBC Sunday, while NBC airs ice dancing in …
• USA Crushing Opponents in Medal Count
• ICYMI…

That remarkable goal in the final seconds of the game was scored by Ryan Kesler of Livonia, Michigan.  Last evenings win marked the first Olympic ice hockey victory by the United States over team Canada, in 50 years.  As well, today is the anniversary of the 1980 miracle on ice.

YES, Team USA! Congratulations to Team USA’s men’s hockey team for a sensational game this evening. We needed this! It made us so proud to be fans of this team, this sport, and this great country. America’s Olympic team of hard working, selfless team players – with no individual superstars – is an inspiring story for all. Now on to the next chapter in this great sports story… Go Team USA! – Sarah Palin

Wow…

Rasmussen 2010 Florida Republican Senate Primary

• Marco Rubio 54% (49%) {43%} [35%] (31%)
• Charlie Crist 36% 37% {43%} [49%] (53%)
• Some Other Candidate 4% (3%) {5%} [4%] (5%)
• Not Sure 7% (11%) {9%} [12%] (11%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Marco Rubio 67% (67%) {64%} [55%] (53%) / 15% (14%) {15%} [22%] (19%) {+52%}
• Charlie Crist 54% (62%) {61%} [67%] (75%) / 44% (37%) {38%} [32%] (23%) {+10%}

How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 8% (11%) {11%} [14%]
• Somewhat approve 40% (45%) {45%} [43%]
• Somewhat disapprove 29% (27%) {28%} [26%]
• Strongly disapprove 20% (16%) {15%} [16%]

Survey of 442 Likely GOP Primary Voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 27, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 14, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 20, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Rubio now carries male GOP voters by a two-to-one margin but break even with Crist among women. The governor also breaks even among moderate Republicans, but conservatives in the party favor his challenger now by more than 40 points.

Hotline OnCall does a good breakdown of CPAC’s winners and losers:

Conservatives young and old are headed home after 3 days of boistrous speeches, endowed with a renewed sense of optimism as they head toward electoral gains this Nov.

But some are leaving DC in better shape than others. Here, Hotline OnCall‘s winners and losers from CPAC ’10:

WINNERS

The Tea Party Movement: Virtually every speaker paid homage to a movement that remains loosely defined, praising fiscal restraint and a renewed energy among activists protesting the Obama admin’s policies. The media had fun interviewing the guy in the tri-cornered hat and “Don’t Tread On Me” flag, but GOP leaders are doing their best to incorporate, and kowtow to, the movement. Anyone who can show they lead a local Tea Party group is leaving CPAC with an enormous sense of power, and the GOP is all too happy oblige.

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney: He didn’t win the CPAC straw poll, but Romney came in second place to a contender no one believes is serious about running in WH’12 — Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Romney gave a well-regarded speech that fired up the crowd more than most of his potential ’12 rivals, and his showing, 3 times more than ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R), demonstrates he still has a following among the influential group of activists.

Ex-FL House Speaker Marco Rubio: He kicked off the conference in front of a packed house, and he did one of the hardest things in politics; he met expectations. Rubio is the darling of a conservative movement bent as much on defeating moderate GOPers as on defeating Dems, and his Thursday speech cemented his standing as the most likely conservative to beat FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who activists see as a centrist.

The Bush Admin: Last year, it was hard to find a speech in which the newly-former pres. or his team were mentioned. Now, while polls don’t show a dramatic reversal in Bush’s popularity or in that of ex-VP Dick Cheney, at least some GOPers, like Romney, publicly defended the old guard. Cheney’s surprise appearance on Thursday even got a standing ovation. CPAC speakers did bash Bush’s spending policies, but they don’t see him as the albatross he once was.

Calvin Coolidge: We kid, we kid. The nation’s 30th pres. is a big favorite of Fox News host Glenn Beck, one of the real winners at this year’s CPAC. Beck is seen as on par with Rush Limbaugh, according to the CPAC straw poll, which has to be good news for his marketing team, and his Saturday p.m. speech brought the crowd to its feet repeatedly — even though he mentioned vomit 4 times.

After the jump, the losers at this week’s confab.

LOSERS

The CPAC Straw Poll: Paul took 31% of the vote, to best Romney’s 22%. No one takes Paul seriously as a candidate in ’12 — ex-NM Gov. Gary Johnson (R) is trying to claim his mantle (check back Monday for our interview with Johnson) — and his win allows other contenders to portray this year’s ballot as meaningless.

The GOP: What the straw poll did show is that many conservatives aren’t happy with the GOP. RNC chair Michael Steele‘s fav/unfav rating is upside down, and 37% say they view GOP leadership in Congress unfavorably too. Many speeches included reminders that the GOP had its chance and lost power because of excess spending. If anything, CPAC showed the GOP is courting the Tea Party movement, but Tea Partiers aren’t sold yet.

MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty: TPaw finished next to last, just ahead of Crist, in the ’09 CPAC straw poll, and he finished 4th, with just 6%, this year. Students greeted Pawlenty when he showed up on Thursday, but his Friday speech didn’t excite the crowd as much as Romney’s, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s or even Rep. Mike Pence‘s did. The knock on Pawlenty has always been that he doesn’t light a fire in many activists, and this year’s speech showed he hasn’t gotten over that drawback yet.

I largely agree with the analysis. One issue: I didn’t see Pawlenty’s speech- I had to work- but I did see him speak in 2007 and thought him very good. Hotline’s analysis makes two errors- first, it brings him to the level of first-tier candidate by comparing him to Romney, despite his clear second-tier status; secondly, it declares him a loser despite Hotline’s analysis seemingly showing Pawlenty staying at least neutral regarding his 2012 chances. Neutral, with Pawlenty’s current standings in polls and nationwide recognition, is certainly not a loss.

This is part of an email recently sent by FairTax Nation:

We are pleased to announce the following additions to the program for the Storm the Hill rally since our last update…

Thursday, April 15th, 2010 – 9:10am – Ken Hoagland, national spokesperson, Americans For Fair Taxation

Thursday, April 15th, 2010 – 9:30am – Neal Boortz, Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show host and Co-author of the “FairTax” book

In addition, we are trying to secure former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to deliver the keynote address at our conference. Please note that Gov. Huckabee is not a firm commitment at this time, but he has been invited.

Learn more about the event: http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2oqcz4w4e357b79

He’s hilarious, dead serious, right on the money and even throws out a baseball joke. (He is a huge Chicago Cubs fan.) I saw him speak in 2008, so I know what he’s capable of, but this was speech was truly awesome.

Last week, it came out that Hot Air was being sold by Michelle Malkin to Salem Communications. Ed Morrissey and AllahPundit both commented on the acquisition- I cannot find their comments at the moment; I will update when I do- and both had very positive things to say. However, I think Michelle Malkin’s commentary on the sale is excellent, and worth posting on. It’s really long, so I’ll just post a few of the highlights.

My thanks to Salem’s David Evans, Jonathan Garthwaite, Tom Perrault, Bob Mesrop, and especially Rick Killingsworth, for their work on the acquisition, for recognizing the value of our company, for understanding what makes Hot Air tick and click, and for having the vision and skills to take Hot Air to the next level as a conservative multimedia powerhouse with the 2010 and 2012 elections just around the corner.

Initially, Hot Air featured original daily videos called “Vents” (many of which you can still watch and enjoy on YouTube or track them all down here) while the indefatigable Allahpundit held down the blogging fort. It was a blast to produce the Vents (here’s the highlight reel from year one) — which ranged from original reporting in Baghdad; to pop-culture commentaries, including an exposé of R&B singer Akon that was yanked from YouTube under pressure from Universal Music Group and restored after we successfully challenged the DMCA abuse with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; to some of my favorite shows mocking the Cindy Sheehan Diet Plan, creating a conservative alternative to The View, and smacking back at Keith Olbermann’s smears. We also featured original video from several guest show hosts, special correspondents, and contributors, and we thank them all for their contributions.

But while the original video production side of Hot Air was an immensely fun and creatively satisfying outlet, it was not a viable business model. Video ad revenue did not materialize; viewership numbers didn’t grow. Things might have turned out differently today with the advent of the iPhone/smartphones and increasing numbers of people watching Internet video on their TVs. Perhaps we were just a little too ahead of our time. In any case, it taught me one of the most valuable lessons we learned as a small, independent start-up company:

To survive, we needed to adapt, respond to market forces, and adjust the business focus to meet readers’ revealed preferences.

Some have wondered why I hired Allahpundit despite our stark differences on many social and policy issues. Are you kidding me? The phenomenal success of Hot Air speaks for itself. I valued diversity of thought on the site. The traffic and popularity of the site — from 0 to more than 25 million page views a month last fall in the short span of four years, with plaudits too many to track — show that you do, too. More to the point: No one has been more fiercely dedicated to this company than Allahpundit — from conceiving the Hot Air logo/flame that you see every time you come to the site, to hounding our tech team at the first sign of any glitch or hiccup, to combing over traffic and revenue statistics, to posting your “Quotes of the Day” at the end of every night and making sure you have a fresh set of headlines when you wake up first thing every morning.

Which brings me to another invaluable lesson that my experience running Hot Air has imparted:

Loyalty is a precious commodity. So is industry. Like gold, they have many imitators. Never take the real things for granted.

With his daily web shows, exclusive political scoops and analysis, and constant good cheer, Ed has increased Hot Air’s stature and standing enormously. He has earned the utmost respect of his peers and of the Right’s biggest names. Ed’s energy is on display every week. He covers it all from Obamateurisms of the Day, to film reviews, tax policy speeches, radio broadcasts, and the NFL. I’m ceaselessly amazed by Ed’s ability to squeeze the most out of every day, multi-task like a Swiss Army knife, and take care of and enjoy his wonderful family. When opportunity came Ed’s way, he grabbed it, hit the ground running, and has never let up. I’m forever grateful for his boundless optimism and initiative.

Which brings me to the next lesson that founding and managing Hot Air has reinforced:

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero. ( “Seize the day, counting as little as possible on tomorrow.”)

Malkin says some other great things about AllahPundit, Morrissey, her husband and others at Hot Air and Salem. I didn’t actually hear about the sale until Thursday, when Nick Brown told me about it, a day or two after Twitter started the rumors and Mediaite made it official. I was horrified, to be honest- I think Hot Air is the best site on the Internet, no questions asked, for what it does. It has a simplicity that is stunning and brilliant; front page commentary that is second-to-none, especially since both AllahPundit and Morrissey come from their own perspectives, with no loyalty to higher masters; a secondary page of commentary (the “Green Room“) that is quite good; and a rotating number of across-the-spectrum articles that I use for my own Facebook, Race42012 and THE LOBBYIST commenting at least as much as I use Real Clear Politics, Drudge, Daily Kos or Huffington Post. Lastly, as Adam Brickley and many others can tell you, Hot Air is what I have declared as the model I wish to take after for my future blogging career. Not that I have to say it at this point, but any changes to the site would be for the worse, I am certain.

Fortunately, based upon what Morrissey, AllahPundit and Malkin have said- again, I will find the former two’s comments first thing tomorrow- as well as some comments from people far more linked to Internet goings-on than I am, I think Hot Air will basically be a cash cow for Salem. This is as it should be. You don’t mess with perfection.

I was able to meet Morrissey briefly at CPAC, and saw his acceptance of “Blogger of the Year” online after the fact. I think the one thing I forgot to mention above is how Morrissey’s humbleness in crediting ideas and post updates to Hot Air commenters, and admitting mistakes in post updates, is a huge boon to the site and to him personally. He is a truly refreshing, humble person, and that was clarified to me both when I met him- admittedly, it was only for perhaps 45 seconds- and the one e-mail exchange we had in late January, as well as his speech at CPAC.

I’m going to stop now- I know I sound like a huge suck-up. It’s not my intent. I think Salem’s purchase of Hot Air- the deal goes through in a few months- is going to be a huge boon to the company, Hot Air and the conservative movement as a whole. As Malkin said, she modified the site according to market and consumer demand, and it worked spectacularly.

The word “liberal”  is one that the left has hijacked. Liberal isn’t original meaning implied generosity. The left’s views are often far from generous. My friend and former Talk Radio Show host Russ Bellville illlustrated that with a recent post at Pam’s House Blend.

In response to a complaint by local Christian Conservative leader that Boise State University was featuring only liberal speakers, Russ responded by pointing out that Idaho is an overwhelmingly Republican state that McCain carried by 25 points and then wrote:

It seems to me the conservative message has been delivered to Idahoans already and Boise State is acting as a small progressive oasis in a very conservative-dominated political landscape.  Your efforts to force the institution to bring more conservative speakers seems a bit like recruiting more preachers to speak to the choir.

In essence, what Russ is saying is that the job of the University is to bring in speakers that will counter and challenge the dominant political culture because Idaho is so conservative.

However, this raises a couple of questions. First of all, would Russ or anyone on the left advocate in states that are overwhelmingly liberal such as New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts that the University purposefully and intentionally hire Conservatives and folks from the religious right to create Conservative Oasises in progressive-dominated landscapes?

More to the point, the basic view that Russ expresses is that taxpayer funded universities in Idaho which all taxpayers paid for should be oasises that try to undermine the beliefs of the majority of the state’s residents. Undermining parents with tax dollars. Great idea in the Soviet Union, not so much in the United States.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, wrote, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Sinful and tyrannical seems to fit Russ’ call for creating a taxpayer subsidized “progressive oasis” more than liberal.

This video came out 4 days ago so it has been lost in the CPAC shuffle but it is a good weekend look at what the GOP leadership in DC is focusing on:

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

Des Moines Register/Selzer & Co. Iowa Survey on Barack Obama

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

• Approve 46% {49%} (53%) [64%]
• Disapprove ~48% {44%} (41%) [29%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with the economy?

• Approve 40% {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 54% {55%} (48%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with protecting the country against another financial crisis?

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with the budget deficit?

• Approve 30% {30%} (36%)
• Disapprove 63% {61%} (56%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with health care?

• Approve 33% {34%} (42%)
• Disapprove 59% {55%} (49%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with the fight against terrorism?

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 39%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with relations with other countries?

• Approve 60% {58%} (62%)
• Disapprove 33% {33%} (31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Charles Grassley is handling his job as U.S. Senator?

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 28%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Tom Harkin is handling his job as U.S. Senator?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 34%

Survey of 805 adults was conducted by Selzer and Co. January 31 – February 3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 8-11, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14-16, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 30 – April 1, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Approval among Iowa independents has dropped 10 percentage points since November, to 38 percent.

One-third of independents now say they approve of his work on the economy, about 30 percent on health care and less than a quarter on the budget deficit.

A 52 percent majority of independent voters nationally backed Obama in the 2008 election, according to exit polls conducted for CNN. In Iowa, the percentage was higher, at 56, according to those exit polls. Obama carried Iowa with 54 percent of the vote. In the new Iowa Poll, 37 percent of independent likely voters approve of Obama’s performance.

Obama’s approval from Democrats remains high at 83 percent, virtually unchanged from November but lower than the 90 percent in September. Republican approval remains low at 15 percent, about the same as in November.

President Bill Clinton was the most recent president to experience a similar drop in his Iowa approval early in his presidency. The Democrat’s approval in Iowa fell by 22 percentage points in 1993 during his first 10 months in office.

Clinton’s eight-year low in Iowa was 49 percent, reached midway through his second year in office.