Utah senatorial candidate Mike Lee is making the rounds here in the CPAC bloggers lounge after being introduced to us by Erick Erickson.  Had the chance to talk to him and I like this guy a LOT. Really passionate about the Constitution and limited government. Wants legislation to limit government spending to 20% of GDP (great idea!).

Sen. Bob Bennett is definitely going to have a hard time holding this guy off in a primary. Worth noting that Lee has the endorsement of State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who had been the main challenger to Bennett before dropping out in November.

———————–

I’ll be live-tweeting all day from CPAC, http://twitter.com/adambrickley

Lower taxes, no double taxation (taxing interest, death, etc.).

Lower corporate tax rates so we are competitive internationally.

Stop cap-and-trade, trust the American innovator, on energy.

Put the consumer in charge of health care spending in America. (How?)

Tort reform. *Thumbs up*

Let’s prove we are serious about holding down spending.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is America’s biggest threat.

We’ll punish their allies, and support our allies. (Iran and Israel, respectively.)

We’ll destroy their cells, kill their leaders, etc. We’ll capture those who survive.

Bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

Closing…already?

It’s sometimes easy to forget how great America being born in this country. Born to exiles, he knows this. Things are possible here and not possible elsewhere.

Other countries allow government to dictate who fails and succeeds. This country is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

His parents worked hard and suffered to help his family move forward.

He owes God, his parents’ sacrifices, and The USA. His parents had no influence or power, but worked hard so their kids could.

Our leaders are asking us to abandon what separates us from the rest of the world. We must decide what we want our kids to inherit.

“If we fail,” the next generation will be hit hard by the failure.

Like those before us, we rose to face the challenges of our times.

No policy specifics, unfortunately. It would have been nice to see in-depth platform ideas.

Figure it’s probably best to not do a whole lot of two-sentence posts – so if you want blow-by-blow, I’ll be live-tweeting at http://twitter.com/adambrickley

There will definitely be speech recops posted here – as Mr. Siggins is taking copoious notes on Rubio’s adress in the next chair over.

Rubio is really working the crowd, and is talking about how great America is for enterprise, how we are the greatest country in the world, how we are a free society, etc. He also is going after those who think America needs government guidance.

He says people with the latter viewpoint won elections, and are using this downturn to change, not fix, America. “It’s the expansion of government at home” that has implications on our foreign policy. China, in particular, reminds us of how much debt we owe them whenever we say something they don’t like.

Rubio’s now talking about how government leaders are redefining how America works and runs. It was the PEOPLE who did it, though, not their “leaders” in DC or government.

The political class and mainstream media are out of touch, and don’t get it. 2010 is not a choice between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives…it’s a referendum on our country.

The people want leaders who stand against big government, not get co-opted by it. The Senate has “one Arlen Specter too many.”

Up and running here at the bloggers lounge alongside Dustin Siggins.

Kickoff speaker Marco Rubio is on stage now (says “blizzard must be best thing to happen to the American economy in 12 months!”). Doing a good job working the crowd right now.

Also just met congressional candidate Joel Pollak - who’s running against Jan Schakowsky in Illinois. After a few minutes talking with the guy – you can count on hearing a lot more about him from me.

THIS should be interesting. DeMint’s introduction is good.

Adam Brickley and I just got into Blogger’s Lounge- we’ll post updates as the day goes on. I don’t see Alex Knepper yet…

An article in Tuesday’s Politico highlighted how President Obama will be adjusting his schedule in 2010 to lend a bigger hand to Democrats as they attempt to go against the political environment and bring home a victory on election day.

White House aides have said recently that the president will spend more time on the road, part of an effort to position him above the Washington fray and perhaps a signal that he intends to play a bigger role in helping candidates from his party who are facing tough contests.

The article focuses primarily on the President’s current approval ratings and how they may correlate to electoral success.

I think they miss an important point – specifically, when traveling to assist candidates, how has he done so far?

‘Horrendous’ may be putting it kindly.

Just how horrendous is best determined by comparing his Strong Approval ratings to poll numbers before his arrival and the final vote results.

Since then, the President’s national Strong Approval ratings have sunk even lower – averaging out at around 25% since early February.

What’s the big deal about Strong Approval? Well, in a nationalized election, as the Democrats seem to be playing it, those who strongly approve of the President are most likely to go out and vote for him/Democrats. And we all know how important Get Out the Vote efforts are in an election.

Now take into consideration that the President’s Strong Approval rating at the time of his visit in New Jersey, a strongly blue state, was 13 points higher than it is now in national polling. In Taxachusetts, it was 12 points higher.

In other words, at a national level, the number of Obama’s strong supporters has shrunk even since the President’s campaign failures in severely blue states.

Simply put, if sending Obama to campaign didn’t work in New Jersey and Massachusetts, it definitely won’t work most anywhere else.

Jon Keeling is the author of Third Base Politics.

The Tolbert Report has information posted about a Huck PAC fundraiser in Mississippi that happened last evening. It was a $250/couple event with $500/couple price for a special reception and photo op. The Tolbert Report also discovered that the host appears to be a former Thompson backer:

It will be tonight in Oxford at the private residence of denist Walker Swaney, who interestingly enough was a major donor to the Fred Thompson for President Campaign.

Is Huckabee expanding his grip into the southern fund-raising base? He certainly is going to need to raise more money from larger donors if we wants to win in 2012. As the 2009 Huck PAC fundraising report showed, Huckabee was able to get a lot of donations in but their size was significantly smaller compared to what Pawlenty and Romney were able to do.

Note: Houston Nutt is the head coach at University of Mississippi and former head coach of University of Arkansas.

Today, Chris Cillizza produced a thought-provoking piece regarding a potential complication for the oft-mentioned contenders for the 2012 Republican nomination:

The prominence of former Vice President Dick Cheney (again) in the debate over terrorism and national security speaks to a remarkable void of authoritative voices on those issues among the aspiring 2012 Republican presidential field.

The likely field is currently dominated by former governors (Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin) and a current governor (Tim Pawlenty) who have next-to-no experience with matters of national security and terrorism, having served only as chief executives of their states.

Even among the handful of federal officials (former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Mike Pence, Sen. John Thune) there is a dearth of in-depth experience on national security and terrorism matters.

…Although national security/foreign policy aren’t tremendously pressing as issues today, the 2008 presidential election is instructive about how quickly these things can change.

When the 2008 presidential primary fight began the dominant issue was the war in Iraq. The premise behind then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s seemingly audacious bid for the presidency was that he had opposed the war from the start while some of the other frontrunners in the race — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards — had not.

But, as the primary process wore on (and on), the war faded as an issue and once Obama became the presidential nominee, the economic collapse became the dominant point of debate. That switch proved extremely detrimental to Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) chances as he struggled to bring the same passion, energy and knowledge to domestic affairs that he clearly felt about matters of foreign policy and national security.

With that race in mind, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that it is uniquely possible that the economy fades somewhat as an issue between now and 2012 while the war in Aghanistan and the ways in which President Obama is trying to keep the country safe rise in importance.

…Obama’s strength on the issue could, of course, recede in the same way that George W. Bush watched his approval numbers on the war in Iraq erode as the conflict dragged on without any sign of victory.

But, today, he remains a potent and trusted force in handling the threat of terror — a standing that presents a major roadblock for Republicans on what had been a traditional area of strength. And, in two years time, he will have spent a full term as commander-in chief and could fall back on his experiences during that time to show his ability to make national security decisions under fire.

That roadblock is made larger by the lack of an obvious candidate who can stand toe to toe with Obama on national security and foreign policy issues.

We’re still a long way from the 2012 election and the Republican field is still decidedly fluid. But, look to see whether of the candidates already assumed to be running begin to position themselves as the — or at least a — leading voice on national security matters. It’s an open space that needs filling and, of course, politics abhors a vacuum.

I agree with the perspective Cillizza takes. One of Sen. McCain’s most frequently used attacks on Obama in 2008 involved the then-Senator’s lack of experience, especially when contrasted with McCain when it came to foreign policy. However, the GOP will not have that opportunity in 2012 (what better foreign policy experience can someone have than actually SERVING as commander-in-chief?).

Cillizza did omit mention of one candidate who could fill the national security void for the GOP: Rudy Giuliani. Perceived as one of the party’s authorities on the topic, the Mayor could benefit the most from security issues gaining in importance in the minds of voters. If economic issues retain their colossal salience (which, I wholeheartedly believe they will), Rudy could find the political environment perfect for him to convince primary voters to overlook the feelings of disappointment and uncertainty his 2008 run imparted.

Research 2000/WCAX Vermont Gubernatorial Survey

• Deb Markowitz (D): 43%
• Brian Dubie (R): 41%

• Brian Dubie (R): 43%
• Doug Racine (D): 38%

• Brian Dubie (R): 45%
• Peter Shumlin (D): 35%

• Brian Dubie (R): 44%
• Matt Dunne (D): 36%

• Brian Dubie (R): 48%
• Susan Bartlett (D): 30%

Survey of 400 likely voters was conducted February 14-16, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

Well, according to the wise Keith Olbermann’s standards, yes.  If the Tea Party is racist, then I guess NBC & MSNBC are too.  For Olbermann’s “some of my best friends are black” defense of his show and his network, click here.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

H/T: The Economy Collapse

I may have the reputation of being the resident “minor league scout” around here – but even I don’t normally go all the way down to the County level. However, I will make an exception for David Williams in his campaign for County Commissioner in El Paso County, Colorado (which encompasses the Colorado Springs Metro Area) . I do this partly because Dave is an old friend and a close political associate of mine – but mostly because he’s represents a story that needs to be told and a voice that needs to be heard.

At age 22, one would think that David Williams is “inexperienced” when it comes to politics – and as far as municipal government that might be true. However, over the last few years, David has been run through the political wringer in ways that most of us can only imagine. Generally, the office of “student body president” at a university hardly qualifies as solid preparation for actual political  involvement, but most student body  presidents don’t have to deal with a local media circus, a hostile university  administration, and constant impeachment and recall threats by the campus left. David Williams dealt with all of that and more – and he not only emerged stonger, he came out a hero to local Republicans and a nominee for a prestigous national youth leadership award.

So – what happened? Well let’s start at the beginning:

I got to know David in 2007, when I served as his campaign manager in a failed bid to win the student body presidencyat the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs  (his running mate Josh Green was my closest friend in College Republicans). I was was extremely impressed by his plans to morph student government from a largely meaningless resume builder into a forceful voice for current students against university administrators who were increasingly out of touch. For instance, the university (a commuter school) continually raised parking fees while purposefully reducing the number of spaces to encourage the student body to become more traditional and dorm oriented – David wanted a Student Parking Advisory Board to remind them that most of their current students were local commuters, many of whom had families and jobs off campus and didn’t appreciate being written out of the university’s future plans.   

After losing badly and being massively outspent, we regrouped and spent the next year planning a well-funded campaign that could actually win. One year and a lot of work, our steamrolling 2008 campaign succeeded in installing Dave and his new running mate Andy Adair as the heads of Student Govenrment. I graduated a happy man just a few months later – but for the madness was just beginning for President-elect Williams.

Just a few months into his term – David ran afoul of the left by withholding his signature from a funding request by Spectrum – the campus LGBT club - to finance their annual “Coming Out Day.” He purposefully didn’t veto it, citing their right to free speech and access to funds, so they got the money automatically after five days – he just didn’t feel comfortable approving the event. Now – before you label Dave a bigot, you need to understand that this was about more than just his religious opposition to a lifestyle. Yes, David did cite his personal values as the reason for exercising a pocket approval rather than an actual  signing – but Dave and I had a long talk about the issue when I was his campaign manger. At the time, he told me it just about his personal opposition, but also about his view that the Spectrum was discriminatory. He had voted against funding before as a Student Senator, becasue he saw Spectrum’s specific interpretation of “Coming Out Day” as both genuinely heterophobic and disrespectful of the right of individuals to remain closeted if they so chose - which would put them in violation of all sorts of non-discrimination clauses in the bylaws.   

Anyway, Spectrum threw a fit  – and even though Williams specifically ensured they got every dime they requested - launched an effort to have him impeached or recalled. The student judicial body ruled that he was withing his rights, but an appeal the Chancellor overruled them  and said that he was required to lend his signature and approval to Coming Out Day. This caused a circus in the local media – who were rather flabbergasted that the university would force an elected student official to support and advocate an event that he believed to be a poor use of student funds (regardless of whether they agreed with him). His cause was taken up by several conservative and Christian legal groups - who appealed to the Board of Regents. The Regents sent the case back to the Chancellor with instructions to seek a legal opinion before ruling – and this time the Chancellor ruled that David had done nothing wrong.

 He was allowed to finish his term, although all of his original plans (which originally enjoyed broad support) were shot down out of pure spite by the legislature.  And, perhaps proving David’s worry that they were heterophobes, Spectrum responded by purposefully running (and electing) an all-gay slate of candidates for the student body’s executive branch the next year (I would note that such a petty move actually undermines the notion of a “gay-straight alliance” – which is what they called themselves).

Now, you can agree or disagree with the decision not to sign the original bill, but it’s hard to argue with David’s courageous stand for free speech (remember that he was targeted not for a veto, but for disagreeing with a funding request that he ALLOWED TO PASS).  That fight took a lot of guts and a lot of work,  and I’m very proud that he was willing to go through it for the sake of free speech.

He also proved that he has the gumption and the fire in the belly to move on to “real” political office. He is already a member of the local Republican executive committee and a bit of a folk hero to some local conservatives, so this is not entirely a Don Quixote candidacy. Furthermore, from my past experience, I know that David is just as passionate (actually more passionate) about fiscal conservatism and responsive government as he is about his personal values.   

So, while I’m likely to take some heat for this, I am proud to throw my support behind my old friend in his run for County Commissioner. Furthermore, I have every intention of continuing to spread the word about a man I consider to be a dynamic conservative leader and a potential future candidate for state-level office in Colorado.  

At the moment, Dave is a bit of an underdog in a primary against State Board of Education member Peggy Littleton. However, I am confident that he can beat Littleton if he can get his name and personal story in the media. After all, how often is it that a 22 year old  can mount a legitimate campaign for office in a city of a half-million people?

Kudos to the Crist campaign for coming up with this advance copy of Marco Rubio’s address to CPAC. Good Time Charlie may not make many of Florida’s conservatives smile, but this clever effort just might wipe the grin off his competitor’s face.

February 17th, 2010

REMARKS BY FORMER FLORIDA HOUSE SPEAKER MARCO RUBIO BEFORE
THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CPAC)
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010 – WASHINGTON, DC

***Not Prepared for Delivery, Not Embargoed Until Delivery***

Good morning. Thank you for that warm welcome and the opportunity to speak to you about why I’m running for the U.S. Senate. [WAIT FOR APPLAUSE]

Since my campaign began, I’ve had the privilege of becoming the latest cover boy. Ask my lobbyist[1] colleagues — I’m a capitalist (at least when it comes to benefitting financially while claiming to serve the people of Florida[2]). And, capitalizing on that wave, I have successfully painted myself as a political outsider[3]. Our success in convincing voters that I am a new voice in Florida politics is surprising even to me. It seems that people are quick to forget (and I certainly won’t remind them!) that I was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000 and rose through the Republican leadership ranks to become the Speaker of the Florida House. All of this by a spry 36.

I owe most of my recent success from a single photograph. I say, ‘image is everything’ – and luckily, I found a photo with the Governor of Florida greeting the President of the United States. And Presto! Instant candidacy for moi! Sure, my opponent was aware Florida was facing a $6 billion dollar deficit and supported getting Florida our fair share of federal money. And, sure, I admitted I would have accepted the stimulus money too in a recent interview[4] (Stimulus! See, just like that, I say the word whenever I can). But that’s the Magic of Marco – I just back-tracked. I find it’s easier to criticize when you are out of office than when you are in office. I’m glad I was not Speaker at that time, or else I would have joined my Republican colleagues in the Florida Legislature and supported the stimulus money for our state, which would have been much harder to back track. That’s what you call lucky.

Concerned about out of control spending in Washington? Me too! Pay no attention to the fact that I sent my opponent, Gov. Crist, our state budget loaded with hundreds of millions in special interest earmarks – Crist vetoed $459 million of it[5]. I’ve helped support enough earmarks[6] during my time in Tallahassee to make even Shamu’s head swim! I even tried to score some new turf for my flag football league[7] (who wouldn’t want me on their team? I deliver![8]), but that was found out and promptly vetoed too[9]. I even spent over half a million dollars of Republican Party of Florida money just on my 100 ideas book[10] – including about $175,000 to seek other people’s ideas[11] and another $150,000 for other people to write them all down[12].

We all hate taxes. I hate them even more. Like when I proposed the largest tax increase in Florida history[13] – boy, I hate that. Lucky Grover Norquist doesn’t hold it against me that I raised taxes when I was in local government too[14].

I enjoyed speaking to some of you prior to my remarks. Besides the issues I just touched on, I heard directly about your concerns relating to illegal immigration and cap and trade. I want to touch on both topics now.

When it comes to immigration, I am all about talking tough[15] – my approach stems from the fact that it is easier to discuss the issue than to fix it. I had a bear of a time back in 2007 with this issue. Six Republican members introduced legislation that would have cracked down on illegal immigration in our state[16]. Frankly, I had no appetite to deal with this, so I never called one bill up for consideration[17]. Pay no attention that my more lenient views on immigration were well documented by many at the time[18]. I supported legislation that would have given illegals in-state tuition discounts instead of out of state costs[19]. I even won the support of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) – they gave me their highest award in 2007! They do seem to be a bit miffed at me lately, they claim I’m not the same guy I was in 2007[20]. Whatever … Stimulus!]

I now say cap and trade is wrong, but I supported a carbon tax[21]. May sound strange (does to me too), and I know that shakes many of you to the core, but it’s true. Before I became a candidate for U.S. Senate I supported giving Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection agency a mandate to go out and develop a cap and trade program including a carbon tax[22]. This position was to get ahead of what would be coming down from Washington[23]. Clearly I read the political tides wrong, but I cannot stand by my comments from March 2008 or all of you will see right through me, I mean, that’s a lifetime ago in politics. Moving on …

More than anything else, my political rise provided me with the ability to influence public policy and see firsthand why Americans are tired of insider deal making[24] and self-interest influence[25]. We must put an end to this type of influence in today’s politics. There is no one who understands this more than I – a lobbyist while serving Floridians in the House[26].

I am not naïve when it comes to dealing with this kind of corruption in the political system. I have learned these lessons from firsthand experience. You see, when I was Speaker of the House, I tried to influence the political process by inserting language into three pieces of legislation to help a campaign contributor and close political ally be able to secure business with the Florida Turnpike[27]. I’m sure many in this room during a recent trip to Florida became familiar with the Florida Turnpike. I slipped this language in to the different bills with the hope it would not cause a concern. However, my actions hindered my chance of helping my donor and unfortunately all the bills were vetoed by Gov. Crist[28] (three separate pieces of legislation, it can’t get better than that- sorry buddy I tried!).

Being out of office now has benefits, though. I’m able to crisscross Florida any time I want because of the flexibility I have from my current job at Florida International University[29]. Education is very important to me. Although I never really paid FIU any attention before[30], as Speaker, I made it a priority during my two years to funnel millions of dollars to FIU[31] so that they could be leaders within our state university system. I knew they were counting on me[32] and, let me tell you, my partnership with them paid off big time. I was so excited about taking a part-time job, thankfully unadvertised, with FIU making $69,000 a year with full health benefits[33]. I hear the challenges of folks every day when it comes to health care. I’m just glad I was taken care of. I showed my good pal Ray Sansom, my successor and hand-picked budget chief[34] how to do this too – unfortunately for him, he wasn’t near as sly as I was.

I’m thrilled many of you don’t know me or what I’ve done during my 8 years in Tallahassee. My record is irrelevant in this campaign. My previous statements and actions serve no purpose in this campaign[35]. The fact that I’m a lobbyist and lobbied during my time in the Florida House has no place in this campaign. Many sundry things about me are out there but they have no place in this campaign. As I’ve said before, everything is done in the context of the moments in which you’re living[36]. So, anyone who brings up the fact that I have a record or even refers to me as Speaker must be running the most negative campaign in the history of modern politics, and, because of such, I refuse to talk about my past. I’m like the Great and Powerful Oz – pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! All you need to know is that I’m an outsider, I mean Conservative Outsider! [APPLAUSE]. (Oops, I almost forgot that one). I’m the new guy. I just hope this best kept secret remains just that. Despite my experiences and time in Tallahassee, I thank you for your support.

[STAFF ENTERS WITH THRONE]

(more…)

First lady Michelle Obama will appear on this weekend’s Huckabee program to talk childhood obesity. Personally I think this is the right way to address the problem…through education of the public instead of government mandates.

PPP (D) National Political Survey

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

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

Among Independents

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

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

• Support 39% {36%} (40%) [39%] {40%} (42%) [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 50% {51%} (49%) [52%] {52%} (45%) [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

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

This fall, will you definitely vote for a Democrat for Congress, consider voting for a Democrat for Congress, or definitely not vote for a Democrat for Congress?

• Definitely voting Democratic 34%
• Will consider voting Democratic 24%
• Definitely not voting Democratic 37%

Among Independents

• Definitely voting Democratic 19%
• Will consider voting Democratic 41%
• Definitely not voting Democratic 33%

Do you think gay men and women should be able to serve openly in the military?

• Yes 54%
• No 37%

Among Independents

• Yes 57%
• No 36%

Among Republicans

• Yes 33%
• No 54%

Among Democrats

• Yes 71%
• No 25%

Among Moderates

• Yes 66%
• No 28%

Among Men

• Yes 49%
• No 44%

Among Women

• Yes 59%
• No 31%

Who did you vote for President in 2008?

• Barack Obama 51% {52%} (47%) [47%] {47%}
• John McCain 46% {45%} (46%) [45%] {45%}

Survey of 743 registered voters was conducted February 13-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% {38%} (36%) [39%] Democrat; 34% {34%} (35%) [34%] Republican; 26% {28%} (29%) [27%] Independent. Political ideology: 48% {40%} (47%) [41%] Moderate; 35% {41%} (39%) [41%] Conservative;16% {19%} (14%) [18%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 29-31, 2010 are in curly brackets. 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.

CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Tea Party Movement

What is your view of the Tea Party — would you say you strongly support it, moderately support it, moderately oppose it, or strongly oppose it, or don’t you know enough about the Tea Party to say?

• Strongly support 15%
• Moderately support 20%
• Moderately oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 11%
• Don’t know enough to say 45%

Please tell me whether you have or have not done each of the following:

Given money to any organization associated with the Tea Party movement

• Yes, have done so 2%
• No, have not 97%

Attended a rally or meeting held by any organization associated with the Tea Party movement

• Yes, have done so 5%
• No, have not 95%

Took any other active steps to support the Tea Party movement, either in person or through e-mail or on the internet

• Yes, have done so 7%
• No, have not 92%

Now suppose the elections for Congress were being held today and a third candidate were running who was endorsed by the Tea Party movement. Which candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?

• Democratic party’s candidate 46%
• Republican party’s candidate 32%
• The Tea Party’s candidate 16%

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

Inside the numbers:

Among Tea Party activists (those who have taken steps to support the Tea Party Movement). Representation of all respondents in parentheses.

• Vote for Republican candidate for U.S. House: 87% (46%)
• Vote for Democratic candidate for U.S. House: 5% (46%)
• Conservative: 77% (40%); Moderate: 20% (39%); Liberal: 3% (18%)
• Describe self as: Independent: 52% (44%); Republican: 44% (25%); Democrat: 4% (32%)
• Rural: 50% (38%); Suburban: 41% (41%); Urban: 9% (21%)
• Men: 60% (50%); Women: 40% (50%)
• White: 80% (71%); Hispanic: 10% (11%); Black: 2% (11%)

The Catholic Church has pulled its DC foster program, according to The Washington Post:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city’s move to legalize same-sex marriage.

Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program — 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members — to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn’t know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1.

In addition to foster care, the center runs programs in Montgomery County and the District for homeless families and victims of domestic violence.

The marriage bill, which was approved and signed in December, is expected to become law in the next couple of weeks if it clears a congressional review period.

Catholic Charities, which receives $20 million from the city, had sounded alarms in the run-up to the council vote, saying programs serving tens of thousands of people were in danger. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes same-sex marriage.

The church and some experts said the city’s measure has narrower exemptions for religious groups than other same-sex marriage laws across the country, particularly when it comes to requiring benefits for the same-sex partners of employees.

City officials knew of no other faith-based groups that said their city contracts were in jeopardy.

Edward Orzechowski, president and chief executive of Catholic Charities, the archdiocese’s social service arm, said the group is optimistic that it will find a way to structure its benefits packages in other social service programs so that it can remain in partnership with the city without recognizing same-sex marriage.

Asked if that meant looking at ways to avoid paying benefits to same-sex partners or ways to write benefits plans so as not to characterize same-sex couples as “married,” Orzechowski said “both, and.”

“Now we’re in a position where we need to scrutinize everything,” he said. “From our point of view, it’s important that we don’t in any way compromise our religious teaching.”

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), chief sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and chairman of the Health Committee, declined Tuesday to comment on the issue. Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the committee that oversaw the legislation, said he wasn’t aware that the church had ended its foster-care program.

The archdiocese includes the District and suburban Maryland. Its Catholic Charities arm runs 82 programs serving people in those areas.

Unfortunately, this is only the first step in the process of the Church leaving social services in Washington, DC. Also unfortunately, the liberal tendency is to keep misrepresenting the issue as Catholic bigotry. They phrase the argument as the Church giving an ultimatum to the city, when a closer look at the debate clearly shows the truth:

“We’re not threatening to withdraw services,” said Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman. “We’re not going to be allowed to provide services. We need to be certified, and to get certified you need to say you followed D.C. law.”

I have debated and discussed this issue over the last few months, and wrote a post on it in November. Unfortunately, it’s like banging my head against a rock wall. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, the simple fact is that the city is creating a requirement. Because of the Church’s view of gay marriage, it cannot follow that requirement. Thus, the Church will not be able to take a contract from the city. As a result, the city needs to find a new organization to contract with. Simple. Why can’t liberals accept that?

Unfortunately for DC, as noted by Jonetta Rose in The Washington Examine, the Church does a lot of good for the city that will be difficult to replace:

Currently, the archdiocese, through its social services arm, Catholic Charities, cares for about 68,000 people in the District. Its counseling, homeless shelter and adoption programs are funded with a combination of about $20 million in government contracts and about $10 million of its own money. Those services are now in jeopardy.

If one supports gay marriage, and prefers gay-beneficial legislation over helping the poor, fine. Go for it. Good for you for sticking up for your beliefs. However, do not misrepresent this critical issue, and do not blame the Catholic Church for the issue. It is the city leadership which has decided to create the schism and harm the poor, not the Church. The Church is merely responding appropriately to the regulation.

Rasmussen Oregon Senatorial Survey

• Ron Wyden (D) 49%
• Jim Huffman (R) 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Ron Wyden 55% / 36% {+19%}
• Jim Huffman 33% / 24% {+9%}

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

• Strongly approve 30%
• Somewhat approve 20%
• Somewhat disapprove 12%
• Strongly disapprove 37%

Note: Barack Obama won 57% of the vote in Oregon in November 2008.

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

• Strongly approve 7%
• Somewhat approve 33%
• Somewhat disapprove 24%
• Strongly disapprove 34%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 16, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Kick. Ass. Ad.

Here is a link to The Mount Vernon Statement, which will be signed today.

It is a re-assertion of core conservative principles.

You can add your signature to it.

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

Sarah Palin says birthers have a right to be a part of Tea Party movement

Yeah…and Obama wants to expand government control over health care delivery?

We are soooo close to being able to achieve one of the longstanding goals of this site: to commission a GOP primary/caucus poll of an early state.

So many of you have been very generous with donations, and I am deeply thankful to you all for your contributions.

We are so close Race42012 family! All we need is 20 people to donate $15 and we are there. If you are able to help make this little dream of ours a reality, please hit the donate button below. Thanks again for your consideration.

[UPDATE] Many, many thanks to those who have donated so far. We are now HALF WAY THERE! If we can find just ten more folks to donate an average of $15 dollars each, this is a done deal! Fifteen bucks is less than lunch for two at Panera my friends. Wouldn’t you rather have a snapshot of the state of the Republican presidential race in an early primary state than a “You pick two” soup and salad combo? I know I would. In fact, I am forgoing my weekend Panera lunches for two months to pay for my share of this poll. It will totally be worth it though.

The McCain camp is holding nothing back against JD Hayworth — it’s taken an Uzi to a knife fight. Keep on smashing this Abramoff pond scum, senator!

…[I]t was sad to see [J.D. Hayworth] use blatant lies and fabrications to attack Senator McCain when he ‘officially’ entered the race for U.S. Senate today. Some examples:

“Mr. Hayworth falsely said today that Senator McCain supported the Obama budget when in fact Senator McCain not only opposed the Obama budget, but offered an alternative for the Republicans focused on pro-growth economic policies, eliminating wasteful pork barrel spending and help for small businesses.

“Mr. Hayworth falsely said today that Senator McCain supported banking legislation with earmarks when in fact the bill that Senator McCain voted for included no earmarks whatsoever, and unlike Mr. Hayworth, Senator McCain has never sought a pork barrel earmark and led the fight to ban the practice.

…

We look forward to reminding Arizona voters about Mr. Hayworth’s real record of liberal big government spending and ethically questionable conduct, including:

“Mr. Hayworth voted for the 2005 Highway Bill that included 6,500 pork barrel earmarks totaling more than $24 billion — including $200 million for the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ Senator McCain opposed that obscene spending bill, has never sought an earmark and sponsored legislation to kill the ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’

“Mr. Hayworth voted for the Prescription Drug Benefit that added a huge new entitlement to Medicare and left American taxpayers with trillions in unfunded liabilities. Senator McCain led the charge against it.

“Mr. Hayworth was the largest recipient of campaign contributions tied to the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Senator McCain led the investigation that exposed Abramoff’s corruption.

“Mr. Hayworth today promised to serve only two terms if elected, but he made — and broke — a similar pledge when he first ran for Congress, so why would anyone believe him now?

JD Hayworth wasn’t content to lose a House seat for us — now he wants us to lose a Senate seat, too.

If there’s any justice in the world, McCain will win this primary by 50 points and JD Hayworth will never find radio success again.

Huck PAC is out with a statement announcing Hogan Gidley, former South Carolina GOP executive director,  as the new main guy:

Little Rock – Governor Mike Huckabee announced today that Hogan Gidley, former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party and communications director for former U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole’s re-election campaign will take over as executive director of HuckPAC, his political action committee.

Sarah Huckabee, who served as executive director of HuckPAC from April 2008 until now, will be leaving her role at HuckPAC to serve as campaign manager for Congressman John Boozman’s U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Hogan Gidley will be moving from Columbia, SC to Little Rock, AR in the next week as the transition is underway. He served as communications director for Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s re-election campaign in 2008. From 2006-2007, during the lead up to the 2008 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary, Gidley was executive director of the South Carolina Republican party.

Prior to leading the South Carolina Republican Party, Hogan Gidley worked for Richard Quinn and Associates, where he served as campaign adviser and spokesperson to South Carolina Governor David Beasley. From 2000-2004, Gidley performed a variety of roles for Governor Mike Huckabee, including director of media operations.

“Hogan Gidley brings a wealth of experience to HuckPAC and will be a great asset to our team, having worked in a variety of leadership positions in several key states,” Governor Mike Huckabee said. “I look forward to working with Hogan again and he and I are committed to ramping up Huck PAC’s efforts to elect conservative candidates nationwide.”

I call a giant STOP to both sides of the stupid mainstream media/Palin round-and-round. In the latest spat Family Guy, which makes fun of every single possible stereotype and person in America and around the world, made fun of Governor Palin’s handicapped child. It was inappropriate, and Palin was rightfully offended (plus, it wasn’t even a funny joke). However, instead of handling the “issue” with a private conversation with a Family Guy producer, or some other appropriately private, non-dramatic response, Palin felt the “joke” merited this, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith:

People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut. Bristol was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother, Trig (and/or others with special needs), in an episode yesterday. Instead of answering, I asked her what she thought. Here is her conscientious reply, which is a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question, “when is enough, enough?”:

“When you’re the son or daughter of a public figure, you have to develop thick skin. My siblings and I all have that, but insults directed at our youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent. People with special needs face challenges that many of us will never confront, and yet they are some of the kindest and most loving people you’ll ever meet. Their lives are difficult enough as it is, so why would anyone want to make their lives more difficult by mocking them? As a culture, shouldn’t we be more compassionate to innocent people – especially those who are less fortunate? Shouldn’t we be willing to say that some things just are not funny? Are there any limits to what some people will do or say in regards to my little brother or others in the special needs community? If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed. All they proved is that they’re heartless jerks. – Bristol Palin”

I had barely heard of Sarah Palin before she was picked as the Republican nominee for Vice President. I was shocked at the immediate and ridiculous “reporting” and “commentary” by major news sources, blogs and talk shows about Palin and her family. It was made even worse the complicity by those on the left in not speaking out against the many absurd accusations, insinuations and inappropriate comments made in the weeks after she entered the race.

Since then, the anti-Palin crowd has done little but keep poking at her in ways that defy logic and moving the country forward. Instead of targeting her policy platforms- or lack thereof- they go after her and her family personally. Two easy examples are David Letterman’s wholly inappropriate targeting of her underage daughter and the liberals who targeted her “hand notes” in her Tea Party Convention speech.

Unfortunately, however, Palin has brought much of the negative attention of the last twelve months upon herself by- and this is but one example- responding to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s “F-ing retarded” comment not directed specifically at her or anyone who is handicapped. While certainly inappropriate, the comments did not call for Palin’s exaggerated response.

Before the Palinites go after me, please remember that President Obama did not personally respond to Rush Limbaugh’s out-of-line comment about “Obama’s America” and racial fights. He did not go after Free Republic for allowing racist comments targeting his family. While the man is not perfect, certainly, he still understands that being a leader includes ignoring much of the vitriol thrown around in America. It’s an unfortunate part of being a public figure in a country with free speech, especially in the age of the Internet, talk radio, television talk shows, Facebook and Twitter. It doesn’t help that Palin is superbly unqualified for President of The United States, surpassed only by President Obama in that category of the probable 2012 presidential candidates.

I was cautiously optimistic about Sarah Palin when was ran with Senator McCain (R-AZ) 18 months ago. However, her inflammatory comments about parts of America being anti-American (among others), her lack of an in-depth policy platform and her thin skin have turned me off from supporting her. Perhaps if Palin spent more of her time making the kinds of speeches and comments that are a credit to her- like her Tea Party speech, which I admittedly missed but read good reviews about, or her views about drilling and energy- instead of falsely claiming death panels and saying “common-sense” with the frequency with which President Obama used to say “Hope & Change”- the inappropriate comments by the media would bounce right off as Americans recognized her competence, leadership potential, etc. Unfortunately, she has not done so, and thus is unpopular with Americans. Even more unfortunately, her popularity with Republicans is very high, which means she may very well face, and be destroyed by, President Obama in 2012.

I know I’m rambling a bit- in short, let’s commit ourselves to tackling what’s important to America and the world. This site is well-known to have strong opinions on Palin and her qualifications, but for the future, let’s encourage the media, Palin, Palinites and Palin-haters to rise above the tit-for-tat media sound bytes that have left so many Americans embittered about this country’s future. Policy positions, platforms, leadership and America’s future should be what we, and the voters, are about, not continuing the reality TV show nature of Palin-related politics.

CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey

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

• Approve 49% (49%) [51%] {54%} <48%> (55%) [54%] {55%} <58%> (53%) [56%]
• Disapprove 50% (50%) [48%] {44%} <50%> (42%) [45%] {43%} <40%> (45%) [40%]

Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected, or not?

• Yes, deserves re-election 44%
• No, does not deserve re-election 52%

If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party’s candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?

• Republican candidate 47% [48%] (43%) [44%]
• Democratic candidate 45% [45%] (49%) [50%]

Please tell me whether you think each of the following political officeholders deserves to be re-elected or not:

The U.S. representative in your congressional district

• Yes, deserves re-election 51%
• No, does not deserve re-election 44%

Most members of Congress

• Yes, deserve re-election 34%
• No, do not deserve re-election 63%

Most Democratic members of Congress

• Yes, deserve re-election 41%
• No, do not deserve re-election 56%

Most Republican members of Congress

• Yes, deserve re-election 41%
• No, do not deserve re-election 56%

Survey of 1,023 adults, including 954 registered voters, was conducted February 12-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-24, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 8-10, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 16-20, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-3, 2009 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 30 – November 1, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-18, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 11-13, 2009 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3, 2009 are in square brackets.

“Republican, Democrat, independent, teabag person, any registered voter with a warm pulse can sign.”

- Tamyra d’Ippolito, in an interview with TPM.

If, by chance, longshot Indiana senaatorial candidate Tamyra d’Ippolito managed to get thousands of signatures filed before the deadline – which is in about 15 minutes  passed an hour ago – I figured that I would at least contribute some campaign art to her suddenly-serious effort.

I stand by my assertion earlier that petitioning d’Ippolito onto the ballot should be a genuine effort to ensure the democratic process is not short circuited – not merely an “Operation Chaos” sabotage attempt. However, after a morning of vetting, d’Ippolito could be fun to run against.  

Update: Deadline passed and the sigs aren’t in – but still a fun a worthwhile morning project for bloggers.