In the wake of the 2004 election, the last national election to produce a Republican majority, social conservatism was all the rage. President Bush’s electoral majority was comprised heavily of evangelicals and other socially conservative types, and social issues such as abortion, the judiciary, and gay marriage provided a far greater portion of the issues at the foundation of the GOP majority of the time than did spending or the size and scope of the federal government. Moreover, 2004 and 2005 were dream years for so-cons everywhere. A well-publicized exit-poll from 2004 suggested that a plurality of voters considered “moral values” to be the most important issue facing the nation. Stem cells and Terry Schiavo reignited national interest in life issues, while two wildly popular conservative jurists made their way to the Supreme Court. A world away, a conservative Cardinal was elevated to Pontiff, while here at home, majorities remained opposed to redefining marriage. Rick Santorum seemed a likely candidate for Senate Majority Leader someday, if not vice president.

But all of this collapsed when voters demonstrated their distinctly American distaste for statism of any strain and threw the bums out, so to speak, for cultural bossiness along with a bevy of other sins. Santorum’s collapse in centrist Pennsylvania was representative of the nation’s refusal to entertain a Christian Democrat version of the GOP. The Northeast cleaned house of Republican elected officials, because of spending and Iraq and corruption and incompetence of course, but also because of the increasing feeling that Northeastern Republicans were quislings of a Bible Belt GOP.

The Bush Coalition, like a broken mirror, can never and will never be put back together again. But as the last year has shown, it doesn’t have to be in order for Republicans to win elections. The McDonnell, Christie, and Brown victories along the east coast suggest that a new Republican majority is forming around small government, economic growth, and security. Bob McDonnell, the most socially conservative of the bunch, ran on economic issues, not social ones. And that coalition is quite different from the culturally conservative save-the-world crew that voted Republican in 2004. As such, what role will social conservatives play in a GOP built on the planks of economics and security?

I think that social conservatives will find a small government party quite amenable when it comes to many if not most of their key issues. Freedom of religion is an ideal shared by small government types and so-cons. Small government also requires a judiciary that maintains its proper, constitutional role, something that is probably more important to so-cons than any other issue. And the privatization of areas of the economy currently controlled by government, such as school choice, will give so-cons more of an ability to decide how to raise their children. And support for Israel, a key ally in the Middle East, will be a necessary component for a party focused on security and on defending America’s interests. These are issues which will allow so-cons to feel right at home in a small government, security-heavy version of the Republican Party, which I think is the version that we are headed towards as we enter the coming decade.

What so-cons have to be careful of, or, should I say, what the GOP elite has to be careful of is attempting to reach out to so-cons with half-hearted, red meat rhetoric of the last decade that won’t really make any headway among so-cons at the grassroots and that will actually turn off the small government types that will be at the base of the new GOP majority. Calls for government to police the culture or interfere with the private lives of individuals will seem statist to a coalition that wants first and foremost individual autonomy, and that already has made peace with the social conservatives on the issues most important to them. Moral hectoring or talk about the “real America,” almost always coming from the Beltway elite in an attempt to pander to so-cons, will get the Republican Party nowhere as we move forward.

One fine example of this can be found at the right-wing site Hot Air, which I enjoy reading and whose readership seems pretty representative of today’s conservatism. Contributor Ed Morrissey, whom I more often than not agree with, apparently sees the need to prove his so-con creds with a piece about the restaurant Hooters that could easily have been penned by the most humorless feminazi. What I find most entertaining though are the comments from the site’s readers, who by and large either defend Hooters, or who don’t see what all the fuss is about. This is from a site, mind you, where ObamaCare was gutted early and often by the site’s readership this past year, and where Sarah Palin has innumerable fans based on the commentary that posts on the Alaskan generate.

I think what “Cap’n Ed” and other conservative pundits and talking heads are going to learn over the next couple of election cycles is that moral tut-tutting is not what the coming Republican majority is all about. Freedom is what it’s about, with security as an essential pre-condition to the maintenance of freedom. Socially conservative causes are consistent with this movement to the extent that they are also causes in support of maintaining or expanding freedom and security. This is a coalition that hates collectivism, loves Sarah Palin, and in the case of both guns and Hooters, statists of all sorts will have to pry both from their cold, dead…well, you know.

Rasmussen California Gubernatorial Survey

• Meg Whitman 43% {39%} [41%] (35%)
• Jerry Brown 43% {43%} [41%] (44%)

• Jerry Brown 46% {45%} [43%] (45%)
• Steve Poizner 34% {35%] [32%] (32%)

• Dianne Feinstein 45% {43%}
• Meg Whitman 43% {42%}

• Dianne Feinstein 48% {43%}
• Steve Poizner 36% {39%}

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Meg Whitman 56% {48%} [47%] (45%) / 28% {30%} [27%] (28%) {+28%}
• Jerry Brown 53% {49%} [48%] (53%) / 41% {40%} [41%] (37%) {+12%}
• Dianne Feinstein 53% {50%} / 42% {43%} {+11%}
• Steve Poizner 38% {40%} [36%] (36%) / 37% [31%} [26%] (32%) {+1%}

How would you rate the job Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 5%
• Somewhat approve 21%
• Somewhat disapprove 36%
• Strongly disapprove 37%

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

• Strongly approve 36% <39%> {37%} [40%] (41%)
• Somewhat approve 21% <19%> {17%} [15%] (19%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% <7%> {8%} [9%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 32% <34%> {35%} [34%] (31%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 11, 2010 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 19, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 17, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Male and female voters break evenly for Whitman and Brown, although both groups prefer Brown over Poizner. Feinstein carries women against either Republican. She loses the male vote to Whitman but runs even among men against the other GOP contender.

Voters not affiliated with either major party like Whitman over Brown but favor Brown over Poizner. Feinstein runs even among unaffilateds against Whitman but leads Poizner by six among those voters.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who still sports a sky-high approval rating, is releasing a tome about “America’s core values” called “On Solid Ground,” co-written with conservative journalist Peter Schweizer — to be dropped July of this year. Now why could this be?

If Jindal’s going to run against Barack Obama, he’s in an awfully tricky spot. The next gubernatorial election is in November 2011 — a mere two months before the Iowa caucuses. It is absolutely impossible for him as a fairly unknown quantity to run a presidential campaign right after a gubernatorial one wraps up.

There remains, of course, another possibility — the only one that makes sense, in the light of the news of this not-campaign-book: that he’s going to announce in early 2011 that he is not running for re-election, instead choosing to focus on a presidential campaign. If he’s releasing a book talking about America’s core values — that is: a nationally-oriented book — then that’s the only thing that makes sense. How often does a sitting governor, interested in remaining governor for the foreseeable future, release a manifesto about bringing America back to its core values by “fundamentally transforming Washington”? Indeed, check out the product description. Does this sound like a man running for re-election?:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not only a rising star in the GOP but has been touted as the future face of the Republican Party. In his new book, Jindal tells his own inspiring story and reveals his plan for putting conservatives and America back on solid ground. Blending his personal story, including his conversion to Christianity and his unprecedented political career, with an account of his local and national governmental successes, Jindal offers a bold vision for renewing the GOP and our nation. From health care and national debt to how we can fundamentally transform Washington, Jindal tackles controversial issues and offers fresh solutions. Insightful and inspiring, On Solid Ground provides the leadership voice Republicans seek and the guidance America [Alex's note: not Louisiana] needs.

Maybe in his book he’ll explain why, as a Congressman, he voted against free trade in Central America.

You can read Gov. Pawlenty’s Health Care Op-Ed from the Washington Post here.

For me to endorse in a Democratic primary is like  the New York Times endorsing John McCain for the GOP nomination – as it should be common knowledge that I am going to support the GOP candidate in the general.

However, at this point I do feel strongly enough to issue a legitimate endorsement of Tamyra D’Ippolito’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Indiana. In the wake of Evan Bayh’s retirement, it had been assumed that no one would appear on the primary ballot and that the state’s Democratic central committee would be able to hand-pick the “strongest” candidate – this is likely why Bayh timed his retirement a day before the filing deadline.

 However, Sen. Bayh and the Democratic establishment made one minor miscalculation by forgetting that Bayh was NOT the only Democratic candidate attempting to petition onto the primary ballot. He was facing a determined (if quixotic) primary challenge from the left in the form of a Bloomington restauranteur named Tamyra D’Ippolito. As it stands now, if Ms. D’Ippolito can file 500 signatures from each of the state’s congressional districts, she almost automatically becomes the Democratic nominee.

Of course, the local Democratic establishment is freaking out about the prospect of a D’Ippolito nomination – with one party official telling Politico, “This would be a complete and unmitigated disaster….We’d be up sh—’s creek.”

Now, if this were a Republican primary in my home stat, I would  not only be laughing my head off – I would probably be standing in front of a Sam’s Club store with a handful of “D’Ippolito for Senate” petitions. This woman is going through all the proper channels to wage a Senatorial campaign, and instead of working with her, the local party is insulting her in the national mediaand praying that she falls short of ballot access. This is deplorable behavior, and while I disagree with D’Ippolito’s assertion that it is sexist, I do think it is undemocratic and runs counter to the ideals of our republic.

Furthermore, I think the Dems may be shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting this woman. She’s exactly the type of independent, anti-establishment candidate that  they would need to win as a Democrat in a very Republican climate – even if she is a little far to the left. She’s never held elected office, is unconnected to the Indiana machine, and is basically an ordinary citizen looking to build a better future. This is the appeal of Tea Party candidates on the  right, and the Dems would be foolish to pass up a chance to capitalize on that same energy.

If you live in Indiana – I would encourage you to download the petition from Tamyra’s website, get everyone you know to sign it this morning, and drop it off with you’re local election registrar by the noon deadline. You’ll have help from both genuine D’Ippolito supporters and from Erick Erickson’s RedState shock  troops – who are under orders to  help D’Ippolito get on the ballot.

For me - this is not about an “operation chaos” attempt to get a weak Dem on the ballot, as I think D’Ippolito would be a tougher-than-expected opponent – especially in the wake of a highly-publicized miracle nomination. This is about democracy in action.

 The local party bosses purposefully tried to short-circuit the process with Bayh’s last-second withdrawal – and I think the voters should push back. If don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Libertarian, or a vegetarian – if you live in Indiana and believe in democracy, then you should be circulating petitions for Tamyra D’Ippolito this morning.

UPDATE: D’Ippolito speaks!

That splattering sound you hear…that’s the state Democratic party chairman’s head exploding.

My latest Pajamas Media piece is up:

Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) is preparing to run against Senator John McCain for the U.S. Senate in this year’s Republican primary in Arizona. Some on the right, such asGlenn Beck, don’t agree with the decision of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to campaign for McCain in Arizona.

Conservative angst over what Sarah Palin does or doesn’t do in Arizona does little good. Palin will go there out of a sense of personal loyalty to a man who brought her to national attention. Personal loyalty can run deeper than political ideology. And while personal loyalty can be to a fault, leadership is impossible without it.

The question isn’t: “What should Sarah do?” The question is: “What should conservatives do?” Whether it’s the tea party movement or the March for Life, conservatives can move from the grassroots, and the smart conservative move is for conservatives to support J.D. Hayworth.

Here are are eight reasons why:

Reason #1: It could work.

With Arizona voters, John McCain has a real problem on his hands: a lack of popularity. Super Tuesday 2008 knocked Romney out of the primaries and saw McCain’s big wins in California and New York, but the untold story may have been Arizona. McCain won Arizona’s primary, but with only 47% of the vote. Republicans across the country were willing to resign themselves to McCain to avoid a prolonged primary process, yet when the votes were counted in his home state, the majority of Arizona primary voters had voted against McCain. There’s a strong possibility they could do so again.

Reason #2: Hayworth is a plausible senator.

One big objection to a Hayworth insurgent win is what message this sends to moderates. The best message may be to run in districts where you suit the district’s ideology. If a religious conservative runs for office in Maine they would get shellacked. Party bosses don’t cry in their imported wines about the message it sends to religious conservative activists about their place in the GOP.

Hayworth isn’t running in Rhode Island; he’s running in Arizona. It’s true Hayworth’s record is unabashedly conservative. The American Conservative Union gave him a 97.50% ACU rating, which is only half a percent more than the state’s other senator, Jon Kyl, who has a 96.96% ACU rating. Kyl beat his last opponent by 10 points in a Democratic year.

A gregarious ex-sportscaster, Hayworth is sharp, eloquent, charismatic, and quick-witted. These traits will be endearing to Arizonans and make him a strong candidate in the fall.

Reason #3: Conservatives don’t owe John McCain anything.

McCain has given conservatives few favors in the last ten years, and even bringing Sarah Palin onto the national stage wasn’t that big a favor. Palin’s charisma and political talents would have brought her to the national spotlight eventually. Running in her own right, as Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney did, she would have been able to introduce herself to the American people on her terms and develop her own policy ideas. Palin saved McCain’s campaign from losing worse. (McCain had only a single-digit lead in Alaska prior to Palin being chosen and could have lost yet another state that hadn’t gone Democratic since 1964.)

Many on the right point to McCain’s 81% American Conservative Union rating as proof that he’s not that bad, but the lifetime rating is misleading. Through 1996, McCain had an 88% conservative voting record. Since 1996, McCain only had one year with an ACU rating greater than 80% (2001, when he had 81%), and four years he has voted less than 70% conservative.

McCain spent the first part of this decade playing media favorite by frustrating the aims of the Bush administration and backing amnesty and cap and trade. Sometimes he failed, as he did with opposing the Bush tax cuts. Other times he succeeded, as he did with his efforts to stop drilling in ANWR. We can be grateful that, due to the poor economy, gas prices are beneath their $4.00 + a gallon highs from two years ago. But the price of gas would be far lower if McCain hadn’t been a cheerleader against using America’s resources. His pandering to the far left on energy is taking money out of the wallets of average Arizonans, and voters should respond by making him feel their pain.

Click here to read the rest.

Talk Business is reporting that Sarah Huckabee, daughter of former Governor Mike Huckabee, will be accepting the role as campaign manager of the John Boozman for Senate campaign.

Recent polling has indicated that Boozman is in a strong position against Arkansas Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln. Public Policy Polling reported on February 2nd that:

He [Boozman] leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

John Boozman

Forgive me for these interludes, but one never knows what he’ll come across on Wikipedia at night.

While investigating Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential run on the Libertarian Party ticket, I came across the fact that he was endorsed by a single person with Congressional stature: former California Congressman Pete McCloskey.

Now, it’s notable that a third-party candidate would obtain the endorsement of a Congressman. McCloskey, then a Republican (a Democrat for the past three years), endorsed Paul’s run.

Why is this interesting? Because McCloskey is a Holocaust denier who has published for the Institute for Historical Review, the nation’s leading anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying outlet.

How many more times can the Ron Paul cult tell me to stop judging him by his endorsers and affiliates? How many anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists have to donate to or endorse Ron Paul before we put two and two together and admit that he’s speaking their language?

He’s speaking their language, alright. Check out this YouTube video, where Paul claims that he’s not tackling the ‘truth’ about 9/11 because there are too many other things he’s busy with:

Why are talking about this, again? Because recently, Ron Paul claimed to have been the impetus behind the Tea Parties — and when I disputed this “objective fact,” his cult members rushed in to insist that it was well-established that Paul was the one who launched the Tea Party movement, after holding the “first one” during his presidential campaign. Hate to break it to you, Paultards, but having a “Tea Party” to raise money for Ron Paul is not the same thing as attending a Rick Santelli-inspired Tea Party in 2009.

Now allow me to sit back and prepare for another flood of e-mails telling me that I’m a dirty Jew. (I’m not, by the way. I’m very dirty, but alas, I’m not a Jew.)

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

1. Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney’s PAC fundraising totals were very impressive, his recent hiring of top operative Matt Rhoades was a tremendous pick-up, and his upcoming book tour keep will grant him major attention for the next few months.  Romney also received a boost from the election of Scott Brown, who he backed early for the US Senate in Massachusetts.
2. Sarah Palin – Gov. Palin’s Fox News job clearly won’t impact her decision to run and her Tea Party convention speech showed her ability to rally the grassroots unlike any other potential rival. Next up for Palin will be to see if she helps Rick Perry win the nomination in Texas, followed by her major speech at the SRLC.
3. Tim Pawlenty – Gov. Pawlenty’s PAC fundraising was very impressive considering it was only the final quarter, and he has continued to travel, heading once again to New Hampshire where he is getting a lot of buzz.  He has also put together the most impressive staff next to Romney.
4. John Thune – Senator Thune still does not have an opponent for his 2010 reelection, yet he is continuing to build his war chest while being mentioned by many insiders as a favorite to run in 2012.  Continues to shine in polls of GOP insiders.
5. Scott Brown– The new Senator has gained instant celebrity in the GOP and in the chattering class.  With a 2012 reelection  bid on the horizon, Brown could opt instead to seize the moment and run for President.  Early polling indicates that he is already preferred over more established GOP names.
6. Haley Barbour – Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party, and he is gaining even greater respect for his leadership of the RGA.  Trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are on his schedule.
7. Mike Huckabee – The former Arkansas governor has run into serious trouble with the revelation that he granted clemency to notorious cop-killer Maurice Clemmons. Still, he retains a solid base of support and a considerable outlet on Fox News to build on.  His fundraising, however, remains by far the worst in the party.
8. Newt Gingrich – The former Speaker may have lost some face with another base-angering endorsement, this time of Sen. Bennett of Utah.  Gingrich seems to be shifting more towards the establishment then the grassroots he commanded in 1994. His American Solutions 527 raised significantly more funds then other potential rivals, as a 527 is likely to do.
9. Mike Pence - The conservative Indiana congressman has twice turned down the chance to run for Evan Bayh’s senate seat, indicating he has his sights set on a higher office.  He has also hired top advisers Kellyanne Conway and Bill Neale, and will travel to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina this year.
10. Jeb Bush – The former Florida governor has been more active of late, stumping recently in Ohio for GOP candidate John Kasich, appearing on the Today Show to counter Vice President Biden, and holding upcoming events with Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is also beginning to show support for Marco Rubio, his protege and Tea Party favorite for the Florida senate seat.

Honorable Mention: Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, Bobby Jindal, Jim DeMint, Eric Cantor, George Pataki, Dick Cheney, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

-

Mitt Romney

• Romney gearing up for 2012 presidential run?
• Team Romney Picks Up a Key Asset
• Romney: Screw Iowa in 2012?
• Mitt Romney gets in position for his next reincarnation
• Oops, Did I Hurt Romney Again?
• Olympics: Romney headed to the Winter Games in Vancouver
• Partisan tensions continue to escalate (Dems target Romney)
• Sure looks like Romney’s running in 2012

-

Sarah Palin

• Sarah Palin as GOP nominee in 2012? Don’t laugh it off
• Palin says 2012 presidential bid a possibility
• Palin’s Beer-Track Populism
• Sarah Palin Has All The Qualities to Be President 2012!
• Drivers, fans cheer Palin on Daytona 500 visit – Motor Sports …

-

Scott Brown

• Brown for President in 2012? No Joke, Supporters Say
• Scott Brown Has A Unique Opportunity
• Why Scott Brown Should Run for President
• Democrats ponder how to take down Scott Brown
• Brown: ‘Humbled’ by White House Talk, But Doesn’t Rule Out 2012 …

-

Mike Pence

• Why Won’t Mike Pence Run for Senate? Because He’s Running for President.
• Mike Pence declines again on Evan Bayh seat
• Pence 2010? 2012?
• Congressman Mike Pence to visit New Hampshire, traditional site of first …
• It’s Never Too Early for a 2012 GOP Primary Preview

The election of a tax-cutting, pro-waterboarding Republican United States Senator in Massachusetts, along with the retirement of uber-popular Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (who was beloved by even most Republicans along the Indiana/Michigan border where I grew up) appear to be harbingers of a new phase in American politics. In the 1990s, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira penned a book entitled, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” in which they argued that an ever-evolving culture, a diversified population, and the rise of the creative class against the backdrop of a post-industrial economy would naturally result in a sort of Bloomberg-esque political majority in this country organized around the Democratic Party. A pro-business version of Social Democracy would be the order of the day, where economics were regulated just enough to ensure a cradle-to-grave safety net and where folks were free to do whatever they wanted, except drive the wrong car, or smoke, or eat fatty foods, or engage in thought crime. America would sort of be like one big college campus: politically correct to the max, completely communitarian, and living off the fat of someone else’s labor (in this case, the labor of nations that would actually continue to be productive).

In the wake of the collapse of the Republican Party under President Bush during the last decade, the emerging Democratic majority seemed inevitable, as the great Catholic middle class returned to the Democratic Party and as blue collar whites joined the post-industrial, post-modern Democratic majority of Judis to create something that looked more like the FDR coalition. In other words, as of 2008, pretty much every demographic group was Democratic or trending Democratic. The few that weren’t were seen as knuckle-draggers or denialists. But the reality was that the Democratic majority of 2006 and 2008 wasn’t comprised of folks who were united in support of a governing philosophy or political cause, it was a coalition of folks who were opposed to the status quo. Some were opposed to President Bush’s deficits, others laid the blame for the Great Recession at his feet, while still others were weirded out by the attempted nationalization of the social policy of the Bible Belt. Internationally, Bush was too comfy with loose borders for some, too idealistic with his grand nation-building plans for others, and ethically suspect to others after the debate over torture and incidents like Abu Ghraib. Some didn’t like the incompetence of his Administration or that of the GOP leadership. Others didn’t like the corruption that had made its way into the government. Still others saw their savings going down, the prices of everything going up, and decided that the Republicans must somehow be to blame for all of this. In other words, the emerging Democratic majority was one built around the idea that Bush was bad.

But America said goodbye to all that when several wake-up calls came over the last year. The first was the Democratic Plan To Fix Everything, which promises to solve all the nation’s woes by taking away just a little more freedom and by adding just a little more debt to the country’s tab. Democrats didn’t count on Americans being smart enough to discern that their plan would essentially set into course a chain reaction that would result in a society similar to those of Western Europe, where dynamism and individualism make way for lifelong security. The second wake-up call was the reality that the threat posed to America and her interests by certain Middle Eastern states and terrorist groups was not simply a function of the Bush presidency, and that Bush being tough on security, including utilizing enhanced interrogation, Gitmo, and waving a big stick at Iran, wasn’t such an overreaction after all. The underwear bomber combined with Iran’s latest threats have reminded Americans that much of the Middle East is still at war with us even if we’d prefer not to be at war with them any longer.

Thus does the National Frat Party envisioned by Judis collapse, replaced by what may end up being the Eat Your Vegetables era, a period in which America makes the hard choices in order to remain a dynamic, free society and an economic and geopolitical superpower. But in order to do so, massive changes will be necessary. The Paul Ryan economic blueprint for America, or something very close to it, will have to become reality. Entitlements will have to be privatized, means-tested, and government must cease distorting markets in areas like education, health care, and housing, so that more rational markets can develop. America will have to be prepared to act militarily against Iran if necessary, hoping instead that the Iranian people overthrow their government. Enhanced interrogation techniques, despite the ethical questions that surround them, will have to be retained in order to avoid future attacks on the American mainland. The borders have to be secured; it’s an issue of national security, as is the documentation of everyone on American soil, legally or illegally.

The implosion of the Democratic majority will almost certainly mean a big 2010 for Republicans. Whether the GOP chart a way forward in 2012 remains to be seen, and will depend both on the message as well as the messenger. Which is why the messenger must be chosen very wisely.

Monmouth/Gannett New Jersey Presidents’ Day Survey

Who is your favorite president of all time?

• Ronald Reagan 25%
• Bill Clinton 21%
• John F. Kennedy 12%
• Abraham Lincoln 7%
• Barack Obama 6%
• Franklin D. Roosevelt 5%
• George Washington 4%
• Harry S. Truman 3%
• George W. Bush 2%
• George H.W. Bush 2%
• Jimmy Carter 2%
• Dwight D. Eisenhower 1%
• Lyndon Johnson 1%
• Richard Nixon 1%
• Thomas Jefferson 1%
• Teddy Roosevelt 1%

Among Republicans

• Ronald Reagan 50%
• George W. Bush 7%
• Abraham Lincoln 7%
• George Washington 6%
• Bill Clinton 5%
• John F. Kennedy 5%
• Harry S. Truman 3%

Among Independents

• Ronald Reagan 24%
• Bill Clinton 21%
• John F. Kennedy 13%
• Abraham Lincoln 8%
• Barack Obama 7%
• Harry S. Truman 4%
• Franklin D. Roosevelt 4%
• George Washington 4%

Among Democrats

• Bill Clinton 34%
• Barack Obama 12%
• Ronald Reagan 10%
• John F. Kennedy 10%
• Abraham Lincoln 7%
• Franklin D. Roosevelt 7%
• Jimmy Carter 3%

Age 55+

• John F. Kennedy 23%
• Ronald Reagan 22%
• Bill Clinton 12%
• Franklin D. Roosevelt 9%
• Harry S. Truman 7%
• Dwight D. Eisenhower 4%
• George Washington 4%

Survey of 716 registered voters was conducted January 27-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Here is the official press release:

Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC announced today that Matt Rhoades, who has held senior positions on major presidential campaigns and at the Republican National Committee, will serve as the PAC’s executive director.

“Matt Rhoades has one of the sharpest political minds in the business. He’s been a friend and an adviser for several years now and I’m pleased that he has agreed to run the day-to-day operations of my Free and Strong America PAC. He shares with me the view that 2010 is going to be a critical election year, with many races and lots of opportunities to elect Republican candidates,” said Governor Romney.

Rhoades is currently a Vice President with DCI Group, which advises clients on media, public relations and communications strategies. He replaces Peter Flaherty, who will become a Senior Adviser to the PAC.

He previously served as Communications Director for Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, where he oversaw all message, response, regional media and research operations. During the 2006 election cycle, Rhoades was a Deputy Communications Director in charge of research for the Republican National Committee. He also was Research Director for the 2004 Bush/Cheney re-election campaign.

Rhoades also has held the position of White House Liaison at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in the Bush Administration. Prior to that, he was an Associate Director in the White House Presidential Personnel Office.

Mike Allen’s Politico Playbook calls it

One of the first big moves of 2012 —

K-Lo had this to say:

This is a staffing sign of seriousness from Mitt Romney: Matt Rhoades, who ran his communications shop in 2008, and was research director for the 2004 Bush/Cheney re-election campaign, is rejoining him, as executive director of his Free and Strong America PAC. Looks like a (re)gearing up.

Politico’s Ben Smith adds:

Rhoades, who’s moving to Boston, is a well-regarded guy whose return to Romney pretty much confirms what will surprise nobody: That he’s running in 2012. He’s also, incidentally, been valued for his relationship with a key player in any GOP primary, Matt Drudge.

Share

Tweet

Rasmussen Presidents’ Day Survey

Which one of the following Presidents was most influential in terms of their impact on American History…..George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan?

• Abraham Lincoln 30%
• George Washington 21%
• Ronald Reagan 17%
• Franklin Roosevelt 16%
• Thomas Jefferson 10%

Which of these Presidents was the greatest founding father of our country….George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison?

• George Washington 53%
• Thomas Jefferson 27%
• John Adams 7%
• James Madison 3%

Who had a more lasting impact on the history of the United States….George Washington or Abraham Lincoln?

• Abraham Lincoln 64%
• George Washington 25%

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of George Washington?

• Very favorable 54%
• Somewhat favorable 35%
• Somewhat unfavorable 4%
• Very unfavorable 1%

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of Abraham Lincoln?

• Very favorable 63%
• Somewhat favorable 30%
• Somewhat unfavorable 1%
• Very unfavorable 2%

Survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted February 12-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Mike Pence is one of those guys who thinks he’s more important than he is.

Now, let’s not be too hasty, here: he’s an important guy. He’s one of the top-ranking House Republicans and is a certified icon amongst the grassroots.

This is exactly why people want him to run for Evan Bayh’s current Senate seat. Take the powerhouse out of the House and put him in the Senate. We need more strong conservative voices like Jim DeMint, we’re told.

Alas, Congressman Pence has other plans. He has already visited Iowa and South Carolina, spoke next to Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee at the Values Voters conference, and has started building some self-created buzz about the presidency.

Why would he do this? Does he actually think he can win? — Well, did Tommy Thompson actually think he could win? Some of these guys wake up every morning, see a president in the mirror, and think that lightning can strike for them because they’re just that good. And if Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore thought they could be president — men with no grassroots following — imagine what Congressman Pence must be thinking. At the very worst, he must think, it could increase his stature in the House or make him a top VP pick for Romney or Palin.

So don’t read too much into Pence’s refusal to run. He wants to run for higher office, alright. But it’s a little higher than we want him to aim for.

Now that we know for certain that Mike Pence will not enter this race, the candidate that he will support was made clear in a statement he released last week (per WANE):

Rep. Mike Pence (R-6th District, IN) released this statement in response to the possibility of former Senator Dan Coats running for the Senate in 2010.

“I am very excited about the possibility that former Senator Dan Coats may run for the United States Senate in 2010 and I sincerely hope he does it. His integrity and conservative record would make him the ideal candidate for Hoosiers. If he runs, I will support him”.

Also, be sure to bookmark Coats’ campaign page www.CoatsforIndiana.com, which is currently under construction.

I am pleased to announce that our new site design will go live at midnight on March 1st, 2010.

Part of this transition is that we are changing the name of the site to Rightosphere.com. This was a big decision for me, as the “Race4″ sites have been a huge part of my life for so long now. But I felt the time had come for a couple of reasons.

First, it is becoming increasingly costly to own all of the “Race4″ URL’s needed to protect the brand I have built. I already, of course, own Race42008.com & Race42012.com, as well as Racefor2012.com, Race42016.com, Racefor2016.com, Race42020.com, Racefor2020.com, Race42024.com, and Racefor2024.com! So it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to decide where to draw the line as long as I stuck with the “Race4″ identity.

Also, it would become increasingly difficult to have the site consistently identified with one name as time went on (some people still refer to us as “Race42008.com”!) I foresee this becoming an even greater problem as time goes on. Having one name that does not change with each cycle alleviates this problem.

Secondly, I have received many requests throughout the years from the members of our community as to features they would like to see the site have. Some people would like to have the ability to from groups or tribes within the site, e.g., “Team Mitt” or “Team Huck.” Other wanted to have a list of the campaign stops that each candidate would make during campaign season. Others wanted the ability to create their own polls. Many thought it would be nice to have a fully functional social network added to the site so that they can connect with other like-minded conservatives.

About a year ago, Kris Lorelli and me were discussing these requests and we asked each “why not?” Why can’t the Race42012 Community have all of these features to have some fun with?

So we set out together to make this kind of community a reality. The results, I feel, speak for themselves. Rightosphere will have all of the features that anyone has ever asked for plus, much, much, more. In fact, I believe that there is no political website, Right or Left, that will have the features and resources that each member of the Rightosphere family will have.

I encourage everyone to head on over to the new site, register, and take a look around. If you are already on Facebook, you can login via your Facebook account (once registered) to keep your social networking profiles in sync.

Of course, I know that some people will miss the old site, and change of any kind is always somewhat scary. However, what is not changing is our community! Everything that made Race42008 & Race42012 great will be what makes Rightosphere great as well. Think of it this way, when a community builds a new town hall, they do not change the people in the city along with the building. They simply provide new, modern facilities to make community get togethers more fun. This is exactly what this redesign is meant to do.

The frontpage of site will still function in the same way as it has before, and will feature articles written by our tremendous staff. The comments sections will still feature the insights of the best conservative community out there. The only difference is that you will see essays that were posted on a commenter’s personal blog (yes, everyone who registers gets their own personal blog that everyone can subscribe to!) promoted to the frontpage, along with our Twitter feed, and a running scroll of all of the blogs written by the Rightosphere Community (entitled, “Right Now.”)

The transition of our little corner of the Internet from R4’12 to ROS represents the work of a little over a calendar year for Kris and I. It was a labor of love meant to give our little family great new digs. I sincerely hope that you all enjoy it as much as I think you will. Please feel free to email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com with any questions.

P.S. One little suggestion… If you haven’t yet, please consider downloading Firefox. Firefox is a free Internet browser that is faster, more secure, and more fully-featured that any other browser out there. R4’12, Rightosphere (and any other Internet site you visit) both work and look their best in Firefox.

FF is also highly customizable. I surf the ‘Net using the Aero Fox Theme. Give it a shot and see.

[Update 1] A few people have emailed me to ask where they can access all of the great new features of the new site. All of the new user features can be accessed from a toolbar which will appear after you have signed up and logged in (screen shot below):

If you wished to create a blog post (which will also appear in the “Right Now” section on the front page for the rest of the community to see), you would click on the “My Apps” tab in the task bar. This is also were you can sync your Rightosphere account with your Facebook account, post photos and videos, created polls, form groups or “tribes”, and input the RSS feeds of your favorite conservatives blogs to share with the rest of the community.

So what are you waiting for? Please head on over to the new site and signup today.

Rasmussen California Senatorial Survey

• Barbara Boxer 46% [46%] (46%) {49%} [45%]
• Carly Fiorina 42% [43%] (37%) {39%} [41%]

• Barbara Boxer 45% [46%]
• Tom Campbell 41% [42%]

• Barbara Boxer 47% [46%] (46%) {46%}
• Chuck DeVore 42% [40%] (36%) {37%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Tom Campbell 44% [49%] (40%) {42%} / 33% [23%] (20%) {32%} {+11%}
• Barbara Boxer 51% [51%] (51%) {51%} [50%] / 46% [46%] (41%) {42%} [47%] {+5%}
• Carly Fiorina 37% [38%] (40%) {32%} [30%] / 40% [34%] (29%) {35%} [35%] {-3%}
• Chuck DeVore 32% [33%] (31%) {31%} / 36% [29%] (25%) {37%} {-4%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 11, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 14, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 17, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 23, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 22, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

The incumbent holds commanding leads over all three GOP candidates among women voters in California but trails all three among men.

Fiorina and Campbell have a slight edge over Boxer among voters not affiliated with either party. DeVore and Boxer break even among these voters.

Sen. Evan Bayh, who had become a major target by the GOP heading into the midterm elections, will announce his retirement, handing the GOP a major pick-up opportunity.  Bayh had drawn a brewing backlash due to his support for President Obama’s stimulus and healthcare bills.  Recently, Bayh drew his first significant challenger in years in the form of former Indiana senator Dan Coats.

In prepared remarks, Bayh, 54, cited excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” he said.

“My decision was not motivated by political concern,” he added. “Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.”

“But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough,” Bayh said. “And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor.”

Only days ago, Bayh’s staff, close associates and Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker, who was manager of Bayh’s re-election campaign, had assured an Indianapolis Star reporter hat he would definitely seek a third term in the U.S. Senate. And Democrats recently released a poll showing Bayh easily ahead of both former Sen. Dan Coats and former U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, two of the four Republicans seeking the GOP nomination.

But in his statement, Bayh cited recent stalemates in Congress.

“Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted ‘no’ for short-term political reasons,” he said. “Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs — the public’s top priority — fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right. All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state4 and our nation than continued service in Congress.”

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Rasmussen Washington Senatorial Survey

• Dino Rossi (R) 48%
• Patty Murray (D) 46%

• Patty Murray (D) 50%
• Don Benton (R) 38

• Patty Murray (D) 49%
• Clint Didier (R) 34%

• Patty Murray (D) 48%
• Chris Widener (R) 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Dino Rossi 54% / 41% {+13%}
• Patty Murray 51% / 45% {+6%}
• Don Benton 33% / 28% {+5%}
• Chris Widener 29% / 26% {+3%}
• Clint Didier 28% / 28% {0%}

How would you rate the job Christine Gregoire has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 18%
• Somewhat approve 23%
• Somewhat disapprove 19%
• Strongly disapprove 38%

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

• Strongly approve 30%
• Somewhat approve 21%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 40%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 11, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Blogger Matt Lewis wrote a very good post last week on The Daily Caller critiquing Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of Roadmap 2.0 and one of the better, if not the best, policy wonks for House Republicans. You can read the entire post here, but I think this excerpt best summarizes Lewis’ opinion:

But while Ryan’s boyish looks, youthful style, and sharp intellect have garnered him much praise from conservatives desperate to find the next Ronald Reagan, he has one major problem: His actual voting record.

I happen to share Lewis’ concern about Ryan’s voting record- he voted for TARP, the auto bailout, the AIG bonus tax and the Medicare drug bill, three expensive programs that expanded the size of government and one that ignored the rule of law in this country. I also share Lewis’ concern that Ryan is getting a pass by many conservatives. However, given the respect Ryan carries among influential conservatives such as George Will, the jury is still out on my opinion on the man.

Yesterday, The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward interviewed Ryan as a follow-up to the Lewis piece. The interview, which was relatively short, is below:

The DC: As you’re getting more attention, besides the criticism that you’re getting from the Democrats, I’ve also started to see some critical comments of you from the right over your votes for TARP, the auto bailout, and the tax on CEO bonuses. How often do you hear that in your home state, how often do you hear it on the Internet, and what do you tell people when they criticize you on those things?

Ryan: You know I don’t hear it here at home that much. You’ve got to remember Obama won my district. Dukakis and Gore won my district. Clinton won my district. So I don’t come from, you know, a red area. So I think it’s important to keep in mind where I come from. I don’t hear that here.

TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have — which are restoring the principles of this country — I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.

Auto. Really clear. The president’s chief of staff [Josh Bolten] made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

The whole AIG thing, you know that was — you know I obviously regret that one. I was angry at the time because I was worried that all these companies were jumping into TARP thinking they could use TARP as a way to best their competitors, as a way to get cheaper credit, to get money at cheaper rates, at the expense of their smaller competitors. And so I was seeing TARP as sort of a new tool of crony capitalism, and I thought it’d be a good signal to send to the large banks who were jumping into this thing, who really didn’t need it: ‘Stay away from this, don’t get in bed with the government, even though it might in the short term give you a leg up on your competitors, you’ll be burned. That was what was running through my mind at the time, given the fact that we had about six hours notice on the vote, and our lawyers were telling us that it was not a bill of attainder. Now when a week went by, and our lawyers had a chance to read it more clearly and carefully, they reversed their opinion of the bill and said it was in fact a bill of attainder, which therefore should not have passed … The other thing that bothered me was the Democrats were in a real political pinch, because Chris Dodd wrote in the exemption for those bonuses in the bill, and they were on the hook for it. And they were trying to get themselves off the hook and Republicans on the hook. And that bothered me too, was just the political cynicism behind it bothered me and I didn’t want to give the Democrats that as well. So those were the thoughts running through my mind when I had to make more or less the snap judgment on that bill.

Conservatives can agree or disagree with Ryan on the issues he addresses above. Ryan did work on an alternative to TARP in 2008, and voted against the original bill before voting for the final version. I am a bit concerned about his vote against AIG based upon anger as opposed to what is good policy, and of course I disagree with him on voting for TARP and the auto bailouts. The “if we didn’t vote for this bad bill, the alternative bill would have been worse” excuse is wearing thin for conservatives, despite its legitimacy in very rare cases. (Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), of whom I am a big fan, is one of the latest conservatives to use it- incorrectly, I think.)

I must admit that I am surprised that neither Lewis nor Ward targeted Ryan’s vote for the Medicare drug bill. That bill was a perfect storm for Democrats in the last few years politically- it was a huge expansion of the size of government and highlighted Republican hypocrisy on deficits and debts. Furthermore, the arm-twisting involved to get final House passage is somewhat similar of the Democratic backroom maneuvers for health care reform. Questioning Ryan on why he voted for that bill, I think, is very important.

As I said, I’m keeping my mind open regarding Ryan. I like what I’ve read about his Roadmap from George Will, Ezra Klein, and others, and having seen the Roadmap’s summary and heard him speak on The Laura Ingraham Show about it, I certainly think it’s a very good budget that balances the federal debt, makes Medicare solvent and deregulates many of the federal entitlements. However, it is only a proposal, and only one budget- Ryan’s record extends well beyond it. In short, while I would not go as far as Lewis, I certainly think the following could very well be Ryan’s legacy:

While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.

We owe a big hat tip to Drudge today, for linking to the following stories showcasing Vice President Biden’s repeated contradictions on Iraq:

If you’ll recall, Thursday we caught wind of the Vice President assigning credit to the Obama administration for the post-Surge turnaround in Iraq:

Then today, Biden made one of his trademark head scratch-inducing statements and claimed the Iraq operation hasn’t merited its “horrible price”:

He says the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, he says the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida hatched the Sept 11 attacks.

Biden tells NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the war also has cost the United States support from other nations.

Still, Biden predicts Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and he says the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.

Then, to top it all off, also today, RealClearPolitics posted a video highlighting Biden’s 2002 declaration that Saddam Hussein was “an extreme danger to the world” that the United States had to “eliminate”.

So, let’s recap: first, Biden categorizes Iraq as “one of the great achievements” of the Obama administration (after essentially continuing the plan set in place by the Bush administration), then he questions whether that achievement was even worth it (what does it say of the administration’s other “achievements” if the Vice President doubts the validity of its “greatest”?), THEN we find out that he felt rather strongly that the operation was, indeed, “worth it” at the outset. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it?

And this is who the administration sends out to preempt Vice President Cheney’s criticism?

Centrism as a concept implies relativity: to be a ‘centrist’ there must be necessarily be a ‘center’ of two poles. But this in itself tells us nothing. Unlike, for example, the terms ‘libertarian’ or ‘socialist,’ the ‘centrist’ label says literally nothing about a person’s beliefs: one must first apply the term to concretes. But those concretes are not determined by the centrist. To remain a truly consistent centrist, one must, of one’s own volition, concede one’s political positions to the whims of others.

The mainstream of the political spectrum has, of course, shifted over time, often quite rapidly. Olympia Snowe, ostensibly a ‘centrist,’ would have been no such thing in 1900, and would have found a fairly comfortable home in the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt’s era. What are her first principles — hers, or any other self-declared centrist?

The rejoinder is obvious: wouldn’t her ideology have shifted, given the circumstances of the time? Alas, this is not the intellectual escape hatch it seems to be: this “principle” does not exist in a vacuum. If one’s political program must necessarily change with the circumstances of the time, it is an unequivocal surrender of one’s own beliefs to those of others. It resigns first principles to the dustbin and subscribes instead to a historicist, relativist vision of life. The consequence of the idea that one’s views should change as the mainstream shifts is actually a concession that men cannot help direct history. One’s first principles, then, are determined not by the good, not by nature, not by moral law — but by the subjective state that one happens to find himself in, as determined by other men. (There is an alternative: to concede that one does not care whether one is influencing history, which is — or, rather, should be — an obvious disqualification for public office.)

Worse, it’s difficult to even pin down what ‘the center’ is in our own time. The poles of the spectrum are necessarily arbitrarily-defined. Who represents the ‘left end’ of the pole, after all? Slavoj Zizek? Noam Chomsky? Bernie Sanders? Barack Obama? Adjust the spectrum accordingly and one comes up with very different breeds of “centrists.” If a fledgling liberal wants to look august, he does not hold up Paul Ryan and Jon Kyl as representatives of the right, but Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Keep walking right and one finds Jim DeMint and Ron Paul. (Is Jon Kyl a ‘centrist’ compared to Ron Paul?) Certainly, one might think that the “mainstream” must define the center. But what, after all, is the mainstream, and who represents that? And then we’re back to square one.

If it is difficult to imagine anyone actually acting like the kinds of people just described, one only need examine the current moral climate. It is historicist and relativist to its core. The classical liberals of yesteryear — Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson — would find no home in today’s political parties. Consider Jefferson’s statement about the blood of patriots needing to water the tree of liberty from time to time, or his advocacy of minor rebellions to keep the government in check. Today, such men would be cast out as radicals or worse for their “extremist” statements. Alas, we’re told: they were “for their time.” Their genius was for the 1700s, and not for 2010. Morality is relative. The fact that people subconsciously subscribe to this morality is proof that “centrism” is winning the day — and has been philosophically devastating for our country.

Centrists must check their first principles: what constitutes the good society? What is the proper role of government? What are the virtues I hold closest? To merely declare oneself a “centrist” is to allow others to answer these questions for you. If tomorrow’s battles are between Noam Chomsky and Barack Obama, where then will the self-proclaimed centrists sit? If not between the two of them, they need to abandon the label of “centrist” and define their values coherently. The future of our country doesn’t belong to those whose values are subject to the whims of others.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

So I had a little fun and remixed the recent “Green Police” Super Bowl ad with an An Gore twist. Let me know what you think…

The original ad…

The Des Moines Register/Selzer & Co. 2010 Iowa Governor Poll

• Terry Branstad (R) 53%
• Chet Culver (D) 33%
• Neither 5%
• Don’t Know 9%

• Bob Vander Plaats 43%
• Chet Culver 40%
• Neither 5%
• Don’t Know 12%

Governor Chet Culver’s Job Approval

• Approve 36%
• Disapprove 53%

Survey of 531 likely voters was conducted January 31 – February 3, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.

Former Vice-President (and Defense Secretary) Cheney, whose pro-military credentials cannot be questioned, now lends his voice to the chorus:

Cheney said that the support of military leaders had convinced him that it was time for a change.

“Twenty years ago the military were strong advocates of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’ I think things have change[d] significantly since then,” Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week.”

…

Two notable architects of the original DADT policy–retired Gens. Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili–also now support a repeal.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is history. A supermajority of Americans support allowing openly gay men to serve in the military, including about half of Republicans. Obama may have brought it up to try to get Republicans embroiled in a culture war divide, but it seems not to be happening. The anti-gay policy — which countries like England and Israel long ago abandoned — seems to be ending, as it is said, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Yesterday, President Obama made a surprise announcement that he will be appointing a special envoy to the Muslim world (not my choice of words- this is how Huffington Post is reporting it). According to Politico,

Rashad Hussein, deputy associate White House counsel, will serve as a special U.S. envoy to the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

Of course, the questions will immediately start popping up from conservatives in the media. I can see it now:

Glenn Beck: Where’s the envoy to the Christian world, which is much larger than the Muslim world and under attack by Islamic fundamentalists?

Rush Limbaugh: What about Jews? They suffer attacks and harassment all across Israel, from Muslims and the United Nations, among others.

For myself, I was very much taken aback when first readingabout this. Was the appointment part of the apology tour? Was this an attempt to assure Muslims of America’s peaceful intents, despite how President Bush said many, many times that America was not at war with the Muslim world and the overwhelming evidence that, for many Muslims, it is they who are, and were even before Bush came into power, at war with us and the West? Was this a new precedent in whichAmerica’s sovereignty would continue to be diminished by our president?

Fortunately, some of my concerns were assuaged when a quick Google search found this nugget from ABC’s Jake Tapper yesterday morning:

In June 2007, President George W. Bush announced that he would name the first U.S. special envoy to the OIC. In February 2008, he named Texas entrepreneur Sada Cumber, chairman and chief executive officer of wireless imaging company SozoTek.

While I do not think such an appointment is necessary, and certainly is part of Obama’s unnecessary outreach to the “Muslim world,” I hope conservatives don’t go off half-cocked and forget that it was a Republican who set the precedent. (And no, for the record, I don’t think President Bush should have done it, either.) Let’s keep the criticism measured and in the realm of legitimate political debate, not an appeal to the extremist wings of the GOP.

A year after it was passed, it has become painfully obvious to anyone with open eyes that the massive federal “stimulus” – along with several other trillion-dollar government interventions in the free market – has utterly failed to turn around America’s economy.  In fact, all this massive infusion of taxpayer cash has done is deprive our consumer-driven private sector of much-needed oxygen, while sending our annual deficits and national debt soaring to previously unthinkable heights.

It’s the classic Washington approach to the economy.  When times are good, politicians in both parties spend excessively. When times are bad? They spend uncontrollably.

As a result, at a time when families and small businesses were – and are still – forced to go without, government continues to grow by obscene levels, using every excuse in the book to justify its largesse.

Among those excuses?

“Green Jobs.”

I wrote on this issue just last month, making the fundamental point that investing billions in “Green Jobs” had failed to stimulate theeconomy (or create jobs), and that Barack Obama’s pledge to invest billions more in “Green Jobs” was the wrong answer moving forward.

This month, we’re discovering in detail why that is true.

According to a series of new reports, billions of dollars in “stimulus” money that was supposed to go toward creating “Green Jobs” here in America instead went to foreign-owned companies – who “created or saved”  the vast majority of their jobs overseas.  Obviously there is nothing wrong with America investing in foreign businesses, as protectionism is a recipe for disaster.

According to an ABC News report, though, almost $2 billion in “stimulus” funding has been spent so far on wind power, and yet 80% of that money has gone to foreign-owned companies.

“Most of the jobs are going overseas,” researcher Russ Choma told ABC. “According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.”

In fact, despite receiving this windfall of “stimulus” cash, the U.S. wind manufacturing sector actually lost jobs in 2009, according to a year-end report by its professional association.  Also, most of the jobs “created or saved” in America have been temporary construction positions, or “management” hires.

The real job creation (or job salvation, to use Obama’s disingenuous math) has taken place beyond our borders.

Consider these examples, courtesy of a recent report from The Watchdog Institute:

Eurus Energy America, a subsidiary of a Japanese-owned firm, received $91 million in “stimulus” funds and created only 300 to 400 temporary construction jobs. Permanent jobs created? Less than a dozen.

EnXco, a French-owned firm, received $69.5 million in “stimulus” funds and yet produced only 200 construction jobs and “about a dozen” permanent positions.

A-Power, a Chinese-owned firm, is in line to receive nearly $450 million in “stimulus” funds – for a project that will create thousands of Chinese jobs but only a few dozen American positions.
Cannon Power Group, an American-owned firm, received $19 million in “stimulus” funds but spend most of that on German-made turbines. So far they have created fewer than 300 construction jobs and “20 to 30” permanent positions. Cannon is in line to receive another $150 million in “stimulus” funds, by the way.

In case the trend isn’t clear, America’s massive investment in “Green Jobs” has been a colossal, costly failure – unless you’re looking for work overseas. For all the promises of the Obama administration, here at home these taxpayers billions have amounted to little more than a few thousand temporary construction positions and a few hundred management jobs.

In fact, there’s a good chance that the government employees hired to promote “Green Jobs” outnumber the actual permanent “Green Jobs” created.  However you do the math, these positions are obviously a mere drop in the bucket compared to U.S. job losses in the wind manufacturing segment of the energy economy alone, to say nothing of the millions of lost jobs nationwide.

Worse still, the lunacy isn’t stopping.  We are continuing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into this failed framework, which uses American sweat to create permanent positions (and profit) for foreign companies.

Frankly, it’s time for Obama to come clean on the “Green Jobs” scam – and to explain why his so-called “transparent and accountable” administration didn’t catch it sooner.

________________________________________________________________________

-Howard Rich, the chairman of Americans for Limited Government, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The Iowa Republican/Concordia Group 2010 Iowa Governor Poll

• Terry Branstad (R) 57%
• Chet Culver (D) 28%
• Neither 5%
• Don’t Know 10%

• Bob Vander Plaats 43%
• Chet Culver 39%
• Neither 5%
• Don’t Know 13%

Does Chet Culver Deserve Re-election?

• Deserves Re-election 28%
• Someone New 65%
• Don’t Know 6%
• Refused 1%

Inside the numbers:

The polls conducted by TIR/Concordia Group and the Des Moines Register, show Governor Culver losing to both former Governor Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats in head-to-head matchups. While Vander Plaats defeats Culver in head-to-head matchups in both polls, he is within the margin of error, meaning he is in a statistical dead heat with Governor Culver.

Blum & Weprin Texas Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Primary

• Rick Perry 45%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 29%
• Debra Medina 17%

(Among GOP primary voters) Which is more important in your vote in the Texas Republican primary for Governor in March?

• Texas state issues the Governor will have to deal with 71%
• Sending Washington a message 25%

(Among GOP primary voters) Would you vote for a candidate for governor who supports the Roe vs. Wade court decision legalizing abortion rights?

• Yes 43%
• No 48%

General Election

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 42%
• Bill White 34%

• Rick Perry 43%
• Bill White 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Rick Perry is doing as Governor?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 38%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kay Bailey Hutchison is doing as Senator?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 27%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Bill White?

• Favorable 23%
• Unfavorable 7%

Do you think there should be term limits on how long a person can serve as Texas governor, or not?

• Yes 75%
• No 21%

Do you believe illegal immigrants should:

• Be given work visas to stay in the United States 23%
• Be allowed to get on a path of citizenship 29%
• Be deported to their country of origin 38%

Texas state government is expected to have a large budget deficit next year. The vast majority of the state budget goes toward health care, education and highways. To balance the budget, would you prefer:

• Cuts in highway funding 41%
• Increases in state taxes and fees 20%
• Cuts in health care for the poor 11%
• Cuts in education 7%

How should Texas pay for more needed highway construction?

• Increase toll roads 21%
• Borrow money using state bonds 17%
• Increase state gas tax 16%
• Take money from other programs 15%
• Allow “local option” gas taxes in metro areas 10%

What do you think Texas should do to create more jobs?

• Offer more incentives for businesses to move to Texas 40%
• Cut business taxes 25%
• Spend money on public works projects 16%
• Do nothing because economy will sort itself out 9%

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

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 48%

Survey of 1,508 registered voters, including 464 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 2-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points; +/- 4.5 percentage points among GOP primary voters. Party ID breakdown: 32% Republican; 27% Democrat; 33% Independent.