There are now reports that the faculty member who shot three colleagues also shot and killed her brother in 1986, and was released under orders from a DA who is now a congressman.

The Boston Globe reported that Amy Bishop, a biology professor at UAH who is accused of shooting and killing three colleagues yesterday, accidentally shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in the abdomen with a 12-gauge shotgun in December 1986.

The report said Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.

Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier is now offering a different account of the shooting to The Globe: “Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the police chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother,” the paper reports on its Web site. Records from the case have been missing since 1987.

Gateway Pundit goes on to report that the police chief had received a call from the DA, William Delahunt:

Braintree officers who remember the 1986 shooting said that former police Chief John Polio dismissed detectives from the case and ordered the department to release Amy Bishop after a telephone conversation with former district attorney William Delahunt.

Delahunt is currently a U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.

When contacted Saturday, Polio, now 86, said that there was no cover up in Seth Bishop’s death, though there were questions about whether the shooting was an accident.

There certainly would seem to be questions about it being an ‘accident’ since three shots were fired.

Obviously, there are unknowns here (not least is how the records disappeared), and we should not rush to judgment. But it would be good to hear from Delahunt, and to know if Bishop’s mother, who was a town official, was a political ally of his.

PS: I’m not sure why Gateway thinks it’s worth headlining that Bishop is a socialist. That would seem an irrelevance, based on what is known thus far.

Update: Here’s an article on Delahunt possibly being motivated to retire — apparently written before this news came out. I imagine he’ll be more motivated now.

I stole my title from Hot Air’s Cassy Fiano, who was responding to a piece published on Salon.com. The author of the Salon piece, one Courtney Cook, apparently took it upon herself to describe her experience in marrying a soldier, how she divorced him, and how she moved on from that divorce. The opening is below:

You’d be surprised how easy it is to leave a soldier on deployment. You can do it with a letter. (He can’t argue with you. He doesn’t have a phone.) If you lay the groundwork early, saying to the soldier before he leaves, “This will be the end of us, we might as well admit it,” it’s that much easier. The letter won’t even come as a shock.

And if you have children with that soldier? You can handle all that with a letter, too. He’ll write it — because he cares about the kids, because he wants to work with you to do what’s best for them even though you’re leaving him — and you’ll give it to them. Here again, you will avoid a nasty confrontation. Who will they cry to? You? You’re just the teary-eyed bearer of the letter. Him? The one who’s sweating it out in the desert?

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn’t care who gets the couch.

Fiano does a very good job ripping this lady apart. I won’t excerpt her entire response, but below is part of what she said about Cook’s opening:

She presumably doesn’t care about the effect this has on soldiers while they’re deployed. They’re over there fighting for their lives, and she thinks it’s a smart move to saddle them with this while they’re in the middle of that? You’ve got to be a pretty damn low person to not care about the extra stress you’re putting on someone that’s fighting a war and risking their life, all because you don’t want to deal with telling them face-to-face that your marriage is over.

I find Cook’s piece terribly offensive. I have not been overseas thus far in my military career, but I have many friends and acquaintances who have, as well as a great-uncle who fought in Vietnam, and I am certain they would be as well. Cook shows herself to be self-centered, selfish, shallow, emotionally vapid and completely callous in general, but specifically towards her ex-husband. I am shocked that Salon, which I read from time to time when it’s linked to Hot Air or Real Clear Politics, would publish her take on- and this is the title of Cook’s piece- “How to leave a soldier” during a time of prolonged war and conflict. Furthermore, assuming Cook used her real name, her ex-husband and her children- including her son, who joined the military, something she expresses displeasure about- may very well face humiliation, shame and anger from their fellow service members, among other negative consequences, as a result of Cook’s vile “advice” to military spouses.

Fiano acknowledges what we all should- that being a military spouse is incredibly tough, and some people just aren’t made for that kind of life. Says Fiano:

Now, I know firsthand how difficult a relationship in the military is. I don’t begrudge someone who acknowledges that they can’t handle it. It takes a special kind of person to be able to endure this lifestyle. Camp Lejeune is full of women who make it through with grace, dignity, and class — and women who just couldn’t do it. There’s no shame in admitting that you just can’t handle it. A lot of people, especially 18-year-olds who don’t come from a military background, just don’t fully realize what they’re getting into when they marry someone who is active-duty military. I don’t personally believe it means they should take the easy way out and leave, but I don’t think it makes them a bad person, either

Cook, unfortunately, couldn’t take being a military spouse. Leaving her husband while he is overseas, while not recommended and something that says a bit about her timing and priorities, should not be held against her in the long run. However, the way she decided to leave, the attitude she held while doing so and her decision to write on a popular website about the experience…those are things we should soundly reject in a society that supposedly supports the troops as they fight overseas. If we do not, if we let people like Cook infect our society, we show ourselves unworthy of a military made up of patriotic men and women who voluntarily risk life and limb so the rest of us can care about Jon and Kate, the Balloon Boy and Tiger Woods’ affairs.

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

So, I wake up this morning and read this e-mail:

I just read your article titled “A Question for Ron Paul”.

And I have a question for you. Since you love the Neocon agenda so much, why
don’t you sign up for a long stint in the military, and if you’re too old, why
not urge your children to join?

As is the US military is underrepresented with Jews and needs more Jews to sign
up so they don’t sound like the hypocritical war mongers they are.

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/2004/31104/commilitary.html

Since Jewish neocons are so prevalent among those banging the war drums, why
don’t you promote Jews serving in the miltary instead of bashing gentiles who
don’t want to serve Jewish interests?

And there was this comment in my other article, which is more typical for public statements (note the “on behalf of,” since we’re their servant and all):

A neocon is anyone who endorses an interventionalist foreign policy (primarily on behalf of Israel) overseas and a welfare state back home.

Then there was this comments on my Debra Medina article:

Typical Jew writer, without any foreknowlage of Ms. Madinas record he worries if she wont support Isreal first. Yes Jew writer guy, im sure USA will still pour billions into yuor state tresury.

The first thing you’re probably thinking is this: These are isolated examples. They aren’t representative of Ron Paul, and they certainly aren’t representative of his supporters.

I don’t know about that. I think that his most fervent supporters are more anti-Semitic than not. The only time that I ever receive anti-Semitic comments is when I criticize Ron Paul or one of his minions. I am not, in fact, Jewish, although I have great respect for Jewish culture. But the Paultards always assume I am; they cannot fathom why a person would want to support Israel, or that someone could honestly disagree with them without having some kind of ulterior motive. More importantly, though: why don’t I get these kinds of comments from angry Sarah Palin supporters when I disagree with her?

Ron Paul, it must be understood, is not strictly a libertarian. He is staunchly anti-immigration, pro-life, and a deep believer in the Christian faith. He pines for the days when Fortress America was still a recognizable ideal, and cites Robert Taft as his key political inspiration. These Old Right Libertarians — the faction Paul represents — have always had a massive paranoid streak. These are the kinds of folks that joined the John Birch Society in the 1960s, comprised the militias in the 1990s (still today, sometimes, actually), and are reading Lew Rockwell and supporting Ron Paul today. (Alas, this is not an exaggeration; I have met several militia members, all of whom support Ron Paul.) Members of the white nationalist Internet forum Stormfront support Ron Paul and only Ron Paul — if anyone at all (can’t be too sure!). This is what Arianna Huffington and Rachel Maddow think Glenn Beck represents. Ron Paul is who actually represents it.

The Old Right is, of course, a dying faction, but it has a deep mistrust of all “out-groups” and those that it cannot immediately identify as working for its own interests. Jews, the perpetual out-group, make for an obvious target of paranoia. The government, a strange, amorphous beast working for its own interests, cannot be trusted even to tell the truth about something as simple as 9/11, as witnessed by Debra Medina, who “needs more facts” about 9/11 to decide whether it was an inside job. Her lackeys online have declared Glenn Beck the enemy for asking a ‘mean and irrelevant’ question. How out of touch can you possibly be with the rest of America?

A lot of Paultards have become Internet-savvy and know how to work the “New Anti-Semitism” — they criticize Israel, “the Zionists,” and “the neocons” rather than saying “Jewish” outright. But if you scratch the surface, you see what lies beneath: “working for the interests of Israel” — as opposed to what? The interests of America. And why would one consciously work against America’s interests, on behalf of a random country of six million in the Middle East? Well, it’s because it’s the Jewish state, of course, and the “Israel Lobby” (Jew lobby) knows how to manipulate American leaders.

This is dog-whistle stuff for their fellow supporters. Rest assured, the other Paultards know exactly what is meant by “neocon” and “Israel lobby.” (They probably know what the term “ZOG” means, too.) Rank-and-file Paul supporters are mostly innocent of this, I imagine, but Paul’s most fervent supporters are knee-deep in anti-Semitism. After a while, you just have to put two and two together and call something for what it is. And that’s what it is: anti-Semitism. (When will Sarah Palin dissociate herself from this bizarre sect and retract her endorsement of Rand Paul?)

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

It’s time for this administration to fold up their wishful thinking that the country can spend it’s way out of economic problems, put it back on the shelf, and get in the game by doing something effective on the job creation front.

Their singular accomplishment, if you can call it that, since taking office has been to pass a boondoggle of a Stimulus Bill, and that was a year ago. Their gigantic spending bill that was going to keep the economy from going over the cliff has been, by any measure, an abject failure; so much so that they had to invent an unmeasurable new measure in an attempt to quantify how many jobs were saved or imagined. Oh please!

Who cares how many jobs were saved or imagined? Am I really supposed to congratulate them for taxing me to give government employees (employee: one who is employed) who already have a job, a raise. Where I come from that’s not creating jobs; but then again, I wasn’t one of the folks under the illusion that the so called stimulus bill would actually create any jobs.

Perhaps I’m being to hard on them. Passing the stimulus bill is not their only accomplishment. They have managed to make possible the election of Republican Governors in NJ and VA, and a Republican Senator to represent the good people of Massachusetts, so I guess they have done some good!

A real jobs recovery can start tomorrow or not; all that need happen is for the government to give up on their current wish list of job destruction legislation and pursue policies that are pro growth and pro entrepreneur instead. The President can announce that he’s ditched his favorite job killing bills like Health-Care Reform, Cap and Tax, the Bank Tax, the 250 thousandaire tax and all the other business choking regulations he wants Congress to enact.

He can instead champion tax reform that rewards the job creators by increasing the return on successful risk taking. Why not cut the corporate tax rate to 25% so that American corporations are not at a competitive disadvantage to foreign firms . Making American firms more competitive means more production and more jobs in America.

While he’s at it, he can give give all those evil 250 thousandaires he’s been verbally persecuting as though they were the Jihadist a break; a tax break. Many of them are owners of S-Corps who are paying a 35% marginal tax rate that will soon be 39.6% or more. The balance of them are a part of the top 5% that are picking up the tab for his massive government spending spree.

As Jack Kemp was quick to remind us, you can’t have Capitalism with out capital. Taxing capital out of the hands of Entrepreneurs who would use it to create more jobs is no different than eating the farmer’s seed corn. The next crop of jobs will always be smaller as a result.

Larry Kudlow inadvertently illustrated the real problem while calling for a cut in the capital gains tax rate on his show the other night. Larry is a Free Market Capitalist to the bone, but he has made the mistake of letting the Democrats frame the debate. He spoke of a study which showed that the optimal rate at which to tax capital to maximize revenue is 10%, and called for a reduction in the rate.

Here is where Larry’s went wrong: it’s not about the government and it’s revenues, it’s about the citizens of this country and their well being. The optimal tax rate on capital is 0%, that’s the rate at which the most capital is available to finance the most businesses to create the most JOBS.

Our Government has lost it’s way, it’s needs now take priority over those they govern; they are more worried about their budgets and programs, not your well being. To this government, it is all about how much revenue they can squeeze out of you. It’s time for you to squeeze back!

___________________________________________________________________

-Dave Cribbin, President of Tailwind Capital, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Earlier this month Governor Huckabee visited Israel and gave this 7 minute interview to Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news organization.

Highlights:

• Huckabee talks about the group of 100+ Americans who toured the country and the new understanding they gain from seeing first-hand the politics, culture, and way of life in Israel.
• Huckabee addresses the concerns of Israel’s about US  support in regards to Iran and other security threats
• Huckabee comments on recent societal changes by the Israeli government related to settlement building and roadblocks.
• Huckabee makes the point that the Israeli people need have the right to live in Israel not just because of spiritual connection to the land but practically because they need a place of refuge and safety in the world, especially in light of the historical attacks on Jews.
• Huckabee talks about why Jerusalem should not be split and how the current arrangement allows for good access by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to important sites in the city.

Mort Zuckerman, the real estate tycoon and publisher of The Daily News, is considering a run at Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s seat in 2010.  I imagine he will follow in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s footsteps and switch his registration to Republican, avoiding the already bitter primary brewing between Gillibrand and former Rep. Harold Ford.  If George Pataki doesn’t run, and by all indications he is not, then Zuckerman is probably the best we can hope for.  A Bloomberg-like republican is still worlds better the Gillibrand, who has been nothing but a puppet for the state’s senior senator Chuck Schumer.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

George Orwell famously remarked that the new definition of a fascist is someone you don’t like. This seems to be what Ron Paul and his little minions are attempting to do with the word “neocon”:

In the face of several electoral challenges from tea party-connected candidates, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul cautioned in a recent interview that “neocon influence” is “infiltrating” the movement he is often credited for creating.

…

“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.

“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.

His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are “not what is generally heard from the Republican party,” he said.

“Neocon issues in public policy are not exactly dead these days,” he explained, seemingly pointing to the Obama administration. “Progressive Democrats aren’t really happy with foreign policy. … That’s the infiltration, philosophically, in different positions.”

First of all, who on Earth has credited Ron Paul for creating the Tea Party movement? My understanding is that the impetus behind it sits with Rick Santelli, the CNBC commentator who randomly came up with the idea while standing on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange Chicago Mercantile Exchange (thanks, Anthony!). While the Tea Party movement has a decidedly libertarian bent, it’s more of a Reagan “libertarianism-is-the-heart-and-soul-of-conservatism” kind of bent than a Paul “The Federal Reserve wants to deep-fry your children” one.

More importantly, though, is the question: what the heck is a “neocon” to these people? Neoconservatism, properly defined, arose as a response to 60′s radicalism. Its godfathers, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were former Trotskyist radicals who became, as it was so famously put, “mugged by reality” into accepting a “new” conservatism: cultural traditionalism, a vigorously anti-Communist foreign policy, and a cautious form of free-market economics that accepted the inevitability of the welfare state. Its founders were mostly, though not exclusively, Jewish: Jeane Kirkpatrick can hardly be considered Jewish, for instance.

Today, what we know as “neoconservatism” tends to be vigorously and proactively anti-totalitarian foreign policy: the kind that accepts intervention and international institutions (when they can be worked for America’s benefit). They’re more “big stick” than “walk softly.” And that big stick is America’s superior morality. What we know as the “neoconservative” foreign policy tendency has been accepted by figures, with particular variations, from Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani, and Ronald Reagan. Not that we’ve got anything like unanimous consent: commentators like Pat Buchanan, Dinesh D’Souza, William F. Buckley, and Robert Spencer do not or did not accept neoconservatism, thinking it too optimistic about the human condition, too quick to think foreign cultures malleable, or too inappropriate with regard to America’s role in the world.

“Neocon” is typically employed as a pejorative. It is discordant to the ear, particularly because of the second half of the term: a “con” is a bad deal, a fake. “Neo” makes use of the long-e sound, a distinctly unmusical tone. Lacking is the augustness of the full term “conservatism,” and the according history. “Neocon,” with its cadence, becomes something of a smear in itself (despite some attempts to “take it back,” by those like Irwin Stelzer, for instance, editor of “The Neocon Reader”).

Is Sarah Palin a “neocon”? After endorsing Ron Paul’s son for Congress, giving a shout-out to Ron Paul over a video for MTV, and insisting that “we’d better not be at war [over oil],” her instincts certainly don’t lay in that realm. Now, she’s committed heresy by becoming the Eliza Doolittle of the famously neoconservative Weekly Standard crowd. She signed a letter calling for a surge in troops in Afghanistan along with Kristol, Kagan, and the “usual neocon suspects.” But she did just endorse a Paul.

Moreover, when have ending the drug war — a quixotic libertarian cause — and recalling overseas troops been an aim of the Tea Party movement? As I demonstrated earlier this evening, Pat Buchanan has also bought into this bizarre delusion: they look at the Tea Party movement and see themselves. (One might accuse me of harboring the same symptoms by so frequently referring to Ayn Rand in relation to the Tea Partiers, but I’m not the one who is spiking up sales of Atlas Shrugged or holding up “Shrug, Atlas” and “Who Is John Galt?” posters!) Ron Paul wants the Tea Party movement to be about him, and when it comes to capitalism, it’s right on board with him — but not with his bizarre, meaningless crusade against “neocons” and the Drug War. I’d wager that the Tea Party movement, like most Americans, opposes efforts to legalize drugs. This is unfortunate, but it’s true.

If Barack Obama is a “neocon,” as Paul seems to imply (hey, he did just ramp up the war in Afghanistan, right? Neocon!), if Sarah Palin is a “neocon,” if George W. Bush is a “neocon,” if anyone who thinks that America should stand by Israel is a “neocon” (have you checked out the comments by the Paultards on my [retracted] Debra Medina endorsement?) — then the word is meaningless and only serves as a pejorative. Toss it.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

The Winter Olympics open tonight in Vancouver – so I felt the need to put something up here. I love the Olympics, because they give the whole world a chance to take a break from the drama we blog about every day. It’s not exactly world peace, and I’m certainly no bleeding-heart peacenik – but it’s good to have a few weeks every few years to agree on something (even if it’s something as politically irrelevant as sports).

So, good luck to team USA and all of the athletes competing in Vancouver. And just in case you need a refresher on what these games are about – meet downhill ski racer Kwame Nkrumah-Acheampong - better known as “The Snow Leopard”. Kwame is the only member of Ghana’s delegation to Vancouver Games. He took up skiing while a student in Britain, and has now chased his dream all the way to the Olympics. Not bad for a 35 year old man from a tropical nation who first put on skis 6 years ago.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Texas Gubernatorial Survey

If the Republican Primary for Governor were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?

• Rick Perry 42%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 30%
• Debra Medina 17%

Among Men

• Rick Perry 49%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 26%
• Debra Medina 19%

Among Women

• Rick Perry 35%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 34%
• Debra Medina 15%

If there were a runoff election for Governor between Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, for whom would you vote?

• Rick Perry 43%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 33%

Among Men

• Rick Perry 51%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 27%

Among Women

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 39%
• Rick Perry 35%

If there were a runoff election for Governor between Rick Perry and Debra Medina, for whom would you vote?

• Rick Perry 44%
• Debra Medina 23%

Among Men

• Rick Perry 52%
• Debra Medina 20%

Among Women

• Rick Perry 36%
• Debra Medina 26%

If there were a runoff election for Governor between Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, for whom would you vote?

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 38%
• Debra Medina 30%

Among Men

• Debra Medina 36%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 31%

Among Women

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 45%
• Debra Medina 24%

If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Bill White, the Democrat, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Republican?

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 47%
• Bill White 41%

Among Independents

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 44%
• Bill White 44%

Among Men

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 52%
• Bill White 38%

Among Women

• Bill White 44%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 42%

If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Bill White, the Democrat, and Rick Perry, the Republican?

• Rick Perry 46%
• Bill White 42%

Among Independents

• Bill White 45%
• Rick Perry 42%

Among Men

• Rick Perry 51%
• Bill White 38%

Among Women

• Bill White 46%
• Rick Perry 41%

If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Bill White, the Democrat, and Debra Medina, the Republican?

• Debra Medina 44%
• Bill White 43%

Among Independents

• Bill White 48%
• Debra Medina 40%

Among Men

• Debra Medina 49%
• Bill White 39%

Among Women

• Bill White 47%
• Debra Medina 39%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill White 49% / 33% {+16%}
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 52% / 37% {+15%}
• Debra Medina 47% / 35% {+12%}
• John Cornyn 49% / 41% {+8%}
• Rick Perry 50% / 45% {+5%}
• Barack Obama 44% / 54% {-10%}

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted February 8-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% Republican; 31% Democrat; 29% Independent.

Pat Buchanan looks into face of the Tea Party Movement and sees…himself:

What called the Tea Party into existence?

Some are angry over unchecked immigration and the failure to control our borders and send the illegals back. Some are angry over the loss of manufacturing jobs. Some are angry over winless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some are angry over ethnic preferences they see as favoring minorities over them.

What they agree upon, however, is that they have been treading water for a decade, working harder and harder with little or no improvement in their family standard of living. They see the government as taking more of their income in taxes, seeking more control over their institutions, creating entitlements for others not them, plunging the nation into unpayable debt, and inviting inflation or a default that can wipe out what they have saved.

The latter paragraph was included lest I be accused of “taking him out of context,” but is not the point. The bolded section is exactly what Pat Buchanan personally believes: that immigration is still the most prominent issue facing our nation, that free trade is evil, that the Iraq War is an example of American imperialism at work. Did Pat Buchanan mistake his own question for “What called the Pat Buchanan supporters into existence?”

The Tea Parties are much more Ayn Rand than Pat Buchanan, her polar opposite. Atlas Shrugged has seen a resurgence in sales, not The Death of the West. The Tea Partiers are not cultural warriors. They are leave-us-aloners. The Tea Partiers want the government’s hands off; Pat Buchanan calls for a domestic government that is manifestly hands-on: the essence of populism — and Buchanan is the original populist; the Tea Parties are not, contrary to media reports, ideologically “populist” in nature — is social conservatism and economic nationalism.

The Tea Partiers might agree with Buchanan on immigration and may even, like most Americans, be upset about the short-term loss of jobs from the manufacturing sector. But their essence is their support of the free market, the fundamentals of which Buchanan abhors. They aren’t radicals for capitalism — they’re not educated enough, quite frankly — but their hearts are in the right place. That is: not with Pat Buchanan.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Rasmussen North Dakota Congressional Survey

• Rick Berg (R) 46%
• Earl Pomeroy (D) 40%

• Earl Pomeroy (D) 45%
• Kevin Cramer (R) 44%

• Earl Pomeroy (D) 47%
• Paul Schaffner (R) 38%

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of Earl Pomeroy?

• Very favorable 33%
• Somewhat favorable 15%
• Somewhat unfavorable 17%
• Very unfavorable 29%

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

• Strongly approve 19%
• Somewhat approve 20%
• Somewhat disapprove 13%
• Strongly disapprove 45%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 9-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Male voters support Berg and Cramer over Pomeroy by double-digit margins and break roughly even when Schaffner is the GOP candidate. Berg runs even with the Democratic incumbent among female voters, but women give a double-digit edge to Pomeroy against the other two Republicans.

Voters not affiliated with either of the major parties prefer Pomeroy to any of the GOP hopefuls.

Victory Research Illinois Gubernatorial Survey

• Pat Quinn (D) 42.1%
• Bill Brady (R) 31.3%
• Rich Whitney (G) 3.9%

• Pat Quinn (D) 40.8%
• Kirk Dillard (R) 35.3%
• Rich Whitney (G) 3.1%

Survey of 1,200 likely voters was conducted February 4-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% Democrat; 24% Republican; 34% Independent. Political ideology: 41% Moderate; 37% Conservative; 22% Liberal.

I received an interesting post from a Facebook friend which I figured would be of interest to you.  It appears as if there may be a financial conflict of interest involving Senator Bayh and his wife.

————-

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) appears to have a major conflict of interest and it is about time he starts talking to his wife about her business activities. This link contains photos of two of their three homes. The 1000 square foot condo in Indiana is worth less than $60,000, and neighbors have not met the couple.
In Washington, DC the Senator lives in a residence currently assessed at $2,297,050 in an upscale neighborhood. The home is in the name of his wife Susan, “a professional Director,” who serves on numerous corporate boards. The couple also owns a $2.1 million beach-front home in Bethany Beach, Delaware.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was in a similar situation in 2004, and it contributed to his defeat. Daschle’s DC home was listed as his principal residence on tax forms, instead of the very small rural house he owned next door to his mother.

The contrast between the South Dakota cottage and DC mansion was staggering. Bayh has not made the same mistake, and the Indiana condo is listed as his principal residence.
I am not outraged by the residency issue, and Republicans are guilty of the same behavior. Bayh’s probable GOP opponent, former Sen. Dan Coats, was out of Indiana for many years. Former Senator Mark Hatfield (R) listed an Oregon hotel room as his address while he resided in one of the finest homes in Georgetown.

The 2004 GOP Senate candidate against Barack Obama was clearly not an Illinois resident, and proved that immediately after his staggering loss. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy did not have strong ties to New York, and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) claims his residence is an 800 square foot place in Cumming rather then the palatial homes he owns in northern Virginia and the Bahamas.

Senator Bayh’s approval rating is down, and this is especially true among independent voters. He avoided town hall meetings last summer when opposition mounted to the Obama agenda, and claimed he was too busy to meet with tea party organizers in Indianapolis.

Bayh’s GOP opponents will probably not make residency an issue, but political activists are starting to ask questions about his income, and this will not go unnoticed by the news media. For example, how does a Senator who earns $174,000/year and pays $43,000 in private school tuition and employs a full time nanny live in a $2.3 million home?

How has he gained so much wealth while working as public servant for the past 24 years? He has not inherited money, so how does he have a net worth between $4.3 million and $5.1 million? The only assets he owned when he first filed his candidacy for Indiana Secretary of State in 1986 were a very modest condo and a four year old BMW.

The answer is his wife Susan Bayh who never responds to questions regarding her professional life. She is an attorney who began serving on 14 corporate boards starting in 1994. She is now listed as a director of eight businesses, and is not otherwise employed.

Senators are not required to file specific financial reports. They only have to list their spouses income in broad ranges. We do not know Susan Bayh’s exact income, but what we do know is more than enough to raise eyebrows.

Her compensation from just one of those companies, WellPoint, was in excess of $350,000 in 2007. This is well above the median amount paid to directors of the largest U.S. corporations. In 2006, Susan Bayh was able to purchase 20,000 option shares from WellPoint for a price varying from $35.93 to $44.18 per share and sell them the very same day for a quick pre-tax profit of $796,000.

She earns more than $1 million/year in director fees and collected more than $1.7 million in exercised stock options from just two of the companies. According to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette, “Her actual income from exercising stock options is higher, but the details are not publicly reported.”
Susan Bayh serves on boards in the insurance, pharmaceutical, health insurance, banking and broadcasting industries. The newspaper listed several votes by the Senator which had a positive impact on the companies on which his wife serves.

When questions were raised by the Ft. Wayne paper, Bayh responded, “The reality is I don’t even know the people who run the vast majority of her companies. I’ve never even spoken to them. The reality is, we don’t talk about stuff that she’s involved with.”

The Center for Public Integrity says “Given that she has a high-profile role with corporations which could benefit from the legislative actions of her husband, there is definitely a potential for a conflict of interest.” Watchdog organizations Public Citizen and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights echoed those concerns.

The issue of Susan Bayh’s employment was raised in a minor manner during the Senator’s 2004 re-election campaign. Bayh supporters responded by saying he was not one of those “fat cat Republicans.” Lets hope he makes that charge this year because listed below are the residences of some of his Democratic colleagues. Of the 10 wealthiest lawmakers, eight of them are Democrats.

Senators and the value of their primary residence:
John Kerry (MA) – $253 million
Jay Rockefeller (WV) – $82 million
Mark Warner (VA) – $74 million
Frank Lautenberg (NJ) – $48 million
Dianne Feinstein (CA) – $43 million
House of Representatives
Jane Harman (CA) – $112 million
Jared Polis (CO) – $71 million
Harry Teague (NM) – $41 million

H/T: Gregory Hilton

Many conservatives were disappointed with the news that Rep. Mike Pence had declined to challenge Indiana’s incumbent junior Senator, Democrat Evan Bayh, this November.

Although Pence would have been an outstanding candidate, the man who has replaced him as the front-runner for the Republican nomination also stands a excellent chance of unseating Bayh come the fall, former U.S.  Senator Dan Coats.

Sen. Coats’  senate career originally began when he was appointeded to replace Sen. Dan Quayle upon Quayle’s election to the Vice Presidency in 1988. Coats then went on to win a special election to fill the remainder of Quayle’s term in 1990 and won a full six-year term of his own in 1992. Coats’ career highlights include earning a Juris Doctor from the University of Indiana, serving in the U.S. Army, winning election to Congress from Indiana’s 4th congressional district (where he served for eight-years), as well as being appointed U.S. Ambassador to Germany by President George W. Bush. Coats was, reportedly, President Bush’s first choice for Secretary of Defense.

To be honest, I was rather surprised by the unenthusiastic reaction of some in the Rightosphere regarding Coats’ announcement. If the fact that Coats has already won statewide elections to the U.S. Senate in Indiana twice is not enough to arouse excitement, Coats’ long track record of rock-ribbed conservatism (ACU lifetime rating of 90) should do it.

The bottom line of this race is that it is all about Evan Bayh, not who the Republican challenger is. Bayh is vulnerable because he has won election to the Senate from a conservative state by portraying himself as a moderate and independent Midwestern Democrat. His actions of the past 12 months have revealed to Indiana’s voters that he is anything but. It’s Bayh’s votes–which have placed him well outside the mainstream of the average Indiana voter–that have imperiled his reelection, not just simply any “anti-Democratic wave” which is rising towards the mid-terms.

For what it’s worth, I believe that Indiana voters will send Evan Bayh into retirement this fall–just as they did with his father. And when they do, I believe that many conservative bloggers will finally find some excitement in the fact that the people of Indiana replaced one of the Democrat’s greatest moderate poseurs of all-time with a Republican who sports a 90 lifetime ACU rating.

P.S. Perhaps the best gauge of the true strength of Coats’ candidacy lies with the fervor in which Indiana Democrats, and some of his Republican rivals, have ratcheted up the smear campaign against him already. I will not dignify them by publishing their claims. However, Hoosier Access provides an excellent fisking of them here.

[Update 1] Russ Pulliam of the Indianapolis Star writes: “Coats will give Bayh real competition, similar to what U.S. Rep. Mike Pence would have brought to the race. Coats, who represented northeastern Indiana in Congress in the 1980s, moved to the Senate when Dan Quayle became vice president in 1989. In Congress, Coats pushed conservative alternatives to big government efforts to end poverty, and his thinking contributed to the compassionate conservative ideas that helped George W. Bush land the presidency…. What remains unclear is the impact of uncivil attacks on Coats by the Democratic National Campaign Committee and other Bayh supporters. They are throwing every piece of mud they can find, hoping something might stick….Mud-slinging might work if there is substance behind it. But Evan Bayh was a real Hoosier, growing up around Washington only because his father was a senator. This time the mud-slinging may hurt Democrats. The issue is whether Coats is a man of character and integrity. On that score, the mud tossed by Democrats could splash back on them.”

[Update 2] The Indiana Daily Student reports: “Coats also went on former Senate colleague Fred Thompson’s radio show Wednesday and said Democratic attacks “sound pretty desperate.” “Well they’ve rolled it out, and I guess that signals one thing … we’ve put a real scare into them,” Coats told the former Tennessee Senator. “I think for the first time, maybe ever, Evan Bayh’s going to face a race that is going to put him to the test”….Political science professor Yanna Krupnikov said she’s surprised to see Democrats go negative so early with a successful incumbent like Bayh. “In my judgment, this is a signal that the Democrats are gearing up for a tough campaign,” she said. “Given the difficulties Obama has had, and the generally mediocre state of the economy, it seems natural that the Democrats may worry about the upcoming election.”

Rasmussen Louisiana Senatorial Survey

• David Vitter 57% (53%)
• Charlie Melancon 33% (35%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• David Vitter 67% (61%) / 26% (33%) {+41%}
• Charlie Melancon 39% (39%) / 45% (46%) {-6%}

How would you rate the job Bobby Jindal has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 36% (32%)
• Somewhat approve 34% (35%)
• Somewhat disapprove 17% (18%)
• Strongly disapprove 11% (15%)

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

• Strongly approve 26% (29%)
• Somewhat approve 11% (10%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 53% (51%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 14, 2010 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Men heavily favor Vitter 68% to 26%, while women prefer the Republican by 11 points, 49% to 38%.

Among voters not affiliated with either party, Vitter leads by more than three-to-one.

Earlier this week, Vice President Biden said the following to Larry King (the video clip, and the quote below, can be seen at Real Clear Politics):

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

As is well-known, both Biden and President Obama (and Secretary of State Clinton) opposed the surge in Iraq that helped set the stage for Biden’s ”stable government” and the ability for troops to come home. The Bush administration did a great many things wrong in Iraq, but thanks to the surge and the leadership of General Petraeus, it will be very possible for Biden’s scenario to come true.

I hope the administration takes back these comments, as they are both misleading- perhaps outright dishonest?- and do a great disservice to the previous administration. For all the criticisms- many of them well-founded- that President Obama, David Axelrod and the rest of the Obama White House direct at Bush, wouldn’t it behoove them to give him credit where credit is due, especially since it is well-recorded that Obama and Biden opposed the surge, taking credit for its results will fool exactly zero people?

I’ll let Hot Air’s Mitch_Berg finish it off (where you can see the extended quote Biden gave):

There’s your Hope and Change; Biden hopes you don’t notice he’s changed history.

P.S. I finally found the clip of Biden talking to King. See below.

UT-Austin Texas Gubernatorial Survey (Pre-Medina, Nutty 9/11 Truther Edition)

GOP Primary

• Rick Perry 45%
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 21%
• Debra Medina 19%

Gubernatorial Election

• Rick Perry 44%
• Bill White 35%

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 43%
• Bill White 34%

• Bill White 36%
• Debra Medina 36%

Survey of 800 registered voters (including 366 Republican primary voters) was conducted February 1-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.46 percentage points; among Republican primary voters, +/- 5.12 percentage points.

Okay, so the title is somewhat hyperbolic, but according to my friend, James Agresti, founder of the New Jersey think tank Just Facts and author of Rational Conclusions, the Jersey Conservative Roundtable suggested Governor Christie do exactly what he’s doing now:

During Jersey Conservative’s pre-inaugural roundtable in which we put forward ideas for the incoming administration, Dr. Sabrin suggested this brash course of action: “Soon to be governor Chris Christie should declare a financial emergency and start at ground zero.”

Today, in the words of the Statehouse Bureau, Governor Christie “declared a fiscal emergency, seizing broad powers to freeze aid to more than 500 school districts and cut from higher education, hospitals and the Public Advocate.” Outraged, Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono (Democrat) declared, “What the governor did today is in essence declare martial law.” The Christie administration noted that state law gives the governor authority to “impound” funds to achieve a balanced budget.

Let’s not forget why we are here. A mere three weeks ago, former Governor Corzine assured us he was leaving NJ with a $496 million surplus. Quite to the contrary, within 72 hours of his inauguration, the NJ Treasury Department informed Christie that our state was on track for a $1.2 billion deficit this fiscal year (closing on June 30). In response to this revelation, Corzine continued to claim he had left NJ with a surplus and that the Treasury Department’s number was fictional. In a way, maybe the number was – but not in the direction Corzine claimed. Less than a month later, the estimated deficit has grown by 83% and stands at $2.2 billion.

Significantly, the speech Governor Christie gave announcing these budget cuts was reasoned, articulate, and passionate (see the videos at the end of this article). Time will tell – but right now – it looks like the citizens of NJ have done something exceptional and elected a compelling speaker who is genuinely true to his word.

I think James is correct- Christie has to take this kind of drastic measure to balance his state’s budget. Obviously, some of the budget issues are related to the recession and a lack of incoming taxes, but maybe it would have helped if Corzine had not jumped education spending last year with “stimulus” money. After all, once that infusion of Chinese-owned money is gone, I would think the local and state taxes would have to make up the shortfall. Too, as noted here,

New Jersey is facing a bill of $90 billion in unfunded pension and health benefit promises.

On the one hand, union workers, teachers, etc. are largely not responsible for what their union leaders negotiate on their behalf. Thus, cutting what they receive in pay and benefits is harsh. However, times are tough all around, and so Christie is right on. Let’s hope the Democratic-controlled legislature has the courage to follow his leadership on getting New Jersey’s budget turned around.

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

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

• Approve 45% (45%) [46%] {46%} (48%) [50%] {50%} (57%) [59%]
• Disapprove 46% (45%) [43%] {44%} (42%) [41%] {42%} (33%) [31%]

Among Independents

• Approve 40% (42%) [41%] {37%} (43%) [45%] {45%} (52%) [57%]
• Disapprove 49% (48%) [46%] {51%} (46%) [44%] {45%} (37%) [30%]

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

• Approve 41% (41%) [44%] {41%} (43%) [47%] {45%} (52%)
• Disapprove 54% (54%) [51%] {54%} (52%) [46%] {49%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 37% (34%) [38%] {33%} (38%) [40%] {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 58% (61%) [55%] {60%} (58%) [51%] {53%} (46%)

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

• Approve 35% (35%) [38%] {38%} (41%) [41%] {39%} (46%)
• Disapprove 58% (58%) [56%] {56%} (53%) [51%] {52%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 28% (31%) [32%] {32%} (35%) [36%] {34%} (37%)
• Disapprove 64% (63%) [61%] {61%} (59%) [56%] {60%} (48%)

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

• Approve 37% (34%) [37%]
• Disapprove 56% (59%) [56%]

Among Independents

• Approve 33% (26%) [28%]
• Disapprove 58% (66%) [62%]

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

• Approve 33%
• Disapprove 60%

Among Independents

• Approve 26%
• Disapprove 66%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?

• Approve 28% (32%) [32%] {33%} (36%)
• Disapprove 63% (59%) [59%] {56%} (55%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?

• Approve 28% (32%) [29%] {30%} (31%)
• Disapprove 61% (58%) [62%] {58%} (58%)

Which comes closer to your point of view: Democrats in Congress are not considering Republican points of view in pushing legislation or Repubilcans in Congress are misusing the filibuster to block legislation?

• Democrats pushing legislation 46%
• Republicans misusing filibuster 37%

Among Independents

• Democrats pushing legislation 48%
• Republicans misusing filibuster 31%

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

• President Obama 44% (42%) [45%] {44%} (45%) [47%] {46%} (53%)
• Republicans in Congress 38% (41%) [40%] {37%} (36%) [31%] {37%} (33%)

Among Independents

• President Obama 39% (37%) [39%] {37%} (40%) [41%] {41%} (46%)
• Republicans in Congress 39% (39%) [39%] {37%} (37%) [30%] {36%} (36%)

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

• Mostly approve 35% (34%) [36%] {38%}
• Mostly disapprove 54% (54%) [53%] {52%}

Among Independents

• Mostly approve 29% (26%) [30%] {32%}
• Mostly disapprove 60% (59%) [58%] {57%}

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

• Too far 43%
• Not far enough 30%
• About right 17%

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

• Continue health care 52%
• Go on to other matters 44%

How would you describe President Obama’s efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit?

• Excellent 6%
• Good 31%
• Not so good 25%
• Poor 35%

Among Independents

• Excellent 4%
• Good 26%
• Not so good 28%
• Poor 39%

(more…)

Again I am not able to embed the codes here for some reason. You can find it at Mitt Romney Central by clicking here.

What you will find there:

1- A newscast from FOX13 in Utah about the Romney’s upcoming speech at the Salt Palace. It also video of Romney reading his book during the studio recording (and sporting reading glasses).

2- An audio segment of the entire first chapter from Romney’s new book. The segment lasts 11:30 minutes and touches on some American history in regards to wars, technology and economy.

My first impression: I’m immensely proud to be an American.

This little badge below will take you to a page that has info on tour dates and where you can pre-order the book (or audio CDs online)

Any thoughts on the first chapter?

I guess the joke is on Patrick Kennedy.  In 2011, we will witness the first Kennedy-free Congress of my lifetime.  Hope and change indeed.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Finally, a dose of genuine leadership, on a critically important issue: newly inaugurated New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has ordered a freeze on ALL state spending (now THAT’S a true spending freeze!). We should tip our cap to the Governor for not taking the easy way out and opting for a piecemeal approach, reminiscent of President Obama’s much-discussed non-defense discretionary spending proposal. Christie deserves even more praise for the straightforward manner in which he has dealt with the matter:

“Today we are going to act swiftly to fix problems too long ignored. Today I begin to do what I promised the people of New Jersey I would do,” Christie said.

…The governor also cut state subsidies to New Jersey Transit, saying it needs to become fiscally efficient.

“Revisit its rich union contracts,” Christie said. “And they may also have to consider service reductions or fare increases.”

…The governor said he doesn’t anticipate schools cutting programs or jobs right now, but sources within the administration said there are no guarantees for the next fiscal year.

Christie warned lawmakers that next year’s budget may include even harsher cuts in spending and aid.

Right on cue, the typical liberal retorts to spending cuts came from the usual suspects:

“What that’s going to mean is that those school districts without that money are going to be raising property taxes in the upcoming year to make up for that shortfall,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-19th District.

“It’s [cutting state subsidies to New Jersey Transit is] really foolish. It undermines not only the environment but our economy because people need transit to get to work,” said Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club.

As Christie argued, perhaps these school districts and the transit authority should rethink their practices of dishing out lavish compensation to employees? For example, a friend of mine and resident of New Jersey recently explained to me that his family now pays TWICE as much in property taxes on their home than when they first moved in a few years ago, while the appraised value on their home has fallen with the housing market. The culprit? Plumb contracts for public school teachers (if I remember correctly, he said the teachers AND their families get full health care coverage, without having to pay anything out of pocket). But how dare Gov. Christie call for a freeze in state spending, at a time when tax revenues have fallen double digits in most areas!

I only wish more elected officials, especially those in Washington, would take a harder line against spending. We need more leadership like Gov. Christie’s.

CBS News/New York Times Political Survey

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

• Approve 46% (50%) <46%> {50%} [53%] (56%)
• Disapprove 45% (40%) <41%> {39%} [36%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 44% (40%) <42%> {43%} [45%] (52%)
• Disapprove 44% (47%) <40%> {41%} [40%] (35%)

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

• Approve 42% (46%) <41%> {47%} [49%] (54%)
• Disapprove 52% (48%) <47%> {43%} [43%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 37% (33%) <38%> {40%} [40%] (47%)
• Disapprove 56% (59%) <46%> {47%} [48%] (41%)

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

• Approve 35% (40%) <36%> {42%} [44%] (47%)
• Disapprove 55% (54%) <54%> {50%} [48%] (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 31% (33%) <35%> {39%} [38%] (44%)
• Disapprove 60% (60%) <53%> {53%} [50%] (43%)

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

• Approve 47% (49%) [50%] (48%)
• Disapprove 34% (38%) [36%] (28%)

Among Independents

• Approve 42% (39%) [49%] (45%)
• Disapprove 35% (48%) [38%] (24%)

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

• Approve 55% (60%) <52%> {57%}
• Disapprove 34% (33%) <35%> {24%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 31% {40%}
• Disapprove 58% {43%}

Among Independents

• Approve 27% {35%}
• Disapprove 58% {45%}

In his first year in office, do you think Barack Obama has accomplished more than you expected, less than you expected, or about what you expected him to accomplish by now?

• More 9% (14%)
• Less 37% (26%)
• About expected 51% (56%)

Among Independents

• More 7% (10%)
• Less 37% (31%)
• About expected 51% (54%)

Which comes closest to your feelings about the Obama administration?

• Enthusiastic 10%
• Satisfied, but not enthusiastic 37%
• Dissatisfied, but not angry 38%
• Angry 13%

Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable or not favorable?

• Favorable 39%
• Not favorable 34%

Who do you think is mostly to blame for the current state of the nation’s economy?

• Bush administration 31%
• Wall Street and financial institutions 23%
• Congress 13%
• Obama administration 7%

From what you know so far, which comes closest to your own view? 1. The economic stimulus package has already created a substantial number of new jobs in the U.S. OR 2. It will create a substantial number of new jobs but hasn’t done that yet OR 3. It will not create a substantial number of new jobs?

• Stimulus has already created jobs 6% {6%}
• Stimulus will create jobs, but hasn’t yet 41% {44%}
• Stimulus will not create new jobs 48% {45%}

Which comes closest to your view? 1. The U.S. needs to fix its health care system now as part of fixing the overall economy. OR 2. Because of the state of the economy, the U.S. cannot afford to fix its health care system right now.

• Need to fix now 44% [52%]
• Can’t afford to fix now 53% [42%]

If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?

• Smaller government/fewer services 56%
• Bigger government/more services 34%

Which comes closer to your view? Government should do more to solve national problems, or government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals?

• Government should do more 35%
• Government is doing too much 59%

Which comes closest to your feelings about the way things are going in Washington?

• Enthusiastic 3%
• Satisfied, but not enthusiastic 26%
• Dissatisfied, but not angry 53%
• Angry 17%

Which comes closer to your own view? The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means increasing the budget deficit, OR The federal government should NOT spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit.

• Create jobs 47%
• Reduce budget deficit 45%

In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, would you be willing or not willing for the government to decrease spending in areas such as health care or education?

• Willing 30%
• Not willing 62%

Among Independents

• Willing 28%
• Not willing 62%

Among Republicans

• Willing 47%
• Not willing 45%

In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, would you be willing or not willing to decrease military spending?

• Willing 45%
• Not willing 51%

Among Independents

• Willing 46%
• Not willing 48%

Among Republicans

• Willing 31%
• Not willing 66%

(more…)

Hats off to Kansas Rep. Bill Otto, a Republican from LeRoy, Kansas.  For years, Otto has been working to enact legislation that would cause local cities, counties, and schools to make an audio recording executive sessions — these are meetings that are closed to the public.  In years past, this bill has been referred to the House Local Government Committee, a committee whose members are often biased towards the concerns of local politicians, rather than the concerns of the citizens of a particular local government entity.

During the 2009-2010 session, Rep. Otto’s bill is called HB 2525.  And this year, Speaker Mike O’Neal referred HB 2525 to the House Judiciary Committee, a committee that, in the opinion of myself and others, will more objectively consider Otto’s bill.

The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) clearly requires open meetings for virtually all topics, when the meetings involve a majority of a local government.  But KOMA is a tough law to enforce, because it requires a large amount of self-policing, and when rare allegations are made, it’s often one city councilman versus all the rest.  I’ve seen this first-hand at Johnson County Community College, which openly violates the law through the practice of distributing budget information during closed meetings that involve the “job performance evaluation” of the president, and when the president is rated on “fiscal management.”  I served as one of seven at-large trustees at JCCC from 2005-2009.  You can go to my Web site to learn more about the culture of corruption under former President Charles Carlsen and current President Terry Calaway.

For any bill, there are three general steps:  the introduction of the bill, the hearing of the bill, and the working of the bill (when a committee “works a bill,” that’s when the committee votes on it).  Yesterday, Wednesday, February 10, 2010, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing for HB 2525.  Proponents and opponents had the opportunity to submit verbal and/or written testimony, in order to try to persuade committee members toward their points of view.

One person who spoke in favor of HB 2525 was Doug Anstaett, president of the Kansas Press Association.  I also spoke in favor of the bill.  The Kansas Association of Counties (county governments use tax dollars to pay membership fees) and the League of Kansas Municipalities (cities pay into this one) argued against the bill.

This bill does not solve everything, and it’s by no means impossible to circumvent — local officials can begin and end recording at any time.  But for two reasons, I do think this is a significant step in the right direction, in terms of making government more open to the taxpayers: 1) as one proponent said, people generally act differently when they know they’re being recorded, and this will encourage good behavior among local politicians and administrators; and 2) for the first time, there will be something other the word of one or two people that a judge can examine, when there is an allegation of a violation of KOMA.

Click here to read the text (PDF) of House Bill 2525.

Also, I encourage you to share with your Kansas friends — many of whom are hearing from local schools, “We can’t possibly survive if there are budget cuts” — that the two largest educational entities in Kansas (JCCC, K-12 Board of Ed.) are giving no-bid legal contracts to the law firm of Democratic Party Chairman Larry Gates.  There are many entertaining stories about Gates’ law partner Mark Ferguson, who once told a JCCC student reporter (paraphrase), “I’m not going to grant your open records request, for the reason that I’m concerned you’re going to report on the information,” and who on April 15, 2009, sent me a cease and desist letter because I was (accurately) calling JCCC leadership “corrupt” (apparently, Ferguson didn’t understand that I would then share the contents of that letter with the 10,000 people who attended the tea party that evening on college grounds).

My written testimony follows, regarding my own observations at JCCC of KOMA violations and other legal troubles, after the fold:

(more…)

CBS News/New York Times DADT Survey

Do you favor or oppose permitting homosexuals to serve in the military? (Half-Sample A)

• Favor 59%
• Oppose 29%

What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? In that case would you favor or oppose permitting homosexuals to serve in the military? (Half-Sample A)

• Favor 44%
• Oppose 42%

Do you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military? (Half-Sample B)

• Favor 70%
• Oppose 19%

What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? In that case would you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military? (Half-Sample B)

• Favor 58%
• Oppose 28%

Survey of 1,084 adults was conducted February 5-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Rasmussen Missouri Senatorial Survey

• Roy Blunt (R) 49% {49%} [44%] (46%)
• Robin Carnahan (D) 42% {43%} [46%] (46%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Roy Blunt 54% {56%} [50%] (57%) / 40% {34%} [43%] (33%) {+14%}
• Robin Carnahan 49% {49%} [51%] (52%) / 45% {46%} [43%] (42%) {+4%}

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

• Strongly approve 25% {27%} [29%] (30%)
• Somewhat approve 15% {14%} [18%] (14%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% [12%} [10%] (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 49% [46%} [43%] (44%)

How would you rate the job Jay Nixon has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15% [17%} [16%]
• Somewhat approve 41% {44%} [47%]
• Somewhat disapprove 29% {23%} [20%]
• Strongly disapprove 12% {11%} [13%]

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage. Results from the poll conducted January 19, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 15, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 21, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Men in Missouri heavily favor Blunt, while women are evenly divided between the candidates. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Blunt by a two-to-one margin, 55% to 27%.

Rasmussen New Hampshire Senatorial Survey

• Kelly Ayotte (R) 46% [49%] (46%)
• Paul Hodes (D) 39% [40%] (38%)

• Bill Binnie (R) 42% [37%]
• Paul Hodes (D) 41% [43%]

• Paul Hodes (D) 44% [45%]
• Ovide Lamontagne (R) 38% [38%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kelly Ayotte 57% [60%] (58%) / 21% [21%] (21%) {+36%}
• Bill Binnie 45% [34%] / 22% [29%] {+23%}
• Paul Hodes 49% [49%] (46%) / 42% [43%] (38%) {+7%}
• Ovide Lamontagne 35% [38%] / 31% [35%] {+4%}

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

• Strongly approve 31% [31%] (38%)
• Somewhat approve 18% [21%] (12%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% [9%] (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% [38%] (41%)

How would you rate the job John Lynch has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 24% [23%] (22%)
• Somewhat approve 36% [35%] (42%)
• Somewhat disapprove 25% [19%] (21%)
• Strongly disapprove 14% [19%] (13%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted February 10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 12, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14, 2009 are in parentheses.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Indiana Senatorial Survey

• Evan Bayh 53%
• John Hostettler 37%

• Evan Bayh 55%
• Dan Coats 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Richard Lugar 64% / 29% {+35%}
• Evan Bayh 61% / 33% {+28%}
• Mitch Daniels 56% / 34% {+22%}
• John Hostettler 40% / 33% {+7%}
• Dan Coats 38% / 34% {+4%}
• Barack Obama 46% / 49% {-3%}

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted February 8-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% Republican; 36% Democrat; 23% Independent.

Europe

• Europeans and Americans see Copenhagen through different eyes
• Intelligence ties between UK and US in jeopardy
• EU leaders fail to impress markets with pledge over Greece
• EU Parliament Rejects Bank Data Deal with US
• Amnesty calls on the EU to stop Roma exclusion now
• US ambassador: arms deal to mention missile shield
• Ukraine PM Tymoshenko ignores calls to concede

Asia

• Iran Protesters Clash With Security Forces
• American held in Delhi for suspected terror links
• New leader for Pakistani Taliban
• Defeated Sri Lankan candidate Sarath Fonseka urges calm
• Iran atom bomb seen attainable
• Lawyer for 26/11 accused shot dead
• India, Britain ink nuclear pact
• Manmohan, Abbas discuss fresh efforts to open Middle East peace talks
• IDF says jihadi terrorist killed in Gaza air strike
• Iraq expels 250 former Blackwater guards
• Yemen announces truce with northern rebels
• Around 450 Kurdish troops in joint US-Iraqi operations
• Thailand drops charges against N Korea arms crew
• Honda Recalls Additional 437000 Cars for Air Bag Issue
• Even Japan get’s down on Toyota
• Religious police enforce Valentine’s Day ban
• Ice Hotel in Hokkaido, Japan *Goldman Special

Americas

• Incertidumbre por Uribe enrarece elecciones en Colombia
• Rio still marches to China beat
• Haiti mystery patient recovering: Stable, eating
• Former Uruguayan dictator sentenced to 30 years
• 21st Winter Olympic Games
• Bank heist suspects iced on skateway
• Mexico won’t withdraw army from drug fight
• Conservatives regain slim lead
• Aerial photos of 9/11 attacks released
• Argentina blocks supply ship in Falklands dispute

* Remember what happened last time Argentina played this game…

Australasia

• Progress ‘too slow’ on Aborigines: Australia PM
• NZ flag debate: We’re ready to grow up, says WWII vet
• Buyout funds see Indonesia as next Asia stop for deals
• Mining company under fire from Amnesty
• A unique island paradise at our doorstep

Antarctica

• Scotch whisky meant to warm Antarctic explorers retrieved after century locked in ice century locked in ice *Goldman Special

Africa

• Mandela makes appearance as lawmakers honor him
• Zuma promises action, jobs
• Ethiopia to introduce Romneycare
• Somalia:US army troops in Africa not ready to be directly involved
• John Mills Pushes For Common African Market
• Zimbabwe a nation with little to celebrate

On this day, 20 years ago

While going through the details of the recent Gallup Poll mentioned below, I came across this little gem:

Whereas conservative (15%) and moderate or liberal (14%) Republicans are about equally likely to mention Romney as their preferred nominee, Palin is much more likely to be mentioned by conservatives (14%) than by moderates and liberals (3%). Conservatives generally outnumber moderates and liberals by about 2 to 1 within the Republican Party.

If I am reading that information correctly, it translates to this:

While Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are virtually tied with conservative Republicans, Mitt is just as popular with moderate and liberal Republicans as he is with conservatives. Sarah, on the other hand, barely registers with anyone other than conservative Republicans.  This has to be an advantage for Mitt in both the primaries and the general election. If Gallup is right about Mitt being just as popular with the conservative Republicans as Palin but blowing her away with everyone else (a big “if”), and if that disparity holds through 2012 (an even bigger “if”), that has to place Palin at a distinct disadvantage against Mitt Romney if both should choose to run for the Presidency in 2012.