I missed a somewhat interesting post on New Majority a couple days ago (probably because I only glance at it on my googlereader feed about once a week).  The piece, “Dick Cheney’s Child and Mine”, is written by a woman named Elise Cooper and it makes a somewhat atypical call for gay marriage.  Her son, like Dick Cheney’s daughter, is gay and her plea is as much personal as political.  In arguments of morality, where premises are difficult to agree on and facts are often interminable, personal pleas can go a long way. Elise writes, in part: 

Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother, I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.”   There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.

Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage? 

These aren’t bad arguments and conservatives need to (and in most cases have) come to grips with them. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the argument doesn’t stand up to any intellectual or moral scrutiny.  Later: 

Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that there are later parts of the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) which seem to take serious issue with the “archaic practices” Elise mentions.  Let’s even accept that, like Scalia’s faint-hearted originalist, some of us are faint-hearted Christians.  Even after all that, there’s still nothing remotely coherent about the bolded text.  How can someone be “part of a religion” if they don’t let it affect their beliefs or lifestyle?  Even the vaguest, watery spirtualism makes claims about proper lifestyle and right belief.  Imagine this reformulation: “I want my son to be a Vegan and not be turned away because he happens to like meat”.  Such a statement would strike even the most hardened cynic as incredible, but we barely notice the more consequential religious version. 

I don’t claim to know how central the doctrines on homosexuality are to Christianity (though I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between Jerry Falwell Christianity and Elise Cooper Christianity). Still,  I think it’s troubling that we now take our diets more seriously than our religion.  Christianity has become, for the Elise Cooper’s of the world, a cultural artifact like Republicanism was for mid-20th century Northeasterners- divorced from the doctrinal background which made it a force to be reckoned with.  If the gay marriage crusade- wherever you come down on the issue individually- leads to a world where more people feel that religion shouldn’t interfere with your beliefs or lifestyle, then we’ll all lose out.

Barack Obama held a “forum” about health care yesterday. It was a throughly unenlightening affair, stacked from top to bottom with prearranged audience members and questions. The apex of the event, an emotional moment during which a woman hugged the president, who vowed to help her find a solution to her cancer, was scripted.

This comes on the heels of a scripted question at a presidential press conference from the liberal Huffington Post.

And let’s not forget the president’s scripted opponents — and his thoroughly scripted remarks and answers.

This is the showbiz age, and this is the showbiz presidency. Everything, from top to bottom, is scripted. There are no such things as actual “town halls,” “forums,” or legitimate interrogations of the president’s policies by opponents. There is no debate. There is no opposition.

There is no accountability. Congress is Democratic, with its sixtieth Democratic senator a lying pundit coming from showbiz. The press corps is Democratic, broadcasting “infomercials” from the White House. The president’s opponents are acknowledged only by the generosity of the president and his allies — and when they are acknowledged, they come in the form of 2-d cardboard cutouts, suitable only for knocking down.

In the hot new movie The Presidency, politics is a grand melodrama, not an exchange of ideas. The good guy, Change Agent Barack Obama, must defeat the villains: big corporations, “special interests,” “those who say change isn’t possible,” and above all, that wicked wretch Rush Limbaugh. They want to prevent change from coming to America. Will our hero be able to stop them before they deny the American people the change they need?

Frank Rich gives it “two thumbs way up!”

But this movie world exists only in the fantasy of the left. What will happen if the American people turn on this charade? What will happen if the Republicans retake Congress or bust the supermajority? What will happen if unemployment reaches double-digits? What will happen if there’s a true international crisis?

Could the script have a twist ending?

What will become of our hero? Stay tuned…

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

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

• Approve 57% (59%)
• Disapprove 33% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 52% (57%)
• Disapprove 37% (30%)

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

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 46%

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

• President Obama 54%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Among Independents

• President Obama 49%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

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

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 37%

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

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

• Approve 54% (55%)
• Disapprove 26% (25%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (53%)
• Disapprove 28% (26%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Barack Obama 58% / 30% [+28%]
• Democratic Party 42% / 42% [0%]
• Republican Party 25% / 52% [-27%]

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 55% / 33% [+22%]
• Democratic Party 30% / 49% [-19%]
• Republican Party 20% / 57% [-37%]

(more…)

I may be the guy with the reputation for wild speculation about candidates around here. At various times, I’ve specualted on Senate runs by Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) and Major General Bentley Rayburn (CO), started a comment riot by suggesting Sen. Judd Gregg as a national candidate, and latched on to State Rep. Laura Brod as a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate (more on that one in the next few days). However, even I thought that the idea I’m about to present was crazy when it was first suggested to me. However, there may now be a perfect storm brewing to make this scenario possible.  

A few months ago, I had an email conversation with my old friend Steve Maloney - who was one of my first endorsements at palinforvp.blogspot.com and a longtime partner in the “Draft Palin for VP” movement. At time, I was making a lot of noise about the potential to take out David Vitter with Joseph Cao, and I had asked his opinion on all of my ”Draft Cao” rhetoric. During the course of the conversation, he mentioned that the person he would most like to see drafted for office was author and columnist Amity Shlaes, who penned the now iconic history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man. At the time, we both lamented the fact that Schlaes was from deep-blue New York and went on with our lives. However, after reading today’s news, I’m starting to think that this is not such a far-fetched idea. 

At the moment, the GOP is scrambling to find a challenger for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – who suffers from low popularity and is almost certain to face a tough primary challenge from Manhattan congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (no relation to Steve). Still, Rep. Peter King has said that he is now leaning against running,and while efforts are being made to lure former Governor George Pataki into the race, a Pataki candidacy appears far from certain.  So, in the event that both King and Pataki take a pass – the Republicans are out of luck. Furthermore, the race is complicated by the Democratic advantage in New York and the huge amounts of cash that would be needed to competed in such a huge state.  Some people might consider that an excuse to throw up our hands and quit the race, but I personally don’t like the idea of chickening out.

So, we need a well known candidate who can raise major moolah very quickly and convince moderates to swing against Gillibrand or Maloney. In other words, we need a celebrity candidate who is also an intellectual force to be reckoned with – in short, we need a bestselling author. Enter Amity Shlaes.

As the author of a book that is wildly popular in libertarian/conservative circles, Shlaes’ candidacy would instantly create excitement (and fundraising potential) among her fans around the country. She also has a number of devotees among the power elite of the GOP, as noted by The New Republic:

The Forgotten Man has been publicly touted by such Republican luminaries as Newt Gingrich, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Jon Kyl, and Mike Pence. Senator John Barrasso was so eager to tout The Forgotten Man that last month he waved around a copy and announced, “in these economic times, a number of members of the Senate are reading a book called The Forgotten Man, about the history of the Great Depression, as we compare and look for solutions, as we look at a stimulus package.” Barrasso offered this unsolicited testimonial, apropos of nothing whatsoever, during the confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

So, with the backing of tons of fans, Republican officials, and New York heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, Shlaes would be in a very good position to raise the money and get the publicity she would need to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Plus, with Giuliani likely to be campaigning for governor against the unpopular David Paterson, it is likely that Shlaes could quickly be associated with Giuliani (and Gillibrand with Paterson).

Even if she fails to unseat Gillibrand, running Shlaes would still be worth the effort, as it gives us a chance to put a top-flight conservative intellectual on the air in America’s biggest media market. By 2010, Obama’s popularity will likely have waned further, and depending on the state of the economy, running an expert on the economics of the Great Depression would do a lot to dispel many of the Democrats’ claims that they are saving us from a new Depression. Merely inserting Amity into the public debate would be invaluable, as she has the intellectual haft to slice, dice, and julienne the claims of the opposition.

Am I saying this is definitely going to happen? No. I have no clue whether Shlaes would even be interested in pursuing elected office. However, if Pataki takes a pass, we will need a highly unorthodox strategy in order to compete in New York. At least on paper, Amity Shlaes provides many of the necessary ingredients for a successful campaign. She might not be interested, but if I were John Cornyn at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), I would definitely be giving Amity a call.

So, comments section, what say you?

I don’t closely read The Daily Kos, and so I don’t know if Kos is toying with conservatives, here.  But Markos Moulitsas says that, as a Democrat, Charlie Crist would be a “marginally good Democrat.”

It took collapsing poll numbers for Specter to hit the “panic!” button and switch parties. That’s probably what it’ll take for Crist to realize his problems, and when he does, he’ll have a tough call to make: go down with his party, or pull a Specter and ditch it for better electoral prospects on a different line. That could mean a switch to the Democratic Party where he’d likely be no worse than the other senator from Florida, Bill Nelson — a marginally good Democrat, a step up from Landrieu, Nebraska’s Nelson, and the Wal Mart Twins (and no better). Or it could mean an independent run, where he might be able to pull a Lieberman (complete with a Joementum fundraising campaign visit) and work to attract independents, mainstream Republicans, and Democrats disaffected by their poor field and try to win a split three-way field.

In terms of the threat of Rubio, Kos writes:

But the primary is 14 months away, and grassroots conservatives are moving over to Rubio en masse. He will have enough money to compete (Club for Growth, among others, are behind him), he’s got big names like Mike Huckabee gathering behind him, and the right-wing noise machine loves him — and not just Florida wingnut radio, but national outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial board. And with pictures like this in their arsenal, conservatives will have all the ammo they need to bring down Crist:

And while I don’t know just how far left The St. Petersburg Times is (they did endorse Obama), I do think that Wednesday’s editorial can erase most doubt that they won’t be endorsing Crist in the Senate race:

Gov. Charlie Crist’s sellout to developers is now complete. He signed into law Tuesday a bill that neuters the governing boards of the state’s five water management districts, which grant permits for large-scale water pumping and wetlands destruction. Now that authority will rest solely in the hands of the districts’ executive directors. Developers and big industry will be able to more easily drain Florida and pave over what’s left.

Piece by piece, this governor has systematically dismantled what little protections there are for Floridians fed up with traffic and overdevelopment.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

Abigail Thernstrom in The Wall Street Journal:

Unfortunately, only Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this issue — and only briefly. “The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how — and on what terms — to make peace between them,” he concluded.

All racial classifications are highly suspect under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution protects individuals from discrimination — without respect to race. Distributing benefits and burdens on the basis of color was supposed to be the ugly mind-set the leaders of the civil rights movement struggled so heroically to change. We have not escaped such race-thinking yet, but this decision is an important step in the right direction.

Here we should listen to Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff. He appeared at a hearing held by the Civil Service Board before the test results were released. “The people who passed should be promoted,” he said. “When your life’s on the line, second best may not be good enough.” Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don’t care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

WRS (R) Connecticut 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Rob Simmons 47%
• Chris Dodd 38%

• Chris Dodd 42%
• Peter Schiff 38%

Survey of 400 likely voters was conducted June 24-25. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Republican voters are only slightly more supportive (just outside the margin of error) of Simmons than Schiff, despite knowing Simmons much better and for a longer period of time. Schiff garners the exact same support among strong Republicans as Simmons does, indicating that Schiff could start the race with significant base support, equal to the support Simmons currently enjoys.

Schiff vs Dodd

• Self Identified Republican: 69% Schiff
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Schiff

Simmons vs Dodd

• Self Identified Republican: 74% Simmons
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Simmons

Marist New York 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 77%
• Rick Lazio 16%

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 69%
• David Paterson 24%

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 54%
• David Paterson 37%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 43%

• David Paterson 41%
• Rick Lazio 40%

• Andrew Cuomo 68%
• Rick Lazio 22%

Would you rate the job Governor David Paterson is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 3%
• Good 18%
• Fair 39%
• Poor 37%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is a good leader for New York State?

• Agree 31%
• Disagree 65%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is changing the way things work in Albany for the better?

• Agree 27%
• Disagree 68%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the economic crisis?

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 61%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the crisis in the New York State Senate in Albany?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 49%

Would you rate the job New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 21%
• Good 46%
• Fair 22%
• Poor 5%

Republican Senatorial Primary

• George Pataki 51%
• Peter King 36%

Survey of 1,003 registered voters was conducted June 23-25. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points; for the subsamples of 441 Democrats and 281 Republicans, ±5% and ±6%, respectively.

Former Sen. John Sununu won’t run for retiring Sen.Judd Gregg’s seat next year.

“Representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate is a great honor, but effective public service is much more than just a desire to hold office. It’s essential that the timing fit both personally and professionally,” Sununu said in a statement.

“Equally important, campaigns require great sacrifice from family. After running in seven primary and general elections over 12 years, my family still means more to me than anything else. I very much intend to keep it that way.”

Sununu had avoided discussing his political future since he lost to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) last year. His father, John F. Sununu, is now the chairman of the state party.

Sununu’s decision not to make a political comeback now draws attention to Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who is being wooed by Gregg to run for the seat and is seriously considering a candidacy. 

Businessman Fred Tausch is also a potential candidate, and he has spent money on statewide television and radio blasting President Obama’s fiscal policies — in the run-up for a prospective campaign.

The Democratic nominee is expected to be Congressman Paul Hodes, who currently faces no primary opposition.

 

Follow Max Twain on Twitter

Michael Barone has a new piece over at the American titled “The GOP’s Real Problems for 2012″. He writes:

Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.

Sensible enough huh?  He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs. 

1.  (From McCain):  you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.

2.  (From Rudy):  You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.

3.  (From teh Fred):  Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).

4.  (From Huckabee):  Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.

5.  (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.

This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns.  In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say).  It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia.  It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then.  Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down.  Still.  His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances.  When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire. 

Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit.  Still.  When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy. 

Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag.  Still.  He was a pastor.  Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike. 

A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates.  No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11.  While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation. 

So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment.  Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits.  Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment.  Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.

What if, on January 21, 2001 instead of accompanying Vice President-Elect Dick Cheney to the Inauguration, Vice President Al Gore had led a large, angry mob in a march on Florida’s State Capitol building in Tallahassee to hand out Presidential survey election ballots ruled illegal by the Supreme Court? What if either of our impeached Presidents, Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton, had lost their respective removal trials in the U.S. Senate but refused to vacate the White House and relinquish power?

Would police action to remove either Gore, Johnson or Clinton from office, pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court and at the direction of the Attorney General, whether or not carried out by U.S. Marshals, Florida State Troopers, the FBI, Secret Service or the U.S. Army, immediately after which the person next in the line of succession under the Constitution assumes the office of Chief Executive, be considered a coup?

Merriam-Webster defines a coup d’etat as:

a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics ; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

President of the United States, Barack Obama aka Leader of the Free World and famed non-meddler in the affairs of Iran, whose small group of ruling Mullahs came to power via a sudden, decisive exercise of political force that overthrew the existing government while violently seizing American hostages, has joined Marxist Dictator Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Communist Dictators Fidel Castro (Cuba) and Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) in denouncing the removal of Honduran President Manual Zelaya as an “illegal coup”.

Is this the lowest day in the history of the United States’ presidency? Obama’s un-clenched hand remains extended to the freshly bloodied fists of Iran’s Ayatolla Khameini and President Ahmedinijad. I say freshly since well before the mullahs shot down unarmed innocents in the streets of Tehran of late, their hands have been encrusted for decades with the blood of Americans and others via terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Khobar Towers. Obama remains willing to “deal” with those murderers.

Yet, the recent events in Honduras have brought about Obama’s conversion to the Church of Meddlesomeness to the point of isolating a small, poor Democracy? What great injustice has drawn the stare of our President’s evil eye?

Let us look at the series of events our converted Meddler-in-Chief denounces as a “coup”, in light of its actual definition (Noah Webster, pictured above) and the Rule of Law:

Constitution limits Presidential terms

Mel Zelaya is, or was, the President of Honduras. He and Hugo Chaves were tight. So tight, it seems, that Zelaya wanted to emulate Hugo by changing the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for office until he durned well gets tired of it.

President plays no role in enactment of Constitutional Amendments

To change the constitution in Honduras you have to convene a constituent assembly. The president cannot do that. The Honduran congress must approve a national referendum calling for the constituent assembly to consider changes to the constitution. Zelaya didn’t like the part about the constitution requiring approval of the congress before a national referendum could be called. So … he decided to call one on his own.

President acts outside his Constitutional Authority

OK .. so here we have President Zelaya calling for a national referendum when he doesn’t have the power to do so. The next problem is obtaining ballots! Since the Honduran congress had not called for the referendum, as required by the constitution, the government certainly wasn’t going to print the ballots! After all, how smart would it be to print ballots for an illegal referendum? So … Zelaya had to get the ballots printed elsewhere. Here’s an idea! Get his pall Hugo Chavez to print them! Yes! That will work!

Supreme Court declares President’s actions unconstitutional

So Chaves prints Zelaya’s ballots and they’re shipped to Honduras. Enter the Honduran Supreme Court. The court considers Zelaya’s election in light of the requirements of the Honduran constitution, and rules the referendum illegal and unconstitutional. The court then issues an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with Zelaya’s phony referendum. Remember, now … all of this has one primary goal. To get rid of the term limits limiting Zelaya’s rule in Honduras.

President defies Court Order

After the supreme court’s decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells President Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya’s referendum. So … Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refuses to do so.

Military detains President as he leads an illegal mob intent on its own coup d’etat

At this point Zelaya’s ego is getting the better of him. If the military won’t run his illegal referendum, he’ll just do it himself. He gins up a mob and leads them to the military compound where Hugo’s ballots are stored and then has his supporters begin distributing the ballots to the masses.

President arrested for criminal acts but is mercifully allowed exile rather than prosecution

Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling the Honduran attorney general said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country.

Not a coup

Messy situation, but not a coup, given that the military never seized control of the government as the Speaker of the House assumed the Presidency on an interim basis pending the already scheduled November election.

Not a few suggest that it would have been better to have detained Zelaya in country and removed him via impeachment, but his actions were wreaking havoc on civil order. It should also be noted that all major institutions in the country, including his own political party, supported his removal from office.

Compare to Obama’s actions in the USA

Shall we return to the definition of coup d’etats as we analyze how Obama became CEO of Chrysler, General Motors and large segments if the banking industry?

TARP was passed by Congress in 2008 for the purpose of Protecting the financial industry by Relieving banks of Troubled Assets, hence the acronym.

To date, no bank has been relieved from the first troubled asset. Instead, hundreds of billions have been used to buy government ownership in banks, and to takeover GM and Chrysler, all with no constitutionally mandated just compensation paid to creditors or shareholders whose property interests were taken.

Rather, taxpayer money has been funneled thru under duress bankrupticies for political payoffs to labor unions with taxpayers on the hook for future products liability, debts and losses by the auto companies and banks.

In effect, a small group (Obama/Geithner/Bernanke) overthrew and/or altered existing corporate governance under the Rule of Law via the sudden and decisive force of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States.

Would that President Obama would eschew constructive coups in the America; denounce them among the Axis of Evil; and quit imagining them where they haven’t occurred in Central America.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

FDU PublicMind New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Election

• Chris Christie 45%
• Jon Corzine 39%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45%
• Jon Corzine 21%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 34% / 25% (+9%)
• Jon Corzine 31% / 54% (-23%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 38% / 17% (+21%)
• Jon Corzine 17% / 64% (-47%)

Which candidate for New Jersey governor is better described by…?

Honest, trustworthy

• Chris Christie 33%
• Jon Corzine 24%

Understands the concerns of the average person

• Chris Christie 40%
• Jon Corzine 28%

Has the background and experience to be a good governor

• Jon Corzine 42%
• Chris Christie 29%

Regardless of which candidate you want to win, if you had to guess, who would you say is going to win the election for governor in November?

• Jon Corzine 46%
• Chris Christie 38%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45%
• Jon Corzine 34%

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Excellent 2%
• Good 24%
• Fair 39%
• Poor 31%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Approve 36%
• Disapprove 49%

Survey of 803 registered voters was conducted June 22-29. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

PPP (D) New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 51%
• Jon Corzine 41%

Among Men

• Chris Christie 61%
• Jon Corzine 33%

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 48%
• Chris Christie 42%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 60%
• Jon Corzine 26%

Among Republicans

• Chris Christie 93%
• Jon Corzine 3%

Among Democrats

• Jon Corzine 75%
• Chris Christie 16%

Among Whites

• Chris Christie 60%
• Jon Corzine 33%

Among Moderates

• Chris Christie 47%
• Jon Corzine 42%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 43% / 33% (+10%)
• Jon Corzine 36% / 56% (-20%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 46% / 28% (+18%)
• Jon Corzine 24% / 70% (-46%)

Among Men

• Chris Christie 52% / 26% (+26%)
• Jon Corzine 30% / 63% (-33%)

Among Women

• Chris Christie 34% / 38% (-4%)
• Jon Corzine 42% / 50% (-8%)

Survey of 1,094 voters was conducted June 27-29. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 43% (D); 30% (R); 27% (I). Political ideology breakdown: 51% Moderate; 28% Conservative; 21% Liberal.

There’s been a rather interesting debate raging here as to whether any of today’s political figures, especially Sarah Palin, are embodying the legacy of Ben Franklin – described by our good friend Mr. Knepper as a “worldly man with an elitist strain.” He goes on to write the following:

But the elitism of the Founders is why we’re supposed to admire them. They were intellectuals. Men of distinction. men of both word and action. Men who, on the whole, were both virtuous and slayers of established dogma. Pick up The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin — or a copy of Poor Richard’s Almanack,even. Even making adjustments for the archaic writing, can you imagine Sarah Palin writing such a tome? Of course you can’t. Not even she can. That’s why she hired a ghostwriter.

While I have tremendous respect for Alex Knepper’s intellect (and I say that honestly), I think he is really missing the essence of Franklin. Alex rightly notes that Franklin was a ”diplomat, scientist, inventor, political theorist, and writer,” but he omits the single biggest descriptor that defined the man: ”printer.”

First and foremost, Benjamin Franklin was a newspaperman and an editorialist. Born to humble beginnings and lacking in much formal education (even by the standards of the time), the young Franklin was apprenticed to his printer brother during his adolescence and pursued the profession for most of his adult life – eventually becoming publisher of The Pennsylvania Gazette. Ben Franklin was indeed an extremely intelligent man, but he was also a common man who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and spent his life distributing information to other common men – not to mention writing under populist aliases such as “Poor Richard” and the widow “Silence Dogood”.

Furthermore, if anyone ever appreciated the value of populist rhetoric, it was Ben Franklin. Let’s face it, we’re talking about a man who, as Ambassador to France, charmed the French aristocracy by cavorting around Paris in a coonskin cap. Everyone who was anyone wanted to be seen with the representative from the wild frontiers of America, and Franklin’s backwoods yokel act played a major part in securing French support for the colonists in the Revolutionary War. So, while the coonskin may not have been Franklin’s standard attire back home, it certainly showed that the man was a populist’s populist when it came to selling his message. 

Indeed, if anyone in politics today mirrors Franklin, it is Sarah Palin. However, comparing Franklin to politicians isn’t really fair – as he was never really a politician himself, but rather  a media figure. He was a self-educated man who became the leading pundit of his day – in a sense he did for the American colonies what talk radio does for us. So, in my opinion, his true heirs in today’s world are other self-educated philosophers who keep one foot in the world of “Joe Six Pack” while keeping the other planted firmly in the world of conservative political thought. I speak, of course, of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  These men, not the creatures of Washington, are the Franklins of the modern world.

Yes, Franklin was he was everything Alex said he was – and I doubt that anyone will ever rival his ability to contribute simultaneously to politics and science.  But beyond all of those things - he was also a man of the people if there ever was one.

First, a word about what elitism is not. I’m not sure whether it’s my lack of clarity in writing or because populists have preconceived notion about what an elitist is that they have trouble discarding — perhaps it’s a little of both — but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about my line of thinking.

In my last post, I tried to clarify my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s populism in relation to Benjamin Franklin’s elitism. I went to great lengths to assure Adam Graham that it had absolutely nothing to do with her lack of formal education — which I think is largely a waste of time to the self-motivated man — but everything to do with her lack of pursuit of excellence. Kavon immediately replied to me, saying that I would probably think less of him (or of Ronald Reagan) because of his lack of formal education.

Um…

Elitism, in its virtuous form, is a state of mind. It is about setting one’s self apart from the masses to pursue intelligence, wisdom, achievement, and excellence. It is not content with simply being satisfied with one’s birth lot, but is always striving to reach the next step on the ladder. It is self-reliant. It is morally searching and fearless, and rejects misguided notions of egalitarianism. A professional truck driver who philosophizes on the side, partakes in learned and intellectually honest political debate online, and builds a comfortable life for himself can potentially be an elitist. A professor who advocates reparations for slavery, postmodern Marxism, and single-payer health care may not be.

Modern liberalism and virtuous elitism are incompatible. Modern liberalism spits upon productive achievement, fetishizes egalitarianism, and celebrates the average rather than the exceptional.

So does populist ‘conservatism.’

There is nothing wrong with being a ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ necessarily, but why glorify his experiences? Why say that being a professor, a senator, a political consultant, a reporter — is not a “real job”? Despite the abundance of high-profile exceptions, most people actually work their way up from the bottom to be senators, governors, and even presidents. Instead of using her position to speak of the virtues of exceptionalism, Sarah Palin has used her position to tell the lower classes to, essentially, be content with their lot. That there’s something virtuous in their experiences. [Edit: And that Adam Graham thinks that Veterans' Day is not a celebration of excellence is appalling.]

It’s ironic that populist conservatives claim to admire the Founding Fathers — they were no Joe Six-Packs. They were penetrating thinkers, accomplished authors, philosophers, seasoned statesmen.

The point is not, to echo my earlier statement, that there are lots of neo-Franklins running around. It’s that Sarah Palin shows absolutely no desire to emulate the ideal of Franklin. She’s not even bothering, according to people like William Kristol, to consult with foreign policy experts in preparation for her 2012 run. So I suppose she’s just going to wing it. I don’t think it makes me some sort of snob to suggest that our commander-in-chief should know a thing or two about foreign policy before entering the Oval Office. (Note that I said know a thing or two. I did not say have served in a high-ranking university position concerning foreign policy.)

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina — these men and women have shown that they care about the Franklin Ideal. They are men and women of excellence, regardless of what you want to say about their politics. They have their low points — both personally and in their politics — but they do not rebuke the virtuous elitist ideal; they have an unquenchable desire to excel.

That is what I want to see in our candidates: a desire to excel.

And that’s what makes me so depressed about the rise of Sarah Palin.

The word of the day is “excellence” from my esteemed colleague. Alex lays down a serious charge against Sarah Palin:

It isn’t so much that Palin comes off unfavorably when compared to Franklin. It’s that Palin seems to have no interest in becoming like Franklin; she knowingly and consciously lives a life diametrically opposed to the ideals of the man — and then glorifies it as an ideal. She celebrates Joe Six-Pack,  not Ben Franklin. She celebrates the hockey mom, not the political-theorist-investor-scientist-diplomat.

Questions abound about this charge. Do we really want someone who is only trying to emulate someone else? Who has no original sense of self that they feel the need to put on a mask and pretend to be someone else. No great leader tries to be a Xerox copy of another great leader.

Secondly, Alex acts as if we must celebrate the common American or celebrate the Founding Fathers. These are not contradictory ideas, we do it in America. We celebrate George Washington’s birthday and Martin Luther King Day, honoring elites. We celebrate Independence Day and remember the Founding Fathers. We also have a day for Joe Six Pack. Its called Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Without the Joe Six Packs who before there were six packs were willing to die for this country at places like Valley Forge, we’d view the Founding Fathers as little more than eccentrics. And without the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the sacrifice the patriots would ultimately have ended in slavery rather than freedom. Should we in celebration of excellence cancel such base “Joe Six Pack” holidays as Memorial Day and Veterans Day in favor of Rudy Giuliani Day?

Third, Alex’s argument for excellence is nebulous, because he never defines the term. A commenter asked, “Excellence in what?” and we never get an answer.  This is the prescient question becuase excellence in unrelated fields does not make one an excellent President. Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual giant who was not that great of President, leading us into World War I, a conflict to which you can trace back nearly every crisis that vexes the globe today. Herbert Hoover was a great engineer, businessman, and philantropist who was out of his depth in facing the Great Depression.

The undefined excellence is a silly basis for judging presidential candidates because surprise, surprise, no one who actually achieves standing to run a serious campaign for President has merit.

Mitt Romney’s supporters can rightly point to the Salt Lake City Olympics and Romney’s business career as feathers in his cap. 

Mike Huckabee was named by Time Magazine one of America’s five best Governors (I believe that would be called excellence) and was chosen as Chairman of the National Governor’s Association. He graduated college in 2 1/2 years. He successfully started community TV stations, and managed two good sized churches for a total of 12 years, and was elected President of his state Baptist Convention in his early thirties. He’s also an accomplished Base guitarist, which means both his left and right brain work. If you read Huckabee’s writing, it mixes in home spun humor in with policy information that shows serious reading. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee cited Edward Gibbons Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

As for Sarah Palin, we know less about, but we knew she took on the corrupt Alaska political establishment and exposed them.  She’s gotten Alaska’s natural gas pipeline further down the road than any of her predecessors.  In High School, she showed natural leadership, helping to lead her High School Basketball team to a state championship. She’s shown prowess in physical sports, and she also showed determination in working through several colleges to get her degree. It’s a tough track, but she didn’t give up, which shows great determination.

And there must be something said for the incredible degree of skill required to succeed in politics without coming from a position of wealth and fame as both Huckabee and Palin did. No “Joe Six Pack” can get themselves elected Governor without there be something very special about them that allows them to overcome all the obstacles that stand opposed to them.

Hello, virtual super majority!:

Democrat Al Franken, a satirist turned politician, was declared the winner of a Senate seat in Minnesota on Tuesday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama’s party to secure a critical 60-seat majority in the Senate.Ending one of the longest Senate races ever, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously rejected each of Republican Norm Coleman’s five legal arguments that an earlier recount of the November 4 vote had been unfair. Coleman quickly conceded.

Franken will become the 58th Senate Democrat, the most the party has had since 1981. Two independents routinely vote with the Democrats, giving the party the 60 votes needed to clear Republican procedural hurdles known as filibusters

…”A lot is being made of me being the 60th member of the Democratic caucus. That’s not how I see it,” Franken said. “I’m going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota.”

…Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said in a statement he would sign the election certificate immediately, allowing Franken, a former writer and actor for the popular Saturday Night Live television show, to join the Senate, likely next week.

Liberal media bias and sexism rears its ugly head, again. 

The ideology that claims to defend the rights of women, is once again attacking a woman based on her looks.  A new article in Vanity Fair focuses on Palin’s looks as a detriment to the 2008 campaign.  The personal attacks in this article are so outrageous, one cannot help but laugh at the creativity of the author.  This is nothing new to the far left in America.  They spent several months attacking Secretary Clinton’s complexion, clothing and body image, but ceased their attacks once Clinton became a member of the Obama administration. 

The liberal, east coast media seem determined to continue to publish reflective articles on the McCain 2008 campaign, but they refuse to publish the names of any of the “sources”.  Even though campaign advisers continue to go on the record shooting holes in the false stories, the attacks continue. 

The media bias is not always directed towards Republican women.  In early 2008, the New York Times published an article, ’suggesting’ that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, but once again refused to publish the names of the sources who made such broad claims.  This article was reprinted in dozens of small town newspapers across America.   In late 2007, The Politico’s Ben Smith falsely accused Mayor Giuliani of abusing city resources, only to print a small retraction underneath the JC Penny ads, days later.  The claims were so outrageous, one wondered why federal investigators had not followed up on the claims?  In early 2007 the liberal media began a quiet smear campaign against Governor Romney’s faith and family.  When possible, they began dropping the “polygamy’ word in articles that referenced the Romney family, even though the former governor had been married to the same (as in, one) woman for three decades.  Why is the lifestyle of Governor Romney’s great grandfather important to a 2008 Presidential election?   Ironically enough polygamy has been banned in the Utah constitution and the LDS church for over 100 years, yet plural marriage is still practiced in the villages of Kenya, where President Obama’s family resides.

At what point does the liberal media actually back-up their silliness with the names of those who are attacking Republicans with such vitriolic anger?  Is anyone willing to go on the record and state their claim in the public eye?  Apparently not.  It can only lead one to believe that the sources themselves do not really exist. 

Referring to a woman and a prominent political leader as a “fertile female”, in the context of a political article is another step back for any aspiring female political leader, regardless of political ideology. 

Two McCain staffers, however, were immediately willing to go on the record with the Washington Times in their support for Mrs. Palin after the Vanity Fair piece was published online.

Jason Recher, who worked closely with Mrs. Palin as a vice presidential candidate, said “The mean tone of this article is completely false, this is not the Sarah Palin I knew and spent two and a half months with.”  He also said he was tired of reporters using information about Mrs. Palin from people unwilling to go on the record.

Mr. Recher said he was never approached for the article although he was one of a handful of people who spent “every morning, day and night” with Mrs. Palin in the heat of the campaign and is openly supportive of her today.

David Welch, deputy research director for the McCain-Palin ticket, said he was “shocked to read the Vanity Fair article about Governor Palin and the allegations made against her by former staffers” and complained “significant parts of the story are based on half truths and gossip from staffers who refused to go on the record.”

About Mrs. Palin’s looks Mr. Purdum said, that although he admitted it may be sexist to think,  “she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Must make moral case against ObamaDems

No jury could convict ObamaDems of caring for the poor and middle class, not even by a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, after Cap and Trade passes the House, despite restrained and oftentimes apologetic rhetoric of Republican prosecutors.

Democratic Party assault on the poor and middle class

Last week, we left “it to you to decide which party cares ‘more’ for the poor”, but after the Democrat Party’s passage of the Cap and Trade assault on the poor and middle class, this member of “you” aka We the People announces his decision, at least with respect to the elected members of the parties.

The Democratic Party has held itself out as the party of the “little guy” and the “working man” since the 1930s. We concede that the portions of FDR’s first New Deal providing temporary welfare relief and the  Social Security Act, including its provisions for Unemployment Compensation, have proven to be comforts for those constituencies that both parties have long embraced as part of what Reagan dubbed the federal “safety net for the truly needy”.

But, ObamaDems are more accurately defined as having turned their backs on the poor (pictured).

Policies that produce less poor people and elevate more peoples’ prosperity eschewed by Democrats

But I am hard pressed to identify any policies of the Democratic Party since JFKs tax rate cuts in the early 1960s that have done anything but make the little guy smaller and working men more poorly compensated.

The un-de-Newted Bill Clinton advocated policies that extended the Reagan Recovery to historic proportions which President George W. Bush and the GOP prolonged until 2006 thanks to JFK/Reagan-like supply side tax rate cuts, until the Democratic Party-protected Fannie/Freddie mortgage credit policies, combined with Greenspan’s loose money FED and Democrat Congress promised hostile to investors policies sent investors on strike and launched a recession in late 2007 until the credit crunch in the Fall of 2008 made it the current Great Recession.

President Barack Obama was elected in large part due to the Hope that he would bring the Change needed to end the recession. We were told that GOP policies that “favored the rich” caused the downturn. Of course, we have been fed this stale line since the 1930s, and even all thru the late 80s as the Reagan policies the left loathed worked magic before our eyes. Then we heard the same line in the 90s as Bill Clinton backed cap gains tax cuts that “favored” the rich.

ObamaDems’ differing goals and definitions for helping little guys and working people?

President Obama and the Democrats claim to favor the poor as they decry the suffering of the poor. As a Democrat of 18 years, so did I. In fact, I cared so much that I left the Dem Party in 2000 convinced by two decades of evidence before my eyes that the policies democrats pursue are proven failures at alleviating the suffering of the poor.

I assumed that the suffering we all alluded to was peoples’ inability to afford necessities via the fruits of the labor and have an opportunity for moving up the economic ladder or for the middle class to increase their wealth and prosperity over time.

Over time it became increasingly difficult to maintain the notion that Democratic Party leaders shared the same definition. After the Cap and Trade vote it is impossible.

The Cap and Trade bill passed by the House would directly do to the poor and middle class what we decry is done to them by recessions. Cap and Trade would intentionally raise the price of necessities, i.e. food and energy.

Didn’t the Democrats see the suffering caused by $4/gallon gasoline last year as lower income families had to choose between balanced meals and the fuel to get to work?

How long will Dems/Independents keep hands over their ears still hoping for change we can believe in?

They couldn’t miss it, yet they pass a law that defines the air we breathe out a pollutant with measures to “save the planet” via skyrocketing electricity rates?

Does that phrase sound familiar, or are you one of the millions of Democrats still holding their hands over their ears when candidate Obama was caught on tape saying anthing but “hope”, “change” and “I’m not George Bush”?

Obama told us, but too many refused to listen (links provided upon request so as to identify the truly ignorant)

Senator Obama is on tape from last year saying, variously, the following precursors to his style of “caring” for poor little guys and the middle class, that:

• Americans need to learn a lesson from high fuel costs that should be at or above $4/gallon; albeit at a more gradual rate;
• His cap and trade plan would necessarily lead to skyrocketing electricity rates and bankrupt the coal industry;
• We can’t continue to consume as much as we do and drive our SUVs and have the world say, OK.

Last summer lower income families were choosing between Kroger brand and Le Seur Peas so that they might get an extra gallon of gas to make it to work. Forget that trip to the next town to see Grandma kids.

Apparently ObamaDems’ definition of suffering is when people aren’t on his welfare (no longer to work version repealed by the “stimulus”) program or working for the government.

A still denial self-described “Independent” Obama voter justifies the Cap and Trade assault as acceptable since it “encourages” the development of alternative energy. No matter that what it actually encourages is the importation of more imported oil since no carbon was expelled on American soil in its production, but I digress.

Given that Spain went bankrupt trying to perform alchemy via legislative fiat; given that even Kennedys in Massachusetts and Greenies in the Mohave Desert won’t allow Holland to land in the Lower Forty-Eight; given the fact that wind power is 1% of what meets our energy needs now; and given that their is no prospect that any alternative energy breakthru is in sight much less that could be utilized within any foreseeable future that could be substituted for oil and coal, one must conclude that the supporters of Cap and Trade desire a precipitous reduction of our standard of living with the main alternatives being horse, donkey, firewood and human walking power.

GOP must eschew the euphemisms designed to give Democrats’ moral cover

We must pray that the Senate will reject the bill, but for that to happen, I would suggest that, despite Minority Leader John Boehner’s “Hour long filibuster” the GOP needs to rake off the gentlemanly gloves for Twenty-Four hours a day and quit referring merely to the bill’s effect on “consumers” and certain coal energy-intensive states, or the, as Representative Eric Cantor (and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell), “laudable goal” of reducing greenhouse gases.

Re-engagement with reality is among the recession’s benefits

What is laudable about it? When even the acolytes of the Church of Manmade Global “warming” now only refer to “climate change”, given a decade of the non-warming event we call “cooling”, isn’t it time for those of us to quit the PC cowering, especially when the whole concept is now a secretly held joke during this Great Recession? Or as George Will says:

Now, say Nordhaus and Shellenberger, “the green bubble” has burst, pricked by Americans’ intensified reluctance to pursue greenness at a cost to economic growth. The dark side of utopianism is “escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial.” Re-engagement with reality is among the recession’s benefits.

The bill hurts “consumers”?

Can someone please identify any non-consumer that isn’t dead. Earth to GOP: All human beings are consumers.

The bill hurts some states more than others?

Earth to GOP: Can someone identify any state not populated by people that have to consume to live.

Cap and trade would raise the price of nearly every good produced and transported to consumers in every state.

Translation: the price of food will rise in every state. All people have to eat. Many will be unable to eat enough.

The Cap and Trade bill is nothing less than an immoral assault on the poor and lower and middle income families.

GOP: Chuck the euphemisms. We have been inaccurately assaulted as not caring for the poor and middle class for decades. Now, under Obama, the Dems have overreached and revealed themselves in the raw.

Call them out.

If you can’t bring yourself to directly address the condition of elected Democrats’ hearts, at least go as far as the late pastor of my hometown Baptist Church, who, when asked if he thought so and so was a Christian would reply: I don’t have a soul-meter, but if I were directed to gather evidence of their faith, I doubt I could gather enough to get a jury to convict them of being a Christian.

I can’t find any evidence to convict ObamaDems’ in DC of caring about the poor and middle class.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Republican men are clearly much more conservative…with their sexual affairs, while Democrat politicians are much more liberal with their sexual affairs.  Liberal politicians seem to enjoy breaking the law when it comes to their infidelity.  They involve themselves with high-priced call girls, young employees and other criminal activities.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

If you thought it couldn’t get any worse for Mark Sanford… you were wrong.

From Townhall:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he “crossed lines” with a handful of women other than his mistress _ but never had sex with them.

The governor says he “never crossed the ultimate line” with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed Sanford’s once-promising political career.

During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he’s trying to fall back in love with his wife.

He says that during the other encounters he “let his guard down” with some physical contact but “didn’t cross the sex line.” He wouldn’t go into detail.

Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur.

For the Heart of the Argentine

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Tuesday that he saw his Argentine mistress more times than previously disclosed, including what was to be a farewell meeting in New York chaperoned by a spiritual adviser soon after his wife found out about the affair.

In a lengthy and emotional interview with The Associated Press in his Statehouse office, the governor described five meetings with Maria Belen Chapur over the past year, including two romantic, multi-night stays with her in New York before they met there again intending to break up.

He said he met her two other times — their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay and a coffee date in New York in 2004 during the Republican National Convention.

He said neither time was romantic.

It was the first disclosure of any liaisons with Chapur in the United States and contradicted a public confession last week during which Sanford admitted to a total of four encounters over their eight-year relationship.

As far as I’m concerned, the state is responsible for the death of virtuous elitism: meritocracy, the pursuit of excellence, productive work and achievement. Once the state instituted its system of education, the hierarchy of what constituted an “education” was put into place, and the self-made, self-educated men of old were utterly forgotten as exemplars of greatness.

So when Adam Graham makes his argument that today’s “party elites” fixate on “formal education,” I must admit I’m rather confused. I have a strong distaste for formal education. I think it’s largely a hamster-wheel-style charade that prevents real education — the kind that takes place in libraries and living rooms (and now on computers) — from being able to actively take place. I don’t want anyone to ever mistake my education to have come from a university. It is coming from books. I’m at a university primarily to “play the game.” My educational experience thus far has been rather lackluster.

So why this dissonance? Could it be because my argument actually has nothing to do with formal education — and everything to do with the pursuit of excellence?

Adam asserts that my argument falls flat because I have not put forward anyone in this era who compares even somewhat favorably next to Benjamin Franklin. Rudy Giuliani, my preferred candidate, he says, hardly emulates Franklin, either. And on this count, he’s somewhat right. I could fill volumes with the aspects of Rudy Giuliani I dislike. But for all of his flaws, there’s so much to love about him, and he’s accomplished many great things in his life. He comes far closer to emulating the ideals of Franklin than someone like Sarah Palin does.

It isn’t so much that Palin comes off unfavorably when compared to Franklin. It’s that Palin seems to have no interest in becoming like Franklin; she knowingly and consciously lives a life diametrically opposed to the ideals of the man — and then glorifies it as an ideal. She celebrates Joe Six-Pack,  not Ben Franklin. She celebrates the hockey mom, not the political-theorist-investor-scientist-diplomat.

Quite obviously, I was not defending ‘elitism’ defined as ‘whoever’s in charge’ — a facetious strawman argument. Anyone who has gone over my essays with even the breeziest intentions can discern that what I celebrate is not power — an ugly concept — but excellence. We should strive to  nominate candidates who come as close as possible to that ideal.

Grant Gerson, 88, founder of Calamigos Ranch in Malibu, and his wife, Ruth, were among the first in line for a chance to meet Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor.

Huckabee, who was a candidate for the 2009 presidency, bowed out of the race when Arizona Sen. John McCain became the Republican nominee.

“If he would’ve been elected president, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in,” Grant Gerson said.

“(Huckabee) is the man. He’s truthful, honest, and tells it like it is. I like that,” said Donna Arp, 79, of Simi Valley.

Inside the Presidential Learning Center, Huckabee, 53, an Arkansas native, spoke in front of a sold-out crowd of almost a thousand guests, which included former first lady Nancy Reagan.

Read the article or listen to the Podcast in its entirety, here. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

There’s much to debate in Alex’s post on Benjamin Franklin.

I could, I suppose right a snarky and sarcastic post writing how party elites would never support Abraham Lincoln today due to Lincoln’s lack of formal education and use that as an argument to suggest that the Republican Party needs to reject the Mitt Romneys of the world in order to choose candidates who only have three years of formal education.

In essence, the argument seems to be that elitism is good in and of itself. It certainly isn’t. The elites are not just the Founding Fathers, but every aristocracy that has ever trod the face of Planet Earth. To defend elitism as virtuous in itself would be to defend the tyranny of kings throughout the ages and every regime.

Was the Tamany Hall machine in New York good because it was elite? What about the Daley Machine in Chicago? Certainly, the elite can be wise and intelligent, it can also be crass, boorish, and selfish. An elite is no greater than its character and no greater than the values it represents.

Of the Founding Fathers and current politicians, Alex writes:

But the elitism of the Founders is why we’re supposed to admire them. They were intellectuals. Men of distinction. men of both word and action. Men who, on the whole, were both virtuous and slayers of established dogma. Pick up The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin — or a copy of Poor Richard’s Almanack, even. Even making adjustments for the archaic writing, can you imagine Sarah Palin writing such a tome? Of course you can’t. Not even she can. That’s why she hired a ghostwriter.

No, I can’t imagine Sarah Palin writing as well as Benjamin Franklin, and I can’t imagine George Will or Rudy Giuliani doing it either. There is no analog to compare Franklin. No comparison will come off favorably, or anything less than abysmal for the person who is being compared.  So thus, the thrust of the piece was to compare people to the founders without actually bringing out someone who was worthy to even shine Ben Franklin’s shoes.

The worst comparsion, one can make in defense of today’s party elite is to the Founding Fathers as today’s elites are a bunch of shallow, oversexed, unprincipled midgets whose letters and learning are being used to no end but the unwitting destruction of the work of giants.  

The great wisdom of the Founders fills volumes. The great wisdom of today’s elites could be copied on to a matchbook.

In 18 point font.

Haley Barbour on recent campaigning for Republican Gubenatorial Candidates in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a trip to New Hampshire:

But Barbour appears to be waving off presidential politics. At a news conference in Washington Tuesday, where he teamed up with House Republicans to discuss health care reform, Barbour was asked when he’s going to make a decision on running for president.

“Probably never,” said Barbour. “But, you know Gov. Sununu called me and said he’d like to have somebody come up to New Hampshire who wasn’t running for president to talk about party building and I told him I’m your man.”

Barbour’s statement isn’t Shermanesque enough, so you can’t write him off, but still it looks like he’s leaning against a run.

In more Iowa buzz, Mike Pence has plans to appear at an event in Cedar Rapids on July 24th.  Perhaps he’ll take the role of the obligatory Congressman in the mix of 2012 candidates.

Today, Dick Cheney gave his two cents on possible future Republican presidential candidates:

But I think from the standpoint of the party, we’ve got some great talent out there, young people coming along that are going to do a superb job. I always remind people that in adversity, there’s opportunity. You get people like Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, Rob Portman from Ohio, Jon Huntsman from Utah and so forth. We’ve got some very talented folks coming along. And I think that it’s just a matter of time before the party begins to sort of  firm up around a few key individuals, and we’ll hear big things from them in the future.

Unless public opinion shifts dramatically in the near future, Portman would experience tremendous difficulty in overcoming the Scarlet B(ush) opponents would attach to him.  Many people have already discussed Huntsman’s viability.  I would argue that Ryan holds the most promise of Cheney’s trio.  He deserves a prominent role in the party’s rebuilding effort.

As people have mentioned in the comments sections, Gov. Pawlenty has stated that he will accept the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling on the Coleman-Franken ballot battle:

“I’m going to follow the direction of the court,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “We expect that ruling any day now. I also expect them to give guidance and direction as to the certificate of election. I’m prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light.”

And finally, Politico has published an article detailing how Gov. Romney’s former campaign workers stand ready to mobilize should he decide to run in 2012:

In addition to the full-time employees the former Massachusetts governor has at his Boston-based Free & Strong America PAC, the early primary states and Washington are filled with former staffers and supporters who are in regular contact with one another.

Whenever Romney has a major TV appearance or pens an opinion piece, a PAC staffer, Will Ritter, circulates the news to an e-mail list of the former governor’s extended political family.

The Washington-based alumni have a regular monthly luncheon, are working on another reunion-like event around a 2009 candidate later this year and always make sure their former candidate is briefed on the latest political doings.

When Romney does a high-profile Sunday show like he did yesterday, for example, that means that former communications aides such as Matt Rhoades and Kevin Madden will join PAC spokesman and longtime adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to help prepare their old boss, either in person or over the phone. When he’s delivering a speech, as he did earlier this month on national security, other former campaign officials such as media consultants Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens are brought in.

And when the former governor is in Washington for reasons other than a public appearance, an even broader extended network of advisers is often alerted, including such figures as longtime lobbyist and GOP strategist Ron Kaufman.

Romney enjoys an equally strong following in many of the early primary states.

“I’m going be a Mitt guy until he tells me he’s not running for president,” said Jim Merrill, who ran Romney’s New Hampshire primary campaign and said he still gets excited e-mails from local activists every time the former governor is on TV.

In the run-up to July 4th, I’ll take note of a few of our Founding Fathers whom I particularly admire and who would be unelectable to today’s Populist Religious Right…

Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant, worldly man with an elitist strain. A pronounced deist, he was an out-and-out skeptic regarding the central claims of Christianity. He was an impeccably wise person of the polymath tradition. Indeed, he coined quite a few of the axioms we use today in the modern world. His career took him across several disciplines: among other titles, Franklin was a diplomat, scientist, inventor, political theorist, and writer. He was, additionally, an early abolitionist.

His career was the very model of the pursuit of excellence. Truly, it is a shame that he never became president.

But if he ran today in the Republican Party, how would he stack up against the other contenders amongst the party’s religious base? I mean, yeah yeah yeah, it’s easy to see in hindsight how brilliant the Founding Fathers were, what incredible men of distinction they were — only some kind of knave or fool would deny that they were the greatest set of leaders in this country’s history. But let’s get real, here: accomplished men have come and gone through the ranks of the GOP contenders, and the social conservatives have not fallen behind men arguably most like Benjamin Franklin.

Well, Mike Huckabee would probably take issue with the fact that Franklin had “some doubts as to [Jesus'] divinity,” as expressed in a letter, a year before his death, to the president of Yale University. Uh-oh!

While Franklin understood  that there may be some utility of religion in keeping the people virtuous — he supported prayer in public places, for instance — he personally seemed to not really be a follower of any Abrahamic faith. Maybe some sort of sophisticated religious rightist thinks it’s about “the issues,” but how many rank-and-file Alabama Christianists would really vote for a man who doubts the divinity of Jesus? Not Jesus Christ, even — Jesus of Nazareth, as Franklin described him.

Sarah Palin would probably see him as out of touch with the ordinary Joe Six-Pack, who knows nothing of invention or diplomacy. And, I mean, gosh — he’d never even had any executive experience as a mayor or governor! Franklin had, quite frankly, lived a life utterly foreign to that of the working class. He wasn’t exactly a populist. He was a philosopher more than he was a PTA’er. Franklin, quite frankly, was an elitist.

But the elitism of the Founders is why we’re supposed to admire them. They were intellectuals. Men of distinction. men of both word and action. Men who, on the whole, were both virtuous and slayers of established dogma. Pick up The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin — or a copy of Poor Richard’s Almanack, even. Even making adjustments for the archaic writing, can you imagine Sarah Palin writing such a tome? Of course you can’t. Not even she can. That’s why she hired a ghostwriter.

Populism is killing excellence. It’s time to look back to the past for the wisdom of the Founders: how they lived, and what they’d do. Men like Benjamin Franklin are the way forward. Not men like Mike Huckabee.

ABC News/Washington Post Political Issues Survey

Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?

• Should 75%
• Should not 22%

Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases if it raised the price of things you buy?

• Should 62%
• Should not 35%

There’s a proposed system called “cap and trade.” The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?

• Support 52%
• Oppose 42%

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 56%
• Oppose 42%

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 44%
• Oppose 54%

Do you think the United States should take action on global warming only if other major industrial countries such as China and India agree to do equally effective things, that the United States should take action even if these other countries do less, or that the United States should not take action on this at all?

• Take action only if other countries do 20%
• Take action even if other countries do less 59%
• Should not take action at all 18%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance, either getting it from work or buying it on their own?

• Support 49%
• Oppose 47%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance if it included a rule that working Americans who don’t get insurance through work or on their own would have to pay money into a government health insurance fund?

• Support 44%
• Oppose 52%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance if it included a rule that insurance companies sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing conditions?

• Support 68%
• Oppose 27%

Would you support or oppose creating a government-run health insurance plan if having the government create a new health insurance plan made many private health insurers go out of business because they could not compete?

• Support 37%
• Oppose 58%

If the health care system is changed, do you think the quality of your health care will get better, get worse, or remain about the same?

• Better 16%
• Worse 31%
• Same 50%

Would you support or oppose a law limiting the amount of money someone can collect if they win a lawsuit after being injured by bad medical care?

• Support 57%
• Oppose 42%

The Supreme Court legalized abortion 36 years ago in the ruling known as Roe versus Wade. If that case came before the court again, would you want Sotomayor to vote to uphold Roe versus Wade, or vote to overturn it?

• Uphold 60%
• Overturn 34%

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?

• Legal in all cases 20%
• Legal in most cases 35%
• Illegal in most cases 26%
• Illegal in all cases 17%

Survey of 1,001 adults was conducted June 18-21. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% (I); 35% (D); 22% (R).

Mitt Romney’s fans and detractors enjoy shouting at each other over the benefits and drawbacks of Massachusett’s health plan, and about what Romney should get the credit and blame for in regard to it. Here’s some fuel for the fire, a Rasmussen Poll of Massachusetts voters about the plan:

Massachusetts Survey of 500 Likely Voters, Conducted April 16, 2009

1. Has Healthcare reform in Massachusetts been a success or a failure?

• 26% Success
• 37% Failure
• 37% Not sure

2. Has healthcare reform in Massachusetts made healthcare more affordable, less affordable or has there been no change?

• 21% More affordable
• 27% Less affordable
• 44% There has been no change
• 8% Not sure

3. Under healthcare reform is the quality of healthcare getting better, getting worse or is it about the same?

• 10% Getting better
• 29% Getting worse
• 53% It’s about the same
• 8% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The numbers are not very good. Romney’s detractors say the problems are largely his fault, while his supporters say it was the best program possible in a very liberal state, and has been undermined since his departure. While I’m only so-so on Romney, I’m sympathetic to the latter viewpoint — at least the part about being the best program possible. Whichever is the case, however, Romney’s opponents will use his healthcare program against him in the primaries, and this poll will help their arguments.