Hours before six party talks begin in Switzerland, Iran’s Defense Minister has issued a military and economic threat against the United States. 

Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi stated the he is prepared to attack US military bases in the region and cut-off nearly 50% of the worlds oil supply by engaging the United States Navy in the Persian Gulf.

 From Iran’s Fars News Agency;

Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.

____

Update: Fars News article now translated.

______________________________________________

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

Apparently Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl.) doesn’t know he’s in a District that’s  rated R+2 by Charlie Cook as he decided to show that post-partisan spirit that reigns in the age of Obama by following up his remarks last night comparing people not having health insurance to the Holocaust by calling Republicans knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

Democrats are already in trouble and Grayson’s behavior shows he doesn’t realize that he’s among the most vulnerable Democrats in the country. Cook was speaking over at the Center for American Progress where he said that Democrats have a 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 chance of losing the House. Some fun tibdits taken down by James Pethokoukis:

1) Record drop in party ID where a 17 percent D edge has dropped to 5 over the summer.

2) An eight point drop in Obama’s approval rating over same period from 60 to 52.

3) Obama approval among independents has dropped to the low 40s. They are very worried about deficit and hyperactive government. Cook called it “visceral.”

4) Cook notes that more than 80 D House seats are in districts won by McCain in 2008 or Bush in 2004. And 48 are in districts won by both McCain and Bush in 2008 and 2008.

None of this has much to do with the GOP doing anything spectacularly brilliant. But sometimes you don’t have to be spectacularly brilliant when your opponents are helping. You don’t have to play like the ‘27 Yankees when your opponents are playing like the 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates.  However, if you want to have a lasting majority, you have to be able to provide some competence and respectful leadership in government. 

It took the GOP 12 years in power to get this arrogant. It didn’t take the Democrats but three, and truth be told most of the Dems were this arrogant to start with.

Gotta pile on the Huckahate, here. Gotta give a reminder of why Huckabee cannot be trusted to lead this party as a coalition:

Former Governor of Arkansas and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in an interview…that libertarianism is “not an American message,” adding that he considers it to be a “soulless type of economic conservatism” as well as a threat to Republicanism.

And:

The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism. And it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but render it as irrelevant as the Whig Party…You can see the growing influence of faux-cons in the 2008 election cycle from the so-called Ron Paul Revolution to the economics-only conservatism reflected by some of the supporters of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Up to half of the party is “faux-con” by Huckabee’s definition. The “real threat” to our party is libertarianism? Surely, he meant rather than religious conservatism, right? Nope. He meant as opposed to liberalism. The entire quote is worth bolding:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says ‘look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.’ Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly.

Please don’t forget this quote, people. Capitalists are heartless, callous, soulless, and want to kick granny to the curb and see to it that children don’t get education. Classical liberal principles — such as cutting taxes and “eliminating” government — are “not American.”

Close the book on this one.

Well, this should come as no surprise: Politico’s Ben Smith has written an article “unmasking” the co-author of Gov. Palin’s forthcoming book, in the process attempting to portray the Governor as unpalatable to Independents and harshly partisan:

Sarah Palin’s most consequential choice since leaving the White House may be her co-author – a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian, and intensely partisan Republican from far, far outside the Beltway.

Lynn Vincent spent the summer working with Palin on a closely-guarded 400 page memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” The book is due out from HarperCollins November 17 – but it shot to the top of the Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists Wednesday as word of its publication spread.

Vincent’s past projects include co-writing the memoir of General William Boykin, who blasted the media and President George W. Bush alike for ending his career over his casting the war on terror in overtly religious terms. Her most political book, “Donkey Cons,” describes the Democratic Party since its inception as “pro-gangster” and the “party of treason and subversion.” Her work for World Magazine, where she was an editor, includes a description of President Barack Obama as the “minority survivor” of the “black genocide” – that is, abortion.

Palin’s choice of Vincent suggests that hers will be, emphatically, a partisan tract. And it is of a piece with a post-election posture in which the nation’s most intensely popular, and most intensely unpopular, Republican has chosen to deepen her bond with her base at the cost of antipathy from the independent voters who decide presidential elections.

“The success of this book will rise and fall on who much it appeals to the Christian right,” Nelson said. She called Vincent “a smart choice,” if a surprising one, given that Palin was represented in her dealings with publisher HarperCollins by the ultimate Beltway insider, lawyer Robert Barnett, who also handles Obama’s book projects and those of dozens of other Washington eminences.

…The 2006 “Donkey Cons”, published by the Christian house Thomas Nelson, is the only book on which she’s listed as the first author, with conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain. It’s a romp through the history of the Democratic Party, beginning with Aaron Burr (“federal fugitive” and “ruthless killer”) and aimed at proving that “the true history of the Democratic party is a tale of dishonesty, crime and corruption.”

McCain (no relation to the Arizona senator) didn’t respond to an email from POLITICO, but brushed off
to the Washington Independent’s any attempt to link Vincent to his own controversial past remarks on race.

…She’s also been – unlike Palin – an outspoken foe of homosexuality.

“In decades past, men and women routinely brushed off fleeting thoughts of homosexual behavior. Now, though, gay activists have succeeded in planting a seed that says people not only can but should follow such thoughts with exploration and action,” Vincent warned last year.

Vincent’s posture on the confrontational, conservative right matches Palin’s post election stand, in which she has powerfully secured her standing as a leading figure of the Republican party while doing little to broaden her appeal beyond the party’s base.

How convenient that Smith launches an all-out assault on the possibility of Palin accomplishing what she needs to do to become a viable national contender – winning over Independents – shortly after the Governor delivers an uncharacteristic (from the media’s point of view) speech that contains very little of the fierce “right-wing rhetoric” the media have associated with her? This article provides further proof that the media have become a laughingstock, entirely negligent of impartiality and committed to one-sided reporting.

About the project (the official website is here):

An inconvenient tax sheds light on one of america’s messiest problems — a fundamentally broken tax code that affects every part of people’s lives. with the U.S. Congress making over 16,000 changes to the tax code in the last two decades alone, many americans want something better, but few know where to start. This feature-length documentary film reveals the many ways congress uses the tax code to achieve political goals that have nothing to do with raising revenue. It also tackles the controversial issue of tax reform through a non-partisan presentation of u.s. tax history and current proposals to fix the code. In a time when america faces fiscal crisis, an inconvenient tax brings a crucial exploration of the tax code to the big screen.

I’m sure you’ve heard about the tsunami in Samoa – heck, it’s been one the news every half-hour just like any other disaster in another country…

And that’s where I have a problem.

I am getting really ticked that this is being reported and treated as a foreign issue on some far-off island, when in fact the wave poured out a sizable chunk of it’s wrath on American Samoa.

No, it’s not a state – and yes, the people there have names that seem foreign an unpronounceable to those of us on the mainland. But make no mistake – the victims are as American as you and I. This wave hit American soil, wiped out American villages, and inflicted massive damage on the American territorial capital of Pago Pago.

Now – I don’t want to minimize the equally horifying (if not worse) damage on independent State of Samoa next to our territory, or the losses inflicted on  other Pacific nations. However the point that I want to make here is that this is not a time to watch the news and feel sorry for the the poor islanders from a place we’ve never heard of. This is a time to stand with our countrymen in their hour of need.

This is a disater on the scale of a major hurricane – and when you account for the fact that American Samoa is such a tiny place, this is their Katrina. So I for one want to see more coverage  and more focus on this American tragedy.

It is a favorite tactic of many Romneyites to spread myths about Mike Huckabee’s record on matters such as religion and ethics.

In response to a recent post on the United Nations that didn’t mention Mike Huckabee but was in reference a post by Kristofer Lorelli responding to Huckabee on the United Nations, a reader made a statement about Huckabee’s trip to the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention, reader Dave wrote:

Huckabee gave the keynote address a number of years ago at an Evangelical convention held in Salt Lake City for the purpose of converting the one and a half million heathen Mormons in the state back to the “Christian” fold. Nearly 20,000 Evangelicals started knocking on doors during that foray, which was cut short as a result of lack of progress.

This has been a popular meme. Let’s dig into the truth about the event. It was the Southern Baptists Annual Convention that was held in Salt Lake City. The convention brought Southern Baptists into Salt Lake City for the convention, during which many of them Evangelized. (The New York Times put the number of those Evangelizing at a figure of “several hundred.” 

The Convention held in Salt Lake City was not for the sole purpose of Evangelizing Mormons, it was multi-tasking, as they discussed businsess including the roles of husbands in the home (which was the big national headline) along with other church business.

My personal opinion on the Baptists going to Salt Lake City was that it was a bad move to go there. Either the Baptists had bad PR skills or impure motives in going to Salt Lake City because media reports painted a picture of missionary payback for large numbers of Mormon Converts coming from a Baptist background.  The way it was done came off poorly  and was likely to win few converts, as efforts to Evangelize should always be based on a desire to see people come to faith, not to rub it in somebodies nose. Indeed, of the 1,000 converts that were won, most were not Mormon.

However, with Huckabee’s appearance that’s neither here nor there. Huckabee not only didn’t deliver the keynote speech, he didn’t even address the Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City. Rather, he spoke on the first day of a two day pastors’ conference that immediately preceded the convention.  The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on the topic of Huckabee’s speech: it was school violence, kids killing kids, and the overall decline of culture, and the need for the church to be responsive to it. Huckabee didn’t talk about Mormonism and the Democrat-Gazetted noted:

Huckabee and his wife, Janet, left Salt Lake City immediately after his speech, and the governor did not hold a book signing at the convention. In fact, Huckabee didn’t know the books had made it to the convention, said editors of the biweekly Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine who visited with the governor shortly before his speech.

Huckabee had nothing to do with the convention decision or activities other than that speech. It just happened that the year his book was coming out was the year of the Salt Lake City Convention.

Huckabee  opponents will no doubt point out that some of Huckabee’s political opponents were cited in the article as criticizing Huckabee, by alleging that he was cashing in a tragedy by writing a book about school shooting following a school shooting in his state.  However, voters in Arkansas didn’t buy into this argument as five months after this article was written, they re-elected by more than 20 points, in effect telling the critics to pound sand.

Another myth has been that Huckabee is “ethical mess.” Some of this based on a Judicial Watch report listing Huckabee as one of the ten most corrupt politicians in America.  Curiously enough, those who cite this Judicial Watch report tend to be much more favorable to Rudy Giuliani who was ranked as more corrupt than Huckabee on the list (Huckabee at #6, Giuliani at #5.) In addition, Judicial Watch for its condemnation of Huckabee cited the fact that he’d had 14 ethical complaints filed against them and that he’d appealed sued the ethics board twice.

What they failed to mention as the majority of these 14 complaints were not validated, and one of the two times Huckabee challenged the ethics board in court, he won as the State court through a $250 fine Huckabee had been given by the ethics commission for an unreported gift of a Canoe from Coca Cola. Thus, what we’re left with is that Huckabee missed reporting income on his financial disclosure and that he failed to report the gift of a stadium blanket on his financial disclosure. Apparently, that’s all it takes to disqualify someone from political office.

Rumors beyond what are just that: rumors and innuendo and Judicial Watch didn’t even put them in the report. Watching the way the Alaska Dems did Sarah Palin, it should make us cautious beyond belief when it comes to these state ethics processes, whcih are so frequently abused by partisans wanting to use them for purely political points rather than the public good.

We’ll continue to take on festering myths and rumors and counter them with facts.

From the AP:

Just two days after HarperCollins announced that the release of Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue,” had been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17, preorders for the former Alaska governor’s book have made it No. 1 on Barnes & Noble.com on Wednesday and at No. 2 on Amazon.com, trailing only Dan Brown’s “The Lost Symbol.”

Say what you want about the woman, but when she speaks, people listen. Here’s to hoping that the book promotes more “Sarahtarianism”, as explained by Adam Brickley!

Remember Mitt’s trip to Salt Lake City yesterday to raise funds for his Free and Strong America PAC? The results are in. He raised $125,000.

Tonight Mitt will be in Phoenix where his former rival, John McCain is holding a fundraiser for him.

Rudy Giuliani, quiet of late, is making some interesting stops:

Rudy Giuliani was in town as a guest speaker for the Get Motivated! seminar Tuesday at Freedom Hall, but the former New York City mayor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate didn’t leave without visiting a few Louisville hot spots.

“It was terrific,” said Giuliani, a serious New York Yankees fan. “I got to see Mickey Mantle’s contract, Yogi Berra’s contract, Joe DiMaggio’s contract and their bats. I got to see how you make a bat, which was great.”

The Buzz caught up with Giuliani just after he ate lunch Tuesday at Otto’s Cafe in The Seelbach Hilton.

“I love Louisville!” said Giuliani, who also praised his “wonderful dinner (Monday) night” at Jeff Ruby’s Steakhouse.

After his speech Tuesday, Giuliani also visited the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory.

Hizzoner is a notorious Yankees fan but still…when politicians in New York start visiting baseball sites, it usually means something’s up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog

On the fourth anniversary of the publication of the Muhammad cartoons by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, let’s consider the question: has terrorism proved itself a successful tactic in the Islamic jihad against the rest of the world?:

In the 20th century, in the era of the Cold War, most of the world’s terrorist groups were ideologically communist, whatever else they were: revolutionary, or national-separatist, or national-liberationist. Most of them were aided and abetted by the Soviet Union. (So were small groups of young, free, prosperous West Europeans who committed acts of terrorism on the pretext of serving selfless causes but primarily to get a thrill out of it, such as the so-called Baader-Meinhof group.) There were no terrorist groups within the Communist Bloc.

In Latin America and Africa some groups gained their objectives, and their success may have been due in part to their use of terrorism; but it cannot be said that terrorism proved a reliably winning tactic wherever it was tried, and it certainly cannot be said that Communism won.

In the 21st century, however, terrorism has been highly successful. Almost all terrorist activity since the turn of the century has been perpetrated by Muslims acting in the name of Islam. It can accurately and fairly be called ‘Islamic terrorism’ without implying that every Muslim in the world is a terrorist, any more, it might be said, than ‘Basque terrorism’ taints every citizen of the Basque country. Yet the comparison would be misleading. While it is true enough that every Muslim is not an active terrorist, it is nevertheless the religious duty of every Muslim to help the advance of holy war against the non-Muslim world. Confirmation that Muslim terrorists are intent on fulfilling a religious duty may be found in these unequivocal statements by the 9/11 plotters, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others, submitted in writing at their trial in December 2008: ‘Our prophet was victorious because of fear… our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians, and pagans. With God’s willing, we are terrorists to the bone. So, many thanks to God… We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god’s [sic] cause is a great duty in our religion.’

All collectivist ideologies – for glaring examples Nazism and Communism – are intrinsically violent, since the collective obedience of a citizenry can only be sustained by force. Islam is a collectivist ideology and this alone makes it intrinsically violent; but more explicitly, Islam demands of every one of its devotees that he (and she) be a holy warrior against all who remain outside of its collective. It teaches that to die in a violent onslaught against unbelievers is the highest service a Muslim can render to its God, so a ‘martyr’ who kills himself while perpetrating murder will be rewarded by God with instant admission into an eternity of sensual rewards in a leisurely afterlife.

Other collectivist creeds employ torturers and executioners to terrorize their collective into remaining submissive, and employ individuals to deliver their fellow citizens into the hands of the torturers and executioners; but Islam goes further and lays on every one of its votaries a God-ordered duty to kill for the cause of conquest, or at the very least to assist a fellow Muslim to kill. Since they do not fear death, nothing can stop Islam’s holy warriors. Their willingness, their positive eagerness to die for their cause, powerfully promotes success.

No wonder then that Islamic terrorism has succeeded. The ‘Muhammad cartoon’ episode alone demonstrates its triumph. When, four years ago today, a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Islam’s prophet, Muslims reacted by threatening civil disorder throughout Europe, killing Christians in the Middle East, and so intimidating the editors of almost all other newspapers in the world that very few dared to reproduce the cartoons. European governments cringed, apologized, and groveled. Even in America, a book about the cartoons omits the cartoons themselves, because the publishers, Yale University, fear Muslim reprisals.

Fear of Islam has become a fact of life in Europe. All EU governments rush to gratify the demands of their growing and incendiary Muslim minorities. Police are reluctant to enforce the law in ‘Muslim areas’. Judges hesitate or refuse to impose harsh sentences on Muslims who incite and plot violence, or to deport them. The indigenous populations are effectively ‘dhimmified’: rendered subservient to the will of the Muslim immigrants. There, by the use of terrorism, Islam has won.

In America, as this is being written, Muslims have been charged with plotting or attempting to carry out violent attacks with weapons of mass destruction in New York, Chicago, Dallas, and a Marine Corps base in New Mexico. An organizer of the Muslim march on Washington, D.C. on September 25th wrote on his Facebook site: ‘We don’t want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy.’

The dhimmification of America with its much larger population will take longer than it did in Europe, but day after day, step by step, Islam is making its gains. Governments, editors, police, judges, citizens already hesitate to use their constitutional right to speak freely if what they say might offend Muslims.

Since the mass murder of some 3,000 Americans by nineteen Muslims in 2001, there have been more than 14,000 Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The al-Qaeda organization, probably now headquartered in Pakistan, inspires and trains terrorists from Europe and America to carry out acts of mass murder in Western cities. The Islamic state of Iran sponsors Hizbullah, the terrorist organization that has battened on to Lebanon and threatens Israel; sends arms and equipment through Syria to terrorists in Iraq; supplies the Hamas terrorists with materiel so it can continue to wage perpetual rocket war against Israel from Gaza; and directly threatens Israel with annihilation by nuclear attack.

Against all this the United Nations, sentimentally established after the Second World War to be a peace maker, proves itself worse than useless, having long ago become an agency of the Islamic states, continually manipulated by them to lie and propagandize, and actively enable anti-Western violence.

How can civilization fend off this enemy whose power lies in its invulnerability to physical damage? What strategy can it plan – short of annihilation, which is hardly possible even if it were to be unconscionably contemplated, there being over a billion Muslims in the world? Legislatures cannot do it. Police forces cannot do it. Armies cannot do it.

An optimistic view is that prosperity could do it. Encourage immigration into Western countries and grant massive economic aid to Islamic states. The reasoning goes that as people become more prosperous they become better educated, have fewer children, are less influenced by – or even renounce – religion; they see and desire the benefits of western civilization, take advantage of its openness to individual effort, and try to become part of it rather than destroy it. Unfortunately it is a theory that has been tested and not proved. It is out of the prosperous third generation of Muslim immigrants that Islamic terrorists have arisen in Britain, to place bombs in trains and park a car full of explosive in the streets of its capital. Even if there were strong evidence in favor of the theory, an experiment that requires the First World to pour its resources into the Islamic Third World is unrealistic and impracticable because it is not affordable.

An alternative idea is to isolate the Islamic nations: apply extreme sanctions; refuse to trade with them, even though they have the oil that the West needs; do not give them aid; do not permit Muslim immigration into Western countries, and deport back to their countries of origin as many present immigrants as law and civilized values permit; in sum, leave Islam to its own devices, and let internecine conflict, lack of modern technology, poor medical knowledge and general ignorance take their toll of the enemy to reduce it to impotence. This too is unrealistic, if for no other reason than that such measures would offend the sense of moral self-worth that determines the political choices of at least half the people in the Western world; those who hold compassion as their highest value and vote for parties that claim to be motivated by it – in other words, the political left.

There is no easy answer. The civilized world has at present the intellectual and economic, as well as military advantage over Islam. But if it cannot find a way with all its powers to preserve itself, it will be overcome. Europe has chosen not to resist. When most of Europe as well as most of Asia have become fully Islamized, as they very likely will be, how might America, if it is still free, deal with such a changed world? What will it do to ensure its survival when it is the last stronghold of civilization?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jillian Becker was Director of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism, London, 1985-1990. Among her books on terrorism are, most notably, Hitler’s Children: the Story of the Baader-Mainhof Terrorist Gang (Lippincott, New York, 1977) and The PLO: the Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1984). She is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative.

Rasmussen Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 51% [48%] {51%} (49%)
• Creigh Deeds 42% [46%] {42%} (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob McDonnell 44% [54%] {55%} (53%) / 37% [32%] {28%} (30%) {+7%}
• Creigh Deeds 46% [50%] {48%} (48%) / 45% [42%] {42%} (39%) {+1%}

In terms of how you will vote this November, how important is the content of McDonnell’s thesis?

• Very important 32% [30%] {17%}
• Somewhat important 19% [22%] {19%}
• Not very important 21% [17%] {25%}
• Not at all important 19% [21%] {24%}

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Bob McDonnell 51% [50%] {50%} (48%)
• Creigh Deeds 36% [36%] {35%} (30%)

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Bob McDonnell 46% [49%] {51%} (46%)
• Creigh Deeds 30% [31%] {29%} (24%)

Which candidate is more likely to confront Virginia’s transportation problems?

• Bob McDonnell 45% [38%] {36%} (36%)
• Creigh Deeds 32% [36%] {35%} (33%)

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

• Strongly approve 40% [41%] {32%} (39%)
• Somewhat approve 12% [8%] {18%} (9%)
• Somewhat disapprove 9% [9%] {7%} (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 39% [41%] {42%} (41%)

How would you rate the job Tim Kaine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 31% [27%] {20%} (25%)
• Somewhat approve 28% [25%] {31%} (31%)
• Somewhat disapprove 22% [21%] {25%} (22%)
• Strongly disapprove 18% [25%] {21%} (21%)

Does a Mark Warner endorsement of Creigh Deeds make you more likely or less likely to vote for Deeds?

• More likely 33%
• Less likely 30%
• It would have no impact 34%

Does former Democratic governor Doug Wilder’s decision to remain neutral in the 2009 Virginia governor’s race make you more likely or less likely to vote for Creigh Deeds?

• More likely 6%
• Less likely 10%
• It would have no impact 80%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 29. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 16 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 1 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 10 are in parentheses.

From the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s latest e-mail:

On “Meet the Press” this week, President Clinton was asked if the right-wing conspiracy was still active and targeting President Obama.

President Clinton’s response: “Oh, you bet.”

I couldn’t agree more. We see it every day: organized networks of right-wing “swift boat” groups that mobilize angry mobs, spread lies about the president, and bombard the airwaves with anti-reform rhetoric. Since June, they have spent more than $38 million on TV ads alone.

The people funding these groups will stop at nothing until they end our Senate majority and defeat President Obama…

If we miss this goal, our right-wing opponents will claim it is proof that they are winning this fight. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

Sincerely,
J.B. Poersch

I guess dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.

But regardless, there’s no conspiracy about it, buddy: we’re out in the open, we’re angry at the president, we’re against his contrived “reform” efforts, and we’ll stop at nothing to end your Senate majority. Thanks for circulating our conspiracy’s memo to your minions, though, J.B. Poersch — whoever you are.

Does anyone like the results of Obama’s focus of the past 47 years?

RNC Chairman Michael Steele called the President’s visit to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympiad “noble” (given that the Windy City is Barack’s hometown) but still a “distraction” from more pressing issues like health care and job creation.

Given the millions of jobs lost since Obama started focusing on job creation nine months ago, I think America is better off with our 44th Chief Executive distracted.

I will admit that one could cynically argue that the more Obama has focused on health care, the less likely has become prospects that the more onerous aspects of ObamaDem proposals will become law. But I fear the more likely result of the kind of focus that many congressional republicans crave that would make them players in a compromise bill, would actually increase the prospects for passage of a law that would do permanent harm to our health care system.

The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra wants the Commander in Chief to focus on the Afghan War:

“Mr. President, identify what is important and focus on what’s important. Not everything rises to the level of needing presidential involvement.”

I concede that it is possible that General Stanley McChrystal could persuade the new War Decider to take a more hawkish stance in the war and increase troops for an Iraq Surge-like anti-insurgency campaign to crush the Taliban.

But it appears to me that the more Obama focuses on foreign policy, the more likely he is to choose appeasement, apology tours and betrayals of those that year to breathe free. The man is not the Leader of the Free World and given his world view after 47 years of indoctrination by Marxist parents, Ivy League liberals, and the Chicago, Illinois and National Democratic parties, I doubt only a 911 that takes out US Cellular-New Comiskey Park would have a chance to make his focus worthwhile.

After all, Wrigley Field isn’t big enough for track and field events.

Finally, GOP strategist John Feehery said it was important for Republicans to pick their battles in deciding how and when to criticize Obama.

But Feehery, a Chicago native who said he is rooting for the city to win the Games, said GOP complaints about Obama’s trip were well-founded.

“He’s taking a bunch of Chicago cronies on an all expense paid trip to Copenhagen for just one reason, to get the Olympics,” Feehery said. “For me it makes him seem unserious and look slightly desperate.”

And? Surely it is better for America that President Obama fail in achieving his Big Government policy goals, and surely that outcome is advanced when the leader of ObamaDems is seen as unserious and desperate.

A successful America is paramount, and given this President’s radical domestic agenda and obvious aversion to defending America’s traditional ideals of Liberty abroad, we are better off with an unsuccessful Obama presidency.

If Obama had shown any inclination to advance a strong defense and deterrent posture abroad, I would be a strong voice for not seeking to weaken the President, but Obama’s goal abroad is weakness! His previous focus on the War on Terror is to retreat from the war in hopes that our enemies will love us for surrendering.

Republicans couldn’t help this guy if we tried, so quit trying, and for Gosh sakes pick better battles rather than acting like rats following the MSM pied piper.

Chicago is not just Obama’s hometown; a red city run by Democrat thugs in a red state.

Chicago is America, and there is nothing wrong with lobbying for getting the Olympics to come there. Want to criticize Obama. Choose substance. That will occupy all your time.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Quinnipiac New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 43% [47%] (46%)
• Jon Corzine 39% [37%] (40%)
• Chris Daggett 12% [9%] (7%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45% [46%] (55%)
• Jon Corzine 32% [30%] (25%)
• Chris Daggett 16% [16%] (13%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 11% [8%] (4%) / 3% [4%] (3%) {+8%}
• Chris Christie 38% [41%] (42%) / 38% [30%] (20%) {+0%}
• Jon Corzine 34% [34%] (37%) / 56% [57%] (54%) {-22%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Jon Corzine is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 36% [34%] (36%)
• Disapprove 58% [60%] (58%)

Among Independents

• Approve 31% [28%] (26%)
• Disapprove 63% [65%] (70%)

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

• Approve 56% [51%] (56%) {60%}
• Disapprove 39% [43%] (39%) {34%}

Would you say that Jon Corzine has strong leadership qualities or not?

• Yes 54% [48%]
• No 42% [47%]

Would you say that Chris Christie has strong leadership qualities or not?

• Yes 46% [52%]
• No 30% [25%]

Would you say that Jon Corzine is honest and trustworthy or not?

• Yes 44% [40%]
• No 45% [51%]

Would you say that Chris Christie is honest and trustworthy or not?

• Yes 37% [44%]
• No 36% [31%]

Would you say that Jon Corzine cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?

• Yes 42% [41%]
• No 52% [54%]

Would you say that Chris Christie cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?

• Yes 42% [47%]
• No 37% [34%]

If Jon Corzine is reelected governor, do you think property taxes will go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Go up 61%
• Go down 3%
• Stay about the same 32%

If Chris Christie is elected governor, do you think property taxes will go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Go up 34%
• Go down 9%
• Stay about the same 46%

Should there be a cap on how much property taxes can be raised annually in New Jersey or not?

• Yes 85%
• No 11%

If needed to achieve meaningful property tax relief, would you support or oppose an increase in one of the major state taxes such as the state income or sales taxes?

• Support 39%
• Oppose 54%

What is the most important issue to you in deciding how to vote for governor this year?

• Taxes 41%
• Economy 17%
• Budget 7%
• Healthcare 7%
• Politicians/political corruption 7%
• Honesty/morality 4%
• Education 3%

Survey of 1,188 likely voters was conducted September 23-28. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 25-30 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 5-9 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 8 – 12 are in curly brackets.

“I have a friend, one friend who is close to Sarkozy and another who is a member of France’s external intelligence agency. And they both say that Sarkozy thinks that President Obama is incredibly naive and grossly egotistical, so egotistical that no one can dent his naiveté. And that he is very worried about what that means for the west because the President of the United States is the leader of the free world and if the President of the United States isn’t going to lead the free world it isn’t going to be led.”

Kim Priestap sums up my feelings on the subject.

Let the gravity of those comments soak in.

We’re dealing with a president who is so arrogant that he actually thinks he can mold the world into what he thinks it should be, which is totally divorced from reality, that those who really do understand the world can’t convince him that his view is dangerous and naive.

______________________________________________

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

Haley Barbour has followed in former Gov. Palin’s footsteps by traveling to Asia to deliver an economics-related speech:

Gov. Haley Barbour’s office has announced he’s in Malaysia today for one stop on an Asian economic development trip expected to take him to Singapore and Japan.

Today, the governor is speaking at the 9th Annual Forbes Global CEO conference. While at the Kuala Lumpur conference, leaders will discuss the world’s credit crisis, the recession and how investors and those in the private sector can help bring stability to the world’s economy.

Barbour will be featured in a session with Gov. Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico, and Steve Forbes. That meeting will focus on the influence U.S. politics has on world affairs.

While in Singapore, he’ll talk with those who have Mississippi operations who are considering setting up here. He and his wife, Marsha, also will be guests at a luncheon sponsored by Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Could the Governor simply hope to attract foreign investment for Mississippi, or does he harbor a larger, more presidential, agenda?

Federal Reserve officials recently discussed the need to increase interest rates in order to stave off inflation if the economy begins to recover:

“I expect that when it comes time to tighten monetary policy, my colleagues and I will move with an alacrity that, if needed, will be equal in speed and intensity” to when the Fed was slashing rates to battle the recession and the financial crisis, said Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Although Fisher has a reputation for being one of the Fed’s toughest inflation fighters, it marked the second such warning by a central bank official in recent days. Fed member Kevin Warsh on Friday said the central bank will need to move swiftly when the time comes to raise rates.

Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and also a hawk against inflation, waded into the debate in a speech Tuesday in Easton, Pa., saying the Fed may need to act “well before” unemployment — now at a 26-year high of 9.7 percent — returns to normal. The Fed, he said, will need to be on guard “to prevent the Second Great Inflation.”

It’s all part of a high-wire act that the Fed has to perform as the economy transitions from recession to recovery.

If the Fed raises rates and reels in the unprecedented support too soon, it could short-circuit the rebound. If the central bank waits too long to rein in its stimulus, inflation could be unleashed.

…Some investors found Warsh’s comments confusing, especially coming just two days after the Fed decided to hold its key bank lending rate at a record low near zero and pledged to keep it there for an “extended period.” Most economists read that to mean the Fed would keep rates at super-low levels through this year and into part of 2010.

Warsh’s comments led some investors to believe that rate increases could come sooner. The last time the Fed raised rates was in June 2006, around the time that the housing bubble reached its peak.

As the article notes, these deliberations highlight the terribly difficult balancing act the central bank faces.

Daniel Griswold, of the Cato Institute, has written an insightful analysis of the impact of Pres. Obama’s protectionist inclinations on low-income Americans. I encourage everyone to read the entire piece, but here are a few highlights:

The tariff the president imposed on Chinese tires earlier this month was heavily biased against low-income American families. The affected tires typically cost $50 to $60 each, as compared with the unaffected tires that sell for $200 each. The result of the tariff will be an increase in lower-end tire prices of 20 percent to 30 percent. Low-income families struggling to keep their cars on the road will be forced to postpone replacing old and worn tires, putting their families at greater risk.

The “cash for clunkers” program the president championed, while not a trade measure, betrays the same indifference to markets that serve the poor. The program forced the disposal of the 700,000 cars and light trucks that were traded in, reducing supply and raising prices of used vehicles for families that cannot afford to buy new. Because of this president’s policies, low-income drivers will find it more difficult to buy a car and to keep it running safely. The president’s policy appears to be to let the rich drive their new, subsidized hybrid cars while the poor walk or take a bus.

…When he was running for president, Mr. Obama explicitly endorsed higher prices for T-shirts for every American family to save jobs in the small and declining apparel sector. At a debate before union members in Chicago in August 2007, he said, “People don’t want a cheaper T-shirt if they’re losing a job in the process. They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for a T-shirt.”

Lastly, as many may already know, Gen. Stanley McChrystal informed CBS’s David Martin that he has spoken to Pres. Obama only once since assuming control in Afghanistan. Despite all his faults, former Pres. Bush spoke to military commanders on the ground on a weekly basis. Obama’s apparent indifference to the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the well-being of our troops risking their lives for us provide colossal course for concern.

Take-Away:

In this current political and economic environment, the fair tax is political suicide and very much like ObamaCare would not make it past the Senate Finance Committee:

• To generate enough revenue to pay for the current federal budget, the consumption tax rate would have to be set between 30-35% (FY2009). That is 35 cents for every dollar YOU spend.
• Based on the projected costs of entitlement programs and defense spending, the consumption tax rate would probably rise to 50% by 2020, at or around the same time the ObamaCare plan costs would rise by $1 trillion.
• To remain competitive and set a consumption tax rate similar to those in Europe, Congress would have to cut more than $2 trillion from the current $3 trillion Federal budget.
• One third of Americans do not pay federal income taxes and these voters would revolt if the cost of most commodities/consumer goods increased by 1/3, even if the consumption tax would benefit the economy, long-term (and it would).
• In the late 1990’s, the Conservative government in Canada replaced a tax on manufacturers with a consumption tax.  Even though this has benefited the manufacturing sector and transformed Canada (along with NAFTA) into an export powerhouse, the Conservative party was voted out of power for 13 years.

Governor Huckabee was not correct in his assumptions of the derivative effects from implementing a fair or flat tax:

• If Governor Huckabee has paid any attention to the revenue crisis in California, he would understand that during economic downturns, revenue from consumption and corporate taxes and user fees decline more rapidly and at a significantly higher percentage then income taxes.  It is much more difficult for government economists to project revenues from consumption taxes then revenue from income taxes.
• There is no guarantee that $13 trillion would return from offshore accounts after implementing a fair tax.  Eliminating red-tape on small business owners and reducing corporate tax rates would serve as a greater motivator to retain capital in the United States and encourage tax compliance.
• During times of war, economic crisis and when facing a natural disaster like Katrina, our Federal government would not be able to raise enough revenue and would be forced to reinstate the income tax.
• The Forbes flax tax plan has a much greater possibility of being adopted by a Republican majority and would essentially have the same pro-growth impact on our economy as the fair tax.  A flat tax would be easier to implement as it would require less reforms in our bureaucracy and zero cost to our business operators that distribute/sell goods and services.
• A flat tax would eliminate most departments in the Internal Revenue Service (and the need for families to depend on accountants).  A fair tax would not eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, as the oversight of the consumption tax applied by businesses and annual rebate applications from tens of millions of Americans would still require a federal tax and revenue department.

It is a dream for those of us classical economists to eliminate the income tax and Internal Revenue Service.  Our economy, government and families would be much better off for it, but we must realize that the goal is a long-term one.  We missed our opportunity in the late 1980’s when the federal budget was $1 trillion dollars and the communist iron curtain fell.  We could have slashed spending and implemented a flat or fair tax, but instead our government started down a path of increasing income and capital gains taxes and non-discretionary spending.

We must be honest with the American voter and ourselves as Republicans.  The fair tax won’t sell in 2010 and 2012 and it will take a decade of paying down our debt, lowering and flattening income tax rates and reforming our bureaucracy and entitlement programs before we are in a position to approach the public with such an idea.  Promoting anything but this reality, is dishonest and does a disservice to the Republican party.

Let’s follow the lead of Steve Forbes and the California Republican party and adopt a platform that promises to re-write the tax code and implement a flat tax.

______________________________________________

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

SurveyUSA Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 55% (54%) [55%]
• Creigh Deeds 41% (42%) [40%]

Among Democrats

• Creigh Deeds 85% (80%) [86%]
• Bob McDonnell 13% (19%) [11%]

Among Moderates

• Creigh Deeds 55% (51%) [52%]
• Bob McDonnell 41% (42%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 59% (52%) [60%]
• Creigh Deeds 35% (41%) [35%]

Among Republicans

• Bob McDonnell 89% (88%) [88%]
• Creigh Deeds 10% (7%) [7%]

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 57% (56%) [61%]
• Creigh Deeds 40% (39%) [36%]

Among Women

• Bob McDonnell 53% (52%) [49%]
• Creigh Deeds 43% (45%) [44%]

Survey of 631 likely voters was conducted September 26-28. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% (36%) [38%] Republican; 32% (33%) [32%] Democrat; 29% (29%) [29%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted September 4 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 27-28 are in brackets.

A lot has been said lately about the idea that Sarah Palin is positioning herself as a the libertarian in the 2012 field – and I have been laughing…a lot. This is exactly I have been saying for months, and exactly how I have seen a potential Palin run shaping up for years (VP  run or no VP run).  So, now that we are seeing a lot more of the original, pre-McCain Sarah Palin, I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate where Sarah sits in the field. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think that Palin’s actual trajectory is very different from what most observers are predicting. So, here are some things to keep in mind.

1. The Huckabee Myth:  Sarah Palin is not, and has never been, competing for the same votes as Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee’s message is focused on  social/religious issues, and he is largely viewed as “compassionate conservative”. Yes, he has the Fair Tax,  but that’s not his selling point. Sarah Palin is far more hard-core on fiscal issues, energy issues, etc. She can compete for Huck-leaning SoCons but they are not her base…

2. Palinistas = Fredheads: Now that we’ve addressed what the Palin base isn’t (Huckabeean SoCons) – let’s look at what it is. It should be lost on no one that Fred Thompson has aligned himself closely with Palin, that their views match closely, and that Fred has no intention of making a 2012 run. It’s not an exact match, but if we are trying to model a race, it is pretty safe to assume that Palin enters the race as the heir to Fred’s more libertarian base rather than a competitor to Huck.

3. The Rudy Factor: This is where the whole “Sarah the Libertarian” argument REALLY kicks in. Has anyone seen Hizzoner palling around with Mike Huckabee at a Yanks game? Mitt Romney? Okay, Mitt’s probably a Red Sox guy anyway – but you get the point. Rudy Giuliani feels a kinship with Sarah based on her experience as a mayor and a corruption buster – and he knew about the “libertarian Sarah” long before the punditry caught on. Should Rudy decide against running himself (likely in my opinion), then he becomes Sarah’s ace in the hole. His endorsement will likely seal the deal with the libertarian wing of the party - and one could argue that aligning the Rudy vote and the Fred vote could create quite a force. If anyone doubts that Palin can appeal to Rudy supporters, I would also point out that three of the biggest early Palin advocates (myself, Steve Maloney, Eric Dondero) were ALL backing Giuliani backers in 2008 (although Steve shifted to McCain near the end). The Palin movement was birthed out of the Giuliani base – and I still think we are well positioned to get that vote.

4. New Hampshire, Baby!: Everybody assumes that Sarah will be making her stand in Iowa and Iowa alone. I think that’s ridiculous. Palin will start with strong numbers in Iowa, but New Hampshire is her state. Alaska has a strongly libertarian electorate, has a lot of registered independents, and understands political analogies based on ice hockey. The same is true of new Hampshire – those are the voters Sarah knows, those are the voters who formed her Alaskan base, those are the voters she can win over, and those are the voters she should target. Furthermore, New Hampshire has one thing Iowa doesn’t, a large number of people who supported McCain in 2008. Not all of those people are going for Sarah, but they are all up for grabs – and given Mitt Romney’s potential for last-minute implosion, I like Sarah’s chances. Not that she shouldn’t try to win Iowa, but a dramatic win (or even a strong second) in New Hampshire would give her far more momentum.

 So – that is my view of the brave new world of “Sarahtarianism” – which is really nothing more than the classic Sarah Palin finally emerging on the national stage. We’ll see just how libertarian she can get when we see her upcoming memoir Going Rogue, but I’m guessing that she will use that book to complete the transformation we’ve all been talking about.

Here’s to the future – because it’s looking great from this Palinista’s point of view.

I haven’t heard word one about Fred Thompson since the end of the 2008 campaign.  But, apparently he’s still doing a radio show and he just did an interview with Pawlenty.  Here it is.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog.

Rasmussen Arkansas 2010 Political Survey

2010 Senate Race

• Gilbert Baker (R) 47%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 39%

• Kim Hendren (R) 44%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 41%

• Curtis Coleman (R) 43%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 41%

• Tom Cox (R) 43%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 40%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Kim Hendren 38% / 22% (+16%)
• Curtis Coleman 38% / 25% (+13%)
• Gilbert Baker 39% / 27% (+12%)
• Tom Cox 35% / 27% (+8%)
• Blanche Lincoln 45% / 52% (-7%)

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

• Strongly approve 28%
• Somewhat approve 9%
• Somewhat disapprove 10%
• Strongly disapprove 52%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 20%
• Somewhat favor 10%
• Somewhat oppose 15%
• Strongly oppose 52%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 19%
• Worse 58%
• Staying the same 14%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 56%
• Cost will go down 16%
• Stay the same 20%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 73%
• Reduce the deficit 7%
• No impact on the deficit 14%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 67%
• Somewhat likely 14%
• Not very likely 13%
• Not at all likely 3%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 66%
• Federal government will not do enough 23%

How would you rate the job Mike Beebe has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 27%
• Somewhat approve 42%
• Somewhat disapprove 22%
• Strongly disapprove 8%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 28. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

When I was attending BYU, Gerald Ford came to campus and spoke to the students. After it was over, he opened the floor to questions. One student asked him what his stand on abortion was. Remember, this was BYU, a very pro-life place.

President Ford replied without hesitation, “I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion anytime and anywhere she wants.”

I remember thinking at the time, “Wow, what integrity. I completely and utterly disagree with him, but I would vote for him in a heartbeat. That is a man you can trust.”

In Mitt Romney, a Man of Integrity below, I wrote of several instances where Mitt Romney risked alienating his core constituents or didn’t chose to do the easy thing because it went against what he felt was the right thing to do.  I would dearly love to hear supporters of other candidates relate instances where their favorite candidate went out on a limb and did the same thing — where they risked alienating their core constituents or where they refused to take the easy way out because of what they felt was the right thing to do.

Any takers?

It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. (J.K. Rowling)

Minneapolis Star-Tribune Minnesota Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Tim Pawlenty is handling his job as governor?

• Approve 49%
• Disapprove 38%

Among Republicans

• Approve 75%
• Disapprove 11%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 38%

Would you like to see Tim Pawlenty run for president in 2012, or not?

• Yes 30%
• No 55%

Among Republicans

• Yes 53%
• No 33%

Among Independents

• Yes 34%
• No 51%

If Tim Pawlenty is the Republican Party’s candidate for president in 2012, is there a good chance, some chance, or no chance that you would vote for him?

• Good chance 25%
• Some chance 25%
• No chance 43%

Among Republicans

• Good chance 59%
• Some chance 28%
• No chance 8%

Among Independents

• Good chance 23%
• Some chance 34%
• No chance 37%

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

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 34%

Among Independents

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 39%

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

• Approve 39%
• Disapprove 45%

Among Independents

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 52%

From what you know right now, overall, do you support or oppose the changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration?

• Support 43%
• Oppose 40%

Among Independents

• Support 38%
• Oppose 48%

Do you support or oppose including a “public option” as part of health care reform, that is, creating a new government health insurance plan that would compete with private health insurance plans?

• Support 51%
• Oppose 37%

Among Independents

• Support 51%
• Oppose 42%

Do you support or oppose a law requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those who can’t afford it?

• Support 54%
• Oppose 37%

Among Independents

• Support 51%
• Oppose 43%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Al Franken is handling his job as U.S. senator?

• Approve 41%
• Disapprove 29%

Among Independents

• Approve 36%
• Disapprove 32%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted September 21-24. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Cassandra over at Villainous Company has a fun, snarky post on the “evolving” standards of the new left.  A few highlights:

This weekend as the Editorial Staff looked down our nose out our airplane window at the vast intellectual wasteland that is flyover country, we pondered the well known truth that – at least for the truly enlightened progressive – tolerance of diversity is a practice far better honored in the breach than in the observance.

At the risk of stereotyping (which of course we would never do) it’s hard to know just what to make of these frightened and irrational bitter gun-clinging racist types?

It’s not as though there is any rational basis for their frankly unhinged belief system, is there? Fortunately, we can explain what we don’t understand by labeling such mystifying thoughts “insane”, “ignorant”, or “fearful” – all without violating our own belief system! The key, really, is to put the wingnuts in their place. There used to be a nifty phrase for that… what was it? Marginalize them? Treat them as “The Other”. Of course when we do it, it’s perfectly fine because we hold the correct world view. If they did the same thing to us, it would be intolerant and wrongheaded.

Clarity on these matters is so important, don’t you think? It’s what keeps us honest.

Now that we finally have a really smart President in the Oval Office, we can stop worrying about that pesky Constitution, executive overreach, checks and balances. It’s so reassuring to know that we can finally soak those darned bumper stickers off the Volvo, too. The age of Obama rendered all that “We the People” nonsense completely irrelevant:

Question Authority? Oh honey, that’s so Bush administration. Now that the right party’s in charge, the continuation of policies once branded as dangerous signs of a power-mad Unitary Executive can be safely ignored.

Dissent as the highest form of patriotism has been replaced by unAmerican dissent, dissent as racism, dissent as insanity, and our personal favorite, dissent as “violent speech”. Ooch! Ouch! Stop beating me up with your … your… nasty, brutish words, you big bullies!…

During the Bush years, any sign that the troops didn’t have what they needed to complete the mission was touted as Presidential incompetence. Under Obama, though, personnel and equipment shortages are never the President’s fault! Come to think of it, it’s downright rude for the military to wonder how supposed to win a war in 12-18 months without the troops they asked for back in March when Obama first unveiled his strategery…

Read the whole thing.  In fairness, this is something that happens every time an opposition party is in power (where were all conservative complaints about “nation-building” in the 2002-2005 period?), but the sheer magnitude of the left’s reversal is pretty staggering.  Some of these attacks had been political posturing in the first place (the idea that the left somehow cared more about the troops’ equipment was always ridiculous and they knew it), but a lot of it seemed genuine.  Seeing them abandon some of these principles almost feels like a victory…for us.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog.

I have been trying to wrap my head around these concepts laid out for all to read over at the Huffington Post:

I’ve had it with the Swiss.

I used to admire them — their clean, orderly, decorous way of life. Their stubborn independence and self-reliance. I forgave them for the years they never joined the United Nations, and even now, not joining the European Union.

When I learned, years ago, that they had blithely allowed German military trains to transit their country during the Second World War, while claiming Swiss “neutrality,” I was shocked, but tried to excuse them on grounds that they were protecting their country from invasion and armed warfare.

I was glad when they finally gave women the vote not so long ago. And I was glad when their banks initially balked at American demands to release the names of their American clients. Swiss banking secrecy, after all, has not been a ploy to launder dirty money; it has been a time-honored tradition to respect the privacy of their customers.

(May I add that Europeans have always been, and still are to a large degree, much more discreet about their money than Americans are.)

But now, not only are the Swiss bankers caving in to America’s bullying, so are the Swiss police and Swiss jurisprudence.

Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable. Polanski, now 76, has been living in France for over thirty years, and has been traveling and working in Europe unhindered, but the Swiss acted on an old extradition treaty with the U.S. and seized him! The Swiss Justice Ministry will decide whether to extradite him to the United States.

The judge in the 1977 statutory rape case is dead. Polanski had agreed at the time to a plea bargain, but then the judge reneged on it. Polanski has tried to appeal.

But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model “seduced” by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman’s sobriety and intelligence.

Now, three decades later, the long arm of Uncle Sam is grabbing this man and hauling him back to California, thanks to the complicity of the Swiss. There are surely more important issues in the world, and more villainous rogues at large that we should be attending to. Why does America always get sidetracked by sex and scandal?

I suggest, in the finest American tradition, we protest this absurd and deplorable act by smashing our cuckoo clocks, pawning our Swiss watches, and banning Swiss cheese and chocolate.

And let them yodel all they like.

This wasn’t written by a random blogger, but by Ms. Joan Z. Shore, the co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality.

So let me get this straight… Ms. Shore (not known if she is of any relation to Pauly) is a co-founder of a women’s equality group. That usually involves fighting for the… rights of women. It seems that when it comes to a 13 year old girl being drugged and forcefully sodomized while begging for her attacker to cease, it is not worth fighting for if the perpetrator happens to be a “charming” and talented filmmaker? All of a sudden Polanski becomes the victim? It’s the mother’s fault that he drugged and raped her 13 year old daughter?

Michael Deacon, of the UK based Telegraph, dug up this quote made by Polanski well after he fled the United States:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But…(expletive that means sexual intercourse), you see, and the young girls. Judges want to (f word) young girls. Juries want to (f word) young girls. Everyone wants to (F word)  young girls!”

Now, I am not one of these cold-hearted cynics who would casually dismiss the fact that Polanski led a tragic life.  His parents were killed in the Concentration Camps of World War II and his wife was murdered by Charles Manson.  These facts undoubtedly led to serious mental and psychiatric anguish.

BUT… it does not excuse him for the crime of raping a 13 year old girl.  Ms. Shore is not alone.  Some on the Hollywood Left have also  jumped to the defense Mr. Polanski, most notably Whoopi Goldberg:

“I know it wasn’t ‘rape’ rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was ‘rape’ rape,” said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

I would like to ask these esteemed thinkers of the left what they define as the difference between “rape-rape” and boring old-fashioned rape when it involves a drugged 13 year old girl?  I thought they were supposed to be the experts on women’s equality, but maybe I’ll have to rethink that theory of mine.  

Would they still be rushing to the defense of Polanski were he not an esteemed filmmaker?  Would Roman Polanski, 8th grade gym teacher, be worthy of their support?  What about Roman Polanski, GOP congressman?   What about Reverend Polanski?  Were that the case would they be calling for rallies to his defense?  Would they be petitioning the French government, the Polish Government, the Swiss Government and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the release and a full pardon of Roman Polanski- creepy guy who drives the ice cream truck through their neighborhood that always pats the young females on their behinds?  Of course not, they are not an icon of the film industry, ala one of their own.

So much for equality and women’s rights these days…  Heck, let’s celebrate our children’s next birthday party at Uncle Roman’s house after he’s been relieved of this unjust mockery of justice that has followed him for the last 30 years.  I wonder how many of those who are jumping to his defense would be willing to bring the children to visit their old friend, the unjustly persecuted Mr. Polanski?

Our President is traveling to Denmark this week to make a pitch for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. When I heard that, I was incredulous. With a faltering economy, rising unemployment, deteriorating situations in Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention the fate of his key domestic initiatives Health Care and Cap-and-trade hanging in the balance; why on earth would he waste time and effort to leave the country to make a pitch to a private international corporation. Does this man enjoying grovelling on a world stage that much? I don’t care if Chicago wins the bid or not. The thought of an American President pleading hat in hand for a favor like this revolts me.

To top it off, what if some other city gets the bid? All that time, effort, prestige, and political capital wasted just so a group of self-important pipsqueaks can smugly snub the United States and its President? “Hey look at us. We thumbed our noses at the President of the United States. Aren’t we special!” It boggles the mind.

What was Mitt Romney’s reaction? Remember, Mitt has been increasingly on Obama’s case in the last few days. He has attacked his domestic policies and strongly criticized his foreign policy. He has made it plain that the President needs to stop groveling to the rest of the world. So how easy would it have been for Mitt Romney to criticize Mr Obama on this little adventure of his? A lesser man wouldn’t think twice before doing it. The free shot would have been irresistible.

Mitt is not a lesser man. He likes the idea. “I think it’s the right thing for him to do. And I think with him going, the prospects are very good,” Romney told POLITICO. “Had he not gone, we most likely would have lost.” Mitt told the Washington Times yesterday that he felt the trip was good for the country. Romney’s opinion on this matter carries a bit of weight since he was the one who saved the 2002 Salt Lake games from looming disaster and made it one of the most successful Winter Olympics ever.

I still think Obama’s trip is a mistake. But the thing that impresses me far more than just the specific stance he took is the fact that Mitt didn’t put his finger in the wind before making a comment. Instead he stated what he believes. He was true to his convictions.

Mitt has a habit of doing this. He is a firm believer in gun rights for the sportsman and for self-defense, but he draws the line at assault weapons. So when Governor he first disappointed the gun lobby by strengthening laws against assault weapons. He later disappointed the gun control crowd by making it easier to obtain guns and licenses and refusing to extend the definition of assault weapons to include revolvers. Some in each group cried “Betrayal”, but it was just Mitt being true to his conviction.

Mitt believes in equal rights for all. He does not support the notion that same sex marriage has anything to do with equal rights. So he first disappoints some of the social conservatives for sticking up for Gay Rights in employment, housing, and other areas; and then infuriates the Gay activists by fighting tooth and nail against SSM. “Betrayal”, they cry, yet once again Mitt is just being true to his convictions.

He alienates the pro-abortion crowd by declaring a freeze on abortion rights extensions. When he later declares himself fully on the pro-life side, some of them complain when he refuses to renege on that promise.

Apparently Mitt never got the memo that states if you want to succeed at politics, you must tell your constituents what they want to hear.

Case in point: Mitt steadfastly refuses to throw MassCare under the bus even though it increasingly looks to be a political liability. He won’t back down. Even when lesser men make cheap shots about $50 abortions and perpetuate the false idea that it’s bankrupting Massachusetts, Mitt continues to defend it. How easy would it be for him to disown it and blame any and all problems on the Democrats who were left in charge of it? A lesser man would. Mitt won’t.

After dropping out of the 2008 primary contests, Mitt was determined to work for party unity. A former competitor for the 2008 nomination continued to badger and harass him for months, long after the contest was over. How easy would it have been for Mitt to return in kind? He didn’t. Instead he continued to let bygones be bygones and let the attacks and smears roll off him like water off a duck’s back. He refused to allow anyone to detract him from his goal of party unity. A lesser man would have retaliated. Mitt is not a lesser man.

Shakespeare in the play Hamlet has Polonius saying to his son as he heads off to college, “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Mitt Romney appears to have taken that advice to heart.

… what would it mean for the dynamics of the 2012 race?

I probably should have used “perceived as a libertarian” or something similar in the header, since I don’t claim to have the definition of libertarianism (any more than I can define conservatism). If you get ten libertarians in a room, you can be assured of two things – there will be a minimum of twelve definitions of libertarianism, and each of the ten will have excommunicated the other nine within the first hour. Libertarians may not be good at much, but they’re dynamite at expelling each other.

That irrelevancy aside, there seems to be a growing number of people defining Sarah Palin as some variety of libertarian or at least as a popular choice of libertarian-leaning Republicans (or minarchists or – my preference – Goldwater Republicans). This idea is supported somewhat by the results of a recent series of polls at Instapundit, where the readers (presumably largely libertarian) made Palin their overwhelming choice – she got a majority in a field of thirteen candidates.

That may conflict with one of the consistent memes about the 2012 race: that Palin and Huckabee draw from the same base. But while Palin does seem to be popular among the evangelical right, if she also develops a following among libertarians then she has a second source of support that she is not sharing with Huckabee (the Instapundit results had Huckabee running twelfth). This would put Huckabee at a considerable disadvantage and might kill his candidacy before it gets started.

Maintaining support among these two groups might be quite a trick, of course, since many in both camps have a strong distaste for the other. But if she can pull it off, she would be in a strong position and might be able to claim that she is the candidate who can appeal best to all major sectors of the party.

There are a lot of ifs and maybes in here.

I have learned that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be making an announcement in three weeks.

I have been unable to verify details, but speculation is mounting that the former Governor is preparing to re-enter the public policy debate.

Over the last sixth months, there have been rumors that Governor Johnson  has been considering launching a campaign for the Republican nomination in 2012, although Johnson has not confirmed this.

________________________________________________________________________________

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

Over at Politics Daily, Matt Lewis writes “Steven Deace, Gregg Jackson, Dr. Earle Fox, Phil Magnan, and John Haskins” are gearing up for another assault on team Romney ahead of the 2012 primary season.

The group (Conservatives For Truth) are also continuing to target Conservative Christian leaders who are supportive of Mitt Romney’s campaign (they went Nuclear on Dobson in 2008).  In this instance, Conservatives For Truth have targeted Tony Perkins for inviting Governor Romney to the Values Voters Summit.

I am not accusing Governor Huckabee of colluding with Conservatives for Truth, but the timing of the launch of these new attacks do appear a little suspicious, as according to Matt Lewis, the group circulated a letter highlighting Romney’s record on funding abortions during his term as Governor of Massachusetts, the same weekend Governor Huckabee made the same accusations in a speech to the Values Voters Summit.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

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