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.

News round-up:

-LA Times on Kansas City barbecue.

-CNET News:  ”The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.”

-Dunkin’ Donuts is opening a new store in Overland Park, KS.

-The Hill:  Obama nominee thinks animals should be able to sue humans in court.

-Reuters: Wichita, KS, has the least expensive regular unleaded.

-McClatchy: “What’s really in pool water?”

-This is how gun control leaders seek to reassure gun rights advocates: Obama’s too busy with other stuff.  Kansas City Star article, emphasis added:

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said there was no tangible evidence that the Obama administration would seek to curtail ammunition purchases or limit gun rights.

“To think Obama is going to take their guns away is stupid. The man has his hands full,” Hamm said. “The calls of gloom and doom that are being sold out there are not only untrue but not healthy.”

-Fox News on Lawrence High School’s Tim Latham:  “Kansas Teacher With Conservative Views Gets Job Back”

-The school board of the Kansas City, MO, “public” schools had to pay a $20,000 bonus to the interim superintendant to persuade him to stay around until a permanent CEO was found.

-Kansas City Star columnist Mike Hendricks, who says Bill O’Reilly is complicit in the murder of George Tiller, was awarded a second place honor in the cateogory of humor by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists.

-Washington Examiner:  “Nick Jonas: Pop star today, president in 2040″

-House Democrats chose not to provide the $36 million needed in funding to build the National Bio- and Agro-Defense lab in Manhattan, Kansas.  Where’s our pork?

-LEGO Land is hiring Lego builders.

-Kathleen Sebelius:

“I don’t think there’s anything about the public option that would ration care. Unfortunately care is being rationed each and everyday right now. Often private insurance companies stand between a patient and a doctor deciding what treatment can be provided,” she said on Fox News Sunday. “We also have a situation where a lot of people are told that hey can’t have insurance because they have a preexisting condition.”

-David Axelrod:  Obama might break pledge to raise taxes on the  middle class.

-Taxpayer-funded poll by Kansas Department of Transportation finds that Kansans want more tax money going to roads.

Mason-Dixon Florida 2010 Senatorial Survey

GOP Senatorial Primary

• Charlie Crist 51% (53%)
• Marco Rubio 23% (18%)
• Undecided 26% (29%)

Among GOP voters who recognize both candidates

• Charlie Crist 33%
• Marco Rubio 31%
• Undecided 36%

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Kendrick Meek 27%
• Corrine Brown 12%
• Undecided 61%

Senatorial General Election

• Charlie Crist 48% (55%)
• Kendrick Meek 26% (24%)
• Undecided 26% (21%)

• Charlie Crist 55%
• Corrine Brown 24%
• Undecided 21%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Charlie Crist 49% (49%) / 21% (15%) [+28%]
• Marco Rubio 18% (13%) / 11% (5%) [+7%]
• Kendrick Meek 11% (11%) / 5% (2%) [+6%]
• Corrine Brown 4% / 15% [-11%]

Among Likely Republican Primary Voters

• Charlie Crist 49% (50%) / 22% (19%) [+27%]
• Marco Rubio 24% (20%) / 5% (2%) [+19%]

Survey of 625 registered voters (including 300 likely Republican primary voters) was conducted June 24-26. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. The margin for error for the GOP primaries is +/- 6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% (D); 38% (R); 18% (I). Results from the poll conducted May 14-18 are in parentheses.

Is it because Charles Rangel and Al Sharpton have put pressure on him, lest he make a black man look bad? Or could it be because he can’t win?

The Village Voice ran an article roughly one year ago claiming that this whole subprime mortgage mess rests, in very large part, on the former Housing and Urban Development Secretary’s shoulders:

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York’s attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie…

While many saw this demand for increasingly “flexible” loan terms and standards as a positive step for low-income and minority families, others warned that they could have potentially dangerous consequences. Franklin Raines, the Fannie chairman and first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company, warned that Cuomo’s rules were moving Fannie into risky territory…

Oh my.

No wonder Rudy is now openly considering a run.

Those who know me well know that I have two passions that consume me: politics and professional football. I ask that you take time to indulge my second obsession today so that I may tell you about a man (and his story) that has meant a lot to me since I was a little boy.

Too often these days, professional football players make the news for indiscretions off the field rather than their highlights on the gridiron (or in all fairness, the great amount of charity work that many perform.)

“Hero”, though, is a word that is used far too often when describing professional athletes glory on the field. But I would like to tell you about one such professional football player from whom the worked “Hero” is an apt description. That player is Joe Delaney, a running back for the Kansas City Chiefs, who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to his fellow man  26 years ago today when he attempted to save three drowning children.

Arrowhead Pride has the details on Delaney’s heroic actions:

Three boys were swimming in a pond in Monroe, LA at about two in the afternoon. As they waded out farther away from the shore, they would soon find that the bottom dropped off. Screaming and thrashing in the water, only one man in a crowd of people stepped forward.

Joe Delaney.

“Can you swim?” a little boy asked Joe.

“I can’t swim good but I’ve got to save those kids. If I don’t come up, get somebody.” Unfortunate for the rest of the world and the Kansas City Chiefs, those were the last words of Joe Delaney as he died while trying to save the kids.

One of the boys was able to find his way to the shore. The two others and Delaney did not.

Delaney’s sacrifice cut short what would likely had been a very successful career. Delaney was AFC Rookie of the Year and had been selected to the Pro Bowl in 1982.

Sadly, in spite of being posthumously awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Reagan, Delaney has been largely forgotten by football fans outside of Kansas City (something that pundits such as Mike Florio have sought to remedy.*)

Delaney’s gridiron glory has long since faded. His tremendous sacrifice, however, will always endure.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

*As a little boy growing up in the early 1980’s, I remember Delaney’s story being talked about quite often among football fans. By the time I reached high school in the mid 1990’s, however, all of that talk and remembrance had long since faded away.

P.S. For more on Joe Delaney, see Frank Deford’s “Sometimes the Good Die Young” from the November 7th, 1983 issue of Sports Illustrated, as well as Rick Reilly’s “No Ordinary Joe” (also from SI) from July 2nd, 2003.

Sarah Palin’s removal of Bill McAllister as her chief spokesperson is the clearest sign that she intends to run for President in 2012.  McAllister, a career journalist, had no previous experience in this role.  Many in the media have blamed McAllister for the antagonistic relationship the Governor’s office has had with the local and national media.

Many of the communication missteps in 2009 have been traced back to the indecision from the Communication Director’s office.

Palin has hired David Murrow to replace McAllister.  Murrow is an experienced political operative, who has strong ties to the evangelical community.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Justice.

NEW YORK – Bernard Madoff has been sentenced to the maximum 150 years in prison for his multibillion-dollar fraud scheme. U.S. District Judge Denny Chin handed down the sentence in New York on Monday.

The headlines from New York Magazine’s daily blog says it all:

There Might Be A John Edwards Sex Tape

My breakfast just came back up in my mouth.

The AP is reporting:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg’s dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

The case is Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. (07-1428 and 08-328). The opinion can be viewed here.

God's mouthpiece?

Sheesh.  Bill Keller sure does like to cast judgment on others, and now it seems he likes to talk bad about people when they aren’t exactly in position to defend themselves.  The extreme nutcase, convicted felon, founder of the Live Prayer website, and self appointed guardian of entry into the Pearly Gates of Heaven (apparently, God must have relieved St. Peter of his duties), now has the moral authority to judge the recently deceased.

Sadly, Michael (Jackson) grew up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. This is the cult born out of the depraved mind of Charles Taze Russell and denies the very deity of Christ. You can go to Google and type in “cults Jehovah’s Witnesses” and it will give you many websites to document their false theology.

As Kristofer Lorelli pointed out earlier, Keller is a member of the ARTL along with Steve Deace, and was behind one of the Anti-Mormon campaigns during the 2007 primaries.

I’m frustrated with the rest of you over the way Governor Sanford has acted over the past few weeks.  I don’t have a set opinion over whether he should resign; I could argue for and against.  Though, I’ll tell you that I lean against asking for his resignation.  One of my main thoughts is this:  we’re all sinners, and one of the key differences in people is not the levels of capability or follow-through of sin, but the levels of humility and acceptance of human nature.  And, I’ve been a politician and met plenty of politicians, and my conclusion is that I’m among the large number of Americans who would, if possible, vote to replace nearly any elected body with a group of people randomly selected from the phone book (even if that meant throwing me out, too) — I’m not justifying bad behavior, but, really, what separates Sanford from lots of others is that he got caught.  Arguably, it’s almost a compliment to Sanford to say that he isn’t any good at lying.

Maybe it’s a different take on the “whom would you rather have a beer with” question that we talk about during every presidential election: I would more enjoy having a beer with an openly-imperfect person who has made almost any mistake in the book, than with a person who, through genuine hard work and through self-control, rarely makes mistakes viewed by society as “major mistakes,” and who thinks that he is better than others because of it, and who thinks he is virtually incapable of some types of evil.

To be clear, I do not at all disagree with the wisdom in the “To whom much is given, much shall be required” theme presented by Adam Graham in his recent post about comments made by Governor Romney on the Sanford ordeal.

In other words, I do not blame those voters in South Carolina who want Sanford to resign, but I also am not going to encourage that sentiment.

Admittedly, it’s easier for me to be less emotional about this situation, given my Kansas citizenship.  Of course, it was initially a somewhat-national issue, given his leadership within the Republican Governors Association, and I support Sanford’s decision to step aside from that role.

At this point, as a non-citizen of South Carolina, I think it’s my role to be uninvolved: I’m going to let, first, his family and religious leaders; and, second, the voters of South Carolina, to decide what the next few weeks and months look like for Sanford.

All that said, I have little problem involving myself in the situation when the now-dead mainstream media goes out of its way to attempt to inflict further damage to Governor Sanford, or to use this event to attempt to harm the conservative movement.

For an example, here’s an AP story from last night at 7:21 p.m. Eastern:  “Defiant SC gov considered resigning, but won’t.”

To be fair, I do not know who made the editorial decision regarding the title of this headline (whether it was the AP, or by Yahoo News, which operates the source of the preceding link).

From what I’ve understood about the last few days, I do not find that the word “defiant” applies to Gov. Sanford.  While I did find his chosen (and number of) words at his first press conference to be a bit odd — he appeared to almost be, unintentionally, referring to his affair as an accomplishment, in a college-esque sort of way — his public statements made there were most certainly not overly-scripted, and I found them to be genuine.  My understanding is that, soon after, he held a meeting with his cabinet in a public setting.

Again, I don’t feel that the word “defiant” is a fair term to apply to him.

Related to the theme of media bias, I just learned the following from this AP story:

She says e-mail exchanges with Sanford that were widely published by U.S. media and elsewhere were obtained by someone who hacked her account.

I’ve got to ask:  if this situation involved most liberals, would there not be some level of outrage and sympathy towards a foreign woman whose private Emails were hacked and shared with North America?  Would there be scrutiny (whether deserved or undeserved) towards The State, the South Carolina paper which exclusively obtained and published these Emails?  There are several questions to ask The State.  I’ll start with these:

1. Do you know who hacked the account,
2. Did you encourage this behavior,
3. Why have you waited until now to publish the Emails that you’ve had since December,
4. What efforts did you make in order to give you confidence that they were legitimate?

According to the preceding article published on Thursday, June 25, all we know is that there were unsuccessful attempts made the day before to talk to Sanford’s office:

E-mails, obtained by The State newspaper in December, between Gov. Mark Sanford and Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

At the time, efforts to authenticate the e-mails were unsuccessful. However, Sanford’s office Wednesday did not dispute their authenticity.

The State has removed the woman’s full name and other personal details, including her street address, e-mail address and children’s names.

Look, I’m a writer with a journalism degree, and I respect the right and necessity of investigative reporting, and so don’t necessarily interpret my questions above as criticism towards The State.  Rather, I’m one who finds it irresponsible and unprofessional for the mainstream media to be less-tough on liberals, merely because they’re liberals, or to be tougher on conservatives for the same reasons.

I welcome your feedback.

______________________________________________________________

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.

While we still have quite a wait before the 2010 midterms, one thing that can be said with some certainty is that the gubernatorial race in Minnesota is going to be one of the more entertaining contests. The DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor Party) was already gearing up for a crowded primary, and with Tim Pawlenty opting against a third term, we Republicans now have a multi-candidate smackdown of our own (pardon the Jesse Ventura joke).

What’s more, most of the potential GOP candidates are young hotshots rather than established figures – and playing field is ridiculously level. There’s State House Minority Leader and tentative frontrunner Marty Seifert (age 37), and  State Rep. Paul Kohls (35). Moving up to the old people, there’s former State Auditor Pat Anderson (43), State Rep. Tom Emmer (48). An then there are the more reasonably seasoned former State House Speaker Steve Sviggum (57) and State Senator David Hann (also 57).

However, the candidate who seems to be generating the most excitement is State Rep. Laura Brod (37), who I first mentioned back on June 3rd. I said back then that I thought she showed great potential. Since then, she has blasted out of the starting gate to set herself up as a potential frontrunner -and she hasn’t even announced her candidacy yet! (Granted, that’s likely coming very soon.)  In a recent poll of GOP insiders at the State Central Committee meeting, Seifert won, but there was more focus on Brod’s strong third place showing. It’s nothing to sneeze at when a lowly State Representative blows away a former State Auditor (Anderson) and a former Speaker of the House (Sviggum).  And that’s just the insiders. With a the primary still over a year away and not many candidates with name recognition, Brod should be more than able to catch up to Seifert.

Furthermore, some of the lefty Minnesota blogs are already cranking out attacks on Brod (and attacking me for daring to mention her), which makes me inclined to concur with the assertion of Truth vs. The Machine – this woman scares the Dems.

She’s young, she’s fresh, she’s well-spoken, and she knows how to play to Minnesotans. She’s not a perfect conservative, but she is certainly no squish on either fiscal or social issues – and frankly her slightly more moderate environmental positions will be a big help in her state (I love Jim DeMint types, but they don’t play statewide in MN). Also, I would note her stated commitment to the development cellulosic ethanol – which means she’s well aware of the damage that corn ethanol can do to food supplies.

As a hard-core conservative, I would personally have absolutely no trouble supporting her as a nominee, and she also seems to have some credibility with libertarian leaners (my old friend Eric Dondero is as libertarian as they come, and he likes the idea).

So, while she may be a little more Pawlenty than Palin, she’d probably be the most conservative person to hold a major statewide office in Minnesota for a long time – and she’s electable to boot.

The more I hear, the more I like – so unless something changes in a major way, Laura Brod has my endorsement for Governor of Minnesota in 2010.

…and did I mention that Sen. Brod is on Twitter? Definitely someone to follow.

For those who say I never say anything nice about Mitt Romney, mark today on your calendar. He raised some great points on Mark Sanford:

Discussing disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a fellow Republican, said governors and other national leaders are expected “to live by a higher standard because … the culture of the nation can be hurt by their failings.

“Seeing this family become healed is our highest priority,” Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“At the same time, and not commenting particularly on Governor Sanford, … people in public life ought to be held to a higher standard. … I heard one … former governor say, ‘Well, everybody makes mistakes.’ Well, that’s true.

“But not all mistakes are the same. And not everybody is a governor or a senator or a president. And we expect [those] people to live by a higher standard, because what they do is going to be magnified, their families are going to be hurt more by what they do, the things they care about will be hurt, and the culture of the nation and the people who follow them will be hurt.”

Or to use a scriptural quote. “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” It’s very well-put by Governor Romney and lays out a very reasonable standard without being self-righteous.

From U.S. News and World Report, a great concept with a really bad leader:

Ralph Reed, the Republican operative who built the Christian Coalition into a potent political force in the 1990s by mobilizing evangelicals and other religious conservatives and who did similar work to help George W. Bush win two presidential elections, is quietly launching a group aimed at using the Web to mobilize a new generation of values voters. In addition to targeting the GOP’s traditional faith-based allies—white evangelicals and observant Catholics—the group, called the Faith and Freedom Coalition, will reach out to Democratic-leaning constituencies, including Hispanics, blacks, young people, and women.

“This is not your daddy’s Christian Coalition,” Reed said in an interview Monday. “It’s got to be more brown, more black, more female, and younger. It’s critical that we open the door wide and let them know if they share our values and believe in the principles of faith and marriage and family, they’re welcome.”

“There’s a whole rising generation of young leaders in the faith community, and rather than nab the publicity I did at Christian Coalition, I want to cultivate and train that rising generation,” Reed said. “One question is, who is our future Barack Obama, doing local organizing just like he was in the 1990s?”

The Faith and Freedom Coalition has been quietly active for a few weeks but has attracted no news media notice so far. Reed said that was intentional: “We’re less focused on the pyrotechnics than on being a strong grass-roots presence all the way down to the precinct level, which has always been my emphasis.”

The idea for the new group, which is still hashing out an organizational blueprint, was born just after Election Day 2008, when exit polls showed that Obama made gains among traditionally Republican religious constituencies, including evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and frequent churchgoers. “Since I left the Christian Coalition, we haven’t had an engine designed to turn out this large part of the vote,” Reed said. “After the election, people said that I ought to consider doing something about it.”

Reed’s idea is right on. Getting minority voters who hold traditonal social views to care about and be active on those issues is huge. Unfortunately,  Reed’s got some character problems, with his ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal, allegedly getting paid by Abramoff to lobby against Indian gambling, so that Abramoff would get paid by the tribes to lobby for Indian gambling.

From the moment, I laid eyes on Reed, I knew not to trust him. Everywhere goes, he uses the hard work and sweat of grassroots activists to build his own profile and influence within power circles, and I get nervous at the idea of this guy “influencing” young leaders. Thanks, but no thanks, Ralph.

Another foreign policy test for Obama.

More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zelaya and disarmed his security guards after surrounding his residence before dawn Sunday, his private secretary said. Protesters called it a coup and flocked to the presidential palace as local news media reported that Zelaya was sent into exile.

Reports are that Zelaya is in Venezuela — Hugo Chavez is one of his pals.

I don’t like the idea of coups in general, though some are justifiable — I wouldn’t mind seeing one in Iran, for example. In this instance the president was himself violating the law, providing an excuse, if not full justification.

The proximate cause of the coup was that Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum, but the Supreme Court had ruled the referendum unconstitutional and said the ballots should be destroyed — instead, Zelaya’s group had seized the ballots and distributed them to polling places.

How will Obama react? My guess is that he will put out a stronger-than-usual statement, since this is a leftist who has been overthrown.