Virginia Right!

CNN Money sums up today’s Labor Department report for April: “Hiring slowed in April and workers dropped out of the labor force in droves — not a good sign for the job market going forward.”

According to The New York Times, “The United States had another month of disappointing job growth in April. The nation’s employers produced a net gain of 115,000 positions, after adding 154,000 in March, the Labor Department said Friday. April’s job growth was less than economists had been predicting. . . . The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1 percent in April, from 8.2 percent, but that was not because more unemployed workers found jobs; it was because workers dropped out of the labor force. The share of working-age Americans who are in the labor force, meaning they are either working or actively looking for a job, is now at its lowest level since 1981 — when far fewer women were doing paid work. The share of men taking part in the labor force fell to 70 percent, the lowest number since the Labor Department began collecting these data in 1948.”

And The Huffington Post, in an article titled, “Unemployment Rate Falls To 8.1 Percent As People Give Up On Looking For Work,” adds, “Unemployment fell to 8.1 percent in April, the lowest since January 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning. But the decline was mainly due to 342,000 people leaving the labor force, meaning the BLS had stopped counting them as unemployed. The number of employed people in the nation actually fell by 169,000. . . . About 12.5 million people are still unemployed, and a record 88.4 million people are considered ‘not in the labor force,’ according to the BLS. The labor-force participation rate — the percentage of the work-age population either working or looking for work — dropped to 63.6 percent, the lowest since December 1981. ‘It’s hard to see the good news here,’ David Semmens, senior U.S. economist at Standard Chartered, wrote in a research note.”

Recall that when President Obama and Democrats in Congress passed the nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill over three years ago, their economic advisors claimed that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8%. And Vice President Joe Biden famously boasted that the stimulus would “create 3.5 million jobs … literally drop-kicks us out of this recession,” in only 18 months.

Politico’s Mike Allen reports that President Obama will be speaking to high school students in Arlington, Virginia today. There’s not a lot of good economic news for them, though. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last week, “So today, the President will bring his latest poll-tested message to . . . students . . . . And I’m sure he’ll give a very rousing speech, full of straw men and villains who stand in the way of their dreams.  I’m sure he’ll also express his strong support for things that all of us agree on. But what he won’t talk about is the extent to which the decisions he’s made are limiting their opportunities in the years ahead.”

Nonpartisan Reviewers Are Crushing The Buffett Tax As ‘A Hoax On Voters,’ A ‘Total Sham,’ ‘Desperate.’ Even Dems Admit It’s ‘Not Going To Help’

Buffett Tax ‘Won’t Create Jobs’

BILL KELLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: “…sounds a little desperate.” (Bill Keller, “The Sweet Spot,” The New York Times, 4/15/12)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: “…won’t do much to eat away at the nation’s debt, it won’t create jobs, and no one expects it to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate…” (Candy Crowley, “Buffett Rule Would Barely Dent Debt But Fits Nicely Into Obama’s Theme,” CNN, 4/16/12)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: “…just what does it really accomplish, though?” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

DANA MILBANK: “President Obama admits it: His proposed ‘Buffett Rule’ tax on millionaires is a gimmick…” (Dana Milbank, “Rebuffing Obama’s Gimmicky ‘Buffett Rule’,” The Washington Post, 4/11/12)

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS: “…kind of a publicity stunt…?” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 4/15/12)

JIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO: “It’s total gimmickry. It’s 1% of what you need to actually take care of the deficit.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/12/12)

·         “There’s a big danger for President Obama in that they become so insanely political in an insanely political culture. Almost everything they do now…” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/12/12)

FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD (D-TN): “…not going to help us grow…” Q: “So you support the Buffett rule? FORD: “No, there’s a big difference between the Buffett rule and reforming the tax code.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

FMR. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): “My belief is this is more symbolic.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

HOWARD WOLFSON: “We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. This is not about deficit reduction.” (MSNBC’s “Now With Alex Wagner,” 4/12/12)

UNION LEADER [NH]: “…A Total Sham…The Buffett Rule is not about math or fairness or shared sacrifice. It is simply a cynical ploy to buy the votes of the ignorant and gullible.” (Editorial, “The Buffett Rule: A Total Sham,” Union Leader, 4/12/12)

FOSTER’S DAILY DEMOCRAT [NH]: “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters … Buffett, schmuffett, President Obama’s Buffett Rule has nothing to do with fairness… It is also about distracting voters from the Obama administration’s mishandling of the economy.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters,” Foster’s Daily Democrat, 4/12/12)

MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL [WI]: “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work … the Buffett Rule is more likely to spawn a new generation of tax dodges than to usher in a new era of tax fairness. It is, in fact, nothing more than a smoke screen that obscures the possibility of real tax reform.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/11/12)

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER [CA]: “…the latest gimmick…” (“Taxing Those Mean Old Millionaires,” Orange County Register, 4/12/12)

BEN BOYCHUK, THE SACRAMENTO BEE: “As re-election gimmicks go, the ‘Buffett Rule’ is a lame one.” (“Head To Head: Would Rep. Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Improve The U.S. Tax System?” The Sacramento Bee, 4/12/12)

THE ECONOMIST: “What a pity that he is changing tack this time, bashing the rich via gimmicks such as the ‘Buffett rule’ … it is a miserable portent for the future.” (Editorial, “Game On,” The Economist, 4/14/12)

BLOOMBERG NEWS: “The president may be just as happy to have an issue to campaign on as a law to sign.” (“Buffett Rule Or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay,” Bloomberg Businessweek, 4/12/12)

Last week, Democrats and President Obama spent the week pushing a bill to raise taxes on American energy producers, even though not a single one could explain how this was supposed to help Americans feeling the pinch of high gas prices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) held a vote on the measure on Thursday and it was rejected on a bipartisan basis.

The Hill noted, “The outcome of the vote was not a surprise, given that a similar plan failed 52-48 last May. . . . Obama has sought to deflect blame for high gas prices, in part by casting Republicans as allies of big oil companies. He used a Rose Garden speech to urge lawmakers to back [Democrats’ tax bill]”

Despite the president’s attempts to shift blame, the Senate has now rejected Democrats’ calls to raise taxes on American energy producers twice. When Democrats were pushing this same tax increase last year, the Congressional Research Service weighed in and explained that such tax changes “would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence.” And of course, Democrats have continually admitted that raising taxes on American energy companies won’t do anything to decrease the price of gas at the pump.

Discussing this nonsensical call from the president on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The issue is the price of gas at the pump. If you raise taxes on the producers of gasoline, you drive the prices even higher. Does anyone think we need higher gas prices when they’re already at $4 a gallon? This is not the way to lower the price of gas at the pump. . . . [The president is] trying to selectively raise taxes on some corporations, and to do that would drive the price of gas at the pump even higher. This is a terrible idea.” He added, “The Congressional Research Service, which is not a polling operation, but analyzes objectively legislation, says if you raise taxes on oil production, the price of the gas at the pump goes even higher. This is an absurd suggestion when you’ve got $4 gasoline. What the President ought to be doing is approving the Keystone Pipeline. This is this massive private sector project that will bring energy down from our friendly neighbor, Canada, to the United States. He’s blocking it. What he’s got to do is increase public production down here. Land within the federal jurisdiction, the production is down 14 percent. . . . The American people know that it’s absurd for the most energy rich country in the world to be locking up such a huge percentage of its resources.”

As Americans struggle to pump gas in their cars to go about their daily lives, Democrats have no problem with the price of gas. This is simply unbelievable. And unacceptable.

Watch this video and see if you agree. These guys are talking about the Democrat’s gas plan.

DEMS: ‘It Is Not A Question Of Gas Prices,’ ‘That’s Not The Issue’

POLL: 85% Of Americans Want ‘Immediate’ Action On Gas Prices

GALLUP POLL: “A variety of economic-related issues dominate Americans’ top concerns on a list of 15 issues facing the country today. The economy and gas prices lead the list, with 71% and 65% of Americans, respectively, saying they personally worry ‘a great deal’ about each.” (“Economic Issues Still Dominate Americans’ National Worries,” Gallup Poll, 3/28/12)

67% Of Americans Say Gas Prices Have Caused Financial Hardship For Their Household (“Gas Prices,” Gallup Poll, 3/29/12)

65% Of Americans Worry A ‘Great Deal’ About Gas Prices (“Gas Prices,” Gallup Poll, 3/29/12)

85% Of Americans Want The President And Congress To “Take Immediate Actions To Try And Control The Rising Price Of Gas.” (“Gas Prices,” Gallup Poll, 3/29/12)

There was a dust up last week that was very revealing and it was over statehood for Puerto Rico and whether they could have Spanish as an official language.  Here is the Santorum view:

Once again we are considering terrible reaction to what amounts to civil war in Syria.  I am sure there are atrocities on both sides.  Every bit of humanity cries out for intervention.  My humanity, too!  But it’s dangerous and as Ron Paul said last evening in the CNN debate (his best effort so far – answer to prayer!) we will not be able to afford it.

First, here’s a fairly radical Canadian view on intervention:

The daily massacre of civilians in Syria continues. Seventy nations meet Friday in Tunis for the first “Friends of Syria” gathering, (as first reported here Feb. 12). Their issue: Why is there no international military intervention, as there was in Serbia in 1999 and, more pertinently, Libya last year?

Of course I contend the attack on Serbia was unnecessary.  We attacked a nation that did nothing to us.  And Libya was a war fought by NATO (read US) without the people’s will being considered.  But intervention is being considered; here’s what Senators McCain and Graham said about arming the Syrian rebels:

“Breaking Syria apart from Iran could be as important to containing a nuclear Iran as sanctions,” Graham said at a press conference in Kabul, according to the New York Times.“If the Syrian regime is replaced with another form of government that doesn’t tie its future to the Iranians, the world is a better place.”  *  *  *  ” believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” McCain said. “The Iranians and the Russians are providing Bashar Assad with weapons. People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves.”  “So I am not only not opposed, but I am in favor of weapons being obtained by the opposition,” McCain added.

This is pure geopolitical military strategy and in effect war against Iran.  But who might get the weapons?  Al-Qaeda!

A U.S. official in Washington, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said it would not be surprising if Iraqi al Qaeda fighters are aiding Syrian rebels, but would not discuss or confirm specific intelligence. However, the official noted that al Qaeda in Iraq long has had an operational network in Syria.

And this blog post in CNN suggests that Syria has chemical and biological weapons sufficient that it would take up to 75,000 troops to defend and protect!

The U.S. military has calculated it could take more than 75,000 ground troops to secure Syria’s chemical warfare facilities if they were at risk of being looted or left unguarded, CNN has learned.  *  *  *  The conclusion comes from a military analysis of options for Syria that the Department of Defense is preparing for president should he request it, according to a senior U.S. official.

There’s more!  We’ll be in Syria for years – another Iraq!  75,000 troops will have to fight both sides to pacify the nation.  It will cost trillions we do not have; liberty and sovereignty will be the victims.  Right after the Christians.  And I blogged last week about how all this intervention has hurt the Christian church throughout the region.  Christians are associated, rightly or wrongly, with the USA and we have to be careful.

Military action in Syria is not easy!

Securing Syria’s chemical sites would be “extraordinarily difficult” given the scope of the problem, a Department of Defense official told CNN.Both officials would only speak on the condition their names not be used because they were talking about military planning.  The U.S. military believes there are 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across the country with additional storage sites and research centers as well. The cities of Hama, Homs and al Safira, and the port city of Latakia are all believed to house production facilities.

It is bad enough the chemical and biological weapons (which this very article reports Syria has not even hinted to intend to use) are there.  But what if the Syrian government can no longer defend them? Let’s mind our own business and hope we do not have to preserve chemical and biological weapons in Syria.

And people think Ron Paul is nuts for not wanting to intervene in every nation?

So, what happens when an energy industry advertising producer travels around the area seeking comments on American energy? Well, when he asked my opinion, I was only too happy to share it.

President Obama has declared war on American energy and has said that with his plan the cost of energy will “necessarily skyrocket”.

But that is only true if we fail to use what we have in favor of the failed, pie in the sky ventures like Solyndra that have cost taxpayers billions with nothing (but debt) to show for it.

My comments in this video were unscripted, unprompted and I was not paid in any way. This is simply my honest opinion.

I was told this video would run on CNN and perhaps other television and cable outlets, (but I can’t verify that).

There are a number of citizens with some valid comments in this video that all call for America to use her resources today to provide energy today and tomorrow. The other technologies will take time.

Americans give their opinions on the nation’s energy policy and industry issues like access to oil and natural gas, energy security and job creation. For more information on the State of American Energy, visit http://energytomorrow.org.

It looks like as expected, former MA Governor Mitt Romney won the NH primary.  But the story is the solid second place that Ron Paul placed.  CNN has projected Paul second.  Former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman came in third.  Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former PA Senator Rick Santorum are fighting for fourth.

I think this is very positive.  It is actually similar to the 1992 Democratic primary where the favorite,  MA Senator Paul Tsongas, had about a ten point lead over former Arkansas Governor (and future President) Bill Clinton:

Paul Tsongas 55, 666 – 33.21%

Bill Clinton 41,542 – 24.78%

Clinton lost the battle but won the war.  We can win, too!  On to South Carolina!

Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul and his supporters have complained that the media has been ignoring Paul. And they are correct. Despite fairly high placement throughout the primary debates, Paul has been asked very little and had few moments in the debates in which to answer questions. And Paul and his supporters have rightly criticized the media for largely ignoring his campaign.

All of that is changing and Paul is probably wishing for a little less attention now. Be careful what you wish for!

As Ron Paul and Mitt Romney emerge as the only 2012 GOP Primary Candidates on the Virginia Republican Primary Ballot, and Paul is rising in the polls in Iowa, perhaps even with a possibility of winning the first primary in the Nation, all journalistic guns now turn their attention to Ron Paul and his “problem” issue.

And this is one problem that Paul does not want to talk about and his supporters refuse to consider. But it is something that is not going to go away. And refusing to address the situation properly and immediately is what got Herman Cain into trouble.

First, let’s take a look at an interview Paul did with CNN where he became clearly irritated about the question and tried to disavow the newsletters that were published in his name. I know, it’s CNN, but this is a small sample of what is in store for Paul from ALL media outlets and he clearly has no answer. After the clip, we will examine the newsletter bit by bit.

The first problem Ron Paul has with disavowing any connection to the newsletter is a big one, and it is at the end of a solicitation letter for the paper. And, unfortunately for Paul, it is his signature at the end of the letter that solicitation for his newsletter (and money - tax-deductible no less, a government subsidy).

That puts Paul’s denials into a different perspective. The Sargent Schultz “I know nothing” defense Paul is using pretty much fails to satisfy inquiring minds with that stamp of approval and authenticity at the end.  I don’t know about you, but if my signature appears at the end of a document, I want to make sure I know everything it says, because either signing it or allowing my signature to be used on a document indicates that I agree and authorize the content of the document. And the fact that Paul pocketed a reported million dollars from the letters is also a significant fact.

Let’s move on to the comments in the letter itself and see exactly what these letters said that has people calling Paul a racist, conspiracy nut and homophobic.

Here, the Paul Newsletter is talking about the newly redesigned US Currency that makes it harder to counterfeit the bills. A number of changes were incorporated into the designs including adding colors other than green. At this point, it may be time to bring out the Aluminum foil hats before you read this and make sure your money is not anywhere nearby… listening!

The fact that anyone could believe this is really out there. You hear people describe Ron Paul as bat-s**t crazy fairly often. Many of them have probably not even read this.

And here is more about the diabolical Federal plan to use this new money as a spy device.

And then we get to the part where Paul is called a racist, homophobic, Israel-hater.

It is really hard to read something like that and not wonder what is wrong with the writer.

And recall how Rahm Emanuel said “Never waste a good crisis“?  It seems that the Paul newsletter agrees. The letter promises information on how you can make money from the diabolical scheme and impending race wars and other disasters to come.

And one of the things you notice right away is that this letter is written in the first person. I , me, etc. Not he or Dr. Paul. If Paul did not write these, they definitely were intended to make the recipient believe that they were directly from him and it was his knowledge and experience that the reader was actually being solicited on. So, if Ron Paul neither wrote them nor read them (at the time) yet he pocketed the million dollars, or whatever the sum was, then this was a fraud on an unsuspecting potential buyer which may be worse than the bizarre content itself.

If someone uses a “ghost” writer to actually write an autobiography, that is one thing. A person may have an interesting and compelling story, but without a skilled wordsmith to put it down on paper, the story might not be worth reading.

But selling a newsletter purporting to be the culmination of Paul’s years in Congress and his expertise as a physician goes beyond ghostwriting. Many may even consider it fraud.

So, it may not matter if Paul wrote this or even read it. If he allowed his signature to be used on this, his name and experience to be the impetus behind the sales pitch, then he owns the content for better or worse. Only a lawsuit at the time for wrongly using his name might absolve him of these letters.

He can deny it all he wants, but if you buy his “know nothing” plea, then you must also think Eric Holder is completely without blame in the Fast and Furious scandal for the same “know nothing” defense.

Disavowing these newsletters is simply not acceptable. And completely unbelievable.

Both Ron Paul and his followers will have to do better, though I suspect that is not going to be possible under the scrutiny yet to come.

My former governor, who I voted for for both attorney general and governor, and who I supported for President in 2008 until Ron Paul announced his candidacy (the story is too weird for me not to tell:  I had JUST sent in my resume to Governor Gilmore’s email box at his posh law firm in DC when I read on the ticker on Fox or CNN that Ron Paul was about to announce the formation of an exploratory committee [I knew RP before he was cool!] and I immediately hoped Gilmore would not contact me!  He didn’t and I’d probably switched anyway!)

Well, after all that prologue, here’s what Jim Gilmore reportedly said about Section 1031:

“The provisions of this Bill undermine the basic safeguards that we enjoy as Americans. It is dangerous, and should not be supported by anyone: Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, citizen or non-citizen. Any member of Congress voting for this bill should be defeated at the next election,” Gilmore said.

There’s more Gilmore:

Added Gilmore: “This ill-considered bill is one of those dangers to our liberties by an unwise extension of military power in the homeland contrary to all law, precedent and history.”

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the akashic records of cyberspace.

I think one of the most despicable and frightening features of the Obama Administration is the president’s apparent willingness to bankrupt the nation to serve his own political ends in a way I don’t think we’ve ever seen before. This week’s winner, Joshuapundit’s President Obama’s Latest Horror – A Trillion Dollar Timebomb For America’s Economy focused on a little noticed but horrendous example that will add over a trillion dollars to the national debt as well as being inflationary. Here’s a slice:

President Obama has just enacted his latest raid on the American treasury. It’s designed to benefit the president by pandering to the student vote at the expense of the American taxpayer.President Obama has announced that he intends to issue an executive order for the federal government to reduce student loan payments to 10 % of a borrower’s income above the poverty line, and for total debt forgiveness after 20 years, regardless of the outstanding balance.

“We’re just going to do this by ourselves. We can’t wait for Congress, we’re just going to act,” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan on CNN.

And of course, the president is putting this out there at universities all over the country.

To see how insidious this really is, let’s take a look at how this works in the real world. Let’s say Jane Jones borrows $150,000 to obtain a liberal arts undergraduate degree at your typical university. Her repayment is based on what she earns, if anything. Let’s say Jane gets a job as a community organizer at $30,000 per year. Factor out the $10,800 for a single person under the federal poverty guidelines and her total annual repayment is $1,600 per year, or only $133.33 per month.

Twenty years later, she’s only repaid $32,000 on her loan. And the balance? it doesn’t ‘dissolve’ as the Obama Administration’s rhetoric suggests. It gets picked up by the rest of us and gets added to the national debt.

Yes, fellow citizens. If some of the people the president and his minions feel are more deserving than you are want to go to academia for a 4-year funfest and pick up an overpriced diploma in ethnic or womyn’s studies, you and your children are footing the bill.

The tenured radicals installed in the university system working to destroy America one mind at a time always had their six-figure lifestyles subsidized by the rest of us, but the bill just increased a hundred fold.

This week’s non-Council winner, Gates of Vienna’s Slavery and Jihad submitted by Joshuapundit is a superb and absolutely must-read essay on a frequently unmentioned topic – the relationship between Muslim theology, jihad and slavery, which still exists today in many parts of the Muslim world. Highly recommended.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit–-President Obama’s Latest Horror – A Trillion Dollar Timebomb For America’s Economy
• Second place with 2 votes – VA Right!-Virginia Right! Blogger Visits Occupy Richmond and Is Shocked by What He Finds
• Third place with 1 2/3 votes – The Political Commentator-The Obama Doctrine: Is $1.5 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt funding an Islamic fundamentalist ending to the “Arab Spring”?
• Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – The Razor-The Faces Change, But the Roles Stay the Same
• Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD-Doing Syria
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Bookworm Room – If I were the mayor, I wouldn’t move the Occupy protesters one inch
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Noisy Room – If This Were An Actual Test…
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Right Truth – Not The Herman Cain They Know – Updates
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Mellow Jihadi – New York City Snow Storm Scatters Flakes on Wall Street
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Right Planet – Occupy Phoenix Flyer: ‘When Should You Shoot a Cop?’
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews – 10 Mind-Blowingly Offensive Quotes From Ron Paul Newsletters
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey – I’ve argued for this for years
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – New Zeal – Socialist Trumka Backs Wall Street Protesters
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Glittering Eye – Fair Incomes

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 2/3 votes! – Gates Of Vienna- Slavery And Jihad submitted byJoshuapundit
• Second place with 2 votes – Wired Danger Room – New Afghan War Plan Concedes the Surge Fell Short submitted by Right Truth
• Third place with 1 2/3 votes -Mychal Massie – Murdered border guards cry for justice from the grave submitted by The Political Commentator
• Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Merrill Matthews/Forbes – Obama: Campaigning Like It’s 1936 submitted by The Noisy Room
• Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Victor Davis Hanson – Obama’s Target List submitted by The Watcher
• Fourth place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Doug Ross – Smoking Gun: Document Found That Touched Off The Mortgage Meltdown submitted by The Watcher
• Fifth place *t* with 1 vote -At War – A Complicated Close for U.S. in Iraq submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Fifth place *t* with 1 vote -Kenneth Anderson/The Volokh Conspiracy – The Fragmenting of the New Class Elites, or, Downward Mobility submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Fifth place *t* with 1 vote -Big Jolly Politics – One Man’s Letter to the Young Protesters submitted by Rhymes With Right
• Sixth place with 2/3 vote -Borderland BeatAttorney General in Mexico: 200 Murders Result of Operation Fast and Furious submitted by VA Right!

See you next week! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

Senate Democrats Block ‘Important’ Part Of President’s Plan, Another ‘Narrowly Targeted Exercise In 2012 Politics’

Senate Democrats Reject ‘Important’ Part Of The President’s Stimulus Bill. (S. 726, Roll Call Vote #178, Cloture Motion Rejected 57-43: R 47-0, D 10-41, I 0-2, 10/20/11)

JAY CARNEY: ‘They’re All Important, They’re All Of Equal Value’ Q: “Can you give us any guidance on which part [of the president’s bill] is likely to come up first?” CARNEY:  “…  It really doesn’t matter to us, because they’re all important, they’re all of equal value…” (White House Press Briefing, 10/17/11)

There was one really good line in last night’s debate. Former New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate Gary Johnson quipped “My next-door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration“.

This was a debate jointly sponsored by Fox News and Google which is almost as odd as the TEA Party teaming up with CNN in the last debate.

Hopefully, this will be Google’s first, last and only foray into the world of political debates. It gave an overall sophomoric tone to the debate and was not really an enhancement, despite the online gimmicks and polls that happened in real time. It appeared that Google was more interested in showing off new “bells and whistles” (literally) and considered the debate simply a distraction from their infomercial.

There is no doubt that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney bested Texas Governor Rick Perry in last nights debate. Romney was more relaxed than in previous debates and Perry looked like Johnny Cash in a neck brace. Those who had high hopes and aspirations for Perry should be really disappointed.

At one point, Perry attacked Romney as a flip-flopper, which is absolutely true, but his punches fell flat as he stumbled over the words and elicited a Déjà vu of another former Texas Governor George W. Bush.

It is clear that Perry was coached to go on the offensive against Romney, but he failed to execute, verbally flailing all over the stage.

And whoever it is that is advising Perry to never back down from his in state tuition program for illegal aliens has torpedoed Perry’s bid for president. There is no way to defend allowing a tuition discount of $22,000 per year to illegal aliens while charging legal US citizens from the other 49 states full price. This is nothing more than a subsidy for illegal activity and is a pill any true conservative will never be able to swallow. This is a deal breaker for conservatives and Perry should begin sinking like a rock in the polls. And that is a pity.

Romney came across as actually likable, something that he has failed to do thus far.

Romney continues to hit Perry for his characterization of Social Security as both a failure and Ponzi scheme.

We all know that Social Security takes money from current workers and pays retirees without investing the money and paying dividends. Those who paid into Social Security, or invested in the program while they were working are receiving payments, not from their investment in the program, but from younger, new investors paying into the program.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

Social Security fits that definition perfectly. The fact that the program is popular, or has existed for 70 years and is essential to the elderly today is absolutely true, but that does not make it any less a Ponzi Scheme. Romney knows this and is pandering to the elderly and the left whose “hands off Social Security” mantra will be the impetus behind the eventual failure of the program.

It is good that Social Security is now open for discussion, but Romney is failing to lead on needed reform by playing politics with a failing program.

And while Romney by no means hit a home run, he has effectively made use of the old Muhammad Ali Rope-a-Dope technique and will, in all likelihood, coast to a primary victory, barring any implosive gaffs.

As to the other seven pretenders contenders, they are mildly entertaining, but none of them stand a chance.

We have already mentioned Gary Johnson’s lone contribution to the discussion. There is really not much to say about him.

Michele Bachmann is a really great Congressman, and might even make a great US Senator. But nothing she has said gives any reason to believe that she is qualified to be President, or even Vice President. Her contribution to the discussion has become repetitive and she is falling in the polls, as would be expected.

Newt Gingrich would make a great adviser if a President could get past his narcissism and massive ego. Gingrich is a very smart guy with a wealth of knowledge and experience. He is polling low, and has absolutely no chance to win the nomination, but his participation in these debates has actually helped shape the discussion and his calling out the moderators has had a positive impact on the discussions. He should remain a fixture in the debates all the way through. His role of Candidate/Referee is needed to counter the out of control media. He should wear a black and white striped shirt at the next debate and carry a yellow flag.

Ron Paul. Can you really say anything about Paul? His followers are undaunted by reality. They are loyal, loud and Libertarian. He is by far the easiest candidate for the moderators looking to draw out a bizarre and  controversial comment. Ron Paul will never pull punches, sugar coat, or try to be politically correct in explaining his beliefs. From a long time politician this is a refreshing quality. And while Paul’s statements about allowing a hypothetical uninsured coma patient to die in the ultimate act of personal responsibility or his willingness to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons will never cause a single follower to waiver or rethink their support, it does make anyone who is not a Libertarian gasp in horror and call Paul names like crazy and nut-job. The idea of personal responsibility is a splendid concept, but impossible for most Americans to swallow. The press has had their fun with Ron Paul, accomplished their goal of “exposing” him as loony and, at the same time, made him even more of a hero to his supporters for having the intestinal fortitude to say what he means. He will always have his rabidly loyal niche following, but his views will never persuade centrists or most Republicans (let alone those on the left) that he would be a good president. Despite the straw polls, Ron Paul will never win the nomination. And his only shot at the VP ticket is if Johnson wins the nomination. Neither of which will happen.

Rick Santorum is an angry man. At least that is how he comes off. Like Ron Paul, Santorum is an easy target for the media who want to brand the former Pennsylvania US Senator an extremist. All it takes is one buff gay soldier in a war zone to immediately give the left occasion to use words like homophobia and intolerant. And while the reason behind Santorum’s beliefs are his Christian views, the hypocrisy easily escapes those who would call him intolerant. Santorum, like Paul, stands firm in his beliefs. Admirable, but the center will never accept a candidate who has been branded an intolerant, homophobic, far right wing Christian by the Mainstream Media. His contribution to the debates has become both monotonous and irrelevant. And the anger is somewhat detracting.

John Huntsman is getting better at debates, and he is one that the Mainstream Media is sure they could easily lead around like a dog on a leash if he were elected President. His constant bragging about Utah is getting old. Most people realize that the entire state is smaller than either Boston or Dallas-Fort Worth and the Mormon population is a strong, conservative driving force in his state. A Governor in Utah need only concern himself about the Mormon ideology to be a popular governor. Other states are far more challenging. Romney has a lot of Liberals to make happy in the North East, so his pandering to the left with RomneyCare is, perhaps, a necessary evil for a Republican in a blue state. And Huntsman need not worry about a large Hispanic population like Perry has in Texas which leads to things like in state tuition breaks for illegal aliens. Huntsman has been an avid Obama supporter and that alone will eliminate him as a potential  Republican nominee.

Herman Cain is a likable person and has a great sense of humor. His business background is a plus, something all of the other candidates lack (even Romney). But Cain is a political babe in the woods and like it or not, the job of President of the United States is a political job for an astute politician. The current president is no master politician, but those behind Obama pulling the strings are extremely savvy, politically. And ruthless. Herman Cain is his own man and is not equipped to run the country. He would be a great adviser, though. And if we really look closely at Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which sounds more like some type of pizza promotion than a tax plan, it seems that this would be far more anti-business than the current tax system. In this system, it seems that pass-through corporations – like S-Corporations – who presently pay no tax on earnings, rather passing the profits through to the owners, who then pay income tax on the earnings, would be eliminated. Cain says all corporations would pay 9%. Any money passed through to the owners would then be taxed at 9%, and anything you purchase would be taxed at 9%. That adds up to 27% tax on every dollar, which would be far worse for many small business owners. The larger corporations would make out better, it would seem. Cain has very little specific information on this, but it really sounds like a bad idea for small business owners.

Future Debates

Future debates would do well to trim down the field. Of course, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry would be mandatory. Most of the others have become irrelevant at this point. Gary Johnson should be eliminated without a doubt. CNN and the TEA Party made the right decision. John Huntsman and Rick Santorum should also be scratched. And while Newt Gingrich has been a great referee, he should also be out of any future debates. This would trim the debates to a more manageable number of 5.

Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann are on the bubble. And Ron Paul will continue to see his followers travel in droves to any straw poll. Paul has a finite group of supporters and will not grow his base beyond what it is. And there are simply not enough registered voters to propel Paul in any of the polls that count. The ones where they check ID’s to make sure you are a resident. The moderators will continue to play Paul and the controversial responses are easy to draw out of him. He has a lot of popular ideas, but when you consider the whole package, Ron Paul is simply out of the running for most Republican voters. But the threat of Paul running as a third party is enough to force the Republicans to placate Paul and allow him to remain in the debates until he decides to go home.

We all know that Ron Paul running as a third party would guarantee Obama’s reelection. Even Ron Paul knows that. And the country will not survive 4 more years of Barack Obama.

Wow. Just wow.

(H/T to Michael Fletcher for the link)

This is about as ugly an event as you could imagine. The Nationally known blog RedState is one of the top Conservative Blogs in the country. It’s founder, Erick Erickson is a frequent guest on CNN, FoxNews and has a radio show. Erickson was also one of the early supporters of Virginia US Senate Candidate and TEA Party favorite Jamie Radtke, granting his welcomed endorsement to Radtke several months ago.

But since that time, RedState has had little to do with Radtke or her campaign. However, she was invited to speak at the RedState gathering recently. Apparently, the speech was not well received by some. Including Erickson, who apparently didn’t even hear the speech: (Video and Article Here)

I was fortunate not to witness Jamie Radtke’s speech at the RedState Gathering. Fortunate because . . . well . . . here are reviews of her speech from various witnesses to the train wreck, one of which was a link to this YouTube video:

And then these:

I tried to cut myself with a butter knife, it was so horrendous and never-ending.

and

she gets an invite, gets a nice slot to talk, gets drunk, and gets so embarrassing that I have to duck away rather than embarrass her further with interviewing her

and

I mercifully did not film it.

and

I hadn’t realized that it was going to be her campaign speech, and then I was mesmerized by the trainwreck.

and

She was a drunk rambling idiot that took 30 minutes to introduce a director who himself was confused.

and

It was beyond painful. At first, I was just embarrassed for her and felt a little sorry for her. But by the end of it – which I for while feared would never arrive – I was all ‘OMG, I *hate* you, STFU.’

And there is more.

Apparently, Erickson was a bit offended that the Radtke campaign attributed a cozy relationship between Erickson’s employer – Eagle Publishing – and fellow Senate Candidate George Allen – as the reason Erickson went limp on his support after the initial endorsement.

The relationship is explained in a Politico piece today:

“This race may be the big grass roots vs. party establishment race of 2012 and a test of the tea party’s continued momentum,” wrote Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor.

The endorsement, Radtke campaign manager Carter Wrenn said, gave the campaign a boost. But soon, he noticed that RedState wasn’t giving Radtke’s campaign much attention.

“The word came back to me that the people who own Human Events and RedState were for Allen and had asked Erickson to step back,” he said.

So, is this accusation from the Radtke Campaign accurate? Did RedState’s bosses actually ask (demand) that Erickson back off of Radtke because of their support and friendship with George Allen?

From the response by Erickson one would think that the Radtke campaign is way off base and the accusations are the figments of the campaign’s collective minds. That RedState and Erickson are personally offended at the thought of being accused of selling out their Conservative values and beliefs because the people that cut Erickson’s checks pulled back on the bridle.

A false accusation like this would certainly merit the indignant and harsh response Erickson posted on RedState.

Except that Erickson confirmed the accusation as truth:

Actually, my bosses at Eagle Publishing do in fact have a relationship with George Allen, and a very good one, and asked me — after I endorsed her — to please go slow for once instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

I love my bosses and my employer and the owner and was happy to accommodate their very first request in my five years of employment to go slow on an endorsement.

To be clear: my bosses were not telling me to stay out, but telling me to wait a while. Perhaps Cuccinelli would get in. Perhaps someone else would get in. Perhaps Radtke would implode.

The article goes on to present what Erickson sees as logic in this move to do as his bosses asked – back off of the Radtke endorsement.

We have a lot of respect for Erick Erickson and his accomplishments. He has become a force in coverage of politics and shaping the dialog and successfully getting good Conservatives elected. And perhaps Jamie Radtke’s campaign has not taken off the way Erickson had anticipated.

But this was not handled well by RedState and Erickson. And the negative impact this could have on the Radtke campaign is troubling, especially since the accusations are true.

And it may make people a bit hesitant to cherish an Endorsement by Erickson, especially when the breakups can be this ugly.

Or, to put it another way:

Boy meets girl
Boy endorses girl
Boy is told he must love another man
Girl finds out, gets mad
Boy confirms cheating, blames Girl
Boy destroys girl, claims girl is not the victim.

That about sums it up.

Update: The Other McCain has some good coverage and updates on this story. And Stacy McCain linked to this post! Thanks, Stacy!

Update – 8/24/2011 @ 8:00 PM -

Here is an audio interview that Jamie Radtke did from the event. While there is apparently no video of her actual speech, Radtke is obviously sober and coherent in this FTR Radio interview.

And an account from a “boots on the ground” blogger America’s Right:

And during Rick Perry’s speech, I sat directly in front of Jamie Radtke, a former Tea Party organizer and activist turned U.S. Senate candidate from Virginia — in speaking with her for only a few minutes, it was clear that she is an absolute dynamo, and I expect great things.

It’s that sort of impact, an impact on a micro, person-to-person level, that makes events like RedState Gathering so effective, and that augments the already established influence of someone like Erick Erickson.

Consider, for example, my limited role as the founder and managing editor of America’s Right.  Taking Ms. Radtke’s candidacy for example, thanks to the magic of Google Analytics I can tell you that America’s Right receives anywhere between 500 and 2000 hits originating from the Commonwealth of Virginia in a given week.  A little more than a year ago, when we did quite a few candidate interviews at AR, traffic from the interviewee’s state jumped visibly in the days following those posts.  Down the road, when I have the chance to sit down and speak with Ms. Radtke at length, that interview will be seen by thousands of potential voters in Virginia by the time I slide it off of AR‘s front page.  The same will go for any piece in which I reach out to Ms. Radtke for a comment on a given timely issue.  And I’m just small potatoes; at the Gathering were countless representatives from sites bigger and smaller than mine, running the gamut from ordinary people who simply reach out to others via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to bona-fide New Media stars from high-trafficked operations such as The Daily Caller.

I have known Jamie Radtke for a couple of years and know her to be a sober and serious person. She likes to laugh, but the lady has focus. I believe that these two accounts are sufficient to cast doubt on the validity of these claims. This appears to be nothing more than political insiders and their friends using strong arm tactics against a Conservative woman. It is a shame that Erick Erickson had to be a part of this.

Well, if you didn’t watch the debate last night, I hope you recorded it. There were some epic exchanges between both the contestants and the moderators.

Let’s take the candidates one by one.

Newt Gingrich

In the most memorable attack, former Speaker Newt Gingrich went on the offensive. Not against President Obama or the other candidates, but against Chris Wallace. The question concerned the staffers that resigned on Gingrich and the Consultants he fired, as well as his million dollar campaign debt. I thought that this was a fair question and there has been much coverage of the resignations and firings in the media. And it is a huge negative against his campaign. Most candidates in his shoes would have welcomed the chance to set the record straight.

And Gingrich did use the opportunity to explain the walk out: he blamed the consultants for bad advice and running up debt. I don’t like a pass the buck explanation, we have enough of that coming from the White House these days. So I thought Gingrich missed an opportunity to show leadership, even if he admitted he hired the wrong guys.

But it was his attack on Chris Wallace that got the most attention.

Newt accused Wallace of asking “gotcha” questions instead of trying to find out what each candidate would actually do, if elected. Now this is something that I am glad Gingrich had the fortitude to bring up. I am sure he sat around in the postmortem discussions after the CNN debate and decided to call the questioners out on these kinds of questions next time around. And to be sure, Chris Wallace deserved it. Not for this question per se, but for his pattern of questions in the past. And Wallace looked absolutely horrified and flustered, and his attempt at recovering his composure was awkward, to say the least.

This exchange may have received the loudest approval response from the audience of the night. And Gingrich earned a point for this. Unfortunately, he went back to the “gotcha” question again and again. One time was sufficient and made the point. He should have left it at that and looked like a whiner every time he got a tough question.

Gingrich scored well with his repudiation of the recent debt deal and the “Super Congress” it set up. He thinks that is the dumbest idea he has ever heard. This was Newt’s best moment of the evening. But it is not enough to spark interest in this RINO relic from the cold war era who has become more a curmudgeon than elder statesman.

Stick a fork in the Newtster. He is done.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is an angry man. He comes across as bitter and has an attitude that anyone that does not like him and think he is the best candidate is an idiot. He loves to brag about how he is the only one to beat a Democrat 3 times. Yet never seems to want to mention that in the “what have you done lately” column he had his clock cleaned by the Democrats, and that is why he is no longer a Senator.

And his anti 10th Amendment tirade on why the Federal Government knows best was really hard to watch. And he seemed proud of the fact that he has voted for and pushed horrible bills that were the best he possibly get from the congress he was in at the time. As long as he got some of his “wish list” included in a bill, that was a win for him.

Rick Santorum epitomizes a lot of the thinking that has brought the country to the brink of disaster, and arguably, we may have crossed that line. It is this attitude that gave us the debt ceiling deal with more than $7 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. Santorum would see this as a big win for America because it “could have been worse”.

We can do better than Rick Santorum. PLEASE stick a fork in him. Quickly!

Herman Cain

Herman Cain is a nice guy. He is very likable, personable and has good credentials as a businessman. He is also the least qualified of the candidates to be president. And I am sorry to have to say that. In the business world, he is a big fish. In the political world, the man is a guppy. Especially on Foreign Policy. In Cain’s defense, I wouldn’t expect him to be an expert on Foreign Policy, so this is not a knock on his abilities. He has far more business experience than the rest of the candidates combined. And he would probably make a great Congressman, Governor or even Senator. These are jobs where one can benefit from business experience and learn the rest. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Obama, on the job training for a president takes too long. While Cain is a great businessman and problem solver, he is one dimensional. A one trick pony. We simply can’t afford to put a president in office that needs remedial training. Especially when the training is Politics 101.

Cain seems to be an answer to our economic problems, but is unprepared and unqualified to lead the country. His answers, and lack of answers becomes more apparent with every debate. Of course after being exposed on a topic, he learns it, like the Palestinian Right of Return. But America’s slippage in the world under Obama calls for a president well versed on all aspects of the job from day one.

Stick a fork in Herman. But do it gently. He would be a great economic adviser to the next Republican President.

Tim Pawlenty

Last night we saw a different Tim Pawlenty. T-Paw has been criticized as being too “Minnesota” nice. He has declined opportunities to go on the offensive against the Republican candidates and had criticized Obama, but more in a gnat sort of way, as opposed to the Pit Bull approach others have taken.

But given the opportunity to smack a girl around, T-Paw pounced on Michele Bachmann and looked more like Freddie Krueger in a Nightmare in Iowa. Now I had heard there was bad blood between the pair, but this brought back flashbacks of the mob outside the courthouse after the Casey Anthony verdict. Pawlenty moved past vicious into misogynist territory.

There was a time I had high hopes for T-Paw. He has managed to convince me my hopes were misplaced. He is looking desperate and defensive I thought his attacks on Bachmann crossed the line. He may do well in the Straw Poll tomorrow, it is hard to say. His performance in the debate last night may have convinced others, as it did me, that T-Paw is either too nice or too mean.

I am sticking the fork in Tim Pawlenty. He may not be done yet, but he should be.

Ron Paul

All I can say about Ron Paul’s performance last night is that those who think Paul is unglued have a lot more ammunition now. The South Carolina debate was Paul’s best debate performance to date. Last night was his worse.

There are a lot of people that simply do not understand Ron Paul and misinterpret his positions, turning them into something they are not. Mostly, these are people that do not understand personal liberty, and do not hold it as an absolute. Ron Paul and the Libertarian end of the political spectrum base every position on maximum personal liberty. It is totally logic based and not hard to understand. And perfectly predictable. And simple.

A lot of people this morning are talking about Paul’s desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and believe that he is Pro Iran. If you do not understand Libertarians, I can see how you might jump to that conclusion. Paul places his “live and let live” philosophy at the forefront of every decision. His “it’s none of our business if Iran has nuclear weapons or not” comment is a perfect example. In the black and white world of Libertarian thinking, the thought process ends at “it’s none of our business”. And Constitutionally speaking, Paul is correct.

By way of a hypothetical example, consider this scenario. Your fellow office worker tells you he is depressed and is going to take an overdose of pills to kill himself. What would you do?

Most people would try to intervene, try to talk him out of it, and even use physical restraint to keep him from harming himself. And if he took the overdose in spite of their efforts, they would call 911 to try to save him.

The pure Libertarian response would be to tell him good-bye and go back to work. He has the right and personal freedom to kill himself if that is what he wants.

Now, the truth be told, most Libertarians that I know would make an exception to their “personal freedom” beliefs and try to save the guy. But in a purely Libertarian sense, they should protect the person’s right to kill himself and do nothing.

So, when Ron Paul says it is none of our business if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, his line of thinking on the matter ends there.

Most non-Libertarians would look a few moves ahead. If Iran has a nuke, Israel would be threatened. There is no doubt about that. And the likelihood that Iran would attack Israel – or someone else – is great. And the result would be disastrous. So, an ounce of prevention is in order to prevent a really bad thing down the road. So America gets involved.

Libertarians do not see America moving to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon that will not directly threaten the Unites States as something the Constitution allows. And they see the argument that Iran might  attack Israel, and Israel is our friend and strategic ally and therefore, an American interest as a convoluted argument akin to the “right to privacy” that a liberal Supreme Court managed to find in our Constitution.

The Libertarians win that point.

But most Americans believe we have a responsibility to the rest of the world.

So, while Paul is taking a lot of criticism for his efforts last night, I would have to say that his answer is exactly what I would expect and is consistent with his core Libertarian beliefs. His remark about the Iranians not having an air force that could deliver a nuclear bomb to America probably hurt his chances of picking up anyone not already Libertarian. And not being totally against Iran on all fronts is not a popular stance, although it is a constitutional stance.

So, Paul will not be able to broaden his base after last night’s performance. The questions he was asked were designed to elicit the exact response that Paul gave them. Like I said, he is totally predictable and consistent. He may very well win the Straw Poll in Iowa. He has an extremely loyal base, but last night shut any doors to expanding that base for Congressman Paul.

Again, let’s go gentle with the fork. I would love to see Ron Paul replace Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman in the next Republican Administration. It would be the shortest appointment in history.

Jon Huntsman

Really? The only question that mattered to Huntsman was asking if he is running for the wrong party. Clueless, liberal and just all ’round sad. There is nothing that shows me Huntsman should even be in the race.

Stick the fork in him. He’s done.

Michele Bachmann

Last night was Michele Bachmann’s worst performance to date. She looked like she was drugged and not really on her game at all. And at one of the commercial breaks, Bachmann was missing when the cameras returned, and walked up after they made the comment that one of the candidates was missing.

Bachmann deflected most of the Tim Pawlenty attacks pretty well, but in a robotic sort of way. She did appear to be the victim of the attacks and jabbed back in a controlled way, but something just seemed “off” with her.

One Pawlenty attack seemed to really get under her skin. T-Paw accused her of raising cigarette taxes, but Bachmann claimed she had to vote for the bill even with the tax increase because there was a pro-live provision she thought was worth the sacrifice.

But trying to paint Michele Bachmann as a tax raising RINO is not going to work.

A disappointing performance, but Bachmann lives to fight another day.

Mitt Romney

Most are saying Mitt Romney “won” the debate last night. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he won, but he looked the least bad. He seemed to tread water. Nothing earth shattering, just a run out the clock rope-a-dope strategy.

And it worked for him. His “I’m not eating the dog food Obama is serving” line seemed to play well. Not quite “hope and change” but no real plan, either.

I won’t dispute the argument Romney won. Still, nothing to make me think he is anything but a Northern Liberal RINO.

Conclusion

Pretty good debate, all in all. Not boring by any means. But no standout performances by anyone, either. At the end of the day, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann are the only two who should even have been on the floor.

The next debate will include Texas Governor Rick Perry. Hopefully, most of the chaff will be blown away after this debate. Romney, Bachmann and Perry are the only ones we really need to be looking at from here on. Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton a couple of other possible candidate should not even bother. Bolton is by far the best candidate on Foreign Policy, but he has absolutely no economic experience. And Rudy, bless his heart, is simply not up to the task.

CNN Reports:

Virginia Tech, the site of a 2007 massacre, has issued an alert saying someone is possibly carrying a weapon on campus.

Regular classes aren’t in session at the moment, but there is summer school. The university in Blacksburg, Virginia, is asking people on campus to stay inside and secure doors. The person was spotted near Dietrick Dining Hall.

This column in CNN by Maria Cardona made by blood boil.  This writer eloquently describes the 87 members of Congress in the Tea Party Caucus as the “Tyranny 0f 87″ and in these terms:

The tyranny is coming from the 87 members of Congress from the tea party caucus, whose selfish and irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling negotiations may very well mean either outright default or what could be even worse and too late to avoid — the downgrade of the country’s gold standard AAA credit rating. What is worse, these 87 little tyrants have no clear understanding of the fallout of either scenario.

Is conviction in Washington, DC so rare that it is mistaken for selfishness or irresponsibility?  Compare the Tea Party Caucus with say, the Blue Dog Democrats, who say they want to do something about the debt but when they had to power to go into then Speaker Pelosi’s office en mass and say, “We won’t help you with any thing until we get a curb on spending RIGHT NOW!”  Did they do it?  Memo to those in districts where you have a Blue Dog versus a Tea Party candidate – who to choose?  Pick the one in the EFFECTIVE group.  The one the liberals complained about:

The heart of the problem is that this power in the hands of a group of people who have never governed, have no interest in compromising, and have no clue about the history of government or how government really works, is a dangerous thing and the American people may very well be the victims in this childish game of chicken.

If the CNN columnist is concerned about tyranny, perhaps she should consider the health care debate and passage.  Were the people consulted?  The Democrat leaders did not view any sign of public displeasure as a sign they should not give up their “selfish” and “irresponsible” support for a health care plan people did not want.  Maybe they should be seen as standing for principle regardless of political consequences?  After all, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, people voted for Scott Brown to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in large part because he would be the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare.  He spoke against it after his election.  What happened next:  We had the House consider passing a bill without any voting.  Then, the pro-life Democrat representative from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was a hold out until he did what?  Went along for a worthless piece of paper?  Did it ever occur that might be irresponsible?  Did anyone seriously consider the costs of a government take over of health care (Yes, call ME a liar, why don’t you, Politifact!)

But the Tea Party Caucus is irresponsible and tyrannical:

Voters still know how Congress should work and poll after poll has shown these members were elected to work with their colleagues for the greater good of the country — to come up with balanced approaches that are fair and bipartisan.

Did the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triumvirate consider changes in the health care bill?  Nothing significant as this video from Rep. Ryan shows during the Health Care Summit.  But this CNN writer shows her colors here with a unproven claim she does not support:

The GOP — led by the tea party — would balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the workers, the middle class, small businesses, the sick, the elderly, and everyone else that is just struggling to get by. This is what the Tyranny of 87 would bring to the American people.

Where’s Politifact when you really need it?  It’s like where’s the state trooper when the guy cuts you off on the interstate and weaves in and out of lanes while talking on his cell phone!  The Tea Party Caucus is doing what they were elected to do and stand for principle.  that is what the liberals call tyranny.

Reacting to President Obama’s speech last night, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor this morning, “Last night the President explained to the nation the crisis that we face right now as he sees it. . . . Unfortunately, the situation the President described last night bears very little resemblance to the realities on the ground here in Washington right now.  I know the President would rather give speeches about our problems than resolve them. But he wasn’t elected to talk about the United States, he was elected to lead it. And in our system of government, that means working with people and a Congress that you sometimes disagree with.”

He continued, “Last night the President rejected not just the only proposal that has passed either house of Congress, he rejected the only plan the Democrats have proposed as well – a plan that would increase the debt limit without raising taxes. Just a few days ahead of a potential default, the President announced that he’s the only person in Washington still calling for a massive tax hike, even as his party has dropped their own demands for what we know will make the current unemployment situation even worse.”

Indeed, as Ed Morrissey notes, CNN’s Gloria Borger said last night, “What was interesting, also, is that the debate that we were having in Washington today seems to have moved beyond the tax increases—at least in the short-term—nobody today is talking about tax increases except Barack Obama, who still talked about that tonight in his speech.”

And The Wall Street Journal editors pointed out, “One irony is that Mr. Obama’s demands for tax increases have already been abandoned by Members of his own party in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid knows that Democrats running for re-election next year don’t want to vote to raise taxes, so he’s fashioning a bill to raise the debt ceiling that includes only reductions in spending. But Mr. Obama never mentioned that rather large fact about Mr. Reid’s effort.”

Leader McConnell said, “In short, the President is now clinging to two things we all know Congress can’t support: a massive tax hike and the biggest debt-limit increase in history aimed, in his own words, at getting him past the next election. As Speaker Boehner said last night, that’s just not going to happen. There’s bipartisan opposition to it in Congress. So it was deeply irresponsible in my view for the President of the United States to present the American people with a false choice last night between tax hikes and default. The real choice is this: a bill that can get us past this moment of crisis, cuts Washington spending, and actually get through Congress, or one that can’t. Republicans have offered the only proposal that attempts to get at the root of the problem — and which actually has a chance of getting to the President’s desk.”

As he concluded, “The President can claim to be concerned about this impending crisis. But one question continues to linger above every press conference he’s called or every speech he’s delivered: where is his plan to resolve it? Republicans have proposed multiple plans that have support in both parties. It’s time for the President to put his electoral interests and preferences aside and do what’s needed. Americans are waiting for the President to do what they elected him to do: not to lecture, but to lead.”

#Senate News Briefing

It appears that, while still incredibly far from success, the secession movement proposed by county supervisor Jeff Stone of Riverside County is still on the tracks. It is reported the Riverside County Board of Supervisors agreed to endorse secession provided no tax monies were used to promote it:

Elected officials in Riverside County endorsed a proposal Tuesday to discuss cleaving California in two, but with a catch: No public funds can be spent on the budding secessionist movement.

The Governor of California, Jerry Brown, was appropriately respectful of the effort:

It’s a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody’s time,” said spokesman Gil Duran. “If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there’s a place called Arizona.’

People are doing exactly that!  This sarcastic answer would be more amusing had this story not appeared in CNN Money the very same day!  One of the states seeking California business is Arizona!

And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

And why is that?  Remember this is CNN Money not Fox News!

Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

The Golden State was ranked as WORST to do business by Chief Executive (that is corporate CEOs) magazine for SEVEN years.  SEVEN YEARS!  It take work to do that.  That has got to be a record.  A record of liberal futility. (BTW, Gov. Jindal’s Louisiana went up 13 places from 40th to 27th in one year.)  Here’s what the article said:

Wisconsin and Louisiana posted the two biggest gains since 2010, with the latter, along with Oklahoma, also showing the biggest gains over the last five years. By proactively reshaping its posture toward business taxation and regulation, Louisiana has been quietly stealing pages from the Texas playbook.

I feel sorry for all these people – trapped in a state that cannot give up liberalism:

Combined, those counties are home to about 13 million people. Republicans account for the majority of registered voters in all of those counties, except San Bernardino and Imperial.

Supervisor Stone may be more of a visionary than people realize.  I urge all conservatives in CA to help him out.

Would the last business in California turn off the ICLEI-approved light bulb?!