Elizabeth Warren - There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.

This is Elizabeth Warren, former White House financial reform adviser. She is currently running for the Massachusetts senate against Scott Brown. This video has made Ms. Warren a rock star among the collectivist set. However, here on the Free Market side of the world, all I see is one hot mess.

Let's unpack Ms. Warren's statements, shall we?

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No!
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear.
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

OK stop right there, Ms Warren. Unless this we are talking about some foreigner who just came to this country and started a factory, I am pretty sure this factory owner paid taxes for those roads, schools and police too. Furthermore, thanks to the progressive tax system in this country, anyone with enough money to start a factory surely paid a hell of a lot more for those things than the average Joe or Jane.

You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

As I stated before, anyone wealthy enough to start a factory clearly contributed more for all those government services than average middle class person did. But aside from paying more in taxes, what about the other contributions this factory owner is making?

Let's start with the most obvious J-O-B-S! Most factories require workers and means jobs. It is those jobs that give everybody money so they too can contribute to building those roads, educating those kids and hiring those cops.
Oh, and let us not forget that the whatever is being produced from this factory is no doubt something we all need or desire.

So let us recap everything this greedy factory owner is doing:

• Paying more for his/her share of government services.
• Providing jobs for the rest of us.
• Producing a product we need or desire.

Hum, seem to me that given all of that, it seem rather unreasonable to say they need to contribute more.

If you want to know why this administration has failed to rescue this economy and create an environment conducive to producing jobs, look no further than Elizabeth Warren.

Video h/t: The Blaze

Proven Leadership - Rick Perry's first campaign ad

These movie trailer-like campaign ads seem to be all the rage these days. It is pretty easy to see why, they are attention getting and Perry's ad is no exception. The stark contrast between the Obama images (monochromatic and foreboding) and the Perry image (colorful and inspiring) is quite effective.

However, I think this ad would be far more effective if Perry was already the nominee, rather than competing to become the nominee. The type of ad Perry needs now is one that states his record and define himself. That is what is needed by Republicans who are looking for their candidate in 2012.

Since I have not yet given my opinion on Perry yet, I shall do so now.

On paper Rick Perry looked very promising to me (several terms of chief executive experience from a solidly conservative job creating state and buckets of vibrato to stand toe to toe against Obama's arrogance). However, the reality is a little bit lacking (past associations with con man Al Gore, that Gardasil executive order, illegal immigration and two mediocre debate performances). Given these issues, it is not surprising that Perry no longer holds double digit leads over Romney.

At tomorrow's debate, Perry is going to have to bring his A-Game and then some. Otherwise, he may find himself fighting it out with the conservatives he leapfrogged over when he entered the race.

Video h/t: The Blaze
Via: Rasmussen

Sarah Palin: Crony Capitalism on Steroids from GE to Solyndra

When everyone was looking for Sarah Palin to make the "Big Announcement" in Iowa on September 3, Sarah quietly introduced a new theme into the 2012 campaign ... Crony Capitalism. So effective was her speech that The New York Times of all places took notice.

In the speech Palin, points out something we should all have noticed, (had we not had our Red and Blue colored glasses firmly in place) that both the right and the left are correct as to what is kill our nation. On the right, we see Big Government as the killer or liberty and freedom. On the left, they see Big Business as the threat to the little guy. The truth is that it is the collusion of the Big Government and Big Business that is messing things up for this nation.

In her latest Facebook post, Palin illustrates how this collusion is on full display with GE, Solyndra and the Obama administration.

Sarah Palin on Facebook: In my recent speech in Iowa, some eyebrows were raised when I took on our government’s enormous economic problems caused by crony capitalism. As if on cue, just days later President Obama selected someone who exemplifies a major crony capitalism problem to sit next to the First Lady when he delivered his “jobs plan” speech before Congress. He selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his honored guest.
Having grown up with great respect for GE thanks to stories my grandfather shared with us about his days working for the company and even meeting GE spokesman-at-the-time Ronald Reagan during a company event, I am saddened at GE’s leadership evolution. This corporation is now the poster child of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

This icon of American industry is a company full of good employees who make some good products (and is the parent company of a huge media outlet), but GE is also a large American corporation that pays virtually no corporate income taxes despite earning worldwide profits of $14.2 billion last year, $5.1 billion of it in the United States. In fact, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, meaning they received more of our hard earned tax dollars than they contributed. How is that possible? It’s because not only do they shelter their money from taxes, but they also get many tax credits, loans, government grants, and other benefits from the federal government that our smaller businesses couldn’t even imagine being able to profit from. [MORE]

Expect to hear more about Crony Capitalism as the 2012 race pushes on.


Via: Memeorandum
Via: Sarah Palin on Facebook

From a Weiner to a winner: Republican Bob Turner wins Anthony Weiner’s seat

Washington Post: Businessman Bob Turner (R) defeated state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) in the special election for the House seat held by former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D).

Turner’s victory is regarded as an upset given the Democratic history of the 9th district, which takes in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the fact that President Obama carried the seat by 11 points in 2008.

“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win. [MORE]

To be honest, I was ready to chalk up this race as a loss to voter fraud. Polls showing a six point lead by Turner did not seem like enough of a lead to me to overcome New York’s legendary voter fraud.

This victory is a big fat slap in Obama’s face. It means that in the deep blue bowels of New York City, even Democrats are not finding all that Hopey Changey stuff working for them. Worse yet, Jews, a core Democrat constituency of the Democratic Party ain’t feeling the love

What this win doesn’t s spell is a lasting victory for Republicans. This district is going to be erased via redistricting in 2013 and Turner is more than likely going to be a less than reliable Republican vote in the House. He is from New York City after all.

Despite those shortcomings, I am going to do the Snoopy dance anyway.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Nomblog
Via: New York Daily News
Via: The Washington Post

The Gardasil Gambit: Better Bachmann today than Obama tomorrow

I have been reading the reaction from the right regarding Michele Bachmann’s attack on Rick Perry over his HPV injection executive order. I have read a lot of commentary and comments that seem to show that many conservatives are down on Bachmann for doing this.

While I do have a problem with some of what Bachmann has done, I generally think her attack is a good thing. Here is why.

First, Bachmann is absolutely correct to drag Perry over the coals for issuing the executive order in the first place. Have we not all spent the last three years railing against government overreach? Well, Perry’s executive order is text book government overreach and Perry’s saying "my bad" doesn’t change the fact.

Second, Bachmann is also correct to raise the issue of crony capitalism. Just the fact that it is coming out today that Perry has received more than the $5,000 from Merck (as he said in the debate) should be enough for use to dig deeper into this issue. If there was a quid pro quo, then let’s sniff it out now and not have such a thing come back and bite us later.

Finally, Bachmann’s demagoguery of the Gardasil issue by retelling this story about a mother who claims her child became mentally retarded because of the injection, is in excusable. Bachmann is damaging her own credibility in the process. However, by unfairly attacking Perry on this ground, Bachmann is providing us a glimpse of how Perry will respond to the unfair attacks that are sure to come in the general election. Let us not forget that Obama and the media will employ all kinds of dirty attacks against whomever the GOP nominee is. It is far better to learn now if Perry has glass jaw than to find out after we are stuck with him.

While we may all cringe at the sight of Republican’s trampling Reagan’s 11th Commandment, a rough and dirty primary is exactly what will be needed in 2012. We need to be absolutely certain that our nominee will be able to withstand “The Palin Treatment” that is sure to come during the general election.


Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Right Scoop
Via: National Review
Via: Hot Air

Notes on the CNN/ TEA Party debate

Tonight’s CNN/ TEA Party debate was a vast improvement over the NBC/ Politico debate last week. While Wolf Blitzer did get the candidates to mix it up, he was subtler in his approach than NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris. Kudos to CNN for allowing actual TEA Party members to ask question. Unfortunately, Blitzer did not allow all the TEA Party questions to be answered by all candidates. (I really wanted to hear everyone’s answer to that young man’s question about how much should he be taxed).
Here is how I saw each candidate’s performance.

Mitt Romney: Mitt did nothing to regain his front runner status. His attack on Perry on Social Security, sounded like Mitt was willing to go with the status quo. The cat is out of the bag on Social Security, we all know it needs to be reformed. Simply saying that you will fix it, sounds like the failed promises of the past that has led us to the current problems.

Rick Perry: John Podhoretz sums it up best when he says Perry had better get better. Perry needs to really have some solid answers for the Gardasil question and illegal immigration. You could drive a truck through both answers. On Gardasil, simply saying you made a mistake and your emotions got the better of you, leaves you open to the question of will it happen again. On the immigration question, Perry’s answer for Texas’ mini Dream Act, sounds like Romney’s weak answer on RomneyCare. The 10th Amendment is not a Band Aid for past lapses in conservative judgment.

Michelle Bachmann: I think she drew blood with her tangle with Perry over Gardasil. It wasn’t with her accusation that Perry was engaged in a Crony Capitalism with Merck (that was sloppy), but her response to his answer of being bought. Bachmann took the higher ground and sounded like she had her priorities straight.

Herman Cain: I really loved Cain in the beginning, but his answers are sounding way too sound bite-ish at this point. We are well past the stage for sound bites. Meat is needed on the bone of his answers, otherwise it is impossible to take him seriously. My advice to Cain, get Wonkish, like yesterday.

Ron Paul: Given his answers tonight on foreign policy, it is clear the Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. When Rick Santorum can school you on foreign policy and American Exceptionalism, you have a problem. This is sad, because so much of Ron Paul’s economic views are correct for the times.

Newt Gingrich: I love feisty Newt who has shown up to these debates. Even tonight, Newt looked like he was ready to bust Wolf Blitzer in the mouth if Wolf got out of hand. All of the candidates would do well to take a page out of Newt’s books when it come to handling a biased media. Unfortunately, for Newt, being feisty isn't enough to overcome his early major gaffs .

Rick Santorum: Santorum’s attempts to tie all his action’s of the 1990’s to today is getting very old. Let’s fact it, the political landscape has changed so drastically on the right since the 90’s, that references to the 90’s seems like comparing apples to oranges. Rick needs to find a reason why he is relevant today or he is going to have to make an early exit.

Jon Huntsman: Why is this guy still around? He is polling worse that Tim Pawlenty ever did and I cannot stop detecting the condescending attitude in all of his responses. There is nothing about Huntsman that resonates with today’s conservative base. Excluding him from the next debate would be a wise move.

Overall, I would have to say Rick Perry was the winner tonight because he did just enough to hold on to his front runner status. He will have to do a heck of a lot better in the next debate, because both Romney and Bachmann are sharpening their attacks. Even Palin seems to see an opening. Perry need an air tight A-Game if he wants to stand any chance against Obama, the Bully Pulpit and a complicit media.

Via: Commentary

Via: The Right Scoop

Via: The Right Scoop

The Big Announcement? Palin to keynote Tea Party rally in Iowa

Real Clear Politics: In the latest indication that her sights are still set on a presidential run, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has accepted an invitation to keynote a Tea Party rally in Waukee, Iowa, on Sept. 3, RealClearPolitics has learned.

The Labor Day weekend visit to the nation's first voting state comes after Palin indicated during an appearance on Fox News earlier this month that she would make her decision about whether to launch a campaign in August or September.

All signs now point to September as the month when Palin would throw her hat into the ring, as logistical concerns ranging from fundraising to getting her name on the ballot in various states would likely preclude further delay. [MORE]

As my regular readers know, I have always believed that Palin would run in 2012. For me the question has always been what would she run for. Will she run to win the White House or will she run just to shape the GOP field? She has the power to do both, so time will actually tell.

I cannot think of a better time or venue for Palin to announce. A TEA Party rally with the theme of "Restoring America" is tailor made for Palin who constantly works in themes or restore, renew and revive. As everyone knows, September 3rd would be cutting it close for throwing in your hat for 2012.

While a Palin announcement would be sure to generate wall to wall coverage on any given day, an announcement on September 3rd would guarantee she would dominate a slow news weekend for three days. Three crucial days when Americans are actually getting together with family and discussing things like politics. This would be a classic Palin media manipulation.

One way or another, Palin will have to make her 2012 intentions clear by Labor Day.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Real Clear Politics
Via: Conservatives 4 Palin

The Debt Ceiling Debate: The Obama vs. Boehner speeches (Videos)

I just got through watching both Obama's and John Boehner's speeches. Again, I feel like vomiting over the whole foolish mess. With Obama's ridiculous lies about Social Security and Boehner's foolish entertainment of Democrat's disingenuous compromises, I am rapidly losing hope that America will dodge this bullet.

Of the two speeches, Obama's was clearly the worse. Obama's speech could have easily been spliced together from his past speeches over the last two years. It was the same old dog and pony show we have seen over and over again.

• Class warfare, complete with evil corporate jets - check.
• One sided shared sacrifice - check.
• Blame Bush - check.

and the list goes on and on.

No where in Obama's 15 minute speech did Obama offer a clear cut path plan of action. Instead, it was the usual dump it all in Congress' lap and then take to the podium to play the role of college professor. Of course in doing so, Obama made his usual massive contradictions. Like this gem:

[...]In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

[...] But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

So, Reagan had to deal with 18 extensions of the debt ceiling over 8 year, which breaks down to less than 6 months intervals and the economy thrived under those conditions. However, a six month extension today would be catastrophe? This is why Obama is so disingenuous and phony.

Boehner is once again talking the talk but failing to walk the walk. Boehner would not be in the pressure cooker had he declared way back in November that the debt ceiling was not going to be raised. Had he taken that stance eight months ago, he would have had eight months to defuse all the liberal arguments, scare tactics and power plays. He would have been in the position of demanding Democrats start coming up with their cuts to go along with the Republican cuts. The markets would have known months ago that America was not raising its debt ceiling and that it was going to use the next eight months to seriously tackle the problem, rather than try to mash something together in less than a month.

The CBO's scoring of Boehner's plan clearly shows that Boehner is more concern about the political aspects of the debate than actually forcing real change. Pity for all of us.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Washington Post
Via: WhiteHouse.gov
Via: The Right Scoop
Via: Politico

The Debt Ceiling Debate - Liars and Losers on display

I have been watching the debt ceiling debate with absolute disgust. Seriously, I am on the verge of vomiting from the outright lies, distortions, political games and typical Washington foolishness. Never in my life have I witness such dysfunction!


First we have Obama who has now taken to flat out lying to the American people. Today on CBS News Obama was asked a straight forward question about whether or not Social Security checks would go out next month and here is what the Liar In Chief said:

CBS News: President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

This is a bold face lie, plain and simple. The Social Security Administration claims to have $2.5 trillion surplus. Monthly expenditures for Social Security is about $60 billion. How then on God's green Earth can Obama say with a straight face that he cannot guarantee seniors will receive their on August 3rd?

Obama should be shown the door immediately for lying to the American people like this and CBS News should have their licence revoked for not calling Obama out on such a lie. It is absolutely disgusting!

Aside from a lapdog media, Obama is comfortable lying to the public because he knows he is dealing with a bunch of loser Republicans. The Republican leadership is a bunch of losers because they immediately went down the road of agreeing to raise the debt ceiling from the get go.

Back in January when they took control of the House, Republicans were quick to agree with the left's lie that calamity would befall the world if the debt ceiling was not raise. Now we have Republican leadership willing to abdicate it constitutional authority of the purse strings to the president in order to avoid political heat.

Enter loser Mitch McConnell:

Desperate to get out of the political box they helped to create, Senate Republicans are actively pursuing a new plan under which the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.

“It gives the president 100 percent of the responsibility for increasing the debt limit if he chooses not to have any spending reductions,” Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican Conference chairman, told reporters Tuesday. [MORE]

Mitch McConnell must be the stupidest man on earth. If he thinks abdicating his constitutional responsibility to Obama will stop Obama. I have two words for McConnell ... "bully pulpit". Obama will, with the aid of a complicit media, use the bully pulpit to spin raising the debt ceiling endlessly by claiming all spending as much needed "investments" (e.g. we need to "invest" in high speed rail, we need to "invest" in new infrastructural, we need to "invest" in fill in the blank). The media will be all to happy to find statistics and economists who will back up the need for these "investments".

The reason why the debt ceiling debate has turned into a parade of liars and losers is because neither Republican nor Democrat has the guts to force Washington to live within its means. If Washington was forced to live "pay check to pay check" like so many Americans have to, it would quickly find that it would be forced to make real and drastic cuts to spending.
For the first time in history, Washington would have to do away with duplicate departments, failed programs, crazy projects, corporate welfare, subsides, non-essential military spending and of course congressional and executive perks. Furthermore, the American people would actually get to see exactly what the welfare state is costing them. Will Americans be willing to pay for lavish things like free presicription drugs for all seniors regardless of their income? Or will Americans be willing to give the children of illegal aliens a free college education instead or paying for infrastructure improvements? Faced with such stark choices, would Americans continue to be so passive about government spending?  I doubt it.

What I would not give to have one adult step into this fray and inject much needed commonsense into the debate.  Perhaps, Sarah Palin might come to the rescue with a scathing Facebook post.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CBS News

Via: SSA.gov

Via: Politico

Would the last person at Team Newt please turn off the lights

Associated Press: ATLANTA — Newt Gingrich's top two fundraising advisers resigned on Tuesday, and officials said the Republican candidate's hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt.

The departures of fundraising director Jody Thomas and fundraising consultant Mary Heitman were the latest blow for the former House speaker who watched 16 top advisers abandon his campaign en masse earlier this month, partly because of what people familiar with the campaign spending described as a dire financial situation.

These people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the campaign inner workings, said the former Georgia lawmaker racked up massive travel bills but money had only trickled in since he got into the race earlier this spring.

These officials said that he is at least $1 million in debt. The current fundraising quarter ends June 30, and Gingrich will have to disclose his campaign finances by July 15. He is personally wealthy and could fund his campaign out of his own pocket, at least in the short term, to keep his campaign afloat. [MORE]

This is just so sad. Newt's campaign reminds me of a mortally wounded animal that does not have the good sense to lay still and quietly accept its inevitable fate. If this level of chaos and drama is what Newt Gingrich brings to the table,  then he really needs to pack it in now. This sad sack performance will never be able to withstand the onslaught Obama and his media minions have in store for the GOP nominee.

Thankfully, if the survival of Team Newt means Newt has to dip into his own pocket, then there maybe hope this wounded beast will find the good sense to lay still and accept his fate. Stick a fork in this guy, he is done.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Associated Press

Jon Huntsman makes it offical

RINO Jon Huntsman was in my neck of the woods today (sorry no pictures I had to be in New York today). Huntsman chose Liberty State Park in Jersey City in order to conjure up fond memories of Ronald Reagan by using the Statue of Liberty as a back drop. Like that could possibly remove the stench of RINO from this guy.

CNN: Liberty State Park, New Jersey (CNN) - Not known for throwing out red meat to conservative audiences, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman warned voters the country is facing an "un-American" future in his campaign kick-off speech Tuesday.

Huntsman took aim at the sluggish economy and mounting national debt in his remarks.

"We are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got. This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American," Huntsman said.

And Jon Huntsman would certainly add to the unacceptable and un-American downward spiral.

2012 is a serious as a heart attack. It is no time for posers, the self indulgent or small bore closet liberals. Huntsman needs to teach his staff how to spell his name and then close up shop for 2012, because this guy is going to go no where and fast.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN
Via: Verum Serum
Via: ABC News

That's Sarah Palin® to you! Sarah Palin trademarks her name

The Atlantic: A few months ago, an attorney for Sarah and Bristol Palin put in an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark their names. (One of many things that suggests that profit, and not the presidency, is what's motivating Palin.) For Sarah Palin, the intent was a little less clear cut than it was for her daughter, as this article in Politics Daily made clear:

For Sarah Palin's application, there are two classes of commercial service for which her name would be a registered trademark. One is for "information about political elections" and "providing a website featuring information about political issues." The second is for "educational and entertainment services ... providing motivational speaking services in the field of politics, culture, business and values. 

The "Bristol Palin" application is for "educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of life choices."

According to the same reporter, the deadline to challenge Palin's application passed on Friday and -- amazingly -- nobody seems to have challenged it. So it looks like the Patent and Trademark Office will award both patents trademarks in the near future. Better hold off on those bootleg Palin T-shirts you were thinking about printing up. For anyone who's curious, here's Palin's trademark application.

I beg to differ. While most see a profit motive, I see a very crafty way to kill a lot of that anti Palin crap floating about the net. If Palin is trademarked, all those anti Palin websites, tee shirts and other nasty things will be infringing on her trademark. Either they pay up or they shut down. If you are running for president, what better way to protect yourself and your image from the hoards of lefties who will try to smear you?

The media and the left won't see it that way because they are locked into the idea that Palin is not running and that she is all about the money. However, if Palin is running she just bought herself one powerful weapon against those who want to smear her. Just take a look at what trademark infringement entails.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Atlantic

Michele Bachmann to Ed Rollins: Apologize to Team Palin

Behold the power of Palin.

Hot Air: When you’ve got a puppy with a habit of crapping on the carpet, you may need to rub his face in it to set him right.

Serious candidates require serious message discipline, and as of last Monday’s debate, she’s most definitely a serious candidate:

“We need Mrs. Bachmann out front and we need the campaign to be a real campaign with one spokesperson and a disciplined message,” said one Bachmann adviser granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy…

Bachmann’s newly installed political team has had its own battles with message discipline — typified by campaign manager Ed Rollins’ recent comments alleging that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin hasn’t been “serious” over the last few years.

After the incident, Bachmann was “very firm” with Rollins, according to an adviser to the congresswoman, telling him this should not happen again and that there should be “no more press”. Bachmann also demanded that Rollins call the Palin people and apologize. “She is definitely not tone deaf,” the source added.

Bachmann’s move to limit her exposure in the wake of her debate performance is a smart strategy designed to avoid accidentally trampling on the momentum she built with that performance.

You knew this had to come sooner or later. If Michele Bachmann wants any chance of being "the" conservative candidate, she is going to have to be in good graces with Palinistas. As pundit after pundit tries to write off Palin 2012, it is clear Palin will play a major role in this election whether she runs of not.

I still think Palin is running in 2012 (have you seen this SarahPAC letter?). I still think the real question everyone should be asking is if Palin will run to win the nomination or run to shape the nomination. Either way, consider Ed Rollins officially spanked.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Hot Air

Via: Conservatives 4 Palin

Voting laws: How helpless and hapless do liberals think minorities are?

I have been hearing a steady liberal whine lately about how Republicans are bringing back Jim Crow by making changes to voting laws. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the first Democrat to make this whine. Since she is the DNC chair, I think it is safe to assume that her initial whine can be considered marching orders for the rest of the party.

Today EJ Dionne, dutiful leftist media hack, picks up that whine in his Washington Post column.

An attack on the right to vote is underway across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.

The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after studyhas shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.

These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments. [...]

In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

So what are these laws that EJ Dionne find so Jim Crow like? Let's take a look:

The laws in question include requiring voter identification cards at the polls, limiting the time of early voting, ending same-day registration and making it difficult for groups to register new voters.

Let's examine each of these "problematic" laws.

First, the requirement of valid ID to vote, has to be one of the oldest canards ever. Asking anyone, black, white, purple, green or yellow for valid ID at the voting booth is just plain common sense. How is it that something as precious as your vote should not require valid ID, but something as meaningless as a video store membership does? What truly gets me about this phony ID argument is that the same Democrats who see racism in asking for valid ID to vote, do not see racism in asking for valid ID for the very social programs they peddle to minorities.

When it comes to limiting early voting, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how this is Jim Crow like. Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to vote weeks or a month in advance of an election day.  Remember back in 2000 when it was discovered the night before the election day that Bush had a past DUI? Well, if you voted early and you found that information troubling, there is nothing you could have done to have changed your vote. Early voting really just helps politicians bank votes before election day. The more votes they can bank before election day, the less they have to worry about screwing up in the final stretch.

Again I still cannot see how limiting the number of days of early voting is racist. Unless of course you believe that minorities are too lazy to make it to the polls on election day, now that is racist.

Same day voter registration is clearly designed for voter fraud. There are years between elections, so why does someone need to wait all the way until election day to register to vote? How is it even possible for election boards to verify a voter on the same day they are allowed to vote? Couple same day registration with weak ID, like student IDs and you are off to Voter Fraud City. Again how is eliminating same day voting racist, unless you believe minorities are incapable of getting the act together in a timely fashion.

Finally regarding groups registering people to vote. We have seen all the fun and games that goes on with ACORN's voter drives. Again, what is so difficult that any individual (minority or otherwise) cannot just register to vote on their own?

Voting, like all our rights, come with responsibilities. You are responsible for getting your act together to vote. That means studying candidates records, learning the issues, registering in a timely fashion and yes, safeguarding your vote against fraud. The idea that minorities need special gimmicks, special rules or extra time to accomplish these responsibilities both insulting and racist.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico
Via: The Washington Post

Rick Perry at RLC - A preview of Perry 2012?

CNN: New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) – As speculation mounts about his presidential ambitions, Texas Gov. Rick Perry delivered a rousing and unapologetic defense of conservative principles on Saturday at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.

Perry repeatedly brought an audience of hundreds of Republican activists to their feet with a small government message reminiscent of the one that helped him win an unprecedented third term as governor last November.

Perry said there is "too much spending, too much interfering and too much apologizing" in Washington.

"Stand up!," Perry thundered. "Let's speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans. Let's stop this American downward spiral!"

Perry made no mention of his political plans and avoided the media by slipping out the back of the hotel where the conference was held following his speech.

But it was clear that the governor was positioning himself as a conservative heavyweight with a credible economic record should he decide to join the crowded Republican presidential field. [MORE]

I watched the speech and I really did like what I heard. However, I have to admit, I have not done my homework on Perry's record, so I cannot say whether or not I believe he is the real deal. (Texas readers, help me out. What should I start looking at regarding the Perry record?)

From the speech I get the impression that Perry is a fighter who won't wither under the Obama and the left's assault. (Again, Texas readers help me out, is Perry a barroom brawler or just another lightweight with a big mouth?).

I am already hearing some of the left's attacks on Perry (secessionist and "another Texas governor" = Bush). I don't see these arguments holding much water in the face of the current state of the nation. (Seceding from an out of control Washington sounds quite sane and who care where the guy is from if he really has a record of creating a job friendly environment).

If Perry's record is the real deal, he could easily become the conservative candidate the base is looking for.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN
Video h/t: The Right Scoop

Herman Cain also declines to sign abortion pledge

ABC News: Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain declined to sign Susan B Anthony List’s Pro-Life Presidential Pledge, while the organization says five other GOP 2012 candidates have signed the pledge.

SBL List called on each GOP presidential candidate to agree to four specific anti-abortion pledges including only nominating pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to key positions in their administrations if they were elected president.

Cain issued a statement to explain why he chose not to sign the pledge. He said he agrees with the first three parts of the pledge because he “adamantly” supports the appointing pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to his Cabinet and the Executive Branch as well ending taxpayer funding for abortions, but he had a problem with the last part of the pledge.

“The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said. “I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues. In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.” [MORE]

As several of you pointed out in the comment section of the Romney post, Herman Cain has also declined to sign the same pledge. So what is the difference? Simple, it is a matter of trust. For Herman Cain, there isn't anything in his record to question his sincerity on the abortion issue. Not so for Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that Romney has changed positions on this issue (along with a few other issues).

Fair or unfair people will question the true motives of Romney's decision. Is his refusal exactly what he states or is Mitt reverting to his old ways. That is why for Herman Cain, refusing to sign SBA List's pledge won't effect him as much as it will Romney.

On the plus side for Romney, Cain's refusal will give Romney some much needed cover.

Via: ABC News

Strike Three! Romney won't sign abortion pledge

Politico: Five Republican presidential candidates have signed a pledge to advance the anti-abortion movement if elected to the White House, but the current front runner for the 2012 GOP nomination — Mitt Romney — isn’t one of them.

Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum each signed the pledge, sponsored by Susan B. Anthony List, vowing to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are opposed to abortion. The pledge also commit signers to push legislation to end all taxpayer funding of abortion and to sign a law to “protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”

Mitt Romney, who’s leading in national and early state opinion polls, declined to sign.

“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” said spokeswoman Andrea Saul in a statement. “However, this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.” [MORE]

First RomneyCare, then global warming and now this.  Mittens is working overtime not be a flip flopper this time around. Unfortunately, he is picking the wrong side of each issue. This tells me that Romney is confident about a few things.

• He doesn't believe that conservatives will rally around a single candidate.
• He believes that the right is so desperate to get Obama out of office they will turn a blind eye to everything.

I just don't understand how this guy is the front runner right now. Mitt has always been an integrity free guy. Making him our nominee because we think he can beat Obama is basically a crap shoot (I for one have little faith Romney could beat Obama when push comes to shove). If by chance he becomes president, there is really no telling where he will go. From his record, it is pretty clear that Romney will seek the path of least resistance. That my friends simply will not do in 2012.

Obama and the Dems passed nightmare legislation because they were willing to politically die for their convictions. Reversing their legislation and turning the ship of state around will require no less from the Republicans. This is why a wishy washy flip flopper like Romney might as well be another term of Obama.

Conservatives had better get their game plan together or watch everything accomplished by the TEA Party get railroaded by a weak Republican president named Romney.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico

Netroots Nation, the left vent about Obama

There were several stories on Memeorandum yesterday about how progressives at Netroots Nation vented their displeasure about the Obama administration. In a nutshell the complaints are that the Obama administration has not been progressive enough (i.e. Obama hasn't given enough attention to a particular grievance group).

To be fair to Obama, the administration has done its fair share of Hippy Punching. Publicly Obama has dismissed some of the concerns of progressives, but behind the scenes he is working hard to make their dreams come true. Take ObamaCare for instance. Many progressives lament that there was no public option or that ObamaCare did not directly move America to a single payer system. However, if you look at how ObamaCare will effect the current system, it is clear that it was designed to destroy the current system and clear the path for single payer.

So why does Obama treat progressives so shabby in public? Simple, it is because he knows he owns them. Obama realizes that these hardcore progressives will always pull the lever for him no matter what. Because Democrats have done a good job ideologically enslaving their base. They accomplished this by getting these various groups to see the right a pure evil. Thus, it becomes impossible to vote for the right or to just sit back and let the right win. Under this kind of thinking, you only have one choice and that is to keep voting for Democrats no matter how much they lie and cheat you.

Witness Obama's latest slap in the face to gays. The gay bloggers are up in arms, but you know, I know and Obama knows they will be vote for more abuse come November 2012.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: AmericaBlog Gay

Via: NPR

Andrew Breitbart invades Netroots Nation

Andrew Breitbart decided to visit the very progressive Netroots Nation yesterday.  He was immediately identified and this young man took him on.  The guy accuses a Breitbart staffer of racially accosting a Muslim women, but somehow is unable of identify said Breitbart employee. Probably because the story was made up on the fly.  The Right Scoop has more video of Brietbart's encounter.

You have to admit, given the number of liberal agencies and people Breitbart has exposed, it is pretty darn gutsy for him to show up at Netroots.  Unlike the public at large, everyone at Netroots knows who Andrew Breitbart is.  So his showing up there would be like Sarah Palin crashing a DNC fundraiser.  


Via: The Right Scoop

Senate votes to kill off ethanol tax credit

The Hill: The Senate voted 73-27 Thursday to kill a major tax break that benefits the ethanol industry, handing a political win to a bipartisan group of lawmakers that call the incentive needless and expensive.

 [...]

Thirty-three Republicans and 38 Democrats supported the measure along with both of the chamber's Independents, who caucus with Democrats.

Fourteen Republicans and 13 Democrats voted against it. [MORE]

Isn't it amazing how financial desperation brings about such clarity? I have been hearing about ethanol since I was a little boy in grade school and it has never become a widely acceptable fuel in this country. It should have been abundantly clear decades ago that despite billion wasted on this fuel, it was going no where. Politicians were basically using this credit to buy votes and nothing else.

Yes, America needs alternative fuels, but we should trust in the free market to find it for us rather than attempt to pick winners and losers.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Hill

So, Mitt Romney thinks he is unemployed too

The New York Times: TAMPA, Fla. — Mitt Romney sat at the head of the table at a coffee shop here on Thursday, listening to a group of unemployed Floridians explain the challenges of looking for work. When they finished, he weighed in with a predicament of his own.

“I should tell my story,” Mr. Romney said. “I’m also unemployed.

He chuckled. The eight people gathered around him, who had just finished talking about strategies of finding employment in a slow-to-recover economy, joined him in laughter.

“Are you on LinkedIn?” one of the men asked.

“I’m networking,” Mr. Romney replied. “I have my sight on a particular job.” [MORE]

HA-HA, very funny, we get. But you know what? This type of joke leaves the same bad taste in the mouth as Obama's shovel ready joke. Everyone on the planet knows that Romney's heart aches for the job of POTUS. Everyone also knows that Romney is a very rich man and unemployment for him isn't quite  the same affair as the average Joe. Joking about unemployment, jobs and the economy at a time like this always takes away from the real struggle real people are facing.

If I were Mitt, I would start doing a little more listening at these coffee stops and fine tune that tin ear of his. Otherwise Mitt will find himself giving Obama the perfect soundbite he is looking for.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The New York Times

Weinergate: Anthony Weiner resigns ... finally

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I had a very busy day today in real time and I have just now watched the Weiner resignation. It is almost like watching something from Bizzaro World. Here is Weiner talking like he is some wounded champion who can no longer fight the good fight for the people. Please! If Weiner's top priority was his constituents and his family he never would have found the time to play Captain Hook Up on Twitter. If he was half as conscientious about his job as he claims, he never would have wasted everyone's time with all the lies and the sideshow of not resigning sooner.

I think what really happened is his wife came home and laid down the law. She probably asked him why the heck was he continuing to humiliate her by dragging this sordid saga out.

Think back to Chris Lee's fooling around on Craigslist. Basically he was doing the same thing as Weiner. However, Lee resigned ASAP and thus we can scarcely remember his name. Anthony Weiner on the other hand drew out the saga of Weinergate for almost a month. The result will be that Weiner will be a national joke for the rest of his life.

On a side note, did you check out that jeering? I loved it! Especially when that guy shouts out "bye-bye pervert". It was like a nice dose of reality in the middle of Bizzaro World. You can read more about the heckling at The Blaze.

Via: MSNBC
Via: The Blaze

Kiss of Death: Al Gore praises Mitt Romney on Global Warming

 Al Gore: Good for Mitt Romney -- though we've long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis.

While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party:

“It seemed like a straightforward question on a second-tier issue: Would Mitt Romney disavow the science behind global warming?”

“The putative Republican presidential front-runner, eager to prove his conservative bona fides, could easily have said what he knew many in his party's base wanted to hear.”

“Instead, the former Massachusetts governor stuck to the position he has held for many years -- that he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to it.”

Oh boy, talk about the kiss of death. Mitt Romney's conservative bona fides is already suspect by many in the Republican base. How can it not be with so many flip-flops and the creation of ObamaCare's father RomneyCare. Adding to conservatives' suspicion of Mitt Romney is Romney's new support for Global Warming. A support he has stuck to as well. Now the chief charlatan of the Global Warming hoax, Al Gore is giving Mitt Romney a big Kudos!

If conservatives ever need more proof that they should think long and hard about having a President Romney, this is it.

Romney has said: I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that.

Romney stuck by the words too. At the next debate, I sure wish one of the other candidates would ask Romney just how he squares his comments with news released today that the earth maybe headed towards another ice age.

Seeing Romney explain himself sure would make for an interesting debate.

Via: Memeorandum Via: Al Gore.com
Via: MittRomneyFlipFlops.com
Via: The Blaze
Via: The Boston Globe
Via: The Register