By: Carol Lee

For a president who ran on uplifting themes like change and hope, Barack Obama spends an awful lot of time scolding Americans about how he hopes they’ll change.

He has advised parents to “replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done.” He has urged members of Congress not to read blogs or watch 24-hour cable news. And he’s challenged lobbyists, lawmakers, bankers, journalists, insurance companies and other heads of state to do a better job.

He’s prodded people to get off the couch, eat healthier and exercise more. He’s even suggested Americans buy stocks, U.S.-made cars and energy-efficient light bulbs, while cautioning them not to max out their credit cards.

At times, having Obama in the Oval Office is like having a really powerful Dr. Phil around.

But lately, Obama’s tsk-tsking has gotten him into some trouble. At the very moment he’s trying to recover his declining popularity and revive his party heading into the November elections, even some Democrats worry that he risks coming off not as the inspirational figure who galvanized the electorate in 2008 but as the embodiment of a dour Democrat that turns off some voters.

Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, pointed out that, while Obama has long promised to tell people the truth even when it hurts, he needs to strike a balance.

“Part of what people liked about him during the campaign is that he talks to the American people like they’re grown-ups — you don’t have to pretend that you can eat ice cream and lose weight in order to be president,” Myers said. “He did that during the campaign by appealing to hope. … I think little of that has been lost.”

Added Democratic strategist Paul Begala, another Clinton veteran, “You got to be careful about that stuff, or you become a scold.”

Obama drew criticism for his unusual finger-wagging at Supreme Court justices as they sat in the House chamber during his State of the Union address. He also used the speech to once again press Congress to go public with its earmarks. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Obama’s fellow Democrat, recently told him to “lay off Las Vegas” when Obama urged fiscal restraint by explaining, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

Read more at politico

Senate Democrats will miss their self-imposed deadline for bringing a jobs bill to the floor Monday, and they’re hoping that the weekend’s epic snowstorm will give them some cover.

Senate votes scheduled for Monday evening have been pushed back to Tuesday on account of the storm, but it seems unlikely that Democrats would have been ready to proceed Monday, anyway.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he believed “very emphatically” that the Senate would hold a vote on the first of a series of jobs bills Monday.

But there was no agreement on a bill late Sunday afternoon, and aides to senators involved in the discussions cautioned against expecting much progress by Monday.

Read more at Politico

It's great to have you back. But I have to ask... in your post below, you worry that Congress has spent your kids' money.

Kids?

Do you have news you'd like to share? Honestly, it would explain your absence.

Also, for those of you who are snow-bound, movies are a great cure for cabin fever. SixSeeds has this week's DVD releases. When you are at the video store, they help you choose wisely.

I know those of you who can't see your car because it's covered in ice aren't happy about it. But I'm hoping against hope that Tennessee gets enough snow that my kids get out tomorrow.

We'll see.

IMPACT: Far from a disappointment

To the editor:

Hudson Todd is correct in his analysis that this year’s IMPACT Symposium does not feature a Democrat. However, the lineup that the Speakers Committee developed over the last six months has depth and promises to be the most compelling IMPACT in several years. Both major parties are sympathetic to capitalism, and, as such, the committee needed to go beyond the labels of Republican and Democrat, as we have many times in the past, to find speakers who would cause us to ask the deepest question: Is capitalism right?

The goal of our committee was to focus on a domestic issue for this year’s IMPACT, as the past few years have dealt with foreign policy. We selected former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the keynote because he has the experience of an American businessman and politician. He was CEO of Bain & Company, a management-consulting firm, not to mention a former presidential candidate and a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2012. Yes, he will present a more conservative economic dialogue, but we hope that his perspective will be refreshing and balanced.

As for the evening with journalist John Stossel and former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, it will not be a “debate.” It will be a point-counterpoint discussion that will provide two unique outlooks on the current economic situation and what the future looks like for our capitalist system. We hope that following this event students will take both the positions and information provided to them and form their own opinions. We have chosen two speakers who are radically opposed in their viewpoints in an attempt to cover the entire spectrum during the discussion. The tradition of IMPACT is to have controversial discussions about current events, and Speakers Committee expects Stossel and Nader to disagree with each other in the spirit of this tradition.

Stossel will not be discussing global warming, and Nader will not be dwelling on his presidential campaigns. Their discussion, as well as Romney’s speech, will focus entirely on the American economy and its future. Since 1964 IMPACT Symposium has enhanced the political dialogue on campus by inviting diverse speakers. This year’s symposium follows up on last year’s (which did not feature a Republican) in returning IMPACT to its great days of the 1960s and 1970s.

In one year, IMPACT hosted Stokley Carmichael, Martin Luther King Jr. and Strom Thurmond, and the committee more recently convinced Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton to share a stage. We’ve also brought Bobby Kennedy, George H.W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher to campus. The Speakers Committee invites everyone to join us for what is expected to be another animated, enlightening symposium.

Ralph Nader and John Stossel will speak on March 30, followed by Mitt Romney on March 31. Both events are free and will take place in Langford Auditorium. All attendees of the Mitt Romney event will receive a copy of his new book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”

Ethel Mickey
Speakers Committee

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/12789

Share on Facebook

Share This

James Dobson, now divorced from Focus on The Family, has endorsed a candidate.  There is no a big stretch here, but it is the kind of leadership that Dobson failed to show in ‘08.  We have wondered if his departure from FOTF was in part motivated by the political restraints that organization forced upon him.  This could get interesting . . . 

The “Tea Party”

Last week, Lowell and I had a minor disagreement about the Tea Party movement.  Given that there was a convention of the movement this past weekend, there has been much analysis and efforts to define it.  See, the problem is it’s not well-organized; it’s a bunch of organizations with a lot of different things in mind.  National Journal profiles some of the “leading” groups.  The Christian Science Monitor tries to profile it and says this is how it started:

CNBC editor Rick Santelli’s on-air “rant” last February about a proposed mortgage bailout is widely considered to be the “big bang” moment for the birth of the movement.

Interesting thesis, and it probably is right for one branch of the movement, but this thing is too diverse to have a single “big bang” moment.  Zogby does some numbers, and Chris Good theorizes that it will “fail” – being subsumed by the Republican party.  This later is an interesting choice of words – the history of the United States is that we are a definitively two-party state, third party movements always fail in the sense that they do not last.  But, if they are indeed subsumed by one of the two parties, and in that process move that party towards their ideals – can they truly be said to have “failed?”  I, for one, do not think so.  [Lowell slips this in:  Good point!]

But let’s get the heart of the disagreement between Lowell and me:  Is there a religious element to the movement?  There certainly is not an overt one, but I do think there is an undercurrent.  Let’s consider two pieces.  One from the Financial Times, looking at Republicans and the South:

The south is the spiritual and – along with the mountain states of the west – electoral base of the Republican party.  And yet, as the party ­struggles back into national relevance with recent gubernatorial triumphs in both New Jersey and Virginia and a genuinely shocking upset last month with the victory by Scott Brown in the race for Ted Kennedy’s former seat in ­Massachusetts, the south has become as much a curse as a blessing.  If the “Grand Ol’ Party” wants to win nationally in 2010, it must attract ­voters who do not identify with southern values.  And if it wants to harness, as it did in Massachusetts, the power of the anti-Washington “tea party” ­protests – the grassroots movement that emerged in 2009 in opposition to Obama’s tax and spending plans – it may have to distance itself from the southern establishment.  The great paradox of recovery, then, is that it now seems that the fastest way for the Republican party to return to its broader base of the late 1990s and early 2000s is at the expense of its most loyal and ardent followers.

[Emphasis added.]  Note the reference to “spiritual.”  There are other references in the piece to the Bible Belt and its importance to Republicans.  As I said before, the issue lies in the word “authentic.”  The Republicans lost so broadly last time because they were no longer “authentically” conservative.  Romney lost last time for similar reasons, and those concerns were given great force, as we have documented endlessly here, by the ugly “Mormons lie” meme, the roots of which lie in theology.

More importantly, this blog post contends that Sarah Palin is the only uniting figure in the entire Tea Party Movement.  The heart of Palin’s appeal, for most everyone I talk to, is the “authenticity” she demonstrated in carrying her Down Syndrome son to term and raising him.  They can rely on her to be a “real” Christian.

Speaking of Palin, she is leaving the door open to a run.  And she does not appear to want to do so for a third party:

Asked whether she sees herself as a member of the tea party movement or a member of the Republican Party, Mrs. Palin said, “I think the two are, and should be even more so, merging.”

“Because the tea party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform, are supposed to be about — limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That’s what the tea party movement is about. So I think that the two are much entwined,” she said.

Actually, I’d call that hedging her bets.  In many senses the Tea Party movement is her base.  The other thing, aside from Trig, that gave her “authenticity” last time was how far she was from the mainstream of the party.  Lowell said when this discussion started that the movement was similar to the “Perotistas” of the Bush/Clinton election – which is a good analogy.  Palin is going to find herself with a problem if she actually does try to run.  More in a moment – back to the movement and religion.

It is fair to say that the Tea Party movement as a whole is not going to dip into the religious wars we saw last time.  You are not going to see leading religious figures arguing about genuine faith in the movement, at least not until the movements death throes.  But there is little doubt in my mind that religious impulses lie in the emotional mix of a large section of the Tea Party people.

Someone could come along and play on that impulse, and religion could come front-and-center again.

The future for the movement is, from my perspective fractured.  It’s single defining characteristic is dissatisfaction and such people can only ever agree to disagree, thus they will never be able to organize sufficiently to stand alone.  Those interested in changing things will indeed be “subsumed” into the GOP because that is how they will get things done.  Those interested solely in being dissatisfied will begin to grow dissatisfied with each other and they will fracture into a million pieces.  Some of those pieces will be overtly religious and they could get really ugly in 2012.  But it will be rhetorical ugliness only, their very nature will render them ineffective.

This is where Palin’s problems will arise, if she decides to run.  The fractures will be such that she will not have enough support in the Republican party to prevail in the primaries, and there will not be enough of a party outside of it to succeed in the general.  From our perspective, the question is which direction will the religiously motivated amongst the movement go?  My guess is the third party route.  Wonder if the Huckster will try and get in front of that parade?

But then political predictions are worse than Super Bowl picks, so take it for what its worth.

Lowell adds . . .

I still see the tea partiers as mostly libertarian in outlook. Their primary message is about economic liberty.  A quick visit to the Tea Party Nation web site seems to confirm my sense of them.  The links there to “strategic partner” sites includes only a couple of faith-based organizations. 

Still, I think John is right that most religious conservatives tend to identify with tea partiers.  There’s little doubt that religious folk who are also politically conservative are generally liberty-oriented as well, even if the liberty they care about relates to government staying out of religion or out of parents’ ability to raise their families in accordance with their beliefs.  All in I think the tea party movement is going to strengthen the GOP, not weaken it (assuming the organized GOP and indvidual Republican politicians are not stupid in their dealings with the movement). 

As John suggests, one positive result from the tea partiers’ infusion of vigor and fire into the Republicans will be the balancing of the “Religious Right’s” influence.  Putting it another way, the party does not do well when one of the three legs of the GOP “stool” (family values, economic liberty/small government, and strong foreign policy) is longer than the other two.   I think we had that problem with the family values leg in 2006 and 2008.  In 2009-10, we saw the economic liberty forces come roaring back, and as a result we got two Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia and a Republican senator in the seat Ted Kennedy held. 

Finally, in relation to this blog’s mission, I think religious concerns will fall behind, or at least even with, economic liberty in 2010 and 2012.  That’s a good thing.  If we’ve learned anything in 222 years under the Constitution, the country does better when the “public religion” Lincoln talked about is at the forefront of our politics, rather than more sectarian views.  Here’s an interesting First Things summary of Lincoln’s views and their impact:

It is to Lincoln that we owe our modern–day Thanksgiving, and the fact that it is celebrated by Americans of every religion and no religion also bears traces of Lincoln’s attitude. Owing, perhaps, to his own theological skepticism, he steered clear of sectarian squabbles, refused to countenance nativist anti–Catholicism, and changed “Christian” to “religious” in the chaplaincy program to accommodate Jewish chaplains.

In Lincoln’s mind, public religion and nationalism were bound up together. From his “Young Man’s Lyceum Address” in 1838 . . .to his presidential speeches, Lincoln made clear that he wanted national unity “under God” and reverence for law as “the political religion of the nation.” Whatever else this mix of sanctity and politics produced, for generations after his death it had the effect of uniting a diverse people in the belief that they were all, somehow, participating in a great eschatological drama.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Attactivism (noun) : Movements that run attack ads or run campaigns disguised as activism.  Case in point: theteapartyisover.org.

Organized labor may be putting their dollars behind an online effort to take down Tea Party groups and their “radical ideas.”

A new Web site, TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, has connections to unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The American Public Policy Committee pays for the site, whose self-declared mission is to “prevent the Tea Party’s dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction.”

According to Opensecrets.org, the top two financial backers of the American Public Policy Committee this year are Patriot Majority West and Patriot Majority, largely funded by union dollars.

Read More At dailycaller.com

Watch on You Tube

I have to tell my readers how much respect and admiration I have for Davide French, and his Wife Nancy, for the role they are playing in helping Mitt Romney become the 45th President of the United States.  They are doing so by helping their fellow Evangelical Christians learn how to love their Latter Day Saint Christian brothers and sisters.

Many have felt, especially during the past few years, that the bigotry springing forth from the majority of those who call themselves Christians, or disciples of Jesus Christ, have been anything but what they claim to be.  In fact, their behavior and spiritual nature appeared to be closer to that of the Pharisees than it was to Him who was the meekest of us all, The Lord Jesus.  The same cannot be said of David and Nancy French.  I declare that they are true disciples, “in word, in conversation, in faith and in charity.”  God bless you French’s for your strength of character and for being wiling to “take a bullet” in order to do what feel to be the right thing.

I usually don’t post stuff on this blog of a religious nature, but I do feel that David’s post is worthy of re-posting.

One of the great and unexpected blessings of our little Evangelicals for Mitt operation has been seeing how God’s hand has been at work. And when I say that, I don’t mean politics. God holds the nations in the palm of His hand, and as much as we may think (or may think we know) His will in any given political race or political controversy, we don’t. Our perspective is not eternal, our “wisdom” is foolishness compared to God’s, and we humans often have trouble seeing the nose on our face, much less truly understanding the complexities of our own culture. We do our best — because that is our calling — but we completely depend on God to make things right.

When I say that I’ve seen God’s had at work in our efforts here at EFM, I’m actually talking about our relationships with our LDS readers. We stuck our necks out just a tiny bit to declare unequivocally not just our support for Mitt but also our respect for his faith, and the LDS community responded with what is best described as a tidal wave of love in response. This moved me before I left for Iraq, but it turns out that I’d only experienced half the story. The rest — and the mysterious ways of our God — follow.

When I landed in Iraq, I landed in a remote Forward Operating Base near the Iranian border. There we slightly less than 800 of us in our unit, and we were put in the middle of a hornet’s nest. Al Qaeda controlled the countryside, and Thanksgiving morning, 2007, marked the beginning of a nearly year-long battle to drive them out. We lost many good men, including good friends. It was the hardest year of my life.

As you might imagine, there weren’t many LDS Soldiers in our unit. In fact, there were exactly two active LDS members, plus one who describes himself as Mormon-Catholic-Agnostic (he grew up LDS).

How do I know this? Because two of them were my roommates, and one of them was my paralegal. What were the odds? I didn’t choose my roommates, and I didn’t choose my paralegal, but there they were — assigned to me — after I’d spent the better part of the last year working hand in hand with our dear LDS readers, getting to know a dear LDS family (the extended Romney family), and enduring the occasional slings and arrows from those who opposed our efforts. In fact, one of my roommates had even heard of Evangelicals for Mitt and read some of my posts.

It’s strange, but the instant I learned they were LDS, I knew that we would be brothers — and we were. I like to think that maybe when they learned who I was and what I’d been doing with EFM, they knew they had a friend. And I know they loved me and supported me in a way that’s difficult to describe.

God’s ways are mysterious, but they are good. And even if this EFM effort isn’t politically successful, it has blessed my life.

One final note. When I was gone, my wife organized — working thorugh SixSeeds, a Boston-based charity — Operation Send-a-Box which supplied my entire unit (and everywhere else on our base) with a care package that contained clean sheets, towels, reading material, new DVDs, and other “necessities” to help make our remote base a bit more hospitable. When it was all said and done, 2,500 packages arrived. They came from across the country and even from abroad, but where did the largest shipments come from? Tennessee (where I live), Massachusetts (the home of SixSeeds), and . . . Utah.

So before the political wars heat up again, I wanted to pause for a moment and say thank you. Thank you for enriching our lives. And thank God for the blessing of these relationships.

And now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

Nancy at Political Party Time Blog has this article on Mitt’s “Bowling with Mitt” Event.

This just came in from a trusted source: not an invitation, per se, but an invitation to be listed on an invitation from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney–widely seen as a frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, which provides a window on to how these events are organized.

Romney was trolling (deadline was yesterday) for hosts and co-hosts for an event benefiting his Political Action Committee,  Free & Strong America PAC, on Feb. 11, for bowling at Lucky Strike Lanes. His ask: raise or contribute $1,000 to be a host, $500 to be a co-host.

Romney has used the PAC to contribute to such candidates as the new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, (Romney takes credit for Brown’s win here) as well as GOP leaders such as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

I want you to be among the first to know about an upcoming event for the Free and Strong America PAC, featuring Gov. Romney.  On Wednesday, February 17th, Mitt will be in DC and is doing an event for his PAC at 7:00 pm.

I hope you will consider being a Host or Co-Host for this fun event – Bowling with Mitt.  The money raised will go toward the important efforts of Mitt’s Free and Strong America PAC to promote conservative causes and help Republican candidates in 2010.

Are you able to serve as a Host or Co-Host (and have your name listed on the invitation) for the “Bowling with Mitt” event on February 17th? The price to attend will be $150/person, and we are asking Hosts to raise or contribute $1,000 and Co-Hosts to raise or contribute $500.  If you are interested, please e-mail Gretchen Moss at gretchen@gretchenmoss.com, and let us know how you would like your name listed on the invitation. The deadline for getting names on the initial invitation is Monday, February 1st at 5:00 PM.  Please also forward this e-mail to any others that you think may be interested in Hosting or Co-Hosting.  Complete Event details are below:

Bowling with Mitt

and Celebrity Bowlers

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

7:00 pm

Lucky Strike Lanes

Gallery Place

701 7th Street NW
Second Floor

Washington, DC, 20001

Host: Give or raise $1,000

Co-Host: Give or raise $500

Attend: $150

Watch and enjoy.  It is amazing to see how much in denial Barack Obama is in the fact that his nationalized health care plan went down the drain, especially after all the absolute promises he made to people that it would pass…by the end of 2009!

This is the YouTube video that has generated a major buzz, allegedly showing Sarah Palin reading crib notes written on the palm of her hand.

If any techies can critique this video for us by giving us your opinion on whether or not you think it is authentic, please feel free to weigh in with your opnions in the comments section.

Never a dull minute in politics, is there? Oh, wait, I almost forgot. With the exception of Obamas speeches, when their are a multitude of dull moments.

~~John Cronin~~

If you are a conservative or a center-right voter, take the time to watch this excellent YouTube video that exposes the smears and outright lies that were used to prevent Gov. Romney from winning the nomination of the Republican Party and thereby ushering into power someone who looks like a man on track to become the worst President in the history of the Unites States of America.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Those of us who follow politics on a daily basis do so for a variety of reasons.  It is always interesting, sometimes fun, we get to make friends who are on the same page as we are and who are kindred spirits.

Sometimes it is deadly serious.  In the article I reposted from the excellent COMMENTARY MAGAZINE,  Rick Richman writes about the paper produced by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the very possible scenario it projects for the dangerous situation we see with a nuclear armed totalitarian regime in Iran and it’s threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

~~John Cronin~~

By: Rick Richman

In a significant paper at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jeffrey White and Loring White discuss the results of war games on the Iranian nuclear program conducted by three think tanks — at Harvard, Tel Aviv University, and the Brookings Institute — all of which ended in defeats for the U.S. and Israel. The common results were:

* The United States did not obtain meaningful cooperation from other countries.
* Sanctions did not seem to work.
* The United States was unwilling to use military force or support Israeli   military action even after other measures failed.
* U.S.-Israeli relations deteriorated dramatically.
* Iran continued toward a nuclear weapons capability.

The paper concludes that the U.S. needs to “play” much differently in the coming months if it wants to avoid those results, and time “is running out.”

The signals sent by the State Department since the expiration of Obama’s “deadline” have only reinforced the sense that the administration has no Plan B. On January 12, the department spokesman emphasized that recourse to the “pressure track” would be “a very long process,” starting with discussions of “ideas that any of the [P-5+1] partners have on how we can get Iran to live up its international obligations.” The “discussions” have largely been phone calls, since the administration cannot get the Chinese to send their political director to a meeting.

On Friday, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley announced that Under Secretary William Burns had a 90-minute conference call with his P-5+1 “counterparts” that discussed “both the pressure track and the negotiation track; discussed next steps in the process, both in terms of negotiation, took stock of the recent comments by Iran, but also continue to evaluate potential actions on the pressure track as well.” His statement produced this colloquy:

QUESTION: When you said counterparts, did that include the Chinese political director, or was it, in fact, the sous chef at the Embassy? (Laughter) …

QUESTION: Did they — I’m sorry if I missed it, but did they actually agree on any additional sanctions or language regarding –

MR. CROWLEY: That wasn’t the intent of the call. … It’s hard to characterize it other than they had a detailed discussion of where we are in the process and shared ideas on both tracks.

Discussions were supposed to have occurred long before this. On April 22, 2009, Hillary Clinton assured the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the administration was laying the groundwork for crippling sanctions if engagement failed:

BERMAN: … I can’t get away from the fact that Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability keep going ahead, and — and that this engagement can’t be so-open-ended that we essentially pass the threshold that we’re seeking to avoid by virtue of the engagement. … Are we pursuing the — the default position, the — the leverage that I think will make the engagement more likely as we deal with key members of the international community and the Security Council?

CLINTON: … As the president said in his inaugural address, we’ll hold out our hand. They have to unclench their fist. But we are also laying the groundwork for the kind of very tough — I think you said crippling — sanctions that might be necessary in the event that our offers are either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful.

Nine months past Clinton’s assurance, two months past the “deadline,” it is apparent that no groundwork has been laid. The discussions are just beginning; it will be a “very long process”; the administration is unenthusiastic about pending legislation authorizing “crippling” sanctions.

You don’t have to be part of a Harvard think tank to see where this is headed.

Read More at commentarymagazine.com

...if this is terrifying or comforting: Florida Sen. George LeMieux -- who is, if you ask me, keeping Marco Rubio's seat warm -- says that if we simply cut the federal government's spending back to 2007 levels, we'd run a big surplus. Comforting because that seems an easy and non-radical fix; terrifying because think of how much of my kids' money Congress has spent in such a short time.

Posted by Sarah Lenti

Greetings, EFM fans! You probably didn't notice, given that the Frenches are the real talent in these parts, but I've discovered to my chagrin that this is my first post of 2010. Whoops. Don't worry; I didn't sign up with the Huckabeeans over Christmas. But as we all know, there are many things in life beyond politics, and for a time, those crowded this humble blog out.

Now I'm back, just in time to see U.S. Senator Scott Brown (oh, how sweet the sound!) sworn in on Capitol Hill. May I say a few words about that?

First, as has been discussed here already, Gov. Romney played an integral, behind-the-scenes role in getting Sen. Brown into the race and raising money for him when no one outside of Wrentham knew his name. It seems to me he deserves credit not just for helping, but for keeping his mouth shut in the best interests of his team -- not something at which most politicians excel.

That, however, should not have been an immense surprise, at least to those of us who have followed Gov. Romney for years. Let me tell you something that did surprise me, then: the way the conservative grassroots embraced Sen. Brown.

Why? Because it stood in stark contrast to the kind of junk we saw in the 2008 presidential race, namely the never-ending search for a "conservative messiah." We've inveighed against this at length here, and I'll spare you a regurgitation of our brilliant arguments, because that's not the point. The point is: The grassroots embraced Sen. Brown because he was the man for the moment, not because they deluded themselves into thinking he was perfect.

And let it be said, he's not perfect. He's pro-abortion, for one thing. Yes, he's less pro-abortion than the mind-boggling Massachusetts left. But he is unequivocally in favor of Roe v. Wade. Also, while he has stalwartly stood against ObamaCare, he's made clear that he will not be a down-the-line fiscal conservative. ("I'm a Scott Brown Republican," he says.)

I supported him anyway, of course, and based on his fabulous money bomb, I wasn't the only one.

Why does this matter so much?

Because in the Massachusetts special election, national conservatives essentially had three options:

1. Support a good candidate who had a chance and was right on the two major issues where an extra Republican senator could make a difference (ObamaCare and terrorism), pretty good on many more (tax cuts come to mind), and bad on some that are presently out of reach (most notably abortion).

2. Try to find a perfect conservative candidate, in Massachusetts of all places.

3. Sit on our hands in the absence of such a candidate.

In the 2008 presidential race, many (most?) conservatives embraced an odd mind meld of options 2 and 3. The result? Republican nominee John McCain, President Barack Obama, and a government takeover (or near-miss, as with health care) of huge and important parts of our economy. Had we done so in the Massachusetts special, surely the result would have been Sen. Martha Coakley and the passage of ObamaCare, along with who knows what else. How gratifying that conservatives chose the wiser option. Can we do the same in 2012?

By the way, I don't mean by the rationale above that conservatives should accept all Republican candidates. There are some who are simply not worth supporting, and are even worth vocally opposing. One of these was my home-state Sen. Arlen Specter, who until recently called himself a Republican. Conservatives rightly opposed his renomination in 2004, when he was challenged by then-Rep. Pat Toomey, and I for one found Sen. Specter so objectionable -- and so, in fact, inferior to having a real Democrat in office, who would at least not do harm to the reputation of the party that is most often home to conservatives -- that I supported the Democrat in the general election. There are other examples, such as former senator Lincoln Chafee (who won his primary in Rhode Island but lost the general and is now an independent) and former Alaska governor Frank Murkowski, who was toppled in a primary by a little lady you may have heard of on account of his corrupt dealings.

But opposing liberal Republicans who are doing damage and could reasonably be replaced with a better candidate is a far cry from endlessly lusting after a perfect candidate (or, as he is usually called, "true conservative"). The truth is, there are no perfect candidates, because there are no perfect people. That, incidentally, is a lesson some conservatives in my native land seem to need to learn this year, especially after Massachusetts. Some have decided that Pat Toomey -- who was the conservative alternative in 2004, spent the next few years taking out liberal Republicans as head of the Club for Growth, and is now the odds-on favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, is not a "true conservative," mainly because he said he would have voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor.

There in 2010 and nationally in 2012, conservatives need to do what we did in Massachusetts: back a sound candidate who is right for the moment and concede that he is not and never will be perfect. And you'll forgive me if I am getting more and more convinced that the right man for a moment with ten percent unemployment and rampant government overspending that threatens my kids' prosperity is the economic guru and turnaround artist who also happens to have a wonderful family life and the right values.

There are a lot of vicious rumors flying, obviously encouraged by the Andrew Cuomo stealth campaign for governor, regarding allegations the NYTimes is working on a story that would be embarrassing to NY's current governor, David Paterson.

Rick Lazio is the ONLY leader in NY who is calling for some common decency, and demanding that the NYTimes either confirm it's working on a story or print it. This is quickly becoming the 2010 version of the "Michele Obama Whitey Tape." This has been going on for over a week now, it's past time to put the story to bed.

"The rumors about the Governor are a sad reflection of Albany politics,” Lazio said. “No public official deserves to be the subject of over a week of innuendo and nasty speculation. If the New York Times is working on or has a story then they should confirm or print it. If they do not, then they have an obligation to stop this rumor mongering right now. Common decency demands it."

We’ve heard the line, it would be on CSPAN.  When Scott Brown was driving his truck around Massachusetts, the Democrats were behind locked doors combining the House and Senate Health Care Bills.  When talk show hosts rolled out the audio of this video from breitbart.tv (see above), all it showed was Obama breaking another campaign promise.  No big deal right?

They say hell knows no fury like a woman scorned, but hell hadn’t heard about public relations at that stage.  In the post-Scott Brown/State of The Union world of politics, the Obama Administration has taken on a new form of Transparency.

The first tactic of the Administration’s ’New Found Transparency’ took place the day after the State of the Union Address.  According to Politico :  “Less than 24 hours before President Barack Obama was to participate in a question-and-answer session with House Republicans at their annual retreat — the White House called Mike Pence’s office with an unexpected request. Could the event be televised?..”  (see Politico).

For anyone interested in watching one of the biggest game changers in 2010, take a view at this.

The self-inviting Obama turned into the Republican Party crasher, far beyond the likes of Tareq and Michaele Salahi.  Obama brought in the cameras, changed the focus, and forced his critics to accept his terms, and had it televised!

When Obama sat down with Katie Couric on the Superbowl pre-game show on CBS, Obama claimed he would host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform (see Politico).  Let me be the first to speculate, I don’t think he told any of the Republican congressional leaders about this plan.  If am I right, then this tactic is not transparency, this is ‘Malicious Transparency’.

How does forcing the agenda upon the Republican Party, picking the setting, and televising it ever got to be considered transparency?  It is far closer to a show trial or a court involving a hopping marsupial from Australia.

Craig Edwards

One of the great and unexpected blessings of our little Evangelicals for Mitt operation has been seeing how God's hand has been at work. And when I say that, I don't mean politics. God holds the nations in the palm of His hand, and as much as we may think (or may think we know) His will in any given political race or political controversy, we don't. Our perspective is not eternal, our "wisdom" is foolishness compared to God's, and we humans often have trouble seeing the nose on our face, much less truly understanding the complexities of our own culture. We do our best -- because that is our calling -- but we completely depend on God to make things right.

When I say that I've seen God's had at work in our efforts here at EFM, I'm actually talking about our relationships with our LDS readers. We stuck our necks out just a tiny bit to declare unequivocally not just our support for Mitt but also our respect for his faith, and the LDS community responded with what is best described as a tidal wave of love in response. This moved me before I left for Iraq, but it turns out that I'd only experienced half the story. The rest -- and the mysterious ways of our God -- follow.

When I landed in Iraq, I landed in a remote Forward Operating Base near the Iranian border. There we slightly less than 800 of us in our unit, and we were put in the middle of a hornet's nest. Al Qaeda controlled the countryside, and Thanksgiving morning, 2007, marked the beginning of a nearly year-long battle to drive them out. We lost many good men, including good friends. It was the hardest year of my life.

As you might imagine, there weren't many LDS Soldiers in our unit. In fact, there were exactly two active LDS members, plus one who describes himself as Mormon-Catholic-Agnostic (he grew up LDS).

How do I know this? Because two of them were my roommates, and one of them was my paralegal. What were the odds? I didn't choose my roommates, and I didn't choose my paralegal, but there they were -- assigned to me -- after I'd spent the better part of the last year working hand in hand with our dear LDS readers, getting to know a dear LDS family (the extended Romney family), and enduring the occasional slings and arrows from those who opposed our efforts. In fact, one of my roommates had even heard of Evangelicals for Mitt and read some of my posts.

It's strange, but the instant I learned they were LDS, I knew that we would be brothers -- and we were. I like to think that maybe when they learned who I was and what I'd been doing with EFM, they knew they had a friend. And I know they loved me and supported me in a way that's difficult to describe.

God's ways are mysterious, but they are good. And even if this EFM effort isn't politically successful, it has blessed my life.

One final note. When I was gone, my wife organized -- working thorugh SixSeeds, a Boston-based charity -- Operation Send-a-Box which supplied my entire unit (and everywhere else on our base) with a care package that contained clean sheets, towels, reading material, new DVDs, and other "necessities" to help make our remote base a bit more hospitable. When it was all said and done, 2,500 packages arrived. They came from across the country and even from abroad, but where did the largest shipments come from? Tennessee (where I live), Massachusetts (the home of SixSeeds), and . . . Utah.

So before the political wars heat up again, I wanted to pause for a moment and say thank you. Thank you for enriching our lives. And thank God for the blessing of these relationships.

And now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

CNN reports

In an interview recorded Saturday and broadcast on "FOX News Sunday," Palin said she would run "if I believed that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family."

"I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country," Palin said, later adding: "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why CBS decided to air the Tim Tebow “Focus on the Family” Super Bowl ad: there really wasn’t that much controversy with it at all.

Abortion was never mentioned directly through the 32-second spot; instead the main focus of the ad was Pam Tebow talking about her difficult pregnancy and how happy she was now that Tim was grown-up and successful.

Did the ad have a pro-life message? Certainly so, but it also wan’t necessarily trying to shove a political agenda down your throat.

Read More at examiner.com

President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform.

The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle but not a signal that the president plans to start over, as Republicans have demanded, a White House official said.

“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Obama said in an interview with Katie Couric during CBS’s Super Bowl pre-game show Sunday.

Read more at politico.com

FLASHBACK:  The Last Time Obama Meet with Republicans

Prez Obama says that everybody connected with New York City and New York State saying “No” to his hare-brained idea to try KSM & Co. in lower Manhattan makes it “difficult” to have the trial there.

Here’s a more accurate word for it……”Impossible!”

~~John Cronin~~

President Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday that local opposition is likely to nix the administration’s plan to hold the trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. “I have not ruled it out,” Obama told Katie Couric of CBS News. “But I think it’s important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you’ve got a city that is saying ‘no,’ and a police department that’s saying ‘no,’ and a mayor that’s saying ‘no,’ that makes it difficult.”

For further information log goto politico.com

While America sits down to watch Super Bowl XLIV, Rasmussen Reports 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing as President, while Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove.  Giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. Rasmussen added, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

It’s worth noting, Bush has a 40% approval rating going into the 2006 Mid-Terms, the same election Republicans lost control of the Senate & Congress.

Complete Poll Results at rasmussenreports.com

I have just finished watching CBS’ Katie Couric interview Obama (shown on the pre-game Super Bowl XLIV show), and still Obama pushed Health Care, now urging Republicans “to put their ideas on the table.”  When Couric pressed the topic of jobs, and how too much time was spent on Health Care Reform, Obama went on his stump speech line of how the Stimulus ‘created and saved jobs’.  It seems the folly of his first year in office, and the Scott Brown result meant nothing to him.  It’s full steam ahead for the Obamacare, the question is, will the Democrat majority in both houses follow the conga-line to defeat in November?

Craig Edwards

Was this speech worth paying Palin $100,000 to give?

COMMENTS WELCOME

by Colleen O’Connor

To hear an interview with Colleen O’Connor, download episode 19 of the Solid Principles Podcast

‘T’ is for Tea Party

The fuse was lit in Virginia.

It moved along in New Jersey.

And it caught fire in Massachusetts.

The “Teabag Revolution” has put every politician on notice.

Some political and electoral dynamite may be coming your way.

Winning three governorships for the GOP in formerly Democratic states, is impressive.

Disparaged as an “astro turf”– not a grass roots revolution — the Teabaggers (no offense intended) have pinned the tail on the Democratic donkey, but aren’t exactly happy with the Republican elephant, either.

Republicans heard several warnings at their annual retreat last week;

• that the GOP must now “present a positive agenda;
• needs to take time to meet with Tea Party activists, listen to them and “walk among them;”
• and pay attention to the public’s anger. As one attendee cautioned, according to the voters, “even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat.”

Driven by rage, the tea partiers take orders from no one, wait for their wave to surge, and then surf it to the shores of victory. Sometimes they use great stealth, as in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Meanwhile, the ruling class is sunning itself on the sand piles of near bankrupt coffers, bankrupt ideas, and bankrupt speeches.

Read more at sdnn.com

In my previous posting on 2009 PAC results, I neglected to include the donations each PAC gave to non-Federal campaigns. Here is the updated tally:

The Percentages represent the ratio between the donations made to the Total Contributions Received.

As can be seen, Huck-PAC gave the biggest chunk of their incoming donations to other campaigns, Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC gave the smallest. Sarah PAC trailed Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC.

The lagging of Sarah-PAC and FF-PAC is understandable since this is their first year of existence. They had to build up some operating capital and spend some money just getting up and running. Hence they have less to spend on other campaigns.

No matter how you slice or dice it, Huck-PAC gave the largest percentage to others in spite of having the least amount to spend. Kudoos go to them.

GREG ASKS: When likely will the 2012 gop candidates start announcing 2012 runs, like between fall thanksgiving 2010 and new years?

There are no real ‘hard and fast’ rules when announcing a Presidential Campaign.   According to Wikipedia, the 2008 Presidential Election saw Democrats Mike Gravel announced on April 17, 2006, followed by Tom Vilsack on November 30, 2006, Dennis Kucinich  December 12, 2006, John Edwards December 28, 2006, Joe Biden January 7, 2007, Chris Dodd January 11, 2007,  Hillary Clinton January 20, 2007, Bill Richardson January 21, 2007 and Barrack Obama February 10, 2007.   Beating the pack was Evan Bayh who announced in the aftermath of Kerry’s defeat in the 2004 election.

On the Republican side: Sam Brownback January 20, 2007,  Duncan Hunter January 23, 2007, Mike Huckabee January 28 2007, Rudy Giuliani February 5, 2007, John McCain February 28, 2007, Ron Paul March 12, 2007, Tommy Thompson April 1, 2007, Tom Tancredo April 2, 2007, Jim Gilmore April 26, 2007, Fred Thompson September 5, 2007, Alan Keyes September 14, 2007 and Mitt Romney February 7, 2008.

Going by this data (one has to consider this election involved a retiring President), the opposition party tend to announce after the Mid-Terms up to February the following year.  The incumbent party candidates usually announced the following year.  Another factor to consider is that the Democrats gained both houses during the 2006 Midterms.   This had a tendency to push forward Presidential announcements to take full advantage of the Mid-Terms victory momentum.  Meaning, Republican Presidential candidates speculation could be touted closer to the 2010 Mid-Terms.

Craig Edwards

SUPER BOWL XLIV: New Orleans vs. Indianapolis, 6:25 ET

WHAT TO WATCH FOR: These were the two best throwing teams in the NFL this season, and this championship game has the makings of a high-scoring affair, especially if the Colts can’t generate any pass rush and if the Saints are unable to create their typical turnovers.

OK, defensive end Dwight Freeney will attempt to play on that right ankle with ligament tears. Only Freeney knows how long he will last or if he will be effective with his patented spin move. Of course, Raheem Brock and Robert Mathis are capable of generating pressure, something Saints QB Drew Brees ducked against the Vikings in the NFC title game by quickly dumping off the football. Brees is smart enough to avoid the turnover, and if the Saints can run Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush effectively, the Saints will have a chance to control the clock and keep the ball away from Peyton Manning.

The Colts averaged a league-worst 81 yards on the ground this season, and the Saints are expecting Manning to come out throwing while hoping he doesn’t get into a quick rhythm.

When Manning won his only Super Bowl here in Miami, it rained from start to finish. The skies are expected to be clear and in the mid-60s at kickoff, or ideal for throwing and throwing often.

New Orleans figures to play a two-deep safety look with man coverage at the line of scrimmage. The Saints need to be physical with the Colts receivers at the line of scrimmage.

Now, Manning does excel against man coverage, but the key will be whether Saints safety Darren Sharper can properly disguise his intentions, especially when he lines up in the box and attempts to run back to the deep middle.

The Saints are here because they forced five turnovers against the Vikings, and they are capable of doing that again because they all attack the football, trying to strip the ball first rather than going for the tackle.

Should the Saints open with a nickel defense, don’t forget key nickel CB Randall Gay missed practice the past two days because of a stomach illness. Otherwise, the Saints secondary is finally healthy and CBs Tracy Porter and Jabari Greer are capable of sticking with Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon, but it’s unlikely any New Orleans linebacker can stick with TE Dallas Clark.

Manning did throw 16 interceptions, five more than Brees did during the regular season, but it would be surprising if he forced the ball in this game. By spreading the Saints on defense, the Colts would have the option of running the ball, but they would probably only do that when trying to ice a 10-point lead.

On the flip side, the Colts are very quick on defense, and the chance of rookie CB Jerraud Powers being able to play will only help against the varied cast of receivers employed by the Saints. The Saints have two excellent deep threats in Devery Henderson and Robert Meachem, but also quality slant receivers like physical Marques Colston and healthy Lance Moore. In the red zone, Brees can also find TE Jeremy Shockey, who looked great in practice all week, and Bush, who is very good on quick, underneath routes and quick swing passes.

The Colts have plenty of speed in the secondary with CB Kelvin Hayden, who will match up on Colston, and safeties Antoine Bethea and Melvin Bullitt. Unlike Tony Dungy’s teams, these Colts don’t play a bland cover two defense. New defensive coordinator Larry Coyer will blitz and alter his looks in order to confuse Brees and bring extra pressure.

The Colts carried 10 defensive backs this season, so there are plenty of guys to rotate into the action if this game does turn into a shootout. Believe me, the key to this game could come down to which quarterback makes the best hot-read completions against the blitz.

Read More at Fox News

President Obama has vowed: “I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform.” Either this is empty rhetoric or the man is delusional. He doesn’t seem to understand what happened to him and his radical party on Jan.19 when Scott Brown won back the “people’s seat” in Massachusetts. Mr. President……the American people have walked away from you.

~~John Cronin~~

“I’m not going to walk away from the American people. I’m not going to walk away on this challenge. I’m not going to walk away on any challenge.’

President Barack Obama vowed Saturday to beat a “blizzard” of opposition and to salvage his crusade for change, leaving a snow-buried White House to rally Democrats spooked by looming November polls.

Obama motorcaded through deserted Washington streets during a historic winter storm to fire up a party rocked by panic and disaffection after the president’s reform drive hit a roadblock after just a year in power.

“(It’s) good to be among friends. So committed to the future of this party and this country … a blizzard … Snowmageddon here in DC!” Obama told Democratic National Committee members hunkered down in a Washington hotel.

Obama sharply warned that he would not give up on his effort to pass health care reform through Congress, even though the loss of the Democratic Senate supermajority leaves his wavering party few easy options to enact it.

“Just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform,” Obama said, in one of his most feisty speeches since his 2008 election campaign.

Read More at breitbart.com

Share this URL of this image http://is.gd/7Rbd6

Or copy & paste this embedded code below on your Blog

<img src=”http://www.solidprinciples.com/files/8912/6551/8623/pelsoi2010.jpg” alt=”TAKE BACK CONGRESS 2010 – www.solidprinciples.com” width=”450″ height=”1000″ /></p>

MORE IMAGES HERE

Harry Reid may soon have one more Republican opponent in Nevada’s race for the U.S. Senate, and his numbers remain in troublesome territory for an incumbent. Reid, like a number of Democratic Senate incumbents, appears to be suffering from voter unhappiness over the national health care plan and the continuing bad state of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Reid earning 39% to 41% of the vote against any of four GOP challengers. Still, that’s an improvement from last month when he picked up just 36% against his top two opponents. But Reid had 43% support against those two Republicans in December.

His Republican opponents, meanwhile, are not doing as well this month, down slightly from the 50% high they’ve hit in the previous surveys. This continues to suggest that the race is still about Reid and not about them.

Any incumbent who is earning less than 50% at this juncture is considered vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.

Businessman Danny Tarkanian now leads Reid 47% to 39%. Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, holds a 45% to 39% lead on the Senate majority leader, while former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle earns 44% of the vote to Reid’s 40%.

Nevada Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki, another Republican who is now reportedly considering entering the race, barely edges Reid 44% to 41%. A judge in December dismissed an indictment against Krolicki alleging that he mishandled money while serving as state treasurer. Krolicki charged that the indictment was politically motivated.

In all four matchups, those who prefer another candidate or are undecided are in single digits.

Male voters prefer the Republicans by double-digit margins in all four potential contests, while female voters trend slightly toward Reid. Voters not affiliated with either party break strongly toward the Republicans, particularly when Tarkanian is the choice.

Nevada Republicans will pick their Senate candidate in a June 8 primary.

From Nate Gunderson at Race42012:

(Note: I know Mark had posted a similar story to this here earlier, but as my data and review are a little different I’m posting mine as well.)

With the last bit of fundraising data in (the total number of donors to Romney’s PAC), we can now make a proper evaluation of the fundraising abilities of the 4 most-likely-to-run GOP candidates and their respective PAC’s. One major problem is that there are so many uncommon denominators in the results that there is no easy indication of a clear winner, nor of a clear loser.

First let’s look at the raw numbers. Before anyone gets too excited about it, you should recall that T-Paw’s PAC was only in operation in the fourth quarter, plus other variables that I will explain.

(*** Disbursed=expenditures COH= Cash on hand $ to Cand.= money given to GOP campaigns for office)

Review of performance:

Mitt Romney Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, is the most cut and dry scenario we have of the four. His PAC was intact for the entire year. He didn’t have distraction or obligations that others did. The numbers here tell the most of the story. He raised money very well, and he notably spent more also. The story here that is not told in the numbers is even though most of the would-be GOP nominees gave about 2% to other GOP candidates for office, Romney’s impact on behalf of other GOP candidates can arguably claim to be the highest as he has had time and means to hold many fundraisers for them. A fundraiser bringing $200,000 (as some did) is of lot more value than the max $5000 his PAC can contribute directly to them. A few of the unseen benefits of Romney expenditures include items of great reward: freedom to travel as necessary to endorse, raise funds, do media appearances and speeches, and otherwise keep his name and face out there. Plus he is able to maintain he excellent campaign team through to the next election cycle, which is virtually the same team that helped propel Senator Scott Brown to victory.
Mitt Romney’s Grade: a (solid) B+ Romney raised the most (from the highest number of donors) and has the most cash on hand, but with his network and relative freedom that would be expected. Expectations are the only reason I don’t score him higher.

—————————————————————-

Sarah Palin SarahPAC didn’t quite pull in as much as the FSA-PAC, or from as many donors, be she certainly didn’t focus on it much because of a number of factors: SarahPAC didn’t form until a couple months into year (she was still Governor of AK at the beginning of ‘09), she focused some fundraising efforts on her legal funds rather than her PAC, and much focus of the year went to writing and touring for her new book. Even so she has a healthy amount of cash on hand that she’ll be able to disperse of more liberally (to conservatives) as we go throughout 2010. Also her star power is a huge asset at this time. She may not have raised as much, but it won’t matter as she can use some of her own new found wealth to more than compensate for a relatively small difference in total number of dollars raised.
Sarah Palin’s Grade: B- With a little more focus on her PAC she should be able rival Romney’s numbers. The decision to focus on that is hers to make. With her new contract with FOX News, I’m not sure if that will happen. But then again the net benefit of being on FOX may be more than any funds she can raise… unless her contract brings her to the point of over exposure. I believe there is some risk in that.

—————————————————————-

Tim Pawlenty T-Paw and his Freedom First PAC got a much later start than the rest but it has impressed with his good-sized catch. The high average dollars per donor shows that he does have at least some ties and connections that will be vital should he decide to run (I’m sure he has already decided.) Even so, one should not make that mistake of thinking that since he only had 1 quarter to raise funds that $1.3 Million x 4 = $5.2 Million for the year. Certainly as some donors begin to max out ($5000 max contribution) that rate cannot be continue to be sustained. One way to be certain is to see where we are at the end of June 2010, where it will be easier to compare apples to apples. One other item that limits his current freedom is that he is still a sitting Governor whereas the others are merely former Governors and are free to move about.
Tim Pawlenty’s Grade: A- Sometimes it’s not how much you’ve raised, but how you did compared to expectations. I expected some, but not that much, especially given his lower name recognition.

—————————————————————-

Mike Huckabee HuckPAC is a little harder to grade than the others for the reason that- yes, he’s got some boots on the ground, but does that make up for the relatively low fundraising? Huckabee also has a distraction with his show on FOX. That kind of weekly exposure should be a boon to name recognition, which it is as evidenced by him being right at the top of most polls, but it all needs to transfer into some increased ability to raise funds. Huckabee did great on meager funds in the 2008 election, and it may turn out similar for him in the 2010 primary, but such a plan would not work in the general election. Raising more funds will be a must for him at some point in the future.
Mike Huckabee’s Grade C+ In comparison to the amount that T-Paw raised in one quarter, and to Romney’s 3 times average dollars per donor, the fundraising is unimpressive. BUT… 16,000 donors is a very good number. I would think to give a lower grade otherwise.

—————————————————————-

Newt Gingrich: Newt? Hey, he doesn’t have a PAC. Yes, but many are quick to point out that his 527 (American Solutions for Winning the Future) raised $6.4 Million. That’s more than the others put together! … Yes, but a 527 group is a totally different animal. It does not have the $5000 donation limit that PAC’s have. They are also limited in that they cannot directly support (or oppose) candidates for office …. just for clarification.
Newt’s Gingrich’s grade N/A Apples to apples… Besides my guess is that he will only tease and hint at running, but will not enter the fray.

Result: Yes, in my opinion the winner by a slight degree is T-Paw, mostly because of the ever present “expectations”. Time will tell if his fundraising is sustainable. If it is, welcome to the top-tier.

~Nate Gunderson

One other note: we should see the low percentages of money given to other campaigns go up as we get closer to the 2010 elections. The year 2009 was more of a ‘fill up the treasure chest’ type of a year.

FEC filings (for you data geeks): Free and Strong America PAC, SarahPAC, Freedom First PAC, HuckPAC

The Year-End reports for the various PACs are now in. Here are the raw numbers for the Free and Strong America PAC (Romney), Sarah PAC (Palin), Huck PAC (Huckabee), and the Freedom First PAC (Pawlenty):

	FnSA-PAC	Huck-PAC	Sarah-PAC	FF-PAC
Cash On Hand Start of 2009	$338K	$80K	$0K	$0K
Cash On Hand End of 2009	$1125K	$192K	$928K	$884K
Contributions > $200	$2022K	$223K	$756K	$1141K
Contributions <= $200	$849K	$590K	$1367K	$94K
Contributions from other PACs	$42K	$10K	$8K	$45K
Total Contributions:	$2870K	$813K	$2131K	$1280K
Other Income	$695K	$11K	$1K	$0K
Total Income	$3565K	$824K	$2132K	$1280K
Operating Expenses:	$2669K	$668K	$1142K	$380K
Donations to Others:	$58K	$20K	$46K	$17K
Other Expenses:	$51K	$24K	$16K	$0K
Total Expenses:	$2,778K	$712K	$1204K	$396K

First, a few comments:

• Only FnSA-PAC and Huck-PAC were in existence the entire year of 2009. Sarah-PAC was in operation for eleven months and FF-PAC only for the last three.
• The first three months of a PAC’s existence are often “Barn Burners”.  Their numbers usually settle down after that first quarter.
• The “<=$200″ and “>$200″ categories are often misunderstood.  The numbers reflect the total contributed by that person for the entire year. So for example if one supporter donates $20 every month to a PAC, they would end up donating $240 for the entire year and thus would be classed in the ‘>$200′ catagory even though they had made twelve sub-$200 donations.

Here are the Contributions per Month numbers:

FnSA-PAC	Huck-PAC	Sarah-PAC	FF-PAC
$239K	$68K	$194K	$427K

As you can see, Pawlenty did far and away the best here.  Since this consists entirely of the FF-PAC’s first quarter year of existence, it is difficult to compare apples to apples with the rest of them.  The numbers next year will give us a better idea on how well he is doing in relationship to the others.  In the meantime, Romney led the rest with Palin close behind with about 80% of his total.  Huckabee is far back with only about 16% of Pawlenty’s, 28% of Romney’s, and 35% of Palin’s.

Here are the percentage of $200 or less donations for each candidate:

FnSA-PAC	Huck-PAC	Sarah-PAC	FF-PAC
30%	73%	64%	8%

Huckabee  received the greatest portion of his donations from small donations — nearly 3 out every 4 dollars he took in came from this catagory.  He was followed closely by Palin — nearly 2 out of three dollars.  Romney had one out of three dollars of donations that came from this source.  Pawlenty had less than one in ten.

As with all percentages, it is important to remember the raw numbers here.  For instance, even though Huckabee’s percentage was more than double that of Romney’s, he in actuality took in considerably less money from “sub-$200″ contributors than Romney.

Here are the percentages of “Donations to Others” to “Total Contributions Received”:

FnSA-PAC	Huck-PAC	Sarah-PAC	FF-PAC
2.00%	2.14%	2.13%	1.31%

As can be seen, Romney, Huckabee, and Palin are all well within the same ballpark while Pawlenty lags behind.  This is understandable since they are just getting started.

All PAC s have similar numbers.  The sad fact of the matter is they are all extremely inefficient at getting your money into the hands of outside people and causes the PAC supports.  They exist primarily to promote the cause of the PAC’s controller.  If you want money to get to a particular candidate, it is far better to contribute directly to his campaign or his PAC than to an outside PAC.  Less than a penny of your donation dollar will make it to him from the outside PAC.

I am looking forward to July of next year.  That is when the mid-year numbers will come out.  All PACs must file them mid-year reports.  They will all have been in existence for more than three months.  That means those numbers will be apples to apples — no caveats.

Much like the stock market, Obama’s approval numbers also dropped.  In the aftermath of the State of Union address President Obama’s approval jumped to -4, now five days later it drops back to – 15.  According to Rasmussen, 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve while Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove.  That brings Obama to the same levels pre-SOTU.

Read More at rasmussenreports.com

Mitt Romney Central remembers a great American on what would have been his 99th birthday. Happy birthday to our 40th United States President, Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911– June 5, 2004) Two-term president Ronald Reagan (1980-1984 and1984-1989) is remembered for unleashing a series of powerful economic and political initiatives that came to be characterized as the Reagan Revolution. [...]

The Solid Principles Report: February 5th, 2010

The retirement of North Dakota Democrat Senator Byron Dorgan, has seen a swing towards the Republicans with the announcement of current State Governor John Hoeven for the seat.  We speak to Adam Jones of the Republican Party of ND about the race. Has Sen. Brown made the Pick-Up Truck a symbol for Republicans to rally behind? We speak to Ken Mettler, a candidate in the California State Assembly about his upcoming Scott Brown inspired rally.

DOWNLOAD

(Note: This is this my own analysis of things as I see it. I do not represent Romney’s PAC in any way, nor have any connection to them. But I am available for hire should they ever call on me. No, I kid.) With the last bit of fundraising data in (the total [...]

“If the Senator-elect will now present himself to the desk, the chair will administer the oath of office,” intoned Vice President Joe Biden yesterday (2/4/10) at Scott Brown’s swearing-in ceremony. Brown, accompanied by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA), strode across the senate floor where Biden was waiting to administer the constitutionally [...]

Obama said, in refering to his attempt to pass his Health Care Bill that:  “Here and now we will meet history’s test.”

Mr. President, the voters just graded your test paper and your score is……F.

~~John Cronin~~

WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can’t. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation’s health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress.

The president’s newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama’s comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama’s signature health legislation with no clear path forward.

“I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks, and then let’s go ahead and make a decision,” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

“And it may be that … if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not,” the president said. “And that’s how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they’ll be able to make a determination and register their concerns.”

It was a shift in tone for the issue the “Yes we can” candidate campaigned on and made the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year. In a speech to a joint session of Congress in September, Obama declared: “I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. … Here and now we will meet history’s test.”

Read further reports

by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

‘I am not an ideologue,” protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union with his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society — health care, education, and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a “jobs bill.”

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’”

Read More at NRO

Good.  You incompetents can’t get any traction for your poisonous bills.  Expect more of the same as an angry electorate  instructs it’s elected representatives to thwart your long cherished goal of turning America into Albania.

Now that Chris “Lame Duck” Dodd doesn’t have the clout to ram thru anymore destructive financial “reform” bills,  maybe the stock market can resume it’s climb.

~~John Cronin~~

Bipartisan Senate talks on financial reform legislation have broken down, complicating efforts to pass financial reform legislation that’s at the top of President Barack Obama’s agenda this year.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a statement Friday that the months-long closed-door talks with his Republican counterpart on the banking committee, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, “have reached an impasse.”

“While I still hope that we will ultimately have a consensus package, it is time to move the process forward,” Dodd said.

Dodd and Shelby met Thursday afternoon and their discussion seemed to go well, according to a source familiar with the negotiations, with Shelby expressing a continued commitment to finding a compromise.

Staffs for the two senators met for several hours afterward, however, and were unable to reach consensus. The main sticking point between the two sides is how strong to make consumer protection authority in the legislation, sources said.

Read More At Politico

Sparring between Congress and the White House over treatment of the suspect behind the Christmas Day bombing attempt escalated further Thursday, with Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) accusing the administration of releasing sensitive national security information to the press and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indignantly demanding an apology.

Bond, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, complained that, on Monday, administration officials asked lawmakers to keep the renewed cooperation of suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a secret but that, on Tuesday night, the White House gave reporters a detailed background briefing on how FBI interrogators used the suspect’s family to win his trust.

“It is deeply disturbing to me that the Intelligence Committee would be advised of sensitive information and told of the vital imperative to keep such information secret for the sake of national security, only to see this information — less than 24 hours later — broadcast to the world from the White House,” Bond wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama. “This distortion of the congressional notification process suggests that other considerations are taking precedence over keeping timely and sensitive information away from our enemies.”

Gibbs said the briefing for journalists was done only after Abdulmutallab’s new talkativeness emerged during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday. Said Gibbs: “No briefing is done here or anywhere in this administration where classified information is used in a place where it shouldn’t be.”

Gibbs demanded an apology, but Bond declined. “After telling me to keep my mouth shut, the White House discloses sensitive information in an effort to defend a dangerous and unpopular decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab, and I’m supposed to apologize?” Bond said through a spokeswoman.

Bond also took a shot directly at Gibbs. “He keeps shoveling no matter what happens,” the senator told Fox Radio.

Read more at Politico

Posted by Sarah Lenti

Our newest team member Dave P. has been busy helping us fill our static pages with excellent content. These pages are located permanently in the drop-down menus at the top of the page. Here are some of the pages he has completed: On the Issues >> America’s Culture and Values On the Issues >> Immigration Resources >> Books [...]

Woo Hoo! This is the kind of stump speech more candidates need to have. We all need to take the same oath as members of the military take, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

~~John Cronin~~

The best point? When Colbert says that gay marriage is not permissible according to "the guy who wrote the Bible."

When I got to the gallery the Senate was in a quorum call, and the floor of the senate was mostly empty aside from the clerks, parliamentarian staff and the president pro tem. Then a few Senators started to make their way to the floor. Vice President Biden, who is responsible for swearing in Senators, came to the floor and more Senators came to take their seats. Biden, who is constitutional office is also the President of the Senate, took his seat, and Majority Leader Reid called the quorum call to an end. They acknowledged that they had received then Senator-elect Scott Brown's necessary paperwork from the Massachusetts Secretary of State and proceeded to the swearing in.

Massachusetts Senator Kerry and former Senator Paul Kirk, who was the previous person in the seat, escorted Brown up to the dias. I was told is the tradition. Vice President Biden came down, asked Brown to raise his right hand, and administered the Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Senator Brown held a book of scripture in his other hand, actually there were two books. I could only see the top one, which was a red Holy Bible. (Found out later they were the Bibles of his two daughters.) He affirmed the oath, and the chamber erupted in applause. The public in the gallery was applauding enthusiastically as well, and the ushers half-seriously told everyone "no applause, no applause" but there was a lot of winking and nodding happening as the applause continued unabated.

When he signed the paperwork that completed the official event. Afterwards there was a ceremonial swearing in that isn't open to the public, there are some pictures of that in this slideshow.

Congratulations again Senator Brown, we look forward to your success in helping govern our great nation!

As you can see at the Free & Strong America PAC today is the last day to give President Obama a grade for his first year in office.

Here is my favorite so far:

"Since I am only 22 and rely mostly on what I’ve read and heard about previous administrations, I won’t compare President Obama to others. Instead, I will hold him to a standard of what I expect from my President. I expect my President to keep his campaign promises. I expect my President to tell the American People the truth. I expect my President to explain why he can’t answer a question if he can’t and to never make up an answer he thinks will gain him popularity. I expect my President to take ownership of his share of the blame and praise for the state of our country. I expect my President to make the tough decisions that will determine the future of this country and to not pass off his responsibilities to others. According to all of these measures, my President has failed and I HOPE he CHANGEs soon." - Ross Abraham

[Here's an excerpt from an email I received from Carly Fiorina's campaign.}

Last week, America turned to Washington to tune in to the President’s State of the Union address and his budget proposal. We were promised hope for a path through these difficult economic times; we wanted change from Washington’s status quo. Unfortunately, we got neither.

As I was talking to Californians this week, I heard people say again and again how tired they are of Washington’s rhetoric and lack of real action. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues say they will fight for you and me, but they waved the white flag a long time ago when it comes to saying no to the special interests.

We don’t need another career politician in Washington. We need common-sense problem solvers who will put the needs of Californians first. As a U.S. Senator, I will stand up for California and remind Washington who is really in charge: you.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Today, Feb.4, 2010 at 5PM Eastern, newly elected Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown will take his seat in the U.S. Senate.

He originally had planned to take his seat Feb.11, but a series of votes is on the Senate calendar and Sen. Brown decided he couldn’t take the chance on missing an important vote. In my opinion, given this Congress’ shameful record of passing major legislation on weekends and slipping in toxic 300 page amendments in the dead of night, Sen. Brown has made a wise choice. If we have learned anything over the course of the last year, it is that this collection of tax and power hungry politicians can not be trusted with anything that is not welded to the floor.

We have witnessed history in the making over the course of the last several weeks and some of us have actually participated in that history. Scott Brown’s “Brigade” was a group of grassroots activists in MA. and from around the country who rose up spontaneously, much like the Tea Party movement. It has been the best civics lesson that I have ever had, to be a part of a group of free Americans, exercising our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to help steer the country back from the edge of the cliff, a cliff that Obama and his hard left enablers in Congress were trying to push us over.

Of course, none of this would have happened without the courage and vision of two men. Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.

Mitt Romney, because of his foresight and dedication. Scott Brown because of his courage and willingness to buck the MA. Democratic machine.

Gov. Romney endorsed Scott Brown in October of 2009, when Scott had the proverbial snowball’s chance in a hot place to beat Martha “Landslide” Coakley and her armies of union and out-of-state campaign workers. That move was the essence of political leadership. Romney came out for Scott Brown before he became the hottest commodity in Washington or anyplace else for that matter.

No one on the national scene had ever heard of Sen. Brown at that point, but Gov. Romney used his unique knowledge of Massachusetts politics to pluck Scott from the state Senate and encourage him to run for the “Kennedy seat,” or as Scott famously put it, the “people’s seat.”

Gov. Romney then used his vaunted fund raising ability to help provide the seed money for Scott’s campaign and a group of Romney political operatives then swung into action to advise Scott on tactics and branding. They did a masterful job of that, winning convincingly in a state that has an Independent registration of 50% of the electorate and a 3 to 1 Democrat advantage.

In the process of helping to elect Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, Mitt Romney did more than any one person I can think of, with the possible exception of Scott Brown himself, to spare this country from the tender mercies of Obamacare. The significance of what happened in this special election may not have dawned on many people yet. We have seen the emergence of a strong, disciplined and a very effective opposition to the hard Left in this country.

I think it is highly ironic that the same people who tried in vain to label Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper” on abortion are strangely quiet these days. Where were you folks when the MA. election was coming down to the wire? You had plenty to say in 2007-2008 when Gov. Romney was running in the primaries and you were constantly informing the rest of us that Mitt was a johnny-come-lately to the pro-life camp. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t use some of that lung power to make calls from home to help Brown get elected and stop Obamacare from permanently funding abortion with your tax dollars.

So, the man who was derided as not having pro-life bona fides, who had allegedly taken the position only to court the Right Wing of the Republican Party, is the man who helped stop Obamacare dead in it’s tracks. In the process of achieving this historic win, Gov. Romney has worked to ensure that everyone in the medical profession who believes that abortion is morally wrong can continue to work in the field that they love. He has ensured that the monstrous taxes contained within this bill will not be implemented in an already weak economy.

As we move toward the 2010 elections, Gov. Romney will continue his role in rebuilding the Party and in the process, staking his richly deserved claim to the Republican Presidential nomination!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Posted by Sarah Lenti

Before we get too deep into things, you can go to this “YouTube” and hear Mitt Romney read the introduction to his forthcoming book. (HT: Race 4 2012)  The comments at the “hat tip” are fascinating.  The first one says a great deal:

While there has been a plethora of books by former candidates (Huckabee, Palin, Obama), each has been about themselves. In many cases (especially in Huckabee’s case), it was a way to settle perceived slights.

However, here is real leadership. Romney is looking beyond the mark into what is best for this nation.

There is some interesting media thought there.  The personal actually “sells” in this day and age.  Our current president is the king of “I” – people do not always know how to relate to the kind of service and leadership that Romney demonstrates here.  My impression is that the nation is quickly returning to more solid underpinnings as we learn the lessons the hard way, but it will be an interesting contrast as we move forward.

As an example of his service mentality, Romney is going to raise money for John Thune’s 2010 Senate run.   Thune is quickly joining Pawlenty as the other serious alternative to Romney for the GOP presidential nomination in ‘12 – and yet Romney is going to help him.  The man is obviously far more interested in getting done what needs to be done than advancing his own possible candidacy.

And before we get to Mormons, we need to look briefly at Evangelicals.  Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, who should be in one of the most secure seats in the nation, finds himself being challenged in the next election.  His opponent:

Coats was a key behind-the-scenes force in convincing John McCain to take Sarah Palin seriously as a vice presidential candidate. He was a member of “The Family,” a close-knit group of rigorously evangelical Christians who run, among things, the now well-known C Street rooming house in Washington, D.C. He also lobbied on behalf of Roache Diagnostics during the health battle reform battle.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on this campaign in the ‘10 cycle and see how the religious angle plays.  It could tell us a lot about religion, Romney and ‘12.

And this is unbecoming.  I am no fan of Obama or his agenda, but the seriousness of his faith is between him and his God.  Technically, this is about his Office on Faith, but the headline and lead are a little too attention grabbing.

Utah . . .

. . . is  still in the running for the 2012 GOP convention.  Says Jay Evenson of the Deseret News:

Maybe Mitt Romney will be the nominee in 2012. If so, does he want to deliver an acceptance speech in a venue that would draw more attention to his Mormon faith than his leadership abilities? The Salt Lake area is gorgeous and has much to offer, but it offers absolutely nothing politically for the GOP, which already owns this state.

It has got to be hard to be Romney right now.  He has done so much for the SLC area with the Olympics and these conventions bring big money into an area, but he must at least want to lobby against this because Evenson is absolutely right – from Romney’s perspective, the convention should be anywhere but Utah.

Mormons . . .

Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke at BYU-Idaho last weekend.  Seems like that is the selected venue for Mormon Elders to go to make bold statements.   I am not sure this time went as well as last time.  Quoth Ballard:

“You remember Mr. (Mike) Huckabee (who was also vying to be the Republican candidate for president), who among other things said that Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil were brothers?” Ballard asked students. “Remember that? It went all over the media.”

“Well they are!” Ballard exclaimed to a laughing student body.

“But they (the media and nonmembers) don’t understand that, because they don’t have the (LDS gospel) restoration. They don’t understand the spiritual relationship that … we are all sons and daughters of God, and that Lucifer was one of those and (that) he chose to use his agency in an unrighteous way.”

Declaring the Mormon belief is fine, but tying it to Huckabee makes it a problem for Romney – particularly that way.

There is a school of thought, one I basically agree with, that Romney should not worry about being called “Christian” – he should just acknowledge that the LDS faith is quite different from traditional Christianity and move on from there.  I know how difficult that is given the Mormon conviction that it is Christianity restored, but politically, it’s a loser discussion.  For Elder Ballard to point out that Mormons believe very differently from others is a proper move in that direction.  But to do so while acknowledging one particular Mormon belief – even with the proper explanation – that most traditional Christians would find very troubling does not help at all.

In this internet age, even this obscure story from a local paper gets picked up and spread widely.  Mormons are free to believe whatever they want, but they need to work on media management if they want one of their own to occupy the highest office in the land.  After all, W, or his pastor, did not spend any time explaining how the media does not really know what they believe.  They just let it go, even though they were grossly misrepresented in the press any number of times.  Do the job, worship in church, allow your worship to make you a better person and do your job better and leave it at that.  Anything else is picking a fight – in this case a fight that Mormons can only lose.

Lowell adds . . .

I don’t have too much to add, except to note that Mormon belief about Satan’s origins is not that different from the commonly-held Christian notion that Satan (Lucifer) is a “fallen angel.” But that gets into religious doctrine and we do not want to go there – and neither should the news media or any political candidate.

By the way, I heard today that Marco Rubio is outpolling Charlie Crist in Florida in the race for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination there.  It is not hard at all to imagine Mr. Rubio as the next senator from Florida.  Let me be the first to predict the 2012 GOP ticket:  Romney-Rubio!  Isn’t speculation fun?

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.