Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

"The first thing [Gingrich] does -- even before he's sworn-in -- after he's elected -- is he starts going after Congressman Charles Diggs, calling for his expulsion on ethics violations because he was taking kickbacks from his staff. He was paying them high salaries and then they were kicking back cash to him ... and he succeeded. He got Diggs to ... he was first censured -- and then he resigned from Congress."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Two Republican governors -- New Jersey's Chris Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker -- have made news by taking on tough issues in their states, including confronting labor unions and employee pensions that have contributed to crippling their state's economies.

But while both have become heroes to national conservatives, it is interesting to note that both were arguably the more "moderate" candidate in their respective GOP primaries.

Christie's opponent, former Bogata Mayor Steve Lonegan, was clearly positioned to the right of Christie in the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial primary, and even continued criticizing him after Christie's election.

The ideological contrast in Wisconsin's gubernatorial primary was much less stark, but former Rep. Mark Neumann (who stood up against big-government Republican leadership plans while in Congress) was clearly the outsider -- while the state and national GOP establishment rallied around Walker.

So why have these particular leaders risen to the occasion? There are several theories, but no single answer that's clear to me.

Perhaps the problems confronting these states are so obvious that the need for leadership and boldness trump any ideological daylight between reasonably conservative candidates. Maybe the tea party zeitgeist is powerful enough to provide additional courage for GOP leaders. Or maybe there is a real disconnect between those who wear their conservatism on their sleeves versus those who can actually implement it legislatively.

That theory might help explain why Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has decided to duck the labor fight.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Presently, there are two groups of classical liberals that represent one-third of the conservative coalition - Conservative-Movement Libertarians and Neo-Objectivists. Conservative-Movement Libertarians are the majority and associate themselves with the traditional "Classical Liberal" wing of the conservative coalition. They are not only ardent limited government supporters but understand the importance of being part of a larger coalition in order to actually achieve legislative and electoral victories. They understand that being right, in the sense of being philosophically correct, is not sufficient to win.

On the other hand, Neo-Objectivists, led by Rep. Ron Paul (TX-14) and his affiliate groups, demand libertarian ideological purity and are outright hostile to the other strands of the conservative coalition. The Neo-Objectivists are the modern descendants of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism. While Rand is known primarily for her two novels - Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead - her philosophy of objectivism, stressing radical self-interest and domestic isolationism, lives on through the Neo-Objectivist's cult-like following of Ron Paul and their zealous, if not, belligerent display of licentiousness. For example, as former Vice President Dick Cheney was speaking at the recent CPAC, this crew raucously yelled at him throughout his speech calling him a "war criminal."

There is no doubt the lure of objectivism is attractive to many, especially to younger masses as they are still discovering their political and moral compass in life. The rejection of the welfare state, the virtues of the free market, and the celebration of individual self-assertion are popular themes of the libertarian right and are shared by "fusionist" movement conservatives. So why are these conservatives upset by this small minority? While claiming they are conservative - they are not, and because they are not only disagreeable, but also hostile to the other two legitimate strands of the conservative movement - Traditionalists and Anti-Communists

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

We're going to make sure that organizations that adhere to our beliefs get invited. So that includes GOProud or anybody else, so we're going to go through a vetting process to see what they stand for.

If you are a group, this has got nothing to do with orientation -- if you're a group of straight couples that advocate for gay marriage, then that's not within the scope of what we believe that the three legs of the stool of the movement are. So it's got nothing to do with the orientation. It has got to do with the principles that you advocate. There are of gays in America that don't advocate the gays-in-the-military issue or gay marriage, and so they'll fit within the tent of what we stand for. . . So we'll do our best to be inclusive while at the same time adhering to the principles that Ronald Reagan dreamed about and we've been following.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Lamontagne, a lawyer by profession and the 1996 gubernatorial nominee, backed Romney during the 2008 primary. Two prominent Romney backers, Jim Merrill and Charlie Spies, were top Lamontagne aides, Merrill as campaign manager and Spies as a senior advisor.

In the final weeks of the primary campaign, Lamontagne was surging, making up ground on the better-known [Kelly] Ayotte and coalescing conservatives behind him. A kind word from Romney, who is popular among New Hampshire Republicans -- to say nothing of a full-throated endorsement -- would have done wonders for Lamontagne's campaign. As it turned out, Ayotte won by 1,659 votes, or 1.2 percent.

Now, of course, the chickens are coming home to roost. It is Romney who needs support in the Granite State. And when you consider the number of candidates who will be courting the Republican electorate, it's easy to see how someone who narrowly lost a U.S. Senate primary might be able to make or break a candidate's chances of winning the primary.

In fairness to Romney, choosing to stay out of a contested primary in New Hampshire made a certain amount of strategic sense. But it doesn't negate the fact that it appears Lamontagne -- or at least, some Lamontagne supporters -- still feel betrayed.

The latest example comes from Harold Turner, who was Lamontage's finance chairman during the 2010 race.

On his blog today, Turner writes,

Former Governor Romney missed an opportunity to seal the deal with Ovide's support when he failed to endorse Ovide and help fundraising in the 2010 US Senate primary race, which as we all know was decided on the day after the primary by about 1% of the vote between Ovide and now US Senator Kelly Ayotte. That move, or lack there of, didn't sit well with many Ovide supporters for obvious reasons.

Clearly, as politics go, it was the "safe" move at the time. However, in business and in life, the safe move doesn't always win the prize......no risk-no reward. Most of us can look back in our lives and see the decisions we could have made, but didn't, and the roads we would have then followed........ good or bad. Only time will tell for Mitt Romney. The next move is Ovide's.

A friend of mine once said, "Your friends will work all day to help you get elected, but your enemies will stay up all night to make sure you don't."

I don't have to tell you how important New Hampshire is in determining the GOP nominee for 2012, and it sounds like there will be some people in the Granite State who might just be staying up all night to make sure Romney doesn't win the primary.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

"Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson [Cooper]. Where was her buddy [General Stanley] McCrystal."

"Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don't support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too."

"Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than I'm sorry."

"ah f--- it, I apologize for being insensitive, it's always wrong, that's obvious, but I'm rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get."

Many of [Rosen's] tweets are given over to expressions of hatred of Israel, and wishes for its destruction. He openly advocates for violence against Israel: "Yes to a 3rd Intifada. This time hopefully with the support of the Palestinians citizens of 'Israel,' " and he states that "Israel's existence is a blight unto the nations." He also appears to believe that Iran should be a nuclear power: "I wish all these Sunni Arab dictators on Wikileaks would explain what the hell is so bad about Iran having nuclear weapons." On October 10th of last year, he tweeted, "new racist Israeli citizenship law should be celebrated. It exposes what Zionism really is, will further ostracize Israel, speed its demise."

The creepiest tweet of Rosen's is this one, I think, from December 3rd, 2010: "On Hannuka, Just think, if only the Greeks had been better at counterinsurgency we wouldn't have these problems today. Where was Petraeus?" The meaning of this is fairly obvious: Hannukah marks the defeat of a Syrian-Greek empire by a Jewish insurgency. If the Greeks had won, the Jews would have been slaughtered. He also wrote that same day, "genocide is modern concept (except when jews are doing it on god's orders in the old testament) greeks were just hellenizing."

October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. "They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks," he wrote, ". . . once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

By now you may have heard of the outrage spawned by a proposed Mississippi license plate that honors Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. (For those searching for a pop culture reference, he was Forrest Gump's namesake).

As Tom Diemer noted earlier, Forrest "is regarded by admirers as a military genius who left the Klan because of its violent ways," but "critics point out he was a Klan grand wizard, and during the Civil War he led a massacre of African-American Union troops in the 1864 Battle of Fort Pillow in Tennessee."

While the license plate controversy is certainly an interesting local story, I can't help thinking the national media narrative -- which has cast Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour front and center in the debate -- is a bit forced.

A few points may put this in perspective . . .

First, in order for this measure to pass, it will have to first be approved by the state Legislature -- including passage by the Democratic-majority State House.

As Barbour said Tuesday, "I know there's not a chance it'll become law."

What is more, the plate idea was proposed by private citizens for the state Legislature's approval. Barbour did not come up with the idea, nor does he have the authority to stop or expedite the measure until it reaches his desk -- which, by the way, will never happen.

As the Mason County Daily News reported, "The design featuring Forrest is being proposed for release in 2014. A vote by the Mississippi Legislature would take place in 2013."

Barbour's term ends in 2012.

As a self-described "fat redneck," Barbour certainly faces challenges as he contemplates a presidential run. What is more, he has made gaffes which have reinforced the negative stereotype about him.

Barbour's biggest problem in this instance seems to be that he refused to denounce Forrest. When asked by a reporter, Barbour said: "I don't go around denouncing people. That's not going to happen. I don't even denounce the news media."

This conveniently fueled media headlines such as: "Barbour Won't Denounce KKK Leader." These are the same manufactured news stories conservatives have become accustomed to. Here's an example: "Matt Lewis Won't Say if Sarah Palin is Qualified to be President."

The problem with media narratives is that once they develop, reporters tend to see everything through that prism. In this regard, Haley Barbour has a big obstacle to overcome. He will be dragged into every controversy that takes place in the next two years. Will Haley Barbour denounce the burning of Korans? Will Haley Barbour denounce . . . fill in the blank.

Regardless, unless I see more evidence of Barbour's involvement in this issue, I'm inclined to say, "That dog won't hunt."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Erik Whittington of Rock for Life, a pro-life group that focuses on using music to reach out on the issue of abortion, says he's glad Bieber is pro-life, but hopes he will rethink his position on abortion in cases of rape.

"Great news, as Justin Bieber has huge influence on young people," he said. "But Justin, I thought you said, 'It's like killing a baby?' If it is, which it is that, what is the problem? Why the hesitation? How come it's OK to judge other situations but not this one?

"Don't get me wrong, I'm excited that he is making this bold statement in Rolling Stone magazine, but please let this be a learning experience for us all -- when asked about abortion in the cases of rape we must answer a bit more convincing than that," Whittington said.

This may serve as another indication of how young people are increasingly becoming anti-abortion.

But there is one huge downside to this: Now that Bieber has announced his position, I may have to rethink my stance . . .

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

From Karen J. Greenberg, Executive Director, Center on Law and Security

Nir Rosen is always provocative, but he crossed the line yesterday with his comments about Lara Logan. I am deeply distressed by what he wrote about Ms. Logan and strongly denounce his comments. They were cruel and insensitive and completely unacceptable. Mr. Rosen tells me that he misunderstood the severity of the attack on her in Cairo. He has apologized, withdrawn his remarks, and submitted his resignation as a fellow, which I have accepted. However, this in no way compensates for the harm his comments have inflicted. We are all horrified by what happened to Ms. Logan, and our thoughts are with her during this difficult time.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Buried in the Washington Post story on Marc Grossman taking over as the new U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan are some interesting references to the possible departure of U.S. commander General David Petraeus.

"... virtually the entire U.S. civilian and military leadership in Afghanistan is expected to leave in the coming months, including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and the embassy's other four most senior officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the U.S.-led international coalition, and Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, who runs day-to-day military operations there," it says.

"No final decisions have been made, but military officials said that Petraeus, who took command last July, will rotate out of Afghanistan before the end of the year," it adds.

Petraeus has been talked about for a while as a possible successor to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), who is expected to retire in October. Any move would be part of a broader shake-up in the administration, which will also see Defense Secretary Robert Gates retire this year.

Update: The Pentagon is pushing back on this report. Kevin Baron of 'Stars and Stripes' Tweets:

DOD spksmn Morrell: "Despite some sensational speculation by one of the London papers, I can assure you General Petraeus is not quitting ... but nor does he plan to stay in Afghanistan forever. Obviously he will rotate out at some point," but not yet determined or anytime soon.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

So what's my problem with Flake?

1. He's bad on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He obviously hasn't read the DOD report and their recommendations or he would realize what a tremendous cost this is going to be for the American tax payer. I have posted it here for you. Do yourself a favor, and start reading at page 131. The good stuff doesn't happen until they start talking about redefining what a "dependent" (which will have a huge impact on the cost of housing and benefits) is. I'd also like to point out that he voted for this during the Lame Duck session -- which was the last gasp of Nancy Pelosi and the House liberals to try and ram down the American people's throats legislation that in a few short weeks would never have made it out of committee. Flake helped them.

2. The so called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Flake voted in favor of telling businesses who they could and couldn't hire. How is that conservative? Now the interesting thing here is that Nancy Pelosi and her friends really wanted to add sexual expression and identity (men wearing dresses to work) to the list as well, but settled for this as a first step.

3. Pledge Protection Act. Flake voted against protecting the United States flag from desecration. Before those of you who only get out of your mom's basement to either vote for Ron Paul or attend CPAC jump all over me about this, the only reason I bring this up is that it passed, and even RON PAUL voted to protect the flag.

4. Internet Gambling. Flake is on the opposite side of social conservatives and major league baseball, football, basketball, etc.

In 2006 and 2007, Flake was a congressional supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. In 2007, he was part of a coalition that introduced the STRIVE Act. Like all immigration legislation, it went nowhere. But go back and read it -- it included visas for undocumented immigrations, and a pathway to legalization for anyone who met employment requirements and citizenship requirements (like command of English), and paid a $1,500 fine plus application fees. Perhaps more importantly, it included the DREAM Act of 2007 as part of the bill. That's the legislation for legalization-through-public service that became anathema to conservatives in 2010.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Early in my parents' marriage, my father had told his bride she was the first thing he wanted to see upon waking each morning and the last thing he ever wanted to see. Now, in the critical moment, calling on some deep reservoir of strength hidden away in his ravaged mind, he was somehow willing himself to fulfill that desire.

His eyes found the face of the woman who, for more than half a century, had formed the core of his private world. "I love you, honey, I love you" was all she could say -- was all she needed to say. Sometimes eternity is compressed into an instant, the celestial wheel seems to catch and hold -- but only for an instant. The blue flame guttered and extinguished. His eyes dimmed. With a quiet exhalation, my father settled back onto his pillow and died.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments