Final Thoughts

The election is upon us, and it looks as though the Republicans are going to take over the House of Representatives, but just fall short in the US Senate.

However, the question is, how big is this wave election? We'll probably be able to find out by the Congressional races here in Iowa.

If it's a small wave, Leonard Boswell wins in IA-3.
If it's a big wave, Boswell loses in IA-3.
If it's a huge wave, Boswell loses in IA-3 AND Braley loses in IA-1
If it's a ridiculous tsunami, Boswell, Braley, and Loebsack lose in IA-3, IA-1, and even the most liberal IA-2, producing five Republican Congresspersons from the state of Iowa.

Thus, when you're watching returns tomorrow night, be sure to watch these races. They'll give you an idea of how the Republicans will do nationwide.

Also, from the Wall Street Journal.

It took Democrats in the House of Representatives 40 years to become out-of-touch enough to get thrown out of office in 1994. It took 12 years for the Republicans who replaced them to abandon their principles and be repudiated in 2006. Now it appears that the current Democratic majority has lost voter confidence in only four years.

While I disagree with many of Rep. Baird's stances (D-Washington), he makes some very astute points. Republicans would be wise to understand that voters, especially in a down economy are not going to be very patient. As such, if the GOP does take over part or all of Congress, it will be their responsibility to govern wisely.

If they do not, then it will only take 2 years for the GOP to lose voter confidence. At that point, 2012 will be a disaster, as President Obama will be reelected, the Democrats will control Congress yet again, and Obama will nominate another two Supreme Court justices, tipping the balance of justice in favor of liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Yeah...the stakes are that high. We Republicans are about to receive a gift from voters. Let's not squander it.

Tuesday Afternoon Musings

It's primary day in the Northeast, and Delaware Republicans have a choice between winning Vice President Biden's Senate seat or losing it. Mike Castle, the moderate Republican running for the seat is not very conservative, and not my favorite politician. However, even a quality conservative candidate would have trouble winning in Delaware (Christine O'Donnell, Castle's inexperienced challenger, is no Marco Rubio), and these political facts cannot be changed.

Thus, I'm thinking that a Mike Castle win tonight will put more Republicans in the Senate, while a Castle loss would mean more Democrats there. I'm not a petty man, but I love the fact that VP Biden's former Senate seat could switch to Republican if Mike Castle wins.

I already adore the fact that liberal lion Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat belongs to Republican Scott Brown.

Furthermore, I'm really excited to see that President Obama's former Senate seat could soon belong to Republican Mark Kirk.

The real question is, are we a party that can accept moderate Northeastern Republicans? If we are not, we should throw out Scott Brown now, and the GOP should avoid spending campaign money in 12 states because the GOP will rarely win up there.

Jay Cost, over at Weekly Standard:

By and large, genuinely conservative candidates are going to have a difficult time getting elected and staying elected in the Northeast.

With the exception of the once-in-a-while Scott Brown type of candidate (and O'Donnell is clearly no Scott Brown!), the GOP can run moderate Republicans in the Northeast, or it can effectively cede the region to the Democrats, who will elect by default some of the most liberal members in the entire United States Congress. Which is it going to be?

Is this really a tough call for conservatives?

Can we have Northeastern Republicans who aren't as conservative as Utah or South Carolina Republicans? YES!

---

Good news from the courts:

A federal judge said Tuesday he is likely to let 20 states proceed with at least a portion of their lawsuit challenging the heart of the Democrats’ health care overhaul.

---

Speaking of the health care law:

In a 46-52 vote, lawmakers killed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have saved businesses and nonprofit groups from having to report an array of small and medium-sized purchases to the Internal Revenue Service.

Why is this random, stupid IRS small business reporting rule mixed in with the Obamacare law? Easy. Because Obamacare is complex by design. Because Obamacare is designed to take more money from small businesses. Because Obamacare could have been ten pages long, but Democrats felt that ten pages was 200 times too short.

Let it never be said that Democrats always have small businesses' best interests in mind, because this rule, which brings new taxes and ludicrous amounts of paperwork along with it, could have been rejected today. However, the Democratic party (save a handful of conservative Democrats) voted against an amendment to remove this obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill. Thus, my mother-in-law will be hurting. My good friend will be hurting. Several neighbors of mine will be hurting.

All because most Democrats in the United States voted against an amendment to remove an obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill.

For future reference, if you see any serious tax code changes in the next random piece of legislation, let me know. I was wondering if this type of behavior (i.e. changing tax regulations in a random lung cancer awareness month bill) is typical.

Senate Race #5 - California

For this installment of Senate Race, we turn to California. Incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer is very liberal, and rather unpopular. California has been hit hard by the recession, and as a Democratic member of the Democratic led Congress, Senator Boxer is being hit hard in the polls. It’s actually quite remarkable that this race is even close. In most other states, a Democrat such as Boxer would be well behind in the polls. However, California is one of the most left leaning states in the union.

Why is Senator Boxer struggling so much in a state that gave her 58% of the vote just six years ago?

A little background: California’s Democratic-controlled state government and its Democrat-lite Governor Schwarzenegger (who fiscal and social conservatives would never call a Republican) have created a statewide mess. Its two powerful Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen (in the majority in Congress for nearly four years since well BEFORE the recession began) have been helpless to halt the economic disaster of California. California deserves better than Barbara Boxer, and they may be beginning to realize it.

Here’s Boxer criticizing a member of the Armed Forces because he called her “Ma’am”



Boxer is very well-known in California. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, however, is a fresh face. She is one of only a handful of women who have risen to the level of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. However, what impresses me most about her is her commitment to life. Even in the left-leaning state of California, Fiorina is a pro-life woman who is forthright with her views, even if it costs her a few independent voters. By the end of this post, though, you may feel that Fiorina is much closer to the mainstream of Californians on the issue of abortion than Boxer.

Nonetheless, this race should also be fairly close.

Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer


Polling average, from Pollster.com

BB - 47%
CF - 45%

Percentage chance of a party change
23%

Current status
Leans Democratic Seat

Election night results estimate
Boxer 48.7%
Fiorina 46.9%

Final Thoughts

I have met many folks who are new to Iowa, having left the struggling Golden State. While it is very unfortunate for such a fine state to be in trouble, our state is certainly welcoming of those who are migrating to a more economically friendly Iowa. I do believe that Senator Boxer is not helping the current situation in California, though. While Fiorina has a tough road ahead of her (she’s at a 10:1 cash disadvantage) there is a chance she will pull it off.

On a related note, George Will recently criticized Senator Boxer for her extreme position on abortion. Here's an argument on the Senate floor from several years ago, dealing with when life begins.

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”

There's only one correct answer to the question that former Senator Santorum asked.

Question: Once a baby leaves his or her mother, does that child have a constitutional right to life?

Answer: Yes.

Anyone who does not answer as I answered above has, at best, serious moral failings...and Barbara Boxer did not answer a simple "Yes" to the question. Does this question really need more than a one word answer? Un...believable.

Senate Race #4 - Washington

Moving to the West Coast, we look at the beautiful state of Washington. Here we have Senator Patti Murray, who is a very typical blue state Democrat. However, she has an opponent this year who is the competent and well known former gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi. This race should remain fairly close like Wisconsin, despite the Democratic tilt of Washington state.

I have to imagine that if Dino Rossi was running for governor again this year (he has lost the previous two times to current Governor Christine Gregoire, once by only 129 votes) he would wipe the floor with the Governor. However, he is running against a well established and well-funded liberal Democrat, who may be tough to beat.

Patty Murray v. Dino Rossi


Polling average, from Pollster.com

DR - 50%
PM - 48%

Percentage chance of a party change
54%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Rossi 49.1%
Murray 48.9%

Final Thoughts
Washington is a blue state, no doubt. However, Dino Rossi is a mainstream Republican with a positive economic message and a strong electoral wind at his back. This Senate race will be interesting in regards to voter turnout. If Republicans, both conservative and moderate turn out for him, he’ll become a U.S. Senator. However, he is still working on getting the full support of Tea Party Republicans, who are somewhat wary of him. Given the alternative, though, I imagine that they will come around.

Senate Race #3 – Wisconsin

The next three posts will revolve around three Senate races that the Democrats were probably hoping to keep rather safe this year. These hopes, however, will not become reality.

59 D to 41 R – This is the current partisan breakdown in the Senate.

One year ago, most pundits would have said that the Republicans might gain 4-5 seats in the Senate this cycle. However, it is fascinating to see where we’ve come over the past 12 months. 10 Republican wins and 10 Democratic Senate losses in November are certainly possible. This would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

Three major reasons for this potential Republican majority are the Senate races in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. From Politico:

At the start of the year, few observers thought the Senate was up for grabs, in part because it seemed implausible that Washington’s Patty Murray, California’s Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold were in any serious danger.

But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.

We start with our neighbors to the northwest, Wisconsin. They have elected Russ Feingold three times, and he’s trying to make it four. Feingold has always been an interesting Democrat, sometimes bucking the trends. For example, he voted against the Obama/Bush supported $700 billion bank bailout. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which passed through the Senate by a 98-1 vote. However, he voted for both Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package last year. Overall, he’s pretty loyal to the Democratic platform, and that may cause him trouble this year.

His opponent, businessman Ron Johnson, is well financed and could potentially knock off this 18-year Senator.

Ron Johnson v. Russ Feingold


Polling average, from Pollster.com

RJ - 47%
RF - 46%

Percentage chance of a party change
51%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Johnson 49.3%
Feingold 49.1%

Final Thoughts
Wisconsin is a purple state at heart. With the wind at his back, Ron Johnson could really give Senator Feingold a run for his money. Still, Senator Feingold isn’t hated in Wisconsin, and he gives off that “maverick” vibe that voters like. It may just propel him over the finish line. Here’s hoping it won’t though.

The Home Stretch

As we enter the month of September, we are just over two months away from the 2010 Midterm Elections. The stakes: Control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I'll start posting more over the next two months as we are entering a time period when non-political folks start looking at races more carefully. As such, if they come to 1007 East Grand, they'll be able to find information about local, statewide, and national issues and elections.

Today, let's look at some information that the fine folks over at Gallup are providing...particularly the "Trust" numbers from 2010 compared to the "Trust" numbers from 2006.

The difference between now and four years ago is pretty stark.

The question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE?



These numbers truly explain why so many Democrats are fearing this upcoming election. The Democratic Party has had virtually unlimited control of the federal government for the past two years, and the American people are clearly not happy.

Here's how the trust numbers have turned toward the Republican Party:
- Corruption in Government: 26 points
- The Economy: 27 points
- Terrorism: 29 points
- Immigration: 31 points
- Healthcare (the Democrats key domestic victory): 38 points

This massive swing in trust foreshadows good fortune for the Republican Party in November.

Wednesday Morning Musings

It really has been an interesting 48 hours, especially when it comes to the issue of racism in America. Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was essentially fired from the Department of Agriculture for telling a story about mistakes she made a quarter century ago, has received an apology from the NAACP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is reviewing her situation, to see if she she should be rehired, which she should.

Here's a quick rundown of what has occurred the last two days.

-Shirley Sherrod was in the business of helping Southern farmers in 1986.
-According to her, she liked helping black farmers a lot more than white farmers
-However, she begrudgingly helped white farmers who needed assistance.
-The white farmers were very thankful, and they are friends with Sherrod now.
-23 years pass
-Sherrod was appointed by the Obama administration to serve in the Dept. of Agriculture.
-In 2010, she told this story to a local NAACP chapter, telling them that important to AVOID doing what she did, i.e. using racial preferences.
-The media got a hold of the video, and it seemed as though she was using racial preferences TODAY.
-Sherrod was forced to resign.
-And now, Tom Vilsack is reviewing the situation, because it seems she was treated unfairly.

The 24 hour media circus can be exhausting, but as I said yesterday, I believe Shirley Sherrod, and I certainly believe that she does NOT hold racist beliefs today.

-----

The Christian Science Monitor explores the liberal journalist organization known as Journolist. This is the organization I referred to yesterday that may be involved in shaping the media narrative in an inappropriate way. Although many organizations shape the narrative, i.e. the more conservative Fox and the more liberal MSNBC, there is one major difference: most people know that Sean Hannity is conservative and that Keith Olbermann is liberal, while a seemingly unbiased member of Journolist may be more insidious.

-----
Democratic Governors Association (DGA)...really???

Major Dem donors who wrote checks to the Democratic Governors Association funded a below-the-radar campaign that attacked Pres. Obama and other Dem all-stars, all in hopes of knocking off a strong GOP challenger.

If this is true, Democrats effectively wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attacking Terry Branstad…and Barack Obama…together? Let’s be clear about this. First, it’s a stupid move because I imagine that Democratic candidates around the country would LOVE to have those monies, and second, Terry Branstad is no Barack Obama, which is a very good thing.

-----
From Robert Samuelson at Real Clear Politics

If you want a preview of President Obama's health care "reform," take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a "reform" that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging.

It's an interesting read, and it may foretell the future of the new health care law.

Tuesday Morning Musings

Musings for the mid-morning coffee break.

-----

Some feel that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin received too much money as a trial lawyer. From the Register:

"Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin has been sued by a national group of plaintiffs lawyers for not sharing with them a portion of the $75 million in fees that she and a Minnesota law firm received in a settlement in Iowa's civil antitrust case against Microsoft."

-----

There's been a lot of talk about the NAACP and racism recently, most notably revolving around the ridiculous charge that most Tea Party members are racist. This is a monumentally inaccurate charge, and I expect more from an organization as historically significant as the NAACP. However, a news story today was especially interesting, and the woman involved was promptly criticized by the NAACP. From Huffington Post:

"Shirley Sherrod, a USDA official in Georgia, has resigned after publicly admitting that race played a factor in her decision to limit how much aid would be given to a white farmer."

The NAACP agrees with her resignation, tendered to Iowa's own Tom Vilsack.

"We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet."

Preferring to help one race over another is unfortunate, and it's certainly good for groups such as the NAACP or the Tea Party to criticize trace elements of racism whenever they can, in the interest of American values of freedom and equality.

Quick update: The white farmers in question have come out in defense of Sherrod, and Sherrod has said that she holds no animosity for those farmers, despite her comments. To be honest, all of these years later, I absolutely believe her, and I'm quite sure that Sherrod is sorry for the unfortunate comments that she made. As for the NAACP, they have retracted their criticism.

Interesting enough, she lays some of the blame on the NAACP because of:

the NAACP's recent resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate racist elements within it...The controversy has led one Tea Party group to oust another because of a blog posting by the second group's leader.

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted on his blog a faux letter from Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln in which Williams ridicules the organization's use of "colored" in its historic name and uses multiple stereotypes to bolster his point. The National Tea Party Foundation expelled Williams' organization from its coalition as a result.

Sherrod on Tuesday called the NAACP "the reason why this happened. They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that."

-----

On a separate note, I'm glad that the aforementioned Mark Williams was expelled from the Tea Party Coalition. His letter was unhelpful and rather inappropriate.

-----

Apparently several liberal journalists wished to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during President Obama's presidential campaign.

-----

Finally, the constitutionality of Obamacare is currently being challenged in court. If you read only one New York Times article this year, make sure it's this one. After you finish with it, read this abstract which deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Here's a quick version for those who may not have time to read both articles.

1. During the health care debate, the following exchange occurred on ABC:

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

2. This bold statement from Obama makes sense, because President Obama promised not to create any new taxes, especially for the middle and lower class.

3. After the the law was challenged in court, the President's legal team, realizing that the law was most likely unconstitutional using the commerce clause, made the switch, and said that Obamacare is indeed a new tax...most likely an excise tax.

4. It may not matter, because according to Steven Willis and Nakku Chung from the University of Florida, this health care excise tax, for all intents and purposes, in unconstitutional.

5. However, we do know that the President conveniently promised that Obamacare was NOT a tax before it passed, and then stated that it was a tax, only after it was passed into law. It's a classic bait and switch, which of course, is change we can believe in!

Senate Race #2 – South Dakota

Continuing to look at the 2010 Senate picture, we’ll move on to our neighbors to the northwest, South Dakota.

On January 7th, 2011, Senator John Thune will celebrate his 50th birthday. He will celebrate by beginning his second term as the junior senator from the great state of South Dakota. I make this statement with certainty because of two reasons: First, Senator Thune is very popular in South Dakota. Second, and more importantly, Democrats in South Dakota chose against running an opponent against Thune due to his popularity and his mainstream conservative values that lie squarely in line with the vast majority of South Dakotans.

First, a little history. In 2004, John Thune was in the midst of a very competitive election against Tom Daschle, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. At the end of very tough campaign against perhaps the most powerful Democrat in the United States, Thune was victorious by less than 5,000 votes. After six years of solid, mainstream conservatism in the Senate, he is up for reelection this year.

However, this reelection campaign has important implications for the future of the Republican Party. John Thune is considered a potential Presidential candidate by many insiders. As such, if he has the opportunity to help other Republicans around the country with their reelection campaigns, he may gain friendships, support, and potential future endorsements.

Thus, if Senator Thune is indeed thinking of running for the Presidency, he can thank the Democratic Party of South Dakota for giving him a great 50th birthday present…a 2nd term in the Senate and a possible springboard to the Presidency.


Thune v. No Democrat


Polling average, not from Pollster.com, because they do not have a chart

JT – 70%+
ND – 0%

Percentage chance of a party change
0%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Thune 80%+
Democrat 0%

Final Thoughts
I really like John Thune, and I think he would make a great addition to the 2012 primary race for President.

T.N.L.V.

A Thursday Night Lighthearted Video

Now I know that politicians say silly things sometimes, but as a history teacher, I find this video especially unfortunate.

The following is U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, saying some very interesting things about the great nations of Vietnam, both North and South...in 2010. Clearly, Representative Jackson-Lee needs to fire her speechwriter or brush up on American history, because this speech is pretty rough.

Senate Race #1 - Iowa

Currently, there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. Had Scott Brown not won the special election to replace liberal lion Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, there would only be 40 Republican held seats, which would not be able to overcome a successful Democratic cloture vote (which essentially halts a filibuster). The health care bill was only passed because of clever use of Senate rules, which allowed for the first vote to occur before Scott Brown was elected. After that, the use of reconciliation precluded any filibuster from occurring, and we received what has become known as “Obamacare.”

To avoid any future worries of unfortunate legislation, Republicans across the country should be doing what they can to increase the number of seats held by Republicans, particularly conservative ones.

Of course, we start by looking at our own state of Iowa. The Republican in the race, Chuck Grassley has been Iowa's senior senator for many years now, and frankly, he's a most excellent representative of the people. An Iowa farmer at heart, Chuck is more conservative than the average Iowa voter (although Tom Harkin is WAY more liberal than the average Iowa voter), which makes Grassley even more valuable, because conventional wisdom would expect a Republican to be less conservative from a swing state such as Iowa.

Chuck Grassley serves Iowa in several important ways. He serves on the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, as well as the influential Senate Agriculture committee. Furthermore, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is the 10th most senior member of the upper house. His amount of power and influence is very important for Iowans to have in Washington D.C.

Senator Grassley is an avid campaigner, who usually succeeds at visiting all 99 counties of Iowa every year, meeting with and listening to Iowans all across the state. He is consistently the most popular politician in Iowa, surpassing junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama in polls that measure approval ratings.

Senator Grassley's history of exceptional service to the state of Iowa, coupled with his general approval by the people of Iowa make him a tough foe this November, even for the most knowledgeable, likable, and well-funded Democratic candidate.

Fortunately for Grassley, Democrats in Iowa did not choose a candidate with all three of those qualities. In the June primary, Roxanne Conlin was nominated to oppose Grassley in November. While Conlin is definitely well-funded and she seems knowledgeable, her likability (in other words, her personality) is lacking. While this is only anecdotal evidence, many Democrats who I have spoken with are not fond of Conlin as a person. They feel as though she is bristling, abrasive, and that she lacks a certain kind of warmth that voters like. In contrast, Chuck Grassley is a man who has met with tens of thousands of Iowans over the years, and they have continued to reelect him with over 66% of the vote in EVERY reelection campaign. Do Iowans like Grassley? The answer is clear...yes.

However, in the end, likability can only get you so many votes. You gotta be competent, and you gotta have money, and Grassley has both intelligence and a massive war chest of over five million dollars.

National Democrats would love to make this race competitive, but at this point, this race still leans towards Senator Grassley. While Conlin will make this race more competitive than any other reelection campaign for Grassley, she will most likely fall short. Chuck Grassley, the most popular politician in Iowa, is simply too well-liked to overcome. Iowans want to keep him where he is, which is the right move.

Grassley v. Conlin




Polling average, from Pollster.com

CG - 54%
RC - 37%

Percentage chance of a party change
10%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Grassley 54%
Conlin 45%

Final Thoughts

Roxianne Conlin's mug shot certainly shares some similarities with Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie.

The United States Senate

Over the next few weeks, I'll be putting up some posts that highlight some of the important Senate races around the country. The United States Senate, as the upper house of a bicameral legislature generally holds a little more power than the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, in the Senate, each individual member holds a fairly large amount of power, whether it be through the use of the hold or the filibuster.

Thus, each and every Senate race is very important this year, because we as a nation will be determining what men and women will be given a six year term in Washington.

The future of Congress will be decided in November. After election night in November, we may find the GOP in control of the House of Representatives. While I think there's about a 25% chance of a Republican takeover of the lower house, I still think that Nancy Pelosi will be holding the gavel in January. However, her ridiculously huge majority will be all but lost, and there will have to be serious compromise in the House.

In the Senate, it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to take control of 51 seats for a pure majority. However, the makeup of the Senate in January of 2011 will surely determine how President Obama's final two years in office will go. Thus, we'll be looking at critical Senate races around the nation so we can find out exactly where we stand this summer.

GOP Convention on Saturday!

This Saturday, the Republican Party will be holding their state convention in downtown Des Moines. While there will be speeches by officeholders and candidates and discussion of the party platform, one major event of interest will be the nomination of Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Governor.

Now, Iowans will know who the former Governor has selected before the convention on Saturday, but the question still remains: Who will it be?

As a lowly blogger for the Dallas County Republicans, I’m fairly confident that my thoughts and opinions have little to no bearing on Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Gov. However, I do have a few ideas as to who would make a good candidate in 2010.

So, here is my open letter to the former governor.

Dear Governor Branstad.

I’m told that you’re really excited to choose someone to be the next Lt. Governor of the great state of Iowa. I have a few ideas.

First, please choose someone younger. I think that you would like to live at Terrace Hill for at least the next 8 years, at which point, you can have a younger Lt. Governor that can carry the executive torch of Iowa. Furthermore, having a younger candidate will help the GOP reach out to younger voters, which needs to occur.

Second, choose someone with a personality, who has been fully vetted. Skeletons and unfortunate encounters with the media can quickly sour the public’s perception of a running mate, but having a strong, intelligent, and amiable personality will only help reinforce you and your personality. Terry…people really like you, so make sure you choose someone who you know Iowans will like.

Finally, please choose someone to your political right. There are tens of thousands of Iowans who are fired up and ready to vote for conservatives. During the primary campaign, Bob Vander Plaats levied charges at you, basically saying that you are not conservative enough. While I think those charges are somewhat unfair, I think that we’re going to be seeing a serious conservative resurgence in November. Why not choose a person who can help reinforce your conservative message?

I hope you take my suggestions to heart and I’ll see you at the convention. Best wishes!

Sincerely

ghbraves

We have a Commander-in-Chief

Today, news has been swirling around General Stanley McChrystal, the prominent military official directing the war in Afghanistan. As it turns out, there is a profile of McChrystal within the pages of this month’s Rolling Stone magazine. However, the profile reveals that that the general made several unflattering comments about the Obama administration.

From CNN

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine.

How does President Obama feel about this? Also, from CNN.

President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said.

This much is clear: General McChrystal made a mistake in allowing Rolling Stone magazine (you know, that magazine devoted primarily to music) to have access to conversations that painted President Obama’s team as inexperienced (at best). At the very least, General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment, taking action akin to slamming your boss on Facebook, which has actually gotten gotten several Iowans fired in recent times.

However, at worst, it brings back memories of the dispute between President Harry Truman and the very popular General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1950s.

In 1950, Harry Truman and “Mac” had very different ideas about the future of the Korean war, and General MacArthur publicly questioned his superior, the President, in Time Magazine. In the end, Truman fired the general, and would eventually have the lowest approval rating of any president in United States history. Recent years have vindicated Truman, and he is considered to be one of the top 10 Presidents in American history.

The point is, it's not uncommon for generals to disagree with their President. However, it is uncommon for generals to disagree with their President in a very public way, which is what General McChrystal did by criticizing the President's administration, and even Vice President Biden.

So, what does this mean for the man who, according to many, has done very impressive work for U.S. efforts in the Middle East? Chances are he’ll resign, ending a long, notable career on a sour note. However, President Obama may channel Harry Truman, and fire the general tomorrow, although this is doubtful. I would guess that the former will occur in the coming days.

One thing is clear, as much as we may disagree with the policies of President Obama, he certainly has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal. We have a civilian commander-in-chief for a reason, and if I were President Obama, I would be “angry” with the general too.

Today is Primary Day in Iowa

Just a friendly reminder: Go out and vote. Polls are open until 9pm.

A Wednesday Musing

Just imagine if George W. Bush was President right now.

Do you think he would be:

a) criticized more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
b) criticized less than President Obama (for the oil spill)
c) criticized the same as President Obama (for the oil spill)
d) criticized ridiculously more than President Obama (for the oil spill)

If you guessed b, I question your intelligence. If you guessed c, I think that's naively sweet. If you guessed a, I believe that you are an optimist. Which leaves those who answered question d, who are correct.

The Importance of Voter Enthusiasm

This is good news for the GOP...the most recent CNN enthusiasm poll



If you notice, the enthusiasm is definitely on the side of the Republicans. 54% of Republicans in this poll are AT LEAST very enthusiastic for the November mid-term elections. However, according to CNN, only 32% of Democrats in this poll are pumped to vote this November. This equates to a 22% “enthusiasm gap" (or EG) in favor of the Republicans.

This is important (and good) for several reasons.

First, those more enthusiastic to vote will obviously be those that will go to the polls.

Second, this EG demonstrates that many Republicans who may have supported President Obama in 2008 are probably having buyers remorse. There’s always the chance that an Obama-supporting Republican might be really excited to vote for Democrats in the midterms to keep the President’s agenda running strong, but I would not bet on it.

Third, the enthusiasm gap will be very advantageous in the summer and fall leading up to the election. More excited voters are not only more excited to vote, but they are more excited to organize, donate time and money, and spread the conservative gospel.

Augmented excitement from the party base is what parties strive for, and a significant lead in the EG is a good place to start in an election year.

To compare, let's look at the enthusiasm gap in 2008, perhaps the worst electoral year for Republicans in recent memory. About 5 months before that election, the enthusiasm gap as polled by CNN was a bit different.



In this poll, a whopping 63% of Democrats were excited to vote, while only 37% of Republicans were excited to vote (in a Presidential election, mind you). That equates to a 26% EG, that turned into a 17% EG by election day, which turned into a 7% victory for President Obama over Senator McCain.

What will this current 22% EG lead to in November? Who knows? But one thing is clear: The Republicans have the wind at their backs, and they should press their advantage in the coming months.

News from the border

Good news for those who want a secure border

President Barack Obama will deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico, an administration official told CNN on Tuesday.

I personally think this is a very smart move for the President. This past week saw his Attorney General, Eric Holder, look rather foolish on national television by: 1) threatening a lawsuit against the Arizona law, and 2) admitting he hasn't actually read the bill (less than 20 pages long). This prompted Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona to create the following video, which is, admittedly, very strange...but telling.



The President certainly does not want to be seen as weak. Both Republicans and Democrats can easily agree that security on the border is not only lacking, but the border itself is rather dangerous, considering the increase in violence over the past year.

By sending more than 1000 troops to help with border security, the President has not only made a smart political decision, he's made a smart security decision.

Race for Attorney General

The presumptive Republican candidate for Attorney General of Iowa, Brenna Findley, has had a very impressive fundraising haul in 2010, thus far. She has raised almost $125,000 in the first five months of 2010, a sum that exceeds the amount raised by the Democratic incumbent, Tom Miller. Miller raised less than $16,000, but still has over $100,000 cash on hand.

Here's the deal. Tom Miller has been Attorney General longer than I’ve been alive. With that in mind, perhaps Mr. Miller should consider retirement. As should Robert Byrd.

But I digress.

I’ve met Brenna Findley and heard her speak. She is a no-nonsense conservative who has the ability to connect with the conservative base, while also discussing common sense solutions that all Iowans should want. Many on the left will most likely frame her as an extreme small government conservative. However, with the size, scope, debt, and control of the federal government growing to epic proportions, I think that the next couple of years will see more and more American citizens turning towards smaller government ideas that protect individual freedoms and liberties.

As for Findley, she’ll be fighting for those ideals as the future Attorney General of Iowa.

By the way, if anything is "extreme" right now, it is certainly not a small government conservative. Rather, it’s the ridiculous budget of the federal government.

A Euro Trip

I love visiting Europe. The continent has a rich past that any history buff such as myself would enjoy. Having visited France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Monaco, I have seen quite a bit of the western portion of the continent, and I am quite fond of it.

However, Europe has been struggling financially, especially over the last few weeks. Last summer, when I went to Europe, 1 American dollar could purchase roughly .68 Euros. Today, 1 American dollar buys nearly .82 Euros.

In this chart, notice how much the dollar has improved against the Euro over the last five months.



Because of financial strife in Greece and overarching issues relating to the common currency of the EU, the Euro, it has certainly been a controversial and fiscally painful economic downturn in 2010.

"Europe's bailout plan for Greece may have calmed market fears about the future of the euro, but there is still uncertainty about the long-term outlook for the struggling currency.

While the euro zone isn't likely to ditch the 11-year old common currency anytime soon, many believe that the bailout hasn't solved the underlying problem of imbalances between European nations. And critics of the common currency used by 329 million people across 16 nations argue that the euro is a major cause of those imbalances."

I think there are several things that we can derive from this European crisis, but I want to focus on two today.

First, I believe that there are several powerful figures who would love to create a North American Union consisting of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. I would hope that this major currency problem in Europe would make those folks feel otherwise. While I commend Europe for working around numerous economic hurdles in creating the Euro, these present struggles seemingly indicate that all of the kinks haven’t truly been worked out.

Recently, French President Sarkozy indicated that France is at least considering drastic measures such as dropping the Euro (although I think this is highly unlikely). I certainly am not going to say that the Euro has been a disaster, but its struggles should illuminate the fact that a North American Union would be the wrong way to go.

Second, I believe that high levels of spending in Europe are partially responsible for this crisis. While many people of Europe seem to enjoy the high levels of government spending, it has not only created issues for the currency, but it has hampered long term growth of nations’ economies.



Glancing at the graph above, it is evident that over the last 45 years, the countries whose governments have spent ridiculous amounts of money have grown very little on an average annual basis. While the chart is simplistic, and only uses “average” annual growth, the point is clear. When a government choose to tax and spend insane amounts of money, economic expansion is severely hindered.

Once this crisis is over, I would hope that European nations (particularly Greece) can make better decisions with their money. While we’re on the topic, I hope that this nation can make better decisions with its money too.

Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis

A hero from Dallas County

Lance Corporal Joshua Davis, 19, a 2009 Perry High School graduate, was killed while fighting in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

U.S. military forces want to wrest control of the Helmand from Taliban insurgents there and disrupt the opium production, which funds terrorist activities.

A hero, Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis, will be missed. Men and women who give their lives by honorably serving in the United States military should be praised for their ultimate sacrifice.

At this time, Afghanistan remains a hotbed for terrorist activities, yet U.S. troops continue to valiantly fight for freedom in the Central Asian nation. Joshua Davis, a son of Perry, Iowa, was one of many brave Americans who are fighting the Taliban there.

Here are just a few things that people close to Davis said about him:

"The thing that was cool about him was that he had no quit in him."

"He was just one of those kids that wanted to get out there and get fighting."

"Josh always gave 100 percent...He gave his best effort."

"He was very humble."

Please keep Josh's family and friends in your thoughts and prayers. The death of Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis is tragic. He deserves to be remembered and honored for his dedication and brave service to the United States of America.

Tuesday Night Musings

**No one could have expected this:

President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

I would act surprised, but I would have to assume that even Democrats probably realized that this would occur...the cost of this health care deal is going to skyrocket.

---
**Elena Kagan is President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court

We don't know a lot about Elena Kagan. She'll most likely be a reliable liberal vote on the court, much like John Paul Stevens was. I'll have more on her later.

---
**The United Kingdom has a new Prime Minister

Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister, and his Labour Party have fallen out of favor with the British electorate. Because of this, Brown has stepped down and Queen Elizabeth II has invited the new Prime Minister, Conservative David Cameron, to form a government. Before everyone here gets excited about the new "conservative" leader in Britain, keep in mind that a Conservative in England is a bit to the left of a conservative in the United States.

---
**A recent poll on the new immigration law in Arizona. Of particular note are questions 33 and 34, shown below.



A large majority of Americans (including a majority of Democrats) want to see how this law works before the Obama administration puts a halt to enforcement of existing federal law.

While there are, no doubt, concerns about this new Arizona law, it appears that most Americans have a "wait and see" attitude.

If local police begin racial profiling (which is prohibited under this law) then we will have a serious problem. Perhaps I'm a bit optimistic, but I don't believe we're going to see a lot of this, simply because Arizona has placed itself under the microscope, and the implementation of this law is going to scrutinized very carefully. Time will tell.

Is this Democratic Leader frightened?

Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, might be losing it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lashed out at Republicans as the “anti-immigrant party” in an interview aired Sunday on Univision.

“I'm frustrated; I'm upset just like the people you referred to,” he said, of the lack of meaningful movement on immigration. “We are begging Republicans to join with us. This is an issue that demands our attention and doesn't demand the negativity, so irrational what is going on.”

Clearly, a Democratic strategy for this election cycle will be flinging accusations of racism towards the Republican Party.

Along the lines of my lesson last week, here's a new lesson. If you are against illegal immigration, then you are not anti-immigrant. To understand this statement more clearly, I'll say it in a different way: If you are for legal immigration, you are not anti-immigrant.

As I've discussed before, most Republicans I talk to simply feel that legal immigration is the proper (and again, legal) way to gain entry into the United States of America.

Personally, I think Senator Reid is trying to demonize the GOP, in order to gain favor with some voters back at home. Why would he do this? I think the numbers and chart below speak volumes.




With anemic numbers like these, Senator Reid is probably doing everything possible to gain some traction in this race. Eventually, he will gain at least some traction for several reasons.

1. Harry Reid has a lot of money.
2. Incumbancy is powerful, even in an anti-incumbant year, and Harry Reid's a fighter.
3. Sue Lowden, his potential opponent is saying some interesting things that are getting her into trouble.
4. The likely Republican nominee at this point, Danny Tarkanian, doesn't seem to be an outstanding candidate, thusfar. I've included his polling data against Reid, because I'm not sure Lowden's going to make it out of the primary.

It doesn't mean he's the favorite by any means, but it will be a close race in Nevada; a nail-biter to the finish for one of the most powerful leaders in the Democratic Party. Hopefully, Senator Reid will stop insinuating racism in his interviews though...especially during interviews that are meant to do one thing: pander.

Congress Makes a Move

This is a good move:

“Most members of Congress next year will receive $174,000 in 2011 under legislation awaiting President Barack Obama's signature, the same amount they're getting this year.

Under the law that governs congressional pay, senators and representatives were due to get an automatic cost of living increase on January 1 , probably an extra $1,600 or 0.9 percent, unless they voted beforehand to turn it down.

Last week, they did just that. The Senate rejected the increase in a voice vote, and the House of Representatives concurred, 402 to 15.”

In the land of the Potomac, sometimes the voice of the people is drowned out by the language of Washington. Unfortunately, it can produce an echo chamber where Representatives and Senators have little clue as to what’s happening around the country.

Well, the situation around the country isn’t terribly good. Americans are struggling with the recession that still has unemployment hovering near 10%. Economic growth is not what it should be, government spending is out of control, inflation is up, and the citizenry is clamoring for some real leadership in Washington D.C. It’s why a large anti-incumbency wave is going sweep through Congress six months from now. And since the Democrats have been in the majority for more than three years, they may be the recipients of heavy losses in both the House and Senate.

People aren't idiots. They realize when change turns out to be a bad thing. In November, I wrote a post comparing 1995-1997, when the Republicans took over the Congress, to 2007-2009, when the Democrats took over the Congress.

Here’s what I wrote back then.

"January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%

January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%."

Now, to be fair, unemployment has lowered itself to just above 9% over the last six months. However, it doesn’t take an economics major, or a 4th grader to understand that there's a serious difference in the results produced by these two time periods. The Democrats are in trouble, Congress is unpopular, and it’s obvious why.

So, Congress decides to NOT give itself its pay raise this year, a popular move that should be commended. However, it would truly commendable if Congress gave itself a pay cut, like so many other Americans have received during this economic downturn.

An Iowa Election Poll

Here’s the latest polling from Rasmussen:

2010 Senate
53% Grassley (R), 40% Conlin (D)

2010 Governor
53% Branstad (R), 38% Culver (D)
45% Vander Plaats (R), 41% Culver (D)
43% Culver (D), 41% Roberts (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Chuck Grassley: 63 / 34 (+29)
Terry Branstad: 59 / 38 (+21)
Bob Vander Plaats: 44 / 35 (+9)

Rod Roberts: 31 / 27 (+4)
Roxanne Conlin: 44 / 40 (+4)
Chet Culver: 44 / 53 (-9)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 51 (-3)
Gov. Culver: 43 / 56 (-13)

After looking at these numbers, one thing is for sure: Governor Chet Culver is going to have a very tough November unless these numbers turn around. Anytime an incumbent is hovering around a 40% approval rating, he’s usually toast. 50% is usually the safe mark, where an incumbent can at least have a fighting chance at reelection.

It looks as though Vander Plaats would defeat Culver in a close election. A Roberts nomination would probably produce a nail biter on election night. A Brandstad nomination would be an easy victory for the former governor.

However, the primary for the GOP is still a month away. Will the Republican electorate demand a social conservative in BVP or will they be willing to accept a social moderate/conservative in Terry Branstad? Or will they want the soft-spoken Roberts to run against the Governor? Time will tell.

As for the Senate race, the race is getting closer. Although Chuck Grassley is the most popular politician in the state, besting the Hawkeye state’s junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama, he is only up 13 points on prolific fundraiser and likely Democratic nominee Roxanne Conlin. Conlin should be pleased with this poll, putting her within striking distance of being within striking distance. However, she should not be pleased with the favorability ratings. At this point, most Iowans seemingly know who she is, and have an opinion towards her. This is no good for Ms. Conlin. At this point in the campaign, a much more enviable position is that of Rod Roberts. Only a small majority of Iowans have an opinion of the gubernatorial candidate.

If Conlin had those kinds of numbers, she would have more room to grow and make up those 13 points against Iowa’s senior senator. However, it’s going to be tough for her to do that.

Some good news for Conlin? At least she’s not Governor Culver.

Quick Sunday Facts

Let's remind everyone of two indisputable facts once again:

1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.

2. If you believe that another race, immigrant or not, illegal or not, is inferior to your race, you are a racist. Period.

I hope you enjoy this lovely Sunday.

A Controversial Immigration Bill Pt. 2

The law which passed last week in Arizona has certainly incited protests against the state. Latino organizations are fiercely protesting this law, and they certainly have the right too, and I understand why they are protesting. As I said in a previous post, many Latino organizations undoubtedly feel that Arizona police will stop Hispanic residents of the state for no reason whatsoever, and “demand to see their papers.”

Hearing these criticisms, Governor Jan Brewer and the state legislature made a few changes to the law.

Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.

The facts are these:

Before the change: Police can stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion.” Critics believe that this statement could be liberally interpreted, stretched to the limit, and civil liberties could potentially be violated. President Obama had this to say, while visiting Ottumwa.

"You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."

Notice that President Obama, former constitutional law professor, never said that the bill was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Arizona state government decided to alter their law.

After the change: Police CANNOT stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion” only. There must be an offense committed. Therefore, the President’s story about an ice cream desiring family now, by law, cannot happen…unless mom is speeding on the way to Coldstone. Furthermore:

University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."

Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.

I would hope that these changes would be welcomed, because most folks should realize that these alterations are more realistic, and less “Nazi-like,” right?

"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."

Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.

Sorry, Governor Brewer…you just can’t win. It seems as though you heard a lot of criticism, listened to it, and then made the changes that you felt were necessary to improve the bill. Mr. Pochoda, if you believe that police will be intentionally looking for people to break the law, looking for any excuse to pull over a Latino family on the way to get ice cream, then you must not have very much respect for the police.

I think we can only conclude one thing: The goal of many on the left is to have a situation where if you are visiting this country illegally, you shouldn't be mandated to carry or show identification. When I visit other countries, I always have one of two things on my person: My passport, or a copy of my passport. This makes sense. If the French police were to ever stop me, I would have to show them my documentation. This is how the world works. I simply cannot fathom why visitors in Arizona shouldn't be forced to carry or show their documentation when they are stopped for speeding. I have to.

Again, I think the only logical conclusion is that Mr. Pochoda and the ACLU truly believe that if you are an illegal immigrant, you should never be forced to show your documentation to authorities. My only question to the Arizona ACLU and other organizations is, why not?

This is Unhelpful

In these incredibly partisan times, it's important to realize that we're still playing a political game, and we shouldn't risk or threaten the lives of public officials.

Take this quote from a Democratic union representative in New Jersey:

"Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

While the union representative apologized and said it was only a joke, it's very unhelpful to speak with such nonchalance about the Republican Chief Executive of New Jersey. Unfortunately, there's even a Facebook group based on the comment.

Furthermore, this is not helping.

Follow the link, and you'll realize that there's another Facebook group that issues the same prayer, but with President Obama as the punchline. Regardless of whether it's a joke or not, it's certainly not a good idea to speak with such nonchalance about the Chief Executive of the United States.

Bottom line: Despite these trying times in a political world filled with rancor, we can do better than this. We should do better than this.

A Controversial Immigration Bill

A heated political discussion this week has revolved around a piece of legislation recently signed into law by Arizona governor Jan Brewer.

In essence, Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times, and allows police to ask to view said papers.

Thus far, folks on the left side of the spectrum have called this law unfair, unjust, racist, and even Nazi-like. Now, the old American political adage states that the first person to compare their opposition to Nazis is losing the fight. Well, it’s been just a few days since the law was passed, and with the Nazi shout-outs ringing through the land, it appears as though we’ve already arrived at that point.

Here’s what one supporter thinks about the controversial law.

Lee Earle, a self-identified “Tea Party facilitator” in Arizona, ground zero of the immigration debate, wants you to know that he supports immigration. He considers it the lifeblood of American society and the backbone of our economy – if it’s done legally.

“We want immigration. We need immigration! All we want is for people to sign the guestbook at the door,” said Earle, a Phoenix resident.

I’m sure there are many who would call Lee a racist or a Nazi. However, this doesn’t appear to be true, and it doesn’t help the conversation about 21st century immigration in the U.S.

To be honest, when the Nazi Name Calling (NNC) begins, I usually leave the room. How can we have a productive conversation with this occurring? Let’s debate the substance of the bill. I know many Democrats would love to give illegal immigrants immediate citizenship. I happen to disagree with this unjust idea for many reasons, most notably because it shows utter contempt for those who waited in line, spent thousands of dollars, filled out tons of paperwork, to gain permanent residence, and eventually citizenship in the United States.

However, until the Hitler references stop, we’ll never be able to have a reasonable conversation about immigration. I realize that the subject of race is sensitive, however, we all need to have the tête-à-tête without bringing racism into the mix.

Here are two final, indisputable facts.

1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that minorities, immigrant or not, illegal or not, are inferior to Caucasians, you are a racist. Period.

However, it seems as though many would LOVE to make this first indisputable fact…well, disputable. But it's not.

Personal note: I will be honest. I am a little frightened of this “show your papers” situation. I was pulled over my police a while back, and the officer asked me for my papers. Fortunately, I had my papers (even my registration!) with me, because I’m not an idiot. Frankly, I was rather scared and for just a moment, it truly felt like Nazi Germany. But then I realized that I shouldn’t have rolled through that stop sign.

Regarding Unemployment

Yesterday, I mentioned how President Obama’s economic narrative is struggling, due to the nature of the American economy. Quite frankly, both the economy and the President's narrative stink.

From the Associated Press

But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.

The reality is that James Carville was correct: It’s the economy, stupid. And this fundamental truth worries Democrats across this country, as they currently maintain complete control of the federal government.

In George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, he experienced soaring popularity due to the incredibly successful Persian Gulf War. He oversaw the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the divisive 20th century. He oversaw the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the fall of communism, and the end of the Cold War, an eighty-year old conflict. Very few Presidents oversee such grand successes in foreign policy, with the exception of the vomiting incident , which certainly traumatized the Prime Minister of Japan.

Despite his successes abroad, Bush was not able to win reelection. When the recession began during the lead-up to the election of 1992, things began to unravel for the President. Governor Bill Clinton was able to capitalize on the economic struggles of the nation, becoming the 42nd President of the United States.

As for 2010, President Obama is not presently in danger, as he is not up for reelection. Furthermore, his approval rating is hanging around 48-49% (a very generous number considering the current unemployment rate). He still maintains a good amount of personal popularity (not approval, mind you).

It's his Democratic Party that in trouble, though. 2010 looks to be a tough year for Democrats in swing districts around the country.

Now, normally, a sitting President would be able to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to create a winning narrative for his party. However, we can now see that the wishful story that the President wishes to create will probably not magically emerge in the next 150 days. Instead, pesky “facts” about the stimulus coupled with an unemployment rate hovering over 9.5% will most likely make the President’s economic policies seem ineffective.

However, if the President is only concerned with his own political situation, he has another 2.5 years for economic recovery. In fact, the economic situation in 2011 and 2012 will determine whether or not Barack Obama will live in the White House for four or eight years. I tend to be an optimist, so I’m hoping for a much lower unemployment rate in 2013, and a new President as well.

How's That Stimulus Doing?

A few months back, I wrote about how the White House “graded” the $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus package that passed through Congress with almost no Republican support. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration gave itself an “A” on its legislation.

However, Americans in 2010 are rather skeptical (as they should be), so it’s important to look to groups outside of government to determine how well the government is doing...in this case, how the stimulus package is doing.

From CNN Money

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this piece of legislation completely turned around the economy, and prevented a second Great Depression. After all, it makes a great narrative.

President Obama, full of hope, came into office to undo all of the excesses of the Bush Administration, and undo the economic strife that didn’t exist until Democrats controlled the Congress for one year.

Taking decisive action, he created the stimulus plan, to jump start the American economy and prevent the unemployment rate from rising about 8%. Although the unemployment rate, mainly due to President Bush’s failed leadership, is hovering around 10%, the Obama administration is pleased to give itself top grades when it comes to dealing with the troubled economy.

While this is a lovely narrative created by the White House, it’s not necessarily true. And the NABE study demonstrates that perhaps the President's beloved Recovery Act, (which has actually cost over $800 billion) has not been as effective as the President’s economic team would have you believe.

The Supreme Court and Senator Harkin

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

“I think we need to push someone who would be on the liberal side, on the progressive side, just as Roberts and Alito are on that side,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who were both confirmed in George W. Bush’s administration. “Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”

What is that all about, Senator Harkin?

His idea is simple. Republican presidents never have their conservative nominees filibustered, Democratic presidents always have their liberal nominees filibustered.

His statement is absolutely true, unless you wish to use facts and history to support your claim.

In a very well written article that cleverly uses both facts and historical truths, David Frum states that when it come to judicial nominations, the Democrats are the party of no.

Here's Frum's thesis:

When you look at the last 5 presidents, only two have had a perfect record of Supreme court nominations, with little controversy. They are Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Clinton and Obama

Sonia Sotomayor - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Stephen Breyer - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush.

Harriet Miers - Withdraws after heavy criticism over her credentials/experience. Replaced by Samuel Alito. Unsuccessful filibuster...with then Senator Obama joining in.
John Roberts - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation
Clarence Thomas - Perhaps the most heated confirmation ever. Barely approved.
David Souter - Stealth liberal justice. Smooth confirmation.
Robert Bork - Harsh contempt for this man. Utter rejection by Senate Democrats.

When you look at history, there is a double standard...but the complete opposite of what Senator Harkin would have you believe. Democrats are free to filibuster conservative nominees, while Republicans are more respectful of liberal nominees.

That major difference can be seen in 1987 and 1993. Robert Bork was very conservative...no doubt about that. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel for the very liberal ACLU, was very liberal...no doubt about that. However, the way that the Republicans treated Ginsburg was ridiculously more respectful than the way the Democrats treated Bork.

So...how should the GOP treat President Obama's next nominee, Senator Harkin? With class, dignity, and respect? or should she be treated the way that Democrats have treated GOP nominees in the past?

I imagine she will be treated with much respect, much like Sonia Sotomayor was. You stay classy, GOP.