I Guess "Post-Partisan Healer" Means Different Things to Different People

Obama's latest quotes:

In an interview on a Spanish-speaking radio station, he said that Latinos need to "punish their enemies" in the upcoming election by voting against Republicans.

At a recent rally, he said that after the election the Republicans could cooperate with his agenda if they wanted to, but they would have to "sit in the back." (Think Rosa Parks.)

This is on top of earlier comments about how Republicans don't want blacks to vote and video appeals to the "blacks and Latinos that powered my 2008 victory."

This president is a post-partisan, post-racial healer all right...in the mold of Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and David Duke. He is using racial identity politics to blatantly divide our country. He is exacerbating racial grievances by pitting one group of Americans against another, provoking suspicion and mistrust. He is using Nixonian terms like "enemies" to apply to his political opponents. He is a national embarrassment.

The Red Corner of Montgomery County

Check out this recent article from The Washington Post, which profiles my hometown of Damascus, MD, and how dramatically it differs culturally and politically from the rest of Montgomery County. I'm sure our county will once again elect a slate of left-wing candidates to local, state, and federal offices, but thankfully the town I live in won't be to blame for that....

Not All Democrats Are Created Equal

As we approach Election Day, there has been a lot of speculation about how many House (and Senate) seats the Democrats are going to lose. However, I think it's important to point out that not all Democrats are created equal. While pretty much all the Democrats in the Senate are liberal (every single one voted for ObamaCare), there is a small cadre of genuinely moderate-to-conservative Democrats in the House. As Obama and Pelosi have lurched the Democratic agenda farther and farther to the left, these conservative Democrats -- almost all from the South -- are finding themselves in greater and greater jeopardy merely as a result of the "D" after their name on the ballot.

Now, I won't be shedding tears over any Democrat who loses his seat next week, no matter how conservative. After all, even the most conservative Democrats did choose to enable a Democratic majority which has advanced a radically progressive agenda and to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. However, as I have said before, when it comes to politics I am a conservative first and a Republican second. I want to see conservative gains in Congress, not merely Republican gains. I don't want to see all Democrats lose indiscriminately -- I want to see those specific Democrats lose who have carried water for the Obama/Pelosi agenda and advanced policies like ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in defiance of the will of their constituents. As the results roll in on election night and the House losses begin to add up for the Democrats, I will be looking beyond the raw numbers to see which types of Democrats are being defeated. If many conservative southern Democrats lose while many liberal Democrats from swing districts survive, I will be disappointed -- even if the Republicans take the House comfortably.

This is why it is a little disappointing to me that the national Republican party is spending heavily to defeat conservative Democrats like Gene Taylor and Travis Childers of Mississippi, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Bobby Bright of Alabama, and Jim Marshall of Georgia. In one sense, I can understand it. After all, the entire point of the NRCC's existence is to succeed in electing as many Republicans as possible, and these congressmen are not Republicans. However, there are so many competitive House districts this year that the Republican party cannot come close to funding all of them. I would much prefer to see them directing their scarce resources to defeating the Democrats that are responsible for supporting Obama's agenda. After all, Big Labor is focusing its resources on re-electing those specific Democrats who have voted for that agenda -- why aren't Republicans and Republican-leaning groups keeping a similar focus?

I don't see that defeating Democrats like Gene Taylor and Bobby Bright is going to make much difference for conservative principles. Taylor is a long-time conservative who voted to impeach President Clinton way back in the 1990's. Bright scored an astonishing 79% on my congressional scorecard -- higher than many Republicans. All of the Democrats listed above scored well over 50%. Instead, I would like to see the following Democrats defeated on election night (their percentage of conservative votes on my scorecard are in parentheses). They are listed in approximate order of their vulnerability.

Debbie Halvorson (IL) - 25%
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH) - 7%
Betsy Markey (CO) - 29%
Steve Driehaus (OH) - 21%
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) - 25%
Tom Perriello (VA) - 21%
Paul Kanjorski (PA) - 18%
Earl Pomeroy (ND) - 29%
Alan Grayson (FL) - 11%
Steve Kagen (WI) - 7%
Patrick Murphy (PA) - 11%
John Boccieri (OH) - 29%
Dina Titus (NV) - 21%
Baron Hill (IN) - 29%
John Hall (NY) - 14%
John Salazar (CO) - 21%
Mark Schauer (MI) - 21%
John Spratt (SC) - 21%
Bill Owens (NY)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) - 21%
Phil Hare (IL) - 4%
Jerry McNerney (CA) - 18%
Ron Klein (FL) - 18%
Leonard Boswell (IA) - 14%
Ciro Rodriguez (TX) - 25%
Kurt Schrader (OR) - 18%
Sanford Bishop (GA) - 21%
Charlie Wilson (OH) - 29%
Martin Heinrich (NM) - 11%
Tim Bishop (NY) - 11%
Raul Grijalva (AZ) - 0%
Gerry Connolly (VA) - 14%
Gary Peters (MI) - 18%
Loretta Sanchez (CA) - 14%
Tim Walz (MN) - 14%

All of these 35 Democrats voted for ObamaCare (most also voted for cap-and-trade). All of them are being challenged by at least reasonably conservative Republicans. Most of them are well to the left of the conservative or swing districts they represent. All of them are considered vulnerable. If a large percentage of these congressmen do not lose, it will be a disappointing night for me, regardless of what the total number of pickups is for the GOP.

So as you follow the election results next week, keep an eye out for which types of Democrats are losing. That will tell you a lot about the prospects for conservative principles in the next Congress.

A lot of hot air

I moved to Maryland a few months ago.  As I have settled into my new home state, I have quickly learned that the people of Maryland, or at least their elected representatives, seem to like government regulations.  Over the weekend, I got a notice from the Maryland Vehicle Administration that says my car has to be tested for compliance with emissions standards.  According to the notice I received in the mail, the purpose of this test is to reduce "the amount of ground-level ozone in the air we breathe". 

However, the notice also says what to do if your car fails the test. 

• Move your vehicle into a customer parking space, come in the office and speak to the Customer Service Representative on Duty.
• You may apply for a repair waiver after the vehicle fails the test, is repaired, then fails again.
• You must present proof that at least the minimum amount required for the waiver was spent for emissions related repairs.  Refer to the "If Your Vehicle Didn't Pass" brochure or www.marylandmva.com for further information.

In other words, you can still drive a non-compliant vehicle as long as someone tried to fix it.  It's the thought that counts.  My guess is that this ineffective and useless law was passed so the people in office could prove that they had done something to protect the environment.  At least the test only costs $14. 

Odds 'n Ends

I have to mention this gem from Obama at a recent fundraiser:

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Hmmm. This reminds of another classic quote from Obama from back in 2008:

"[Small town Pennsylvania residents] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's kind of hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama is an elitist. He clearly believes facts, science, and intelligence are all on his side, and those who disagree are prejudiced, ignorant, or not thinking clearly. In Obama's world, those who disagree with him are always motivated by irrational fears or xenophobic bitterness. His administration openly smears anyone who dares to question him -- from the Tea Parties to Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The man who campaigned on bridging our differences and bringing an end to extreme partisanship in Washington has become one of the worst partisan hacks in Washington.

I like The Denver Post's David Harsanyi column on this topic, found on realclearpolitics.com here. Harsanyi is not a social conservative and I don't always agree with him, but I find his sarcasm against the left quite refreshing.

***********************

On another note, one of my favorite liberals, Juan Williams, was recently fired from his position as political analyst for National Public Radio. Williams was fired for making allegedly bigoted comments about Muslims on The O'Reilly Factor a few days ago. Here are those "bigoted" comments:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

The CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, later added insult to injury by saying that Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his "psychiatrist."

Even taken out of context, there is nothing bigoted about Williams' comments. He is expressing the feelings that many, probably most, Americans have when flying post-9/11. The comments were true and honest. Given that radical Muslims blew up four planes less than 10 years ago and that those same radical Muslims are still trying to attack us, such concerns are eminently reasonable. When you take Williams' comments in context, however, the ironic thing is that Williams was actually challenging O'Reilly to be more careful and more sensitive in his statements about Muslims.

However, context, honesty, and reasonableness don't matter in the least to the political correctness police, which is becoming stronger and stronger in our country and is threatening to stamp out any kind of honest discourse in the name of "sensitivity." Free speech is being muzzled in the name of tolerance. The left has succeeded in putting numerous topics off limits for debate for anyone who wishes to avoid being labeled as bigoted. Gay rights is one such area. Dare to deviate from liberal orthodoxy on this topic in any way, and you are guaranteed to be branded as a hate-filled anti-gay bigot. Even to advocate for something as reasonable as keeping the traditional definition of marriage, which seemed to be a point of universal agreement in our society just 10 or 15 years ago, now is considered intolerant and homophobic by "polite society." Preaching from the Bible against homosexuality is already illegal under hate crimes legislation in Canada. Does anybody doubt this will happen in the U.S. within a few years as well?

Another area that is off-limits is race relations, especially if you are white. Almost anything you say regarding race and race relations in this country, no matter how innocent, is likely to be taken out of context and used against you. I have been watching Bill O'Reilly for years and I guarantee there is not a racist bone in his body. I remember how viscerally angry he became a few years ago when covering a story about an alternative, non-school sponsored high school prom in Georgia where blacks where prohibited from attending. Bigotry is something he hates with a passion. And yet, this man has been called a racist repeatedly for daring to have honest discussions about race relations on his program. In trying to brand Rush Limbaugh a racist last year, liberals completely manufactured a quote out of thin air, despite the fact that two black men frequently fill in for him on his program and his long-time radio assistant is black. Even Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of racism back in 2008 for daring to campaign against a black man for president. Liberals deduce all kind of racist code in simple anti-Obama slogans such as "take our country back," a phrase that has nothing to do with race and was used by Howard Dean against the Republicans a few years ago.

Islam is yet another area that is increasingly becoming off-limits for civil discussion. Left-wing editorial after left-wing editorial declared opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (supported by 70% of Americans) to be bigoted and xenophobic. Two members of The View walked off the set when O'Reilly made the undeniably true statement that the Ground Zero mosque should not be built because "Muslims attacked us on 9/11." They claimed his statement was bigoted because he failed to identify these Muslims as "extremists." You see, in today's PC world, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true if it's perceived as insensitive. Facts and truth must take a back seat to tolerance. Of course, tolerance is not really so tolerant after all, since it declares whole categories of speech and thought to be off-limits. Such "tolerance" is the reason that Major Hasan was able to shoot up Fort Hood last year. His military peers and superiors knew that he was a ticking time bomb, but were afraid to say anything negative about him because he was a Muslim and they didn't want to run afoul of the PC police.

Juan Williams is a liberal, but he is an honest liberal and deserves better than how he was treated by NPR. It is scandalous that this left-wing outfit is getting taxpayer money. The Republicans should cut off all taxpayer funding for NPR if they take control of Congress next year. Williams' article about his firing is on foxnews.com and is well worth reading. Check it out here. And I would urge all of my readers: please don't give in to the PC police. It is time that all of us as Americans stood up against this increasing threat to free speech in our country. Don't be afraid to speak out on the issues and to say what you believe. Don't lend your support in any way to politicians and journalists who peddle this pseudo-tolerance.

Updated Predictions for Senate and Governor Races

I've just updated my Senate and governor's race predictions, for any political junkies who are interested.... You can get to them by clicking on the links on the left side of the page.

My Favorite Election Experts

For you political junkies out there...

There are three political experts out there that I really like. I think these three individuals are unmatched when it comes to knowledge of American politics and the ability to effectively analyze polls and election data. They are:

1. Michael Barone of The Washington Examiner.

2. Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard.

3. Sean Trende of realclearpolitics.com.

I will be relying on the insight of these brilliant analysts on election night and in the days leading up to the election. I think they are the best conservative-oriented number crunchers out there. There are some good liberal-oriented number-crunchers too, like Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com.

In Case You Hadn't Noticed, There's An Election Coming Up....

Over the past few weeks, I've been spending a lot of time that I usually spend blogging reading about the 2010 elections, which explains why the posting has been light lately. I think Sean Hannity is not too far off the mark when he says that this is the most important election in our lifetimes. It is incredibly vital that we the people send as strong a message as possible to our government that we will not tolerate the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda of reckless spending, higher taxes, ballooning deficits, and socialized health care. In order to send that message, Republicans must perform well on Election Day. They must at least meet, if not exceed, expectations. Anything less than taking over the House represents failure, and I think they also need to at least make it to 49 or 50 seats in the Senate. I would strongly urge my readers not to sit this election out. Vote -- and encourage your family, friends, and co-workers to vote as well. If you have the ability and inclination, donate to or volunteer for competitive races in your state or district. And, most importantly, pray for God to give us wise and honest leaders that will take our country in the right direction.

To me, this election is less about rewarding Republicans and more about punishing Democrats for their massive overreach. The Democrats in Congress, led by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, have deliberately moved forward on a radical big government agenda, despite a staggering national debt and the strong opposition of a clear majority of the American people. They were warned over and over again, through townhall meetings, polls, rallies, and an overwhelming wave of letters and phone calls from constituents -- yet even many supposedly moderate Blue Dog Democrats ignored the voice of the people. And Obama's deliberate strategy has been to demonize that voice, accusing Tea Partiers and townhall activists of being racists and extremists (not to mention ignorant and stupid). I have not been around the block that many times, but I have never seen such blatant disregard for the will of American voters. Members of Congress need to know that there are consequences for this arrogance. If voters do not send a stinging rebuke on November 2, this disregard for the will of the American people will only get worse in the future. For the sake of our future, we must prove that we are not as stupid and uninformed as they think and that we are prepared to hold them accountable for their actions. Certainly Republicans will disappoint us from time to time if they regain the majority, but we can at least be sure they will stand against the excesses of the Obama Administration and bring back a desperately needed balance to our government.

It is interesting to note how this election is shaping up. By and large, Republicans are the only ones running on issues. They are talking about reducing the deficit, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, opposing cap-and-trade, reducing taxes and regulations to stimulate the economy, controlling our borders, finding solutions to Social Security, and many other substantive solutions. What are the Democrats running on? Well, individual candidates are not running on their support for ObamaCare, or their support for cap-and-trade, or their support for more spending and higher deficits. Most of them are running away from their records as fast as possible. The only House Democrats talking about ObamaCare and cap-and-trade are the ones who voted against those bills. And of course, they can't run on how they've improved the economy, or created jobs, or fixed the illegal immigration problem, or drained the ethical "swamp" in Washington, or improved partisan gridlock. Instead, by their own admission, the Democrats' almost exclusive strategy is to try to tear down and destroy their GOP opponents in any way possible. They are digging up all sorts of dirt from the past, in some cases turning to stories decades old, and saturating the airwaves with personal attacks. Some of them have been blatantly false, such as Alan Grayson's infamous "Taliban Dan" ad. They can't run on their record, so they are opting for the scorched earth strategy.

Of course, the Obama Administration has not been idle either. Their "strategy" is also to demonize the opposition, and their attacks have become increasingly shrill and partisan as well. The only problem is that they can't seem to decide who the target of this opposition is. It changes on a weekly basis. Over the month or two, they have focused their firepower, in rapid succession, on...John Boehner, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, the Tea Party movement, and, most bizarrely, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that supports Democrats as well as Republicans). Their claim that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "threatening democracy" by funding election campaigns with foreign money is so completely devoid of proof that even liberal Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation asked in astonishment, "Three weeks from election day, is this the best you have?" Of course, these attacks are only resulting in increased publicity and fundraising for Obama's targets -- Karl Rove's organization raised more than $14 million in the week following the President's attack. These attacks are doing nothing to help their precarious situation, because they are not talking about what the American people are concerned about. Voters don't care about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Karl Rove, or Fox News. They care about jobs and the economy and the deficit and taxes and spending and health care. Obama just looks increasingly partisan and even irrelevant, and is making it next to impossible for Democrats to win over the very independents and moderates they need to be successful in swing districts across the country.

Even Obama and Biden's appeals to their base seem to fall flat. Obama comes across as a lecturer, telling Democrats that "they'd better be motivated" and that he "needs them to be fired up" and saying that if "folks want to take their ball and go home, that just tells me they weren't serious in the first place." Meanwhile, Biden calls out partisan crowds for not showing enough enthusiasm (while also saying he wants to "strangle" Republicans for talking about balancing the budget). Uh, I have news for the White House crowd. You don't get your base excited by telling them to be excited. Passion isn't a switch to be turned off and on at will. Voters are passionate when you give them a reason to be passionate about. They get excited when they see results. And frankly, it's pretty hard to get excited about a 9.6% unemployment rate.

So, yes, the Republicans are going to win big this year. I will be updating my detailed Senate and governor's predictions soon, but suffice it to say that the Republicans will probably at least come close to taking the Senate, and will probably gain around 10 governor's seats as well. Almost all of the nonpartisan forecasters agree that the Democrats will lose the House, and the only question is the margin. I think the margin could be sizable. It's going to get nasty at the end, and Obama and his party are going to do everything possible to destroy GOP candidates, but in the end the "cake is baked." I can't wait for November 2!

The FBI Is Compromising Homeland Security

There are many challenges facing our country today. Unemployment sits at nearly 10%, our deficit and national debt are exploding, our businesses are being taxed and regulated to death, and our first-rate health care system is being taken over by incompetent government bureaucrats. Yet, for all these domestic policy and economic challenges, I feel that the greatest challenge we face as a country is the threat of radical Islam. A bad economy makes our lives miserable and an ever-encroaching federal government reduces our liberties, but radical Islam threatens our very lives and the very existence of our country.

The thing that frustrates me the most about this issue is that so many politicians don't seem to recognize the seriousness of the threat -- or worse, don't seem to feel there is a threat at all. National security should not be a partisan issue. Whether Republican or Democrat, we should all stand united to fight terrorism and radical Islam. Yet, over and over again, terrorism issues become Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal -- when they should be America vs. Islamic terrorism. If conservatives are the only ones serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, then we have no chance of winning the fight.

The latest outrage comes from the FBI. Recently the FBI granted a VIP tour of our country's top-secret counterterrorism facilities to Sheikh Kifah Mustapha -- a man with close ties to Hamas and deeply involved in terrorism financing. Apparently this is part of our country's "outreach to the Muslim community." You probably haven't heard anything about this on the news, because the media has been blacking out this story. In fact, an ABC reporter accompanied Mustapha on the tour and filed a report about it, completely omitting any reference to Mustapha's radical terrorist connections. I only found out about it through email updates from Act for America, a grassroots organization founded to fight radical Islam in America. You can read more about this on bigpeace.com (a project founded by Andrew Breitbart) here and here.

I can't say how angry this makes me. Our country's national security is being compromised in the name of tolerance. And no one seems to care -- at least none of our elected officials or media reporters. According to my email from Act for America, many of their members called the FBI to express their concern. The FBI responded rudely and claimed that the story was a lie. Good to know that the FBI not only lets terrorist sympathizers into their top-secret facilities but also lies about it to concerned Americans. Folks, someone at the top approved Mustapha's access, and we need to find out who and why. Here is the letter I sent to my congressman and senators regarding this issue:

I am writing to ask you and your [House or Senate] colleagues to investigate why the FBI invited Sheikh Kifah Mustapha on a VIP tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center. Mustapha has close connections to Hamas, was named an unindicated co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, is at the top of our terrorist watch lists, and recently was dismissed from the Illinois State Police chaplaincy program after failing a background check. There is no way a man like this should be given access to a top-secret counter-terrorism facility. Please encourage your colleagues to speak out on this issue and to launch a congressional investigation to determine how this happened and who is responsible for approving it. I feel strongly that the security of our country MUST be a top priority, and I know you feel the same way.

Sadly, I don't think anyone in the Obama Administration is losing any sleep over this. In fact, I doubt that Obama would have any problem with this. He might have personally approved it, for all I know. Just consider the behavior of Obama and his administration over the past two years when it comes to Islamic terrorism:

1. Attorney General Eric Holder launched an investigation into the CIA for their enhanced interrogation techniques against known terrorists -- techniques that saved thousands of American lives and that were legal at the time they were used. The Obama Administration has made any aggressive forms of interrogation against terrorists illegal. That should help our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.
2. Obama is trying to shut down our top-notch terrorist facility at Guantanamo Bay, either releasing the terrorists held there or bringing them to the U.S.
3. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to bring Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed to the U.S. to provide him with the full rights of American citizens and a civilian trial in New York City, despite the fact that he had already pleaded guilty in a military tribunal.
4. Obama's Department of Homeland Security stopped using phrases like "acts of terrorism" and "radical Islam," preferring instead more politically correct terminology like "man-caused disasters." How can you defeat an enemy when you won't even acknowledge who you're fighting?
5. Obama's government failed miserably in stopping the Christmas Day bomber. Once he was apprehended, thanks to the fact that his bomb did not detonate as intended, he was interviewed by the FBI for 45 minutes and then was read his Miranda rights, despite the fact he was not an American citizen and the fact that he had current information about terrorist activities. He then clammed up and refused to talk to the FBI or CIA for many weeks.
6. The Fort Hood shooter should have been kicked out the military months earlier due to his radical Islamic beliefs, but his superiors would not take action against him because of a rigorous "tolerance" policy enforced by the top military commanders appointed by Obama. After the massacre, top Obama administration members denied the shooter had connections to radical Islam and said it was an isolated incident. You know, like the Times Square bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, and all those other isolated incidents.
7. Obama spoke out forcefully in favor of a grand Islamic center right next to Ground Zero, despite the fact that the imam behind the project has radical pro-terrorist and anti-American views. In fact, that imam works for our government as part of our "outreach" to the Muslim world.
8. Obama has gone around the world apologizing for America's supposed offenses against the Muslim world under his predecessor.
9. Obama has tied the hands of our troops in Afghanistan. Their restrictive rules of engagement make it next to impossible to aggressively go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and a fixed departure date emboldens terrorists even further.
10. Obama has refused to take any action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - even tough sanctions. He has continually tried to appease their radical leaders, with no result. He even refused to speak out against their rigged election last year or to defend and support the Iranian citizens protesting for freedom.
11. Obama has openly sided with Palestinian terrorists over our democratic ally Israel. One of Obama first official overseas speeches was to Hamas. His representatives have refused to defend Israel in the U.N., and he has openly snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

I could go on and on, but I don't have time. The point is, Islamic terrorists don't fear Obama. In fact, they probably think he secretly sympathizes with them. They are emboldened here and abroad, knowing that there will be no consequences for their actions. Terrorist activity has significantly increased on our soil since Obama took office, including one successful and two nearly-successful attacks. Increasingly, our government associates with "moderate" Muslim leaders and organizations that are actually very radical and militant in their views. Congress hasn't held Obama accountable either. It's only going to get worse, unless we as citizens and voters speak out and make it clear to our elected officials that the War on Terror is a priority for us.

2010 Election: House Races

This is probably something that only political junkies will find interesting, but here are my rankings for the 2010 competitive U.S. House races. Please note that due to the large number of seats in play and the very limited amount of public polling available, it is virtually impossible to predict all of these races accurately. Still, here is my perspective on the current state of the battle for the House, starting with Democratic-held seats.

Likely or Certain GOP Pickups:
1. Open (Bart Gordon) (TN-6)
2. Open (Charlie Melancon) (LA-2)
3. Open (Vic Snyder) (AR-2)
4. Open (Eric Massa) (NY-29)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the GOP:
1. Open (Dennis Moore) (KS-3)
2. Open (Brad Ellsworth) (IN-8)
3. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
4. Harry Teague (NM-2)
5. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
6. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
7. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
8. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
9. Travis Childers (MS-1)
10. Open (Paul Hodes) (NH-2)
11. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1)
12. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
13. Open (Brian Baird) (WA-3)
14. Open (John Tanner) (TN-8)
15. Chet Edwards (TX-17)
16. Open (Marion Berry) (AR-1)
17. Debbie Halvorson (IL-11)
18. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
19. Dina Titus (NV-3)
20. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)
21. Open (Joe Sestak) (PA-7)
22. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
23. John Boccieri (OH-16)
24. Glenn Nye (VA-2)
25. Open (Bart Stupak) (MI-1)
26. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
27. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)

Tossup Races - Slight GOP Edge:
1. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
2. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
3. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
4. John Spratt (SC-5)
5. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
6. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
7. Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
8. John Hall (NY-19)
9. Open (David Obey) (WI-7)

Tossup Races - Slight Democrat Edge:
1. Open (Alan Mollohan) (WV-1)
2. Baron Hill (IN-9)
3. Larry Kissell (NC-8)
4. Bill Foster (IL-14)
5. Bobby Bright (AL-2)
6. Jim Marshall (GA-8)
7. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
8. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
9. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
10. Steve Kagen (WI-8)
11. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
12. Chris Carney (PA-10)
13. John Salazar (CO-3)
14. Zack Space (OH-18)
15. Ike Skelton (MO-4)
16. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
17. Ron Klein (FL-22)
18. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
19. John Adler (NJ-3)
20. Phil Hare (IL-17)
21. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the Democrats:
1. Walt Minnick (ID-1)
2. Rick Boucher (VA-9)
3. Martin Heinrich (NM-1)
4. Betty Sutton (OH-13)
5. Bill Owens (NY-23)
6. Open (Bill Delahunt) (MA-10)
7. Mark Critz (PA-12)
8. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
9. Ben Chandler (KY-6)
10. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
11. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
12. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
13. Gary Peters (MI-9)
14. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
15. Jim Himes (CT-4)
16. Rick Larsen (WA-2)
17. Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)
18. Tim Walz (MN-1)
19. Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
20. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

Long-Shot Opportunities for the GOP:
1. Mike McMahon (NY-13)
2. Jason Altmire (PA-4)
3. Tim Holden (PA-17)
4. Christopher Murphy (CT-5)
5. Dan Maffei (NY-25)
6. Ron Kind (WI-3)
7. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
8. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
9. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
10. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
11. Open (Patrick Kennedy) (RI-1)
12. Rush Holt (NJ-12)
13. John Yarmuth (KY-3)
14. John Barrow (GA-12)
15. Jim Matheson (UT-2)
16. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
17. Jim Costa (CA-20)
18. Bruce Braley (IA-1)
19. Dave Loebsack (IA-2)
20. Michael Michaud (ME-2)
21. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
22. Anthony Weiner (NY-9)
23. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
24. Steve Israel (NY-2)
25. Chellie Pingree (ME-1)

Now for the very few competitive Republican-held seats:

Likely Democratic Pickups:
1. Anh Cao (LA-3)
2. Open (Mike Castle) (DE-AL)

Tossup Races - Slight Democrat Edge:
1. Open (Mark Kirk) (IL-10)
2. Charles Djou (HI-1)

Vulnerable Seats Leaning Toward the GOP:
1. Open (Mario Diaz-Balart) (FL-25)
2. Dan Lungren (CA-3)

Long-Shot Opportunities for the Democrats:
1. Open (Parker Griffith) (AL-5)
2. Charlie Dent (PA-15)

All in all, that leaves us with a total of 8 competitive GOP seats, and a whopping 106 competitive Democratic seats. Right now, I have exactly 40 Democrat-held seats in the GOP column, while 4 Republican-held seats are in the Democratic column. That would be a net 36-seat gain for the GOP, three short of the number needed to take control of the House. However, I have an additional 21 Democratic-held tossup seats, many of which will likely end up going to the GOP on election night. I just don't know which ones yet! It seems quite likely the Republicans will end up with a net gain of at least 40-50 seats, given the large number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents whose challengers are still little-known.

Sore Losers

This year, it seems, has really been the year for sore losers on the Republican side of aisle. Back in May, Charlie Crist, the sitting governor of Florida, was badly trailing his more conservative rival for the GOP Senate nomination, Marco Rubio. So what did Charlie do? He left the Republican Party and decided to run for the Senate as an independent. When asked which party he would caucus with if elected, he said he would caucus "with the people of Florida." (That statement appears to be in English but that's about all I can decipher about it.) More recently, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller upset the heavily favored GOP incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican Senate primary. Murkowski's response was to announce that she would continue to run as a write-in candidate. (I won't let the voters' decision stand in my way!)

The reason Crist and Murkowski lost (or were sure to lose) their GOP primaries is because they did not have their finger on the pulse of rank-and-file GOP voters. Republican voters are in no mood for compromise this year. They are angry. Angry about record deficits, record spending, health care reform, cap-and-trade, bailouts, stimulus bills, government takeover of industry, etc. They want dramatic change in Washington, and they are looking for people who share their anger and who will represent their interests and concerns. Murkowski and Crist, as well as other GOP frontrunner candidates such as Rick Lazio, Mike Castle, and Trey Grayson, were rejected by Republican voters because they were establishment candidates who were comfortable with the status quo.

However, for people like Crist and Murkowski, neither party loyalty nor voters' decisions matter much. Their egos have fooled them into believing they are indispensable to the Senate and to the country, and their thirst for power has led them to disregard both primary results and prior promises (in Crist's case, at least). What matters to them is not advancing the cause of the Republican Party or of conservative principles. What matters is their personal career. And it is especially ironic because for years the media has been lecturing us on how conservatives in the party are threatening the "big tent." Yet it is the moderates and liberals in the party, not the conservatives, that are demonstrating real disloyalty to the party. And in fact, there is a long tradition of liberal Republican disloyalty stretching from Jim Jeffords to Arlen Specter.

Now, I admit that my perspective on party loyalty is colored somewhat by my political beliefs. For example, I was happy about Joe Lieberman running as an independent in Connecticut in 2006 when he lost the Democratic primary. Inconsistent? Perhaps. But Lieberman's decision did not put the seat in jeopardy of Republican takeover, as the token GOP candidate in the race was extremely weak and underfunded and never broke out of single digits in the polls. Also, Lieberman did not change his views, either during the campaign or after getting re-elected, and he continued to caucus with his party. Crist, on the other hand, has changed his views dramatically, flip-flopping on everything from gay rights and abortion to health care reform and taxes. He is really trying to run as a de facto Democrat. This demonstrates what an unprincipled and opportunistic person he truly is. Finally, Lieberman never promised not to run as an independent. Crist, on the other hand, looked right into the TV cameras and solemnly promised to remain in the Republican Party just TWO WEEKS before leaving the party and running as an independent.

While Crist's independent bid appears to be purely self-interested and opportunistic, Murkowski's write-in bid looks to be more of a grudge match. Her speech last week launching her write-in candidacy betrayed a great deal of anger against Joe Miller, whom she called an "extremist," and against Sarah Palin, a long-time political adversary whom she also mentioned by name. Essentially, Murkowski is bitter about Palin's defeat of her father in the 2006 gubernatorial primary and furious about Miller's gall in challenging and defeating her, and so she is purposely running to try to destroy Miller's candidacy and embarrass Palin. After all, does she really have a chance of winning as a write-in candidate? Only once in American history has a write-in candidate ever won election to the U.S. Senate (and that one time was nearly a century ago, if memory serves me right). Murkowski is very unlikely to win, and she knows that. But she is hoping to damage Joe Miller and be a spoiler in the race.

One other point. Readers who remember my strong support for independent Tea Party affiliated candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election for the New York 23rd district congressional race last November may see an inconsistency here as well. However, I consider that race very different from the Murkowski and Crist races for a couple of reasons. First, the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was not chosen by the voters. Instead of winning a primary, she was chosen by a small group of (apparently very out-of-touch) party leaders. Second, Scozzafava was an extreme liberal. She supported most of the Democratic Party's agenda -- everything from card check to cap-and-trade to unfettered abortion, and expressed openness to the Democrat's health care reform bill as well. She even had ties to ACORN! She gave conservatives absolutely no reason to support her. Most Republicans and conservatives rallied around Hoffman, dropping Scozzafava to a distant third. She then dropped out of the race altogether a few days before the election and endorsed the Democrat, further demonstrating her true colors.

I am optimistic that both Joe Miller and Marco Rubio will win their Senate races comfortably, despite their sore loser third-party opponents. However, there is still potential that Crist and Murkowski could end up costing Republicans these seats. Hopefully, these cases will serve as an important reminder to voters to avoid politicians with an "R" after their name who seem to lack real principle and conviction. And hopefully, the losses of these two turncoats (and of Arlen Specter earlier this year) will serve as a warning to future would-be political opportunists.

The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

I found this editorial in The Washington Examiner very sad. A few months ago, Molly Norris, cartoonist for The Seattle Weekly, tried to spotlight attempts by radical Muslims to suppress free speech by devising "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Now, adherents of the Religion of Peace are threatening Norris's life, and since the FBI has told her it cannot protect her, she has been forced to go into hiding.

As terrible as this seems, it doesn't surprise me in the least. The pattern is repeated over and over again. People who have the guts to prominently speak out about Islam and the Muslim world are either killed or are forced to live their life in hiding or with around-the-clock protection. What is a bit surprising to me is the fact that most journalists are not speaking out about this and standing by their own. As The Examiner points out, the American Society of News Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists have both failed to even issue a statement on the issue, despite the fact that they are both supposedly dedicated to promoting free speech and a free press. The press has obsessed about some rogue preacher in Florida with a few dozen followers trying to burn Korans as a publicity stunt, but they have barely covered the Molly Norris story at all.

In fact, The New York Times has been busy blaming America for its persecution of Muslims. Their editorial writer Nicholas Kristof recently wrote, "I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you." Of course, there has been no such "wave of bigotry," either in response to 9/11 or in response to the Ground Zero mosque. Short of one recent isolated incident of violence against a taxi driver (perpetrated by someone associated with a group supporting the Ground Zero mosque, by the way), there has simply been no violence committed against Muslims. Muslims live and work without fear in this country despite being surrounded by non-Muslims. On the other hand, even though Muslims make up a tiny percentage of people in this country, they can force a harmless American cartoonist into hiding for her life. Of course, Kristof is too busy smearing Americans as racist bigots to find time to even pen one sentence of support for Molly Norris.

Here's the problem. The vast majority of journalists in this country are cowards. They are too afraid of radical Islam to speak out against its crimes, or to defend others who have spoken out and become targets. We saw this same cowardice at work earlier when newspapers and publishing houses refused to publish the Danish cartoons making fun of Mohammed that had provoked such outrage in the Muslim world. Or when episodes of South Park were edited by TV networks to avoid Muslim "offense." The First Amendment is considered sacrosanct on every issue from flag-burning to pornography -- except when it comes to criticizing Islam. Then, it's hard to find any journalists willing to speak up for the First Amendment at all. It's because they're cowards, pure and simple. And they don't seem to have much of a moral compass either.

As The Examiner notes, there was a time in our country when our journalists and law enforcement agencies were willing to stand up against violent attempts to curb free speech. Many journalists and newspaper editors risked their lives to speak out against racism and segregation during the civil rights movement. And they received support from the FBI, which sought to protect them and to fight back against the Ku Klux Klan. Nowadays, all brave, patriotic Americans like Molly Norris get from the journalistic and law enforcement communities is the back of the hand. Or worse, they are assumed to have brought it on themselves for being "insensitive" to the notoriously sensitive Muslim community.

Where are the brave Americans in journalism, law enforcement, and politics willing to stand up to the evil of radical Islam? If they don't exist anymore, then I don't think our country is going to stay free for very long.

How's MSNBC Going to Spin Away This Poll?

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 52% of likely voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin's than to Barack Obama's. Only 40% say their views are closer to Obama's than to Palin's. Palin beats Obama both among men and women and in every age demographic, even college-age voters.

I really love this poll, because I know it is a finger in the eye to almost the entirety of the political and media establishment in this country, not to mention the Republicans who find it fashionable or expedient to bash her.

Obama vs. the Constitution

Unbelievable as it may sound, Obama was once a constitutional law professor. So he should be familiar with Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Officers of the United States." The same section goes on to say that the President can only appoint "inferior Officers" without the advice and consent of the Senate if Congress explicitly permits it by law.

In the case of the director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the law does not provide an exception for the Senate confirmation process. In fact, the very "financial reform" legislation that created it in July of this year also specifically declared that its director had to be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

So, what do you do if you're President Obama and you're looking for someone to fill the position of Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? First, you select the most partisan, radical, controversial person you can find -- a person that even liberal Senator Christopher Dodd thinks may not be confirmable in a Senate with 59 Democrats. That person would be Elizabeth Warren, who has stated that she thinks her job is to "level the playing field" in the financial sector by dictating the terms and recipients of mortgages and credit cards extended by banks and financial institutions, completely apart from the authority of regulators responsible to maintain the financial soundness of those institutions. Second, you appoint her without the advice and consent of the Senate by changing her technical title from "Director" to "Special Advisor to the Treasury Secretary." Of course, she will report directly to the President and will have unfettered control over the formation and policy of the bureau, so she is in actuality directing it. But with luck the public won't know and the Senate won't make much of a fuss. And after all, the bureau only has a budget of up to $650 million, little Congressional oversight, and tremendous power to make rules governing a huge sector of our economy.

This move was bit much even for The Washington Post, hardly a mouthpiece of right-wing propaganda. In their editorial, they described Warren as an "ideologically contentious" progressive activist who "can be simplistic and hyperbolic." They also questioned whether Obama was within his constitutional rights (putting it charitably). The Wall Street Journal's editorial had even stronger things to say:

"We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency (the Fed) that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup."

Obama was right back in 2008 when he claimed he would be a different kind of politician. Of course, we were all thinking George Washington, not Hugo Chavez....

Some Thoughts on That Controversial Senate Race in Delaware....

One of the more controversial primary races of this election season occurred on Tuesday in Delaware, where Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell shocked long-time U.S. Congressman Mike Castle in the GOP Senate primary. For most of this year, Castle was considered a shoo-in both to win the primary and the general election. However, in the last few weeks of the campaign, O'Donnell received key endorsements from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative stalwarts, and ended up surging to victory by six points. The infighting and finger-pointing got even worse after the election. Some Republicans and conservatives, including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove, lashed out at the Tea Party movement for giving away a safe GOP seat, while other conservatives, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, attacked the "GOP establishment" for disrespecting the will of the voters and smearing a fellow-conservative (O'Donnell). Here are my thoughts on the Delaware election and the subsequent controversy:

1. Christine O'Donnell is a deeply flawed candidate. Her personal life indicates a serious lack of personal responsibility and financial discipline. Her house was foreclosed on in 2008. As of this year, she had still not paid off campaign debts from her previous Senate runs. She reported less than $6,000 of earned income on her tax return last year, raising the question whether she is using her perennial runs for political office as a way to earn a personal living. Although representing herself as a college graduate, she did not receive her official degree from the college until well over a decade after graduation due to thousands of dollars in unpaid bills to the college. She claimed in a campaign interview this year that she carried two out of the state's three counties during her 2008 run for the Senate; in fact, she carried none of the state's counties. People associated with her campaign were responsible for spreading rumors that Congressman Castle was gay -- rumors that appear to be completely unfounded and untrue. She suggested that independent pollster Scott Rasmussen was in the pay of the RNC when he released a poll that showed her trailing.

Another thing to note about O'Donnell is that she has virtually no accomplishments to point to that would indicate she is qualified to be in the Senate. This sets her apart from other Tea Party "outsider" candidates. Joe Miller of Alaska is a former Marine and a successful attorney and judge. Rand Paul of Kentucky is a doctor with a successful medical practice. Rick Scott of Florida is a successful businessman. Sharron Angle served in the Nevada legislature. Marco Rubio has a long history of achievement, including Speaker of the Florida House. What exactly has Christine O'Donnell accomplished, other than running unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate twice (with a high water mark of 35% of the vote in 2008)?

2. A candidate's stated positions on the issues are not the only consideration when determining who to vote for. A candidate's character and background matter too. When listening to the Mark Levin Radio Show a few days before the Delaware primary, Levin dismissed all the questions surrounding O'Donnell's personal life and financial history as completely irrelevant and unimportant. In essence, he claimed that she would vote the right way in the Senate, so who cares about her character or personal life? I was very surprised by this claim, and found it to be both untrue and hypocritical. I didn't hear Levin dismissing these character issues as unimportant when three of Obama's cabinet nominees were under fire for failing to pay their personal income taxes. I didn't hear Levin dismissing character issues as unimportant when discussing Bill Clinton's serial adultery and repeated lying. But more importantly, personal character does matter. If someone breaks his promise to his wife and cheats on her, how can we expect that politician to be honest with the American public? If someone doesn't pay their own taxes, why should they be entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the nation's tax laws? If someone is incapable of personal responsibility in handling their own money and keeping within their own budget, can we trust them to be responsible in handling our tax dollars and balancing our country's budget?

After the Delaware election, Levin accused Rove of "smearing" O'Donnell because he brought up the points I listed above regarding O'Donnell's personal life. I don't see how this is a smear if it is true. Smearing means attacking someone unfairly or telling lies or distortions about them. To bring up legitimate facts about someone's behavior is not a smear.

3. Adherence to conservative principles should not be an excuse for lying about an opponent -- even one you consider to be too liberal. Mike Castle is a moderate-to-liberal Republican who disappointed conservatives many times. Nevertheless, there is no justification for Hannity claiming more than once on his news program that Castle voted in favor of ObamaCare. This is a flat-out lie. Castle voted against ObamaCare both times it came up for a vote in the House, and also voted in favor of the Stupak amendment to ban funding for abortion in the bill. Hannity never corrected the record or apologized for lying about Castle -- at least not to my knowledge. I understand Hannity dislikes Castle, but the end does not justify the means.

3. Mike Castle has no one to blame but himself for losing. He never gave Republicans a compelling reason to vote for him. He never took O'Donnell seriously. He refused to debate with her, refused to appeal to conservatives, and did nothing in the final weeks except attack O'Donnell. He seemed to feel he should be coronated without having to campaign for the job. For conservative voters angry about Washington's big spending ways, the argument that he was "more electable" was not sufficient reason to vote for him. And let's not overlook the fact that Castle is far from a conservative.

4. Republican voters and the Republican party should throw their full support behind the winner of the primary, regardless of their personal preference. Christine O'Donnell is the Republican nominee. She was not my first choice; nevertheless she is far better than the very left-wing Democrat in the race, and she won her primary race fair and square. Delaware Republicans knew about O'Donnell's checkered history, yet still determined she was better than Mike Castle. The party should respect the will of the voters. Instead of continuing to attack O'Donnell, we should work hard from here on out to elect her.

5. Mike Castle is under no obligation to endorse Christine O'Donnell. Normally, I think the loser of a Republican primary should show grace and class by quickly endorsing the primary winner. However, this case is different, and the reason for that is O'Donnell herself. During the primary, she indicated that if Castle won she would not endorse him and would consider running as a write-in candidate. And in fact, she did just that the last time she lost a Republican primary, back in 2006. She refused to endorse the Republican nominee and ran as a third-party write-in candidate. So, I ask, why is Castle obligated to endorse O'Donnell when she already made clear she would not support him if the tables were turned? As long as Castle doesn't run as a third-party candidate or endorse the Democrat, I don't see why he should feel obligated to endorse her.

The bottom line is, the Delaware race split conservatives. Some conservatives were angry enough about Mike Castle's non-conservative voting record they chose to overlook O'Donnell's flaws. Other conservatives felt that those flaws were important enough to make her unelectable and unworthy of their support, reasoning that a 50% conservative would be better than a 0% conservative. I can understand both points of view, and neither side should try to demonize the other or make the other side out to be traitors or enemies. I supported Mike Castle, but Delaware voters disagreed and I accept their decision. Now conservatives should stop bickering and unite to defeat the Democrats in November.

Updated Senate Predictions

I recently updated my U.S. Senate predictions. Check them out by clicking on the link on the left side of the page. At the bottom of the predictions page there are some interesting discussions back and forth with other members of the U.S. Election Atlas site. I will be updating my predictions for the governors' races in the next couple of days.

Some may think my comments and prediction regarding O'Donnell in Delaware are too harsh. I posted my predictions the day after the primary and was feeling pretty depressed about our chances there. I'm a little more optimistic after seeing Rasmussen's poll showing O'Donnell only down by 11 points. I still don't think we can win this race, but I hope I'm wrong! I hope to post more comments on the Delaware race later.

UPDATE: I just updated my governor's predictions as well. Check them out also on the link on the left side of the page.

Obama's Thug Politics

Michael Barone has a great column out today about the Obama Administration's disgraceful bullying tactics against the health care industry. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently wrote a letter to the president of the chief lobbying organization for private health insurers, telling her that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." It seems that health insurance companies are raising their premiums significantly in response to ObamaCare, which imposes significant new costs and regulations on them. If anyone on Obama's team knew anything about how a free market economy works, they would be aware that forcing health insurers to provide more benefits leads to additional costs, which these insurers will pass on to consumers in order to stay profitable. Opponents of ObamaCare pointed out that this would be the inevitable result of the Democratic legislation for a year now. However, according to Sebelius, such premium increases are unacceptable because "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact...will be minimal." Never mind basic economic principles -- the government has authoritatively declared that your costs will not go up!

So what exactly does "zero tolerance" mean? (Have you heard Obama's Administration use those words about Iran or Hamas or Hugo Chavez lately? Funny how American health insurers get less benefit of the doubt than Islamic terrorists and hostile foreign governments.) Well, Sebelius explains herself. She says that her department will issue regulations to force a "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases." (That word "potentially" really narrows down the field!) And adds, "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

Let's put Sebelius's Soviet-style approach in ordinary English. Here's what she's really saying: "We control health care in this country now. We determine who gets to participate in the health insurance market and who doesn't, and if you don't set the premiums we tell you to set, we will put you out of business. We know that raising premiums and telling consumers why you are raising those premiums is not against the law -- nevertheless we have a 'zero tolerance' policy for dissent or criticism of our legislation. We will let you know when the First Amendment applies and when it doesn't. Ground Zero Mosque - yes. Criticizing ObamaCare - no."

As Barone points out, "The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm a business because the owners disagree with government officials is thuggery." Of course, this is the same administration that forced GM and Chrysler to reorganize outside of the normal rules of bankruptcy to protect their union allies, and the same administration that tried to bully Fox News by singling them out for exclusion from an interview with a Cabinet official. They are hungry for control -- of the media, the automakers, the financial services industry, the health insurance industry, the energy industry, etc. Control means the right to bully and intimidate people and companies into doing what you want. The Soviets would have been proud.

It's telling that while Sebelius is attempting to silence health insurers who are criticizing the health care bill, not a SINGLE Democratic congressman or senator in a competitive race is bragging about voting for the health care bill. According to Barone, no Democrat running for Congress has even praised or defended the bill since April. They wouldn't be running from it if they didn't know it was an utter failure. But if you're a health insurer, you'd better keep your mouth shut. Or else.

Find Out Where You Are on the Political Spectrum

I found this interesting online test called The Political Matrix that asks you a number of questions about your economic and social beliefs and then tells you where your views place you on the political spectrum. It's not exact, of course, but I've taken these sorts of tests before and this is one of the best ones. Check it out here!

My scores:
+6.32 economic score (economically capitalist)
+4.87 social score (socially moderately authoritarian)

Don't We Have Bigger Things to Focus On?

I was listening to the radio driving home from work yesterday, listening to the Jeff Kuhner show (which I generally like). Kuhner was playing excerpts from Obama's interview with Brian Williams over the weekend in which he said, "I can't walk around with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." Granted, it was certainly a stupid thing to say, and a news story to be sure. But then Kuhner went on to say that since the President had brought up the topic he (Kuhner) wanted to discuss it, and asked his listeners to call in and say whether they thought Obama was born in the U.S. or not.

This discussion somehow morphed into an attack on Obama for ordering some lobster dish at a restaurant in New Orleans (lobster is the one major type of seafood not caught in Gulf waters) and further attacks on Obama's habit of "stuffing his face" with the finest dishes at the finest restaurants. It reminded me very much of something I heard on a different radio show last week. The guest host on Mark Levin's program was lambasting Obama for refusing to answer a question about the Iraq War shouted to him by a reporter on his vacation while he and his family were buying shrimp at a seafood market. The host was railing at Obama for being more concerned about "stuffing his face" than the big issue of our men and women fighting and dying in Iraq, and said that this moment should be a rallying cry for the upcoming elections.

Come on. I have been as critical of Obama as anyone, but over-the-top commentary like what I described above is not doing the conservative cause any favors. I have heard more than enough about the birth certificate issue. I am well aware that Obama has not released the official long form of his birth certificate, but there is plenty of evidence that he was born in the U.S. Obama may well be covering up something from his past by refusing to release any of his records and transcripts, but we have no idea what it is and speculation is useless. Continuing to talk about this is playing right into Obama's hands (and maybe even what he intended by making that statement). He would much rather conservatives look extreme by continuing to go round and round about an old, stale issue that is not news, rather than talking about the real issues like the economy, unemployment, illegal immigration, Iraq, Iran, health care, cap and trade, government spending, the deficit, etc.

I honestly don't think most Americans care whether Obama ordered shrimp or lobster during his recent trip to New Orleans. So what if Obama likes to "stuff his face"? So do I! I do think the president's vacation schedule and golfing outings have been excessive and overly luxurious, given the current economic times, but that is not what he was being attacked about. He was being attacked specifically for what he ate and how much he ate, and I think that's stupid. And with regard to Obama ignoring the question about the Iraq War -- well, frankly, if I had been in his shoes I would probably have ignored the question too. Any public figure, including the President, is going to be peppered with questions from reporters when he goes out in public, and he has every right to ignore them. This wasn't a press conference. He is under no obligation to answer a question shouted at him as he walks by, and it certainly wasn't the time for an explanation of the intricacies of our Iraqi military presence.

Here's my point in all this: as conservatives, let's be smart in our criticism of Obama. Obama has failed as a leader on many big, important issues. Ignoring a reporter's question on his vacation and eating lobster in New Orleans are not among those failures. We didn't like it when the press unfairly hammered Bush over every little stinkin' thing; let's not do that to Obama either. These kinds of nitpicking criticisms make us look small, petty, and hateful. I have been very harsh in my attacks on Obama on this blog, but I have always tried to keep those attacks substantive and focused on the important issues. (If at any point I fail to this, I hope you, my readers, will correct me.) If his behavior demonstrates arrogance or shows a lack of leadership and integrity (as I believe it has), then that is a legitimate and fair personal criticism. But our goal as conservatives should not be to personally destroy Obama; our goal should be to defeat him in this election and in 2012 by articulating a clear and positive vision for our country in line with the principles of our founders and our Constitution.

"Seventy Percent of Americans Know They've Been Conned"

My regular readers are probably noticing a theme of late in my posts. The Washington political & media elites are badly out of touch with the majority of the American people. Americans are sick of being lectured about everything from the Ground Zero mosque to gay marriage to the Arizona immigration law to health care reform, and they are going to show up in November and let their voice be heard. We saw a foretaste of this in the huge crowd that showed up over the weekend on the National Mall to hear Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, among others, speak. Hugh Hewitt expresses this frustration of ordinary Americans very well in his column today in the Washington Examiner on this topic. Check it out here.

Over the past week or two, I have become increasingly optimistic about Republicans' prospects in the upcoming midterm elections. The Ground Zero mosque has provided yet another indication of how out-of-touch Obama & Pelosi are with the public. The economy is not getting better -- if anything it's getting worse. The health care bill is as unpopular as ever. Polling for the Democrats is simply awful. Even many Democratic strategists privately concede the House is lost, and the Senate majority could also be in jeopardy. I increasingly think the Democrats are headed for a virtually unprecedented shellacking at the polls. Increasingly, 35-40 House seats seems to be the floor, and the ceiling may be 60 or 70 seats or even more. And it is becoming easier and easier to see a clear path to 10 Senate seats.