Objections to “Mary-mandering” redistricting bill gain coverage in non-partisan press

by CTBC Director | 11:45 pm, April 30, 2010

One of the most important issues in Colorado Politics – the looming reapportionment (state-level) and redistricting (Congressional) of Colorado’s legislative districts, which will occur next year following this year’s census – has received scant attention from Colorado’s newspaper of record, the Denver Post.  Although disappointing, this cannot come as a surprise to the astute political [...]

Rep. Joe Miklosi haunted by the specter of Karl Rove

by Kelly Maher | 5:47 pm, April 30, 2010

When debating congressional redistricting this week in the Colorado House State Affairs Committee, Democratic Rep. Joe Miklosi goes on RED ALERT. He quotes 7-year-old newspaper columns, Scripture, and the specter of Republican strategist Karl Rove.REP….

Ryan Frazier Far and Away 7th CD GOP Candidate with Greatest Local Support

by Ben DeGrow | 5:33 pm, April 30, 2010

Thanks to Complete Colorado linking to this interesting Channel 7 story breaking down political campaign giving, I ran into some interesting data on the reported campaign contributions here in Colorado’s 7th Congressional District.
I’ve pasted a screenshot of the chart from Open Secrets:

Note the green bars represent in-state contributions and the red bars represent out-of-state contributions [...]

The Blueprint (or the Colorado Model if you prefer)

by Jon Caldara | 2:35 pm, April 30, 2010

The Modern Sophists: “Power to Regulate Commerce” Means “Power to Regulate Non-Commerce”

by Rob Natelson | 1:50 pm, April 30, 2010

A few law professors have been arguing that it’s constitutional to force people to buy health insurance, because the Constitution gives Congress power to “regulate Commerce among the several States.”
Under the very broad formulation of the federal Commerce Power issued by the modern Supreme Court, Congress can regulate not just interstate commerce and certain related [...]

Who’s Really the Party of Big Business

by Al Maurer | 12:18 pm, April 30, 2010

The Democrat Party likes to paint Republicans as the party of Big Business; that may have been true once (although I don’t remember when), but it is certainly not true today. This short video was put together by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but I’ve seen these numbers elsewhere and they’re easily verifiable: The hypocrisy [...]

Giving You More Good Reasons to See The Cartel Movie While It’s Here in Denver

by Eddie | 10:57 am, April 30, 2010

Last Friday I told you that a great new education movie called The Cartel is coming to town. In fact, on this coming Tuesday at 7 PM, at Denver’s Chez Artiste Theatre, my Independence Institute friends are co-hosting a special screening event with a brief Q & A following the movie.
Given the events of this [...]

Value Adders Should Reap Rewards, Not New Taxes

by Ari Armstrong | 9:55 am, April 30, 2010

The following article originally was published April 30, 2010, by Grand Junction’s Free Press.Value adders should reap rewards, not new taxesby Linn and Ari ArmstrongOnce American revolutionaries fought to rid themselves of European politics. Now, give…

Charlie Crist to run as an Independent; who cares?

by Rossputin | 6:17 am, April 30, 2010

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this.  Yesterday, Charlie Crist proved to one and all that he is an egomaniac when he announced he will run for the U.S. Senate as an Independent after his hug of Obama, his support of the stimulus bill, and his vetoing of a reform of Florida public school teacher tenure ended any chance of his winning a Republican primary.  (Actually, the last act was almost certainly in preparation for running as an Independent and is an act of such tremendous hypocrisy that it’s hard to see how it doesn’t hurt him in any and every scenario.)

In effect, the move takes Crist from having zero chance of winning to having an infinitesimally small chance of winning. So I suppose from his point of view that it represents an infinite improvement in percentage terms.

At least that’s how I see it.  On Intrade.com, however (on Thursday night), bettors give Crist a better chance than I do.  As it’s become clearer in the last two weeks that Crist would make this move, betting odds for someone other than the Democrat or Republican to win have gone from 6% to about 30%.  The odds of the Democrat winning are essentially unchanged, about 23%. And the odds of a Republican, now only Marco Rubio, winning have dropped from about 75% to about 50%.

I hadn’t looked at the betting lines until I started writing this note.  I’m really surprised to see Crist trading so high.  Who’s gonna want this guy?  Liberals will vote for the real liberal.  Conservatives will vote for the real conservative.  Independents are going to see him as the narcissistic opportunist he is.  So I’m trying to sell Crist (actually Other) at 30% and buy Rubio (actually Republican) at 46%.

The Club for Growth will lead a push to get previous donors to Crist to demand refunds of their contributions, similar to an effort they led against Arlen Specter when he switched parties.  In the meantime, although Crist has over $7 million cash on hand, he’s claiming he’s spent all the donations.  The Club believes that Crist is stalling so that he can hurry up and buy all his TV time in advance, and then be accurate that he’s spent all the money.  Does Crist really think that the TV buys will be more positive than the damage that comes from essentially stealing peoples’ money and lying about it, both of which will be transparently true to everyone?  Just who is going to vote for this guy?  My hunch is that Crist gets between 10% and 15% of the vote in November.

[UPDATE: I sold some Crist at 29.8%.]

Interior Department Approves Construction of Controversial Offshore Wind Farm (in Massachusetts)

by Rossputin | 5:02 am, April 30, 2010

Guest blog note by Greg Staff

I just love that Ken Salazar has approved a monstrous financial and environmental boondoggle, as reported here:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?&articleid=1250784&format=&page=1&listingType=biz#articleFull

and here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/interior-department-poised-annouce-decision-controversial-offshore-wind-farm/

This is really the Perfect Storm, pitting Kennedys and other Democrats against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Obama and their fairy tales of cheap, plentiful, pollution-free energy.  Every liberal group in Massachusetts seems to either hate it or love it, so republicans get a free ride.

Per Fox news, Salazar said the decision marks a “new direction in our nation’s energy future,” claiming the wind farm will be “one of the largest greenhouse gas reduction initiatives in the nation,” cutting carbon dioxide emissions from conventional power plants by 700,000 tons annually.

So let’s go through the numbers and see what a great deal this really is for Massachusetts.

Once again, liberal enviro-fascists use the “big number” ploy to try and convince us that this is worthwhile. But, a US Energy Information Administration report cited here http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statetotal.xls shows that for the five year period ending in 2007, Massachusetts averaged annual CO2 emissions of 81.9 million metric tons (equivalent to about 90.1 million USA or “short” tons.)  Therefore, if fully utilized (an impossibility, by the way), the 468MW, $1 billion project will cut Massachusetts’ CO2 emissions by less than 1%.

And guess what – it won’t prevent the need for a conventional power plant, because when the wind doesn’t blow, the power is still needed by consumers.  Yes it will reduce emissions – slightly – but it will not reduce the need for a conventional power plant as back-up.  So essentially they must build two plants when they could build just one.  There’s brainpower at work - you betcha!!

And how about that $1 billion dollar price tag??  It is almost certainly heavily underestimated.  Here’s some discouraging words from Shell as they pulled out of an offshore wind venture near Britain last year: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=&sid=alnc6d8ZA0oE.  The salient quote: “It’s been more difficult to build offshore projects than everyone thought,’’ said Goeran Lundgren, head of Nordic power generation at Stockholm-based Vattenfall AB, which has put a 640-megawatt wind farm in the Baltic Sea on hold.”  Further on in the article it quotes a price tag of $3.45 million per installed megawatt, not the $2.1 million quoted above ($1 billion/468 MW).  Certainly the $1 billion dollar price tag is a lowball number.  (Does that include power lines to shore??  Right-of-way costs once the lines are onshore?) Finally, has anyone really publicized the amount of subsea trenching that will be required to install saltwater-compatible 5 MW electric cable from each of the 130 turbines to a central corridor, and then bring that electric cabling to shore??

Also, this report http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/analysis-of-the-impact-of-cape-wind-on-new-england-energy-prices.pdf?n=944 was cited by Fox News in the above cited article as “suggesting” that the wind project would save $4.68 billion dollars in utility costs over 25 years. The report was commissioned by supporters of the project.  The report assumes that because the wind farm will add to the supply of energy in New England, and since “the variable operating cost of wind turbine generators is almost zero, …electricity from Cape Wind will be offered at the bottom of the regional supply stack [i.e., allegedly very cheaply] in every hour it is available,” the net effect will be to lower the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity.  That’s right, they have assumed that because “variable” operating cost is almost zero, the rate will be lower. However, nowhere is it mentioned how the utility is expected to recoup its investment! Investment recovery will have to be built into the rate.  Also, wind is given a “forced” advantage because they assume a “Federal greenhouse gas program [will be] in place with prices of $30/ton of carbon dioxide in 2013, escalating by 2030 to $60/ton.”  (Don’t fault the report authors – they were undoubtedly given the parameters by those who support the project.)

If this is such a good deal for the people of Massachusetts, then I implore them to have Cape Wind build it without the federal, state, and local government incentives that are listed here: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=0&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=MA and without the $30/ton (escalating) carbon tax.  Also, someone needs to explain why this project does not have to recoup capital costs.

This facility will be an albatross on the shoulders of the people of Massachusetts and is a veritable poster child for how government intervention vis a vis “incentives” can make something horribly impractical appear, on the surface, to be viable.

Finally, I am glad it’s going to be in Massachusetts, Scott Brown’s presence notwithstanding.  They deserve it.

Randy Barnett on why mandatory insurance is unconsitutional

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, April 30, 2010

In December I blogged about law professor Randy Barnett’s article published by the Heritage Foundation on why mandatory insurance is unconstitutional. Earlier this week The Wall Street Journal published Barnett’s article on how supporters of the new health control legislation are changing tactics:
First Congress said it was a regulation of commerce. Now it’s supposed [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director testifies against redistricting “Mary-mandering” bill before House committee

by CTBC Director | 11:45 pm, April 29, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared before the House Veterans & Military Affairs Committee on Tuesday to testify in opposition to the “Mary-mandering” bill (HB10-1408 Repeal Congressional Districting Criteria) that would remove from state law several factors designed to ensure fair and impartial review by courts concerning legislative district boundaries.
Committee Chair Nancy Todd (HD-41) appeared [...]

Jane Norton, Scott McInnis comment on Arizona’s law that enforces the Federal statute

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:27 pm, April 29, 2010

While Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis is catching the expected flack from the Left for his declaration of support for Arizona’s new law that requires state and local police to enforce Federal laws that the Feds aren’t enforcing, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton has taken a more cautious stand on the law. She’ll catch criticism for supporters of illegal immigrants as well as from anti-illegal immigration folks.
In a statement, Norton elaborated on what she told me during our interview last Tuesday:
The time has come to secure America’s borders and end illegal immigration. America is a nation established on the rule of law, and if I’m elected as your U.S. Senator, I will demand that our immigration laws are enforced. America was established and built by immigrants and will continue to need immigrants for its future economic vitality and global competitiveness. I will insist on an enforceable and verifiable temporary worker program to meet the needs of our nation’s economy to ensure that employers hire only people who are here legally and that their stay is truly temporary. We have the technology to do this in a way that is fair and sensible, and I believe we must. Amnesty violates the rule of law. Those who wish to obtain American citizenship must follow the legal process, and therefore I oppose amnesty and efforts to create a ‘path to citizenship’ for people in this country illegally.
Her complete release is after the jump:

John Hickenlooper raises $1.1 million, Scott McInnis $550,000

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 7:16 pm, April 29, 2010

On April 23, John Hickenlooper sent out a fundraising e-mail claiming that he was close to getting on track to  catching up with Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis in the fundraising department.
And how. Hickenlooper reportedly raised $1.1 million in the first reporting period of the year, which ended April 25. That is about as much as McInnis raised in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter combined. McInnis reportedly raised $550,062 in the first period and has raised about $1.5 million since he became a candidate. 
And Hickenlooper hasn’t even really started to campaign yet. He still had some $880,000 on hand at the end of the reporting period. 
Republican Dan Maes told Karen Crummy that he raised about $62,000 from 700 contributors in the period.
The candidates will release their full reports next week.
LINKS:
Hickenlooper raises $1.1 million in first fundraising quarter. By Karen Crummy.
John Hickenlooper letter says he’s within $30,000  of being on track to catching up to Scott McInnis. The Business Word, 4.23.2010.

News and Minty Freshness from Political Breath

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 6:45 pm, April 29, 2010

Much to our chagrin, we’ve realized that something has gone haywire on the back end and all our lovely posts have not been going live.  This has left us distraught as we now fear all our busy scribbling away has gone for naught. We have put in a quick fix and are working on a [...]

Q & A With District 1 Denver City Council candidate Larry Ambrose

by Mike Krause | 6:07 pm, April 29, 2010

On Tuesday, May 4, there will be a special election to fill the recently vacated Denver District 1 City Council seat.   I met Larry Ambrose, one of ten candidates for the open seat, at a March candidate forum at the Oriental Theater in northwest Denver. When asked what, if anything, he would do about the [...]

GOP Treasurer candidates battle: J. J. Ament says Ali Hasan doesn’t know what he’s talking about

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:36 pm, April 29, 2010

For several months, Ali Hasan, a young film maker with no financial training or experience, has been campaigning to be the Republican Party’s candidate for Treasurer.
Now, one of his two opponents, J.J. Ament, an investment banker and consultant to several states’ treasurers, has published a list of some 90 errors and misstatements (to put it politely) that are in a document that Hasan distributes to audiences, the media and bloggers.
Ament’s critique of Hasan’s knowledge of finance, the bond markets and the duties of the state’s Treasurer is devastating. 
First, read Ament’s Fact Check page, which is here. Then download Hasan’s campaign paper with Ament’s specific comments about various Hasan claims, which is here.
And, if you’re really interested in the Treasurer’s office, read my interviews with the candidates and my reports on the race:
Interview: Ali Hasan says that as state Treasurer, he’d invest in more Colorado-based companies. The Business Word, 1.17.2010.
Interview: J.J. Ament says he wold de-politicize Treasurer’s office, eliminate losses, defend TABOR. The Business Word, 2.7.2010.
Interview part 2: J.J. Ament calls for changes in PERA board, investment assumptions. The Business Word, 2.7.2010.
Interview: Walker Stapleton would make fixing PERA top priority as Colorado Treasurer. The Business Word, 2.24.2010.
GOP candidates for Colorado Treasurer mix it up. The Business Word, 3.1.2010.
J. J. Ament.
Ali Hasan. Hasan sticks to his guns.
Walker Stapleton.
 

Colorado’s Future’s ginned-up ‘remarkable consensus’

by Amy Oliver | 3:01 pm, April 29, 2010

Colorado’s Future, a group that wants to make the citizens’ initiative process more difficult, provided testimony yesterday on its manufactured “consensus” in support of SJR10-003, a measure that if approved by voters will curb Coloradans’ ability to amend the constitution.
At a hearing in the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee meeting, Brenda Morrison of [...]

The Colorado Model

by Jon Caldara | 2:48 pm, April 29, 2010

Did you hear the one about the three millionaires who flipped Colorado from a red state to a blue state? Check out Independent Thinking this week as co-authors Adam Schrager and Rob Whitwer sit down with me to talk about their new book, The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should [...]

Sen. Bennet: everybody in the insurance pool! JUMP!

by Mary Smith | 2:40 pm, April 29, 2010

The most infuriating aspect of Pres. Obama’s health care reform, and one that may not withstand a court challenge, is the government mandate to buy insurance.That mandate may hit young, and relatively healthy, people the hardest in the wallet. The resp…

Jane Norton, Ken Buck may lose to Marco Rubio; Michael Bennet the big winner?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 12:33 pm, April 29, 2010

If you were an “investor,” speculator, would you bet on an underfunded Colorado Senate Republican—Jane Norton or Ken Buck— facing an extremely well-financed incumbent appointed Democrat Senator Michael Bennet? Or would you put most of your available funds on Florida’s Marco Rubio because it looks like he has a chance to save a vulnerable GOP Senate seat?
Smart speculators would go for Rubio because he looks like a winner and the Colorado Senate race looks like it will be a tough one for poorly-funded Republicans. But no one says 527 groups or other campaign contributors are smart speculators. They often bet their hearts and special interests and leave their brains at the door.
This is a long way of saying that Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s decision to quit the GOP and run for the Senate as an independent candidate could be a big problem for Republicans in states like Colorado, which is Blue until proven otherwise. The only hope for Republican candidates outside of Florida is that the polls will show that Rubio is so strong that he doesn’t need all of the money the 527s have to put into this year’s campaigns.
Given available information, I’m guessing that the Crist decision to run as an independent will cost Republicans a couple of possible wins in Senate races next fall.
Check out what the “experts’ are saying in this long thread at Politico.com’s Arena.

The SEIU Political Party

by Al Maurer | 12:18 pm, April 29, 2010

Apparently donating to parties and candidates, even sponsoring candidates like Colorado’s Betsy Markey doesn’t go far enough for Andy Stern’s union. It is reported that SEIU is forming its own political party in North Carolina called North Carolina First. They could call it anything they want I suppose but the point seems to be to [...]

Should Feds be pouring $45 million into UQM Technologies? Buying votes for Betsy Markey?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:07 am, April 29, 2010

Vice President Joe Biden is coming to Colorado to boast that the government has granted Longmont-base UQM Technologies $45 million that the company will use to build a factory, Chris Hubbard reports.
I’ve been following UQM off and on for about a dozen years, mostly because my former investment club owned it a few times.
The stock peaked at the beginning of the year at $7.45 and is trading at $4.10 now. It’s been trying to sell its technology for years, but investors haven’t seen enough potential to fund its expansion. When a company needs government support to stay in business and/or grow it, you know that the smart investors don’t think much of it. And if they don’t like it, it’s a loser. You can research UQM by searching “UQM stock” or by reading about it on Yahoo.
So we have the Democrats trying to pick winners and losers in the energy business. And, as usual, they’ve picked a long-term loser to back. You have to wonder about the political connections that brought the funding to UQM. Which top executives, directors, consultants, lawyers, lobbyists or large investors used their political influence to bring $45 million of taxpayers’ money to UQM?
Or is this just another effort by the Obama administration to use taxpayers’ money to buy votes for appointed Democrat Senator Michael Bennet and hard left Democrat U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey (D, CD-4) who represents Longmont in Congress? 
Why hasn’t anybody bothered to buy this wonderful company and grow it? Why has the stock dropped so sharply since the beginning of the year? Why are its charts saying sell big time? The stock’s point and figure price objective is $1.00.
This is truly a big Biden/Obama deal that shouldn’t be happening.
For educational purposes only. Investigate before you speculate. I am not recommending any trades and take no responsibility for how others trade stocks, ETFs, commodities or anything else.

Writer May Want to Think Twice about Keeping Government Out of Teaching

by Eddie | 10:38 am, April 29, 2010

When I saw the opinion article in today’s Denver Post titled “Keep the government out of teaching,” I thought I was going to encounter a radical libertarian argument for the “separation of school and state” — or at least something like universal vouchers.
You start reading the piece, and realize it’s a response to a [...]

Even more optimistic than Larry Kudlow?

by Rossputin | 5:56 am, April 29, 2010

It’s very hard to find an economist even in the same league of optimism as my almost-always-upbeat friend, Brian Wesbury.  But if there is such a person, it would have to be Larry Kudlow, CNBC’s champion of capitalism and liberty.  Not considering myself a born optimist, I therefore find it a pleasant and unusual opportunity to out-optimist Mr. Kudlow at least one time.

In his note yesterday for National Review entitled “The Washington Tax Attack Marches On“, Kudlow wonders aloud: “Again, what happened to the tea-party call for limited government, limited spending, and limited taxation? That’s what I want to know.”

I didn’t quite understand where Mr. Kudlow was going with this question; I thought he might have meant that he saw a lessening of the intensity or diversion from key principles by Tea Party groups, either of which would greatly concern me, so I asked him if he could clarify.

Mr. Kudlow did me the honor of replying. I haven’t asked Mr. Kudlow for permission to quote him, though I presume he wouldn’t object.  Still, allow me to summarize what I think he said he intended by his words: That the Republican Party can win big in November (and then use what power they acquire to stop the Obama onslaught against capitalism) but only if the GOP sticks to acting in the spirit of the Tea Party’s message.

Larry Kudlow is too busy for me to engage in discussion over relatively minor questions in rhetoric so I didn’t pursue it further with him, but what I gathered from his words is that he thinks the GOP will not take back control of the House in November if they don’t act in the spirit of the Tea Party now.  If my inference is wrong, the error is entirely mine.  (It could be that he meant that if the GOP takes back power, it won’t matter unless they stick to policies which mirror the message of the Tea Party.)

In any case, I’d like to use this opportunity to express unusual (for me) optimism. 

A Gallup poll released yesterday shows a 20-point advantage of Republicans over Democrats among the most enthusiastic voters, i.e. those people most likely to vote.  Furthermore, separate from enthusiasm, the only age range (based on the 4 Gallup age brackets) in which Democrats lead Republicans is among the youngest voters, i.e. 18-29, namely the voters least likely to turn out in November. Meanwhile, in the last few days in political betting at Intrade.com, the chances of the GOP taking back the House are hovering around life-of-contract highs at around 48%, having briefly and for the first time traded over 50% less than a week ago.

This is all great news for the GOP in the macro, but the mood is as much anti-incumbent as anti-Democrat.  This means that Republicans and conservative-leaning independent voters are not just looking to vote for Republicans in November but to throw out big-government-supporting RINOs in the primary elections.  In other words, the GOP will probably do well in November even if their behavior now is suboptimal in part because some suboptimal Republicans will have been replaced by apparently better ones.  Now I’m not saying that the GOP can suddenly start acting the same way they did during George W. Bush’s second term, i.e. behaving so that comparing their fiscal recklessness to drunk sailors is an insult to drunk sailors, and take back the House.  But that’s not what’s happening. 

With health care and at least the first two test votes to invoke cloture on the filibuster of Chris Dodd’s horrendous financial regulation bill, Republicans have stayed united.  Not one Republican in either the House or the Senate voted to pass the final version of Obamacare and not one Republican Senator has yet caved in on the Make Bailouts Permanent bill put forward by Dodd and Harry Reid.  This is not the GOP of recent years, even if I do expect them to eventually succumb to the ill-conceived desire for “bipartisanship” sometime soon.  This means that voters will likely stay enthusiastic all the way until November.  Another measure: Even though it’s only been just over a month, the public’s antipathy toward Obamacare is not waning.  The most recent Rasmussen Poll showed 58% supporting repeal, tied with the high water mark for that question.

Voters want the GOP to represent the values of the Tea Party; they know the Democrats will never do so.  Therefore, to the extent that the Republican driftwood does indeed drift, or even to the extent that a current Republican congressman or senator is suspected of drifting tendencies, they stand a strong chance of losing in the primaries despite the enormous advantages of incumbency.  One need look no further than Utah’s Bob Bennett to see a Republican extremely likely to be replaced by another Republican soon.  Even John McCain, despite his attempt to refashion himself as a conservative, is barely leading former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, a guy who’s not an enormously appealing candidate in his own right.  (Remember, Hayworth lost as an incumbent in 2006, not in the 2008 bloodbath.)

Voters desperately want a bulwark against the socialism/fascism and general economic ignorance and incoherence we’re getting from the Obama Administration.  This means they want the GOP to have the majority in at least one house of Congress and they want that GOP to be made up of people with substantial Tea Party-style emphasis on low taxes, limited government, and increased opportunity for the free market and the American entrepreneurial spirit to jump-start the economy.  Any Republican who can’t make a strong case that he or she is such a person could draw a substantial challenge in a primary because voters are finally looking at the big picture and seeing what needs to be done.

That was a long way of saying that if I’m reading Larry Kudlow right that he worries about a not-quite-Tea-Party-enough GOP over the next several months leading to a poor showing by the GOP in November, then I am, for once, more optimistic than perhaps the most optimistic man on television.

Ultimately, the 2008 election was to a large degree about Barack Obama, and secondarily about the GOP.  It was hardly at all about Democrats other than Obama; they just rode on his coattails.  This time, the election will to a large degree be about Barack Obama and secondarily about the Democrats in Congress.  It will hardly at all be about Republicans.

In other words, 2008 represented voters screaming against something, at least as much as for something. Sure, many people voted for Barack Obama, but a majority of voter motivation for congressional elections was simply to get rid of a GOP which had become part of the problem.  2010 will also represent a protest vote. But it will be larger and more devastating than any Democrat (and even most Republicans) thought possible, particularly so soon after the “historic” victory of our current president. The fact that this will be a protest vote against Democrats means that the behavior of the GOP is barely relevant to the election outcome.  Again, they can’t become the GOP of recent years and expect to do well, but anything close to what they’re doing now will be enough.
<0>

I would bet…in fact, I have bet…that the GOP will retake a majority in the House in November. There’s a decent chance of taking the Senate, too, especially if Mr. Rossi decides to challenge Patty Murray in Washington State. A bigger question for me is whether Tea Party groups will stay active in pressuring Republicans after the GOP has a majority – indeed, after a Republican becomes president – trying to keep them from drinking the same corrupting Potomac kool-aid which destroyed the Republican brand in the last decade.

Post Party Summit: Activist and candidate training in Denver this weekend

by Rossputin | 4:58 am, April 29, 2010

American Majority, RedState, Smart Girl Politics, and the Hancock Committee for the States are putting together a series of “Post-Parties” around the country with the idea that Tea Partiers need to move from protesting to implementation.

They’re having a Denver event this weekend, with a Friday evening dinner and talk and a wide range of training workshops on Saturday.  The Friday keynote speaker is Erick Erickson from RedState.com as well as Rob Witwer, author of How Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Should Care).

I highly recommend the event and training for anyone considering

• Running for office
• Being an activist
• Being an effective blogger and/or investigative journalist
• Fundraising for political causes

You can read more about the event overall here:
http://summit.americanmajority.org/

And you can register for the Denver event, which is this Friday, April 30th and Saturday, May 1st here:
http://ppsdenver.eventbrite.com/

Discount hotel accomodations are available.

Kopel vs. Dubofsky: Health Care Reform Lawsuit Debate at CU

by elpresidente | 2:54 am, April 29, 2010

CRASHERS, PALINPHOBES and COMMUNISTS at BOSTON’S TEA PARTY

by El Marco | 2:36 am, April 29, 2010

Dissent is the New Racism in Obama’s Post-Racial America

It’s been two weeks since the strange goings-on when Sarah Palin appeared at Boston’s Tea Party Express mega-rally. With liberals now branding entire states RACIST, what happened in Boston can provide insight about those on the left who love to hurl that charge.
On April 14th, Sarah Palin [...]

Watermelonman Sentences a Tea Party Zealot to Death

by Mr. Bob | 10:19 pm, April 28, 2010

#teaparty #tcot #watermelonman

The joke of transparency

by Amy Oliver | 9:40 pm, April 28, 2010

The White House press corps finally gets the joke…and now knows that it is on them.
In a story about why reporters are unhappy with the Obama administration, Politico writes: [Robert] Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”
Peals of laughter broke out in the [...]

keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers