Look Before You Leap

I was amused when I came accross Yahoo!'s story on its front-page rolling news ticker about the wealthy banker who tipped exactly one percent at his meal.

Just when you may have thought the ongoing battle between the 99% and the 1% was dying down, it may have been reignited. A wealthy banker left a $1.33 tip on a $133 lunch at the True Food Kitchen restaurant in Newport Beach, California.

To add insult to injury the word "tip" was circled on the receipt, and the banker wrote "get a real job" on the bill. The picture of the receipt was taken and uploaded to the blog Future Ex-Banker by a person who was dining with the anonymous banker. As expected, the blog received a lot of attention and has now been taken down. The author of the blog wrote, "mention the 99% in my boss' presence and feel his wrath. So proudly does he wear his 1% badge of honor that he tips exactly 1% every time he feels the server doesn't sufficiently bow down to his holiness."

 I something about the story didn't sit right, but it wasn't entirely impossible for someone to pull a stunt like that.

And then the news came out: the poor guy was framed. The receipt was photoshopped.

Whoops. Apparently Yahoo! got so caught up in the whole 1% finally getting exposed for the lousy scumbags they really were they forgot to fact check their story.

In a half-hearted apology disguised as an "update," Yahoo! reported after thousands of readers posted comments and links to The Smoking Gun story about the hoax.

After contacting the restaurant, its spokesperson Jami Reagan told us the receipt was Photoshopped, and they have the original receipt to prove it. Trending Now has received the original copy of the receipt, and we can confirm that it was in fact digitally altered. Reagan said the reason that the issue was not corrected quicker is because the corporate offices were closed over the weekend.

The original receipt does not contain the tip "Get a real job." Also, the real bill was for $33.54, not $133.54, and the tip given was $7, not $1.33.

The blog that originally posted the receipt, Future Ex-Banker, was taken down Friday as well. True Food Kitchen also says that the receipt was not altered by anyone on their staff, adding that they would never post any guest's personal information.

 Dear Yahoo!, real journalists fact check their stories before they run them, especially if they are put forth by bitter, vindictive employees.

Of Contraceptives and Constitutions

I attend a school rather notorious for our debate team. For those of you who don't know, "forensics" can be quite the brutal sport, and if you mention the name Patrick Henry College at a competition, you usually get a look somewhere between respect and terror.

Members of the debate--excuse me, forensics--team will tell you the key to winning is to get your opponent to argue on your terms. Do that, and the debate is yours to win.

In many ways, the 40-year culture war over abortion has been a battle over terms and definitions. Those in favor of keeping abortion legal use terms like "pro-choice," "anti-abortion," "fetus," "safe, legal, and rare," and so on. Evangelicals and others trying to ban abortion prefer "pro-abortion," "anti-life," "pro-life," "unborn child," and "wholesale slaughter."

While both sides refuse to accept the other’s term—mostly because both sets are so loaded—pro-lifers have been unable to get their lingo to catch on beyond their own speeches, rallies, and literature. The AP Stylebook, the bible for most news organizations, tells writers to use “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” in their writing. When our side is the negative one, it’s an uphill battle.

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration opened up a new front in the abortion wars. Obama announced that, under a mandate already enacted, employers would be required to pay for birth control coverage without copay as part of healthcare plans for their employees. The news understandably sent Catholic organizations and businesses into a tizzy. For centuries, the Catholic Church has deemed even condoms to be unbiblical. Christians rallied around Catholics, but largely failed to realize they, too, would be required to provide not only contraceptives, but abortifacients like Plan B and RU-486.

The issue took CPAC by storm, and was a godsend to Catholic candidate Rick Santorum. Attendees breathed a collective sigh of relief when, on Friday, the administration announced they were “backing off.” “We won!” giddy conservatives declared.

Not so fast.

Obama may have backed off, but it’s now on insurance companies to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients, and we’re all so relieved for the Catholics most of us didn’t even notice Obama still got what he wanted. Contraceptives are now a constitutional right.

It’s as if Obama was haggling with conservatives. He started with a position he knew would spark outrage, and then backed off to something less controversial. If Catholics had kowtowed and ponied up for the contraceptives themselves, that would have been fine too. But Obama shot for the moon, and still landed among free contraceptive stars. All the while, Americans seem oblivious to the fact that requiring anyone to pay for anything violates the constitution.

But perhaps, under all the ruckus over mandates and condoms, there is a deeper, more sinister game afoot. The pro-abortion position is a shaky one at best, and studies are showing that, with the advent of the 4d ultrasound and other technological advances, my generation is becoming more and more pro-life. So why not redefine the terms of the debate?

This theory was first espoused by Dick Morris. Liberals are trying desperately to pain this as a debate over women’s health. That’s why two female representatives stormed out of an Oversight Committee hearing on Obama’s contraceptives mandate, screaming sexism because there were no women testifying.

If this is a debate about women’s health, suddenly conservatives look like repressive troglodytes. Keith Olbermann already tried to paint Romney into a corner over the issue during one of the presidential debates, and I can imagine that, in the deep dark bowels of the Obama re-election war room, democrat campaign strategists are cackling with glee over the Santorum surge.

Santorum’s a Catholic! He’s of the same ilk as those women-hating, mass-attending birth-control-burners! He dislikes contraceptives, so obviously he must want to make them illegal!

The contraceptive debate’s a lot more nuanced for a generation raised to bask in the glory of the almighty condom and the sacrosanct Pill. And he who defines the terms defines the debate. If liberals get to define this issue as a battle over women’s access to crucial healthcare, we’re going to lose.

But this is about contraceptives the same way a debate over interstate commerce is about the nutritional value of Cheez-its. Conservatives need to call their bluff—to make sure the debate is couched in terms of constitutional freedoms and not contraceptives.

If I was Santorum, I’d be pounding into the public psyche that just because I personally don’t like contraceptives doesn’t mean I want to ban them. And oh, by the way, which party tries to crush your freedoms simply because they don’t like things? Liberals don’t like guns, so they ban them. Liberals don’t like salt and fatty foods, so they ban them. Liberals don’t like SUV’s, so they try to ban them. Liberals don’t like light bulbs, so they ban them. Remind me again which party hates freedom?

If we can learn to couch the debate in these terms, rather than playing on their turf, the issue is a home run for conservatives in the general election.

Thanks Guys

Two excellent charts that demonstrate just how screwed the American economy is, and how my generation is going to be stuck with fixing it.
h/t Weazel Zipper

Wednesday's Debate: Sloppy, Choppy, and Pointless

I just got the chance earlier today to take a look at Wednesday's Republican debate in Arizona, as I was announcing our basketball team's final game of the season during the debate itself (finally, a win for the Sentinels!)

I made it about halfway through before I got lost in a sea of who did what earmarks when why and how and who's to blame. I wasn't impressed with anyone's performance.

Romney was snarky, bitter, and vindictive, taking pot shots and snipes rather than confronting people face-on. Gingrich perhaps had the coolest head, but he too got lost in the argument over who was the worst earmarker. Ronpaul just gets more and more crabby, going so far as to accuse Santorum of being fake, to his face.

And Santorum. Oh Santorum. He has a lot of good things to say, but watching him talk during debates is like listening to Frasier Crane explain something--he just won't shut up. Someone needs to pull him aside and just say "Look Rick, you've got a lot of good things to say, but tighten it up a bit. You're killing us! Save the long explanations for the stump speeches. Give us bullet points and sound bites."

Stacy doesn't seem to think so, though.

My general impression of last night’s debate was that Newt Gingrich had the best performance, and that Santorum escaped without any major harm. That was important, because this was the debate where Santorum could expect to be required to answer for everything “controversial” he has ever said, and he never really got cornered.

He's been in this longer than I, so I defer to him, although he does admit he's prejudiced when it comes to analyzing the debate (aren't we all?).

All in all, no one performed well, and to be honest I thought it was a giant waste of time for everyone involved, from the candidates to the attendees, who seemed stacked in favor of Romney. When a candidate is announced and he gets a reception comperable to Lady Gaga, you know there's a problem.

Santorum needs to work his heiney off this week to mitigate any damage or fallout from the debate and heightened scrutiny. He's got four days before the next two primaries, and if he can just hang in long enough to win one of them, it could catapult him into Super Tuesday, but he's gotta play it like Iowa.

Part of the problem is a complete lack of infastructure on the part of the campaign, who suddenly has to deal with being a national contender and frontrunner without the structure of Romney. They're scraping together a team as fast as they can, but it might be too little, too late unless the grassroots efforts can come through bigtime.

This Day in History...

Here's a Headline You Don't Want to See

From The AP:

"Ex-judge defends ordering an abortion for woman"

A retired Massachusetts judge on Tuesday defended her decision to order a mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized against her wishes, and she blasted Boston University for rescinding a job offer after her ruling sparked controversy.

Christina Harms said she believes the schizophrenic woman would have chosen to have an abortion if she had been mentally competent. In her ruling, she granted a petition from the woman’s parents to have their daughter declared incompetent and awarded guardianship to them for the purpose of consenting to the abortion.

What. The. Heck?! Schizophrenic people are not incapable of making decisions! Lest you think the courts are capable of ordering abortions, the story has a happy ending (kind of).

Harms, who retired six days before the Appeals Court ruling, said a decision by Boston University’s School of Law to back out of a job offer shortly after the Appeals Court overturned her ruling sends the wrong message about judicial independence.

“Being a judge is not like being a contestant on `American Idol,’ ’’ Harms told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “You are not looking for votes.’’

The 31-year-old woman has not been named; she was identified in court papers only as “Mary Moe.’’ She had characterized herself as “very Catholic’’ and said she was opposed to having an abortion. Her parents had said their daughter was not a devout Catholic; they sought consent from the court for an abortion.

Harms said the woman had been taken off some of her anti-psychotic drugs because the medications could have harmed the fetus. After hearing from the woman herself and from her parents, Harms said she found that the woman had severe delusions — including her belief that she was not pregnant — and was not competent to decide whether to have an abortion. Harms said she also found that the woman, if she had been mentally competent, would have chosen an abortion to protect her own well-being.

“I viewed the interruption of Mary’s full medical regimen as potentially life-threatening. If Mary understood this, which my observation of her behavior, demeanor, and responses indicated that she did not, I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy in order to protect her own well-being,’’ Harms wrote in her letter to her former colleagues on the bench.

Oh good lord. Just because someone can't be on their psych meds for 9 months doesn't mean the child is a harm to their health! If the judge was so worried about her mental heath, she could have had her committed for the duration of the pregnancy.

Here's a wild-eyed theory: could the judge have been salivating over the possibility of becoming the first judge to set the precident of a court-ordered abortion? Either way, I'm glad she got shut down, both by the appeals court and by Boston College.

The Kids'll Handle This

Well, hallelujah. The House and Senate finally reached an agreement on the Payroll Tax holiday. It’s a 10-month extension, and we’re paying for it.

Well, not “we’re paying for it” as in the Republicans got what they wanted and the tax break extension is accompanied by spending reductions. In fact, the CBO is predicting the package, which includes the payroll tax cut, along with changes to unemployment benefits and medicare payouts, will increase the deficit by $167.5 billion over the next three years.

Oh, but that’s ok. Once those offsets they’re so proud of kick in, it will only add $89.3 billion to the deficit. Sure, with a deficit is currently over 15 trillion, that’s “just a drop in the bucket,” but it’s a sign of just how absurd the solutions today’s generation come up with are.

For years, the current generation of politicians overspent on everything from entitlements to Bridges to Nowhere. And every time they went over budget (quite the popular move, seeing as how they did it all but four years since 1970) they spent all the money that came in for the Social Security fund, money everyone expected once they turned 65 and stopped working. Everyone who elected the current crop of politicians into office over and over and over because, like a kid who accuses his sibling of not closing his eyes during prayer at the dinner table, there’s only a problem if the earmarks and budget overruns are for someone else’s benefit. And now we’re screwed. Royally.

We’re not even trying to stay afloat in a leaky rowboat. We’re like the Costa Concordia--only the crew is frantically trying to plug the hole with bubblegum. But hey, today’s “problem solvers” and their electorate will join Captain Schettino and his lovely lady for dinner and drinks at Social Security Restaurant long before the ship goes belly-up. They’ll leave it to the next generation, those of us in college and younger, to deal with both a sinking ship and their bar tab.

Their latest “fix” for “working-class” Americans is the payroll tax cuts, which at best will put about 40 extra dollars in the average person’s pocket each month (a point my economics professor always mentions with a bemused smile). For those of you keeping score at home, that’s about 480 dollars a year, although depending on whom you ask it ranges from that to around a thousand dollars.

What politicians are painstakingly careful to avoid is the fact that the payroll tax is the money that funds Social Security. But the government is still mailing off checks to granny and grandpop in the retirement home, even though there’s no money coming in to back those checks.

I’m not saying we should cut off granny and gramps (after all, where else is granny gonna get the money to buy the ingredients for her amazing chocolate chip cookies?). But the fact remains: they spent their Social Security long before they started collecting checks. Maybe our generation should be more adamant about getting an opt-out from Social Security for an IRA so our money will actually be there when we retire.

UPDATE: Thanks to The Other McCain for the link!

"Mysterious, Paridoxical"? Sounds Like Your Article

Yahoo!'s The Ticket ran an article yesterday on Rick Santorum's book he wrote before his losing senate campaign. The book is called It Takes A Family, an obvious play on Hillary Clinton's mantra.

The book is getting Santorum heat on the talk show circuit this week.

 On "Meet the Press," host David Gregory challenged Santorum to defend his book's claim, "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness." Rather than try to justify his implicit critique of women of childbearing years finding fulfillment in the workplace, Santorum vaguely affirmed a woman's right to choose her career and gallantly insisted that "the section was written in large part in cooperation" with his (non-working) wife, Karen.

Author Walter Shapiro seems to be unable to make up his mind about the book.

From this TV exchange, it would be easy to assume that Santorum's book is a political screed filled with short paragraphs, wide margins, angry put-downs of liberals and lots of exclamation points. And, in truth, Santorum's language does get overheated at times: "We now have a generation that has grown up with the belief, inspired by the Sixties' free-love assault on sexual mores, that true love is a feeling, and that it should not be resisted or constrained--rather, its ultimate validation is through sexual relations, without regard to the outdated social convention of marriage." (Unless he was a particularly precocious conservative, Santorum is channeling the opinions of others in his scorn for the Sixties. He was 11 years old at the time of Woodstock).

Or, and this is just a wild idea I'll throw out there, people after the sixties can have negative opinions about that era that are their own. I'm noticing a common theme when it comes to Yahoo!, any idea older than the 70's is backwards and troglodyte-or worse, unenlightened.

 But Santorum, in his zeal to be taken seriously as a thinker, mobilizes a wide array of social-science research (including some citations from liberals) to buttress his argument that hedonistic individualism is jeopardizing traditional families and their irreplaceable role in raising children. This, of course, is an explosive topic--and it is unlikely that Santorum can win many converts among liberal and moderate skeptics. But it is hard not to be impressed by the energy that Santorum devotes to his argument.

And of course, there's Santorum's ideas on how to approach poverty, which Shapiro deems "obtaining liberal goals through social conservative means." (because of course everyone knows helping the poor isn't something conservatives want to do)

"In developing my understanding of social policy," Santorum writes, "I have learned a lot from the tradition of Catholic social thought." Here Santorum is referring to the Catholic concept of "subsidiarity," which he defines as "the principle that all social challenges should be addressed at the level of the smallest social unit possible, preferably the family." This belief structure is compatible with the embrace by constitutional conservatives of the Tenth Amendment and the states rights doctrines that go with it. But it also allows Santorum to discuss innovative family-based and church-based approaches to fighting poverty.

It's amusing that Shapiro can't figure out what to make of Santorum. From what he pulls out of the candidate's book, he strikes me as similar to most hard-line conservatives. Apparently Shapiro can't comprehend someone who is passionate and well thought out.

Shapiro's right about one thing: Sanotorum's going to have fun defending this:

The other intellectual pillar buttressing Santorum's worldview is his legal education. Sometime, presumably early in his studies at Penn State's Dickinson School of Law, Santorum was introduced to the concept of the slippery slope--and it changed his mental life. In It Takes a Family, Santorum repeatedly warns about the legal consequences flowing from popular Supreme Court decisions. He laments the reasoning behind the 1965 Griswold decision (overturning--yikes!--a Connecticut law that banned the sale of condoms) because it introduced the constitutional zone of privacy that later allowed the Supreme Court to legalize abortion. Santorum even expresses his concern with the precedent set by Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 civil-rights decision that decreed that states could not ban interracial marriages. What troubles Santorum is not the result (ending Jim Crow legislation) but that "16 years later, the IRS ruled that religious groups opposed to interracial marriage could be stripped of their tax-exempt status." [Emphasis added]

Unheard Cries

Guest Blogger Emily Nowak

On October 11, 1996, two baby boys, surrounded by loving parents and three adoring older siblings, lay in their mother's arms. One was in Pennsylvania, and one was in Maryland. One was just minutes old; the other was nine months old. Both boys were born early, were tiny, and weak....and each of their lungs were failing.

Gabriel Michael, whose name means "strength of God”, died two hours later. Eli, "high and ascended," died three weeks after that. Both families were affected by the death of their adored baby boys, and it led them on a crusade to protect other babies--babies who are never given a chance to live because they are killed by their own mothers. I know that both families recognized that each abortion is a slap in the face of any mother, father, sister, and brother who would do anything to be able to get their precious baby back. I know this personally because Gabriel's father is pro-life senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum, and Eli is my little brother.

Because of Gabriel's death, his mother, Karen Santorum wrote and published a series of letters to her little boy. They are her thoughts--her rants, her tears, her love, and her hurt. But the book also deals specifically with abortion. At the time, Senator Santorum was trying to get a ban on partial birth abortion passed. Opposition mocked him--he wasn't a woman, he didn't understand. But he did understand-Gabriel was born to Karen and Rick dying, but his condition was not a surprise. They knew from nineteen weeks that their baby (and their family) was going to suffer. They also knew that their baby would experience the love of two parents, three siblings, and a huge extended family. Karen's touching letters show how important their baby was to them--Gabriel needed them, and maybe even more, they needed him.

Karen writes, "Gabriel, I wish that everyone who will face the circumstances that we did might know how much that time with you meant to us. As emotional as it was, fighting for your life and having whatever time we could with you meant everything to your Daddy and me. It was not only being able to be there for you, loving and caring for you, but it was also acknowledging you as a child of God and as a person who lived and died. ...how could parents give up an opportunity for love, no matter how brief, in exchange for such violence?" She writes that she knows that women go through with abortions because they are deceived. They do not know the truth. They honestly believe there is no other way. She continues, "There is another way. We know, because we chose it."

Fast forward a few years. The Santorums had several more children, including Bella. Bella is three years old now. Doctors told her parents they'd be lucky if she lived to a year. Bella is like every other three year old--her daddy's little girl, the light of her family's world, beautiful, joyful, and full of life. She also should have been aborted, according to most of society. But Rick Santorum and his wife are living what they believe so strongly about, just as my family, continued our own fight against abortion in part because of Stephen and Lila, my two siblings with Down Syndrome.

Letters to Gabriel and the Santorum family’s story, like the stories of thousands people with children with special needs, brings a new perspective to the abortion debate. This book focuses on the two people that matter most in this issue--the child, and the mother. Karen Santorum makes it very clear that both the mother and child deserve a chance to be loved and to love--because love is from God, and He created it for all of us.

The book also brings new light to Santorum's campaign. There is no doubt where he stands on the issue that matters the most. It illustrates how important it is to him to end abortion.

When Santorum's fight to ban partial birth abortion failed, he spoke sadly of his attempt, "We would be deafened by the cries of the children who are not here to cry because of this procedure." The Washington Post ran an article detailing what happened.

“Senator Rick Santorum turned to face the opposition and in a high, pleading voice cried out, 'Where do we draw the line....that is not a blob of tissue. It is a baby. It's a baby.' And then, impossibly, in an already hushed gallery, in one of those moments when the floor of the Senate looks like a stage set, with its small wooden desks somehow too small for the matters at hand, the cry of a baby pierced the room, echoing across the chambers from an outside hallway. No one mentioned the cry, but for a few seconds, no one spoke at all."

Karen Santorum wrote in Letters to Gabriel, "A coincidence? Perhaps...a visitor's baby was crying just as the door to the floor of the Senate was opened, then closed. Or maybe...it was a cry from the son whose voice we never heard, but whose life has forever changed ours."

Perhaps she’s right. Perhaps that cry was the cry of Gabriel. Perhaps it was the cry of Eli. Perhaps it was the cry of thousands of babies that were taken from mothers who loved them, who were horrified that other mothers would choose that loss for themselves. Perhaps it is the cry of the Bella's, the Stephen's, and Lila's that "should have been aborted." Perhaps it is the cry of the hundreds of babies who are consciously slaughtered every day in America.

One thing is for certain--Rick and Karen Santorum and other families who have lost a child don't just see it as a cry of mourning. It is a rally cry; a battle cry to fight against abortion. It is the cry, over fifteen years later, behind Santorum's' campaign for the presidency--because he personally understands what really matters for America.

Thanks, Stacy!

I can't begin to tell you how much fun it was to come along on Stacy's wild whirlwind of CPAC. I consider it an honor to have been able to spend a couple days with Politico's Fifth Most Popular Non-Politician to Watch at CPAC.

So it was to my surprise that I saw Stacy had dedicated a whole post to me (well, to me, and to the preponderance of short skirts and slutty tops among the female attendees at CPAC, but mostly to me)

If you're a MOI reader and you don't read TheOtherMcCain, you owe it to yourself to include him and his team of Smitty (and the World's Youngest Blogger) and Wombat-Socho in your daily reading. To put it in sports terms, my blog is like a lightweight D3 school with a pretty good forward who every once in a while makes Sportscenter with a decent dunk.

The Other McCain, on the other hand, is like the Los Angeles Clippers, unpopular and ignored by some, but a phenom nonetheless. He was one of the first to anticipate the Cain Train as well as Santorum's rising star.

Hey Big Spender

Romney's favorite attack on current front-runner (or waverider) Rick Santorum is to attack his record in congress.

Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”

 But The Weekly Standard takes a look at the National Taxpayers' Union scoring of Santorum during his time as senator from Pennsylvania.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

 Spendthrift?

p. s. thanks to The Camp of the Saints for the recommendation!

Santorum "Crushing"

In new results released two days ago, PPP, the polling company who predicted Santorum's Trifecta Sweep last week, has Santorum literally brutalizing Romney in his home state of Michigan.

Rick Santorum's taken a large lead in Michigan's upcoming Republican primary. He's at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.

 PPP attributes his uptick in popularity to two things: a voting base increasingly discontented with Gingrich, and a massive favorability rating. 67 percent of voters in Michigan view Santorum favorably, while only 23 percent view him unfavorably.

This only becomes a big deal if you know favorability ratings for the other candidates: Gingrich (38/47), Romney (49/39), and Paul (32/51). That's a big problem for Romney. If 40 percent of people don't like you, it's hard to build a consensus.

Also part of Santorum's lead is the different factions who have now lined up behind him, despite his loss of the CPAC straw poll to Romney over the weekend.

Santorum's winning an outright majority of the Tea Party vote with 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich. He comes close to one with Evangelicals as well at 48% to 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich. And he cracks the 50% line with voters identifying as 'very conservative' at 51% to 20% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich.

PPP's Michigan poll isn't the only one Santorum is leading in. A Quinnipiac University poll has him up 7 points in Ohio, a Super Tuesday state, and several polls have him leading nationally.

One of the things that I think PPP overlooked in their analysis, but included in ther survey, is the fact that Romney has no home turf advantage. Only 26 percent of Michiganders (didn't know that was a word, PPP) think Romney is one of them. 62 don't.

An amusing sidenote from Yahoo!'s The Signal:

Rick Santorum has slipped ahead of the Mitt Romney in the polls, marking an ignominious milestone in the Republican nomination: Since last summer, when Romney was at the top of the early polls, the lead has switched nine times. In order, it's gone to Rick Perry, Romney, Herman Cain, Romney, Gingrich, Romney, Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, who now leads the Real Clear Politics' aggregated trend with 30.2 percent to Romney's 28.6 percent. Notice a pattern?

 Is this just another bump? If so, it might be the last one. Other bumps that happened, including Perry and Cain, involved no delegates. Gingrich and later Romney bumps involved only a few. Santorum is peaking like the New York Giants. With Super Tuesday looming, he stands to reap massive rewards, even if this is just a post Trifecta Sweep bump. If he can keep it going for just three weeks (or for three long weeks, seeing as how nuts the election cycle has been), he could take Super Tuesday by storm, especially if he can put Romney's scalp in Michigan in his belt.

Updated DOOOOOOoooomsday Countdown

As you can see, Mitt Romney, Captain Inevitability, has passed the five minute mark on the road to Doooomsday. The new count comes from some grabs in proportional caucuses where Santorum made his Trifecta Sweep (2 in Minnesota and 9 in Colorado) and Romney's Maine grab, which gave him 8. The rest of the candidates are battling to keep up, featuring Santorum with 44, Gingrich with 32, and Paul with 20.

The last two primaries of the month are the 28th, when Michigan and Arizona offer up 30 and 29 delegates respectively. Arizona's 29 are winner-takes-all, so it represents a decent prize. Romney has a healthy lead there, but RCP has Santorum up .7 percent in Michigan, Romney's home state, with PPP giving him as much as 15 percent.

Pig Fetus?

Really? Mindless drones who just believe what they're told.

I'm not seeing any gills and sh**

Irrelevant? Hardly

In an election cycle dominated by the Tea Party and strong conservative rhetoric, perhaps the best choice CPAC could have made for a closing speaker was Sarah Palin, the irrelevant, annoying, dumb, stupid, washed up, useless former Governor from Alaska that is an embarassment to the Republican party.

Or not.

Palin electrified the crowd. There's no other way to describe it. They were all beyond eager to see her. So much so that at the end of the three different events before she spoke, the crowd chanted her name.

There were plenty of good speakers at CPAC, but I'm pretty hard-pressed to find one who topped Sarah Palin in terms of delivery and laying out the problems with the current administration and how we can go about fixing it.

It was even better when the small occupy contingent couldn't even get out the first "mic check" before the entire crowd drowned them out by turning as one on the small area they were planted, raising their fists, and chanting "USA." Even Palin got in on it. You can't plan that! She may not be running, but like Rush Limbaugh, Palin's influence is strong.

After the speech, Palin came down to the VIP area in front of the stage to shake hands and get pictures. The crowd was unbelievable. I was lucky enough to use the Yellow Badge of Power to get close enough to grab pics. Even people outside of the VIP area were standing against the waist-high barrier trying to get close enough to hand in their badge or program for her to sign.

Occupy Interview #1

"Paige" was protesting outside the Woodley Park-Zoo metro station, accross the street from the CPAC host hotel.

UPDATE: Thanks to Stacy McCain for the linkage.

Blog Bash FTW

Conservative political bloggers are having the equivalent of a midlife crisis. A recent explosion of right-leaning groups and publications that pay bloggers--much like liberals have done for years--has left some of the old-schoolers wondering if their trade is worth the effort.

For years, they have toiled at their home computers after long days spent working full-time jobs, writing on behalf of Republican candidates and battling online with their counterparts on the left. Most of them don't live near the East Coast power cities of New York and Washington. They spend their own money traveling across the country to attend political conferences and even hit the campaign trail on their own dime, loading gigabytes of video onto their sites.

So, on the first night of the Conservative Political Action Conference, while the VIPs held a pricey reception at a Marriott hotel in northwest Washington, many of these rogue scribes held their own party. You probably weren't invited. Which was the point.

Well I was! Yahoo!'s "The Ticket" ran an article today on the Blog Bash at CPAC, which I was lucky enough to attend.

Organizers used the party to announce the formation of a new nonprofit started with seed money from millionaire Santorum-backer Foster Friess. Called the "National Bloggers Club," the group will use donations to fund private reporting projects. It also hopes to issue press passes, serving as a clearinghouse so event organizers can differentiate between a blogger with honest intentions versus someone looking for a free pass by starting a Blogspot account. But mostly, the organizers said, the new organization will support and encourage online writers.

"On the left, they take care of their own. They respect their own," Clouthier said. "They take care of their bloggers."

 Maybe the National Bloggers Club will be the first step toward taking care of our bloggers (aka Me).

Santorum Looks Smooth

I had the fortune (I got Stacy'd) to get into the media session by Rick Santorum following his speech to the CPAC crowd, before the unwashed masses filed in for a meet and greet. He took a couple questions from the media at large before talking to a FOX News reporter whos name escapes me now.





The audio in the second video's a little tough towards the end, but that's because the room looked like this by that point.

And here's me, the insane person himself, with Santorum's kids Daniel and John. Nice guys who are working hard for their father's campaign. Both are rocking the Rick Santorum sweatervest. I'd gladly trade Occupy scalps for a free sweatervest [ATTENTION DHS! IT'S A JOKE!]



Santorum Poll Numbers Surging

After #occupystacyscoattails all afternoon I have some time to post before I go back out. Good stuff from Santorum and others. His speech was quite popular, and the numbers say he was already surging before this weekend, where he's working his butt off to get more attention.

Newsmax has the info on the latest Fox News poll:

And the difference in the answers from likely Republican voters was huge, the results show. Those questioned on Monday and Tuesdays were 35 percent for Mitt Romney and 17 percent for Santorum. But those questioned on Wednesday and Thursday split their allegiance, 30-30 between the two.

Newt Gingrich’s poor performance in the two caucuses and one primary that were held on Tuesday also affected his standing among Republicans, the poll showed. He scored 26 percent support from Republicans on Monday and Tuesday, but that fell to 16 percent on Wednesday and Thursday.

Is Santorum peaking New York Giants style?

Here We Go...

The smelly maggot infested hipster dbags Occupiers are here. Haven't been outside to see them, but I will probably work my way out there eventually, if I can get there. Talking Points Memo says security is treatening to arrest people outside the hotel, even if they're CPAC attendees.

The Washington Post ran an article about the protesters, saying their waves of attack will be at noon today (an hour ago) and at 5 pm, when many CPAC-ers will be heading from the conference hotel at the Marriott to their own hotels throughout DC.

Their stated goal: “Create as much non-violent resistance as possible, and make this a conference the attendees will never forget.”

 This is the OccupyDC's description of CPAC:

Spectacles will include imperialist topics such as “From Fidel to Chavez: How Do We Stop the Resurgence of Socialism in Latin America?”, “Is the ‘Arab Spring’ Good or Bad for America?” and frequent bloviation on “American exceptionalism.” Openly racist discourses will be given on “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity” and “Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out.” The conference will also glorify the role of money in politics in talks such as “How to Raise Money… the Easy Way,” “Citizens United Productions Hosts Blogger Briefing” and “Fundraising Secrets from the Billion $ Man.”

Santorum Address Goes Over Big

I was networking and wasn't able to make it into the ballroom in time to catch most of Santorum's speech (I'll catch it later online or on C-SPAN) but it awarded me a unique opportunity to see just how big the Trifecta Sweep candidate. The line to get in was massive, even halfway through the speech it was an amorphous blob that stretched down several hallways.

The other thing I noticed was the number of people crowded around the many screens throughout the hotel broadcasting the speeches in the main ballroom. They were often 6 or 8 people deep.

Fortunately for Santorum, the ACU rep. reminded attendees to go vote in the straw poll. His speech was well-received, and winning the straw poll could continue to boost his momentum. Of course, that opportunity was made possible by Ron Paul, who skipped CPAC. That, combined with the one million dollars he raised the day after his Trifecta Sweep, has to have establishment conservatives pissing their pants.

It's been wonderful, actually, to not have Ron Paul fans booing the speakers, cluttering the hallways, spouting conspiracy theories, smoking weed in the bathrooms (ok, not really, but close enough). All in all, it's been a decent convention thus far. Though to be honest we're outgrowing the hotel (and the horrific wifi, which has improved somewhat today.)

Rick Santorum at Pro-Life Event

The Students for Life of America organization hosted a pro-life focused meeting for an hour this morning. Mike Huckabee and Andrew Breitbart spoke, and of course Rick Santorum as "keynote." The crowd was much bigger than the organizers expected, which may be a sign of the momentum Santorum has picked up following his Trifecta Sweep earlier this week.

They shoved us all in a tiny room while waiting for the event to start. I think they had planned to hold the even in there but underestimated the size of the crowd that would show up.

Mike Huckabee Addressing the crowd. He's gained weight since his run!

Andrew Breitbart. He was adopted and is a strong pro-lifer.

The big man himself. Nothing earthshattering from his speech, just reiterating his ardent pro-life stance. "I don’t believe life begins at conception. I know life begins at conception."

Santorum told the crowd of mostly young college students and annoying media people who took too many pictures, "This is a movement not based on condemnation, not based on accusation, but based on love."

Herman Cain Still Alive and Kicking at CPAC

My good friend Stacy McCain, who was named #5 in Politico's Top 5 Non Politicians to see at CPAC, was lucky enough to get invited to an exclusive meeting between Cain and Japanese tea party members.

During a private meeting Thursday with Tokyo Tea Party leader Yuya Watase and Jikido "Jay" Aeba of Japan's Happiness Realization Party (HRP), Cain agreed to travel to Japan and speak at events to promote the idea.

"I would love to come and address your event in Japan, if that is something that you all would want me to do. . . . I would be honored to do so," Cain told Aeba and Watase, who have organized public rallies against government proposals for higher taxes in Japan.

 Stacy you lucky dog.

"We got this idea from the Americans for Tax Reform, Mr. Grover Norquist," Aeba told Cain through a translator. When he heard Aeba pronounce "7-7-7," Cain laughed approvingly.

"I understood that without translation," Cain said, and immediately asked whether the 7 percent rate would be revenue-neutral. Aeba replied that he hopes to get "more detailed analysis," but said he believes the plan would stimulate the economy enough to produce the same amount of revenue at the lower rate. "The Japanese people will have more income and ... will buy more goods, so the Japanese economy will recover," Aeba said.

"I would be honored to come [to Japan] and endorse 7-7-7," Cain said.

CPAC Day 1: Ups and Downs

First, the wifi sucked. It got to the point where the all of the wireless networks were completely down. Like, not even showing up on the wifi options down. We've been promised they'll get it back and running ASAP, but we'll see. Part of the problem is they planned for 700 media, and then went and credentialed 1400. The result? Less access for the people who signed up early. The Media Filing Room, which has media briefings throughout the day and separate wifi, is now off-limits for bloggers, but they failed to tell the people working for CPAC on the media side that they had originally told bloggers they had access, resulting in mass confusion and some very rude "help" people. But oh well, life goes on.

Mostly because I met up with Stacy McCain, who worked his magic and introduced me to more people than I knew it was possible to know by name. He set up a good interview or two for me, and hopefully he doesn't think I'm too much of a nuisance and will let me tag along for the rest of the convention.

Tonight was the Blog Bash, one of the largest networking free booze parties for bloggers and the like.

Tomorrow morning is an exclusive meet and greet with Rick Santorum, set up by a pro-life foundation. Cross your fingers because I'm going to try to land some type of interview with him. Also keep your eye open for links to Stacy's blog. He's got an interview with the Hermanator due to hit the web tomorrow morning sometime.

CPAC: Bachmann and ACU

Here's looking at you, ACU. Don't send out an email telling bloggers they have access to the media filing room, and then keep them from using it. And especially don't let your assistants at the Media Help Desk tell bloggers they don't care about my lack of access and thus difficulty blogging (I have no idea who's wifi this is, but thank you!), and that if there's a problem I should just turn in my badge and go home. I'm incredibly disappointed with the way CPAC has treated me and other bloggers thus far. I hope this gets better over the next two days.

Michelle Bachmann is speaking now, focusing largely on foreign policy. She knows her stuff, she's got good material on Israel and the crowd likes her.

CPAC: Rubio's Speech and Internet Access

Rubio was his usual easygoing humorous self. One of the hot-topic issues at the conference is going to be the Obama decision to force Catholic charities to provide contraceptives, including Plan B and Morning After pills, either directly or through their insurance. Rubio clarified the issue, saying it wasn’t a religious issue, it was a constitutional issue. Wholeheartedly agree, as did most of the crowd.

One of the dangers of CPAC is that it can be incredibly repetitive, with the same issues rehashed over and over. Rubio’s lucky he’s speaking early, but he’s also being creative. He’s worried China and Russia will step forward if America backs down as a power in the world, and points to Syria as an example of what will happen.

City on a Hill analogy is going to get a lot of time, but Rubio explains the biblical reference.

Best quote from the Rubio speech:

“The president of the United States looks like a really good father. He looks like a really good husband. But he is a terrible president.”

I’m currently battling an incredibly unhelpful CPAC media staff trying to get access to a media filing room. Until then, expect posts to be sporadic at best.

CPAC: I'm In!

As if finding parking wasn't bad enough, apparently they haven't been very clear to us media types--aka the lowly bloggers. First, they lost my nametag, along with a whole batch of the "h"'s leading me to assume they're just prejudiced to anyone with that letter as their first name.

Second, when you send an email out to your bloggers telling them you can use the media filing center, don't tell the volunteers at the door to keep bloggers coming in because it's reserved for "big media people," even though the place is half-full at best.

So here I sit, in the corner of the blogging area inside the ballroom. There's wifi, thank God, but CPAC, bring it on. I'm getting in that filing center one way or another.

Marco Rubio is scheduled to speak in 10 minutes, and I'm looking forward to running into my friend Stacy McCain.

CPAC Here We Come

Didn't post all day because I'm frantically trying to tie things up on my end schoolwise and whatnot so I can be free for the three-day conservative extravaganza. We're heading in to the DC early in the morning, as I need to sort out access to the blogger lounge and other details, including attempting to see if the newest (and only other) member of my team, James Flath, or I can get into any of the VIP banquets. Get ready tomorrow for a nonstop CPAC extravaganza. Check in early, check in often. Oh, and by the way, Santorum's results are impressive. If he can do well at CPAC that can create some momentum.

OH BROTHER: Braves Throwback Uniform Praised for "Lack of Racism"

The Atlanta Braves revealed their throwback uniforms, to be worn in several games throughout the season, several weeks ago. They're classy, retro, and, according to Yahoo!, thankfully non-racist.

It was a complete no-brainer, but props to the Atlanta Braves for placing a new crossed tomahawk logo on the sleeve of their new weekend alternates.

 The tomahawk repaces this from the true original jerseys:

The jerseys of those less-enlightened times featured a savage on the sleeve and it's a wonder that anyone ever thought the image was OK. The logo strips Native Americans of any humanity and turns them into a one-dimensional character devoid of any sympathy or tribute. It honestly might be the only defense that the few defenders of Cleveland's Chief Wahoo have left. ("Well, it's not as bad as what Atlanta used to have.")

Um, I hate to tell Yahoo! this, but aren't all mascots "devoid of any sympathy or tribute"? Is the Fighting Irish mascot racist to Irish immigrants by depicting them as hot-blooded drunkards? The Minnesota Vikings offensive towards Norweigans? The Dallas Cowboys insensitive to cowpokes? Is the Longhorns logo discriminatory to vegans? Lighten up people!

From what I can tell, the image is of a Native American issuing a fierce war cry. Isn't it a tribute to their culture to consider them fierce and tenacious enough to be worthy of a sports team?

Fortunately, the Seminole tribe knew better. When the NCAA attempted to phase out Indian mascots and team names, the Seminole indians worked with the FSU Seminoles to keep the mascot, understanding the mascot was a tribute rather than an insult to their people.

NANNY STATE: Don't Be Late in Loudoun County

or the cops will come after you. I missed this story when it ran in the WaPo but fortunately Pundette is on the ball (as usual) and grabbed it.

Loudoun County is the second-wealthiest county in the nation, about an hour away from Washington, DC, and coincidentally, where I currently reside while wasting four years of my life getting a degree (No Mom, it's tongue in cheek! I swear! I'm so glad for this opportunity!).

Shoes get lost, knees get scraped, backpacks get spilled. So on some days, members of the Denicore family get to school a minute or two late.

That’s not ideal, Mark and Amy Denicore admit. But, they wonder, is it a crime?

Last Tuesday evening, as the Denicore kids sat down to do homework, a Loudoun County sheriff’s deputy appeared on their doorstep, court summons in hand. The charge: Too many school tardies, a Class 3 misdemeanor. Arraignment is scheduled for Monday morning.

“This is against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of the Virginia,” the summons says.

Mark Denicore has a different take: “This is the nanny state gone wild.”

What. The. Heck?! Read it again folks. The Denicore kids aren't habitually truant. They're tardy. And it's a crime?

Lord help the Denicores if they continue to be late.

Other times, the situation escalates. On Jan. 21, Loudoun mother Maureen Blake was arrested and charged with “contributing to the delinquency of her minor children by causing them to be habitually late to school,” according to court documents.

This was her second go-round in the courts for tardiness, she said, and now she faces a Class 1 misdemeanor that can carry a maximum of 12 months in jail.

 And if Obama has his way, parents in Loudoun County can be charged with their 18-year-old, who most likely drives himself to school, being habitually late.

All because God forbid the little impressionable munchkins miss one minute of the horrific indoctrination process that is todays public miseducation.

2012: Things Could Get Interesting

Colorado and Minnesota are up for grabs today. Romney's leading with 9 percent in Colorado, while shockingly Santorum is up in Minnesota by 9. The problem? These are both non-binding caucuses. Tune in for updates after the caucuses finish.

It's Official...

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: This Ain't for the Little Ones

In light of the latest news about Susan G. Komen folding on the funding of Planned Parenthood, I thought I'd bring this video from the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate affiliate to your attention. The video's from 2005, but the point still stands. Again, this is NSFC (Not Safe For Children)



h/t Lifesitenews

Doomsday Update!

Whoopdedoo. Romney won Nevada. Surprise!

GUEST BLOG: Super Bowl

“The Super Bowl, the most epic day in America.” Visa could not have described it better. This is the day when players’ dreams come true. It’s when fans’ dreams come true. As a Giants fan, I have been waiting for this day for four years, and I know some fans wait all their lives for their team to play in the Super Bowl. I have been watching Super Bowls for awhile, and even if my team is not playing, the excitement is huge. It is a thrilling day for even non-hard-core fans. It’s what fans live for. It’s what players work for.

I have been asked to write this article because I was thought to have football insight. That’s up to you. I will try to break down this year’s Super Bowl as best I can for you:

The Giants and the Patriots met before in Super Bowl XLII and both teams looked very similar to the way they do now. The Giants D-line is on fire, and Eli Manning and his wide receivers are hot. Star quarterback Tom Brady has had another one of his many great years and he has a slew of targets to hit. Now, here are a couple of things you have to know about both teams:

The Patriots’ defense is weak. Their defensive line is playing pretty well, and their defensive backs are, well, let’s just say they aren’t great. The Giants’ defense is solid. Their defensive line is great, and their DB’s just aren’t that much better than the Patriots’ (which is ironic, since both QB’s are having good seasons.) The Patriots’ offense is playing with their usual greatness and as I said before, Tom Brady is playing spectacularly, but this year Tom has a little bit different style of receivers, other than wide receiver Wes Welker. This year it’s the Patriot tight ends that have played the biggest role. Aaron Hernandez is a very good tight end, and Rob Gronkowski is one of the best in the league, giving Tom Brady someone to throw to and also a little bit more protection.  Eli Manning and the Giants have specialized in late comebacks and they have proven it in the playoffs. The Giants receiving corps is, according to me, the best in the league. Even their tight end, Bear Pascoe, has been putting up consistent numbers for the Giants. Victor Cruz, Mario Manningham and Hakeem Nicks have made it almost impossible for defensive coordinators to figure out a coverage scheme. If you double team one, Manning can throw to another. Both run-games have not been amazing, but decent. The Giants’ struggled with consistence and then bounced back in the playoffs to put up better numbers. Meanwhile, BenJarvus Green-Ellis and the Patriots’ run-game have been running well consistently.

The keys to a Giant win are HIT TOM BRADY, just like they did in Super Bowl XLII,  and put pressure on this high powered QB. They need to cover the Patriot Tight Ends with defensive backs, and Eli Manning needs to take advantage of the weak Patriot secondary and take shots downfield.

The keys to a Patriot win are almost identical. They need to get to Eli Manning. But different from the G-men, Tom Brady needs to march down the field and score, getting first down after first down to his high-octane tight ends.

A few injuries dent these two teams, such as New England TE Rob Gronkowski. He finally practiced Thursday, but was limited; he is listed as questionable. Giants RB Ahmad Bradshaw (probable) was held out of practice Friday.

So, as the excitement grows and the game draws near I say one thing to you. The Giants will win Super Bowl XLVI by outscoring the Patriots in a game that comes down to the fourth quarter. Actually, I’m going to say two things: With my humble apologies to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and other historical figures who have probably witnessed significantly more epic days in America, I say: Cherish “the most epic day in America.’

-Cullen Holt

CPAC: Schedule Released

Alllllll right boys and girls, the CPAC schedule is now up. Now it's your turn to tell me what you think. What do you want to hear about from CPAC? Let me know in the comments.

2012: Trump Endorses...

Newt Romney Newt Romney. Oh to have the sway of media mogul and investor Donald Trump.

The Donald caused quite a bit of confusion yesterday when he issued a statement saying he would be making a "major announcement" about the race. The Associated Press and The New York Times reported late Wednesday night that Trump would be endorsing Newt Gingrich, citing sources close to the former Speaker's campaign. Dozens of news outlets picked up on the story.

But Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report contradicted the Newt news today, blasting on his website that Trump's endorsement will actually go for Romney. CNN political director Mark Preston also reported that news this morning, citing unnamed sources. The Times and the AP have since published new stories saying the nod will go to Romney.

Gingrich told reporters on Wednesday that he had "no idea what the Donald is going to do." The conflicting reports make us wonder: Did Trump tell both camps he would be backing them?

So finally the Trump tossed his support to someone. Whoop-de-doo. In the world of endorsements, most are worthless, and a Trump endorsement is probably more so than most over, say, a John Bolton. The only reason I'd be excited about a Trump endorsement is if it came with Trump money. Otherwise, I'm with Stacy McCain on this one:

Actually, given that I’m relatively unhappy with all of the candidates, Donald making some waves sounds fine.

Call it a reverse Cloward-Piven: I’m contending that the only way to break the current Ruling Class grip on things is to drive it all to 11, in the full Spinal Tap fashion. There isn’t a thing wrong with us that the metaphorical equivalent of a few more shots of Jose C. cannot fix. Let us puke out the decades of Progressive idiocy in full technicolor glory, and re-emerge fully purged and ready to take an adult view of matters.

I salute you, Donald, and whatever species of varmint crouches upon your cranium.

OBAMA: Must-Read Strategy Op-Ed

Dan Henninger from WSJ lays out what he thinks Obama's reelection strategy will be, based on his SOTU speech: "An Economy Built to Last" (you have no idea how hard it is to type that with a straight face).

Bemused election-year observers remarked that both ObamaCare and the nation's entitlement bomb passed unmentioned. In his reply, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels noted that we are not going to be able to outrun the simple math on entitlement spending. That's true. We can't. But Mr. Obama just may for the next 10 months. 

How? By exploiting political vulnerabilities in the Republicans' case against his presidency. Republicans think it's all about the bad economy. It is. But Barack Obama is going to do something his opposition wouldn't think possible. He's going to take ownership of the American economy. Not the real one, but the one he's just made up, "the economy built to last." It won't last long, but long enough.

 You should read the whole thing. Basically, Obama will run against the current economy situation, hawking solutions based on plans that created the economy in the first place. And the scary part is, it just might work.

Gilda Radner's Emily Litella famously said "Never mind," and you would too if you had to run on this economy. Thus, the Obama solution: Run against the economy. This effectively means Mr. Obama is running against himself, but . . . never mind.

Mr. Obama may not know much about the private economy, but he knows a lot about the uses of human anxiety. Proposing to replace his own bad economy with a virtual substitute "built to last" allows Mr. Obama to place himself outside the White House and on the street making common cause with the genuine economic anxieties of the American people. It also lets this president put in motion what he thinks he knows best—empathy. In "The Audacity of Hope" he put empathy "at the heart of my moral code." Practice makes perfect.

2012: Introducing the Doomsday Countdown

In a never-ending effort to keep you, the reader, as informed as possible about current events, and especially the current election, not only am I attending CPAC, I am also unveiling the Doomsday Countdown 2012.

Behold. 12 noon is the number of delegates Romney must have to win the convention (1144) The second hand is the amount of delegates he has secured thus far (65). As you can see, Romney has not even won five minute's worth of delegates on the Doomsday Countdown, and he may end up with even less than that pending some RNC decisions.

Yes, Florida's results were depressing (Romney 46, Gingrich 32, Santorum 13, Paul 7), but they were also to be expected. Gingrich's bump, as I noted earlier in the week, lasted all of two days in the Sunshine State.

To win Florida, you need money, and Romney had that in droves, a tactic that's not going to win him any general elections, or even most primaries for that matter. David Kuhn over at RCP writes:

Romney has carpet-bombed the early primary states with advertising. In Florida alone, pro-Romney groups outspent pro-Gingrich groups by a nearly 5-to-1 ratio. Some estimate more. Kantar reports Romney and his allies spent $12 million on Florida ads compared to $1.8 million, spent by Gingrich and his allies, as of Sunday. Fox News’ “Special Report” cited a ratio nearer to 3-to-1, $17.8 million compared to $5.4 million. Regardless of the precise figures, Romney is overwhelming Gingrich on the airwaves. He would be lucky to match Obama dollar-for-dollar in a general election.

Romney’s recovery in the GOP race is, however, owed to more than money. Gingrich briefly led in Florida after South Carolina. Yet Romney owned the airwaves then too. Pro-Romney groups aired ads almost 13,000 times on broadcast television across the state compared to about 200 times by pro-Gingrich groups, as of Wednesday, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. But Gingrich was still then in contention.

 Romney also gained from two weak debate performances from Gingrich, and general wheels falling off the bus (moon colony anyone?)

But some of the numbers regarding demographics are concerning me.

Romney's strongest argument will be that he was able to win with conservatives. Though both candidates are insiders, Newt Gingrich tried to make Romney's support within the party a liability. He tried to turn the race into a battle between the establishment and the grassroots. It was people power versus money power, said Gingrich (whose campaign has been aided by $10 million in donations from Sheldon Adelson). Exit polls suggest that the argument didn't work. Romney won by four percentage points over Gingrich among the 65 percent of voters who say they are supporters of the Tea Party. He won by a similar margin among the 65 percent who call themselves conservatives. Gingrich won those who considered themselves "very conservative" and those who "strongly identify" with the Tea Party.

Why are "Tea Partiers" and conservatives voting for Romney. The whole inevitability thing makes me beyond frustrated. Why on earth would you vote for the "inevitable" candidate in a primary. It's a primary! Heck, why would you vote for the "inevitable" candidate in any election? What were these people in Florida thinking? That their vote would go to Obama if they didn't vote for Romney? Again, it's the primary! Vote for the person you like. After we nominate someone you have to hold your nose and vote for them, but before then knock yourself out.

In addition, who says Romney is inevitable? Just look at the Doomsday Countdown (I'll repost it for those of you too lazy to scroll up):

Does that look inevitable to you?

Didn't think so. Heck, I could do wall-sits for the length of Romney's delegate count.

Later today, we'll take a look at the month ahead, which doesn't bode too well for Captain Inevitability.