Former Clinton Treasury man Roger Altman had a troubling piece the other day in The Wall Street Journal, saying that quite soon we’ll be facing a big tax increase.

The budget deficit and the national debt is increasing so rapidly, he wrote, that perhaps as early as next year Main Street and the financial markets will “exert irrestible pressure to reduce the deficit.”

His prediction had a chilling plausibility — even moreso if you consider the extra debt that would be loaded on with another stimulus package full of wasteful pork like the last one. Even more troubling was Altman’s preferred levy: A European-style value-added tax.

That would be the perfect capstone to accompany President Obama’s mad drive to replicate the massive tax-and-regulatory structures that have made the European economy so sluggish for the last few decades. An apt word was coined to describe the overall problem: eurosclerosis. Europe built a welfare state it cannot financially support, and its costs and rules suffocate economic dynamism.

Remember, folks (and I’m going to periodically remind you of this fact):

This is OBAMA’S DEFICIT.

Here’s the picture.  Teach it to your children.  Write it on your doorposts.

Despite what one thinks of her potential benefit or damage to the rule of law in the United States, it seems that Ms. Sotomayor’s journey to the Supreme Court bench has hit a couple of speed bumps.  First it was her borderline-racist statements implying that a “wise Latina” judge would reach better conclusions than a “white male who hasn’t lived that life,” and the fact that her comments were not an isolated incident, contrary to the spin of the Obama administration.  That particular episode seemed to be defused by th administration, as it seems to (at the time) have had little impact on her popularity.  But it appears the latest, more significant courtroom events have had an impact on the public’s perception of Ms. Sotomayor.

This week the Supreme Court’s Ricci v. DeStefano decision directly reversed one of Sotomayor’s rulings. The court ruled 5-4 that the firefighters in question were discriminated against, in contradiction with Sotomayor’s opinion.  And although the decision was 5-4, all nine SCOTUS justices disagreed with her disposition on the case.  But here’s the key - the Obama lapdog media heavily covered the story and made it crystal clear that it was her ruling that was overridden, a fact that I suppose was undeniable, thus making it pretty much mandatory that they report it.  This apparently has had a discernible impact on her public perception.  The Rasmussen polling firm found that “37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.”  This reflects a twelve-point decline in the public support for Sotomayor from before the Supreme Court ruling.  Prior to the Ricci ruling, there was already debate about Sotomayor’s reversal rate at the Supreme Court level.  One could argue that the drop in popularity is, in part, a delayed reaction to the accumulation of information that has been made public since her nomination, combined with the Court’s ruling.

On Wednesday, on his blog, William Jacobson pointed out how a month ago the polling information was important in pointing out how “Obama apparently found the American political center in appointing her” … and he asks “does that mean the polls still are relevant when the polls are not so good?”  Heh…good question, sir.

So now does that mean that this polling result indicates that Obama should have second thoughts about his support for Sotomayor?   Her ruling on the Ricci case jives with her previous racially-tinged comments and brings cause for concern about how she will continue her affirmative action activism from the bench.

Schizophrenia:  A form of psychosis marked by a strong tendency to dissociate oneself from reality. Schizophrenia is often characterized by hallucinations, delusions, and inappropriate reactions to situations. The word schizophrenia is often used informally as well as scientifically to indicate a split personality. (from The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition)

One thing I’ve always agreed with was the title of Michael Savage’s book “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” as it seemed to be such an obvious explanation for why the left is so devoid of logic.  And perhaps it’s also an explanation for the results of the latest polls on Obama, the economy, deficits, etc.  I can think of no other excuse than mass public schizophrenia.

A couple of things stand out.  First, the mere fact that Obama was elected in the first place when it was so patently obvious what the man was planning for the nation.  ”Joe the Plumber” came to the fore when he persuaded Obama to admit that he was planning to “spread the wealth around” - aka. socialism.  Yet the schizophrenic American public ignored it.  Now what?  Almost 70% of Americans disagree with the administration’s government takeover of the auto industry.  (Were you people blind?)  Obama admitted before the election that this would happen.  Sarah Palin was right - Obama is a socialist.  This should not be a surprise.

Next we have the so-called “stimulus” and the unprecedented, massive budget deficits that come hand-in-hand with Obama’s Keynesian spending orgy.  Yes, the economy was in the tank when the election occurred, and that undoubtedly had a profound impact on the election results.  Yes, Barry, we know - you won, and as a result you have the ability to do…and spend…whatever you want.  But oddly, poll after poll shows that the public supports the economic “stimulus” plan…yet there is a large and growing concern about the size of the deficit.  A CBS/NYT poll from this week shows that 90% - NINETY - think that the deficit is a somewhat or very serious problem.  But people still support the deficit-laden stimulus. There’s no other explanation than American schizophrenia.

Even more incredible is the perception of the source of the deficits.  A WSJ/NBC poll from this week shows that 46% believe that the Bush Administration is responsible for the deficit problem, while only SIX percent believes it is Obama.  SIX.  Folks, this is not hard to understand.  Behold:

The Bush deficit spending was child’s play.  But I can’t help but think that we, Republicans and conservatives, are partially responsible for this perception - we’ve spent the last few years complaining about Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc… and it seems people were listening.  Now George Bush is the fall guy while Obama skates and is permitted to spend like one of the Real Housewives.

We must pin the deficit on Obama just as we have the Guantanamo closing.  This is Obama’s deficit.  This must be repeated over and over and over again, in blogs, in Twitter tweets, in letters to the editor of newspapers.  That Heritage graph should be emblazoned in the minds of every one of the American schizophrenia sufferers out there.

Perhaps it’s not schizophrenia.  Maybe it’s Americans doing what little children do when they cover their ears and chant “I can’t hear you…I can’t hear you…” when their parents scold them and tell them something they don’t want to hear.  Because gosh darn it, Obama is so darned nice and likable, and jeez, he can even catch flies with his bare hands!  How can we not like him?  How can we not support him?  How could we dare blame anything on him?  After all, he’s not George W. Bush!

No, sorry, I think it is schizophrenia.

Former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman appears increasingly less likely to run against Blunt, and she acknowledged Monday that she is looking at a possible campaign for Blunt’s open House seat as an alternative.

Steelman said shortly after Sen. Kit Bond’s (R-Mo.) retirement announcement in January that she was leaning toward entering the Senate race, and for a while, it was a foregone conclusion.

But after unleashing a string of Blunt criticisms and opening an exploratory committee in April, she has grown quieter and begun evaluating other options.

She was still largely quiet last week when potential Blunt challenger Tom Schweich and the man who had been promoting him, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), both changed course and announced their support for Blunt.

Though rarely afraid of ruffling feathers in the GOP establishment — including in a pitched gubernatorial primary with former Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) in 2008 — Steelman told The Hill on Monday that she is worried about hurting the GOP.

Steelman’s advisor offered her some sage advice:

“She was looking at it as: Two men against a woman, she’s got a better shot at winning the race,” the consultant said. “Now it’s her against Blunt, and it’s a Hulshof thing all over again. She would be heavily outspent and she starts down very far in terms of name ID.”

The name ID thing is a big deal - she’s not really a household name around MO, despite the rumblings about her possible Senate run.

Last week I posted a RedHot that indicated that Thomas Schweich has also decided not to pursue the Bond seat, even though he really had never overtly stated an intent to run against Blunt.  Not only has Schweich endorsed Blunt, but so has his “mentor”, former MO Senator John Danforth.

This is a pretty big deal.  While someone else could come forward as a challenger to Blunt, it would appear on the surface that this clears the deck for Blunt to place all of his energy (and money) into opposing Robin Carnahan, currently the only Democrat in the running for Bond’s seat.

Personally, I hope she does run for Blunt’s House seat.  I think she has a very good chance to win there, and if she does, she is then in a good position to challenge the junior MO Senator Claire McCaskill for her seat in 2012.  By then Steelman would have had ample opportunity to make her mark in national politics, learn the DC ropes (realizing, of course, that can bring negatives…), and establish her conservative creds on the national level.

Despite punditry on Obama’s outreach and McCain’s lukewarm (to ice cold) support from some evangelical leaders early in the campaign, evangelicals voted just as they have done in previous contests. Three-quarters of evangelicals voted for McCain, which is the same level of support given to Bush, though Green notes that turnout was lower.

But now it appears that President Obama has taken a new approach to trying to win over the Christians - use the word “Jesus” a lot.  According to a new article by the Politico’s Eamon Javers, Obama has used the word “Jesus” more often than even President George W. Bush.

More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.

Apparently, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is torn on the implications of this.

“I applaud that. It gives people a sense of comfort,” Perkins said. “But I think it’s a veneer, a facade that covers over a lot of policies that are anti-Christian.” That includes, in his view, Obama’s stance in favor of abortion rights.

As implied by my highlight, I tend to agree with Perkins’ assessment of Obama’s words being a facade to cloak his anti-Christian policies.

Much of the Politico piece documents Obama’s involvement in faith-based issues, such as meetings with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and how “religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis — and help to shape decisions on matters large and small.”

But hey - what happened to the howls of “THEOCRACY!” from the Left?  Are meetings with religious leaders to shape policy no longer an issue?  Is talk of Christianity no longer an issue when it emanates from the President?  Why is the Left not questioning Obama’s Christian credentials the way they did Bush’s?  Perhaps the new term for the Obama administration should be “Theobamacracy” (thanks, EPU).

Another potential “strategy” that could be in play here is identified in Javers’ article:

For Obama, Christian rhetoric offers an opportunity to connect with a broader base of supporters in a nation in which 83 percent of Americans believe in God. What’s more, regularly invoking Jesus helps Obama minimize the number of American who believe he is a Muslim — a linkage that can be politically damaging. According to a Pew Research Center study, 11 percent of Americans believe, incorrectly, that Obama is a Muslim; it’s a number that is virtually unchanged from the 2008 presidential campaign.

I don’t doubt for a moment that both of those intents are at play here - again, it’s part of a strategy to convince Americans that the Dems really are good Christians, despite their anti-life, Socialist/Marxist policies.  And of course the Muslim thing is, and will continue to be an issue…and since actions speak louder than words, incidents such as The Bow will not help his case.

As a Christian myself, one thing I have tried to avoid is to judge one’s sincerity of faith.  There are cases where that judgment is easy - George Tiller is an obvious one…that the man had the audacity to even attend church in the first place is astonishing.   In the eyes of some, Barack Obama is another easy case - the radical anti-life record of the magnitude of our President gives one pause.  But, only God knows the heart, and I do not pretend to be Him (although some believe that Obama himself IS God)  I hope that Obama will consider the words of Matthew:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23, NIV)

Obama can say “Lord, Lord,” but his actions speak louder than his Jesus talk.

As I’ve stated here several times, conservatism isn’t binary.  There is no on- or off-switch that magically turns one into a conservative.  And although there are philosophers, authors, etc. who have created great works describing the conservative mind and philosophy, most conservatives have not read them, and even if we have, there are few who consistently follow the philosophy.

We have many in DC who we identify as conservatives, yet many/most of them occasionally anger us over their apparent “straying off the ranch” with votes that don’t meet our expectations.  But is that unexpected?  Shouldn’t we expect that  there are precious few “100 percenters” out there?  Where do we draw the line?  What turns a good Senator or Representative into a conservative turncoat?  Look at it this way:

One can draw a line anywhere along that continuum.  Where is the acceptable place to draw it, and how do you determine where it goes?  Do we use National Journal rankings?  American Conservative Union?  The Club for Growth?   But more interesting to me is:  is there a litmus test that disqualifies a politician from being considererd “conservative?”  What is it?  How many litmus tests are they allowed to fail before being rejected?  Is our view of things more like this:

What drives the location of that dividing line?

Consider these, and which of them (and how many) establishes that red/blue line:

Defense issues:

• The Iraq war was a complete mistake - we should have never gone in there
• We probably should never have gone to Iraq, but now that we’re there, we should stay and ensure stability and safety for the Iraqi people
• We were fully justified in invading Iraq and we should stay as long as it takes
• The Bush Doctrine of preemptive intervention in areas that are potential dangers to the USA should be continued by the Obama administration
• The USA should not pursue what is perceived as imperialist missions into other sovereign countries unless we are attacked.

Economic and regulatory issues:

• The US government should avoid regulatory intervention at all costs
• The US government should increase regulation substantially to help protect the health of the people and the planet
• The US government should impose regulations selectively, depending upon the situation.  Some regulation is good, even if it’s not necessarily linked to items such as national security or urgent health issues
• Regulatory intervention to protect the environment, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other similar laws are good for the environment and they are in turn good for the country.
• The government should never have passed TARP - it was a socialist imposition on the monetary system of the United States.
• The TARP program was critical to the stability of the financial system, and its passing was necessary.
• The government should have placed even more money into the TARP program to fix other financial issues
• The Obama economic stimulus act was a bad idea all around and never should have passed
• Significant government spending was and is necessary to stimulate the economy, but the Obama plan went overboard
• Economic stimulus legislation should have consisted primarily of tax cuts, refunds, and similar.
• The US has no business giving money to the US auto manufacturers - they should file Chapter 11 if they are in trouble
• The US auto industry is too vital to the economy to allow it to go under and lose millions of jobs.

Social issues

• Abortion should be illegal in all situations
• Abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester
• Abortion should be allowed if the mother’s life is in danger
• Abortion should be allowed in any situation
• Gay marriage should be legalized
• Civil unions should be instituted as an alternative to marriage for gays
• Gay marriage should never be legalized
• Affirmative action is reverse racism
• Affirmative action helps build diversity in the workplace
• Prayer should be permitted in public schools to help fight the erosion of morals
• Prayer has no place in school, although children should be able to pray on their own, away from class

That’s enough for now… now look at these… which of them are conservative, which are liberal?  Of those that are liberal, which, if any, should disqualify one from running as a Republican and gaining the support of the national party and of conservatives?  For example, is it possible for a “conservative” to have supported TARP or the Obama economic stimulus?  Is it possible for a conservative to support abortion on demand without limits?  How many litmus tests must a person fail/pass before they swing into the “red zone”?

Lest we wonder why this kind of ideological struggle takes place in the GOP - and even conservative ranks - the topic was discussed a couple of years ago in a Wall St. Journal article that I still refer back to on occasion.  In it, Peter Berkowitz describes the situation, where the left is nearly always unified in their positions on policies and philosophies, whereas conservatives are frequently at odds over significant positions, such as Iraq and abortion.  While Berkowitz does not offer a solution to the problem, he does observe a couple of potential causes.  This one rings true:

Balancing the claims of liberty and tradition, or showing how liberty depends on tradition, is the very essence of modern conservatism, the founding text for which was provided by Whig orator and statesman Edmund Burke in his 1790 polemic, “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” The divisions within contemporary American conservatism–social conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives–arise from differences over which goods most urgently need to be preserved, to what extent, and with what role for government.

Rather academic, but when you think about it (especially that latter phrase), that’s where we are.  If you again ponder the policy positions I enumerated above, they really come down to what needs to be preserved and what is the role of the government?

The question for us is:  how can we maintain enough unity to defeat the unified Left, whose mission is to completely transform this country into a Marxist/Socialist/Leftist paradise nightmare?  Constant infighting isn’t going to do it.  And only accepting Republicans that score an “A” on the conservative fealty test and fall far into the red zone will not do it either.  As I’ve (and others here) stated numerous times, I have no issue holding GOP leadership to a higher conservative standard than others, but where do we draw the line?  What is the deciding factor?  Where should they fall on the continuum?

Then, as I pondered the impact that that book had on me, and obviously on others, it made me think: what books have had a similarly profound impact on my life? I often joke around with my wife that “everything I ever needed to know, I learned from the Hardy Boys.”  That series provided me much entertainment and quite a bit of knowledge of history and geography. For example, when I was in elementary school I learned quite a bit about the country of Iceland by reading “The Arctic Patrol Mystery,” and about Canada and Vikings from “The Viking Symbol Mystery”. Now those weren’t profound, but they were certainly indicative of what a book or books can do to shape one’s mind.

Most Christians would cite the Bible as the book that has provided the most profound impact in their lives, and they would undoubtedly be correct…certainly, it has been true for me. Recently, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has been cited as an influential work by many, considering the current political environment. And I’ve heard many talk of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (which is sitting here next to me on my desk) as a key read.

So, I submit this as an open thread for the day - what book has provided a profound influence on your life, thought, etc? I am particularly interested in what we read as young adults or children that had a lasting influence. My sons are in high school and college, so it’s a bit late for them - but we read to them constantly when they were little (my best memories are of reading them C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia” series), so I’m hoping that somewhere along the line we provided them a book that had a life-long impact on their thinking.

What say you?

My immediate reaction to this news was “if he’s coming from Danforth, I gotta be concerned.”  While Danforth served as a Republican, he has made it a habit in recent years of stabbing Christian conservatives with pointy sticks, despite his credentials as an Episcopalian priest.  Danforth was at the head of the wave of GOP “moderates” blaming social conservatives for the ills of the GOP.  Sound familiar?  And now he’s promoting a candidate for Senate.  Tell me I shouldn’t be suspicious.

But there’s another, more significant reason to be concerned about Schweich.

In 2002, Schweich joined such conservative stalwarts as the Democratic State Committee, Laborer’s Local 579 and 676, AFSCME & AFL-CIO, and the Jackson County Democratic Committee in supporting… Claire McCaskill.  In 2002, McCaskill was the MO State Auditor and was beginning her quest for the nomination for the U.S. Senate seat of then-GOP Senator James Talent.  Schweich’s $500.00 donation to McCaskill is documented in the January 2002 report from “Friends of McCaskill” to the Missouri Ethics Commission (page 35).

If this is indicative of Schweich’s positions, I’d almost rather see Sarah Steelman in the race.  At least I have more confidence that she’s more of a conservative, and as far as I know she hasn’t been complicit in trying to oust a sitting GOP senator.  I’m sure that Mr. Danforth is a fine man, but I do not trust his conservative credentials, especially considering his recent Democrat- and moderate squish-like campaign against social conservatives, so in turn I do not trust his candidate choices.  We do not need another so-called “moderate” in the Senate.  We need a conservative.  And Mr. Schweich, while probably a wonderful person, doesn’t appear to have the creds.

Late last week I had the opportunity to have a brief phone conversation with Congressman Roy Blunt, who is currently the only GOP candidate pursuing Bond’s Senate seat.  He is obviously laser-focused on Robin Carnahan and defeating her in the Senate race.  His main concern is in preventing a far-left liberal from winning the MO Senate seat.  Rep. Blunt told me “It’s important to hold back this onslaught of wrong-headed policies” with respect to the current Obama administration moves.  He also stated “If I didn’t think this was critical to the future of the country, I wouldn’t be running”.  I asked Blunt about some of the accusations that he may not be conservative enough for the seat.  He mentioned his very conservative ranking in the ACU and National Journal surveys, and he discussed some of his current activities in the house, including his work trying to provide a GOP/conservative alternative for health care reform, fighting cap-and-trade, and working to oppose hate crimes legislation (”we shouldn’t have different levels of victims…”).  My conversation with Blunt reinforced my feeling that he is a very strong candidate for the Senate and is unquestionably conservative enough for the job.

Interestingly, Blunt “reached out” to Schweich shortly after the news emerged about his interest in the candidacy. 

I am still concerned about the prospects of a contentious campaign in the event that additional candidates enter the race, especially one of the nature of the 2008 Steelman/Hulshof gubernatorial primary campaign.  I do not believe the GOP can sustain such a blood-letting.  We currently have a proven candidate in Blunt.  We have a speculative almost-candidate who has almost no real track record but who seems to have a lot of interesting things to say in Sarah Steelman.  And now we have another maybe-candidate who is being sponsored by a “moderate” Danforth and who has a record of donating to the bad guys.  

Better give Blunt the whack-a-mole mallet, because they may start popping up like the Chuck-e-Cheese game before long.

I just ran across this April 3rd Rasmussen survey indicating that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to shipping Gitmo terrorists into our country.  Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose this terrorist relocation program, with only thirteen percent in favor.  In addition, the public overwhelmingly opposes the Gitmo Terrorist Welfare Program proposed by National Intelligence (?) Director Dennis Blair.

Just 36% now agree with the president’s decision to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. Forty-six percent (46%) oppose closing the prison camp, and 18% are undecided.

This marks an eight-point drop in support for Obama’s decision since he announced it in late January when voters were almost evenly divided on the issue. Last November, only 32% thought the prison should be closed.

The opposition to shipping Gitmo refugees back to the US appears to be across the political spectrum, although the Democrats continue to show blind allegiance to Obama and his policies.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats agree with Oabama’s decision to shut the Guantanamo prison camp, while 68% of Republicans – and 54% of voters not affiliated with either party – are opposed to it.

But 64% of Democrats agree with 88% of Republicans and 76% of unaffiliateds that Guantanamo inmates should not be released in the United States.

Similarly, 83% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 79% of unaffiliated voters say safety is more important than fairness in determining where the terrorist suspects are released.

Missouri Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond came down hard on the Obamanauts in today’s Republican radio address.  The Hill reports:

“While President Obama has no plan for what to do with these killers, he has pledged to close the terrorist-detention facility in January to fulfill a campaign promise,” Bond said in the weekly Republican radio address. “This is a dangerous case of putting symbolism over security.”

Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Obama’s proposal a “ready, fire, aim” strategy.

“When it comes to national security decisions, I prefer aiming before shooting, which is why I keep calling on President Obama to tell us, the American people, how his plan to close Guantanamo will make our nation safer,” he said.

And this past Thursday, Missouri’s Rep. Roy Blunt was one of the co-sponsors of legislation to permit states to have a say on whether Gitmo terrorists can be housed in their state.

The Leftists continue to position the Gitmo closing as a kindhearted thing to do, to right the wrongs of the eeevil Bush administration and to make up for the cruelty of our tortuous practices (oh, by the way: half of Americans think “enhanced interrogation” is acceptable) .  Thankfully, the GOP is reminding Americans of why the terrorists are in Gitmo in the first place, via the video shown in Brian’s post from yesterday.  It is worth showing again:

If there is one thing the American public understands, it is what happened on 9/11 and who did it.  The Democrats have returned to a 9/10 mentality.  We must continue to remind the American people that Obama and the Democrats will not keep us safe with their approach to national security and terrorism.  Already, Obama’s troop withdrawals from Iraq are resulting in more American and Iraqi deaths.  The shutdown of Gitmo could also result in additional violence against Americans.  The Obama administration’s incompetent actions must be stopped, and fortunately the public seems to be figuring this out.

GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, “I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda.” Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that’s health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues…. I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

I’ve thought for quite some time that the buzz about sixty votes was overblown.  Having sixty Democrats in the Senate does NOT mean there are sixty VOTES to enact their agenda.  And apparently Arlen isn’t going to be any more cooperative to the Dems than he was to the GOP.  You see, Steve Benen identifies the critical issue:

For years, Republicans criticized Specter as a RINO — Republican In Name Only. As is turns out, at this point, Specter appears intent on literally being nothing more than a DINO — Democrat In Name Only. Specter doesn’t want to do any of the actual work involved in being a valuable member of his new team, preferring to vote exactly as he used to, only now with a different letter after his name in parentheses.

This gets more entertaining by the day.

• Sarah Steelman filed her 1Q2009 disclosure report for the Missouri Ethics Commission this week.  There’s a big glaring number in there:  a $770,000 debt from the 2008 gubernatorial race.  That is one whopping big hole to start with if/when she decides whether or not to run.  But even with that debt, she apparently thought it appropriate to spend over $100,000 on consulting and polling.

• A recent poll showed a very close race more than 18 months before the election.  From the KY3 TV report:

(Pollster Chris) Wilson said the poll was taken as a feasibility study for a potential Steelman U.S. Senate candidacy. But Steelman did not pay for the poll. Wilson said because of his company’s confidentiality clause, he could only say that a third party unaffiliated with Steelman paid for the data.

The Blunt campaign’s response to the poll was short but pointed: “Push polling is a nasty tactic and these tactics do not merit a response from the campaign,” said Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer.

• The latest fundraising numbers for Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan were released this week as well.  According to press reports, Democrat candidate Carnahan out-raised Blunt by a significant amount.  Carnahan reported fundraising of a bit more than $1M, whereas Blunt raised approximately $550K…although Blunt was able to transfer approx. $340,000 from his House campaign account.  A Missouri State University political scientist today expressed little doubt that Blunt will catch up on the fundraising, but showed some skepticism about his ability to defeat Carnahan.  For some odd reason, Chris Cillizza seems to think this is proof positive that Steelman will oppose Blunt in the primary.  Given her current money & debt issues, I wouldn’t be so sure.

I’ve often stated that a person begins the journey towards conservatism the first time they see the huge chunk of taxes that the government confiscates from their paycheck.  Conversely, the trip towards liberalism begins when the government giveaways kick in.  Today, tens of millions of Americans do not pay income taxes* - and many receive welfare tax credits in addition to not paying* in the first place.  These government junkies have become indentured servants of the US Government and are chained to leftist political giveaways such as Obama’s proposed “tax credits” that pay even those who owe no income tax.

So, it appears that the only citizens who are truly invested in the process of government without indebtedness to politicans are those who are taxed.  This taxation may be property ownership and property taxes, but it seems that restricting the franchise to property owners may be too restrictive - after all, there are many “invested” taxpayers who live in apartments or other non-property-owning situations.  So I’ve argued that any restriction of the “franchise” should be applied to paying income taxes. 

Those who do not pay taxes are unduly influenced by governmental giveaways.  After all, why bite the hand who feeds them?   Who would want to vote for politicians who want to pull the handouts?  Unfortunately this is precisely the policy that the Obama administration is pursuing…increase the number of non-taxpayers and as a result, their leftist voter base grows.

Others have noted the flaw in “representation without taxation.”  Karl Marx himself noted this in his “Communist Manifesto”:

Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury and bankrupt the nation.

Cliff May also pointed out the problem in The Corner just prior to the 2008 election:

What if, not implausibly, in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more? At that point, the majority of Americans not paying taxes would elect leaders who decide how much the minority must fork over to the government — to be redistributed to the majority through government programs and services.

I believe that is the plan.  Last week, over at the American Thinker, Alan Aronoff wrote an excellent review detailing the numbers of the situation.  His conclusion is key:

When beneficiaries of government policy do not sufficiently overlap the payers of those benefits, we have a governing system of representation without taxation. This type of system is not sustainable long term, but history suggests it may persist for some time under the pretext of ‘economic justice’ unless soundly rejected by the American people.

In this week’s Weekly Standard, P.J. O’Rourke writes of “A Nation of Moochers“.  While O’Rourke writes of those on the dole who do pay taxes, the message is even more appropriate when applied to the non-taxpayers.  O’Rourke writes:

Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union did some complicated mathematics and says, “By my reckoning, somewhere between 85 and 95 million households out of 115 million total have a smaller tax liability than the per-capita spending burden.” The breadwinners for 18 to 26 percent of our households are shoveling coal in the engine rooms of the ship of state, while everybody else is a stowaway, necking with Kate Winslet like Leonardo DiCaprio in Titanic.

Indeed, the stowaways are the problem.  They are the ones who think that the Obama dream of wealth redistribution, demonization of the financial services industry, bailouts of dying industries and governmental meddling in private industry is just dandy.  They are the ones who are jazzed about socialism.

O’Rourke writes:

America’s grossly unfair tax system won’t lead to class war. Or, if it does, the war will be brief. There are millions upon millions of us Sponge Bobs and relatively few of the sucker fish we’re soaking. On the other hand, young people–with no dependents except their Twitter followers–need to earn only double their age to be ladling gravy to Uncle. These are the devotees of the multi-culti who most adore super-diverse Barack, and they’re being “bled white,” as it were. They could turn on the president if they started thinking about this–or anything else.

There is one puzzling aspect of this:  why would younger people approve more of socialism when they are the ones who will be left holding the bag when the bill comes due?  Are they so ignorant of economics that they believe that printing money will solve the problem, or they have been so steeped in leftist political theory in college that they can think of nothing better than the Maxist paradise that was preached by their Birkenstock- and tye-dye-wearing profs?

Of course such restrictions on the franchise will likely never happen, especially while Obama is in office, but the scenario is interesting to think about.  The republic was founded on the concept of “No taxation without representation.”  With respect to our current situation, we must consider whether “no representation without taxation” is not equally important.

______

* - the Leftists will blather about the 7.5% payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, but those are “taxes” that are little more than a forced retirement benefit - a “benefit” (if we ever see it) that is an entitlement which, for all practical purposes, cannot be affected by voters/politicians.

The FBI sent in hostage negotiators and is investigating the Somali pirates, raising the possibility of federal charges against the men if they are captured.  But Obama has remained silent on the standoff so far.

“Obama has remained silent”.  Somehow I have this vision of him in his closet in a fetal position with his blanky and his binky (apologies to TOTUS), rocking back and forth and calling for his mommy because he is utterly incapable of dealing with a real crisis.

There have been a number of comparisons of the E-i-C and Jimmy Carter over the last year or so.  But this situation hearkens back to Bill Clinton and his pursuit of terrorists using “law enforcement.”  Byron York did an outstanding job of documenting his approach in this National Review article.  Does this sound familiar?

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

Something tells me that perhaps E-i-C is more worried about his domestic woes and the difficulties facing his administration with the economy and would prefer to just ignore what’s going on overseas.  Yes, his “America Sucks” tour took him outside our borders, but I suspect he would rather have been back here, eating pizza.

In York’s article, Dick Morris is quoted regarding Clinton and his tactics:

“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”

I strongly suspect that dealing with terrorists is not President Fluffy’s “thing”. 

It’s very simple:  the pirates are terrorists.  Terrorists only understand force.  Using “hostage negotiators” simply shows the Somalis and the other Muslim (and other) terrorist communities out there that Fluffy isn’t going to lift a finger to stop them.  The emasculation of the United States is well underway, and it will not stop until something far worse than a rowboat full of buffoons with guns hits us.

P.S.: Apparently mbecker908 and I were on the same wavelength, as we both used the Clinton analogy in posts about 3 minutes apart…

UPDATE:  I’ll bet the pirates terrorists are just shaking in their sandals over this gem.  

FBI agents are investigating the Somali pirates who hijacked a U.S. ship and are holding its captain hostage, U.S. officials said Saturday, raising the possibility of federal charges against the men if they are captured.

Federal charges?  Mercy sakes, if I was a terrorist, I’d just be terrified.  I’m sure that has pirates all over the Gulf of Aden turning tail and running, fearful of the reprisals of the big, bad FBI.

Barack Obama: ”I, I, would say that, er … pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] … if you look at … pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] … the, the sources of this crisis … pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] … a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system …pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF S**T BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that … pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] … here in Great Britain … pause [S**T, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] … here in continental Europe … pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] … around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er … pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] … the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged … pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. 

You know, this would be *really* funny if it weren’t so sad.  As Crace alludes to (”the World’s Greatest Orator (™all news organisations“)), the news agencies refuse to recognize what an incompetent Obama is without his binky.  But the truth is slowly seeping out, despite the press.  It’s not just that he’s an inept communicator.  It’s that he just can’t think on his feet. And unfortunately, his indecision will undoubtedly be exploited by those who hate us - they will see his weakness and incompetence and prey upon it

(HT: Steyn for the Guardian article)

The Pew polling showed a rather amusing result:

Pew attributes Obama’s slippage in its poll to a change in public perception about his political leanings, with respondents saying by 44 percent to 30 percent that he is listening more to liberals versus moderates, compared to 44 percent who said in February that he was listening more to moderates while 34 percent said it were liberals that had his ear.

There’s a news flash for you, kids.

The interesting result in the Pew poll is a significant jump in the perception of Democrat leadership in Congress.  Approval for Congressional Democrats stands at around 47%, substantially higher than late 2008/early 2009, but approval for the GOP stands at 28% - a substantial drop from 34% in February.

I suspect that the GOP leadership problems can be explained by a public perception that there IS no leadership in the GOP right now…an opinion to which much of our Redstate readership can relate.  How can one have a positive opinion about something that doesn’t exist?

The Dems are showing weakness right now, but the GOP appears to be rudderless…and the polls are reflecting this.  Michael Steele is obviously not the answer.  Sarah Palin is not the answer (for now)…she has a state to run, as does Bobby Jindal.  We have a President who is grossly incompetent, and we need someone in the GOP to lead the way to exploit this emerging weakness.  Rush does it nicely, but he is not the leader of the GOP.  Someone must step up into that role.  Who?

The leftists who are in favor of this measure -  yet another soak-the-rich strategy - piously claim that “they should give out of the goodness of their hearts and not for the deduction”.  This is true, but it’s not reality and it’s not relevant.  In reality, many give not only to benefit the charity, but also to get the writeoff.  No matter what the motivation to give, this will inevitably impact charities by reducing that motivation.  And this impacts not only the giver, but the charities that receive the donations.

Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt has been one of the more vocal Congressional critics of this part of the Obama budget.  Last Friday Blunt sent a letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi to voice his displeasure with the charitable contribution hit job.  In that letter, he states:

I am puzzled why this President – who has frequently called upon Americans to take responsibility for building their communities and institutions – would hinder many Americans from continuing to contribute voluntarily to our nation´s charitable organizations. These civic, educational, and faith-based organizations and groups are the backbone of our communities and can move quickly in times of crisis to react to the needs of the local, regional, and national communities they serve. We should be encouraging, not penalizing, the country´s good Samaritans during a time when millions of Americans are relying on their work more than ever.

(In 2005, Blunt championed a bill known as the “Charitable Giving Act” that sought to “provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses” - one key aspect would have been to allow non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions.  That bill never passed out of committee)

But as bad as the financial implications might be, the social implications are even worse.  Today the National Review’s Peter Wehner & Phillip Merrick published an article titled “An Assault on Authentic Compassion”.  They point out how this measure belies the so-called “progressives” claims of “compassion” and “care for the poor” - in fact, it takes money away from them.  But should we be surprised?  Of course not - this is simply a continuation of the socialist policies of the Obama administration.  Wehner & Merrick state:

The Obama administration’s unprecedented intrusion into the private sector betrays its underlying philosophy. In his speech before a joint session of Congress last week, the president declared that he doesn’t believe in bigger government. Oh yes he does, in ways we have never quite seen before.

With this proposal, President Obama is saying as directly as it can be said that the federal government is better able than private citizens and the charities they support to decide how these donation dollars are best distributed. Conservatives, by contrast, believe in the principle of subsidiarity — which in this instance means that charity is best performed at the most local and immediate level possible, and by “mediating” institutions rather than large, distant, and bureaucratic ones. This is not an abstract doctrine; it is based on the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

President Obama is willing to see private charitable giving to the poor decrease in order to see the scope and size of government increase. These are the actions of an ideologue, not a “pragmatist.”

Yes, indeed.  Obama is simply revealing more of his left-wing, socialist/Marxist ideology and attempting to move the care of the needy to Mother Government and away from charities.

Take action today by writing to your Senator and Representative and voice your opposition to this move to socialize charity.

UPDATE: I am quite embarrassed that I missed Ben Domenech’s coverage of this story over at The New Ledger. Ben does a wonderful job of reviewing the situation, in a much less acerbic way than I did. I was glad to see that one of Ben’s sources saw the same Obama motivation that I did:

“This is a frontal assault on the non-profit sector aimed at undermining alternatives to government provision of social services. Nobody likes competition, and that goes for those who think government is the answer to all our problems.”

Be sure to read the entire article.

Well, it seems they’ve had second thoughts.  In a very clever move, web site ProPublica.org turned on a change tracking system aimed at several key administration web sites, including whitehouse.gov.  Today they spotted a very interesting change had occurred - the text that formerly bashed President Bush’s treatment of Hurricane Katrina had been altered to eliminate the most insulting portions of text.  You can see the changes documented here.

Perhaps it’s a bit of sting from the bungled handling of the aftermath of the Kentucky ice storms, or maybe the Left finally caught a case of conscience.  Or maybe they’ve just forgotten.  But interestingly, they don’t seem to be too worried about Katrina any longer, considering they didn’t include a penny in the so-called “stimulus” bill to stimulate Louisiana.  Hopefully ProPublica will continue to monitor this.

Blunt will make his announcement at Harris-Stowe State University in St. Louis at 9:30 CST.  A source in the GOP revealed to Redstate on Wednesday night that Blunt would be making appearances in eastern Missouri on Thursday, spend time in Springfield Thursday night, and travel through western Missouri on Friday, with a speaking appearance at Lincoln Days in Kansas City on Friday evening.  And who will be introducing Rep. Blunt on Friday evening?  None other than Senator Kit Bond. It is not known right now if Sen. Bond will be officially endorsing Rep. Blunt in his run for the Senate, but this appearance could be a good sign.

What of the rest of the potential GOP competition?  The other key player that could pursue the nomination is former MO State Treasurer Sarah Steelman.  As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today, Ms. Steelman is still “on the fence” about running for Bond’s seat.   It is believed in some circles that Steelman will try to do what is best for the GOP and will step aside to allow Blunt an unimpeded path to the nomination.  This would avoid a contentious primary and could pave the way for stronger GOP support for her next run for office.  Interestingly, Steelman is also scheduled to speak in Kansas City at the Lincoln Days event.  The contents of her speech there may be telling.  According to the aforementioned Post-Dispatch Political Fix story, some believe that Steelman could be a stronger candidate head-to-head against Robin Carnahan, but it would be very difficult for her to defeat Blunt in the primary.

Blunt will be a strong candidate for the Senate seat.  He is a solid conservative (90+ ACU rating) with excellent social conservative credentials and is well-known for his ability to work with fellow Republicans AND Democrats in Congress…he is well-liked and “refused to be the guy who would say that the ‘Democrats hate America’ “.  He has very strong name recognition in Missouri for several reasons - he is a multi-term representative, he served as the GOP Minority Whip until this year, and he is the father of former MO Governor Matt Blunt.  That last item is one that some cite as a big weakness for Roy Blunt - Matt was not a popular governor in some circles and retired after one term, which did not set well with some in the GOP.  However, Roy Blunt has 18+ months to cement his credentials with the Missouri electorate and differentiate himself from his son (with whom he did not always agree), and during that time Matt Blunt’s true “legacy” will become clearer…and that may well be a good thing, depending on new Governor Jay Nixon’s performance in office.  Matt Blunt left office with the Missouri budget in relatively good condition, and it is Nixon’s to preserve or destroy.

The Missouri Senate race for Bond’s seat continues to shape up as an exciting contest and will undoubtedly be one of the most hotly-contested races in 2010.  Any of the candidates currently considering a run, including Blunt, Steelman, or others previously mentioned could provide strong representation for Missourians on Capitol Hill.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” White House spokesdrone Robert Gibbs initiated the snow storm.

Gibbs:

“We’re happy that Congress, in a bipartisan way, took steps to make whatever happens in this recession easier to take for the American people.”

Whatever he’s smoking - I want me some.

As our colleague Mark Impomeni pointed out on Randi Rhodes’ program last week, the fact that John McCain (king of aisle-crossing) pegged it as a strictly partisan Dem bill pretty much says it all.

“This bill was not bipartisan. It is incredibly expensive. It has hundreds of billions of dollars in projects which will not yield in jobs,” said John McCain, whom Obama defeated in last year’s presidential election, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

McCain also noted:

“Look, I appreciate the fact that the president came over and talked to Republicans,” he said. “That’s not how you negotiate a result. You sit down together in a room with competing proposals. Almost all of our proposals went down on a party-line vote.”

On Friday Dan McLaughlin did a brilliant job of pointing out the implications of the GOP’s vote on the bill.  Basically, Republicans had little or nothing to lose by opposing the “stimulus.”  No matter what, the GOP would get no credit for supporting it, and since most Republicans honestly believe this bill will do little or nothing to stimulate the economy, total opposition made perfect sense.

So, Robert Gibbs’ apparent drug-induced statements about bipartisanship were amusing, but quite ridiculus.  Even if the GOP did take a “bipartisan” approach on the bill, it wouldn’t have accomplished anything.  Let the Dems go it alone - a successful bill would do nothing for the GOP, and it stands to hurt the Left in the end if it fails.

Next, Robin was the recipient of a not-too-flattering comparison with Caroline Kennedy. Family political legacy, with a brother in Congress? Check. Weak resume? Check. Lefty? Check. Female? Yup. The experience issue seems to be a pretty serious problem, especially considering what we’re seeing from Washington with the Most Inexperienced President Evah. Senator? Hmmm….I dunno about that.

Then there was the little issue of her associates. We alluded to it here on Redstate, as did Townhall’s Matt Lewis. Ms. Carnahan’s Communications Director, Laura Egerdal, has a background with “America Coming Together,” a left-leaning GOTV group that just happened to get caught (at about the same time as Ms Egerdal’s tenure) hiring felons for their door-to-door work. Gateway Pundit and AOL’s Political Machine also applied some heat.

Speaking of issues with voting and ballots - we mentioned the issues with the mangled Civil Rights Initiative ballot language here before. Lo and behold, another ballot language issue surfaced this week - this time it involves playing with the wording for a ballot question that “originally sought to ban the use of tax money for abortions, human cloning and other similar operations.” Two different plantiffs have filed suit over this issue - Missouri Roundtable for Life, which opposes stem cell research, AND two disabled individuals who support stem cell research. So it seems the Secretary of State couldn’t get it right on either side. One of the most basic functions of the Secretary of State - creating ballot language - and she is unable to perform the job without fumbling it.

Remember, as Secretary of State, Carnahan was responsible for ensuring clean elections. Her apparent partisan politicizing of the election/ballot process does not bode well for someone who is to represent all of Missouri and not just the left-leaning portion.

But Ms. Carnahan’s week wasn’t finished. As one might expect from a Democrat liberal seeking a seat in the Senate, she is pro-abortion…and this week we saw her cozy up with the abortion lobby. Shortly after her announcement, Carnahan’s anti-life creds were boosted by an endorsement from pro-abortion PAC EMILY’s List. Is this a blessing or a curse? Missourians United For Life pointed out Carnahan’s “extreme” and “radical” views on abortion and urged her to state her position on the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). The Source spells out the uphill battle that Carnahan will have in Missouri as a anti-life candidate in a conservative state:

[L]ast cycle Emily’s List lost two big congressional races in Missouri. They got killed in the sixth district with a candidate, Kay Barnes, who was supposed to be a rock star. And they lost with another, Judy Baker in the ninth district, in a race they thought they had a chance to win all the way to the end.
[...]
Obviously Missouri will elect Democrats statewide. But if you look at who has been elected lately, all have at least a modicum of conservative thought. Even Claire McCaskill tried to act like a conservative in rural areas. Carnahan won’t be able to pull that off, and that will be her ultimate undoing.

Ms. Carnahan saw the need to further cement the anti-life portion of her resume in New York City. Politico and Townhall both picked up on Carnahan’s upcoming weekday getaway to chic Christie’s at Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan. She will be a special guest at the Women’s Campaign Forum gala. The WCF’s stated goal is to “recruit, train, launch and support pro-choice women to run for office” (sound familiar?), and the gala will feature pro-choice actors, actresses, NYT columnists and other celebrities. She’s wasting no time initiating her campaign and running after the ultra-left Hollywood campaign contribution bucks, it appears.

Oh, and Politico’s hit on the dress was a little much, but it was funny.

Ms. Carnahan hasn’t taken a stand on many other issues that are bound to be significant to Missourians, such as the 2nd Amendment (MO is a concealed carry state), or the current Porkulus bill that is on the verge of passing, despite the opposition of a plurality of Americans. It will be interesting to find out what she’s thinking here.

If she doesn’t move to Australia first.