When checking their 2008 numbers I came across a discrepancy. The actual vote totals in 2008 in OH were 51.4% for Obama, 46.8% for McCain and 1.8% for other candidates. However, ignoring the 2008 nonvoters, the Dispatch poll has Obama at 52.9% in 2008, McCain at 44.8%, and other candidates at 2.2%. That is an undercount of McCain votes by 2.0%, an overestimate of Obama votes by 1.6%, and an overestimate of other votes by 0.4%.

If you readjust the numbers according to the real 2008 votes, it flips the final results of the poll. (I am including their polling of 2008 nonvoters in the final total.) Assuming party shifts are correct, correcting for the 2008 number will give Romney a lead of 49.5% to Obama’s 48.6%.

Please note that this is NOT unskewing the polls for party ID. I am readjusting the percents according to known real numbers. We know what the real vote was in 2008, so if current polling doesn’t match those numbers then it is a verifiable, correctable, systematic sampling error.

Finally, another thing smells fishy about the crosstabs. They indicate that people who did not vote in 2008 but plan to vote in 2012 are breaking for Obama by 57% to 36% with 7% going to other candidates. But we know GOP turnout was depressed in 2008. In other words, there were a lot of republicans who did not vote for president in 2008, but enthusiasm for Romney is greater this time around than for McCain. While there are a lot of first time young voters attracted to Obama to account for his portion of the 2008 nonvoters, a split of 57%/36% seems way to big. Unfortunately, there is no way to objectively double check those numbers. (I did not correct for this in my analysis above.)

I have not looked through other poll crosstabs to check their 2008 vote split. I don’t know if I will have time.

Bottom line is that, in this one poll, Ohio is a lot closer than some media are reporting. Correcting in just this polls flips the race by about 4%. And, of course, it will all come down to turnout. No matter what the polls say now, we need to get our people to vote.

Turns out that Kerry Bentivolio is a hard core Ronulon. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, he is a strong supporter of Ron Paul. In fact, according to Conservatives4Congress, Bentivolio was lobbying to be a Ron Paul delegate at the 2012 GOP Convention. The Washington Times reports that he is not just a casual fan of Paul, but he supports, “… especially the Texas congressman’s ideas on closing overseas American military bases.”
And more disturbing, here are Bentivolio’s foreign policy positions according to Young Americans for Liberty:
Believes only Congress can declare war
Opposes War in Iraq
Opposes War in Afghanistan
Opposed Obama’s intervention in Libya
Opposes Nation Building
Supports a non-interventionist foreign policy that puts America first

Some of those positions sound good on the surface, but for others, like the last one, the details matter. For example, I would be very interested in what is his opinion on U.S. support of Israel as well as what he thinks of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is interesting that there are no foreign policies issues listed on Bentivolio’s website nor any mention of Ron Paul.

Like his idol, Ron Paul, Bentivolio has lots of good position, at least on paper. But do we really need more Ron Paul groupies in the House? I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the guy. I hope we get a decent placeholder and get another try at this seat in 2014.

and here is a link to the transcript:

http://www.box.com/s/57dhmq3o834i2oirne7u

A good example comes from the U.S. Civil War in the battle of Gettysburg.  Recall that on the first day of battle, Union troops controlled the town.  Confederate troops ran into union soldiers on the western edge of town.  During the first day Union troops retreated through Gettysburg to take up the strategic high positions in the east and south of town.

Now consider that Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania, a state that was part of the Union side of this war.  To the best of my knowledge, the people of Gettysburg supported the Union.  They certainly didn’t welcome the Confederates with open arms, and they did not take up arms against the Union forces.  My point is that Gettysburg was Union territory in every way, shape, and form.

Consider also that the duty of Union troops was to defend Union territory.  (Of course, their other duty was to attack Confederate territory, but since Gettysburg was not Confederate territory, that is irrelevant here.)   If the city of Gettysburg was Union territory then Union troops were duty bound to protect it.  On this evidence then, one can only come to the conclusion that Union troops at Gettysburg were extremely derelict in their duty.  No matter what, they should have stayed in town to protect the good people and their homes and businesses there instead of conceding that territory to the Confederates.

Of course this argument is ridiculous.  Gettysburg was not a disaster for the Union; it was the turning point of the war.  This all happened because they followed good strategy.  They held the strategic high ground instead of blindly following duty to protect the town itself.

There should be a lesson here for our political war.  We cannot just blindly follow conservative ideology (the equivalent to military territory) and hope that the political strategy works itself out.  We need to have a strategy to follow.  That strategy needs to take into account the terrain (not territory) on which we fight our battles.  Political terrain is determined by voter opinion which can be somewhat assessed by polling.  Of course, unlike warfare, political terrain can be improved but it takes effort: advertising, speaking, and education.  We cannot just blindly hope that following principle will sway public opinion.

We have lost a lot of territory this year.  The deficit and the debt are looking bad.  We have been out maneuvered by the Dems on the general budget fight.  Under these circumstances, some on our side are desperate for a win, even a small win that will not gain back much territory.  Unfortunately in their zeal to get that small win they are willing fight a battle on lousy terrain.  Like it or not, the Dems have the high ground on the Social Security tax cut.  The public favors their position, and there is no time to change the terrain.  And we cannot afford the resources to change it.  If you have not looked, we have a big election coming up next year.  If we win – controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House – we are in a much better position to win on these small battles.

While Dems have been winning battles this past year, many of these wins have been pyrrhic victories.  Sure they get to spend more, but their credibility on fiscal responsibility has taken a huge hit.  The public now trust Republicans over Democrats on fiscal issues.  The Dems have put themselves in a very vulnerable position with respect to the election, but we cannot take advantage of that position unless we follow a disciplined strategy.  If we simply attack willy-nilly we may win a few small skirmishes but at the cost of political goodwill with the voters.  We need to keep our eyes on the big prize, next year’s elections.

Over the next year we need to fight on good terrain where we have the backing of public opinion.  Sometimes we have to concede territory on unfavorable terrain, but at those times we should make the Dems pay a price like attaching small policies that we favor, i.e. the Keystone pipeline.  We won’t always get all the policies that we favor, but we should take what we can.  We cannot get caught in details but have to keep our eyes on the bigger picture, the general strategy.

Currently the scorecard reads:

CCB has passed the House but is stalled to dead in the Senate,

the Boehner bill can’t even make it out of the House,

and the Reid plan would probably get through the Senate and is anybody’s guess in the House.

This does not even factor in Obama’s veto threats, although I would be surprise if he doesn’t sign anything that reaches his desk.  Is he really going to kill something that has made it through the Dem controlled Senate?

In the current situation the probabilities favor the last bill standing and, unfortunately for us, that seems to be the Reid plan.   If it passes, especially with a united Democrat support, Reid and the Democrats would look like the sane reasonable adults in the room.  They would be the ones given credit for diverting certain economic disaster.  The GOP would be left looking like squabbling little children, and we would end up with a fix worse than the Boehner plan.

We are not in a good position even if the Boehner plan passes the House.  If it passes it squeaks by with universal Democrat opposition as well as some conservative GOP opposition.  It would be easy for the Senate to kill it, again leaving the Reid plan the last one standing and the only GOP alternative would be to risk a financial crisis.  Sure, a financial crisis is not a 100% certainty, but it cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty either.  Again, it is not what we think will happen, but if there are enough GOP members who are afraid enough.

It is not looking favorable for a conservative solution, but I think there is a way out of the current mess.  What we need is a little more time, say one month.  A one month extension of the debt ceiling could buy us enough time to smooth out our differences and allow calmer heads to prevail.  A one month extension would not add considerable to the debt.  It would certainly be less worse than any Reid plan.  It would be very defensible to the average voter, especially swing voters.  They know that there is no consensus and we are running out of time to reach a reasonable solution.  A one month extension would keep those 24 GOP squishes in line.  It would prevent a possible market meltdown and relieve their fears.  They would not feel the pressure to give in to the Dems.

A one month extension would also have the benefit of everyone showing their cards.  What I mean is that the extension isn’t proposed until the Reid plan is voted on in the Senate.  With the Reid plan we will finally have something from the Dems that has details, is written down, and can be financially scored.  Add in a one month extension and we will have time to properly criticize the Democratic plan.  We can point out the gimmicks and weaknesses.  Now we know what the Dems tactics are.  We have a month to better prepare for them.  We also have more time to go to the voters to advocate for the strengths of our proposals.  We have more time to encourage the public to pressure Democrats to support the GOP policy.

Obama has threatened to veto short term extensions, but I think he is more concerned about short term proposals that would extend the ceiling to just before the next elections.  With the current situation and the tensions, he would look extremely irresponsible vetoing a very short term extension like this.  That goes double for the Democrat controlled Senate.  At worst, even if the extension were rejected, the GOP would regain voter respect as the adults in the room.

Reid maintained more of his base, capturing 91% of Dems while Angle was able to pull only 5%.  Unfortunately Angle lost 11% of the GOP to Reid and captured only 85% of Republican voters.  She did get a plurality of independents at 48% compared to Reids 44%.  It was not enough to overcome the Democratic turnout advantage and the GOP crossovers.  The numbers are very similar to the Presidential election results.  Obama kept 93% of Democrats and pulled 11% of Republicans.  However the independents broke for Obama 54% to 41% for McCain.  Angle actually did better then McCain among independents but not enough to win.

Compare these results to the Governors race.  For the two major parties, the numbers are nearly flipped.  Sandevol (R) pulled 11% of Dems while keeping 93% of Reps.  Even more significantly, he devastated the younger Reid among independents by a margin of 60% to 32%.

As for Latinos, Obama won them over by a margin of 76% to 22% for McCain.  Despite her tougher line on illegal immigration, Angle increased the draw of Latinos to 30% while only 68% went for the pandering Reid.  Sandoval did a little better but not by much, gaining 33% compared to the younger Reid’s 64%.  Remember that there was no significant change in Latino turnout between 2008 and 2010.

The bottom line from all of this is that the GOP improved turnout but not enough to overcome a Democratic advantage.  Sandoval demonstrates that it takes a coalition of Republicans and independents to win in Nevada.  There are certainly a strong number of independents (60%) willing to vote GOP under the right conditions.  Angle pulled independents better then the supposedly more moderate and establishment candidate McCain, but in the end she came up short.

Middle-aged man: “Would you like $10 no strings attached?”

Young man, looking somewhat puzzled: “I guess so.”

The middle-aged man stops a well-dressed middle-aged woman walking by and starts rummaging through her purse.

Middle-aged woman: “Hey, what are you doing?”

Middle-age man: “Don’t worry. I’m from the federal government.”

He finds her billfold, opens it, and takes out $11. He hands $10 to the young man, and pockets $1.

Young man: “Thanks.”

Middle-aged woman: “What about me?”

Middle-aged man: “I’ve got it covered.”

He stops an elderly gentleman walking by and takes the billfold from his jacket. Again he removes $11 from it, gives the woman $10, and pockets $1.

Elderly man: “Hey, what about me?”

The middle-aged man continues this process with a variety of people walking by as this scene shifts into the background. Across the street, the camera focuses on a GOP candidate (or spokesperson) who turns from watching the scene and speaks to the camera.

Candidate: “Seems kind of silly, doesn’t it. Yet this is exactly the scheme that my opponent and his liberal allies proposed with federal government spending and the so-called stimulus. They claim to give you money or create jobs, but what you don’t show are the jobs and money they are taking away from others. It is even worse than that, though. Every time money is funneled through Washington, the bureaucrats take their cut. That is even more money and jobs that we lose.”

Camera switches to a close up of the middle-aged man as he is counting his cut.  He looks up with shock in his eyes: “Don’t listen to that crazy person. He just wants to take away my … er … your money.”

Camera then pans out as the middle-aged man approaches the original young man who is admiring his $10. The middle-aged man grabs it and hands it to the last person he has taken from. He turns to the young man: “You owe me a dollar.”

Regular readers of Redstate should be very familiar with MI-1.  This is the seat held by the co-called blue dog Dem Stupak.  He sold his pro-life convictions to pass Obamacare.  He had one once of common sense and decided not to run again.  Although we have not heard from him lately, we at Redstate have been treated to several diaries by the Republican candidate, Dr. Benishek.  His Democrat opponent is McDowell.  The New York Times rates this seat as a tossup.  The bloggers of 538 indicate that there is a 89% chance of a Republican win.  Both candidate have about $131,000 on hand.  A September 2 poll commissioned by Benishek shows him leading by 22 over McDowell in a two-way race and has Benishek up by 39 to 25 over McDowell in a 4-way ballot.

The story of MI-7 makes for interesting readings although it has been a heartbreak for conservatives.  In 2004 in a multi-candidate GOP primary several conservatives split the majority conservative voters and allowed the uber-RINO Joe Schwarz to gain the nomination and the seat.  In 2006 conservatives coalesced around Tim Walberg in the primary, give Schwarz the boot.  Walberg squeaked by the Democrat in the general election.  In 2008 Schwarz got his revenge by endorsing the Democrat, Mark Schauer, for the general election who won with 48.9% of the vote.  Walberg is back for a rematch against Schauer.

NYT rates it as another tossup and 538 gives the GOP a 68% chance to win.  An Aug. poll sponsored by a conservative organization has Walberg up by 10% (50% Walberg, 40% Schauer).  Unfortunately Schauer has a money advantage with $1.65 million on hand while Walberg only has $240,000.

Finally, there is MI-9, a district in the northern suburbs of Detroit.  This seat was held by the Republican Joe Knollenberg for a number of years before he was ousted by the Democrat Gary Peters in 2008.  As a freshmen in a previously Republican held seat Peters should be vulnerable, especially this year.  The GOP nominee is Rocky Raczkowski.  NYT rates the district as leans Democrat but 538 gives Rocky a 72% chance to win.  A Sept. poll has the race at 45% Raczkowski and 41% Peters.  Again though, Peters has the money advantage of $1.93 million while Rocky has $220,000 cash on hand.

The polling and the ratings look good for the GOP, but the cash on hand is a definite concern for both Walberg and Raczkowsk.  It wouldn’t hurt if Benishek had a little more too.

• Baucus MT
• Bayh IN
• Begich AK
• Bennet CO
• Casey PA
• Conrad ND
• Dorgan ND
• Feingold WI
• Franken MN
• Hagan NC
• Harkin IA
• Johnson SD
• Klobuchar MN
• Kohl WI
• Landrieu LA
• Lincoln AR
• McCaskill MO
• Nelson NE
• Pryor AR
• Reid NV
• Tester MT
• Udall CO
• Warner VA
• Webb VA

There are probably others, but this is my quick read.  There are a few that are up for reelection this year.  Remember this come November and remind others before then.  In addition, those nine Republicans who voted for Sotomayor owe our country as well as our party an apology.  After the Sotomayor deception on the 2nd Amendment, there is no excuse for Republicans believing any of Kagan’s testimony.  There is no excuse for any Republican vote for Kagan.  Obama’s nominees cannot be trusted and Kagan has no legal record of supporting the 2nd Amendment.  When it comes time to vote on Kagan, Republican Senators need to remember the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Dan Riehl just reported on Riehl World View:

Jim Webb: “it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

Wow!

WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick reports Lieutenant Governor John Cherry is about to drop out of the race for governor because there are many, including some Democrats, who say he can’t win.

and

Skubick reported Monday night there has been speculation that Governor Granholm’s strong support for Cherry is more of a liability than an asset.

That is the same Gov. Granholm who has run the state of MI into the ground.  To be honest it is not entirely her fault but she certainly has helped.  With unemployment at one of the highest rates in the country, she is not terribly popular right now.  If she were not already term limited, she would be looking for a new job anyway.

Cherry was the most prominent Democratic candidate.  If he does drop out, it leaves only former Flint Mayor Don Williamson, State Senator Alma Smith and former State Representative John Freeman.  These are not exactly first tier candidates, and maybe not even second tier ones.  This is also speculation that the Speaker of the MI House, Andy Dillon, might through his hat into the ring, especially with the departure of Cherry.

On the Republican side, we are not short on candidates.  The following have declared or have been speculated about running:

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, Michigan State Senator Tom George, U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra, Former Huron County Commissioner Timothy Rujan, Businessman Rick Snyder, and Former State Representative John Freeman.  Of these I would peg Cox, Bouchard, and Hoekstra as having the most potential.  Cox polls the best against any Democrat probably due to name recognition.

Cox is the highest Republican office holder in MI.  He has a fairly good record, holds a state-wide office, and has good name recognition, but has two potential negatives that could haunt his campaign.  The first is tied to convicted former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.  Somewhat independent of his conviction, there are rumors that Kilpatrick had a wild party at the Mayor’s mansion and that a stripper at the party was later killed under suspicious circumstances.  Cox authorized an investigation from the state Attorney General’s office that could not find evidence to substantiate the rumor.  Now there is another rumor that Cox tilted the investigation in order to cover up his own affair (not directly related to the rumored party or to the substantiated affair of Kilpatrick).  Cox has admitted to an affair but has reconciled with his wife which leads to the second potential negative to his campaign for governor.  In addition to the affair, Cox (unofficially) accused prominent lawyer and former Democratic Governor candidate Geoffrey Fieger of attempted blackmail.  Fieger was also federally prosecuted for campaign finance violations but was found not guilty by a jury.  Fieger and some of his law partners were essentially funneling campaign contributions through employees but exploited enough loopholes in the law to make conviction difficult.  He was also probably helped by having a Detroit jury.  Fieger can be summed up as a Democratic lawyers’ lawyer – think John Edwards on steroids with about half the ethics.  All of this is to say I can believe Cox’s accusations of blackmail by Fieger.  What I am worried about is an October surprise by engineered by Fieger.

Bouchard was the 2006 GOP candidate to run against Stabenow for a U.S. Senate seat.  He lost 41% to 57%.  Of course, that was hardly a great year for Republicans.  Oakland county has some of the major Detroit suburbs, so he has a fairly good base on which to run despite being in a less prominent office.  There have been major crimes in the county that get coverage from the local Detroit news.  Of course the Senate race also help in name recognition.  As sheriff, Bouchard has executive experience and good criminal justice background.  His financial management credentials are neutral.  Sure, there is some budgeting and finances with his position but it is far from the most prominent job responsibility.

Hoekstra probably plays well to parts of the state beyond the Detroit area.  He is a congressman from the 2nd district which is located on the western side of the state along the shore of Lake Michigan.  He has been in congress since 1992.  His lifetime ACU rating is 90 and his rating for 2008 is 88, fairly decent numbers.  His Citizens Against Government Waste ratings are 82 lifetime and 81 for 2008.  He has a generally conservative voting record, could be better but probably good enough.  As a long term congressman, his weakness is lack of executive experience.

Any three of these guys will be better than any Democrat, especially the current contenders.  If Cherry is out then the GOP chances of capturing the MI Governor’s office is even better than before.

There are also implications beyond the governor.  While Republicans control the MI Senate by 22 to 16, Democrats control the MI House by 67 to 43.  The GOP should be able to make gains in the House.  At the federal level, Democrats have an 8 to 7 advantage in House seats.  In the 2008 election, two of them flipped from Rep to Dem.  They are obvious targets for this year.  In addition, if Stupak (D-MI1) caves on the pro-life provisions for the health care bill, he could be vulnerable.  Even if he doesn’t cave, but health care passes without pro-file protection, he still might be punished as associated with the party of abortion.  A strong GOP and a weak Dem governor candidate could push GOP and depress Dem turnout which will affect all the down ballot races.

He thinks he can buy off the voters of Nebraska with federal dollars.  The majority know that he is trying to bribe them with other people’s money.  I cannot imagine that the majority are comfortable being exempted from taxes that will be leveled on the other 49 states.  They know theft when they see it.  This is simply too blatant.  Nebraska is not downtown Detroit.  What Nelson is trying to do with this money is nakedly unethical, immoral, and corrupt.

It would be a very interesting poll to see where the people of Nebraska stand on this bill, on Nelson’s deal, and especially on Nelson.  I don’t think it will be pretty.  I find it difficult to believe that Nelson thinks it is pretty.  The only way he believes that voting for this bill is good for him, his state, or his county is to be completely and totally delusional.

I hope that the Nebraska GOP is taking notes, capturing video, and preparing.  Of course, Nebraska has trended strongly Republican already, but, with what Nelson will soon be doing, the NE GOP should be able to insure that any Democrat couldn’t even be elected dog catcher.  Every Democratic candidate should have Nelson and his actions strung around their necks.  What are they going to say?  The standard GOP talking point to any Democratic promise should be, “Like Nelson’s promise to protect the unborn?”

The only way any Democrat would have any credibility would be to not just avoid Nelson but to actively attack him.  Either Nelson becomes a pariah in Nebraska, opposed by even his own party members, or the Nebraska Democratic Party is politically annihilated.  The local GOP has been given a prime opportunity.

Similar tactics may even work in a few of the other strongly conservative states currently represented in the Senate by Democrats.

Among the highlights, Obama gets slightly more approval from females than males, 54% to 50%, although both have trended down. With age groups his biggest approval is still from the youngest (18-29 year-olds) at 60%. The least approval is from the retired crowd (over 65) at a dismal 43%. The other two middle age groups are in the mid to low 50′s. There also hasn’t been much change in these groups over the last four weeks. There has been drops in both the old and young end. Healthcare is a bigger issue for the elderly. They are the ones feeling the aches and pains of life more. They are also the ones more likely to get sick. It takes a big chuck of their budget. This is not as big of a deal for the young who are generally more healthy and usually don’t worry about the costs. What are the Democrats thinking politically? Why in the world would they offset a major portion of healthcare reform funding by chopping medicare? Essentially they are taking from those who care about the issue and giving to those who care least.

There is also some interesting results in the regional data. It is probably not surprising that he has the least approval in the South at 46%. Midwest clocks in next at 52%. Keep in mind that this includes Obama’s home state of Illinois and bluish-purple states like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Those are probably offset by conservative bastions like Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakota’s. It is also not surprising that Obama gets 56% approval in the East. A bit surprising is the 57% approval in the West, although California is probably the 500 lbs gorilla here by more than offsetting the mountain states and Alaska. It would be interesting to see a state by state map of approval.

You can look at the rest of the data for yourself. I don’t see anything too terribly interesting in any of the rest. There is one piece of data that has always bothered me about these polls. Toward the bottom there is a breakdown of ratings by party id and ideology. The last entry is for conservative Republicans. Supposedly 11% of these creatures give Obama a favorable job approval. Who are these people? On the other end of the spectrum I can understand how 9% of liberal Democrats can disapprove of the job Obama is doing. No matter how liberal he is, there will always be people who want him to go farther. Conservative Democrats might place greater importance on party over ideology. Liberal Republicans might place more importance on ideology over party, but those 11% of conservative Republicans make no sense. Obama is the complete opposite of just about every thing they stand for. Even if they were duped into believing he was moderate, this is still different from their desires as supposedly conservative and Republican. Results like these make me question how reliable self-identification is for ideology. There are a lot of people out there who have no clue what these terms mean or where they stand.

I say it is time to let loose the dogs of political war against Lugar. We need to flood his email and phone lines. Maybe we can ship him those (playground) balls that we did a while back? He needs to know that rank and file Republicans are not happy.

[Update] Martinez (FL) and Snowe (ME) have also indicated they will vote for Sotomayor. Snowe is no surprise. (And Collins (ME) won’t be either, although there would be more pressure on them if the rest of the Republicans could stay in line.) Martinez is a disappointment, good riddance in 2010. Anyone hear how Crist and Rubio stand on Sotomayor?

There are at least two prominent instances of the Supreme Court disregarding stare decisis. In 1896 the court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal education was constitutional. In 1954 the decision was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, in 1986 the Court ruled that states could pass laws against homosexual sex in Bowers v. Hardwick, but this was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Whatever you think of any of these decisions, there is definitely precedence for overturning precedence on the Supreme Court. Whether I agree with any of these rulings, I feel there should be room for overturning bad precedence although it should only be done with much fear and trembling. It is not as if the Supreme Court, even as a group, is infallible. As an originalist, my standard for overturning would the Constitution and the original intent of its writers.

I am curious. What does Sotomayor think of those four decisions? How binding should stare decisis be for the Supreme Court? Under what circumstances should precedence be overturned? What makes settled law settled? It is certainly good that she appreciated stare decisis as a lower court judge, but her answers so far have seemed used it as a cover to hide her fundamental reasoning. Answers to these questions should shine more light on her judicial philosophy.

Let me be clear.  I am not saying that Gov. Sanford is anything like King David.  After all, as far as I know, Sanford was never shepherd.  Sanford never was anointed governor of South Carolina.  Sanford certainly did not slay any giants.  Scriptures have never described Sanford as a man after God’s own heart.  While Sanford and David both did have extramarital affairs, Sanford never abused his office to cover up the affair by giving his adulterous accomplice’s husband unfair leave from military service.  Definitely Sanford never used the power of government to murder the husband.  While both men only admitted to their wrong when confronted, God speaking through the prophet Nathaniel only had David’s best interests in mind.  I don’t think the same could be said about the MSM and Sanford’s enemies.  Even with God’s mercy, David paid a terrible price for his mistake – the lives of at least two of his sons.  I don’t think the same will be required of Sanford, but God does make it clear that actions have consequences.

If you think this cannot happen to you, might I suggest a little thought experiment.  Ignore the whole David and Bathsheba story and think about or read everything else about David.  Ask yourself, does this sound like the type of man who would commit adultery?  Do you really think that you are more morally capable than King David?

Even with all of his wisdom and knowledge, Plato believed that the best government would be one ruled by a philosopher king.  Problem is there has never been a perfect philosopher king of the type to fulfill Plato’s vision.  Our founding fathers recognized the basic sinful nature of man (even if they may not have used those exact words) and so set up our government as a system of checks and balances and divided the powers of government between three branches.  Divided government is just as important as democracy to our system.  If men were perfect we would not need this division.

As conservatives and originalists we need to remember and promote the fact that one foundation of our Constitution is the knowledge that people are not perfect.  We will never find a candidate for any office that perfectly aligns with our individual preferences on all issues.  Last year during the election, we have had plenty of debate on this site about how different on the issues should a Republican candidate be before we refuse to vote for them.  Just as there is no candidate who is perfect on issues, there is also none who has a perfect personal life.  It is a conservative principle to expect imperfect politicians.  In so doing we are faithful to the principles of the founding fathers.  Of course at some point, poor personal behavior does effect the ability to perform the functions of office.  In my opinion Sanford has not yet crossed this line.

Like David, Sanford has the potential to repent and reform.  On fiscal issues he has been a strong conservative.  We have too few politicials who are this principled on fiscal issues.  He deserves a second chance with a probationary period.  Whether he can rebuild his political standing enough (which includes staying out of trouble) for a presidential run should remain an open question.  For now, he should consider the Presidency out of reach.  He and his staff need to exile the word “president” from all conversations for the next several years.   His priorities need to be repairing his personal life and his family and fulfilling his responsibility as governor.

Part of the health care plan problem in the U.S. is that it does not use the free enterprise system as well as it could to contain costs. Some reasons for these problems are federal and state government mandates and regulations. Outside of government regulations however, there is one health care policy that underutilized the power of capitalism to contain costs. This is the co-payment system for purchasing drugs.

If you have a health care plan like I do (and as far as I understand the vast majority of plans work this way) then if you need a prescription drug you can go to any pharmacy and only have to pay one amount no matter what drug it is. Your health care plan covers the rest. For example, let’s say you have high cholesterol so your doctor prescribes Lipitor. Without drug coverage, you would pay about $100 for 30 tablets of 10mg each. With coverage you pay $10 and your health care plan picks up the rest. If you have mental health problems, your doctor might proscribe Trazodone. Without coverage 30 tablets of 50mg would range in cost from about $11 to almost $25. With coverage you would still only pay $10 no matter where you buy it.

As a consumer this sounds like a great bargain. No matter what health problem I might have, my doctor can proscribe something, and I only have to pay a set amount. There is no hunting around on price so I can just pick it up at the most convenient drug store closest to my home or on the way to work.

From a health care coverage plan, however, it sounds like a terrible way to do business. There is no incentive for the purchaser to control costs. There can be tremendous store-to-store variations in what stores charge. You can investigate some of them (in Michigan at least) through the state government website. I do not understand why health care plans can’t use a similar method to enlist their customers as a force to control drug costs. It is not that difficult to set up a website and have pharmacies report their prices to the health care company. It should not be difficult for customers to use such a website to compare drug prices. For those who are not web savvy, they could also have an automated phone system.

They could incentivize the co-payment with a fairly simple formula. The regular co-payment would apply to the average price reported for a drug. Anything cheaper would reduce the co-payment by a percentage. Anything more expensive would increase it. For example, for the Trazodone let’s say the average cost is $18 so your co-payment for it would be $10 at that price. If you can find a store selling it for $11, your co-payment would be $6. If you are lazy and buy it at a store charging $25 then your co-payment would be $14. Or for another example, take Geodon which costs from $386 to $475. At the average of $430, the co-payment is $10. At the cheapest price of $386 it is $9. At the most expensive it is $11. (Of course, the formula could be adjusted for greater incentive.)

This should be a win-win situation. You pay less and your customer pays less. This would also benefit even those without coverage because it would drive down drug prices for everyone. This is the way a free market should work. With a third-party-payer system like we have in the U.S., co-payment incentives like this should be appealing. If employees shy away from the small additional hassle of competitive pricing the employer should see a benefit from cost savings. It should be a triple-win – for the health care provider, the employer, and the employee.

Why isn’t this system of drug pricing being used? Is it available somewhere but I just haven’t heard about it? Are there federal or state regulations against it? (If there are they should be repealed.) Granted this issue is not the only problem with our health care system. It is probably not even in the top five. However it should be something easily implemented and shouldn’t need political pressure. It might even be a smart idea to implement in our current government systems of Medicare and Medicaid.

This video should turn your blood to ice with fright:

What really gets me is the Orwellian use of the term, “single-payer”.  Just who is this payer?  This is just the start.  If it is good for healthcare, why not other important industries like energy?  First they strangle private enterprise with regulations and then they come riding on their white-washed horse to save the day by buying everyone out.

We should be spreading this news throughout the Middle East and the world.  A.Q. and Iran threw every dirty trick they had at Iraq and yet we won.  This has got to be discouraging to the radical Jihadists, and, if it is not, we should be making it discouraging.  Every success in Iraq should be front page news.  I want every radical in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be in deep depression over their failure in Iraq.  I want every Muslim who yearns for freedom and democracy to be emboldened by Iraq.

In closing, I honor every U.S. soldier who has served in Iraq and especially those who gave their all.  Job well done.

On the heals of passing their porkulus bill that funded all kinds of liberal chicanery hiding behind the fig leaf of economic stimulus, Democrats are pushing their next bloated corpse of a spending bill now meant to give regular funding for the federal government.  Depending on new accounts this thing contains 8000 to 9000 earmarks, not hidden pork but deliberate blatant old-fashioned earmarks of the kind that candidate Obama denounced.  In the spirit of bi-partisanship, Sen. McCain took now President Obama at his word, and introduced an amendment to strip the omnibus spending bill of all earmarks.  In a move that surprises no-one the anti-earmark amendment failed along party lines with the majority of big-government pork-loving Democrats voting against it except for two, Bahy of IN and McCaskill of MO.

Unfortunately, not content to let the Democrats own this stinking pile of garbage, nine GOP Senators saw fit to give Democrats cover and vote against this amendment.  In addition to the three idiots who voted for porkulus – Collins & Snowe of ME and Specter of PA – six more GOP senators joined the insanity: Alexander (R-TN), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Cochran (R-MS), Murkowski (R-AK), and Shelby (R-AL).  What are these people thinking?  Do they enjoy being in the minority?  Do they like being powerless?  Do they want a larger Democratic majority?  Did they learn nothing, NOTHING, from the past two elections?  Please do us all a favor and resign right now so you can be replaced with people who have a brain.  This action is bad policy for the country and horrible politics for Republicans in the next election.