Is Perry's DREAM Act more awful than Romneycare?

At this point it's becoming clearer that it's a two-person race. Whatever "forces" control this process are shoving Perry and Romney to the top of the pack and barring any major upsets, we will choose between the two of them.

The professional pundits and establishment Republicans are telling us the important question is which candidate can attract Independents and conservative Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). That strategy failed miserably in 2008 and we have even less reason to believe it will work in 2012.

Among other things, those of us who care about what a candidate believes and how he would actually govern the country must consider the important question of whether we hate Perry's version of the DREAM Act more than we hate Romney's version of Obamacare.

First, I have to give props (or "propes" if you say it with a Texan accent) to Gov. Perry for not backing down from his policy and his convictions on immigration. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he's a straight shooter who does not waffle.

Contrast this to Gov. Romney's ever evolving excuses for his MA healthcare plan. He's loved it, he's hated it. It was a good idea gone bad when the legislature got its hands on it. It's a state's rights issue. Pick a day, pick an excuse. But don't worry, he's going to repeal Obamacare. Or for sure, he's going to give states waivers.

Clearly, Perry's policy to grant in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens is extremely unpopular with the Tea Party and with the conservative base. Although hardly the equivalent of full-blown amnesty, many see it as the nose of the camel under the amnesty tent.

That said, it's worth remembering that our revered President Reagan signed an amnesty bill, which granted amnesty to 3 million an unknown number of illegal aliens in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It was far more radical than anything Perry has done or has proposed.

Both Romney's Romneycare plan and Perry's cracking the door to amnesty are state programs. Neither has proposed imposing these on the entire nation. But they do give us insights into their governing style and moral philosophies which are important indicators.

In Massachusetts, every resident of the state was forced to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. In Texas, taxpayers were forced to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. On my personal liberty scale, I'd feel more violated by the Romneycare. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

As a Christian and a conservative, I confess that I am personally conflicted about the immigration issue. I understand the arguments. I know we mustsecure the border as the first order of business. I know that we must enforce E-verify and let's have a robust guest worker program with tamper-proof ID's.

But the fact remains that we have millions of people here illegally. They're not going to just disappear once the border is secure. Something is going to have to be done with them. Republicans and conservatives just sound silly when we give the trite answer that they can just go home and try again later. We all know that is not going to happen.

I don't have a problem sending home adult men and women who have broken our laws to come to this country. But in my soul, I wrestle with how to act justly toward the children of those lawbreakers. They did not cross the border illegally. They just had the misfortune of being born to a criminal and I can't seem to justify punishing them for the sins of their parents.

Not the stock Tea Party/conservative answer, I know. But I suspect there are many others who wrestle with this issue and are also conflicted. It's not a settled matter in their hearts.

For me, and for others who have endeavored to come to terms with this, Perry's defense of in-state tuition for children born to illegal aliens doesn't seem excessively far off the conservative reservation. I don't hate the idea as much as I hate the idea of Romneycare.

And lets be honest. Politically, pragmatically, having a slightly softer position toward the children born to illegal aliens may appeal to minorities, Independents and those enigmatic "conservative" Democrats. It does allow Perry to steal an arrow from Romney's centrist quiver.

Perry isn't my candidate yet, but his position on in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens is not a deal-breaker for me.

On the other hand, Romneycare is one of several serious deal-breaker issues Romney has dragged with him into this race. I would vote for him in a race against Obama, but he's not someone I could enthusiastically support or campaign for.

crosspost

Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

GOP Presidential Debate on MSNBC

"I can get you a gallon of gas for a dime," Ron Paul said.

A silver dime, that is.  Ha, ha....  Ron Paul also warned us that border fence might be some kind of government conspiracy to keep American citizens in rather than keeping illegal immigrants out.

WHY IS RON PAUL IN THESE DEBATES?  He is clearly off the GOP reservation. 

Now that I got that off my chest, I can continued with some more reasonable thoughts about the debate.

Oh, except for wondering why Jon Huntsman is in the debate.  I mean, he has a nice tan and everything (though I suspect he fake bakes), but that's not a reason to be permitted in the GOP debate. Though he continues to try to repackage himself as a Republican, he will not be able to overcome is close alignment with the Obama administration as the recent Ambassador to China and his left-leaning positions. 

Moderator John Harris from Politico baited Jon Huntsman by questioning him about his Tweet that mocked the GOP candidates who cast doubt upon man-made global warming and evolution.  Huntsman made it clear that the general voting public was way too smart to vote for some backwoods yahoo who didn't believe in the proven religion of man-made global warming!

Of course, the left-leaning moderators used him to push their agenda.  The question was a gem: "You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti-science. Who on the stage is anti science?"  Huntsman responded:

"Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy.  We've got to win voters. We've got to do what I did as governor when I was elected. We reached out and brought in independents. I got independents, I got conservative Democrats. If we want to win in 2012 we've got to make sure that we've got somebody that can win based on numbers and the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation we turn people off."

Like John McCain, right? Someone should tell Huntsman about the recent Fox News poll showing 45% believe in the "Biblical account of creation as told in the Bible" including 55% of Republicans and Tea Party members, 42% of Democrats and 31% of Independents.  Hardly the wing-nut belief that elitist Huntsman and his cronies in the MSM would like to portray.  Poll after poll repeats similar results showing that despite the State's mandatory evolutionary indoctrination in public schools, Americans still cling to their religion.  Also, 48% of Americans now believe warnings about global warming have been exaggerated.  So clearly, Jon Huntsman is outside the mainstream and needs a spell in the time-out corner for a big, fat attitude adjustment! But PLEASE STOP the sanctimonious lecturing!

I really don't understand why the Republicans go into the belly of the liberal beast for these debates.  They know the moderators are going to try to pit them against each other in a way that gives ammunition to the Obama campaign and they know that they're going to aim for "gotcha" questions that will provide soundbites for Tingles Matthews and Ed Schultz to salivate over for weeks to come.  Sure, MSNBC will get a 2-hour bump in their ratings, but why should the GOP air their family squabbles in this forum at this point in the race?  Of course, the eventual nominee will have to suffer through it in the general election, but it's counterproductive to subject our candidates to this process at this point in time. 

Harris then turned his keen moderator's eye on Rick Perry and asked, "Governor Perry, which scientist have you found most credible on this? Are there specific scientists or specific theories you've found particularly compelling?"

Right....because... Harris really wanted to know that....because maybe he had a list of approved anti-global warming scientists that he could compare to Perry's list? Or perhaps he wanted to have a substantive debate about some of the "specific theories" detractors have advanced?  As if Harris would recognize one if it hit him upside the head.   Why didn't he ask Huntsman to cite his sources?  Or Romney?  Like I said, "gotcha" questions. 

Perry basically blew off the question by patiently explaining that the EPA regulations based on something that is not settled science is crippling the economy. He should have known that the liberal moderators were going to throw that one at him.  I suspect he'll be better prepared next time and won't fumble that question again.  Still, it's an example of why primary debates in hostile venues are just a bad idea. 

It's becoming clear that the field is narrowing quickly.  Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll was almost a non-entity tonight.  Since Gov. Rick Perry entered the race, Bachmann has been barely a blip on the radar screen in recent polls. Sadly, tonight, she was barely visible. and was clearly bumped down to the 2nd tier. 

The moderators treated this debate as a two-man race. Most of the questions were directed to Romney and Perry and many of the other candidates took the opportunity to pile on them.  Perry, maybe because he was the new guy in the debate took most of the heat, saying that he felt like a "pinata." 

There were a couple exchanges that I feel were significant and give us some important insights into the candidates.  The first is a discussion of Social Security.  Gov. Perry was asked about the assertion in his book, Fed Up, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. 

For the record, here's the definition of a Ponzi scheme (thanks to Wikipedia):

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors." 

Perry: 

"And people who are on social security today - men and women who are receiving those benefits today [looks straight into the camera] and individuals who are on my end of the line pretty quick to get them - they don't need to worry about anything. The Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program. And it is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids who are 25 or 30 years old today, "You are paying into a program that's going to be there." Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids and it's not right. "

Can anyone refute that statement?  

Perry, responding to the moderator's comments that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have been critical of Perry's references to a Ponzi scheme:

"You know Karl has been over the top in his remarks, so I'm not responsible for Karl any more.  If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program we have in place today and young people who are paying into that expect that program to be sound and expect to receive benefits when they reach retirement age - that is just a lie!  And I don't care what anyone says. We know that.  The American people know that, and more importantly, those 25 -year-olds know that."

Romney [to the moderators]:

"The issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree, and have for years, that the funding system for Social Security is not working. Congress has been raiding the dollars for Social Security to pay for government expenditures. That's wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue.  The issue in the book Fed Up, Governor, is you say that by any measure Social Security is a failure.  You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and have lived on it. The Governor says, "Look, the states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security."  Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but is committed to saving Social Security. We've always had, at the heart of our party, the recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure, we save Social Security and under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure! It's working for millions of Americans and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans and we gotta do that as a party."

 Did you catch that? "Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure."

So does he think that the nearly-bankrupt program that will fail if not radically reformed is successful?  That should be a huge red flag.  We cannot afford a candidate who does not grasp the urgency of the Social Security  - let's call it what it is - Ponzi scheme. If Romney thinks it's as easy as halting the raids by the general fund, he's seriously delusional. Or lying to our children and grandchildren. 


The whole exchange brought back some memories of this debate:

Governor Perry, explaining the executive order he signed mandating that young girls and teenagers be vaccinated with the Gardasil HPV vaccine (my comments in red):

"There was an opt-out in that piece - it wasn't legislation it was an executive order. I hate cancer. We passed a $300 million cancer initiative that legislative session [big government alert!!] of which we're trying to find over the next ten years cures to cancers.  Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. We wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of - tens of thousands of young people in our state [and the only way they could come up with to educate them was to mandate a vaccine???] We allowed for an opt-out. I don't know what's more strong for parental rights than having that opt-out [um....how about an OPT-IN!].  There's a long list of diseases that cost our state and cost our country. It was on that list.  Now, did we handle it right? Should we have talked to the legislature first before we did it? Probably so. [No, you didn't handle it right. This shouldn't have even been a matter for the government to discuss. Period. It's a private matter between parents, their children and their physician. Period.] But at the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives. "

Rick Santorum's response echoes my own:

"Governor Perry is out there claiming about state's rights and state's rights.  How about parental rights being more important than state's rights? How about having instead of an "opt out" an "opt in?" If you really cared, you could make the case instead of forcing me as a parent...I am offended that the government would tell me - and by an executive order, without even going through the process of letting the people have any kind of input - I would expect this from President Obama. I would not expect this from someone who's calling himself a conservative governor."

Amen, Senator Santorum!  I really, really like Santorum. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says and wish that his campaign would gain some traction.  I'd love to at least see him as someone's VP.

Romney was asked to respond to the Gardasil flap.  It was clear that he couldn't care less about such trivial matters and rambled aimlessly along both sides of the issue for a few minutes before finding his way back to his own comfortable message:

"I believe in parental rights and parental responsibilites for kids.  My guess is that Governor Perry would like to do it a different way the second time through. We've each taken a mulligan or two. And my guess is he'd do it differently. He just said he'd do it though legislation next time through. And I recognize that he wanted very badly, that he wanted to provide better healthcare to his kids and prevent the spread of cancer. I agree with those who said he went about it the wrong way but his heart was in the right place. Right now we have people who on this stage who care very much about this country. We love America. America is in crisis. There are differences between us but we all see that this president's got to go. This president's a nice guy but he doesn't have a clue how to get this country working again."

While this was painful to watch, it's an excellent example of Romney's constant wavering in the middle.  Instead of having a willingness to take a stand on an issue and fight for it, he's more comfortable in the squishy middle where he can broker a deal and ask everyone to get along.  If that's what you think this country needs, then Romney is your man.


While I have some serious reservations about Perry (I hated his answer on Gardasil - hated it!), at least he's willing to stake out a position and stand by it. I will give him that. The problem is, I don't always agree with his positions.  That said, I probably do agree with him on 90%+ of issues.  It puts him far ahead of Romney at this point and since it's highly unlikely Santorum will be the candidate, we're running out of options.   


Winner of the debate?  No winner.  Romney didn't lose. Perry didn't lose, neither did he have a winning performance, though I suspect he'll get a bump in the polls because he is infinitely more likable than Romney.  The second tier candidates stayed at the second tier. The should-not-be-candidates still should not be candidates.   

CNN GOP Debate

Monday's GOP debate, hosted by CNN, was largely an exercise in frustration and futility.  The format allowed each candidate 30 seconds to answer each question - hardly sufficient to say much more than, "Well, first, I'd like to say..." By the time the candidate would get those words out, moderator John King would start grunting and wouldn't stop until the candidate had concluded the answer.  It was irritating and distracting.  And weird.  King needs more training as a moderator.  I suggest a couple years on the spelling bee circuit before they let him anywhere near a high-profile debate again.  


I was also frustrated by the "11th Commandment" pact the candidates had apparently agreed to prior to the debate.  By that, I mean Reagan's famous 11th Commandment never to speak ill of a fellow Republican.   Aside from the fact that even Reagan didn't follow the Commandment religiously, this was a primary debate.  The idea is for candidates to convince voters to choose them and not their opponents.  While it's great to criticize Obama and his policies, it's also important to debate important issues within the Republican party.  There are important differences between the candidates, both in philosophy and governing history, and those issues need to be addressed and debated.  Ignoring the elephant (pun intended!) in the room just makes it highly likely that the candidate with the most money and the highest name recognition will win the nomination - Mitt Romney.  But by default, rather than on the merit of his ideas, beliefs, and record.    


Here's my assessment (in no particular order) of the candidates' performances on Monday night:


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)  - Rep. Bachmann took the opportunity to announce that she had filed the paperwork to run for president.  Like Sarah Palin, some on the Left have made a sport of turning her into a bizarre caricature. In this debate, she was able to show 3.162 million viewers  (up 400% from CNN's normal audience) that she is warm, smart, determined,  and can play with the big boys.  Her story of five natural children and 23 foster kids shows that her lectures and policies relating to family values are more than cerebral ponderings and book knowledge.  She's walked the walk and has skin in the game.  I think she was a big winner, especially among those who had not heard of her and those who had only heard her taken out of context. 


Gov. Mitt Romney - Governor Romney was a winner in the sense that he didn't lose any ground.  He "looked" presidential and managed to stay above the fray.  The other candidates refused to attack or even engage him on his state-mandated healthcare program in MA and his flip-flop on abortion.  He must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.  I was irritated that he obfuscated on several answers, seeming to remain just vague enough that he could back away from his answer and later say, "That's not what I meant."  For example, moderator John King could not pin Romney down on whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised.  He said, 

"I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president is finally, finally willing to be a leader on the issue the American people care about."  

So, in other words, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we will.  Got that?  



Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Gov. Pawlenty had some good moments, but much of it was overshadowed by the completely awkward confrontation with moderator John King.  King asked, cajoled, even BEGGED Pawlenty to criticize Romney about what Pawlenty had - just the night before - referred to as "Obamneycare."  As Romney looked on , Pawlenty punted.  He went after Obama instead, refusing to lay a hand, or even a sharp adjective on Romney.   Pawlenty has said over and over again on the talk show circuit that he can be nice, but as a former hockey player, is willing to "throw a sharp elbow" when needed.  It was needed at this debate and he came off as more of a figure skater than hockey player. Would he do the same in a debate with Obama staring him down?  He left me with that question. 


Rick Santorum -   I honestly don't know there is so little enthusiasm for this man.  He gets it.  He can articulate the values of the Tea Party and he voted that way consistently when he was in the Senate.  When he talks about foreign policy,  he sounds like the adult in the room. And no one in the race is a more solid social conservative.  During the debate, he was passionate about the Constitution and his love for this country and confidence in the American people.  I just don't agree with detractors who say he is "boring."  


Ron Paul - I didn't hear all of what he said, as I learned to tune out that frequency of whining when the boys were little.  Really, he didn't belong on that stage.  He's a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Oh, he runs on the Republican ticket and he often votes with the GOP, but you won't find the issues he's most passionate about and for which the loons flock to him  anywhere in the GOP platform (ending the Federal Reserve,  isolationist foreign policy, legalizing drugs).   During the debate, Paul alternated between populist (to a certain segment that he appeals to) slogans and monetary mumbo jumbo that almost no one understands:

"And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money."

 I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that means.  I have no idea what it means.  If you fail to communicate, you can't win.  That, in addition to his many other issues. 


Newt Gingrich - His demeanor was more "grumpy old man" than elder statesman.  In fact, he may have overtaken Ron Paul in this category.  I don't think he cracked a smile the entire evening.   He's clearly a very intelligent man, knows his facts, has been around a long time.  We know because he reminds us. Constantly.  He gave some of the best answers of the night, including those on immigration and appointing Muslims to his cabinet.  However, he's got so much baggage it's hard to discern what is fact and what is campaign fiction with this man. 


Herman Cain - I like Herman Cain.  I enjoy listening to him, I love his story of realizing the American Dream and I really want to like him more. But I fear there is little more to him than slogans, acronyms and 5-point plans.  Most of his answers in the debate started with, "We have to work on the right problem."  True enough, but not enough.  He usually followed up with a 3-point plan represented by an acronym.  To me, it came across as simplistic rather than studied.  He also has still not articulated a foreign policy, instead, continuing to insist that he cannot give his opinion until he has all the intelligence at his disposal.  This is a very amateurish policy and not one I wish to see in a presidential candidate.   I want to like him more, but I feel like it would be foolish to do so.  


So what did you think?

Mitt Romney - GOP's Global Warming Candidate

The Huffington Post reports:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

"I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing."

And he's supposed to be the smart one - the so-called "technocrat" in the race?  "I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read...."  is a prelude to all sorts of nefarious oppressive government intervention.


And don't think this is merely academic posturing.  Romney thinks it needs to be legislated.

On the campaign trail in 2007,  Romney stated the importance of reducing greenhouse gases:

“We’re going to get ourselves off of foreign oil,” he said. “And to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.” 

He also initially supported and agreement among Northeast states that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Business leaders and energy companies warned that it would raise energy prices, but Romney was undeterred:

“This is a great thing for the Commonwealth. We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.”

Eventually, he reversed course and didn't sign on to the agreement, but it's clear that he considers global warming a threat that needs the attention of the government.  

In his book, No Apology,  he suggests a compromise of sorts with a carbon tax swap scheme whereby businesses would be taxed on their carbon output but in return, receive tax credits in other areas, such as capital gains or payroll taxes. 


This is better than outright cap and tax, but in essence, it's a total capitulation to the environmental extremists who insists the earth is getting warmer and humans are causing it.   With support for this point of view quickly eroding, the GOP has no reason to agree to -and push for - higher taxes on businesses and energy in the name of global warming religion.  


Prediction:  Romney is going to squirm and wiggle and obfuscate on this issue.  This position will fly in New Hampshire, just as ethanol subsidies will fly in Iowa, but in the rest of GOP primary country, this is a dead weight around his ankles.  Being a global warming alarmist is not going to excite the masses in Iowa and S. Carolina, so he will need to moderate, again showing his willingness to flip-flop and be a political pragmatist.  Not cool.  

March 17, 2011

Mandle Company - Candles for Men: 
Looking for a gift for the man in your life? This family-owned company in Michigan makes handmade "candles on testosterone." 

"No matter how strange it may be, every man has a favorite smell. So take a look around and chances are, we have what you’re looking for from football candles to down and dirty candles."

Scents include bacon, auto shop, grass, gunpowder, meat and potatoes, rawhide, and wood shop.  Don't see a scent you like?  You can suggest a stench! 


I saw the video below a while back and I'm pretty sure it's not associated with the Mandle Company.  But I wonder if this is where they got the idea?  

Now on to some more serious matters...

Chuck Schumer to John Boehner: Ditch Tea Party  
The Daily Caller

“Speaker Boehner wouldn’t have been able to pass this short-term measure without Democratic votes, and he won’t be able to pass a long-term one without Democratic votes either,” Schumer said in a statement. “It’s time for him to abandon the Tea Party, and forge a bipartisan compromise.”

"Fifty-four House Republicans, many of them Tea Party-backed freshman, voted against a stopgap measure Tuesday that would fund the government for three weeks while the parties negotiate a long-term deal. The proposal included $6 billion in cuts, but did not touch funding for the health care law and other programs that some in the caucus said needed to be included to get their approval.

"...Schumer said Monday that Boehner “should consider leaving the Tea Party behind” because they “are unwilling to accept anything short of the extreme cuts in the House budget, even if it risks a shutdown."

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, explained his decision to vote against the three week Continuing Resolution:

“Americans sent us here to deal with big problems in bold ways.  We’re borrowing billions of dollars a day, yet Senate Democrats have done little more than wring their hands for the last month.  With the federal government facing record deficits and a mammoth debt hanging over our economy and our future, we must do more than cut spending in bite-sized pieces.

“Democrats control both the Senate and the White House, and it’s time they stopped dithering.  We need swift action to deal with spending for the rest of this year.  We need to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, and we need to defund ObamaCare.  And we need to start tackling next year’s budget, the debt-ceiling, and other challenges standing in the way of job creation.  We've made some solid first downs on spending.  Now it's time to look to the end zone.”

Freshman Congressman Marco Rubio was even more direct in a RedState editorial:

"All this has led to a very predictable outcome: Washington politicians of both parties scrambling to put together two and three week plans to keep funding the government, while not fundamentally changing the behavior that has gotten us into this mess to begin with. 

Running our government on the fumes of borrowed spending is unacceptable, short-sighted and dangerous. I commend the efforts of House and Senate Republican leaders to deal with this, but I did not come to the U.S. Senate to be part of some absurd political theatre. 

I will no longer support short-term budget plans. While attempts at new spending reductions are commendable, we simply can no longer afford to nickel-and-dime our way out of the dangerous debt America has amassed. It is time our leaders in Washington wake up and realize that we are headed for a debt disaster."

John McCain s daughter wants Romney—not Palin—for president
The Marietta Daily Journal

"'My personal favorite right now is Mitt Romney,' she said. 'I like that he's not so radical. I like that he has really, really played his cards right, almost perfectly since the last election.'"

 As if I needed another reason not to vote for Romney!  Miss Meghan has made herself semi-famous by bashing conservatives, including Sarah Palin, on Twitter and in her book, "Dirty, Sexy Politics," in which she tries to make the case that social conservatism is a political dinosaur that must be retired if the Republicans are ever to win anything again. 

"Criminal justice major Deanna Pucci, 20, of Woodstock, is also a fan. "I absolutely love her," Pucci said. "I'm not really that much into politics, and I follow her on Twitter a lot, but she's just so funny and down to earth, and I think she's a good role model for younger generations.'"

An endorsement by Ms. McCain, a social liberal, will do nothing to convince conservatives that Romney shares their values. But maybe he'll be able to rouse some of the uninformed, 20-something celebrity stalkers, who are notorious non-voters.

2 ex-top Oakland County Dems arraigned in tea party ballot flap
Detroit Free Press
Two top Democrats from Michigan were indicted for getting "fake' Tea Party candidates on the ballot last fall:

“A scheme was devised by a party leader in Lansing to put people on the ballot on the Tea Party ticket,” Bouchard said. “It may not be ethical, but it’s not illegal. But some folks were placed on the ballot without their knowledge and that’s the criminal side.”

The indictment alleges that the two tried to put two county commissioner candidates and a state  senate candidate on the ballot without their knowledge by forging signatures and notarized documents.  Ultimately, the plot was discovered and the Michigan Supreme Court blocked the candidates from appearing on the ballot.  If convicted on the forgery charges, they could face 14 years in prison.  Is anyone else shocked that it's not illegal to put people on the ballot using a fake party affiliation?  


Concerned With Muslims, Gay Activists Cancel Parade in England 
Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood

 "So over in England (a country), some gay activists want to cancel a gay pride parade because it will cause “community tension,” between gays and Muslims.The march was a response to anti-gay stickers placed around town, but some worry this event could hurt Muslim feelings. 

Here’s part of a letter from a group of concerned types, who claim the march will “oppress other marginalized groups.”

“We want both homophobia and Islamophobia addressed as a collective problem and not feed one against the other, we do not recognise these as distinct categories.

"So, let’s rewind: homophobia and Islamophobia are the same thing. 

Okay..I gotta ask: do you think they would also group homophobia and anti-Christian attacks as one and the same? Do they see crude jokes aimed at Mormons as no different than anti-gay jokes? 

No way. So why are they embracing Muslims as marginalized brethren – and not others? 

Well, for one, it’s HARDER to protest around people who “really” hate you.So better to stay out of Islam’s way, and target the gentler dissenters, like white pudgy Christians – the people who remind you of dad, and don’t want you dead.And so here we have fear, masked as tolerance, forcing gays into contortions even circus performers wouldn’t try. 

I mean, how can the gay left defend a religion whose practitioners want gays punished? They’re joining hands with folks who, in other more extreme lands, might cut off theirs..."

Baptist Press - In Japan: Baptists struggle to reach disaster zone:
I've read a lot of accounts of the disaster in Japan,  but for some reason, I have not seen many reports of what it's actually like in the midst of the worst hit areas.  Baptist Press shares the accounts of Baptist missionaries and relief workers:

 "Across the upper half of Japan, life is either in tatters or at a standstill. With some roads impassable and fuel almost nonexistent in the north, relief and rescue workers have struggled to reach the areas where they are needed most... 

"Some 70,000 people had already been evacuated from a 12-mile radius; about 140,000 remain in the new 30-mile warning zone, according to news reports. More than 500,000 people have been made homeless by the quake and tsunami. Many endured snow and freezing temperatures Wednesday, as government supplies began to reach the worst affected areas... 

"A four-member team from the Japan Baptist Convention and Japanese Baptist Union was forced to turn around when they tried to enter the disaster zone to check on the 21 churches affiliated with the two entities. Special government permits are needed to travel the expressway and to enter disaster zones. Another main route to the earthquake- and tsunami-affected areas goes through radiation evacuation zones. Back roads are open, but fuel is scarce so traveling long distances is almost impossible...

"We went for search and rescue, but quickly realized the Japanese government had that under control,' Frazier said. The government has deployed 100,000 troops to lead the aid effort. 'So, we drove around evaluating the damage and found an evacuation center... 

"Around 400 people had taken refuge in the center. Frazier said there was no electricity or gas in the area. When the Rescue 24 team arrived, the evacuation center was low on food... 

"All they had was a half of a box of bananas and a half of a box of oranges for 400 people,' Frazier said... 

"The Baptist team went from store to store, trying to find food to help. Frazier said the line just to get into the local 7-Eleven store numbered around 200. They finally came across a truck unloading groceries at the back of a store and convinced them to sell more than the 'rationing' amount so they could feed the 400 people... 

"'We stuffed our van with as much food as it would hold,' Frazier said.
"Survivors in the shelters in the earthquake and tsunami areas said they are short of food and water, according to news reports. The Japanese army is using helicopters to bring in basic supplies. With the country's power supply depleted by the damaged nuclear plants, many shelters have no heat. Frazier concurred that the ongoing nuclear crisis makes it hard to get much aid or relief work done at the moment."

Pray for the Japanese people and for aid workers and missionaries who are facing brutally cold temperatures on top of the other unthinkable circumstances in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.