Well, Mr. President, it looks like quite a few in the House are ready to “have that fight.”  Congressman Steve King from Iowa, the same state in which Obama made the above remarks, is pulling out all the stops with a plan that could potentially put repeal on the table and force another vote before November’s midterm elections.  With a majority of Americans still supporting a full repeal months after the bills passage and Congressional reelection campaigns underway, how many vulnerable Democrat politicians would be willing to cast another “aye” vote?

As of yesterday evening, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) had obtained 130 signatures in support of a discharge petition.  If he is able to reach 218 signatures, then the House would be forced to allow a vote.  While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this legislation could present the perfect storm.  If everyone who voted against the bill signed the petition, it would have 212 signatures.

King only needs to win over 6 members of the opposition.  For those six members, this could be the vote that keeps them in office.  Gibbs himself has finally confessed that the Republican Party could take back the House this fall.  Except for the most liberal districts in the nation, “Standing with Obama” is not a great campaign strategy.  Repealing ObamaCare provides a substantive way for Democrats who voted against the American people to demonstrate that they’ve “seen the light.”

Will King’s effort succeed?  I don’t know.  Discharge petitions are rare.  Successful discharge petitions are even rarer.  And it’s not like Obama is going to refrain from using the veto pen to protect his signature government takeover.  But either way, the effort will keep the Health Care debate in the national consciousness.  It will force Democrats to defend their votes, and that is definitely good for our republic.

Huckabee is a committed social conservative.  From what I have seen, he is devoutly religious, and often shares his views about faith. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, a good neighbor.  But America is not craving a social conservative.  We don’t need a “feel-good,” “compassionate,” president, we need someone willing to take radical liberals like Pelosi head-on. We need a fiscal conservative willing to slash the runaway entitlement spending built up by Congressional Democrats.  Huckabee may be the most moral presidential candidate in recent history, but I struggle to imagine him rolling back liberal regression.

Before there was ObamaCare, there was RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care plan.  I don’t often advocate single-issue politics, but this is a major issue.  How can we trust a man who brought an equally destructive—albeit constitutional—health care takeover to his own state to repeal the Democrat takeover of our health care at the national level?  The simple answer: we can’t.

Politically, Giuliani is probably the most dependable, but he is a New England Republican.  He is a “moderate” who supported “comprehensive immigration reform” to provide a “path to citizenship” on the 2008 campaign trail.  Amnesty never has worked; amnesty never will work; it fails every time it is tried.  If the immigration snafu isn’t enough to take down Giuliani among Conservatives, Democrats are sure to break out the scandal file and bring up the same ethics charges that stymied his campaign the last time around.  All-in-all, unless he’s facing a weak Democrat with a continued GOP upswing, Giuliani  is a losing candidate.

And finally, if McCain chooses to run in 2012, he is a fool.  If the Republican party selects him as the nominee, then it deserves to go down in flames.

“President Barack Obama on Wednesday lashed out at Republicans as out of touch with the daily problems of Americans, hoping to sharpen the contrast with the opposition party as midterm elections loom.”

Obama harped on two recent—and highly disingenuous—Democrat Party talking points.  First, Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP, and second, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s criticism of the Democrats’ fallaciously named Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which puts the keys to the economy in the hands of the same incompetents who just wrecked the family car.

In response to Obama’s criticism of Joe Barton, as I previously stated:

“Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation. ….

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card. ….  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

[Furthermore,] How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric? ….”

Since then, the Gulf crisis has only gotten worse, and team Obama has done little but obfuscate and obstruct.  Blaming Republicans won’t clean up the spill or bring jobs back to Florida, Texas, Louisiana, or any other state.  Pointing fingers only reminds voters how inadequate Obama’s response to this crisis has been.

Criticism of Boehner faces a similar fate.  Ironically, the Minority Leader’s so-called “gaffe” has prompted Speaker Pelosi to finally open up about the non-recovery of Obama’s “recovery summer.”  As she points out on her website, the United States has lost 8,000,000 jobs and $17,500,000,000,000 (17.5 Trillion) in net worth.  All of this has taken place since the Democrats took the legislative reigns in 2006.

And of course,  after attacking a couple of Republicans who actually hold elected office, Obama couldn’t resist the chance to attack his predecessor who officially stopped working 528 days ago.  According to the AP:

“‘How do we get government spending under control?’ he asked, giving voice to public complaints. ‘That’s a legitimate question. …, all of us should be worried about the fact that we have been running the credit card in the name of future generations. And somebody’s going to have pay that back.’

Obama said the main culprit was not the costly emergency measures under his watch but a structural habit of the government spending more than it takes in. He said the answer is to reduce spending in a ‘gradual way’ that doesn’t hurt people.”

On its face, this comment sounds sensible, but it flagrantly disregards the facts.  Yes, we are overspending.  In the most recent decade of Republican Congresses, our nation averaged an annual deficit of $97,720,000,000.  That is unsustainable, but it’s far better than the most recent decade of Democrat-controlled congresses during which we’ve averaged an annual deficit over 3.5 times as large at $357,950,000,000 per year.

Even worse, despite rattling off his “good intentions” in a town hall, Obama has taken no action to reduce spending, even gradually.  Instead, he has dramatically grown the government.  This is right in line with the Democrats’ record.  Over the past 40 years, the Democrats have never had a budget surplus or reduced the national debt.  Over the past 40 years, the United States has enjoyed only 4 years of government surplus and debt reduction. All four occurred during Republican Congressional control.

Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation.  Democrats retort that BP’s actions were voluntary.  They “chose” to establish this fund.  But how much of a choice is it when the Vice President leans in and tells them, “if they didn’t do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them.” Some choice.

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card.  To be kind, the President hasn’t exactly been prompt in his response, nor has he allowed it to interrupt his personal plans or leisure time.  Americans have taken notice, particularly in Louisiana.  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

Obama, whose approval rating has dropped to 45%, is featured prominently in the ad.  How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric?  Contrary to liberal belief, just because Obama yanked control over the purse strings from the judicial system doesn’t mean anyone has been paid.  Of course, now that Obama is the monetary gatekeeper, frustrated claimants will blame him instead of BP.  Then there’s his ridiculous moratorium on drilling.  Despite the Spill, 77% of Louisiana voters continue to support offshore drilling.  Only 12% oppose.  Killing thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen isn’t likely to win Obama or the Democrats many supporters in this economy.

Finally, we arrive at the biggest flaw with this ad: Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, appears to be the only politician taking any action to stop the flow of oil and prevent further damage.  He’d be making more progress if the current administration would stay out of his way.  Where Obama refused to allow foreign assistance to help clean up, Jindal has ordered the National Guard to begin building a giant wall of sand to protect the marshes.  He ordered the oil skimmers to get out of the port and start skimming, but the administration stymied that plan because they needed to be sure the vessels had enough life jackets.

In the end, this ad is just more words from Democrats while Republicans act to contain the crisis in the Gulf.  So go ahead, attack Joe Barton.  At best, this ad does nothing for the Democrats’ cause.  At worst, Joe Barton becomes a political casualty for defending the rule of law.

Now, here’s the e-mail I received today from Brad Woodhouse, the DNC Communications Director:

Yesterday, Republican Congressman Joe Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued an outrageous personal apology to BP and slammed the President for his efforts to hold them accountable.

Worse, if the GOP wins back the House, Barton is the guy who could be in charge of regulating the oil industry.

Think about it: In the Gulf right now, jobs are being lost, ecosystems are being destroyed, an entire way of life is being upended. And Joe Barton is apologizing to the oil company that caused the disaster.

Note that he conveniently omits Obama’s drilling moratorium will cause the greatest number of job losses and economic damage in the Gulf region as oil companies terminate their leases and rigs are moved to other countries to drill.

We’re whipping together an ad as fast as possible to make sure voters know exactly whose side Barton and the GOP are on and to demand they stop apologizing to big oil, but we need your help to get it on the air.

If you’re as furious as I am, will you chip in $5 to help us fight back?

The message is clear: defy the administration and the Democrat party will devote all available resources to destroying your political career.

So why should I steal her car? It’s simple: she won’t press charges.  According to the governing board, if an illegal immigrant has a child, and the child is a legal, U.S. citizen, we shouldn’t be allowed to deport the parent because it would fragment the family.  In other words, those who are breaking the law, but who are a part of “mixed status families” should be given blanket amnesty.  My family is full of law abiding citizens.  Therefore, if we follow the logic of the school board, I should be able to steal all of the board members’ cars, Jeannie’s, and the Superintendent’s and receive blanket amnesty for my crimes.  None of the individuals I have named could bear to press charges because it might fracture my “mixed status family.”

Of course, this is pure nonsense.  If I were to actually steal Dr. Favela’s car, I’m fairly certain she would call the police.  Depending on whether or not I wanted to be on TV, I would either be arrested quietly or with a slew of additional charges after crashing into a barrier somewhere at the end of high-speed chase.  I would then serve my sentence, and Favela would get her car back.  No one hearing about the events on the evening news would shed a tear if I were locked up in a Tuscon prison, 2000 miles away from my home in NC.  But if an illegal alien is caught breaking the law, we’re supposed to get roiled up in a righteous fury because he might be ordered to move 80 miles?

Doesn’t it make sense to arrest criminals for their crimes when they’re caught instead of waiting until the whole family joins in?  Governor Jan Brewer certainly thinks so.  After all, even Al Capone had some honest family members.

Governor Christie of New Jersey is quickly becoming known for intrepid straight talk, and willingness to reject common liberal premises.  The best quotes from the above video:

“My argument is with the union, who [sic] collects … $730 a year from every teacher and school employee in the union in mandatory dues.  And if you don’t want to join the union, here’s your option: you can be out; you pay 85% of $730 to be out.  It’s like the Hotel California ….”

and

“… most governors have said, ‘I’ll be upright, not bleeding.’  I said, ‘You punch them, and I punch you.’”

The above video shortchanges the exchange between Gov. Christie and the teacher, but it still gets the point across.  Essentially, this teacher, who is a member of a union, doesn’t feel she’s being paid enough, and Christie responds by telling her she can quit.  But as good as it feels to see someone in politics who’s not pandering to the unions, it’s more revealing to focus on the disgruntled teacher’s argument.

Rita Wilson’s brief argument is full of holes and glaring inconsistencies.  Let’s start with the pay.  As Governor Christie points out (this is just before the video cuts back in), she’s actually being paid more than $83,000 per year when you consider the annual cost of her benefits.  If we’re generous, her pay accounts for only 6 months of work during the year.  If she were paid $83,000 per year, then she’d be earning an annualized salary of $166,000 per year.  But it gets worse.  If Erick Erickson at RedState is correct, she actually makes $86,000 per year, or an annualized salary of $172,000.  Perhaps Gov. Christie should accept her offer and save the taxpayers some money.

If that weren’t enough, she’s also a member of a teacher’s union.  It’s perfectly fine that she’s made that choice, but did she not understand collective bargaining when she signed up?  Her personal experience became irrelevant when she decided she would rather have the union negotiate her contract.  You don’t get to have it both ways.  She can’t agree to let the union handle her affairs and then whine about the contract she receives.  If you think your qualifications merit better compensation, then ditch the union and bargain for your own contract.

Wilson concludes by responding to Christie, “teachers do it because they love it; that’s the only reason I do it.”  Well, which is it?  Either teachers like Wilson are willing to put up with a salary that immediately places their household in the top 25% nationwide and which is significantly above the state’s median income because they “love it,” or they aren’t.  If Wilson honestly believes she is underpaid, then perhaps she should venture out into the private sector and prove it.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Chris Matthews, the man who gets a tingle up his leg when he thinks about Obama, has issued the petulant challenge embedded above.  And so far, all Republicans have resisted the temptation to bash Limbaugh for his entertainment.  He has framed it as if he is just looking for someone who disagrees with Limbaugh on any single issue, but it’s a bait and switch.  Matthews specifically says he wants someone to come on Hardball and “tell us you’ve had it with his distortions, his misrepresentations, his outright falsehoods.”

First, there’s the hypocrisy.  While he can’t cite any examples of Limbaugh’s distortions or falsehoods, Matthews himself has plenty.  He slammed Limbaugh for using the word “regime” to describe the Obama administration claiming it was incredibly inappropriate, but he himself had used the term to describe Bush’s Presidency.  His network, MSNBC, was among those who aired fabricated “quotes” to slander Limbaugh when he held a minority stake in a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams.  To date, I haven’t heard Matthews condemn those lies.  They routinely use Media Matters’ “research” to take sections of Limbaugh’s program out of context.  And don’t you dare criticize Keith Olbermann for his incendiary remarks.  Otherwise, the management at MSNBC will have to pull you off the air.

Then there’s the very premise of the question.  Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party.  That is a fact.  However, he is a passionate Conservative, so it should come as no surprise that members of the party of Conservatism would tend to agree with him.  Apparently Chris Matthews is shocked that Conservatives might agree with other Conservatives.  And of course, Matthews has conveniently ignored the Republicans who have voted in ways that indicate disagreement with Rush Limbaugh.  Rush Limbaugh was vehemently opposed to Obama’s health care takeover, but Rep. Joseph Cao, a Republican, voted to pass the House version.  Limbaugh has criticized Court Nominee Elena Kagan because of her attacks on the First Amendment, but several Republican Senators have indicated they may vote for her confirmation.

Finally, there’s the choice of targets.  What can Limbaugh do to me? The answer is: absolutely nothing.  Unlike President Obama and the Democrats in Congress who can, and are, raising my taxes, working to force me to drive an idiotic Smart Car, and generally meddling with my life as much as they possible can, Limbaugh has no such power.  He’s just a man with a microphone sending his opinions out over the airwaves.  Funny: that’s exactly what Chris Matthews is doing—albeit with only a fraction of the success.

So how about a counter-challenge?  When Rep. Alan Grayson goes on the Glenn Beck Program and tells us he’s had it with Olbermann’s distortions, his misrepresentations, his outright falsehoods, then maybe we’ll see about shipping you a moderate Republican to pad your ratings.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln failed to win a majority of the Democrat vote, and now faces a June 8 runoff election.  According to Reuters, the primary results have cost her significant momentum for the financial reform plan she had been pushing in the Senate.

Republican John Boozman secured 53% of the GOP vote, a slim majority, but his nearest competitor took only 17%.  Since he has avoided a runoff, Boozman can focus on the general election during Lincoln’s primary fight.  If Boozman wins in November, he will be the first Republican to hold the seat in 131 years.

Kentucky – Senate

Rand Paul crushed Trey Grayson in the GOP primary capturing nearly 60% of the vote.  Paul was the Tea Party favorite, and also secured early support from Gov. Sarah Palin.  Grayson represented the GOP establishment, and was supported by Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, among others.

Democrat Jack Conway edged out Daniel Mongiardo by fractions of a percent.  Given that Conway trails Paul by a mere 4.3% in the RCP average, expect a fierce campaign leading up to November.

Oregon – Senate

Incumbent Democrat, Senator Ron Wyden, secured his party’s nomination and will seek a third term.  His opponent, Republican nominee Jim Huffman, faces an uphill battle as Wyden has accrued $3,700,000 in campaign cash to Huffman’s $344,000.

Pennsylvania – Senate

With 54% of the vote, Rep. Joe Sestak defeated turncoat Arlen Specter in the Democrat primary.  Given that this was a Democrat party primary race, it is possible that an appearance from President Obama could have saved Specter’s campaign.  Specter’s loss should be a lesson to other members of the GOP.  Just because the other side says they’ll take you in if you abandon your principles doesn’t mean they’ll support you in an election.

Republican Pat Toomey secured the GOP nomination with 81.5% of the vote.

Pennsylvania – House – PA-12 Special Election (Murtha Seat)

Democrat Mark Critz, an aide of Murtha’s, defeated his opponent, Republican Tim Burns, to secure his former employer’s House seat with 53.3% of the vote.  However, Critz ran against Democrats in Washington claiming he would have opposed the Health Care bill.  As the uber-liberal DailyKos Founder put it: “Democrat Mark Critz is an a–hole Dem, and will be among the worst of the Blue Dogs.”  He has six months in office to prove he can maintain the values he campaigned on.  Otherwise, I doubt he will be able to repeat his success in November.

“It’s not right to ask the people of the United States of America to provide loan guarantees to bail out an economic competitor in Europe.  Nobody wants to see the EU fail, but we’re not asking for their help with New Jersey or California; they shouldn’t be asking our help for Portugal, Spain, or Greece.”

The South Carolina government has made a fatal mistake.  They’ve already allocated $136,000,000 in supposed cigarette tax revenues for FY2010, but the new tax will likely fall far short of that projection.  Given the FY2009 sales of 380.8 million packs and an implementation date of July 1, to arrive at $136 million, the state must assume total sales will rise 11.6% to 425 million packs.  In reality, research conducted by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids suggests a 10% increase in per-pack cost will lead to a 4% decline in overall consumption (youth and adult).  If their research is correct, then total sales volume could be as low as 370.7 million packs, and total sales are unlikely to exceed 413.8 million packs.  Based solely on the decline in consumption (an effect the state legislature has acknowledged and even touted) South Carolina will be faced with a net shortfall of 3.6 to 17.4 million dollars.  The shortfall will likely widen after 2010.

Secondly, the $136 million figure assumes consumers are ignorant of the impending price changes.  The date of implementation is public.  Smokers in South Carolina know that cigarettes will cost significantly more on July 1, 2010 than they did on July 30, 2010.  Not only has South Carolina foolishly assumed the total consumption will remain the same, they’ve also assumed that month-to-month consumption will be unaffected.  But consumers, already stretched thin by the Obama economy, will likely hoard cigarettes before the price increase to offset the increased price in the later months of the year.  In other words, cigarette consumption in FY2010 is likely to be concentrated in the earlier months to take advantage of the lower taxes.  That means fewer packs will be sold in the later (high tax) months at the end of the year further widening the shortfall.

Then, there are the border cities.  South Carolina currently enjoys tax revenue from North Carolina and Georgia smokers who live close to the state’s borders.  Raising the tax to 57 cents will eliminate most of these customers.  While cigarettes may remain slightly cheaper in South Carolina than North Carolina (even though the state will have higher taxes) they will suddenly become more affordable to purchase in Georgia than South Carolina.  The loss of incentive means no more North Carolina purchases, and many residents on South Carolina’s southern border may opt to drive across the state line to get their nicotine fix.  It all adds up to an even further reduction in total sales for South Carolina and an even greater shortfall.

Although total tax revenue to the state may increase as a result of the increased cigarette tax, it will certainly not reach the legislature’s lofty projection.  This wouldn’t be a problem if the state hadn’t already allocated the projected revenue.  Instead of cutting around 10% from South Carolina’s estimated $1,200,000,000 budget deficit, the bill has the net effect of increasing the deficit as legislators will be left trying to secure the tobacco shortfall in order to fulfill their funding pledges.  The state would have been much better off waiting a year to analyze the real effect of the tax increase on state revenues so they could budget realistically.  Unfortunately, realistic budgets are less effective at propelling political agendas.

The leftist hissy-fit compels me to ask once again: seriously, what did you think was going to happen?  Since the election of Scott Brown, the GOP has been threatening a complete government shutdown if the Democrats circumvented the will of the people by forcing the Senate bill through.  They’re keeping their word.

It seems the left thinks that when they’re in power, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with impunity.  It doesn’t matter whether or not the country agrees, they ought to be allowed to enact whatever government takeover comprehensive reform they deem necessary.  When they inevitably infuriate the nation and lose their majorities, the tables are turned.  In these “down cycles” they should be allowed to use whatever tactics necessary to maintain the power they’ve procured.

I’ve got news for Harry Reid: the Democrat Party is not entitled to government.  Your petulant appeals to the American people will not work.  Many Americans are salivating at the notion that Nevada is ready to kick you out of the Senate.  If Americans don’t support your agenda, why would we care when it’s blocked.  A majority in our nation is ecstatic that the Republicans are finally taking a stand.

You’re not going to be able to fix the economy before November—unless you repeal ObamaCare, but we all know that won’t happen.  All that will matter is that you led the charge against the American people.  You spent our money bribing Senators to create one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in United States history.  I can’t imagine you’ll have much of speaking tour once your term ends, and given Obama’s record, it’s only a matter of time before he chucks you off the bus.

So good luck, and good riddance.  I hope you accomplish nothing from now until November.