Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Rick Santorum is looking to capitalize on a string of stunning victories that snapped his four-state losing streak and raised new questions about front-runner Mitt Romney's clout with conservatives.
Romney shrugged off his poor showing, but his losses Tuesday in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado laid bare his stubborn weakness just when it looked as if his party was beginning to embrace him. Bringing up the rear of the Santorum surge: Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who mostly skipped the contests and finished at or near the back of the pack in all three states.
Santorum cast the results as a victory for a purer form of conservatism than Romney has offered, heard more clearly by voters across the nation's midsection without a deafening TV air war that the former Massachusetts governor has dominated.
"Tonight, we had an opportunity to see what a campaign looks like when one candidate isn't outspent 5- or 10-to-1 by negative ads impugning their integrity and distorting their record. This is a more accurate representation, frankly, of what the fall race will look like," a jubilant Santorum told a cheering crowd in St. Charles, Mo.
But it was far from clear that the former Pennsylvania senator, who has a post office box for a campaign headquarters and relies on volunteers to handle scheduling, can quickly turn the momentum into the millions of campaign dollars he would need to overcome Romney. Still, he looked past the nomination fight.
"I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum said. On health care, cap and trade and the Wall Street bailout, he charged, "Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama."
In Denver, Romney congratulated his rival. The revived questions about Romney's appeal with conservatives at the party's core were even sharper in light of his aggressive push to court them in recent days. Santorum's shoestring candidacy thrived. And the GOP nomination fight many in the party hoped would resolve itself after Super Tuesday now threatened to rumble past March 6 - while Obama watches from his presidential perch in the White House, and waits.
"This was a good night for Rick Santorum," Romney told supporters in Denver on Tuesday night. He offered a bit of forced optimism: "We'll keep on campaigning down the road, but I expect to become our nominee with your help."
Romney added, "When this primary season is over, we're going to stand united as a party behind our nominee to defeat Barack Obama."
He wasn't the only loser.
On the first day of multi-state voting, the trio of contests exposed a glaring deficiency for Gingrich.
The former House speaker lacked the resources and organization to compete just as he's trying to project strength heading into the Super Tuesday elections. He made only minimal efforts in the three states that voted and stayed out of sight as the results rolled in. Gingrich is focusing on Ohio, where early voting has begun in the March 6 primary.
Texas congressman Ron Paul, meanwhile, reveled in his second-place win in Minnesota and vowed to keep collecting delegates to take to the GOP's national convention this summer.
To be fair, Tuesday's contests will have little bearing on the race for delegates. Missouri's nonbinding primary in particular was little more than an extensive warm-up routine. The state will hold an official caucus in March.
But even symbolic victories can produce or slow down momentum.
Romney's camp began downplaying the results hours before the voting began. Rich Beeson, his political director, released a memo earlier in the day noting that even Sen. John McCain lost 19 states on the way to capturing the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. And Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the director of Romney's congressional endorsements, released a statement as the votes began showing his candidate had lost in Blunt's home state.
"I congratulate my friend Rick Santorum on his win tonight," Blunt said. "But the fact remains that this is a nonbinding primary, meaning Missouri's delegates are still very much up for grabs."
Following Maine's low-profile caucuses, which conclude Saturday, the candidates will have an extended lull. Beeson recently noted that momentum would be vital heading into the 17-day period without an election, something he likened to a grand canyon with no precedent in modern presidential politics.
"If you don't have momentum and resources coming into it, it's going to be hard to have momentum and resources coming out of it," Beeson said.
That was a week before he realized his boss would suddenly see his momentum disappear.
© 2012 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Santorum hopes to 'reset' Republican race in Minnesota
Yahoo:
White House hopeful Rick Santorum on Sunday said a win in Minnesota -- where he is leading polls -- could "reset" the Republican race and vowed to push through to the party's August convention.
The social conservative scored an early win last month after a recount handed him 34-vote victory in first-in-the-nation Iowa.
But he failed to carry that momentum, placing at or near the bottom of the narrowing field in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada.
Presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney appeared to have cemented his lead with resounding wins in Florida and Nevada last week, but Santorum told a crowd of supporters that an upset in Minnesota "can stop the streak."
"Minnesota can reset this race," Santorum told the cheering crowd gathered at a winery outside of the town of Waconia.
A poll released Sunday showed Santorum ahead by two points -- which is within the statistical margin of error.
Since Minnesota holds caucuses -- where voters can't just stop by to cast a ballot but must instead show up for a discussion on Tuesday at 7:00 pm (0100 GMT) -- turnout will be key to winning this midwestern state.
"This room can change the course of this election," Santorum told the 300 or so supporters who skipped watching the Super Bowl to hear him speak.
"If everybody in this building gets 10 people, think about the impact you can have on this race."
Santorum, who earlier Sunday spoke at a church service in suburban Minneapolis and visited the rural Minnesota factory that makes his signature sweater vests, stayed more than an hour after his speech to greet and take photos with everyone at the winery.
Approached by AFP, he echoed rival Newt Gingrich's vow to fight to the end.
"Our intention is to win, so of course we're going to take it to the convention," the former US senator from Pennsylvania said in a brief interview.
The Republican establishment hopes the contest will be over well before the August 27-31 convention in Tampa, Florida, avoiding a bitter battle that could hurt the eventual nominee's chances against Democratic President Barack Obama.
Gingrich -- who is trailing both Romney and Santorum in Minnesota, Colorado and Arizona and is in second place in Michigan and Maine after an impressive win in South Carolina -- said Sunday he expects to get back on top by the March 6 'Super Tuesday' contest in which 10 states are at stake.
But neither Gingrich not Santorum appear willing to drop out if they place poorly in what has historically been a deciding vote.
"If we finish in last place in every race, yes, but I don't think we're going to do that," Santorum said when asked if Super Tuesday would make or break his campaign. "I think we're going to do very well."
Santorum said he is hoping to be able to consolidate the support of the Republican party's social conservatives, many of whom are uneasy with Romney's more liberal record as governor of Massachusetts.
Santorum had the support of 29 percent of Minnesota Republicans while Romney won 27 percent in the Public Policy Polling survey released Sunday.
Gingrich was at 18 percent while congressman Ron Paul held 12 percent, the poll showed.
Minnesota is among three heartland states voting on Tuesday, along with Missouri and Colorado.
A separate PPP poll released Sunday showed Romney with 40 percent in Colorado to 26 percent for Santorum, 18 percent for Gingrich and 12 percent for Paul.
A PPP poll conducted a week ago found 45 percent of Missouri voters supported Santorum, while Romney won 34 percent and Paul won 13 percent.
"Tuesday has the potential to be a huge day for both Romney and Santorum," said PPP president Dean Debnam.
"A sweep for Romney would do much to enhance the feeling that he's unstoppable," Debnam said in a press release.
"Wins for Santorum in Minnesota and Missouri would make it clear he's a more viable alternative to Romney than Gingrich and give him a lot of momentum for the road ahead."
White House hopeful Rick Santorum on Sunday said a win in Minnesota -- where he is leading polls -- could "reset" the Republican race and vowed to push through to the party's August convention.
The social conservative scored an early win last month after a recount handed him 34-vote victory in first-in-the-nation Iowa.
But he failed to carry that momentum, placing at or near the bottom of the narrowing field in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada.
Presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney appeared to have cemented his lead with resounding wins in Florida and Nevada last week, but Santorum told a crowd of supporters that an upset in Minnesota "can stop the streak."
"Minnesota can reset this race," Santorum told the cheering crowd gathered at a winery outside of the town of Waconia.
A poll released Sunday showed Santorum ahead by two points -- which is within the statistical margin of error.
Since Minnesota holds caucuses -- where voters can't just stop by to cast a ballot but must instead show up for a discussion on Tuesday at 7:00 pm (0100 GMT) -- turnout will be key to winning this midwestern state.
"This room can change the course of this election," Santorum told the 300 or so supporters who skipped watching the Super Bowl to hear him speak.
"If everybody in this building gets 10 people, think about the impact you can have on this race."
Santorum, who earlier Sunday spoke at a church service in suburban Minneapolis and visited the rural Minnesota factory that makes his signature sweater vests, stayed more than an hour after his speech to greet and take photos with everyone at the winery.
Approached by AFP, he echoed rival Newt Gingrich's vow to fight to the end.
"Our intention is to win, so of course we're going to take it to the convention," the former US senator from Pennsylvania said in a brief interview.
The Republican establishment hopes the contest will be over well before the August 27-31 convention in Tampa, Florida, avoiding a bitter battle that could hurt the eventual nominee's chances against Democratic President Barack Obama.
Gingrich -- who is trailing both Romney and Santorum in Minnesota, Colorado and Arizona and is in second place in Michigan and Maine after an impressive win in South Carolina -- said Sunday he expects to get back on top by the March 6 'Super Tuesday' contest in which 10 states are at stake.
But neither Gingrich not Santorum appear willing to drop out if they place poorly in what has historically been a deciding vote.
"If we finish in last place in every race, yes, but I don't think we're going to do that," Santorum said when asked if Super Tuesday would make or break his campaign. "I think we're going to do very well."
Santorum said he is hoping to be able to consolidate the support of the Republican party's social conservatives, many of whom are uneasy with Romney's more liberal record as governor of Massachusetts.
Santorum had the support of 29 percent of Minnesota Republicans while Romney won 27 percent in the Public Policy Polling survey released Sunday.
Gingrich was at 18 percent while congressman Ron Paul held 12 percent, the poll showed.
Minnesota is among three heartland states voting on Tuesday, along with Missouri and Colorado.
A separate PPP poll released Sunday showed Romney with 40 percent in Colorado to 26 percent for Santorum, 18 percent for Gingrich and 12 percent for Paul.
A PPP poll conducted a week ago found 45 percent of Missouri voters supported Santorum, while Romney won 34 percent and Paul won 13 percent.
"Tuesday has the potential to be a huge day for both Romney and Santorum," said PPP president Dean Debnam.
"A sweep for Romney would do much to enhance the feeling that he's unstoppable," Debnam said in a press release.
"Wins for Santorum in Minnesota and Missouri would make it clear he's a more viable alternative to Romney than Gingrich and give him a lot of momentum for the road ahead."
Public surveillance from private property questioned
Washinton Times: Georgetown plan raises new concern
When D.C. police began installing surveillance cameras in neighborhoods more than five years ago as crime-fighting tools, privacy concerns voiced by civil liberties groups limited their scope and use.
Now a less-formal agreement from a citizens association planning to expand the Metropolitan Police Department’s watchful eye in Georgetown over the next few months is hitting a similar hurdle.
The Citizens Association of Georgetown, a private neighborhood association, plans to pay for the installation of up to 10 cameras in the hopes that the additional surveillance will deter crime.
“The No. 1 thing we would like is deterrence,” said Diane Colasanto, a member of the association’s public safety committee. “We just want crime not to happen here. But if crimes are committed, we hope the images from the cameras are images police can use.”
The Georgetown group’s cameras will tape public spaces such as streets and sidewalks, and video that could be used to solve a crime will be turned over to police, the group’s members said. The cameras will be located on private property, such as in residents’ yards, and as a result they will skirt the stringent rules imposed on the police department’s closed-circuit camera system.
With video-recording technology often just a cellphone click away and surveillance cameras prevalent in private businesses and homes, the notion of being watched is nothing new. But as the association begins to draft protocols for how the camera recordings will be handled, Ms. Colasanto said members have begun to raise more questions about who will have access to video taken by the cameras and under what circumstances.
“We want to make sure people’s privacy is protected,” she said.
Privacy concerns
A new wave of public-private surveillance partnerships, such as the one in Georgetown, has also caught the attention of civil liberties groups who caution that the original intention of a camera system is not the only way it can end up being used.
“Once the camera is there it’s very tempting to say ‘Let’s look at it for other reasons,’ ” said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital.
As an example, Mr. Spitzer said, a divorce lawyer might try to subpoena surveillance footage that could show evidence of a spouse’s affair by recording the person’s travels through the neighborhood.
“Once something exists, it can often be hard to protect it from being used in other ways,” he said.
Before installing the first of what is now 83 crime cameras monitoring D.C. neighborhoods after a 2006 crime wave, the Metropolitan Police Department adopted regulations governing their use, including the dictate that signs must be posted around their locations and that residents be informed of their implementation. Rules also governed who was allowed to view feeds from the cameras, how often the recordings were deleted and the viewpoint the cameras could have.
But no such rules are in place governing private cameras or the guarantee that citizens installing cameras will be versed in privacy issues, said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel with the D.C.-based Constitution Project.
“When you have such routine and regularized recording by a private group that is not covered by those regulations, it raises concerns,” she said. “They could be subject to various abuses through ignorance of the kind of concerns they should have.”
Story Continues →
When D.C. police began installing surveillance cameras in neighborhoods more than five years ago as crime-fighting tools, privacy concerns voiced by civil liberties groups limited their scope and use.
Now a less-formal agreement from a citizens association planning to expand the Metropolitan Police Department’s watchful eye in Georgetown over the next few months is hitting a similar hurdle.
The Citizens Association of Georgetown, a private neighborhood association, plans to pay for the installation of up to 10 cameras in the hopes that the additional surveillance will deter crime.
“The No. 1 thing we would like is deterrence,” said Diane Colasanto, a member of the association’s public safety committee. “We just want crime not to happen here. But if crimes are committed, we hope the images from the cameras are images police can use.”
The Georgetown group’s cameras will tape public spaces such as streets and sidewalks, and video that could be used to solve a crime will be turned over to police, the group’s members said. The cameras will be located on private property, such as in residents’ yards, and as a result they will skirt the stringent rules imposed on the police department’s closed-circuit camera system.
With video-recording technology often just a cellphone click away and surveillance cameras prevalent in private businesses and homes, the notion of being watched is nothing new. But as the association begins to draft protocols for how the camera recordings will be handled, Ms. Colasanto said members have begun to raise more questions about who will have access to video taken by the cameras and under what circumstances.
“We want to make sure people’s privacy is protected,” she said.
Privacy concerns
A new wave of public-private surveillance partnerships, such as the one in Georgetown, has also caught the attention of civil liberties groups who caution that the original intention of a camera system is not the only way it can end up being used.
“Once the camera is there it’s very tempting to say ‘Let’s look at it for other reasons,’ ” said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital.
As an example, Mr. Spitzer said, a divorce lawyer might try to subpoena surveillance footage that could show evidence of a spouse’s affair by recording the person’s travels through the neighborhood.
“Once something exists, it can often be hard to protect it from being used in other ways,” he said.
Before installing the first of what is now 83 crime cameras monitoring D.C. neighborhoods after a 2006 crime wave, the Metropolitan Police Department adopted regulations governing their use, including the dictate that signs must be posted around their locations and that residents be informed of their implementation. Rules also governed who was allowed to view feeds from the cameras, how often the recordings were deleted and the viewpoint the cameras could have.
But no such rules are in place governing private cameras or the guarantee that citizens installing cameras will be versed in privacy issues, said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel with the D.C.-based Constitution Project.
“When you have such routine and regularized recording by a private group that is not covered by those regulations, it raises concerns,” she said. “They could be subject to various abuses through ignorance of the kind of concerns they should have.”
Story Continues →
FBI warns of threat from anti-government 'extremists'
(Reuters) - Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.
These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.
The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.
Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division.
"We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement," he said.
In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a "sovereign citizen" in traffic.
Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.
Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.
"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent.
FBI agents said they do not have a tally of people who consider themselves "sovereign citizens."
J.J. MacNab, a former tax and insurance expert who is an analyst covering the sovereign movement, has estimated that it has about 100,000 members.
Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk.
These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.
The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.
Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division.
"We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement," he said.
In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a "sovereign citizen" in traffic.
Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.
Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.
"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent.
FBI agents said they do not have a tally of people who consider themselves "sovereign citizens."
J.J. MacNab, a former tax and insurance expert who is an analyst covering the sovereign movement, has estimated that it has about 100,000 members.
Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk.
DEA raids 2 CVS pharmacies in drug abuse probe
(Reuters) - The Drug Enforcement Administration said on Monday it raided two CVS pharmacies over the weekend as part of an effort to curb the abuse of prescription painkillers and other potentially addictive substances.
The action, which occurred on Saturday, came one day after the agency suspended the license of drug distributor Cardinal Health Inc, prohibiting it from shipping such products from its facility in Lakeland, Florida. Cardinal immediately obtained a restraining order allowing it to continue shipments pending a hearing on February 13.
Florida's drug enforcers have been cracking down on pharmacies for several years, but this is the first time they have targeted a major chain.
Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of DEA's Miami bureau, said at a press conference that last year the two pharmacies, located 5.5 miles apart in Sanford, about 30 miles south of Orlando, ordered 3 million doses of the painkiller oxycodone. That compares to an national average of 69,000.
Trouville said the pharmacies either knew, or should have known, that a large number of the prescriptions it filled were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose. Red flags the pharmacies should have recognized included misspelled drug names, irregular dosing instructions and phony telephone numbers on prescriptions, he said.
In some instances, four or five people dropped off identical prescriptions from the same doctor at the same time, paid for by one person.
CVS Caremark Corp said that it was "disappointed" in the DEA's action.
"CVS/pharmacy is unwavering in its compliance with and support of the measures taken by federal and state law enforcement officials to prevent drug abuse and keep controlled substances out of the wrong hands," it said in an emailed statement.
The company said that that last fall, with the knowledge of the DEA, it had informed a small number of Florida physicians that it would no longer fill the prescriptions they write for controlled narcotics.
As a result, distributions of oxycodone to the two Florida stores that were raided have decreased by about 80 percent in the last three months from the prior three months.
Florida is at the epicenter of the national crisis of illegal prescription drug use. Seven people in the state die each day as a result of prescription drug abuse, more than from heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine combined, Trouville said.
Two other pharmacies were also served last week with suspension orders, but Trouville said they gave up their registrations rather than fight the matter in court. Under DEA rules, those pharmacies are not publicly identified.
CVS said it is cooperating with the DEA. In the meantime, "we remain committed to ensuring that all our customers, including customers of the two pharmacies, get the medications they need, including controlled substances."
Controlled substances are those, such as stimulants, painkillers and tranquilizers, that have the potential for addiction and abuse. Every entity that handles a controlled substance, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the pharmacy to the physician, must register with the agency.
Cardinal said on Friday that the DEA had suspended its license based on suspiciously high volume at the four pharmacies. But the company told a judge that it had already stopped shipping to two of the pharmacies several months ago, and stopped shipping to the CVS stores after its license was temporarily suspended on Friday morning.
Cardinal has protested the DEA's action, saying the agency fails to share information that could help industry and government alike prevent diversion of the products for illegal use.
Trouville declined to address Cardinal's concerns, saying, "That will be sorted out in court."
The action, which occurred on Saturday, came one day after the agency suspended the license of drug distributor Cardinal Health Inc, prohibiting it from shipping such products from its facility in Lakeland, Florida. Cardinal immediately obtained a restraining order allowing it to continue shipments pending a hearing on February 13.
Florida's drug enforcers have been cracking down on pharmacies for several years, but this is the first time they have targeted a major chain.
Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of DEA's Miami bureau, said at a press conference that last year the two pharmacies, located 5.5 miles apart in Sanford, about 30 miles south of Orlando, ordered 3 million doses of the painkiller oxycodone. That compares to an national average of 69,000.
Trouville said the pharmacies either knew, or should have known, that a large number of the prescriptions it filled were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose. Red flags the pharmacies should have recognized included misspelled drug names, irregular dosing instructions and phony telephone numbers on prescriptions, he said.
In some instances, four or five people dropped off identical prescriptions from the same doctor at the same time, paid for by one person.
CVS Caremark Corp said that it was "disappointed" in the DEA's action.
"CVS/pharmacy is unwavering in its compliance with and support of the measures taken by federal and state law enforcement officials to prevent drug abuse and keep controlled substances out of the wrong hands," it said in an emailed statement.
The company said that that last fall, with the knowledge of the DEA, it had informed a small number of Florida physicians that it would no longer fill the prescriptions they write for controlled narcotics.
As a result, distributions of oxycodone to the two Florida stores that were raided have decreased by about 80 percent in the last three months from the prior three months.
Florida is at the epicenter of the national crisis of illegal prescription drug use. Seven people in the state die each day as a result of prescription drug abuse, more than from heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine combined, Trouville said.
Two other pharmacies were also served last week with suspension orders, but Trouville said they gave up their registrations rather than fight the matter in court. Under DEA rules, those pharmacies are not publicly identified.
CVS said it is cooperating with the DEA. In the meantime, "we remain committed to ensuring that all our customers, including customers of the two pharmacies, get the medications they need, including controlled substances."
Controlled substances are those, such as stimulants, painkillers and tranquilizers, that have the potential for addiction and abuse. Every entity that handles a controlled substance, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the pharmacy to the physician, must register with the agency.
Cardinal said on Friday that the DEA had suspended its license based on suspiciously high volume at the four pharmacies. But the company told a judge that it had already stopped shipping to two of the pharmacies several months ago, and stopped shipping to the CVS stores after its license was temporarily suspended on Friday morning.
Cardinal has protested the DEA's action, saying the agency fails to share information that could help industry and government alike prevent diversion of the products for illegal use.
Trouville declined to address Cardinal's concerns, saying, "That will be sorted out in court."
D.C. workers face firing for unemployment fraud
WaPo:
Nearly 90 city employees were suspended Monday and face potential firing and prosecution for receiving unemployment benefits while holding their city jobs, District officials said.
In addition, about 40 former city workers cashed unemployment checks they were not entitled to and also face sanctions. In all, the city estimates it has paid out as much as $800,000 in unemployment benefits to working city employees since 2009.
“By holding people accountable, that sends a clear message we’re not tolerating this behavior,” said Lisa Mallory, director of the D.C. Department of Employment Services, which administers the jobless benefits program.
Monday’s action, which follows at least three years of scrutiny from local and federal authorities, represents an unusually broad crackdown on corruption in the District government workforce. The volume of benefits claims has soared alongside the District’s jobless rate, and investigators have taken an increasing interest in how the unemployment program guards against fraud.
D.C. Inspector General Charles J. Willoughby and Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan are involved in the investigation, and authorities anticipate referring at least some cases to federal prosecutors for criminal action. Mallory, whose office continues to review cases, also said she has worked with the U.S. Department of Labor to prevent this type of fraud.
Employees accused of wrongdoing worked in various arms of the District government, including the public schools and the D.C. Council staff, according to a high-ranking official to Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) who was not allowed to speak publicly on the investigation. Some of the employees, Mallory said, received $20,000 or more; others received only a few hundred dollars.
The alleged fraud is not complicated, nor is it uncommon in unemployment insurance programs: Workers apply for checks and receive them legitimately for a time but fail to inform authorities when they go back to work.
“Some are people who come in and out of government and never stopped [receiving unemployment checks]. Some may have worked in parts of an agency where for the summer months you don’t work,” Mallory said. “There are no clear patterns that we can discern. It’s just a matter of certifying you aren’t receiving income when you are receiving income.”
A Gray spokesman declined to release workers’ names Monday, citing privacy restrictions.
Mallory said her department regularly passes cases of suspected “overpayments” fraud to the inspector general for investigation and potential prosecution, but Monday’s crackdown represents an unprecedented review of the city’s 33,000-strong government workforce.
“Our focus is really on trying to deter,” she said. “We want to make sure that individuals who owe this money are actually held accountable for these overpayments.”
Nathan said in a statement that the alleged fraud is “unconscionable for anyone — and particularly District of Columbia employees, who should have high ethical standards.”
Jeff Lagda, a spokesman for the Labor Department’s inspector general, cited department policy Monday in not confirming or denying any ongoing investigation.
Mallory said her office has launched a new initiative in the past year to combat this type of fraud, cross-checking lists of unemployment recipients with city payroll records and a national database of new hires. The city unemployment office does the comparisons several times a week, she said.
Neighboring states have long employed computerized safeguards to prevent overpayments.
In Maryland, employers are required to report names, Social Security numbers and wages of their workers on a quarterly basis, said David A. McGlone, deputy executive director of the state’s unemployment insurance office. That data is cross-checked to ensure that no one is collecting benefits while gainfully employed.
Government employees, McGlone said, are handled in a “very similar fashion” as those in the private sector.
William Walton, the unemployment insurance director for the Virginia Employment Commission, said the commonwealth has been checking those receiving unemployment benefits against the national new-hire directory for more than five years.
“We already had a safety net in place,’’ he said.
The District employees placed on leave Monday were informed of the allegations against them in letters delivered at least 15 days ago. “They are afforded an opportunity to provide the history of what transpired,” Mallory said. “Most of these individuals, from what we can tell, did not do that.”
The D.C. unemployment insurance office was roiled in September when the acting director, Gaby L. Fraser, was dismissed amid fraud allegations. He has not been charged with a crime. The inspector general continues to investigate the allegations, Mallory said, but she said the new cases are not related to Fraser’s dismissal. A national search to replace Fraser continues.
A financial audit of the unemployment program back to 2009, paid for by federal administrative funds, is set to get underway Monday, Mallory said.
D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown (D) said one of the employees placed on administrative leave worked for his office. Brown declined to identify the employee, except to say the person was left jobless after council member Harry Thomas Jr. resigned last month.
In an interview, Brown praised the Gray administration for uncovering the allegedly improper claims. “It’s troubling they would do it, but it’s rewarding to know the mayor and his administration are working to be proactive,” he said.
The nation’s economic turmoil has driven benefit claims higher, drawing the attention of city and federal authorities. In fiscal 2007, with the city jobless rate less than 6 percent, 17,645 residents made initial claims for unemployment checks. Two years later, joblessness had risen to about 10 percent and more than 52,000 sought checks for the first time.
In early 2009, the federal Labor Department “detailed several long-standing and serious concerns” about the unemployment insurance department in a briefing given to Joseph P. Walsh, the employment services director at the time. In December 2010, Walsh told Willoughby his department had installed a new fraud-detection system and other improvements.
In a July 2011 letter to Gray, Willoughby said that his office was conducting an “ongoing special evaluation” of the unemployment compensation office and that he expected to submit a report later in the year.
The letter accompanied a management alert that found “essential safeguards” in an agency computer system were “inappropriately turned off” from February 2009 to July 2010, allowing an unknown number of checks to be mailed to ineligible recipients. According to the letter, a city contractor told investigators that a former agency manager had ordered the safeguards to be disabled, perhaps to allow officials to more easily handle a record number of claims.
Willoughby declined to comment on the unemployment probes Monday, except to say his office “typically investigates these types of matters.” Since December 2010, it has obtained guilty pleas to felony fraud
charges in eight investigations into unemployment overpayments. One of those cases involved a former D.C. Public Schools employee who collected $4,906 in unemployment checks while employed.
Staff writers Tim Craig, Anita Kumar, Fredrick Kunkle and Miranda S. Spivack contributed to this report.
Nearly 90 city employees were suspended Monday and face potential firing and prosecution for receiving unemployment benefits while holding their city jobs, District officials said.
In addition, about 40 former city workers cashed unemployment checks they were not entitled to and also face sanctions. In all, the city estimates it has paid out as much as $800,000 in unemployment benefits to working city employees since 2009.
“By holding people accountable, that sends a clear message we’re not tolerating this behavior,” said Lisa Mallory, director of the D.C. Department of Employment Services, which administers the jobless benefits program.
Monday’s action, which follows at least three years of scrutiny from local and federal authorities, represents an unusually broad crackdown on corruption in the District government workforce. The volume of benefits claims has soared alongside the District’s jobless rate, and investigators have taken an increasing interest in how the unemployment program guards against fraud.
D.C. Inspector General Charles J. Willoughby and Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan are involved in the investigation, and authorities anticipate referring at least some cases to federal prosecutors for criminal action. Mallory, whose office continues to review cases, also said she has worked with the U.S. Department of Labor to prevent this type of fraud.
Employees accused of wrongdoing worked in various arms of the District government, including the public schools and the D.C. Council staff, according to a high-ranking official to Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) who was not allowed to speak publicly on the investigation. Some of the employees, Mallory said, received $20,000 or more; others received only a few hundred dollars.
The alleged fraud is not complicated, nor is it uncommon in unemployment insurance programs: Workers apply for checks and receive them legitimately for a time but fail to inform authorities when they go back to work.
“Some are people who come in and out of government and never stopped [receiving unemployment checks]. Some may have worked in parts of an agency where for the summer months you don’t work,” Mallory said. “There are no clear patterns that we can discern. It’s just a matter of certifying you aren’t receiving income when you are receiving income.”
A Gray spokesman declined to release workers’ names Monday, citing privacy restrictions.
Mallory said her department regularly passes cases of suspected “overpayments” fraud to the inspector general for investigation and potential prosecution, but Monday’s crackdown represents an unprecedented review of the city’s 33,000-strong government workforce.
“Our focus is really on trying to deter,” she said. “We want to make sure that individuals who owe this money are actually held accountable for these overpayments.”
Nathan said in a statement that the alleged fraud is “unconscionable for anyone — and particularly District of Columbia employees, who should have high ethical standards.”
Jeff Lagda, a spokesman for the Labor Department’s inspector general, cited department policy Monday in not confirming or denying any ongoing investigation.
Mallory said her office has launched a new initiative in the past year to combat this type of fraud, cross-checking lists of unemployment recipients with city payroll records and a national database of new hires. The city unemployment office does the comparisons several times a week, she said.
Neighboring states have long employed computerized safeguards to prevent overpayments.
In Maryland, employers are required to report names, Social Security numbers and wages of their workers on a quarterly basis, said David A. McGlone, deputy executive director of the state’s unemployment insurance office. That data is cross-checked to ensure that no one is collecting benefits while gainfully employed.
Government employees, McGlone said, are handled in a “very similar fashion” as those in the private sector.
William Walton, the unemployment insurance director for the Virginia Employment Commission, said the commonwealth has been checking those receiving unemployment benefits against the national new-hire directory for more than five years.
“We already had a safety net in place,’’ he said.
The District employees placed on leave Monday were informed of the allegations against them in letters delivered at least 15 days ago. “They are afforded an opportunity to provide the history of what transpired,” Mallory said. “Most of these individuals, from what we can tell, did not do that.”
The D.C. unemployment insurance office was roiled in September when the acting director, Gaby L. Fraser, was dismissed amid fraud allegations. He has not been charged with a crime. The inspector general continues to investigate the allegations, Mallory said, but she said the new cases are not related to Fraser’s dismissal. A national search to replace Fraser continues.
A financial audit of the unemployment program back to 2009, paid for by federal administrative funds, is set to get underway Monday, Mallory said.
D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown (D) said one of the employees placed on administrative leave worked for his office. Brown declined to identify the employee, except to say the person was left jobless after council member Harry Thomas Jr. resigned last month.
In an interview, Brown praised the Gray administration for uncovering the allegedly improper claims. “It’s troubling they would do it, but it’s rewarding to know the mayor and his administration are working to be proactive,” he said.
The nation’s economic turmoil has driven benefit claims higher, drawing the attention of city and federal authorities. In fiscal 2007, with the city jobless rate less than 6 percent, 17,645 residents made initial claims for unemployment checks. Two years later, joblessness had risen to about 10 percent and more than 52,000 sought checks for the first time.
In early 2009, the federal Labor Department “detailed several long-standing and serious concerns” about the unemployment insurance department in a briefing given to Joseph P. Walsh, the employment services director at the time. In December 2010, Walsh told Willoughby his department had installed a new fraud-detection system and other improvements.
In a July 2011 letter to Gray, Willoughby said that his office was conducting an “ongoing special evaluation” of the unemployment compensation office and that he expected to submit a report later in the year.
The letter accompanied a management alert that found “essential safeguards” in an agency computer system were “inappropriately turned off” from February 2009 to July 2010, allowing an unknown number of checks to be mailed to ineligible recipients. According to the letter, a city contractor told investigators that a former agency manager had ordered the safeguards to be disabled, perhaps to allow officials to more easily handle a record number of claims.
Willoughby declined to comment on the unemployment probes Monday, except to say his office “typically investigates these types of matters.” Since December 2010, it has obtained guilty pleas to felony fraud
charges in eight investigations into unemployment overpayments. One of those cases involved a former D.C. Public Schools employee who collected $4,906 in unemployment checks while employed.
Staff writers Tim Craig, Anita Kumar, Fredrick Kunkle and Miranda S. Spivack contributed to this report.
Britain had to plead with US to take part in Iran flotilla
Telegraph:
Britain was forced to plead with the US to take part in the flotilla challenging Iranian power in the Gulf after American commanders decided the Royal Navy had nothing to contribute to the mission.
Defence sources have revealed that the Americans only relented and allowed a Royal Navy frigate to join the mission following an intervention from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.
The revelation that US defence chiefs saw little military value in UK participation will raise new questions about Britain’s international clout after Coalition defence cuts.
Amid rising tensions in the region, the Royal Navy last month deployed HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate, to the Gulf.
The ship accompanied a US carrier strike group made up of an aircraft carrier with a full complement of fighters, a heavy cruiser and several destroyers.
A French frigate, the La Motte-Picquet, was also part of the flotilla which sailed through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has staged wargames in the area and threatened to block the straits, a vital supply route for oil exports.
The US also has another carrier strike group in the Gulf and a third heading for the region.
The disparity in vessel numbers means the British and French presence in the flotilla was of greater diplomatic than military significance.
The question of allied participation in the naval operation is understood to have triggered concern in Whitehall and led to a sudden shift in Britain’s stance.
British ministers initially signalled they would accept the Washington’s conclusion that did not need allies to take part.
But the British position changed after Mr Sazkozy insisted to the US that a French warship must be present in the flotilla.
Sources said that Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, concluded that if the French were sending a ship, Britain must do so too. His decision to was then endorsed by David Cameron, the Prime Minister.
Failing to take part when the French were doing so might have raised questions about the Special Relationship, which has come under doubt during Barack Obama’s presidency. Mr Obama last year described France as America’s closest ally.
A diplomatic source revealed that US commanders originally planned for an all-American naval operation, any only relented after protests from European leaders.
The source said: “The Americans originally planned to do it alone. They were clear that they saw no military advantage in having European ships taking part.
But after the President insisted that France had to be represented, ministers decided that “Britain must participate too, regardless of the military importance.”
The source described the approach of France and Britain as “classic willy-waving”, accusing the two countries of posturing to conceal their military irrelevance to the confrontation with Iran.
A Whitehall confirmed the sequence of events and described the international negotiations over the flotilla as “humiliating” for Britain.
After the French intervention, the UK Government “was basically forced to plead with Washington for the Navy to be allowed to tag along. “ said the source.
Britain was forced to plead with the US to take part in the flotilla challenging Iranian power in the Gulf after American commanders decided the Royal Navy had nothing to contribute to the mission.
Defence sources have revealed that the Americans only relented and allowed a Royal Navy frigate to join the mission following an intervention from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.
The revelation that US defence chiefs saw little military value in UK participation will raise new questions about Britain’s international clout after Coalition defence cuts.
Amid rising tensions in the region, the Royal Navy last month deployed HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate, to the Gulf.
The ship accompanied a US carrier strike group made up of an aircraft carrier with a full complement of fighters, a heavy cruiser and several destroyers.
A French frigate, the La Motte-Picquet, was also part of the flotilla which sailed through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has staged wargames in the area and threatened to block the straits, a vital supply route for oil exports.
The US also has another carrier strike group in the Gulf and a third heading for the region.
The disparity in vessel numbers means the British and French presence in the flotilla was of greater diplomatic than military significance.
The question of allied participation in the naval operation is understood to have triggered concern in Whitehall and led to a sudden shift in Britain’s stance.
British ministers initially signalled they would accept the Washington’s conclusion that did not need allies to take part.
But the British position changed after Mr Sazkozy insisted to the US that a French warship must be present in the flotilla.
Sources said that Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, concluded that if the French were sending a ship, Britain must do so too. His decision to was then endorsed by David Cameron, the Prime Minister.
Failing to take part when the French were doing so might have raised questions about the Special Relationship, which has come under doubt during Barack Obama’s presidency. Mr Obama last year described France as America’s closest ally.
A diplomatic source revealed that US commanders originally planned for an all-American naval operation, any only relented after protests from European leaders.
The source said: “The Americans originally planned to do it alone. They were clear that they saw no military advantage in having European ships taking part.
But after the President insisted that France had to be represented, ministers decided that “Britain must participate too, regardless of the military importance.”
The source described the approach of France and Britain as “classic willy-waving”, accusing the two countries of posturing to conceal their military irrelevance to the confrontation with Iran.
A Whitehall confirmed the sequence of events and described the international negotiations over the flotilla as “humiliating” for Britain.
After the French intervention, the UK Government “was basically forced to plead with Washington for the Navy to be allowed to tag along. “ said the source.
CHURCH VOWS WAR ON OBAMA 'FIGHT IN STREETS'
CBS New York:
Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election
Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.
“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.
But pro-choice groups said they will fight the church and fight for the right of employees of Catholic institutions to have birth control and other services paid for.
“The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said.
Catholic leaders hope they will have more sway with the White House than usual because it is a presidential election year, hoping that if even a small percentage of Catholics back Obama’s opponent it could cost him the election.
When asked if this issue would affect who he would vote for in November, Wilton, Conn., resident Peter Taylor said, “Potentially, yes. I think it is a very serious issue, very meaningful.”
But not everyone views the situation as dire.
“I would certainly vote for Obama anyway. The church has to get up to date,” Manhattan resident Sue Thomas said.
Sources told Kramer that American bishops are contemplating a massive march on Washington, using people and school kids bused in from all over to protest the law.
Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election
Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.
“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.
But pro-choice groups said they will fight the church and fight for the right of employees of Catholic institutions to have birth control and other services paid for.
“The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said.
Catholic leaders hope they will have more sway with the White House than usual because it is a presidential election year, hoping that if even a small percentage of Catholics back Obama’s opponent it could cost him the election.
When asked if this issue would affect who he would vote for in November, Wilton, Conn., resident Peter Taylor said, “Potentially, yes. I think it is a very serious issue, very meaningful.”
But not everyone views the situation as dire.
“I would certainly vote for Obama anyway. The church has to get up to date,” Manhattan resident Sue Thomas said.
Sources told Kramer that American bishops are contemplating a massive march on Washington, using people and school kids bused in from all over to protest the law.
Pelosi: ‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in supporting Obama birth control mandate
LifeSiteNews.com
February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Even as the United States’ Catholic bishops have launched an all-out campaign against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and urged their flocks to resistance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has invoked the support of “fellow Catholics” to justify her position in favor of the mandate.
Pelosi was confronted at last Wednesday’s press briefing by a reporter from CNSnews.com, who began by pointing out that the mandate, which requires all employers to cover all sterilizations and contraception, including drugs that can cause early abortions, forces Catholic individuals and institutions to act against Church teaching.
Irritated, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, interrupted: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”
The reporter continued, citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”
“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded.
The comment came as at least 164 Catholic bishops across the country, representing over 90% of the country’s dioceses, have blasted the mandate, in many cases ensuring that letters were read to the faithful during Sunday Mass calling the mandate unconstitutional and unjust.
The question by the CNSnews reporter was not the first time Pelosi has been confronted about the apparent conflict between her political views and her claimed status as a “devout Catholic.”
In an interview with the Washington Post this past November, she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”
The former speaker has also said she has “some areas of disagreement” with the country’s bishops, and has claimed that Catholicism does not necessarily condemn abortion.
February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Even as the United States’ Catholic bishops have launched an all-out campaign against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and urged their flocks to resistance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has invoked the support of “fellow Catholics” to justify her position in favor of the mandate.
Pelosi was confronted at last Wednesday’s press briefing by a reporter from CNSnews.com, who began by pointing out that the mandate, which requires all employers to cover all sterilizations and contraception, including drugs that can cause early abortions, forces Catholic individuals and institutions to act against Church teaching.
Irritated, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, interrupted: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”
The reporter continued, citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”
“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded.
The comment came as at least 164 Catholic bishops across the country, representing over 90% of the country’s dioceses, have blasted the mandate, in many cases ensuring that letters were read to the faithful during Sunday Mass calling the mandate unconstitutional and unjust.
The question by the CNSnews reporter was not the first time Pelosi has been confronted about the apparent conflict between her political views and her claimed status as a “devout Catholic.”
In an interview with the Washington Post this past November, she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”
The former speaker has also said she has “some areas of disagreement” with the country’s bishops, and has claimed that Catholicism does not necessarily condemn abortion.
Bill: No sweets with food stamps
ClickOrlando.com:
Cookies, cakes, more would be banned from Florida program
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -
A Florida lawmaker is pushing a bill that would ban the use of food stamps to purchase snacks and sweets, such as cookies and cakes.
Republican State Sen. Ronda Storms, of Valrico, says her goal is to stop a small percentage of recipients who misuse food stamps.
Her bill would also require food stamp recipients to take state-run classes on healthy eating and how making your own baked goods is cheaper than store-made sweets.
The bill is moving through state committees in Tallahassee.
Critics say the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat.
Democratic Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, of Pompano Beach, also says the educational provision is demeaning to minorities and the poor by implying they aren't smart enough to make their own choices.
Watch Local 6 and visit ClickOrlando.com for more on this story as it works its way through the state legislature.
Copyright 2012 by ClickOrlando.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Cookies, cakes, more would be banned from Florida program
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -
A Florida lawmaker is pushing a bill that would ban the use of food stamps to purchase snacks and sweets, such as cookies and cakes.
Republican State Sen. Ronda Storms, of Valrico, says her goal is to stop a small percentage of recipients who misuse food stamps.
Her bill would also require food stamp recipients to take state-run classes on healthy eating and how making your own baked goods is cheaper than store-made sweets.
The bill is moving through state committees in Tallahassee.
Critics say the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat.
Democratic Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, of Pompano Beach, also says the educational provision is demeaning to minorities and the poor by implying they aren't smart enough to make their own choices.
Watch Local 6 and visit ClickOrlando.com for more on this story as it works its way through the state legislature.
Copyright 2012 by ClickOrlando.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
5 Things Conservatives Can Learn From Liberals
Townhall:
There are a lot of things NOT to like about liberals, but you have to give them some credit. These are people who are badly, dangerously, and devastatingly wrong on almost every issue of consequence and yet, year after year, they hang in there at a rough parity with conservatives. So, they may do a lot wrong, but there are things we can learn from the Left.
1) Fight Harder: Liberals win a lot of battles just because they're willing to fight harder. Look at what happened to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Komen decided not to keep giving free money to Planned Parenthood and liberals, who aren't even willing to oppose cancer unless some babies can be aborted to even it out, raised so much hell that Komen had to engage in a public face-saving maneuver. This is not unusual. Conservatives are constantly complaining that some insult towards Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann would never be tolerated if it were aimed at Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. Well, of course, it wouldn't. Liberals raise hell, create blacklists, and hold permanent grudges over that sort of thing. Conservatives complain, shrug their shoulders and let it go. If conservatives get nastier, more vindictive, and less forgiving, then suddenly people will start giving conservatives the same respect liberals get.
On the other hand, ever notice that liberals can get away with everything from leaving women to die in a tidal pool to having a gay prostitution ring run out of their apartment, while conservatives are destroyed for some faux pas that wouldn't even hurt a liberal's popularity rating? There's a reason for that: liberals will stand up for liberals who are politically useful while conservatives will toss those people under the bus in some kind of misguided attempt to appear "principled." When two equally matched forces meet and one is playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while the other has an ends justifies the means mentality, there's no question which side is going to win anywhere outside of a Disney movie. If conservatives want to save the country, we need to start playing as dirty as the Left.
2) Support Activists: If you're a popular liberal blogger and you want a better gig, you can be certain that some liberal foundation, magazine, or newspaper will hire you. If you're an activist group that helps the liberal cause, whether it's ACORN, Air America, or the ACLU, you will get the money you need. If you're a liberal with any kind of status, colleges around the country will shell out big bucks to bring you in for a speech. Money is never your biggest problem if you can help liberalism.
On the other hand, most big name conservative magazines won't hire popular conservative bloggers, there simply aren't enough conservative newspapers to do a lot of hiring, and most of the big time talk radio hosts treat blogs like a gold mine to be looted for topics, but seldom if ever mentioned on the air. While there are some conservative think tanks that do things to help to grassroots activists -- like Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity, The Leadership Institute, and the Franklin Center -- almost every activist and blogger I know is operating on a shoestring. What it all comes down to with conservatives is that if you can't fundraise or figure out how to turn a profit, it doesn't matter if what you're doing is good for the movement -- because nobody is going to come in to fund it or even give you any real help promoting it. This is why the conservative blogosphere is slowly but surely dying off. Contrast that to the Occupy Movement where a bunch of dirty hippies camping for handouts can have millions materialize out of thin air to help them out. This isn't because liberals in power love activists. There would be Democrats all over Capitol Hill high-fiving each other if Markos Moulitsas Zúniga were hit by a bus tomorrow. The difference is liberals have a better understanding of what their activists can do for the cause.
3) Embrace Identity Politics: Whether you're talking about blacks, Hispanics, women, Jews, Muslims or gays, liberals have the exact same approach to minority outreach. They find people from that group, fund them, have them claim to be spokesmen for that entire group and then their first message is always, "Conservatives hate you." There's a simple reason that liberals do that: It works! In fact, it works so well that conservatives end up buying into the hype and going to groups like the NAACP, La Raza, and CAIR for outreach and absolution. This is insanity. These groups are given power and money by the Left precisely because they're willing to smear conservatives. It's time to have our own conservative NAACP, our own La Raza, and our CAIR that are friendly to conservatism, capitalism, and Christianity. We can pout, cross our arms, and say we'll never give in to identity politics, but that argument has already been settled with the American people and we've lost. Either we can come to grips with reality and start funding our own interest groups or we can keep pursuing the same failed strategy as we inevitably lose the country as it progressively becomes less white.
4) Make Emotion-Based Arguments: Don't get me wrong: both liberals and conservatives make emotion-based arguments. However, it may be 25% of what conservatives do, while it makes up 98% of liberalism. What so many conservatives don't seem to get is that as a general rule, a powerful emotional argument will usually beat a sound, logical argument. Put another way, you can be right and still lose. It happens all the time. So while conservatives shouldn't discard logic-based arguments, we need to work much harder to tie in emotions. This isn't actually all that hard. Ask yourself whom a program benefits or hurts and explain it in emotional terms. "You support Affirmative Action? Oh, so you believe black Americans are inferior to whites and need a hand up to compete with them? That's disgusting." "You think we should turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Why do you want to put American workers out of jobs?" "Dry and sciencey" may appeal to think tank wonks and "Big L" Libertarians, but it isn't ultimately going to be enough to move the American people our way.
5) Move the ball forward: There's a simple reason that the country seems to inexorably move to the Left no matter who gets into office. Liberals in D.C. are always trying to move the ball forward while conservatives in D.C. are always trying to hold the line. Look at the two years when Democrats were running everything in D.C. They passed everything from the biggest stimulus in history to Obamacare. What did the Republicans do when they controlled the House, Senate, and White House during the Bush years? Medicare Part D. That was after they worked with the Democrats to pass the No Child Left Behind Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Thanks for the temporary tax cuts, Republicans, but the country moved to the LEFT domestically during the Bush years. This is one of the reasons that Scott Walker struck such a chord with conservatives: he implemented a policy that helped Wisconsin, hurt the Left, and pulled the state to the Right all in one fell swoop. Why can't conservatives in D.C. ever seem to do that any more?
There are a lot of things NOT to like about liberals, but you have to give them some credit. These are people who are badly, dangerously, and devastatingly wrong on almost every issue of consequence and yet, year after year, they hang in there at a rough parity with conservatives. So, they may do a lot wrong, but there are things we can learn from the Left.
1) Fight Harder: Liberals win a lot of battles just because they're willing to fight harder. Look at what happened to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Komen decided not to keep giving free money to Planned Parenthood and liberals, who aren't even willing to oppose cancer unless some babies can be aborted to even it out, raised so much hell that Komen had to engage in a public face-saving maneuver. This is not unusual. Conservatives are constantly complaining that some insult towards Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann would never be tolerated if it were aimed at Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. Well, of course, it wouldn't. Liberals raise hell, create blacklists, and hold permanent grudges over that sort of thing. Conservatives complain, shrug their shoulders and let it go. If conservatives get nastier, more vindictive, and less forgiving, then suddenly people will start giving conservatives the same respect liberals get.
On the other hand, ever notice that liberals can get away with everything from leaving women to die in a tidal pool to having a gay prostitution ring run out of their apartment, while conservatives are destroyed for some faux pas that wouldn't even hurt a liberal's popularity rating? There's a reason for that: liberals will stand up for liberals who are politically useful while conservatives will toss those people under the bus in some kind of misguided attempt to appear "principled." When two equally matched forces meet and one is playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while the other has an ends justifies the means mentality, there's no question which side is going to win anywhere outside of a Disney movie. If conservatives want to save the country, we need to start playing as dirty as the Left.
2) Support Activists: If you're a popular liberal blogger and you want a better gig, you can be certain that some liberal foundation, magazine, or newspaper will hire you. If you're an activist group that helps the liberal cause, whether it's ACORN, Air America, or the ACLU, you will get the money you need. If you're a liberal with any kind of status, colleges around the country will shell out big bucks to bring you in for a speech. Money is never your biggest problem if you can help liberalism.
On the other hand, most big name conservative magazines won't hire popular conservative bloggers, there simply aren't enough conservative newspapers to do a lot of hiring, and most of the big time talk radio hosts treat blogs like a gold mine to be looted for topics, but seldom if ever mentioned on the air. While there are some conservative think tanks that do things to help to grassroots activists -- like Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity, The Leadership Institute, and the Franklin Center -- almost every activist and blogger I know is operating on a shoestring. What it all comes down to with conservatives is that if you can't fundraise or figure out how to turn a profit, it doesn't matter if what you're doing is good for the movement -- because nobody is going to come in to fund it or even give you any real help promoting it. This is why the conservative blogosphere is slowly but surely dying off. Contrast that to the Occupy Movement where a bunch of dirty hippies camping for handouts can have millions materialize out of thin air to help them out. This isn't because liberals in power love activists. There would be Democrats all over Capitol Hill high-fiving each other if Markos Moulitsas Zúniga were hit by a bus tomorrow. The difference is liberals have a better understanding of what their activists can do for the cause.
3) Embrace Identity Politics: Whether you're talking about blacks, Hispanics, women, Jews, Muslims or gays, liberals have the exact same approach to minority outreach. They find people from that group, fund them, have them claim to be spokesmen for that entire group and then their first message is always, "Conservatives hate you." There's a simple reason that liberals do that: It works! In fact, it works so well that conservatives end up buying into the hype and going to groups like the NAACP, La Raza, and CAIR for outreach and absolution. This is insanity. These groups are given power and money by the Left precisely because they're willing to smear conservatives. It's time to have our own conservative NAACP, our own La Raza, and our CAIR that are friendly to conservatism, capitalism, and Christianity. We can pout, cross our arms, and say we'll never give in to identity politics, but that argument has already been settled with the American people and we've lost. Either we can come to grips with reality and start funding our own interest groups or we can keep pursuing the same failed strategy as we inevitably lose the country as it progressively becomes less white.
4) Make Emotion-Based Arguments: Don't get me wrong: both liberals and conservatives make emotion-based arguments. However, it may be 25% of what conservatives do, while it makes up 98% of liberalism. What so many conservatives don't seem to get is that as a general rule, a powerful emotional argument will usually beat a sound, logical argument. Put another way, you can be right and still lose. It happens all the time. So while conservatives shouldn't discard logic-based arguments, we need to work much harder to tie in emotions. This isn't actually all that hard. Ask yourself whom a program benefits or hurts and explain it in emotional terms. "You support Affirmative Action? Oh, so you believe black Americans are inferior to whites and need a hand up to compete with them? That's disgusting." "You think we should turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Why do you want to put American workers out of jobs?" "Dry and sciencey" may appeal to think tank wonks and "Big L" Libertarians, but it isn't ultimately going to be enough to move the American people our way.
5) Move the ball forward: There's a simple reason that the country seems to inexorably move to the Left no matter who gets into office. Liberals in D.C. are always trying to move the ball forward while conservatives in D.C. are always trying to hold the line. Look at the two years when Democrats were running everything in D.C. They passed everything from the biggest stimulus in history to Obamacare. What did the Republicans do when they controlled the House, Senate, and White House during the Bush years? Medicare Part D. That was after they worked with the Democrats to pass the No Child Left Behind Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Thanks for the temporary tax cuts, Republicans, but the country moved to the LEFT domestically during the Bush years. This is one of the reasons that Scott Walker struck such a chord with conservatives: he implemented a policy that helped Wisconsin, hurt the Left, and pulled the state to the Right all in one fell swoop. Why can't conservatives in D.C. ever seem to do that any more?
A Fairness Quiz for the President
Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees?
More at WSJ
More at WSJ
The Real America
American Thinker:
I have been writing for a long time about the real news in the Battleground Poll results over the last decade. These bipartisan polls predict election results with remarkable accuracy and which also reveal the answers to all the questions respondents provided -- including, critically, how people describe themselves ideologically.
In the last twenty consecutive Battleground Poll reports over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of Americans have described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative," although the poll provides six other possible responses: "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," or "don't know/unsure." On average, about 60% of Americans in the Battleground Poll call themselves conservative.
I have also noted that in the Gallup Poll, one of the oldest and most respected (although hardly a friend to conservatives), when respondents in each of the fifty states are asked to define themselves ideologically, conservatives overwhelmingly outnumber liberals. In August 2009, Gallup released the first of these polls, conducted in July 2009. The results were stunning: in every one of the fifty states, more people called themselves "conservative" than "liberal" -- even in Vermont, even in Massachusetts, even in Hawaii.
It looks as though Gallup, although honestly presenting the data, wanted to downplay the significance. The title of that Gallup release was "Political Ideology: Conservative Label Prevails in South," with the flatly erroneous subtitle "Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state, but not in D.C." The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state. Conservatives, according to that poll, did outnumber liberals in every state.
A few months later, in February 2010, Gallup announced "Ideology: Three Deep South States Are Most Conservative." The results, as six months earlier, showed that every single state had more conservatives than liberals. This time, interestingly, Gallup did not round the percentages off, but instead gave data to the tenth of one percent (e.g., Vermont had 28.8% conservatives and 28.0% liberals). In August 2010, Gallup gave the same state-by-state breakdown, and only in Rhode Island were there more liberals than conservatives.
One year ago, in February 2011, Gallup presented the state-by-state ideological breakdown, again showing the data down to tenths of one percent. What were the results? In every single state of the union, there were more conservatives than liberals. How did Gallup entitle this release? "Mississippi Rates as Most Conservative State," with the subtitle "Vermont, Rhode Island, District of Columbia have highest percentage of liberals."
A few days ago, Gallup released its fifth poll asking respondents in each state to identify themselves ideologically. The results were consistent with the four earlier polls. In every state except for Massachusetts, conservatives outnumbered liberals. The title to the article, again, seems calculated to downplay the significance of the findings: "Mississippi Most Conservative State, D.C. Most Liberal" (except, again, D.C. is not a "State.") Now in five consecutive Gallup Polls and twenty consecutive Battleground Polls, conservatives have a breathtaking advantage over liberals.
There is no reason to believe that either polling organization was trying to reveal the enormous size of conservative America. Survey USA compiles state polling from television and sometimes conducts the polls itself. As with Battleground and Gallup, there is no incentive to make conservatives look good. Yet when the "ideology" question is asked, conservatives outnumber liberals even in states where conventional political wisdom says that this should not be.
In Washington State, for example, Survey USA shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by ten percentage points. Survey USA shows that in California, there are more conservatives than liberals. Its polls show that the conservative edge over liberals in Minnesota is fourteen percentage points. The Survey USA poll in Michigan breaks down ideological identification into "very conservative," "conservative," "moderate," "liberal," and "very liberal." Nothing changed: there were 50% more "very conservatives" than "very liberals" and 60% more conservatives than liberals. In New York State, there were eleven percentage points' more conservatives than liberals.
What is perhaps more curious are those polls which mention how conservatives and liberals feel about issues or candidates, but which completely omit the strength of each ideological group in the poll. This ABC poll from last year, which reveals how "conservatives" and "liberals" feel about gays in the military, neglects to ever discuss what percentage of respondents were conservative and what percentage were liberal.
The data is consistent, overwhelming, and clear. Conservatives are the Real America. Leftists are colonial governors, small in number, controlling through fear and intimidation from heavily guarded forts at the chokepoints of society, unable to persuade more than a slim minority of Americans to follow them, and protected from the destruction of their own administration. Our campaign against the left is nothing more or less than a national liberation movement. We, not they, are America.
I have been writing for a long time about the real news in the Battleground Poll results over the last decade. These bipartisan polls predict election results with remarkable accuracy and which also reveal the answers to all the questions respondents provided -- including, critically, how people describe themselves ideologically.
In the last twenty consecutive Battleground Poll reports over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of Americans have described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative," although the poll provides six other possible responses: "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," or "don't know/unsure." On average, about 60% of Americans in the Battleground Poll call themselves conservative.
I have also noted that in the Gallup Poll, one of the oldest and most respected (although hardly a friend to conservatives), when respondents in each of the fifty states are asked to define themselves ideologically, conservatives overwhelmingly outnumber liberals. In August 2009, Gallup released the first of these polls, conducted in July 2009. The results were stunning: in every one of the fifty states, more people called themselves "conservative" than "liberal" -- even in Vermont, even in Massachusetts, even in Hawaii.
It looks as though Gallup, although honestly presenting the data, wanted to downplay the significance. The title of that Gallup release was "Political Ideology: Conservative Label Prevails in South," with the flatly erroneous subtitle "Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state, but not in D.C." The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state. Conservatives, according to that poll, did outnumber liberals in every state.
A few months later, in February 2010, Gallup announced "Ideology: Three Deep South States Are Most Conservative." The results, as six months earlier, showed that every single state had more conservatives than liberals. This time, interestingly, Gallup did not round the percentages off, but instead gave data to the tenth of one percent (e.g., Vermont had 28.8% conservatives and 28.0% liberals). In August 2010, Gallup gave the same state-by-state breakdown, and only in Rhode Island were there more liberals than conservatives.
One year ago, in February 2011, Gallup presented the state-by-state ideological breakdown, again showing the data down to tenths of one percent. What were the results? In every single state of the union, there were more conservatives than liberals. How did Gallup entitle this release? "Mississippi Rates as Most Conservative State," with the subtitle "Vermont, Rhode Island, District of Columbia have highest percentage of liberals."
A few days ago, Gallup released its fifth poll asking respondents in each state to identify themselves ideologically. The results were consistent with the four earlier polls. In every state except for Massachusetts, conservatives outnumbered liberals. The title to the article, again, seems calculated to downplay the significance of the findings: "Mississippi Most Conservative State, D.C. Most Liberal" (except, again, D.C. is not a "State.") Now in five consecutive Gallup Polls and twenty consecutive Battleground Polls, conservatives have a breathtaking advantage over liberals.
There is no reason to believe that either polling organization was trying to reveal the enormous size of conservative America. Survey USA compiles state polling from television and sometimes conducts the polls itself. As with Battleground and Gallup, there is no incentive to make conservatives look good. Yet when the "ideology" question is asked, conservatives outnumber liberals even in states where conventional political wisdom says that this should not be.
In Washington State, for example, Survey USA shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by ten percentage points. Survey USA shows that in California, there are more conservatives than liberals. Its polls show that the conservative edge over liberals in Minnesota is fourteen percentage points. The Survey USA poll in Michigan breaks down ideological identification into "very conservative," "conservative," "moderate," "liberal," and "very liberal." Nothing changed: there were 50% more "very conservatives" than "very liberals" and 60% more conservatives than liberals. In New York State, there were eleven percentage points' more conservatives than liberals.
What is perhaps more curious are those polls which mention how conservatives and liberals feel about issues or candidates, but which completely omit the strength of each ideological group in the poll. This ABC poll from last year, which reveals how "conservatives" and "liberals" feel about gays in the military, neglects to ever discuss what percentage of respondents were conservative and what percentage were liberal.
The data is consistent, overwhelming, and clear. Conservatives are the Real America. Leftists are colonial governors, small in number, controlling through fear and intimidation from heavily guarded forts at the chokepoints of society, unable to persuade more than a slim minority of Americans to follow them, and protected from the destruction of their own administration. Our campaign against the left is nothing more or less than a national liberation movement. We, not they, are America.
The doctor will/won't see you now.
KCTV5:
TOPEKA, KS (KCTV) -
A Kansas board that denied a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine a license was primarily concerned about the man's political views.
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is a 15-member panel appointed by the governor and decides the fate of doctors in Kansas.
Terrence Lee Lakin rose to the ranks of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He served on the front lines in Afghanistan and the war zone in Bosnia as well as a medical mission to Honduras. He saved lives around the world and received a Bronze Star for his service.
"I like helping people," said Lakin. "And I've been, since college wanting to be in medical field and help others."
But a dispute over whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States led to Lakin being forced from the military and apparently led to the Kansas board in October denying him a medical license to practice in the Sunflower State.
The board repeatedly refused comment on their decision, but a transcript of Lakin's shows board members didn't concern themselves with Lakin's 18-year spotless medical record.
"They hammered me for my political views," said Lakin.
Nearly two years ago, the then lieutenant colonel asked for proof that Obama was born in the United States. When he didn't get it, Lakin announced via a video posted on www.safeguardourconstitution.com, "I will disobey my orders to deploy because I believe all servicemen and women and the American people deserve the truth about President Obama, the office of the presidency and the commander in chief."
In April 2010, citing a possible break in the chain of command, Lakin did refuse a second tour of duty to Afghanistan. In December of that year, he went through a court martial for missing movement and failing to obey a lawful order – both violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Lakin was found guilty of breaking military law, the Army gave him a dishonorable discharge, stripped him of his rank and sentenced him to a six-month prison term at Fort Leavenworth.
The dishonorable discharge had no bearing on Lakin's license to practice medicine in Maryland or Colorado. But the Kansas board ruled Lakin's refusal to deploy to Afghanistan "…potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for with applicant was employed to provide medical care."
The military dispatched another doctor to fill Lakin's mission.
The Oct. 21 hearing about Lakin's medical license lasted just 16 minutes. Lenexa physician Michael J. Beezley kicked off the questioning about Lakin's thoughts on the president.
"So I guess you need to explain the difference between going to Afghanistan in 2004 and going over there after President Obama was elected," said Beezley. "Is that the big kick?"
"Yes," replied Lakin.
Ellsworth Dr. Ronald Whitmer then followed up.
"Do you believe he was a U.S. citizen, President Obama?" he asked.
"I don't know," Lakin replied.
"...the long form of his birth certificate has been publicized," Whitmer said. "What does it take to make you believe that he is a U.S. citizen?"
"I think that I have a question and I don't think that question's been answered, but if this has to do with my medical capabilities...," said Lakin.
"What would make you have that answered?" said Whitmer.
Whitmer kept pressing Lakin.
"Say if and when he's elected again and the Reconciliation Act becomes law, which it already is, and all of a sudden we have 20 million more people who've got healthcare, are you going to refuse those people because this is?" asked Whitmer.
"No. No. No," insisted Lakin. "I was being ordered to a combat zone to, you know, put my life on the line."
Just as Lakin's medical record didn't matter to the board, another doctor's medical record also didn't matter to the panel.
KCTV5's investigation reveals that in 2008, the KSBHA board approved the license of another doctor with a history of medical mistakes and malpractice payouts. One patient died after a drill mishap in the operating room. A surgical error caused repeated electrical shocks to a second patient. And a third patient wasn't even that doctor's patient. The physician didn't notice, ended up performing brain surgery on the wrong man and caused permanent damage.
The board refused our repeated requests for an interview about the decisions it makes and the seeming disparity of these two cases. A renowned University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist, Art Caplan, agreed to weigh in on the situation.
"Political beliefs, I think, should play no role," said Caplan. "Is it going to be a popularity contest that decides what political views you can have as a doctor? Or is it going to be the majority views that decides what political views you can have? Obviously, again - I don't think this is relevant to who practices well."
Lakin agrees with Caplan. "I knew medical boards had a bad reputation. I had hoped this issue would have nothing to do with my practice."
Lakin's only recourse now is a judicial appeal, but he's uncertain that he can afford the costs. He has a book coming out this month detailing his experiences.
In the meantime, looking into the medical background of your doctor is no easy task. You can start with a search of the Kansas or Missouri board websites to see your doctor is under any disciplinary action. To uncover any history prior to practicing in Kansas or Missouri, you will have to file a records request with the state licensing board for your doctor's original state application.
To go to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, click here.
To go to the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, click here.
To listen to the hearing, click here.
Copyright 2012 KCTV (Meredith Corp.) All rights reserved.
TOPEKA, KS (KCTV) -
A Kansas board that denied a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine a license was primarily concerned about the man's political views.
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is a 15-member panel appointed by the governor and decides the fate of doctors in Kansas.
Terrence Lee Lakin rose to the ranks of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He served on the front lines in Afghanistan and the war zone in Bosnia as well as a medical mission to Honduras. He saved lives around the world and received a Bronze Star for his service.
"I like helping people," said Lakin. "And I've been, since college wanting to be in medical field and help others."
But a dispute over whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States led to Lakin being forced from the military and apparently led to the Kansas board in October denying him a medical license to practice in the Sunflower State.
The board repeatedly refused comment on their decision, but a transcript of Lakin's shows board members didn't concern themselves with Lakin's 18-year spotless medical record.
"They hammered me for my political views," said Lakin.
Nearly two years ago, the then lieutenant colonel asked for proof that Obama was born in the United States. When he didn't get it, Lakin announced via a video posted on www.safeguardourconstitution.com, "I will disobey my orders to deploy because I believe all servicemen and women and the American people deserve the truth about President Obama, the office of the presidency and the commander in chief."
In April 2010, citing a possible break in the chain of command, Lakin did refuse a second tour of duty to Afghanistan. In December of that year, he went through a court martial for missing movement and failing to obey a lawful order – both violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Lakin was found guilty of breaking military law, the Army gave him a dishonorable discharge, stripped him of his rank and sentenced him to a six-month prison term at Fort Leavenworth.
The dishonorable discharge had no bearing on Lakin's license to practice medicine in Maryland or Colorado. But the Kansas board ruled Lakin's refusal to deploy to Afghanistan "…potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for with applicant was employed to provide medical care."
The military dispatched another doctor to fill Lakin's mission.
The Oct. 21 hearing about Lakin's medical license lasted just 16 minutes. Lenexa physician Michael J. Beezley kicked off the questioning about Lakin's thoughts on the president.
"So I guess you need to explain the difference between going to Afghanistan in 2004 and going over there after President Obama was elected," said Beezley. "Is that the big kick?"
"Yes," replied Lakin.
Ellsworth Dr. Ronald Whitmer then followed up.
"Do you believe he was a U.S. citizen, President Obama?" he asked.
"I don't know," Lakin replied.
"...the long form of his birth certificate has been publicized," Whitmer said. "What does it take to make you believe that he is a U.S. citizen?"
"I think that I have a question and I don't think that question's been answered, but if this has to do with my medical capabilities...," said Lakin.
"What would make you have that answered?" said Whitmer.
Whitmer kept pressing Lakin.
"Say if and when he's elected again and the Reconciliation Act becomes law, which it already is, and all of a sudden we have 20 million more people who've got healthcare, are you going to refuse those people because this is?" asked Whitmer.
"No. No. No," insisted Lakin. "I was being ordered to a combat zone to, you know, put my life on the line."
Just as Lakin's medical record didn't matter to the board, another doctor's medical record also didn't matter to the panel.
KCTV5's investigation reveals that in 2008, the KSBHA board approved the license of another doctor with a history of medical mistakes and malpractice payouts. One patient died after a drill mishap in the operating room. A surgical error caused repeated electrical shocks to a second patient. And a third patient wasn't even that doctor's patient. The physician didn't notice, ended up performing brain surgery on the wrong man and caused permanent damage.
The board refused our repeated requests for an interview about the decisions it makes and the seeming disparity of these two cases. A renowned University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist, Art Caplan, agreed to weigh in on the situation.
"Political beliefs, I think, should play no role," said Caplan. "Is it going to be a popularity contest that decides what political views you can have as a doctor? Or is it going to be the majority views that decides what political views you can have? Obviously, again - I don't think this is relevant to who practices well."
Lakin agrees with Caplan. "I knew medical boards had a bad reputation. I had hoped this issue would have nothing to do with my practice."
Lakin's only recourse now is a judicial appeal, but he's uncertain that he can afford the costs. He has a book coming out this month detailing his experiences.
In the meantime, looking into the medical background of your doctor is no easy task. You can start with a search of the Kansas or Missouri board websites to see your doctor is under any disciplinary action. To uncover any history prior to practicing in Kansas or Missouri, you will have to file a records request with the state licensing board for your doctor's original state application.
To go to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, click here.
To go to the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, click here.
To listen to the hearing, click here.
Copyright 2012 KCTV (Meredith Corp.) All rights reserved.
Political parties win ballot suit; state law ruled unconstitutional
Johnson City Press:
A federal judge has ruled in favor of Tennessee’s Green and Constitution parties’ joint lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Nashville that claimed laws on the books violated the state constitution by making it unreasonably hard for third parties to get their names on the ballots.
“This is a great victory for voters in the state, because now we’ve made it easier for new parties to form,” said Alan Woodruff, a Johnson City attorney who announced his plans to represent the parties during a visit to the Johnson City Press last summer. “This ruling removes limitations and gives people an option. I believe in democracy and that everybody that has something to say should be on the ballot.”
Woodruff, a Democrat running against U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, R-1st, said that though he is affiliated with a major party, he got involved in the suit to fight for equity for all parties.
On Feb. 3, Judge William J. Haynes Jr. ruled in favor of claims by the plaintiffs and against Deputy Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter and defendants Tre Harget, secretary of state, and Mark Goins, coordinator of elections.
Both the Green and Constitution parties are recognized by state law as a “minor” parties, which, by definition means they are required to file a nominating petition with the state’s coordinator of elections. That petition must bear the signatures of a minimum of at least 2.5 percent of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election for governor.
Haynes wrote in his Feb. 3 order and/or judgment that he agreed with plaintiffs that that mark gives Goins leeway to raise the number at his discretion and therefore was “unconstitutionally vague, and imposes impermissible burdens on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to associate as a political party.”
For a “minor” political party to get its name on the Tennessee ballot in 2012, more than 40,000 signatures would have to be collected by April 5. This law has not applied to the Republican and Democrat, or “major,” parties.
Haynes wrote in his opinion that the deadline was too early and unconstitutional, and that a more reasonable number of signatures for the nominating petition would be 10,000. This will need to be settled in the General Assembly.
“Any deadline in excess of 60 days prior to the August primary for the filing of petitions for recognition as a political party is unenforceable,” he wrote.
Haynes also declared that minor parties cannot be required to conduct primaries, which currently is state law. Woodruff has claimed that primaries are much too expensive, especially for smaller parties, and that nominating conventions would help relieve that burden.
The judge also enjoined the state from banning the words “independent” and “non-partisan” in a party’s name as it appears on a ballot, stating it violated the First Amendment rights of free speech.
He also said the state’s requirement that major parties be listed highest on ballots followed by minor parties and independents was unlawful, saying this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Forth Amendment. He also ordered the state to hold a random drawing regarding the order of party names.
He also ruled against current state law that requires signatures on nominating petitions to be accompanied by party affiliation, stating this also violated First Amendment rights to privacy and political beliefs.
Kleinfelter was not immediately available for comment. However, a representative from the attorney general’s office said the judge’s opinion is being reviewed, but no decision has been made at this point as to what steps the state may take.
“They may appeal,” Woodruff said. “We would welcome a chance to argue before the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
A federal judge has ruled in favor of Tennessee’s Green and Constitution parties’ joint lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Nashville that claimed laws on the books violated the state constitution by making it unreasonably hard for third parties to get their names on the ballots.
“This is a great victory for voters in the state, because now we’ve made it easier for new parties to form,” said Alan Woodruff, a Johnson City attorney who announced his plans to represent the parties during a visit to the Johnson City Press last summer. “This ruling removes limitations and gives people an option. I believe in democracy and that everybody that has something to say should be on the ballot.”
Woodruff, a Democrat running against U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, R-1st, said that though he is affiliated with a major party, he got involved in the suit to fight for equity for all parties.
On Feb. 3, Judge William J. Haynes Jr. ruled in favor of claims by the plaintiffs and against Deputy Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter and defendants Tre Harget, secretary of state, and Mark Goins, coordinator of elections.
Both the Green and Constitution parties are recognized by state law as a “minor” parties, which, by definition means they are required to file a nominating petition with the state’s coordinator of elections. That petition must bear the signatures of a minimum of at least 2.5 percent of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election for governor.
Haynes wrote in his Feb. 3 order and/or judgment that he agreed with plaintiffs that that mark gives Goins leeway to raise the number at his discretion and therefore was “unconstitutionally vague, and imposes impermissible burdens on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to associate as a political party.”
For a “minor” political party to get its name on the Tennessee ballot in 2012, more than 40,000 signatures would have to be collected by April 5. This law has not applied to the Republican and Democrat, or “major,” parties.
Haynes wrote in his opinion that the deadline was too early and unconstitutional, and that a more reasonable number of signatures for the nominating petition would be 10,000. This will need to be settled in the General Assembly.
“Any deadline in excess of 60 days prior to the August primary for the filing of petitions for recognition as a political party is unenforceable,” he wrote.
Haynes also declared that minor parties cannot be required to conduct primaries, which currently is state law. Woodruff has claimed that primaries are much too expensive, especially for smaller parties, and that nominating conventions would help relieve that burden.
The judge also enjoined the state from banning the words “independent” and “non-partisan” in a party’s name as it appears on a ballot, stating it violated the First Amendment rights of free speech.
He also said the state’s requirement that major parties be listed highest on ballots followed by minor parties and independents was unlawful, saying this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Forth Amendment. He also ordered the state to hold a random drawing regarding the order of party names.
He also ruled against current state law that requires signatures on nominating petitions to be accompanied by party affiliation, stating this also violated First Amendment rights to privacy and political beliefs.
Kleinfelter was not immediately available for comment. However, a representative from the attorney general’s office said the judge’s opinion is being reviewed, but no decision has been made at this point as to what steps the state may take.
“They may appeal,” Woodruff said. “We would welcome a chance to argue before the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
Another Green Energy Company Stumbles: Fisker Announces Layoffs
ABC News:
Fisker Automotive, the maker of an exotic electric sports car that is being built with help from a $529 million federal government loan guarantee, has announced layoffs at its Delaware plant as it tries to persuade the Department of Energy to send it more public funds.
The company says 26 Fisker employees have been let go from the Delaware factory where renowned automotive engineer Henrik Fisker promised to one day begin producing affordable electric sedans. A Delaware newspaper also reported that subcontractors working on the car venture have been let go.
"It's temporary," said Roger Ormisher, a company spokesman. "We're being prudent and sensible as a company."
Fisker was one of a handful of auto companies to receive sizeable federal loans to help support the birth of an electric car industry in the United States. As ABC News reported in October, Fisker's efforts have been beset by delays. And despite benefitting from U.S. taxpayer support, the company had signed a contract with a firm in Finland to assemble its first generation electric vehicle, a flashy $97,000 sports coupe called the Karma.
Accompanying the layoffs was an announcement that Fisker has approached the Department of Energy about revising the targets it had to meet in order to continue drawing money from the federal loan. Whether the Energy Department agrees to alter the terms, and invest more taxpayer in the Fisker venture remains unclear. Critics of the Obama administration told ABC News they worried that Fisker was at risk of becoming the next Solyndra -- a reference to the now-bankrupt solar panel firm that received support from a government loan program.
Department of Energy officials said they understand that Fisker has experienced production delays, but said they are not uncommon for a new company. And the department remains hopeful about the company's future, in part because it has successfully raised more than $650 million in private sector investment to support its ongoing operations.
"Our loan guarantees have strict conditions in place to protect taxpayers," said DOE spokesman Damien LaVera. "The Department only allows the loan to be disbursed as the company meets certain milestones and demonstrates results. As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups. As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the Department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
When asked directly by ABC News in October if taxpayers should worry about the more than $500 million in federal funds on the line, Henrik Fisker was emphatic: "No, I don't think they need to worry about it." When asked if Fisker might be the next Solyndra, he said, "Absolutely not."
To date, Fisker has received $193 million in government funds, according to a company statement. Back in October, the company acknowledged outsourcing Karma assembly to Finland, but said that the bulk of its government funds would be used to launch a second-generation electric vehicle, still under wraps, that would be assembled in a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware. Some of those hired to prepare the Delaware plant for that effort were among those let go.
That project, code-named Project Nina, has been put off until sometime in 2013.
"We have temporarily delayed work at the plant based on ongoing discussions with the DOE regarding funding for the Project Nina program," the company's statement said. "As a result, we have laid off 26 people."
Ormisher said Fisker has delivered between 250 and 300 Fisker Karmas in the United States, and the company is nearing approval to sell the cars in Europe.
Obama Administration Attacked Over Solyndra
The Obama administration has for months now been grappling with political attacks targeting its efforts to finance green energy start-ups. The financial meltdown of Solyndra has been the focus of a Republican-led Congressional investigation and millions of dollars in attack ads by conservative groups.
The administration has defended its efforts, asserting that there has never been any evidence that political influence factored into decisions about which companies would receive Energy Department loans. Republicans cited political connections between the loan recipients and the Obama administration as the fuel for their suspicions. For instance, a top Obama fundraiser was also a chief private backer of Solyndra, the solar panel company. Similarly, a major investor in Fisker is a venture capital firm that lists former Vice President Al Gore as a partner.
Energy officials Monday touted a deal to recover money loaned to a less well-known firm, Beacon Power, which currently operates a 20-megawatt flywheel storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y. The company was the second recipient of Energy Department funds to file for bankruptcy. Under a deal announced today, taxpayers are expected to recover $28.7 million of the $39.5 million in federal funds that had been loaned to the struggling firm.
Fisker Automotive, the maker of an exotic electric sports car that is being built with help from a $529 million federal government loan guarantee, has announced layoffs at its Delaware plant as it tries to persuade the Department of Energy to send it more public funds.
The company says 26 Fisker employees have been let go from the Delaware factory where renowned automotive engineer Henrik Fisker promised to one day begin producing affordable electric sedans. A Delaware newspaper also reported that subcontractors working on the car venture have been let go.
"It's temporary," said Roger Ormisher, a company spokesman. "We're being prudent and sensible as a company."
Fisker was one of a handful of auto companies to receive sizeable federal loans to help support the birth of an electric car industry in the United States. As ABC News reported in October, Fisker's efforts have been beset by delays. And despite benefitting from U.S. taxpayer support, the company had signed a contract with a firm in Finland to assemble its first generation electric vehicle, a flashy $97,000 sports coupe called the Karma.
Accompanying the layoffs was an announcement that Fisker has approached the Department of Energy about revising the targets it had to meet in order to continue drawing money from the federal loan. Whether the Energy Department agrees to alter the terms, and invest more taxpayer in the Fisker venture remains unclear. Critics of the Obama administration told ABC News they worried that Fisker was at risk of becoming the next Solyndra -- a reference to the now-bankrupt solar panel firm that received support from a government loan program.
Department of Energy officials said they understand that Fisker has experienced production delays, but said they are not uncommon for a new company. And the department remains hopeful about the company's future, in part because it has successfully raised more than $650 million in private sector investment to support its ongoing operations.
"Our loan guarantees have strict conditions in place to protect taxpayers," said DOE spokesman Damien LaVera. "The Department only allows the loan to be disbursed as the company meets certain milestones and demonstrates results. As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups. As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the Department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
When asked directly by ABC News in October if taxpayers should worry about the more than $500 million in federal funds on the line, Henrik Fisker was emphatic: "No, I don't think they need to worry about it." When asked if Fisker might be the next Solyndra, he said, "Absolutely not."
To date, Fisker has received $193 million in government funds, according to a company statement. Back in October, the company acknowledged outsourcing Karma assembly to Finland, but said that the bulk of its government funds would be used to launch a second-generation electric vehicle, still under wraps, that would be assembled in a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware. Some of those hired to prepare the Delaware plant for that effort were among those let go.
That project, code-named Project Nina, has been put off until sometime in 2013.
"We have temporarily delayed work at the plant based on ongoing discussions with the DOE regarding funding for the Project Nina program," the company's statement said. "As a result, we have laid off 26 people."
Ormisher said Fisker has delivered between 250 and 300 Fisker Karmas in the United States, and the company is nearing approval to sell the cars in Europe.
Obama Administration Attacked Over Solyndra
The Obama administration has for months now been grappling with political attacks targeting its efforts to finance green energy start-ups. The financial meltdown of Solyndra has been the focus of a Republican-led Congressional investigation and millions of dollars in attack ads by conservative groups.
The administration has defended its efforts, asserting that there has never been any evidence that political influence factored into decisions about which companies would receive Energy Department loans. Republicans cited political connections between the loan recipients and the Obama administration as the fuel for their suspicions. For instance, a top Obama fundraiser was also a chief private backer of Solyndra, the solar panel company. Similarly, a major investor in Fisker is a venture capital firm that lists former Vice President Al Gore as a partner.
Energy officials Monday touted a deal to recover money loaned to a less well-known firm, Beacon Power, which currently operates a 20-megawatt flywheel storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y. The company was the second recipient of Energy Department funds to file for bankruptcy. Under a deal announced today, taxpayers are expected to recover $28.7 million of the $39.5 million in federal funds that had been loaned to the struggling firm.
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
Forbes:
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.
An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.
But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.
The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.
Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:
“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.”
In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.
Here’s why:
First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.
The results of the past 40 years say the opposite.
The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971. The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.
The Fed’s most recent experience with Quantitative Easing also belies the entire notion that monetary manipulation can spur the economy. Between November 2010 and June 2011, the Fed tried to spur economic growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities, flooding the banking system with reserves and keeping interest rates low. In response the economy, which had been growing at a 3.4% annual rate, slowed to a 1% annual rate in the first half of 2011. Once, the Fed stopped supplying all of that liquidity, economic growth in the second half of the year accelerated to a 2.3% annual rate.
Second, the Fed does not use real time indicators of the price level. Instead, it views inflation through the rear view mirror of the trailing increases in the PCE. And, even when it had evidence of rising inflation — as it did in the first quarter of last year — it chose to temporize, betting that the spike in inflation would prove temporary.
This spike in inflation did prove temporary, as Fed Chairman Bernanke predicted at the time, but not for the reasons — a slack economy — that he cited. Instead, the growing debt crisis in Europe led to a massive shift in deposits out of the euro and into the dollar — an event totally out of the Fed’s control. Yet, this increase in the demand for dollars was far more important than any action taken by the Fed because it increased the value of the dollar and produced a slowdown in the inflation rate.
What we are left with is a trial and error monetary system that depends on the best judgment of 19 men and women who meet every six weeks around a big table at the Federal Reserve in Washington. At the end of a day and a half of discussions, 11 of them vote on what to do next. The error the members of the FOMC fear most when they vote is deflation. So, they have built in a 2% margin of error.
Given the crudeness of the tools the FOMC uses to set monetary policy, allowing for such a margin of error is no doubt prudent. For example, when the economy slowed in the first half of last year, inflation picked up, accelerating to a 6.1% annual rate during the second quarter. And, when the economic growth accelerated in the second half, inflation slowed. These results are the precise opposite of what the Fed’s playbook says are supposed to happen.
The best the Fed can do — an average debauch in the dollar’s value of 2% a year while producing recurring financial crises and a more cyclical economy — is demonstrably inferior to the results produced by the classical gold standard. Here’s just one example. The largest gold discovery of modern times set off the 1849 California gold rush and increased the supply of gold in the world faster than the increase in the output of goods and services. The price level in the U.S. did increase by12.4 percent over the next 8 years. That translates into an average of just 1.5% a year. The gold standard at its worst was better than the best the Fed now promises to do with the paper dollar.
The Fed’s best is hardly good enough. The time has arrived for the American people to demand something far better — a dollar as good as gold.
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.
An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.
But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.
The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.
Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:
“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.”
In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.
Here’s why:
First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.
The results of the past 40 years say the opposite.
The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971. The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.
The Fed’s most recent experience with Quantitative Easing also belies the entire notion that monetary manipulation can spur the economy. Between November 2010 and June 2011, the Fed tried to spur economic growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities, flooding the banking system with reserves and keeping interest rates low. In response the economy, which had been growing at a 3.4% annual rate, slowed to a 1% annual rate in the first half of 2011. Once, the Fed stopped supplying all of that liquidity, economic growth in the second half of the year accelerated to a 2.3% annual rate.
Second, the Fed does not use real time indicators of the price level. Instead, it views inflation through the rear view mirror of the trailing increases in the PCE. And, even when it had evidence of rising inflation — as it did in the first quarter of last year — it chose to temporize, betting that the spike in inflation would prove temporary.
This spike in inflation did prove temporary, as Fed Chairman Bernanke predicted at the time, but not for the reasons — a slack economy — that he cited. Instead, the growing debt crisis in Europe led to a massive shift in deposits out of the euro and into the dollar — an event totally out of the Fed’s control. Yet, this increase in the demand for dollars was far more important than any action taken by the Fed because it increased the value of the dollar and produced a slowdown in the inflation rate.
What we are left with is a trial and error monetary system that depends on the best judgment of 19 men and women who meet every six weeks around a big table at the Federal Reserve in Washington. At the end of a day and a half of discussions, 11 of them vote on what to do next. The error the members of the FOMC fear most when they vote is deflation. So, they have built in a 2% margin of error.
Given the crudeness of the tools the FOMC uses to set monetary policy, allowing for such a margin of error is no doubt prudent. For example, when the economy slowed in the first half of last year, inflation picked up, accelerating to a 6.1% annual rate during the second quarter. And, when the economic growth accelerated in the second half, inflation slowed. These results are the precise opposite of what the Fed’s playbook says are supposed to happen.
The best the Fed can do — an average debauch in the dollar’s value of 2% a year while producing recurring financial crises and a more cyclical economy — is demonstrably inferior to the results produced by the classical gold standard. Here’s just one example. The largest gold discovery of modern times set off the 1849 California gold rush and increased the supply of gold in the world faster than the increase in the output of goods and services. The price level in the U.S. did increase by12.4 percent over the next 8 years. That translates into an average of just 1.5% a year. The gold standard at its worst was better than the best the Fed now promises to do with the paper dollar.
The Fed’s best is hardly good enough. The time has arrived for the American people to demand something far better — a dollar as good as gold.
Is a Long Primary Fight Good for the GOP?
Townhall:
"46 STATES TO GO."
That was the sign on Newt Gingrich's podium in an Orlando ballroom last Tuesday, when the former House speaker faced supporters after losing the Florida primary and defiantly conceded nothing.
"We are going to contest every place, and we are going to win," Gingrich said, "and we will be in Tampa as the nominee in August."
Even with every political breeze at his back, Gingrich couldn't contest every remaining state. He failed to qualify for the March 6 Virginia primary, and he won't be on Missouri's nonbinding ballot this week. But if he's serious about having it out with Mitt Romney in a long, grueling slog for the Republican nomination, the next several months will be brutal, exhausting, and increasingly bitter. Would that be good for the GOP?
Well, that's one theory.
Sarah Palin says it would. As she did before the South Carolina and Florida primaries, the former GOP vice-presidential candidate last week urged voters in Nevada "to allow the process to continue" by backing Gingrich in Saturday's caucuses. "Competition breeds success for the US, and that's what we need in this debate," she told Fox News.
There was a similar message on election night in Florida from Ralph Reed, who has served as executive director of the Christian Coalition and as chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Asked on CNN whether President Obama should be relishing the prospect of a long, bruising battle between Romney and Gingrich, Reed said he should not -- and cited Obama's own marathon in 2008 against Hillary Clinton. "No question about it: Obama was a tougher, a better, and a more disciplined candidate in the general because of her."
Reed also pointed to GOP history.
"This is a recurrent drama within the Republican Party that goes all the way back to the Eisenhower-Taft battle at the convention in '52," he said. "It reaches its crescendo with Goldwater-Rockefeller. Then it's replayed again with Reagan and Ford in '76; they go all the way to the convention. The fact is, there's nothing but good out of a muscular, competitive, hard-fought primary, as long as you can reconcile at the convention."
Yet if "nothing but good" includes winning presidential elections, Reed's history doesn't bear out his argument. Of the three epic GOP nomination clashes he mentioned, only one -- Dwight Eisenhower's victory over Robert Taft in 1952 -- ended with a Republican in the White House. Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, and Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Carter in 1976. Though Reed didn't mention Wendell Willkie's remarkable insurgency in 1940, or the blockbuster fight in 1912 between President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt, they too were "muscular, competitive, hard-fought" struggles between Republicans. And they too ended with a Democrat elected president.
The idea that a drawn-out nomination battle can be good for the party is not without merit. A string of competitive primary fights prods good candidates to sharpen their messaging, improve their debate skills, and assemble a seasoned, adroit campaign team. "A competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us," Romney said in his Florida victory speech. One pro-Romney website depicts the Republican frontrunner with bulging muscles, rolled sleeves, and squared jaw, above a logo reading: "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!"
He has good reason to be smiling.
Still, it's hard to see how a Republican victory in November becomes more likely if Romney, Gingrich, and Rick Santorum spend the next several months bashing each other instead of Obama. Each intraparty attack supplies ammunition that Democrats will happily recycle. Taken together, they can't help but tarnish the image of the eventual GOP nominee, driving up his unfavorability among voters generally.
And yet it may be that nothing happening on the GOP side in 2012 is more important than what isn't happening on the Democratic side: Obama faces no renomination challenge. Many on the left are less than thrilled with Obama's performance. But unlike 1980, when Ted Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination away from Carter, Democrats in 2012 will nominate Obama for a second term without a fight.
That may make all the difference. In modern times, the only presidents defeated for re-election were those who went through a bruising primary season first. Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush overcame their respective in-party opponents (Reagan, Kennedy, and Patrick Buchanan). Then they they lost the White House to the other party's nominee.
An excellent case can be made that Obama's presidency should be a one-term proposition, and the Republican nominee can be counted on to make it. But the GOP may have lost its best chance to win back the White House when no Democratic candidate stepped up to make it first.
"46 STATES TO GO."
That was the sign on Newt Gingrich's podium in an Orlando ballroom last Tuesday, when the former House speaker faced supporters after losing the Florida primary and defiantly conceded nothing.
"We are going to contest every place, and we are going to win," Gingrich said, "and we will be in Tampa as the nominee in August."
Even with every political breeze at his back, Gingrich couldn't contest every remaining state. He failed to qualify for the March 6 Virginia primary, and he won't be on Missouri's nonbinding ballot this week. But if he's serious about having it out with Mitt Romney in a long, grueling slog for the Republican nomination, the next several months will be brutal, exhausting, and increasingly bitter. Would that be good for the GOP?
Well, that's one theory.
Sarah Palin says it would. As she did before the South Carolina and Florida primaries, the former GOP vice-presidential candidate last week urged voters in Nevada "to allow the process to continue" by backing Gingrich in Saturday's caucuses. "Competition breeds success for the US, and that's what we need in this debate," she told Fox News.
There was a similar message on election night in Florida from Ralph Reed, who has served as executive director of the Christian Coalition and as chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Asked on CNN whether President Obama should be relishing the prospect of a long, bruising battle between Romney and Gingrich, Reed said he should not -- and cited Obama's own marathon in 2008 against Hillary Clinton. "No question about it: Obama was a tougher, a better, and a more disciplined candidate in the general because of her."
Reed also pointed to GOP history.
"This is a recurrent drama within the Republican Party that goes all the way back to the Eisenhower-Taft battle at the convention in '52," he said. "It reaches its crescendo with Goldwater-Rockefeller. Then it's replayed again with Reagan and Ford in '76; they go all the way to the convention. The fact is, there's nothing but good out of a muscular, competitive, hard-fought primary, as long as you can reconcile at the convention."
Yet if "nothing but good" includes winning presidential elections, Reed's history doesn't bear out his argument. Of the three epic GOP nomination clashes he mentioned, only one -- Dwight Eisenhower's victory over Robert Taft in 1952 -- ended with a Republican in the White House. Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, and Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Carter in 1976. Though Reed didn't mention Wendell Willkie's remarkable insurgency in 1940, or the blockbuster fight in 1912 between President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt, they too were "muscular, competitive, hard-fought" struggles between Republicans. And they too ended with a Democrat elected president.
The idea that a drawn-out nomination battle can be good for the party is not without merit. A string of competitive primary fights prods good candidates to sharpen their messaging, improve their debate skills, and assemble a seasoned, adroit campaign team. "A competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us," Romney said in his Florida victory speech. One pro-Romney website depicts the Republican frontrunner with bulging muscles, rolled sleeves, and squared jaw, above a logo reading: "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!"
He has good reason to be smiling.
Still, it's hard to see how a Republican victory in November becomes more likely if Romney, Gingrich, and Rick Santorum spend the next several months bashing each other instead of Obama. Each intraparty attack supplies ammunition that Democrats will happily recycle. Taken together, they can't help but tarnish the image of the eventual GOP nominee, driving up his unfavorability among voters generally.
And yet it may be that nothing happening on the GOP side in 2012 is more important than what isn't happening on the Democratic side: Obama faces no renomination challenge. Many on the left are less than thrilled with Obama's performance. But unlike 1980, when Ted Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination away from Carter, Democrats in 2012 will nominate Obama for a second term without a fight.
That may make all the difference. In modern times, the only presidents defeated for re-election were those who went through a bruising primary season first. Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush overcame their respective in-party opponents (Reagan, Kennedy, and Patrick Buchanan). Then they they lost the White House to the other party's nominee.
An excellent case can be made that Obama's presidency should be a one-term proposition, and the Republican nominee can be counted on to make it. But the GOP may have lost its best chance to win back the White House when no Democratic candidate stepped up to make it first.
Big Day for Santorum
PPP:
Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today's contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He's at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.
Santorum's personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He's far better liked than his main opponents- Romney's favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich's is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum's been largely left alone and he's benefiting from that now.
There are three groups Santorum's winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as 'very conservative.' Those were groups that had previously been in Gingrich's column, but it appears right leaning Republican voters are shifting toward Santorum as their primary alternative to Romney. If Santorum does pick up 2 wins and a 2nd place finish tomorrow that trend is likely to be accelerated.
The race in these three states is unusually volatile. 38% of voters in Missouri, 35% in Minnesota, and 31% in Colorado say that they're still open to changing their votes. If there's a good piece of news for Romney in this polling it's that his supporters are more firmly committed than Santorum's in all three states. He has a firmer base of support he can rely on to show up for him tomorrow than Santorum does.
Tuesday has the potential to be the most significant day in the Republican race yet.
Full results here
Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today's contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He's at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.
Santorum's personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He's far better liked than his main opponents- Romney's favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich's is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum's been largely left alone and he's benefiting from that now.
There are three groups Santorum's winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as 'very conservative.' Those were groups that had previously been in Gingrich's column, but it appears right leaning Republican voters are shifting toward Santorum as their primary alternative to Romney. If Santorum does pick up 2 wins and a 2nd place finish tomorrow that trend is likely to be accelerated.
The race in these three states is unusually volatile. 38% of voters in Missouri, 35% in Minnesota, and 31% in Colorado say that they're still open to changing their votes. If there's a good piece of news for Romney in this polling it's that his supporters are more firmly committed than Santorum's in all three states. He has a firmer base of support he can rely on to show up for him tomorrow than Santorum does.
Tuesday has the potential to be the most significant day in the Republican race yet.
Full results here
Note to the Establishment: Rebellion is no longer "brewing" - rebellion is HERE.
Table of Wisdom:
Dick Morris was practically CRYING on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program about how we need to stop attacking Mitt Romney, especially the three conservative candidates in the race.
Ann Coulter was up next on Hannity where the two of them played out a charade that almost looked rehearsed. Coulter was just fawning over the very thought of Romney saying how we “should all be celebrating because we have a conservative candidate” and she even blasphemously compared Romney to Reagan. There’s a hole in Ann’s theory. Maybe Mitt can smile like Ronald Reagan and even make a half decent speech. The problem is that Ronald Reagan was not a pretentious bullshitting socialist.
I guess Ann figures she has made enough money because she is all-in with this modern day Elmer Gantry and her career will forever be linked to this impetuous infatuation along with her honorary board chairmanship of “GoProud”.
Ann was also bragging to Sean tonight about how she accosted Romney after a fund raiser and told him “you owe me”! Talk about a “slobbering Love Affair”. I’m sure Bernie Goldberg didn’t have Ann Coulter in mind when he wrote his book but that is exactly what we are witnessing here. Ann is demonstrating the same type of delusions as we witnessed in 2008 from people like Oprah, Chris Matthews & Joy Behar over Obama.
Ann Romney may want to keep an eye on these two before Mitt ends up moving them to Mexico like his Grandfather did so they can all be married together. Well, on second thought, Mexico really needs a good “turn around specialist” of their own. It might be a better fit.
Nevertheless, I am TIRED of hearing these whining sell-outs tell us we shouldn’t be exposing Romney’s socialist governmental record. It’s the only record he has so those of us who are not susceptible to crushes are going to point out the fact that the GOP is pushing a socialist all the way to the convention against the will of the MAJORITY of the party.
“Oh but the 11th Commandment… wahhhh, wahhhhh” Let me be clear: The venerable President Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century – but he was not God incarnate nor did he make any such pretense. He was right about most things but nobody is right about EVERYTHING.
Judging by the results of the past 24 years of my entire voting life in which I ALWAYS voted for the establishment candidate since turning 18 in 1988 – I’m going to say that THE “11TH Commandment” is at least –one- thing that President Reagan got wrong and if he saw the unmitigated abandonment of basic sense that I’m seeing by this cult-like Romney worship – I think President Reagan would agree that the 11th Commandment – NO LONGER APPLIES to this generation.
On that note let me conclude by saying that my resolute line-in-the-sand is not a scenario of “if you don’t support MY CANDIDATE, I’m going to take my toys and go home”. This is about the fact that I will NEVER debase my country or my honor by knowingly voting for a statist like Mitt Romney. There are three other candidates in this race besides Romney and I will gladly vote for ANY ONE OF THEM if they are nominated.
It is the choice of the GOP and the Moderate Murdoch Media if they want to cram this guy who according to them (about 100 times on Sunday alone) “already looks like the nominee…” down our throats and help this liberal hi-jack the party as they did with John McCain – it is THEY WHO ARE ELECTING BARACK OBAMA because they are warned with ample time and they are swimming against the stream of all basic sense in pushing this unacceptable candidate.
Rebellion is no longer "brewing"; rebellion is HERE.
In order not to make this column any longer, I am attaching this link to my prior commentary where I elucidate more on Romney’s socialistic propensity and undeniable socialist TRACK RECORD in government:
Dick Morris was practically CRYING on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program about how we need to stop attacking Mitt Romney, especially the three conservative candidates in the race.
Ann Coulter was up next on Hannity where the two of them played out a charade that almost looked rehearsed. Coulter was just fawning over the very thought of Romney saying how we “should all be celebrating because we have a conservative candidate” and she even blasphemously compared Romney to Reagan. There’s a hole in Ann’s theory. Maybe Mitt can smile like Ronald Reagan and even make a half decent speech. The problem is that Ronald Reagan was not a pretentious bullshitting socialist.
I guess Ann figures she has made enough money because she is all-in with this modern day Elmer Gantry and her career will forever be linked to this impetuous infatuation along with her honorary board chairmanship of “GoProud”.
Ann was also bragging to Sean tonight about how she accosted Romney after a fund raiser and told him “you owe me”! Talk about a “slobbering Love Affair”. I’m sure Bernie Goldberg didn’t have Ann Coulter in mind when he wrote his book but that is exactly what we are witnessing here. Ann is demonstrating the same type of delusions as we witnessed in 2008 from people like Oprah, Chris Matthews & Joy Behar over Obama.
Ann Romney may want to keep an eye on these two before Mitt ends up moving them to Mexico like his Grandfather did so they can all be married together. Well, on second thought, Mexico really needs a good “turn around specialist” of their own. It might be a better fit.
Nevertheless, I am TIRED of hearing these whining sell-outs tell us we shouldn’t be exposing Romney’s socialist governmental record. It’s the only record he has so those of us who are not susceptible to crushes are going to point out the fact that the GOP is pushing a socialist all the way to the convention against the will of the MAJORITY of the party.
“Oh but the 11th Commandment… wahhhh, wahhhhh” Let me be clear: The venerable President Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century – but he was not God incarnate nor did he make any such pretense. He was right about most things but nobody is right about EVERYTHING.
Judging by the results of the past 24 years of my entire voting life in which I ALWAYS voted for the establishment candidate since turning 18 in 1988 – I’m going to say that THE “11TH Commandment” is at least –one- thing that President Reagan got wrong and if he saw the unmitigated abandonment of basic sense that I’m seeing by this cult-like Romney worship – I think President Reagan would agree that the 11th Commandment – NO LONGER APPLIES to this generation.
On that note let me conclude by saying that my resolute line-in-the-sand is not a scenario of “if you don’t support MY CANDIDATE, I’m going to take my toys and go home”. This is about the fact that I will NEVER debase my country or my honor by knowingly voting for a statist like Mitt Romney. There are three other candidates in this race besides Romney and I will gladly vote for ANY ONE OF THEM if they are nominated.
It is the choice of the GOP and the Moderate Murdoch Media if they want to cram this guy who according to them (about 100 times on Sunday alone) “already looks like the nominee…” down our throats and help this liberal hi-jack the party as they did with John McCain – it is THEY WHO ARE ELECTING BARACK OBAMA because they are warned with ample time and they are swimming against the stream of all basic sense in pushing this unacceptable candidate.
Rebellion is no longer "brewing"; rebellion is HERE.
In order not to make this column any longer, I am attaching this link to my prior commentary where I elucidate more on Romney’s socialistic propensity and undeniable socialist TRACK RECORD in government:
Shock confession, Greek Government Extortionists ring Breaks Silence.
via FreeRepublic:
Reporters: Peter Kousoulis
The omertà broke. So the abscess with corrupt officials of the Ministry of Finance, the headquarters of employees of Financial Crime, the tax offices perjurer bosses and their political 'friends', accomplices in the great "feast" that occurred and occurs at the expense of the State.
The man at the other end of the line sounds scared.
"Since we ate all the pie and evenly," he says. Is Nick Kasimatis, number one debtor government according to the list recently published by the Ministry of Finance. He spoke on the radio show "rock of scandal" of zougla radio. Today, owes an amount of 952,087,781 euros and is serving 504 years in prison.
Phoning from prison Read and wants to tell "the whole truth."
A bitter truth that the whole system xemprostiazei institutional underworld. Controllers to be controlled, but not controlled. Heads of tax offices, executives and Financial Crime "megalokarcharies" of the Ministry of Finance who star in the 4-4-2 system which had denounced the former secretary general of information systems, Mr. Diomedes Spinelis.
With their assistance, the assistance of "white collars" Nick Kasimatis able to realize greater economic gulf in decades.
To set up a circuit with 30 companies that took monkey-VAT refunds from the State. He is the instigator. The perpetrators remain at large. Serving in the "yard" of the Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, in the heart of the Financial Crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at zougla.gr ...
Reporters: Peter Kousoulis
The omertà broke. So the abscess with corrupt officials of the Ministry of Finance, the headquarters of employees of Financial Crime, the tax offices perjurer bosses and their political 'friends', accomplices in the great "feast" that occurred and occurs at the expense of the State.
The man at the other end of the line sounds scared.
"Since we ate all the pie and evenly," he says. Is Nick Kasimatis, number one debtor government according to the list recently published by the Ministry of Finance. He spoke on the radio show "rock of scandal" of zougla radio. Today, owes an amount of 952,087,781 euros and is serving 504 years in prison.
Phoning from prison Read and wants to tell "the whole truth."
A bitter truth that the whole system xemprostiazei institutional underworld. Controllers to be controlled, but not controlled. Heads of tax offices, executives and Financial Crime "megalokarcharies" of the Ministry of Finance who star in the 4-4-2 system which had denounced the former secretary general of information systems, Mr. Diomedes Spinelis.
With their assistance, the assistance of "white collars" Nick Kasimatis able to realize greater economic gulf in decades.
To set up a circuit with 30 companies that took monkey-VAT refunds from the State. He is the instigator. The perpetrators remain at large. Serving in the "yard" of the Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, in the heart of the Financial Crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at zougla.gr ...
Again, Why Not Santorum?
He’s a true conservative and he can win.
National Review:
Missouri’s “beauty contest” primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum’s big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.
The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn’t been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Let’s start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct “horse race” numbers. Second, poll “internals,” along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.
If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That’s a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.
Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich’s polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That’s why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can’t.
When the “internals” are analyzed, Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president. Fear of the unknown runs strong. Even against an absurdly weak Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was only in the last week that voters swung sharply Reagan’s way: They needed reassurance, from watching his demeanor in debates, that he wasn’t the nuclear cowboy the Left tried to portray. Santorum’s palpable decency and sincerity can offer a similar reassurance against Obama. Someone as volatile as Gingrich cannot.
Santorum’s track record also indicates that he wears well over time. Witness his success in the Iowa caucuses, where voters had many months to size up the candidates. Witness his four upset (or at best even-money) victories in Pennsylvania. He doesn’t offer flash and sizzle, but in a long campaign, such as in the media-intensive slog that is a general-election presidential race, his personal and political virtues have time to become more apparent.
This is especially true when one considers that he has come so far already despite being the least well-funded of any candidate in the race. Santorum knows how to live off the land and still find ways to win. In the fall campaign, though, money will be no problem for him. The stakes are so high that no Republican-leaning donor will stay on the sidelines. If Santorum can compete as well as he has without a big war chest, imagine what he can do with serious financial resources behind him.
Meanwhile, he’s steady as a rock. For all of Gingrich’s and Romney’s vaunted debating skills, both of them have put forth at least two real clunkers of debate performances. Santorum hasn’t had a single bad debate or a single major stumble, and his reviews have become only more favorable with each contest. In a race where the economic lay of the land disfavors the incumbent, flash matters less than solidity in a challenger. It probably won’t require some sort of game-changing debate performance for a Republican to defeat Obama — but a game-changing gaffe or embarrassment could well lose it. Of all the Republican candidates, Santorum has shown himself the least prone to such gaffes.
Meanwhile, conservative leaders finally are beginning to rally around Santorum. Just in the last week they have begun to pour in. In Nevada, he secured the backing of tea party favorite Sharron Angle, while Gingrich is reportedly fading. In Colorado, Santorum achieved an absolutely remarkable troika of endorsements: anti-illegal-immigration hardliner Tom Tancredo and solid mainstream conservative Bob Schaffer, both former House members, along with the far more “establishment” (but still clearly conservative) former lieutenant governor Jane Norton. If he did that on a national scale, it would be like securing the backing of the Buchanan wing, the original Reagan wing, and the Bob Michel wing of the GOP.
Also stepping up for Santorum in the past week were conservative columnists extraordinaire Michelle Malkin and David Limbaugh. They join a growing list of dozens of key state legislators across the country and, quite significantly, nationally known conservative worthies such as Richard Viguerie, Gary Bauer, Michael Farris, James Dobson, Elaine Donnelly, Colin Hanna, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Boone, and Maggie Gallagher, along with the well-publicized votes of social conservative leaders who met in Texas a few weeks back, as announced by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins.
It’s also hard to find a major national conservative leader who thinks poorly of Santorum. (Gingrich is just the opposite.) While they haven’t endorsed, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, William Bennett, and NR’s own Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez are among the many who have had plenty of kind things to say about him. He could unify the Right, whereas the viciously bitter fights between Romney and Gingrich make it very clear that large numbers of Republican activists feel too passionately against one of the other two to lend any real assistance if their disfavored candidate gets the nomination.
All of which is to say that Santorum’s potential for electoral strength is good, while his risk of disaster is rather low. Right now the only thing keeping him from being a clear winner is the failure of even more Reaganite leaders — all of whom know him to be a dependable, full-spectrum conservative — to stand up for him in the same way that he has stood up for conservative principles for so long. With Malkin, Angle, Limbaugh, and Bob Schaffer now coming on board, that odd reluctance might be coming to an end.
If it does, watch Rick Santorum surge again.
— Quin Hillyer is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom and a senior editor for The American Spectator.
National Review:
Missouri’s “beauty contest” primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum’s big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.
The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn’t been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Let’s start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct “horse race” numbers. Second, poll “internals,” along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.
If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That’s a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.
Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich’s polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That’s why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can’t.
When the “internals” are analyzed, Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president. Fear of the unknown runs strong. Even against an absurdly weak Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was only in the last week that voters swung sharply Reagan’s way: They needed reassurance, from watching his demeanor in debates, that he wasn’t the nuclear cowboy the Left tried to portray. Santorum’s palpable decency and sincerity can offer a similar reassurance against Obama. Someone as volatile as Gingrich cannot.
Santorum’s track record also indicates that he wears well over time. Witness his success in the Iowa caucuses, where voters had many months to size up the candidates. Witness his four upset (or at best even-money) victories in Pennsylvania. He doesn’t offer flash and sizzle, but in a long campaign, such as in the media-intensive slog that is a general-election presidential race, his personal and political virtues have time to become more apparent.
This is especially true when one considers that he has come so far already despite being the least well-funded of any candidate in the race. Santorum knows how to live off the land and still find ways to win. In the fall campaign, though, money will be no problem for him. The stakes are so high that no Republican-leaning donor will stay on the sidelines. If Santorum can compete as well as he has without a big war chest, imagine what he can do with serious financial resources behind him.
Meanwhile, he’s steady as a rock. For all of Gingrich’s and Romney’s vaunted debating skills, both of them have put forth at least two real clunkers of debate performances. Santorum hasn’t had a single bad debate or a single major stumble, and his reviews have become only more favorable with each contest. In a race where the economic lay of the land disfavors the incumbent, flash matters less than solidity in a challenger. It probably won’t require some sort of game-changing debate performance for a Republican to defeat Obama — but a game-changing gaffe or embarrassment could well lose it. Of all the Republican candidates, Santorum has shown himself the least prone to such gaffes.
Meanwhile, conservative leaders finally are beginning to rally around Santorum. Just in the last week they have begun to pour in. In Nevada, he secured the backing of tea party favorite Sharron Angle, while Gingrich is reportedly fading. In Colorado, Santorum achieved an absolutely remarkable troika of endorsements: anti-illegal-immigration hardliner Tom Tancredo and solid mainstream conservative Bob Schaffer, both former House members, along with the far more “establishment” (but still clearly conservative) former lieutenant governor Jane Norton. If he did that on a national scale, it would be like securing the backing of the Buchanan wing, the original Reagan wing, and the Bob Michel wing of the GOP.
Also stepping up for Santorum in the past week were conservative columnists extraordinaire Michelle Malkin and David Limbaugh. They join a growing list of dozens of key state legislators across the country and, quite significantly, nationally known conservative worthies such as Richard Viguerie, Gary Bauer, Michael Farris, James Dobson, Elaine Donnelly, Colin Hanna, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Boone, and Maggie Gallagher, along with the well-publicized votes of social conservative leaders who met in Texas a few weeks back, as announced by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins.
It’s also hard to find a major national conservative leader who thinks poorly of Santorum. (Gingrich is just the opposite.) While they haven’t endorsed, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, William Bennett, and NR’s own Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez are among the many who have had plenty of kind things to say about him. He could unify the Right, whereas the viciously bitter fights between Romney and Gingrich make it very clear that large numbers of Republican activists feel too passionately against one of the other two to lend any real assistance if their disfavored candidate gets the nomination.
All of which is to say that Santorum’s potential for electoral strength is good, while his risk of disaster is rather low. Right now the only thing keeping him from being a clear winner is the failure of even more Reaganite leaders — all of whom know him to be a dependable, full-spectrum conservative — to stand up for him in the same way that he has stood up for conservative principles for so long. With Malkin, Angle, Limbaugh, and Bob Schaffer now coming on board, that odd reluctance might be coming to an end.
If it does, watch Rick Santorum surge again.
— Quin Hillyer is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom and a senior editor for The American Spectator.
Santorum Pursues Surge in Colorado & Minnesota
Washington Times:
DENVER — The Republican presidential race could be headed for another reshuffle Tuesday as Rick Santorum, who has lagged behind since his surprise Iowa victory, is once again challenging the dominance of front-runner Mitt Romney.
Polling over the past week shows Mr. Santorum statistically tied with Mr. Romney in Minnesota, besting him in Missouri, and running second to him but ahead of rival Newt Gingrich in Colorado, all of which hold contests Tuesday.
Mr. Romney’s camp took notice, firing the kinds of broadsides it generally has aimed at Mr. Gingrich. Romney surrogates on Monday accused Mr. Santorum of pork-barrel spending. The Romney campaign also tried to blunt Mr. Santorum’s attacks by pointing out that the former senator from Pennsylvania endorsed Mr. Romney in 2008.
“Typical Romney,” Mr. Santorum said on the campaign trail, dismissing the criticism.
“He goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear, even though he is as vulnerable on this issue as anybody,” said Mr. Santorum. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”
Minnesota and Colorado hold caucuses Tuesday, while Missouri holds a nonbinding primary — and with Mr. Gingrich having failed to get on that state’s ballot, it offers the first test of Mr. Romney versus a single conservative opponent.
Fresh off his second consecutive victory in Nevada on Saturday, Mr. Romney hoped to use February’s relatively light schedule to build his lead in delegates, but he found himself Monday trying to dent Mr. Santorum’s momentum.
His campaign sent out the press release it issued in 2008 with moderately glowing praise from Mr. Santorum’s endorsement, and in a conference call with reporters, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Romney supporter, criticized Mr. Santorum for his “long history of pork-barrel spending,” pointing to his support for earmarks.
“If you look at his record, it’s not a perfect conservative record by a long shot,” Mr. Pawlenty said.
Mr. Santorum defends earmarking as Congress‘ right, but has said the practice should be suspended given recent abuses and he would enforce that as president.
The 2012 race has been turbulent, with Mr. Santorum winning Iowa’s caucuses, Mr. Romney winning New Hampshire’s primary, Mr. Gingrich winning South Carolina’s primary and Mr. Romney winning Florida’s primary and Nevada’s caucuses.
But in Iowa and Nevada, Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, won fewer overall votes than he did in 2008, when he lost the GOP nomination to Sen. John McCain.
That is worrisome news heading into caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, which Mr. Romney won by double digits in 2008.
Still, the smart money says likely will win again. He has gained the backing of top Colorado Republican bigwigs, such as former Gov. Bill Owens, former Sens. Wayne Allard and Hank Brown, and Attorney General John Suthers. Mr. Romney’s religion also benefits him in Colorado, which has the nation’s eighth-largest Mormon population, whose members represent a powerful voting bloc in Republican elections. Turnout is expected to be lower than in 2010, the year the tea party voters flooded non-presidential caucuses, which benefits Mr. Romney, said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.
Tea party voters “can surge if they’re really angry, but my sense is that Romney’s long work here and momentum are going to make him hard to beat,” said Mr. Ciruli. “Small turnout is good for Romney. I’m a little skeptical that Santorum is going to get the consistent support needed to win a majority.”
If anybody can pull off the upset, it’s Mr. Santorum. Since Jan. 31, he has made appearances in Colorado every day, with additional stops in Minnesota — a hybrid of his Iowa strategy, in which he spent more time in the state than any other candidate. Last week, he received the endorsement of tea party favorite Tom Tancredo, a former congressman from Colorado.
Mr. Gingrich had positioned himself as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney, but he appears to be all but conceding Colorado and Minnesota as he zeroes in on Super Tuesday on March 6. He made his first campaign stops here since the Nevada caucuses Monday.
The former House speaker’s absence from the campaign trail gives Mr. Santorum a clear shot at corralling the “anybody-but-Romney” vote.
Mr. Santorum laid a wreath at the Soldiers’ Field Memorial in Rochester, Minn., and gave a health care speech Monday before heading back to Colorado for two more rallies, in Golden and Denver.
Still, Mr. Romney was taking nothing for granted in Colorado, touching down for appearances Saturday, then returning Monday for a speech in Grand Junction, a fundraiser in Cherry Hills Village and a rally at Arapahoe High School in Centennial. At the same time, his campaign attempted to downplay expectations in Minnesota, with Mr. Pawlenty predicting that the race would be “very competitive.”
“I could easily see a scenario where the three or four top candidates tomorrow are bunched together towards the top of the pack,” Mr. Pawlenty, the Romney campaign’s national co-chairman, told reporters. “I can’t tell you who’s going to come out on top.”
The Public Policy Polling survey showed Mr. Santorum with 29 percent and Mr. Romney with 27 percent of the vote in Minnesota. In Colorado, Mr. Romney led with 40 percent of the vote to Mr. Santorum’s 26 percent.
“Santorum’s personal likability — perhaps driven by the fact that no one has felt the need to attack him — has a lot to do with why he’s doing so well in these states,” the polling firm said in a statement.
In 2008, Mr. Romney took 60 percent of the vote in Colorado to 18 percent for Mr. McCain. In Minnesota, Mr. Romney won 41 percent to 22 percent for Mr. McCain and 16 percent for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
DENVER — The Republican presidential race could be headed for another reshuffle Tuesday as Rick Santorum, who has lagged behind since his surprise Iowa victory, is once again challenging the dominance of front-runner Mitt Romney.
Polling over the past week shows Mr. Santorum statistically tied with Mr. Romney in Minnesota, besting him in Missouri, and running second to him but ahead of rival Newt Gingrich in Colorado, all of which hold contests Tuesday.
Mr. Romney’s camp took notice, firing the kinds of broadsides it generally has aimed at Mr. Gingrich. Romney surrogates on Monday accused Mr. Santorum of pork-barrel spending. The Romney campaign also tried to blunt Mr. Santorum’s attacks by pointing out that the former senator from Pennsylvania endorsed Mr. Romney in 2008.
“Typical Romney,” Mr. Santorum said on the campaign trail, dismissing the criticism.
“He goes out and throws the kitchen sink and runs negative ads and sends out his surrogates to rip and tear, even though he is as vulnerable on this issue as anybody,” said Mr. Santorum. “I don’t think it’s going to work this time.”
Minnesota and Colorado hold caucuses Tuesday, while Missouri holds a nonbinding primary — and with Mr. Gingrich having failed to get on that state’s ballot, it offers the first test of Mr. Romney versus a single conservative opponent.
Fresh off his second consecutive victory in Nevada on Saturday, Mr. Romney hoped to use February’s relatively light schedule to build his lead in delegates, but he found himself Monday trying to dent Mr. Santorum’s momentum.
His campaign sent out the press release it issued in 2008 with moderately glowing praise from Mr. Santorum’s endorsement, and in a conference call with reporters, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Romney supporter, criticized Mr. Santorum for his “long history of pork-barrel spending,” pointing to his support for earmarks.
“If you look at his record, it’s not a perfect conservative record by a long shot,” Mr. Pawlenty said.
Mr. Santorum defends earmarking as Congress‘ right, but has said the practice should be suspended given recent abuses and he would enforce that as president.
The 2012 race has been turbulent, with Mr. Santorum winning Iowa’s caucuses, Mr. Romney winning New Hampshire’s primary, Mr. Gingrich winning South Carolina’s primary and Mr. Romney winning Florida’s primary and Nevada’s caucuses.
But in Iowa and Nevada, Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, won fewer overall votes than he did in 2008, when he lost the GOP nomination to Sen. John McCain.
That is worrisome news heading into caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, which Mr. Romney won by double digits in 2008.
Still, the smart money says likely will win again. He has gained the backing of top Colorado Republican bigwigs, such as former Gov. Bill Owens, former Sens. Wayne Allard and Hank Brown, and Attorney General John Suthers. Mr. Romney’s religion also benefits him in Colorado, which has the nation’s eighth-largest Mormon population, whose members represent a powerful voting bloc in Republican elections. Turnout is expected to be lower than in 2010, the year the tea party voters flooded non-presidential caucuses, which benefits Mr. Romney, said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.
Tea party voters “can surge if they’re really angry, but my sense is that Romney’s long work here and momentum are going to make him hard to beat,” said Mr. Ciruli. “Small turnout is good for Romney. I’m a little skeptical that Santorum is going to get the consistent support needed to win a majority.”
If anybody can pull off the upset, it’s Mr. Santorum. Since Jan. 31, he has made appearances in Colorado every day, with additional stops in Minnesota — a hybrid of his Iowa strategy, in which he spent more time in the state than any other candidate. Last week, he received the endorsement of tea party favorite Tom Tancredo, a former congressman from Colorado.
Mr. Gingrich had positioned himself as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney, but he appears to be all but conceding Colorado and Minnesota as he zeroes in on Super Tuesday on March 6. He made his first campaign stops here since the Nevada caucuses Monday.
The former House speaker’s absence from the campaign trail gives Mr. Santorum a clear shot at corralling the “anybody-but-Romney” vote.
Mr. Santorum laid a wreath at the Soldiers’ Field Memorial in Rochester, Minn., and gave a health care speech Monday before heading back to Colorado for two more rallies, in Golden and Denver.
Still, Mr. Romney was taking nothing for granted in Colorado, touching down for appearances Saturday, then returning Monday for a speech in Grand Junction, a fundraiser in Cherry Hills Village and a rally at Arapahoe High School in Centennial. At the same time, his campaign attempted to downplay expectations in Minnesota, with Mr. Pawlenty predicting that the race would be “very competitive.”
“I could easily see a scenario where the three or four top candidates tomorrow are bunched together towards the top of the pack,” Mr. Pawlenty, the Romney campaign’s national co-chairman, told reporters. “I can’t tell you who’s going to come out on top.”
The Public Policy Polling survey showed Mr. Santorum with 29 percent and Mr. Romney with 27 percent of the vote in Minnesota. In Colorado, Mr. Romney led with 40 percent of the vote to Mr. Santorum’s 26 percent.
“Santorum’s personal likability — perhaps driven by the fact that no one has felt the need to attack him — has a lot to do with why he’s doing so well in these states,” the polling firm said in a statement.
In 2008, Mr. Romney took 60 percent of the vote in Colorado to 18 percent for Mr. McCain. In Minnesota, Mr. Romney won 41 percent to 22 percent for Mr. McCain and 16 percent for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Obama 2012: He’ll Do Better This Time, Honest
DC Trawler:
Just give him one more chance, America. Is that too much to ask? A second chance?
The Hill:
During an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, President Obama said that he gets “better as time goes on” at his job and that he believes the grassroots movement that propelled him to victory in 2008 will help him win a second term.
“What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction,” Obama said.
“And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on,” he added.
At what, he did not specify.
What’s this about “Founders,” by the way? Since when do they matter? If the Constitution prevents him from getting what he wants, he just ignores it. Rules are for people who aren’t Obama. Oh, you don’t think so? Racist.
P.S. And if that doesn’t shut you up, you should shut up because Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and you’re a soldier or something. And it’s okay for him to say such things because he’s not Bush.
P.P.S. Daniel Foster at NRO:
I don’t think his comments betray the president as a secret Red or anything, but the plain meaning of them is that there are things about the separation of powers, and maybe other parts of the Constitutional order, that he would change. I’d like to see him asked to clarify at one of the debates in the general. Mr. President, if you could tweak the Founders’ vision anyway you wanted, what would you do?
Just give him one more chance, America. Is that too much to ask? A second chance?
The Hill:
During an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, President Obama said that he gets “better as time goes on” at his job and that he believes the grassroots movement that propelled him to victory in 2008 will help him win a second term.
“What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction,” Obama said.
“And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on,” he added.
At what, he did not specify.
What’s this about “Founders,” by the way? Since when do they matter? If the Constitution prevents him from getting what he wants, he just ignores it. Rules are for people who aren’t Obama. Oh, you don’t think so? Racist.
P.S. And if that doesn’t shut you up, you should shut up because Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and you’re a soldier or something. And it’s okay for him to say such things because he’s not Bush.
P.P.S. Daniel Foster at NRO:
I don’t think his comments betray the president as a secret Red or anything, but the plain meaning of them is that there are things about the separation of powers, and maybe other parts of the Constitutional order, that he would change. I’d like to see him asked to clarify at one of the debates in the general. Mr. President, if you could tweak the Founders’ vision anyway you wanted, what would you do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)