Mitt Romney’s speech to CPAC today was largely a re-hash of his basically competent stump speech, with a few chunks of red meat awkwardly thrown in. There wasn’t much that was memorable, but there was this line–astounding in its sheer counterfactual chutzpah:

I was a conservative governor.  I fought against long odds in a deep blue state.  I understand the battles that we, as conservatives, must fight because I have been on the front lines. (Update: In the speech as delivered, Romney described himself as having been “severely conservative.”)

Few conservatives will buy that. Mitt Romney governed as a Republican who could reach across party lines, not as a conservative willing to sacrifice his position for his values. Hence RomneyCare, which adorns the desk (at right) in the Romney portrait in the Massachusetts Statehouse.

Romney cites his stances on social issues as evidence of his conservatism in office, but the fact is that the most important social change of his era–a court decision legalizing gay marriage in the state–was largely out of his hands. I suspect that Romney’s glib reference to his opposition to that decision–”we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage”–will offend liberals without reassuring conservatives.

Romney could have owned up to the fact that he has departed considerably from conservative policy over the years, while stressing the key conservative principles upon which he has not yielded. But Romney went too far, claiming to be an across-the-board conservative, trying to be the “not-Romney” for whom many conservative voters still pine, rather than himself.

(more…)

Big Government’s Lee Stranahan and Brandon Darby, on the scene at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC, report that 300-400 union members and Occupy activists have instigated clashes with police outside the conference venue at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

(more…)

The Washington Post, citing anonymous White House Sources, reports that President Barack Obama will announce a “compromise” today on the contraceptive rule for religious institutions that has outraged Americans across the political spectrum as a violation of religious freedom:

President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.

Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday.

The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.

It is not clear with whom Obama has negotiated a “compromise”; it would appear he has simply compromised with himself, modifying his rule in a way he believes he can sell politically.

Mulligan?

The outrage is as much about the fact that the Obama administration tried to define what is, and is not, a religious institution as it is about the fact that it tried to impose its own dogmatic beliefs–in population control, among other things–on Catholics and other religious groups.

Earlier this week, administration officials had signaled that the president might “compromise,” a prospect that was greeted with skepticism by religious leaders, who struggled to imagine a halfway point between religious freedom and state dictates on religious faith. (more…)

Robert Creamer–Democrat strategist, Obama 2008 campaign aide, and political architect of ObamaCare–argues that the new contraceptive mandate for Catholic institutions isn’t really about equality for women, or religious liberty.

Rather, it is about population control.

Creamer–like his wife, the pro-abortion Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)–embraces the left-wing fallacy that children are a burden on the planet, which the state should encourage the church–and everyone else–to limit.

At 6:16-7:03 in the video below, by CNS News, Schakowsky describes abortion as “most often” a “responsible decision” to control the size of their families:

Writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, Creamer declared:

…[T]here is a worldwide consensus that the use of birth control is one of society’s most important moral priorities. Far from being something that should be discouraged, or is controversial, the use of birth control is critical to the survival and success of humanity….It is simply not possible for this small planet to sustain that kind of exponential human population growth. If we do, the result will be poverty, war, the depletion of our natural resources and famine. Fundamentally, the Reverend [Thomas] Malthus was right–except that the result is not inevitable….That’s why it is our moral imperative to act responsibly and encourage each other to use birth control.

Malthus’s late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century views, which still inspire much of today’s environmental movement, have been repeatedly disproved over the course of two centuries. Economic freedom, growth and innovation have made human society vastly more productive and efficient. (more…)

Rick Santorum’s stunning sweep of the Missouri primary and the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses is a sign that Republican voters are rejecting Mitt Romney and declaring their desire for a strong ideological contrast with President Barack Obama–”a choice, not an echo.”

It is also a sign that the 2012 presidential election is about more than fiscal and economic issues, despite the conventional wisdom that social conservatism had fallen out of fashion. Even if social issues are not the focus in 2012, they have become important to establishing a clear and successful opposition to the radical agenda of the Obama administration.

Above all, Santorum’s win–which was decisive in all three states–showed that Republican voters are not going to behave the way that the media wants them to; they will not put principle aside to coronate a winner, nor follow the big money and big-name endorsements. (more…)

Rick Santorum may be about to do what was unimaginable to most people just a few weeks ago: take 2 of 3 states from Mitt Romney. Yet Santorum is still considered a long shot for the Republican nomination, and the presidency. That is because his campaign has lacked money and organization; he is still failing to qualify for ballots in several states, for example. But it is also because Santorum’s social conservatism is seen as a liability.

Rick Santorum in Minnesota (Photo: AP / Washington Times)

Conventional wisdom has long held that the 2012 election would be about fiscal and economic issues, not social issues such as abortion or gay marriage. The Tea Party movement seemed to have put limited-government issues ahead of social issues on the Republican agenda. And controversy over the religious views of presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann seemed an obstacle to their success in the general election.

But social conservatism may be due for a revival, for three reasons. First, the Obama administration and the left in general have provoked fights with religious communities. Catholic voters are upset by Obama’s decision to force religious institutions to offer contraceptives and abortifacients under ObamaCare; opponents of gay marriage are upset by (largely) liberal efforts to overturn Proposition 8, California’s 2008 referendum. (more…)

Tim Wise (R) on CNN, accusing Tea Party of racism (2009)

Left-wing online talk show host and Huffington Post contributor Sam Seder recently interviewed self-proclaimed “anti-racist” Tim Wise on his program, Majority Report.

Wise and Seder have a shared dislike (to put it mildly) of Andrew Breitbart, and Seder used his YouTube interview with Wise as an attempt to settle old scores.

After declaring that the “driving force in [Breitbart’s] life” is his “feelings of being rejected from Hollywood,” Seder invited Wise to discuss Breitbart’s alleged racism.

Sam Seder on CNN, criticizing David Letterman for apologizing to Sarah Palin for a sexual joke about her teenage daughter (2009)

Seder compared Breitbart to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (which would be a great surprise to the many Ron Paul supporters whom Breitbart routinely debates). Noting that Paul had been prepared to make money from newsletters with racist content, Seder asked Wise to consider the loaded question: “Is Breitbart really any different from that?”

Wise admitted that he did not actually know, but that “every single thing [Breitbart] does sort of smacks of that.”

He went on to tell the following story, prefacing it by noting that “Andrew’s threatened, in the past, to sue me—but he can’t, because it’s true”:

When we were at Tulane, I know that he certainly wasn’t too bothered by racism. Our senior year—actually, my senior year, his junior year—there was a cross-burning that took place on the lawn of his fraternity, the Delta Tau Delta house at Tulane. And I’m not—and Andrew didn’t do it, I joked about that several months ago by just sarcastically saying that, well, you know, given the evidence that Breitbart uses for other people, we should just accuse him of it and be done with it. I was obviously being sarcastic.

(more…)

Tikkun magazine, a radical left-wing publication based in San Francisco, has announced that it is working with the Occupy movement to create an alternative to the National Prayer Breakfast, which is due to take place in Washington, D.C. this Thursday.

According to Tikkun publisher Rabbi Michael Lerner, who heads the Network of Spritual Progressives (NSP), the alternative prayer breakfast will “pre-empt” the mainstream event with its message of “solidarity” with the “99 percent.”

Rabbi Lerner explained in a message to activists today:

We’ve been working with Occupy Faith D.C. to create “the Peoople’s Prayer Breakfast.” You can do the same in your area of the country–create a People’s Prayer Breakfast. It doesn’t have to be this week–take your time, make sure you do outreach to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Ba’hai, Sikh, Wicca, Buddhist, Quaker, Unitarian, Religious Science, and all other possible communities of faith to get them involved in the planning.

Though Tikkun and the NSP have occasionally protested Obama administration policies from the left, their core religious precept–that faith’s proper expression is economic redistribution–is one that Obama seems to share.

In that vein, Rabbi Lerner and fellow “progressives” promoting the People’s Prayer Breakfast have been slamming the National Prayer Breakfast as a gathering of the “one percent.”  (more…)

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who was the subject of allegations of congressional insider trading, has indicated that he will not seek to extend his term as chair of the House Financial Services Committee after 2012.

Bachus was one of several Capitol Hill leaders from both parties involved in insider trading, according to Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, who raised the issue in his recent book, Throw Them All Out. Subsequently, President Barack Obama called on Congress this week to pass a law banning congressional insider trading–though the book also documented crony capitalism in the Obama administration’s green energy programs.

Bachus could have sought a waiver from the Republicans Party’s self-imposed six-year term limit on committee chairs, which includes time spent leading the minority as ranking members. However, he chose not to do so, though he has indicated that he wishes to play a role in selecting his successor.

(more…)

Following President Barack Obama’s self-congratulatory State of the Union address, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, produced a simple chart that tells the real story of the Obama administration:

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

(more…)

Rick Santorum: Relax.

You’re the most conservative candidate in the race, and have outperformed expectations. While the two front-runners attack each other, you have a unique opportunity to stand up for Republican conservative ideas and policies. Focus on Obama and ignore Mitt. Don’t get into back-and-forth with Ron Paul; that helps the frontrunners. Take a hint from Newt, and do what you’ve done to CNN before: resist. (A bit.)

***

Mitt Romney: Stand for something.

You’re good at attacking Newt Gingrich; what we don’t know is if you’re good at attacking Obama. Saying the president is incompetent or un-American has failed you thus far: fight him on ideas! John McCain rose because he was willing to put at least one principle before politics: winning the war in Iraq. For what higher cause are you willing to risk your career? Romneycare? Find an answer, quickly.

***

(more…)

Media Matters for America (MMfA) sent an email yesterday, likely in error, to the office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)–hardly a regular recipient of MMfA spam–attempting to coordinate Democratic opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline that was recently blocked by the Obama administration.

Photo: National Post (Canada) / Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg

The email apparently targeted staff from the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, and recipients included staff working for Sen. Inhofe as Ranking Member, apparently in error. (Sen. Inhofe is an ardent supporter of the Keystone pipeline and has objected vehemently to President Barack Obama’s decision to prevent it from moving forward.)

The fact that MMfA’s email was, atypically, sent to Republican staffers might suggest a gesture at bipartisan outreach–except that the email was explicitly addressed to congressional “allies” on an issue where Republicans have shown unusually strong unity, and the opposition, such as it is, has come from Democrats and the White House. (Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill supporting the Keystone pipeline with Republicans favoring the project 232-3, and Democrats opposing it 144-47.)

The email announces that Media Matters aims to assist fellow opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline (i.e. congressional Democrats) based on the premise that the media has focused on the jobs the project could create, and not on the potential downsides of the pipeline:

From: [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:11 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Heads up – MMFA study on media coverage of KXL out tomorrow

[Redacted],

I wanted to flag that MMFA will be putting out a major, quantitative report on media coverage of KXL tomorrow morning.

The study will be similar to our EPA counting study (http://mediamatters.org/research/201106070010) — and will drill home the point the media bought right into Big Oil’s desired frame on KXL, focusing largely on the (inflated) number of jobs that could be created, without paying due attention to the many other important issues at stake. (Ranchers’ land, spills, climate change, etc.)

We are hoping for a big media splash,  but – more importantly – we’re hoping that allies will be able to leverage it to gain favorable coverage.

I’ve pasted a very brief summary below – and will be sure to send along the final study as soon as it’s up.  If you have any questions, please let me know.

All the best,

[Redacted] (more…)

This morning, Rep. Jan Schakowsky appeared on the Don Wade and Roma show on WLS-AM Chicago to comment on President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Schakowsky praised the president’s green energy initiatives, claiming that the (recalled) Chevy Volt “is doing pretty well” and defending Obama’s failed investment in Solyndra.

When the hosts asked her to defend President Obama’s decision to block the development of the Keystone pipeline, Schakowsky did not dispute that the project would create jobs, but denied that these jobs were significant:

Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs and investing in green technologies will produce that and more. But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.

When the hosts pointed out that Schakowsky’s union allies support the pipeline, she was speechless. (The full audio from the interview is available here.) (more…)

Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver his third State of the Union Address–and his sixth address to a joint session of Congress. That’s more than either President Bush or President Clinton had addressed in any single term.

Despite his purported skill as an orator, none of Obama’s addresses to Congress has been particularly successful. They are typically remembered more for the rancor they caused than for any positive effects.

Obama is expected to make inequality the focus of his address. That’s an important campaign theme, as well as a refrain of the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama supported in the fall of 2011.

Yet it is not a significant departure from the tone of previous addresses, in which Obama bullied opponents and Supreme Court justices; fabricated health insurance horror stories; and called upon “millionaires and billionaires” to pay.

For reference purposes as you watch tonight’s State of the Union, here is a concise summary of Obama’s five previous speeches to Congress, and how they were received:

Obama's first address: February 24, 2009

***

Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009

In his first speech as the 44th President, Obama wanted to put his stamp on the presidency and introduce his ambitious policy agenda–one “that begins with jobs,” he said. The highlight of his address was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act–i.e. the stimulus–which he promised would receive “tough, unprecedented oversight” under Vice President Joe Biden.

Obama also announced a government lending program to ease credit, a new housing plan to prevent foreclosures, and assistance to struggling banks. He asked for “long-term investments” in green energy; for a commitment to health care reform; and for new funding for schools, along with education reforms. And he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, partly by letting “tax breaks” for the wealthy expire.

In addition, Obama touched on national security, reiterating his promise to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, hinting that he would press for civilian trials for terrorists, and promising to “defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.” On foreign policy, Obama declared “a new era of engagement” through negotiations with hostile powers, and announced the appointment of a new envoy to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The reaction to Obama’s speech was somewhat negative: he apparently intended to govern from the left, not from the center (as some had hoped). Stock prices fell sharply the next morning, recovering by the afternoon but ending firmly in the red. In retrospect, though Obama kept his promises on assisting banks and fighting al Qaeda, he broke many other pledges, and saw many of his policies–especially the stimulus–fail badly. (more…)

As President Barack Obama prepares for his State of the Union address in Congress, where he will no doubt claim credit for signs of economic recovery, new analyses by economists suggest that growth will slow and unemployment will remain virtually unchanged by year’s end.

According to economists surveyed by USA Today, much of the excitement around December retail sales was “hype,” and the fourth-quarter bounce was largely driven by post-earthquake/tsunami activity in Japan, not domestic policy. (When the economy suffers, the President blamed the earthquake; when it recovers, curiously, no earthquakes merit mention).

No longer buying Obama - in China or at home (Photo: CNN)

There is continued uncertainty in Europe, and even new uncertainty about slower Chinese growth. But the great drag on the economy remains the American housing market, according to economists, even though many of them expect prices to stop falling this year. Government interventions and bailouts under Obama and his predecessor may have deferred some pain but have prevented markets from full correction and recovery, reinforcing deep uncertainty. (more…)

Republican voters don’t just want a nominee who can fight Barack Obama. They also want a fight, period. That’s the lesson of Newt Gingrich’s stunning victory in South Carolina, which seemed improbable just a few days ago.

The Gingrich campaign seems to understand the pugilistic mood among conservative voters, e-mailing picture of boxing gloves to supporters as the final votes were counted, asking voters to deliver a “knockout punch” in Florida.

Gingrich campaign e-mail: in a pugilistic mood

It’s not quite clear that Republicans want the fight to be over, however. Though a long, drawn-out primary risks bruising the eventual nominee, it also allows Obama’s opponents to hold onto the spotlight, airing criticisms of the president–and the media–that might otherwise be muffled.
(more…)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who infamously argued for the death of the private insurance industry, and whose husband drafted the political blueprint for Obamacare from federal prison, told Democrats at a rally today that they had to re-elect President Barack Obama in order to achieve single-payer health care.

The Hill reports (emphasis added):

Schakowsky, a vocal supporter of healthcare reform, warned liberals not to turn away from Obama because they didn’t get all they wanted in the new law.

“Losing in November is not an option,” she said. “It doesn’t make it easier to get single-payer or even a public option. It makes it impossible.”

Schakowsky’s remarks in 2009, together with those of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), among others, created suspicion at the time that Obamacare was a “Trojan Horse” for a single-payer system of socialized medicine:

Her remarks today would seem to confirm that suspicion.

While Republicans intend to vote to repeal Obamacare, Democrats are being urged to vote not just to defend Obamacare, but to expand it into a full system of socialized medicine at the federal level. (more…)

John Podesta, Center for American Progress

The Washington Post has just published an article reporting that the Center for American Progress, the left-wing think tank whose policies and personnel have close ties to the Obama White House, has been “accused of anti-Semitic language.”

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the White House, is embroiled in a dispute with several major Jewish organizations over statements on Israel and charges that some center staffers have used anti-Semitic language to attack pro-Israel Americans.

The controversy reflects growing divisions among important allies of President Obama over Middle East policy that could complicate the president’s reelection outreach to some Jewish voters, just as he is seeking to assure them of his commitment to Israel’s security amid fears of an Iran nuclear threat.

Among the points of contention are several Twitter posts by one CAP writer referring to “Israel-firsters.” Some experts say the phrase has its roots in the anti-Semitic charge that American Jews are more loyal to a foreign country. In another case, a second staffer described a U.S. senator [Mark Kirk of Illinois] as showing more fealty to Israel and the prime U.S. pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, than to his own constituents, replacing a standard identifier of party affiliation and state with “R-AIPAC” on Twitter….

(more…)

Americans celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday to honor his contributions to our Republic. His struggle against racial prejudice and discrimination brought the words of the Founders–“that all men are created equal”–to true fruition.

Dr. King used non-violent protest, and an appeal to universal principles, to bring Americans together. His birthday should be a holiday that unites us.

Instead, Democrats are using it to divide Americans.

Consider the sermon offered by White House adviser Valerie Jarrett yesterday, at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta where Dr. King preached. She told the audience: “Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress–well let me be specific–because [of] the Republicans in Congress.”

Those in the audience laughed and applauded at Jarret’s brazen–and false–partisan attack.

Democrats have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle to portray Republicans as the villains, when in fact most segregationists were Democrats. Republicans, in fact, voted for civil rights laws in greater proportions than Democrats. Moreover, Dr. King himself had been a Republican. Regardless, Dr. King was careful not to divide Americans along party lines in his struggle for justice–nor would he approve of it today.

Another Obama administration official who is exploiting Dr. King’s memory for political gain is Attorney General Eric Holder, who used the holiday to renew his attack on voter ID laws in South Carolina, falsely claiming they are racially discriminatory.

It is Holder, in fact, who practices racial discrimination by refusing to apply voting laws equally, notably in the New Black Panther Party case, an open-and-shut example of voter intimidation. (more…)

“Why Are Obama’ Critics So Dumb?” That’s the question posed by Andrew Sullivan in the cover story of this week’s Newsweek.

But you’d have to be stupid, fanatical, and dishonest to argue–as Trig Truther Sullivan does–that Barack Obama’s failures are part of an ingenious “long game” that is destined to succeed.

If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope for re-election is the weak Republican field.

Sullivan, who claims to care about national debt, begins by arguing, contrary to reality, that Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus (actually, $862 billion) turned the economy around. He offers no proof other than the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy familiar from basic economics. Sullivan also ignores the composition of the stimulus, which shoveled cash to cronies and bloated big states with their massive public sector obligations.

In addition, Sullivan claims that Obama’s auto bailout succeeded–when in fact it pushed aside property rights and subsidized failed “green” cars, rather than allowing car makers to rebuild through normal bankruptcy. He also commends Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s bank bailouts–but does not mention the Dodd-Frank financial “reforms” that enshrine “too big to fail,” hurt small businesses and fail to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Next, Sullivan tries to defend Obama on taxes, pointing out that the president passed tax cuts as part of the stimulus. He ignores the numerous new taxes and tax increases that Obama signed into law–from higher cigarette taxes to the many ObamaCare taxes–as well as the glaring fact that Obama has been campaigning for the past several years on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, and would have done so if not for Congress. (more…)