Evangelicals are in a civil war in Iowa. If they could unite behind a candidate, they could defeat Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in the Iowa caucuses, but they can’t. Part of the problem is that three candidates are running for evangelical support but Iowa simply isn’t big enough for the three of them. They’re splitting the vote. Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum are all making a play for the social conservatives they need to propel them onward. In 2008, sixty percent of the participants in the Iowa caucuses were evangelical.

Eight days ago Rick Santorum won the personal endorsements of two evangelical leaders—Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of the Family Leader, and Chuck Hurley, President of the Iowa Family Policy Center. The endorsements may have been just enough to push Santorum up in the polls—at Bachmann’s expense. Vander Plaats asked Bachmann to drop out and endorse one of the social conservatives.

The Bachmann team is simply imploding with the defection of a top aide to the Ron Paul camp.  She herself has said that it would take nothing less than a “miracle” to win. When you have to keep insisting that you aren’t dropping out—it may be time to drop out.  Look to Bachmann to exit stage left after Iowa. The question becomes who will she endorse.

(more…)

***UPDATE: The DNC just released a video that makes my case perfectly. CNN asks a series of dumb questions that have little to do with the important issues of the day and the DNC exploits this with a viral-video mocking  our candidates for ignoring the most important issues of the day.

If you think this is by accident, you haven’t been paying attention:

—–

ABC’s Jake Tapper sees through this but unfortunately there’s only one Jake Tapper.  END UPDATE

Laugh at Democrats all you want but their decision during the last election to stay away from Fox News’ debates was brilliant. No one at Fox would’ve been unfair, but they most certainly would’ve asked tougher questions than anyone in the MSM. That’s not a cowardly decision on the Democrats part, it’s a tactically brilliant decision. Why would anyone interested in winning an election willingly put themselves in a less than ideal situation? Unfortunately, the only people who can answer that question are those currently running for the GOP nomination.

Nothing is more important than getting our failed president out of office in 2012 and therefore nothing is more important than nominating someone who can win. This is why the number one quality we should be looking for among our otherwise superb field is someone who understands that when it comes to removing Barack Obama from office, the MSM is the existential threat of 2012 — not the President. In a just world, Obama would have almost no chance of winning re-election, but we don’t live in a just world. We live in a world where Obama’s MSM Palace Guards have set their phasers to kill and intend to take out any threat to Their Precious One without prejudice.

And so last night when I saw our esteemed candidates voluntarily lined up like so many ducks in a MSM shooting gallery, I died a little bit inside.  It’s a trap, GOP!, and you can laugh at moderator John King’s questions all you want but I’m guessing that’s exactly what the MSM wants us to do. That way we don’t see the Matrix of what they were really up to. Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air:

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to discuss whether Jon Huntsman’s plotting to run for President against the man for whom he serves as Ambassador is dishonorable and disloyal.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Erick Erickson: Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman. Ever.
Responding to Erick Erickson’s broadside of Jon Huntsman
China post key to Jon Huntsman’s 2012 bid
Huntsman’s 2012 Buzz Caused Friction With Obama Team
Erick: Loyalty, Honor, and Faith. Virtues We Should Prioritize.

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter

House Republicans emerged from last week’s government spending debate with a plan that cuts $61 billion from current levels — a notable achievement that sets an important marker for the coming showdown with President Obama and Senate Democrats. In the course of the debate, 47 Republicans emerged as rock-solid conservatives willing to cut spending repeatedly.

More than 100 amendments were considered during the continuing resolution debate, 21 of which were unambiguous spending cuts. Heritage Action for America, a sister organization to my employer, compiled the votes on amendments that cut non-security spending.

The list includes some familiar names like Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and even a few members of GOP leadership. It also offers clues as to how Republicans might tackle spending cuts on two other measures in the coming months — raising the debt ceiling and producing a budget.

So who are the 47 conservative all stars? Listed alphabetically by last name:

Amash, Bachmann, Broun, Campbell, Chabot, Chaffetz, Coffman, Duncan (TN), Duncan (SC), Flake, Fleming, Franks, Garrett, Gowdy, Graves (GA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Huelskamp, Huizenga, Hurt, Jenkins, Jordan, Lamborn, Mack, McClintock, McHenry, Miller (FL), Mulvaney, Myrick, Neugebauer, Paul, Pence, Pompeo, Price (GA), Ribble, Rokita, Royce, Scalise, Schweikert, Scott (GA), Scott (SC), Sessions, Walsh, Wilson, Woodall, and Young (IN).

It’s refreshing to see the names of Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) and Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), all members of the Republican leadership team, on the list. Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), freshman representative to leadership, and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) also set a positive example.

(more…)

In response to the announcement that I would provide my analysis on ABC News from Arizona on election night, like-clockwork, from the George Soros-funded Media Matters to Keith Olbermann to Huffington Post to Daily Kos to Talking Points Memo to Twitter (#boycottABCNEWS), the institutional left began on Friday to inundate ABC News with a wave of partisan objections and unfounded allegations against me.

Make no mistake: this is a calculated “astroturf“ intimidation campaign by the well-funded and frightened-for-their-political-lives institutional left to quash dissenting voices. It’s what they do.

What was ABC News’ response?  Not standing up for free speech and the 1^st Amendment.  Not sticking by their original invitation.  Not standing up for diversity of opinion.

Instead, on Saturday, ABC News issued an official statement that was immediately heralded as a victory by the anti-free speech forces on the left:

Since conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart announced on his website that he was going to be a participant in ABC’s Town Hall meeting at Arizona State University, there has been considerable consternation and misinformation regarding my decision to ask him to participate in an election night Town Hall event for ABC News Digital. I want to explain what Mr. Breitbart’s role has always been as one of our guests at our digital town hall event:

Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst.

He is not an ABC News consultant.

He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News.

He is not being paid by ABC News.

He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.

Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage, anchored by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. For the broadcast coverage, David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg will contribute reaction and response gathered from the students and faculty of Arizona State University at an ABC News/Facebook town hall.

He has been invited as one of several guests, from a variety of different political persuasions, to engage with a live, studio audience that will be closely following the election results and participating in an online-only discussion and debate to be moderated by David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg on ABCNews.com and Facebook. We will have other guests, as well as a live studio audience and a large audience on ABCNews.com and Facebook, who can question the guests and the audience’s   opinions.

George Stephanoplous quickly tweeted, “Breitbart NOT on ABC network broadcast http://bit.ly/bgkseJ.” (more…)

The other day on his local radio program, RedState.com blogger and CNN Contributor Erick Erickson delivered a 13 minute segment on the census and the lengthier, American Community Survey (ACS).  It was a solid bit of talk-radio monologue, including extensive recitation of an excellent article at The Weekly Standard by Daniel Freedman.  Freedman’s piece details his personal experience with the ACS, the highly personal and intrusive questions and most vividly, the dogged “follow-up” by an ACS bureaucrat who visited his house unannounced, demanded entry and threatened punishment.

Erickson included in his monologue this:  (Full audio is here)

Come on, people. It’s a Constitutional obligation. How can a 21^st century society function without knowing how many people are actually living in the country, legally versus illegally for that matter? What’s the harm with filling out the census? The Constitution — for those of you who say I’m not filling out the c — it’s in the freaking Constitution. You got to fill out your census.

He also spent some time mocking the members of extreme groups who fear giving information like this to the Government will lead to a New World Order.  He even mocked the paranoia of these conspiracy fringe groups by pretending to hear black helicopters.

He then went on to distinguish between the constitutionally mandated census and the extensive and over-reaching ACS.  Over nine minutes into his monologue, Erickson expressed his incredulity over the harassment from the Commerce Department employee who was so dogged in her pursuit of the valuable information about Mr. Freedman’s toilets:

What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I’m not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They’re not going on my property. They can’t do that. They don’t have the legal right, and yet they’re trying.

(more…)

Since a dialogue is a conversation between two or more people, Washington Democrats’ refusal to acknowledge the voice of the American people betrays their one-party, monologue approach to governance. Tonight, the National Republican Congressional Committee is working to stop the monologue and create a meaningful dialogue between House Republicans and the American people.

Between now and the beginning of the State of the Union address at 9 PM EST, you can either text “UNION” to 777218 or visit our Web site (www.nrcc.org) to sign up to participate in our first-ever mobile text chat room. The NRCC is providing a forum for all concerned Americans to discuss issues that are important to them, framed in the context of the President’s speech. Additionally, national figures such as Dana Perino, Grover Norquist of ATR, Former Senator Fred and Jeri Thompson, Former Congressman Tom Davis and Erick Erickson from Red State will be part of the discussion, providing their personal thoughts on the speech.

Following the speech, we invite you to join us on our Web site for a live streaming video Question and Answer session with me and several of my House colleagues, including Republican Leader John Boehner and NRCC Vice Chairman Greg Walden. This is a unique opportunity to directly engage with House Republican Leadership and Members of Congress and to receive our immediate observations on the President’s speech.

(more…)

Over at the American Spectator, Big Government Contributor Matthew Vadum writes:

Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House.This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush’s White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis’s political director in New York.

 Lewis, the current “chief organizer” or CEO of ACORN, was head of New York ACORN from at least 1994 through 2008, when she took over as national leader of ACORN. With Gaspard at work in the White House, Lewis might as well be speaking to President Obama through an earpiece as he goes about his daily business ruining the country.

Read the whole story here.