Actually it might be sexism because we don’t like how he supported Dede Scozzafava.

But there’s an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”

Who led the RNC before Steele?  I thought I knew, but I missed a couple since Ken Mehlman.  I only knew about Ken because he was on Rob’s podcast which was a catch for him at the time.

The point is that Steele’s a celebrity in comparison with most leaders on the Republican National Committee.  Of course he’s going to take more heat than someone who’s unknown.  If we didn’t know his name we’d be talking about Republican party missteps rather than screwups by Mr. Steele himself. 

Steele of course wants to take credit for some of the recent victories by the Republicans.  I don’t think people are going to buy that.  Scott Brown certainly didn’t want any Republican presence in Massachusetts because it would have hurt rather than help him.  In my opinion things are better for conservatives in spite of Michael Steele rather than because of him. 

Reasonable people may disagree with that.  What we shouldn’t disagree with is that Steele’s an idiot for playing the race card when he’s got a party that is still in a lot of trouble.  Rather than be a divisive jerk Steele should have said that it’s natural that the leader of the party is going to take heat as it turns itself around. 

It looks to me that Steele’s looking to build his resume to be a future MSNBC contributor who’s willing to beat up on conservatives.

The quicker this jerk gets dumped the less damage he’ll do. 

That doesn’t make any sense given that North Dakota, as of December of 2009, has a 4.3% unemployment rate, a 5.2% unemployment rate at the time the “stimulus” was passed, and routinely has the lowest unemployment in the nation.

Meanwhile, the state that got the least in per-capita “stimulus” spending, Florida at $193.51 in per-capita spending.  Florida currently has an 11% unemployment rate, and was at 9.5% at the time of the “stimulus” bill’s passage.

Apologists for the “stimulus” deficit spending tell us that government spending creates economic activity which in turn creates jobs and prosperity.  If that’s true, why wasn’t this spending targeted to the states with the worst employment problems?

Why is North Dakota, which thanks to being an energy export state can claim to be skipping the recession, in the top five for stimulus funds received while someplace like Florida, which has a bad-and-getting-worse unemployment picture, at the bottom?

After all, if the politicians actually believed their own words when they tell us that all this spending actually stimulates the economy, wouldn’t the opposite be true?

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

This was said by John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Personally, from a purely academic standpoint, I agree with this statement.  Political infighting and inflating the threat of terrorism do play into the hands of al-Qaeda (not to mention America’s other enemies).

I have to ask though: when did statements like this become the type to only be looked at academically?  When statements in this vein were made under the previous administration, they were derided as marginalizing and the province of namecallers.  The idea that one could tie opposition to foreign policy to aiding the enemy was to call that opposition “traitors” and “unpatriotic”, and we were assured by the Left that this was neither fair nor accurate.  “Dissent is patriotic” and all that.

I suppose I should be glad that it’s now okay to make statements like these without having them torn apart looking for offense.  I base the claim that it’s now okay on the fact that there’s no front page outrage over the statement.  The op-ed columns aren’t calling for Mr. Brennan to retract his statement or calling for civility from the administration.  It’s a good thing that statements like these can be taken at face value without them being used as political fodder or used to call the utterer a fascist.

Can we please just remember this moment the next time someone with an (R -) after his name says something similar?

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted a threat assessment of local pro- and anti-abortion rights activists before an expected rally last year, even though they did not pose a threat to national security.
The DHS destroyed or deleted its copies of the assessment after an internal review found it violated intelligence-gathering guidelines by collecting and sharing information about “protest groups which posed no threat to homeland security,” according to a department memo written last year.

So, the DHS ran background checks on a peaceful group of protestors who, by it’s own admission didn’t warrant it and had committed no acts that would classify them as a threat to national security, then destroyed the evidence once it was discovered that the action violated its own guidelines.  Transparency and accountability!  Don’t worry though: they’ve determined it’s a no harm, no foul situation.

[The departmental memo about the incident] concluded the report was unlikely to “have any impact on civil liberties or civil rights” given its limited dissemination. But anti-abortion groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin on Monday both criticized the federal government’s collection of information on law-abiding protesters.

Ah, this was carried out against pro-life protestors, one of those presumed dangerous right-wing extremist classes the government is always warning us about.  It would seem that protestations to the contrary, the DHS really does think those clingers of God and guns are dangerous.  I feel so safe just knowing they’re there.

The political landscape of North Dakota—-and indeed, the entire nation as a whole—-is shifting. Years from now—-when intellectually-honest political scientists and historians chronicle these harrowing times—-they’ll view the renaissance of the Republican Party and the restoration of American principles to the steps of the Capitol as the result of two causes: one, a dangerous agenda mandated by a left-leaning President from Chicago, and two, the people who took to the streets and initiated the opposition. 

If ND GOP Chairman Gary Emineth embraces the down-to-earth grassroots activism embodied by the Tea Party movement, he could lead the nation in guiding these political newcomers into the process. All they want is an open ear to voice the concerns of mainstream America; is that too much to ask? Respect them and let down your guard. Admit that your Party isn’t perfect, and you’ll win their support.
The Republican Party is the last viable refuge for these concerned citizens. That’s a political reality; but you can’t take it for granted. After all, there’s plenty of anger out there for each side. The Tea Party patriots are feared by both the left and right, so it’s incumbent upon the Republicans to honor their concerns. On Friday, make this an opportunity for the tireless public servants of the Party to take a chair and hear them out—-and to learn.  That includes all Republicans——John Hoeven and the twelve statewide elected constitutional officers included. This Friday, on a stage in Bismarck, they’ll be a chair with their names on it. Will they be big enough to fill it?

That’s my opinion, what’s yours?

Listen to the Scott Hennen Show at ScottHennen.com, or on The Flag AM1100 WZFG Fargo, Super Talk 1270 Bismarck, The Cat 1090 KTGO Tioga or KLTC 1460 Dickinson .

This isn’t just another political party event.  This isn’t about fundraising or anything like that.  In fact, the event is free (just be sure to register so they know how many people are coming).  This is about the heart and soul of the North Dakota Republican Party.  This is about airing all the grievances with the party that we all have, and identifying areas where we can all be unified and work together.

It’s important to attend.  I’ll be there, serving on a panel and running the microphones in the audience, and I hope to see you all there as well.

All the information about the event can be found right here.  Again, don’t forget to register.

Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for his part in the collapse of healthcare reform.

The emerging consensus among critics in both chambers is that Emanuel’s lack of Senate experience slowed President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. ...

“I think Rahm ran the play his boss called; once Obama called the play, Rahm did everything he could to pass it, scorched-earth and all that,” said a senior lawmaker, who added that Emanuel didn’t seek a broader base of Senate Republicans. “I think he did miscalculate the Senate. He did what he thought he had to do to win.”

Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan.

While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.

I think Democrats efforts to pass a government health care takeover met with widespread popular resistance from the American electorate that rendered even the Democrat super-majority fractured and useless.

IIf Americans truly wanted a government take over of health care in numbers even approaching a majority Rahm Emanuel and his arm-twisting wouldn’t have mattered.  The bill would have sailed through Congress even with Republicans objecting along the way.

Because Democrats didn’t need a single Republican to pass this bill.

Democrats are face the grim reality of a stalled domestic agenda.  They can’t admit that said agenda is stalled because the people don’t want it, so instead they must find scapegoats.  Axelrod, who was previously the target of liberal derision, is too high-ranking to go under the bus.

Emanuel may not be.

Is it really to much to ask that Americans be allowed to handle their own retirements?