Behold the Triple Steal. Last one in the Majors was in 2008 before that 1987.

In honor of America’s dead.

Butch Otter is likely to go 1-for-2 on this route. It really is unprecedented what happened at the 2008 convention with Otter’s choice for Chairman, Kirk Sullivan, being denied re-election. There is not near the level of angst now that many of the grassroots commands have been acted on. Expect Dean Sorensen to win and party activists to rue the day it happened. I hope conservative enjoyed having platform statements from candidates because I’d bet money that Chairman Sorensen and his new Executive Director won’t be sending them out.

On the other hand, Otter’s efforts to reopen the closed primary are going to be probably be given a cold shoulder by delegates. Having gone through years of this debate, only the die hards of the open primary are ready to go back through it. If he cared about party unity, he’d drop the idea in the name of consensus and unity.

Here’s the problem. Butch Otter is not interested in bringing grassroots and establishment to harmony. There’s one thing he wants from grassroots Republicans.

Complete submission to his will.

It’s Governor Otter’s way or the highway, that’s the way Otter has tried to have things run in the GOP. This is why he’s putting up a Sorensen for Party Chairman. If he cared about bringing the party together, he would offer a candidate who would meet the approval of the conservative wing, but Otter wants total submission. And more likely than not, his choice as GOP chairman will take that approach.

There is more than enough reason to throw out the state’s existing political establishment. I was on the floor at the 2008 Convention as Butch Otter’s machine wanted to deny secret ballot elections for Party offices. With many delegates state employees, at the very least, there was an implied threat of political reprisals. When Raul Labrador stood to speak, members of the party establishment jeered like they were New York political machine thugs.

When Butch Otter didn’t get his way, he through a tantrum. He refused to raise funds to help support Bill Sali’s re-election campaign until it was too late in the process and was shedding no tears over the seat going to the Democrats.

We also saw the case of Chris Pentico, where the Otter Administration prosecuted a grassroots conservative activist.

Otter represents a political establishment that at its core is about old political families who believe, like the Aristocracy of old, that their power is secured by their birthright and that it is the duty of the common folk to bow to their will.

Yet, conservatives refused to do anything to seriously challenge this establishment in 2010. Otter was opposed for Governor by four candidates whose campaigns were more doomed from the start than the Edmund Fitzgerald.  Only token opposition was made to Brad Little who got to become the state’s new Crown Prince Lieutenant Governor.

Now I note in the Statesman article, Region 2 Chairwoman Lee Ann Callear says:

“We support the governor, but we’re not going to be bullied,” she said. “We want the party run from the grass roots up, not the top down. I don’t understand why he has to have his person. To me, a guy that’s finally the governor of Idaho — that’s not enough?”

The problem is that the Governor didn’t learn his lesson after 2008 and decide to submit to grassroots leadership. He threw a tantrum and there was no consequence  for this. By continuing to “support the Governor,” conservatives are enabling to continue the same behavior because he’s not going to change.

One of the challenges is that Otter hasn’t been all bad: he held the line on taxes during the downturn, he provided some critical support to Tom Luna on education reform, and he’s made some good legislative appointments.  And some people like Otter for the conservative principles he used to stand for and the conservative rhetoric he can still whip out on the appropriate occasion. The problem is that he represents a political establishment that’s far more interested in rewarding its allies than it is bringing about the type of things conservatives care about in terms of school choice, tax reform, and more freedom and as long as Otter and the monied establishment is in power.

Emerson Observed, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” The idea politically is that you must defeat your political opponent totally when you go after him, not just give him a black eye and allow him to stay in office, because if you do that, he’s going to strike. That’s exactly what conservatives have tried to do and this is where we’re at. And the longer we keep this constant bifurcated approach to Otter and the establishment up, the longer the party’s going to be divided.

Either conservatives need to bow to Otter as the power who must be obeyed or they need to resolve to not only elect a conservative chairman, but to offer a serious alternative to Otter  and Little in the 2014 elections.

On Tuesday, some 144,500 votes were cast in Idaho’s GOP congressional races. And, as the GOP correctly notes in a news release, that is a marked increase from 2008, when 126,573 votes were cast in the congressional races.

But the turnout for GOP congressional races was also about a 9 percent decrease from 2010, when 158,746 votes were case in GOP congressional primaries.

Normally, a comparison between 2008 and 2012 might hold water, since both years are presidential years. But since the Idaho GOP held its first-ever presidential caucus in March, taking the presidential race off the 2012 ballot, there’s an apples-to-oranges element to the comparison.

Sorry, but it is an apples-to-apples comparison. Kevin’s argument makes one bad assumption and misses one key point.

First, the bad assumption: That a significant number of people turned out for Idaho’s Presidential Primary. By the time, Idaho voted last time, the Republican Presidential race had been over for nearly three months. That’s not likely going to be a big draw.

Kevin neglects to note what 2010 had that 2012 didn’t. 2010 didn’t have the Presidential race, but it did have the U.S. Senate seat, and  all the state offices up for election including contested races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Controller. In addition, the 2010 Idaho U.S. House primary between Vaughn Ward and Raul Labrador. In 2012, the Congressional Races topped the ballot and no primary was that exciting. It all depended on local  elections. Given that, the result was solid.

In addition, regarding the focus of whether turnout was up or down as a measure of the success of the election. The purpose of closed primaries was to stop liberals, Democrats, and people who didn’t share Republican values from voting. In this election, more actual Republicans showed up to vote.

I’d add that when it comes to other things, Richert and the Statesman have no problem with low turnout elections. They’d be perfectly fine with a local option sales tax bill that would allow for elections in odd numbered election years when hardly anyone outside of Boise’s North End shows up to vote. What makes the Statesman mad is that Republicans are now the ones picking their nominees and that means their editorial board has less influence than ever.

Mission accomplished.

High Level:

Re-opening the Primary: The party establishment including Butch Otter is eagerly rubbing its hands together at the prospect of being able to reopen Idaho’s primary due to “disappointing turnout” which saw turnout from 25% of voters to 23% (really conclusive numbers, eh?). In an email from Norm Semanko:

During yesterday’s primary, 144,500 votes were cast in the two Republican Congressional races. In 2008, the number was 126,573, according to the Secretary of State’s website. That is an increase of nearly 15% for Republican voters. On the other hand, the total Democrat primary votes in the Congressional races dropped by over one-third from 2008 to 2012.

In essence, the primary turnout was lower on the Democratic side, while Republican turnout was actually higher even with no big top of the ticket race. However, this is numbers and logic. Don’t expect that to be reported in the media, don’t expect it come from Otter and Ysura at the State Convention. Expect an effort to undo years of progress on the closed primary and thanks to Ryan Davidson (more on that later), they may have a shot at doing it.

Who got excluded from the primary? Liberals wanting to sabotage the primary or who know they have no prayer of beating Republicans in the Fall and want to pick as liberal a GOP nominee as possible. Liberal members of the media who don’t want to explain to their friends at the Idaho Press Club that they voted Republicans. Good riddance.

Idaho 1st District: Barring some unforeseen tragedy, Raul Labrador will be the first two term Congressman the District has had since 2006. In 2008, Matt Salisbury got 40% against Bill Sali in the GOP primary while Walt Minnick cruised to the Democratic nomination. In 2012, Raul Labrador beat back his intraparty challenger by a 4:1 margin. At the same time, former NFL Wide Receiver Jimmy Farris struggled in the Democratic Primary, winning by only a 53-47% margin. What made this remarkable was that he was being challenged by Cynthia Clickingbeard, a bipolar former doctor whose license was revoked and who was arrested for assault, and had to face a mental health evaluation to see if she was even capable of understanding the charges against her.  Again, Farris so impressed Democratic voters that he could only get 53% against her.

Raul Labrador is as good as re-elected.

District 2: Mike Simpson was re-nominated in 2010 with 58% of the vote.  In the face of such a humbling turnout, Mike Simpson could reconsider and understand the importance of fealty to the Constitution and to the values of his constituents. He could become a champion of the values of the Republican Party.

Instead, he just decided to fake it, which worked well enough. He won 70% of the vote. Chick Heileson finished with 30% (up from 24% a few years ago), but came nowhere close as he was vastly outspent.

The bottom line lesson of the race is that if anyone is going to beat Mike Simpson, he’ll have to raise a ton of money, be very charismatic, and be LDS. Tough combination and no I know who can fill it.

Simpson is headed for an eighth term easily as he faces Idaho Senator Nicole LeFavour. When I first came to Idaho in 2003, Democrats nominated candidates who wouldn’t antagonize voters. With past candidates like Jim Hansen and Debbie Holmes, that idea has become increasingly passe. With the nomination of a militant leftist who decided to inform religiously conservative legislators by sending them Brokeback Mountain for Christmas, Democrats have abandoned this strategy. Outside of Democratic strongholds like the North End and Blaine County, I would hate to be a Democrat running for anything in the 2nd District. The former slam poets history of rants, tantrums, intolerance  and extremism makes her an inviting target and before this election is over someone’s going to tie a Democratic opponent to the far left positions of “Barack Obama and Nicole LeFavour.”

I just hope Republicans will be judicious about going after her as there’s no need to spike the ball in races that are well in hand.

Ada County:

The Paul Bomb explodes: Romney supporters walked away with the majority of precinct contests won in Ada County. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll shut supporters of Ron Paul out of slots to the state convention, it does represent a significant reversal of fortunes for Paul supporters and those who want to challenge the party establishment.

If the establishment succeeds in dominating Ada County’s delegation to the State Convention, many of the key victories conservatives have won in recent years will be in peril such as the closed primary and the party platform questionnaire. In addition, Butch Otter will be able to pick the next chairman with little concern as to what conservatives think about it.

If this happens, the fiasco can be laid at the feet of Ryan Davidson who picked an ill-advised fight in his attempt to suspend the rules and overturn the results of the Idaho Caucus and award all the delegates to the third place candidates. Davidson was willing to have “scorched earth.” Well, he certainly got it on Tuesday.

The success of many of the “Paul people” in Idaho came not from the message of Ron Paul, but from people whose commitment to conservative values was not tied to one particular presidential candidate being willing to work in a coalition with Ron Paul folks to restore the Idaho GOP to grassroots control.

What too many Paul supporters have chosen to do is to make involvement in the process primarily about the presidency. In the process, they’re fracturing conservatives and losing the state party.

In the case of this campaign to overturn the Caucus, Republican voters are settled on Mitt Romney as our nominee. We don’t want another four years of Barack Obama. We are concerned about the immediate danger of government-run health care, Obama’s war on family, marriage, decency, and the certain bankruptcy around the corner. In the midst of these concern, Paul people wanted to undermine the Republican nominee in his battle against Barack Obama. The establishment took advantage of this short-sightedness. Ron Paul handed them a loaded gun and the establishment just pulled the trigger.

If conservatives want to see the Republican establishment rule we just need to keep biting and kicking, and at war with each other over presidential candidates. It’s only when we stand together on our common objectives that we’ll get anything done. If Ron Paul supporters in Idaho want to play a significant role in the party in the future, this is a lesson they have to learn.

Moving on to countywide race:

Commissioner: Jim Tibbs’ victory was no surprise. Sharon Ullman’s loss was interesting, mainly because it followed a long line of turnover in the County Commissioner elections. In the last four elections, one County Commissioner has been defeated:

2006: Judy Peavey-Derr (R) lost Republican Primary.
2008: Paul Woods (D) lost re-election
2010: Fred Tilman (R) lost Republican Primary
2012: Sharon Ullman (R) lost Republican Primary.

It could be that voters have some deep underlying dissatisfaction with the way that County Government is working or it could be voters think an infusion of new blood every election is a good thing. Whatever the case, while I offer congratulations to Ed Case and Jim Tibbs, I’d advise them not to get too comfortable if they win in the Fall. With electoral history like this, the phrase, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” is apt.

Legislative Races Highlights:

District 14: Marv Hagedorn’s  star rose with a win in the Senate primary and facing no opposition in the Fall. Hagedorn, along with Senators Russ Fulcher (R-22) and Rep. Cliff Bayer (R) who is a shoo-in to move up to the Senate, may provide the strongest trio of results-oriented conservatives in the State Senate. Any one of three would make an excellent candidate for higher office and if local conservatives had any sense they would consider it the first chance they get.

District 17: Judy Peavey-Derr’s  opponent in the Republican Primary, Thomas Bullock, won 43%. As of the last campaign finance report, he’d spent no money, he had no campaign expenditures or money raised. My wife and I voted for him because Lucas Baumbach said he was pro-life and whoever Thomas Bullock was, he was Judy Peavey-Derr. Not being Judy Peavey-Derr was enough for 43% of the vote. Senator Elliot Werk doesn’t have a whole lot to worry about this Fall.

District 18: The nail-biter of the night came in District 18 with an incredible race between Brad Bolicek and John Hruby. Hruby had the financial advantage with the first financial report showing Hruby out-raising Bolicek 8:1. However, Bolicek managed to pull off the victory through hard work and a record of involvement in local politics plus the endorsement of Idaho Chooses Life. This tough campaign is good preparation for what will be a formidable Fall Campaign against a three term incumbent in Phyllis King (D-18).

District 20: I have to admit some disappointment with Tom LeClaire’s loss. I think he would have made a great state representative. He’s a good guy and would have been great for District 20. What may have hurt him most may have been the Idaho Statesman endorsement. Candidates tout those things when they get them, but I think that in many races, it’s the kiss of death.  It’s a difficult issue to deal with. If I ever run for office and somehow I was endorsed by the Statesman, I would denounce the endorsement as sabotage.

District 21: I was pleased by Steve Harris’ win in Seat A. Seat B was a disappointment because you had too many conservatives running and splitting the vote.

Thoughts Outside of Ada County:

The gang’s (mostly) all here. Redistricting did a number on a few solid conservatives. Representative Steve Thayn found himself in a Senate race in the same district that Rep. Lenore Barrett (formerly of District 35) found herself in a tight House race.

Thayn is one of the most innovative legislators we have, while Barrett is a rock solid conservative fighter. The one time I met the great Helen Chenoweth-Hage was in the Spring of 2004 at a rally for conservative legislative candidates. Her advise to us (should we get elected) was to follow the lead of Lenore Barrett.

I never got the opportunity, but conservative legislators will have that opportunity for a while longer after Barrett won in the new District 8, while Thayn became its new Senator.  Both are such great conservatives that losing either one of them would be a huge loss.

Up in Northern Idaho, conservative freshmen Senator Steve Vick (R-2) and Representative Vito Barberi (R-2) won renomination easily. Vick defeated former Senator Mike Jorgensen (R-2) by a 61-38% margin which should finish his career. Both Vick and Barberi are set for long runs as conservative champions.

Senator Tim Corder was finally ousted when Senator Bert Brackett won the GOP primary by 14 points in the new District 23.  Corder was the last name on the list of RINOs I made in 2010. All others are retired.

The one somewhat sad note was the defeat of Phil Hart (R-2). I do hope there’s an upside for Hart, as getting some of these thorny issues out of the media and public eye may make it easier to resolve. I commend Hart for his service and sacrifice even at a time of great personal difficulty. Those commenters who opined that Hart was somehow getting a big financial from serving in the legislature must have no idea what legislators make. Hart’s decision to serve even while facing all this legal trouble constitute a big time sacrifice of time and money.

Of course, there were other races that went wrong. The more moderate members of the District 1 delegation all beat back their primary challenges handily and challenges to establishment incumbents went nowhere.

For me, the night was mixed with more good happening than bad. That’s politics in the Republican Primary and after the State Convention, it’ll be time to pivot to the Fall and beat the Democrats.

In Seat A, for the party establishment, Robert Simison, the chief of staff for Mayor Tammy de Weerd is seeking the seat. Simison is being challenged by Parrish Miller and Steven Harris.

Of the two, my preference is Harris. Harris brings valuable life experience that will enable him to serve as a strong fiscal conservative. Harris is also the reliable pro-life candidate in the race.

In Seat B, there are several inexperienced candidates, most of whom are presenting a solid conservative agenda. In the end, I feel that Lori Shewmaker is the best candidate. In 2010, she was a giant slayer, defeating the plague on District 21 republicans that was Steve Ricks. She has solid conservative values and brings energy and passion to the race. She is the best conservative choice and I would encourage district 21 voters to support her.

Halverson has some good principles, but he’s short on specifics, and really his answers to the Statesman questionnaire sound like he should be running for the legislature.

Bowen intrigues me, but in the end I’m not sold. Jim Tibbs represents an experienced public servant with a record of thoughtful leadership. He has shown himself a faithful leader and would make a wise choice.

In the Sheriff’s race, Curtis Cattau is challenging Sheriff Gary Raney but doesn’t provide a case for replacing Raney. Raney has been doing a good job and I see no reason to replace him, so I’ll vote to renominate.

“If two-thirds of the delegates to the Idaho State Convention are Ron Paul supporters, they can vote to suspend the rules, overturn the results of the caucus and award all the national delegates to Ron Paul.”

 

Certainly, the convention CAN go ahead and put aside the votes of 51% of the people. They CAN invalidate countless hours of volunteer work done as well as the time,money, and pains that thousands of Idahoans to go out and participate in a Caucus.They CAN ignore the votes of the Party regulars because Mr. Davidson thinks he knows better, but should they? I would say no.

I should note that I write this as someone who spent the last five years advocating against a Mitt Romney candidacy.  I don’t like his nomination and don’t think he’s a great candidate but the idea that trying to throw the nomination to a guy who got 10.86% of the vote is going to help us defeat Obama in the fall is a pipe dream.

But here is where the dilemma comes infor conservatives. This is being pushed through the Precinct Committee races. These races are about a lot more than the presidential delegate selection process. Through 2008 and 2010, an anti-Establishment push has occurred. It’s allowed the election of Norm Semanko as Chairman. In that role, Semanko has done great things for our party, including beginning the effort to send out questionaires as to where our candidates stand on the Party platform.

Ron Paul lost the caucuses and so therefore, the focus ought to be on electing a new chairman at Twin Falls who will live up to conservative values. Instead, Davidson has handed the establishment a weapon with which they can get back into power at this year’s convention because they can tell voters quite honestly that a vote for Ron Paul backers will lead to an overturning of the state’s caucus results that will allow the third place candidate to get all the delegates.

Conservative voters will face a hard pick. Voting for the Romney slate of Precinct Committeemen will ensure that the integrity of Idaho’s election process will ensure the votes of Idaho Republicans are not disregarded. On the other hand, it will also end up handing control of the state party back to the landed political establishment who cares little for grassroots conservatives and more for its own power.

It may make sense to vote for the Paul people because the odds of them winning 2/3 of delegates are small or it may be that the move to use a technicality to overturn the votes of a majority of Caucus-goers may be a bridge too far. This will be the dilemma faced on Tuesday.

As an eddenum, Caucus critics will no doubt chime in claiming that the caucus allowed this to happen. That’s nonsense. The suspension of the rules Davidson proposes could be used after a primary as well.

In  Seat A, Rep. Joe Palmer (R-20) has two challengers who talk a fairly conservative game including Richard Dees who the Idaho Statesman endorsed out of pique over Palmer sponsoring a bill that took aim at Occupy Wall Street.

Palmer has impressed house leaders and attracted the attention of House Speaker Lawrence Denney who hand-picked him to head up the House Transportation Committee. Palmer is a conservative stalwart with an outstanding 98% conservative voting record.  The wise choice is to vote to renominate and re-elect Joe Palmer.

In Seat B, I see a familiar name, that of Tom LeClaire. In 2004, my first involvement in Idaho politics was a primary campaign against Mr. LeClaire. He beat me by a solid margin over in District 16. Since then, he and his family have moved to Meridian.

Over the course of the past eight years or so, I’ve gotten an opportunity to learn more about Tom and his family. Tom is a true conservative with a long and distinguished background of service to his community and to the Republican Party. His service on such varied areas as the Moscow (Idaho) City Council, the Latah County GOP, the Meridian Parks and Rec. board, and coaching Y-Ball shows someone who is more concerned with serving the communities he’s lived in rather than just seeking power.

As someone who works a regular 40-hour a week job, I feel Tom LeClaire brings a unique understanding of the experience of Idaho workers. While small business owners, retirees, and farmers provided valuable experience, it often feels like those of who work in normal settings as hourly workers are under-represented and Tom can definitely relate well to that experience.

I do appreciate the great service that Patrick Malloy has rendered to Christians and Conservatives in Idaho and  across America in his work with the Alliance Defense Fund, but the candidacy of Tom LeClaire presents District 20 residents with a great candidate who is well-deserving of their support. So I proudly endorse Tom LeClaire for State House in District 20.

A good ad from Heileson that makes a cogent against Simpson. Not sure that really happened in 2010. Primary will be interesting. Simpson was held under 60% last time, but with all the out of state PAC money, he has to be favorite. Still, Lugar was a favorite too.

Another is running in District 22: Fred Tilman. Commissioner Tilman developed a record as a solid conservative leader when he stood as our Ada County Commissioner. He was a trustworthy stalwart and a solid Republican who held the line on taxes and advocated for innovative common sense solutions that didn’t expand the size of government.

Tilman’s practical experience of conservative governance makes him a great pick for District 22 voters. Sadly, I think we’ve seen a rash of ill-advised primary campaigns with grassroots conservatives running against candidates who have records as solid conservative leaders. The sooner Idaho Conservatives abandon the “challenge them all and let God sort it out” approach to primary politics, the better off we’ll be.

Both Mark Patterson and Curtis Ellis offer conservative stances on the issues, however Patterson offers conservatives a better chance of prevailing in the fall as he has shown himself better able to network and build bridges with local conservatives  and shown himself superior at the business of running a campaign. Patterson ran a strong primary campaign in 2010 against long-time incumbent Max Black. That campaign experience will serve him well at running an effective campaign in the general.

Patterson would be a conservative leader in the State House. His dedication and strong belief in conservative constitutional principles would serve Idaho well.  That taken with the fact that Patterson is the most likely candidate to win in the Fall, the choice in District 15 is clear, Mark Patterson is the best candidate for State House.

In 2004, I* was a voter in the 16th District. I faced a tough decision as to whether to vote for Graham Patterson or a more conservative challenger. I ended up voting for Patterson because he was conservative enough and the opponent I was considering had not put on a serious campaign.  Fairy Hitchcock recently  filed a campaign finance report indicating a grand total of $17.91 in contributions and expenditures and hasn’t bothered to fill out the Statesman’s Voter Guide.

So once again, Patterson earns my nod by default. While he’s not as conservative as I am, if Patterson is elected to the State House, he will be more conservative than anyone elected to District 16 in the past decade. He is a good man who has made great efforts on the Republican Party and Republican candidates.  The best choice available is Graham Patterson for State House.

I might vote for him as useless protest vote to stop us from making Judy Peavey Derr the sacrificial RINO in our district.  The good news for Mr. Bullock, if he can’t be bothered with the basics of running a campaign is that being an ex-candidate is no bother at all.

Sharon Ullman in her term has cleared the bar. She certainly far exceeded the expectations of the Idaho Statesman which would have had you believe that her tenure would be full of more drama than a night at the Metropolitan Opera.  I’ve observed Ullman in her four years back on the job and have found her to be competent, responsive, and an advocate for limited and wiser government. Ullman has brought valuable perspective to the Commissioner’s office, and it would be a shame to lose her.

While I’ve had disagreements with Commissioner Ullman, I think she’s done a commendable job. In addition, her opponent is Dave Case, a Kuna School Board member who proudly endorsed Planned Parenthood’s Democratic Congressman Walt Minnick over Raul Labrador.

I will take a leader with a record of supporting limited government over one who chose to support a radical pro-abortionist Democrat.

For conservatives, the choice is clear. Vote Sharon Ullman for Commissioner.

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says “operational decision-making and control” was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

“The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven’s hands,” the memo says. “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out.”

In other words, it was McRaven’s call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

This makes Paul Shanklin’s parody even more salient:

In one corner is Idaho Representative Marv Hagedorn (R-20) who has spent three terms in the State House. Representative Hagedorn’s conservative bonafides are beyond question. He has a 95% career Idaho Conservative voting record and in multiple years was recognized as a Lion of Conservativism.

More than just a voting record or a warm body, Marv Hagedorn is one of the legislature’s most thoughtful and intelligent lawmakers. Along with Steve Thayn, Russ Fulcher, and Cliff Bayer, he is among the Treasure Valleys’ most essential conservative leaders. He has been a fighter for conservative values and one who has led the fight for innovative conservative solutions in the State House.

On the other hand, we have Former Senator Stan Bastian (R) who represented the old District 14 in the House for one term and one in the Senate. During his years in the legislature, Bastian was a consistent friend of the IEA, choosing the support of big Teachers Unions over children. Bastian netted a 75% Idaho Conservative rating for 2007 and 2008 sessions and managed to attempt to wrangle re-election by saying one thing to conservatives before the election and doing another once in office. Well people caught on.

While there are other candidates in the race, the big choice in District 14 is between a true conservative leader and a moderate who is contstantly reinventing himself. The choice is clear. Vote for Marv Hagedorn for Senate.

I endorsed Rep. Reed DeMourdant (R-14) in 2010. DeMourdant has justified conservative faith in him by posting a 95% Idaho Conservative Voting record. Anyone can put out fliers and promise to vote conservative. DeMourdant’s done it and he deserves to be renominated and re-elected to a second term.

Bolicek and Hruby provided nearly identical conservative answers to the Cornerstone Voter Guide, the big difference being that Hruby advocates for state regulation of home schoolers, who quite frankly don’t need the government intrusion and are doing quite well without it.

Beyond this single point, there are many other reasons to support Bolicek. Bolicek has prior experience as a candidate. I was a witness to how hard he worked in 2006. Unfortunately, he had the bad fortune to find himself up against a popular Democratic incumbent in one of the biggest Democratic years in history.

However, after his defeat, Brad responded by becoming an active supporter of the Idaho Republican Party. He volunteered and worked for other candidates and earned the support of Republicans to become Vice-Chairman of the Ada County GOP.

One of the easiest ways for legislative seats to slip away is for the GOP to nominate a candidate who flakes out. We needn’t about that happening with Brad Bolicek as the GOP nominee. He will flat out, work to bring Seat B back to the GOP.

In addition, he is committed solidly to bedrock conservative principles. Wise conservatives in District 18 would do well to give their wholehearted support to Brad Bolicek.

Senator Tim Corder (R) boasts one of the most liberal voting records (56% Idaho Conservative Rating) in the Senate Republican Caucus. Indeed, with the retirements of Senators Joyce Broadsword and John Andreason, and Representative Tom Trail, Corder may be the last RINO standing in the new legislature. On issue after issue, Corder has leaned left and played to the media and IEA. Corder is an avowed opponent of school choice and in 2012 opposed lifting the cap on new Charter Schools, choosing to support the interests of the IEA over the interests of Idaho students and parents.

Senator Bert Brackett, while not perfect, represents a much more center right approach (83% Idaho Conservative Voting Record). Brackett has shown his conservative credentials not only on school choice but on school reform in general. Brackett stood firmly for the Idaho Health Freedom Act to protect citizens from the Unconstitutional encroachments of Obamacare. Senator Brackett is endorsed by Governor Otter, and I’ll gladly lend my voice to that endorsement.

Idaho Representative Pete Nielsen (R) faces a challenge from Matthew Bundy and Steve Millington, both of whom seem to be well-intentioned. However, both are short on specifics. Neither chose to fill out the Cornerstone Institute’s questionnaire. Nielsen, not only provided conservative answers to Cornerstone’s questions, he has a rock solid 92% conservative voting record. Give me a solid conservative with a record any day. I wholeheartedly endorse Pete Nielsen for re-nomination and re-election as a reliable conservative.

To Simpson that message has been to go back to Washington and beg more money from his special interest masters while proposing tax increases in violation of his tax pledge.  His defense for this was, “When I signed the pledge not to raise taxes… I didn’t know it was a marriage agreement that would last forever.”

Unlike most people, I’ve been in a position to sign a pledge back when I ran for the State House a few years after Simpson was elected to Congres. In addition to the pledge, Americans for Tax Reform sends out a packet of information explaining what exactly you’re getting yourself into. Their FAQ at the state level is little different than their Federal FAQ which makes it clear this pledge is a long-term arrangement:

Do I have to take the Pledge again if I run for re-election?

No. Pledge signers are bound for the duration of their tenure in the office to which they are elected.

When I signed this pledge, I resolved that if I ever made the decision that  a tax increase was necessary my only honorable course would be to resign and face voters again. Of course, I doubt the question of what an honorable course would be was on Simpson’s mind when he signed this pledge. His more pressing concern was getting conservatives to give him that first term back in 1998.  Did he read the FAQ? Did he even give any contemplation to what it meant to give your word?

We know what Mike Simpson’s word is worth. That’s what I’m endorsing Chick Heileson for Congress. Chick Heileson stands firmly for constitutional values. He opposed Wall Street Bailouts.  Chick Heileson is a businessman, veteran, and citizen who will bring integrity back to the representation of the second district. I will vote for Chick Heileson and in the strongest terms possible, I encourage everyone to go out and cast your vote in the Republican Primary for Chick Heileson for Congress.

If you want to support Stanton Health Care, click here to donate.

In 2010, I endorsed the campaign of Raul Labrador. I knew Labrador would be a superb Congressman and a great rising star for our party, not only in Idaho, but nationally as well. Residents of the 1st District saw this as well, as they handed him the nomination in an upset over the candidate backed by more money and more establishment support.

Raul Labrador hasn’t disappointed. His 96% Conservative Voting Record is superb. More importantly, he’s become a prominent national voice in the 2010 Freshman Class.

For these reasons, I’m pleased to endorse Raul Labrador for re-election.

The House Scorecard will be coming next week. We have twice the number of votes and twice the number of members, so it’ll take some work.

I don’t particularly care who Governor Romney chooses as his running mate. As long as he keeps with his commitment to a pro-life Vice-Presidential Candidate, I could care less. If I were to have any favorites, it would be Ohio Senator Rob Portman, a boring vague figure who would fit right in on the Romney ticket.

Conservatives who opposed Governor Romney are disappointed, but we have to be frank. The nomination of Mitt Romney is an event we have brought upon ourselves and which we deserve for a lack of planning, foolish divisiveness, and lack of foresight. I’ll talk about how we can remedy these situations in the future–but not until after the Fall election.

I’ll not paper over Romney’s problems or be dishonest about the endorsement of Romney. Several people have looked like fools this cycle because last cycle that acted like Romney was a true conservative and this cycle they’re declaring him anathema. Let me be completely honest, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the lesser of two evils.

After Mitt Romney has been on the national stage for five years, I cannot define what his political core is, or even if he has one. I have no idea whether he’s running to achieve the current program he’s talking about, has a hidden agenda, or no agenda at all. The one consistent theme of Romney’s political career has been personal ambition.

Mitt Romney has praised Rick Santorum for running a good campaign. I wish I could sincerely praise Governor Romney for that. He’s run a campaign based on tearing down men of better courage and achievement for the conservative movement. To quote Speaker Gingrich, “Romney is like a four foot eight guy who wants to play center on a basketball team. The only way he can do it is to make others smaller.” When I hear Romney or his supporters complain about the negative tone of the campaign and how it has damaged the GOP, I’m reminded of the man who murdered both his parents and begged for leniency because he was an orphan.

Because of the campaign Romney won, he has left behind a GOP electorate where there are many hard feelings and he’ll have to overcome that. He’ll also have to overcome the record negative ratings he has earned for himself as a result of the campaign he has run. My biggest reservation about supporting Romney is that it may encourage the same gut-turning tactics by future campaigns. In addition, Romney’s ascension teaches us that principles don’t matter as long as you have money, ambition, and the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

However, I said Romney is a lesser evil and I meant it. A Christian Pastor when referring to these “lesser of two evils” choices asked a good question, “Shouldn’t Christians want less evil?”

Barack Obama has run an Administration that has sought to attack the religious liberty of the American people. He has shown that he believes there is no limit on the power and size of the Central Government. As America is on the brink of fiscal abyss, he has proposed the most outlandish budget proposals ever seen. While a Bill Clinton might react to this by proposing spending cuts and tax increases, Obama has opposed tax increases and even more spending. In Barack Obama’s world, you can have $1.5 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see without consequence.

Barack Obama has stymied attempts at drilling for oil even as Gas Prices surge out of control, threatening the well-being of every American. He is making unwise cuts in our defense budget that will endanger our national security for years down the road.

Finally, Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of this Republic. His administration’s policy is to promote, encourage, and finance the destruction of innocent human life wherever and whenever it can.

This is a key issue for me. As bad as Mitt Romney has treated Rick Santorum and other conservatives in this race, it is nothing next to how Barack Obama has treated the unborn. Therefore, while I mistrust Mitt Romney, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on a few points.

Governor Romney has pledged to be a pro-life President and to appoint strict constructionist to the court. While his appointments in Massachusetts give reason for doubt, the fact is that Romney has been endorsed by conservatives such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice which has a major interest in arguing before the court on behalf of the unborn and religious liberties. I will, for the purpose of this election, trust that endorsement means Romney will appoint strict constructionist judges. Conservatives can take comfort in the appointment of Harriet Miers. President Bush appointed her but she was forced to withdraw when conservatives dissented and were unsure of her commitment. We have no such leverage on an Obama appointment.

Secondly, in the face of our current fiscal crisis, I will entertain the hope that once in Washington, Romney will face the fiscal crisis and the entitlement crisis head on. If he won’t face it from principle, I hope he faces it from pragmatism. No one wants to be the president who sent America into insolvency. However, seriously addressing these problems requires political courage which Romney has shown no evidence of. I give Romney about 25% chance of seriously taking on the nation’s fiscal future in a meaningful way. However, that’s 25% higher than I would give President Obama and if Romney only makes minor changes to cover his tail and forestall the most serious consequences of our national problems until after his Administration, Romney will have still done more for the country than Obama.

Romney supporters will doubtless not appreciate the honest tone of this. However, I think that there will be enough insincere pabulum written by conservatives between now and Election Day to fill the entire Library of Congress. I hope this endorsement will speak to those who are truly displeased with the nomination of Mitt Romney. I hope that they will join me in supporting the lesser of two evils in this campaign, and hoping for the best.

I wish Governor Romney the best. For the duration of the campaign, I won’t post anything negative about Governor Romney. I reserve the right to criticize Romney’s campaign if it does something boneheaded, but I endorse Governor Romney as the lesser of two evils in this race.

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

-Matthew 28:1-6

The Idaho Sheriff’s Association has said admissions of guilt will be crucial to enforcing the legislation.

Admissions of guilt? I’m sorry d when I think of a guilty party admitting to authority that they were guilty, I think of Perry Mason and I guess if police are going to get many tickets, they’re going to have to practice:

Isn’t true that you were behind the wheel texting Tara about Justin Bieber? Isn’t it true that you said he was cute when he was taking that turn? Isn’t true that Tara said, “LOL.” Isn’t it all true?

Of course, in reality, those honest citizens who say, “Yeah, I was texting.” will get the violation. Those who say, “Nope officer, I was playing Pac-man,” will simply get a stern lecture.  So thus the bill reward the dishonest citizen willing to lie and punishes the honest one.

I appreciate that texting and driving is a dumb thing to do. I don’t do it. (I rarely text when not driving.)  But it’s also  dumb thing for the legislature to think that every dumb act requires its own law. We already had distracted drive laws on the books.

If this bill might put to rest the issue of what you do in your car by asking that this unenforcable law to the books. The problem is that when a teen gets into a car accident because they ignored the law, the same folks will be back saying the problem is that the law’s not strong enough. And this bill is just the start of nanny state attempts to micromanage and control what you can and cannot do in your car. Les Bock and Elliot Werk introduce S1251 which bans cell phone use while driving.

Be prepared for a lot more well-intentioned but dumb traffic regulations to make their way through the legislature. The texting ban was only the start.

My wife and I arrived around 4:30 to get started and went through the line and security and found a seat. The Ada County Party did a good job organizing the Taco Bell Arena and cramming us in. Of course, we’d be there a long time. The County Party had put out the word that the doors would close at 7:00, but this was pushed back half an hour due to a couple thousand people still being in line. Finally, they crammed 9,000 registered voters plus their kids into Taco Bell Arena and finally the program got underway.

The event had a festive atmosphere with people waiving signs and cheering. A couple gentlemen brought along white plastic hats with a red, white, and blue hat band on them and put their favorite candidates on. There was cheering from Ron Paul and Rick Santorum people. While Mitt Romney won the night, his fans were rarely heard from. The Ron Paul people were louder than the Rick Santorum folks, but as the final results showed, there were slightly more of us than them.

My wife commented that the Caucus, even though it took longer was a lot more fun than a primary. And she was right. In the same way, if you enjoy cooking, that making a meal from scratch is more fun than shoving a TV dinner in the microwave. Though, there were some people in other parts of our state who didn’t have as good a time. (More on that later.)

The voting and counting got underway at about 8:30 and we had the results of the first ballot about 9:30. We cast our votes with a token, which turned out to be a penny (more on that later) by going into the voting booth and putting our penny into a jar. After Andrea and I visited the over-priced concessions, we returned to our seats.

The result was a Mitt Romney win in Ada County and Idaho, which was not what I was hoping for.  However, I wasn’t unhappy with the night. I was reminded how fans of my Colorado Rockies lived with their 67-95 record that first season. They were only glad that there was baseball. Similarly, I was glad that Idaho had a caucus-and a voice.

That said, I offer a few minor criticisms of the event.

First of all, for Ada County, I have only one real complaint and that was their use of a penny as the token for voting. Can you say, “Voter fraud?” After I got out of the polling booth, it occurred to me that someone might have a couple extra votes in their pocket. This didn’t appear to be the case as there were actually a smaller number of people voting than the announced caucus attendance due to some people giving up and going home. But the County GOP was tempting fate. If they’d ended up with an overvote, they would have been in a pickle. If we’re going to continue with token voting, I’d urge them to spring for something a little more secure and harder to forge like a wooden slug. The one thing that avoided massive fraud may have been that they didn’t let people know in advance what the token would be. But next time, they need to do something else.

Other than that, I congratulate the party on its good work and particularly its successful coin promotion.

For the State Party, I have two criticisms.

First, was its decision to release results on the website while large caucuses were still voting at 8:30. I found out CNN had called Idaho for Romney before I went to the voting booth. While I appreciate that the media wants to have access to information and the Party wants to give it to them, it is far more important for the vote at the caucus not to be influenced by other counties. In Kootenai County, they learned that Romney had won the state after they’d only completed one round of voting  and a bunch of people left. In Ada County, we don’t usually have election results in until 10 o’clock and I hope the state party will hold off in the future.

I’d also suggest that under this system,  for accuracy’s sake, raw vote totals should not be released, only the count of delegates to the State Convention for each county. The results that are on the web are a classic case of comparing apples to oranges. We have the results from some counties that are first ballot results, others that are second ballot, a few that are third ballot, and at least one that’s fourth ballot.  If you were going to accurately report the popular vote, you’d need first ballot totals from all counties and it’d be confusing, particularly if a candidate didn’t lead on the first ballot but won the state.

What I would actually prefer, after last night is that we dispense with multiple ballot voting. Multiple ballots were probably a cinch to do in places like Bonner County, but in Kootenai County, it was a nightmare. Their first ballot had 3800 people vote and they only managed to dispense with Buddy Roemer. Thanks to Newt Gingrich’s visit to Northern Idaho, he stayed on for the second ballot.  Of course, they found out before they held their second ballot, that Romney won and a 1000 people left. By the time the fourth ballot was complete, only 1170 people remained.

If Ada had to go multiple ballots (and 180 less votes for Romney and we would have), it would have been an equally long night. Requiring a majority vote and that multiple ballots be held until a majority is arrived at does not work in medium-sized to large counties, particularly when you’re voting on a week night.  People have got jobs.  Many senior citizens can’t be up all night either. I would suggest that, in the future, each County simply reports its votes and that the State Party would then divide its convention delegates proportionally.  If they still wanted to have the possibility of winner-take-all at 50%, then it could be based off the statewide vote.

This would also give counties some more flexibility as to how they hold their Caucuses. If Ada wants to hold the biggest Caucus in America, they could. They also could do caucuses at multiple locations. Without having to have votes reach a majority, this would not present an undue burden.

Of course, Idaho’s Caucuses would lose some of its uniqueness. None of the other states in the country followed the process Idaho used for its ever caucus.  Last night in Kootenai, we learned why. And hopefully, the next caucus will be better for the education.

This didn’t matter so much in Washington because there was no need to get a majority and it wasn’t binding anyway.  But Idaho is very different.

To understand the Idaho Caucuses, you must realize:

1) That the vote is by County. Each county has a share of the National Convention delegates based on population. Ada’s share is 5.414 delegates, Canyon’s is 2.263. On the other end of the spectrum, several counties have 0.323 delegates at stake.

2) To win the County Caucus, a candidate must get a majority of the vote. If that doesn’t happen on the first ballot, then subsequent ballots may occur. This is aided by eliminating the candidate with the least votes after each round of balloting. For example, if Buddy Roemer finishes last and Newt Gingrich finishes 4th with less than 15% of the vote, the second ballot will have Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. If Paul is then eliminated, the third ballot will offer a choice between only Santorum and Romney.

3) If someone wins a majority of the Convention delegates (16.001), they get them all.

The Washington results should tell us that there are many counties where Mitt Romney will not get a first ballot victory, particularly the state’s most populous counties.  Given that Mitt Romney will win some counties overwhelmingly on the first ballot, the course of action for suppoorters of nn-Mitt campaigns should be clear for when the balloting finally ends and all but two choices have been eliminated:  Mitt Romney v. Not Mitt Romney, the obvious strategy is to vote for the candidate who isn’t Mitt Romney.

The reason is that counties which go for Romney on the second or third  ballot will move Mitt towards getting 16.001 delegates he’ll need to get all 32 of the State’s delegates. If you’re a Paul supporter and you find yourself  with a  choice between Santorm and Romney, the proper strategy would to be to vote for Santorum, if you’re a Santorum supporter and you find yourself with a choice between Paul and Romney, vote for Paul. This is a strategic decision. In this circumstance, a 3rd ballot vote that goes to Romney helps ensure that county caucuses your candidate won elsewhere won’t net him any delegates.

Of course, this could be easier said than done. Paul supporters and non-Paul conservatives have had some nasty debates in person and online and harsh words have flown from both campaigns. The question is whether this can be put aside for one evening for the mutual benefit of winning delegates for our preferred candidates.

Romney cherry picks a vote here or there to justify these statements. But if we want to know what really went on, we don’t need to look a handful of votes ripped from context by political opponents from twenty years ago. We need to instead look at Santorum’s whole career and his ratings by groups that had no intention of having their ratings used in a Presidential campaign and so didn’t tilt their ratings.

Three good comparisons:

1) The National Taxpayers Union ratings for fiscal conservative issues.

2) The American Conservative Union rating for overall conservatism.

3) The AFL-CIO ratings for labor comparison.

The problem? Santorum’s record in Congress is very similar to Idaho’s Senior Senator Mike Crapo. Let us compare the eight years that Crapo and Santorum served in the Senate:

In eight years in the Senate, Santorum’s record finished ahead of Crapo four times, behind him twice, and twice they received the same grade.  For overall conservative ratings, Santorum edges Crapo six out of eight years, though in 2002 and 2003, Senate absences accounted for the difference between the two.

As for AFL-CIO Ratings, Mike Crapo received a career rating of 12% through 2009, Rick Santorum’s career rating is 13%.  So if Rick Santorum is big labor’s favorite Republican than Mike Crapo’s not far behind.

It would be absurd to suggest that Mike Crapo is in the pocket of big labor and is not a fiscal conservative. But that’s exactly what the Romney camp wants us to believe about Rick Santorum who had a comparable record  to Crapo when they were serving in the Senate.  Therefore, according to Mitt Romney’s logic despite all evidence to the contrary, Crapo must not be a fiscal conservative.

Which raises another point? How is Mitt Romney, the supposed fiscal conservative getting support from fiscal “liberals” like Mike Simpson (who is a real big spender), or Butch Otter (who like Santorum voted for Medicare Part D.)?

If Santorum is an untrustworthy fiscal liberal, than aren’t the people who have endorsed Romney untrustworthy fiscal liberals? And if the people who say Romney is trustworthy aren’t trustworthy than where does that leave us? If we actually pretend the Romney campaign is sincere, I fear our wheels will end up spinning like Harry Mudd’s android.

Of course, nothing the Romney campaign is saying about Santorum sincerely bothers them. Some of their biggest supporters are much more liberal than Santorum. The fact that they won’t admit to that is clear from an actual examination of the Senate record is that Santorum had an Idaho record while representing a blue state in the U.S. Senate.

Updated to reflect the fact that Mike Crapo hasn’t endorsed anyone yet.

Conventional wisdom says that this state should be an easy win for Mitt Romney. Conventional wisdom didn’t work out too well in Colorado.

If you’d like to help in this effort in any way, email me at idaho.santorum@gmail.com.

Great victory speech to end a great night.

Our Republican Caucus workers (God bless ‘em) are going to have their hands full. We’re going to have a lot of Republicans showing up to register to have their first real say in the Republican nomination process since Gerald Ford was battling Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, from everything I can gather, many folks have not registered Republican in advance.  Many Republican elected officials, legislative district chairmen, and other activists still haven’t registered.

Please note that long delays waiting in line will not constitute a conspiracy against your candidate, they’ll constitute people not having registered as Republican in advance, and the pain points as we adapt to party registration.

If you registered after July 2011 and checked the box as a Republican, you’re good to go.

If you’ve not, please download this form, mail it in to your county election office and have it there by February 17th. If it’s convenient for you, you can do what my wife and I did and stop by the County election office and register in person. In Ada County, it’s on Benjamin Road, so if you happen to be out near the mall before 5 on a weekday, and can find the time, you can do it that way.

Even, if you read this after February 17th, you can still expedite the process when you get to the Caucus site by printing up the form above and filling it out in advance.

If you don’t want to spend a lot of time waiting in line to register, be kind to caucus workers, be kind to yourself, and be kind to your fellow caucus attendees who need to go to work the next day, and do your best to register as a Republican by February 17th.

Dr. James Dobson said: “The institution of the family is the key issue facing this great nation.  It is the foundation, the bedrock, upon which every dimension of Western Civilization rests.  If it is undermined or weakened by cultural and governmental forces, the entire superstructure will collapse in short order.  And indeed, today it is in serious jeopardy.  The very definition of marriage is threatened, which has implications for the next generation and the stability of society itself.

Of all the Republican candidates who are vying for the presidency, former Sen. Santorum is the one who has spoken passionately in every debate about this concern.  He has pleaded with the nation and its leaders to come to the aid of marriages, parents, and their children.  What a refreshing message.  The Congress voted in 1969 to impose a marriage penalty tax on husbands and wives who were struggling to raise their children.  That unfair tax continued for 32 years, until George W. Bush rolled it back. Now, if Democrats and some Republicans have their way, the marriage penalty tax will be re-imposed in 2013.  We desperately need a president who will intercede on behalf of those who are caring for the next generation and working to build this nation.

“While there are other GOP candidates who are worthy of our support, Sen. Santorum is the man of the hour. His knowledge of international politics, especially Israel and the turmoil in the Middle East, is highly relevant to the dangerous world in which we live.  This is why I am endorsing former Senator Rick Santorum for president of the United States, and urge my countrymen to join us in this campaign.”

The pony tail guy asked the question of World War II hero George H.W. Bush at a debate in his campaign against draft dodger Bill Clinton.

The answer of modern conservatives seems to be. “Heck, yeah.”

Says Ed Morrissey:

Unless there are some revelations of political malfeasance, this should be a nothingburger, but it’s hard to know how people will react to this.

And Morrissey saves his outrage for the obvious villain of the piece:

It is, however, supremely unfair of Marianne to dump this on the race now — not to Newt, but to voters who sincerely backed Gingrich.  If Newt so lacked the “moral character” for the Presidency, why did it take Marianne eight months to tell us?

If I were to speculate, I’d say that Mrs. Gingrich would rather hope that Mr. Newt would defeat himself without her aid as this is a somewhat painful process to go through, but that as she believes Mr. Gingrich lacks the moral fiber to be President, and would be a disaster to the country, she’s left with little choice.

As a former Cain supporter, I’m particularly frosted by this as Hot Air breathlessly reported every allegation, along with the rest of the press despite the lack of credibility of the accusers. Apparently, what was devastating to Cain was that people were alleging that he was a sleazy person, but with Newt, it was already built in knowledge that he was. Can we move on to the next brilliant debate answer?

Ultimately, the reason I didn’t believe Cain’s accusers is because the allegations didn’t jive with what I knew of Cain’s personal character. It contradicted everything those who knew him best said of him.

With Speaker Gingrich, it’s another case.  His actions in private and public are both equally selfish, egotistical, and vain.  The same ego that made him even ask his wife of nearly two decades for an open marriage when he was a chubby 56-year old is the same ego that made him cry foul when Bill Clinton had him sit in the back of a plane. It’s the same ego that transformed him from the guy who said,  “Hey, let’s only attack Obama.” to the Incredible Hulk releasing his fury on Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital.  It’s the same vanity that leads him to think out loud and toss out every stray idea that comes into his head as a public policy proposal. It was his selfish desire to maintain power that led him to fail address the entitlement crisis that’s facing us now during his second speaker.

Gingrich supporters would have us believe that Newt has two suits of character. He steps out of his house and he acts in an entirely different manner that he does in his personal life. He goes home and he’s back to Newt #1. Sorry, but there’s only one person, only one character.

It’s Newt’s character that has created his high negative ratings and it’s these high negatives that will undermine his ability to win in a general election.  I’m a believer in the thirteen keys theory and think it doesn’t matter a whole lot as to the question of winning or losing as to who we put up in the fall. If things are bad enough, the GOP will win. If not, we will lose. However, I think the type of candidate we put up will impact the margin of a loss. If Newt is our nominee, we will face a loss of Nixon-McGovern proportions. And if he wins, he’s shown he’s willing to do whatever it takes to hold on to power. Gingrich offers conservatives a true lose-lose proposition.

Fundamentally, I’m willing to lose this elections and lose it by those type of margins, standing firm for conservative principle.  What I’m not willing to do and what I think no conservative in their right mind should be willing to do is lose the election because you nominate someone of an undisciplined and egotistical character.

The type of bumps and poll numbers that Newt is enjoying suggest that in our quest to not nominate Mitt Romney that some conservatives have taken leave of their senses. Contrary to what Gingrich supporters  argue, we are not electing a National Debate champion and while the three presidential debates are important, Newt’s smackdowns of Obama will not change the course of the election. It may be emotionally satisfying to Republicans, but emotional satisfaction and 39% of the vote nets you 39% of the vote.

Great closing video for Rick Santourm!

The assumption is not made without reason. Since 1980, the winner of the South Carolina Primary has won the GOP nomination. And also since 1980, the winner ofSouth Carolinawon eitherIowaorNew Hampshirefirst. Therefore, by the logic of the historical record, as Romney wonIowaandNew Hampshire, he’ll winSouth Carolina, and then the GOP nomination.

This problem is that this sort of analysis is too shallow.South Carolina has been critical to the GOP nomination for so long that many have forgotten why it became so important in the first place.

In 1980, South Carolina held its primary three days before Alabama, Florida, and Georgia voted. Reagan won South Carolina, knocking out southern competitor John Connally and picked up valuable momentum that allowed him to sweep the three southern states. In 1988, the power of South Carolina was further magnified with the introduction of Super Tuesday, with seventeen states (mostly in the South) voting three days after South Carolina. And in 2008,South Carolina occurred ten days before the Florida Primary and 17 days before the biggest Super Tuesday ever: twenty-one contests including many winner-take-all affairs in large states such as California,New York, and New Jersey.

South Carolina’s influence has depended on its proximity to a huge number of primaries, particularly those that are winner-take-all to provide crucial momentum to candidates. This situation prevailed for 28 years, but not any more.

 The RNC has given the Republican nominating process a makeover. First, it required that with the exceptions ofIowa,New Hampshire,South Carolina, andNevada that states hold their contests no earlier than March or face the loss of half of their delegates. Secondly, the RNC required that contests held before April allocate their delegates proportionally. The net result is that many of the big states that made it impossible for candidates to come back from aSouth Carolina loss in 2008 are slated to vote much later in the process this time around. This makes it virtually impossible for any candidate to mathematically clinch the nomination by winning the required 1,144 delegates until well into the spring when winner take-all-states begin to vote.

In addition, because of Florida moving its primary forward, South Carolina is now voting forty-five days before Super Tuesday, which will only feature eleven contests this year. This doesn’t mean that should Romney win in South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada that he will not have a ton of momentum. It does mean that conservatives opposed to Romney’s nomination will have time to rally and try to beat back the Romney juggernaut, particularly if Romney’s support from party regulars remains as cool as it has been. As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics national polling average shows Romney at 29% among Republican Primary voters, hardly overwhelming support.

Right now the anti-Romney conservative vote is split between Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. None of these candidates are leaving the race after New Hampshire, but it’s a safe bet that the field will be winnowed after Florida, giving the remaining candidate a chance to consolidate opposition to Romney. While, a difficult task, history tells us it’s not impossible. Ronald Reagan nearly defeated President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976 after losing the first six primaries in a row.

The only way the presidential race will be over afterSouth Carolinais if Romney opponents buy into out of date media analysis or surrender to the idea of Romney’s inevitably due to not liking the other alternatives. While after the first two contests, Romney is the clear frontrunner, the ultimate fate of his campaign is still in the hands of Republican voters. Smart political analysts would do well to remember that.

Let me be clear, Rick Perry is done, finished, kaputsky. If I were a gambling man, I’d bet 10:1 against Perry being the Republican nominee. Rick Perry gave a classy speech today to give way to a classless alibing of his poor performance in Iowa.  Said Perry:

“This is quirky place and a quirky process to say the least,” Perry said of Iowa and its caucuses. “We’re going to go into places where they have actual primaries and there are going to be real Republicans voting.”

Really? It’s a quirky place and a quirky process? Maybe you could have figured that out beforeyou spent $6 million. I’m going to give Perry the benefit of the doubt of understanding after 4 months of the race that Iowa was a tricky process. To quote the famous political analyst Super Chicken, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” You came, you saw, you fell flat. $6 millions in TV ads and weeks of retail politicking and ultimately and Perry finished tied for third among White Evangelical Voters behind Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.  Among Evangelicals, theEntrance Poll indicates that Perry finished behind the guy who wants to repeal federal laws against cocaine. And in South Carolina, the latest Real Clear Politics polling average puts Perry ata whopping 5 percent and there’s no reason to think that in the two weeks since the last poll with Perry campaigning in that Quirky state that he stands much better.

Newt Gingrich’s case is not quite as severe, but it’s pretty desperate. Not only did Newt do a little better than Perry, he also has superior poll position in New Hampshire.  The latest Suffolk tracking poll shows Newt in striking distance of Ron Paul for second and after Paul’s rather disappointing third place finish in Iowa, he may see a loss of momentum. However, the same poll showed Santorum within three of Gingrich and one back of Huntsman, so the next week could be crucial.

That said, Newt’s still a longshot. I wrote at the end of the year,  Newt’s rise to prominence was because of his decision to take the high road, campaign against President Obama, and compliment his opponents. It made people think he could unite the Republican Party.  Gingrich, in response to Romney has transformed to an aggressive attacker in a way reminiscent of the Incredible Hulk (Newt Smash!). The way Gingrich is running his campaign, he can help Rick Santorum, he can help Jon Huntsman, if his attacks backfire too bad, he can help Mitt Romney, but the one person he won’t be able to help is Newt Gingrich.

This isn’t to say that Perry and Gingrich don’t have a role to play in the race. They have the same role as Fred Thompson did in 2008.

In 2008, I was supporting Fred Thompson. Thompson finished a distant third in Iowa (which gave him a greater claim to legitimacy than either Perry or Gingrich) and he went to South Carolina while other candidates were working New Hampshire and Michigan.  He went and he attacked and undercut Mike Huckabee to build up his campaign (as Rick Perry will have to do to stop Rick Santorum among conservatives) and he won 16%, while Huckabee lost the state by 2.3%. Thus Fred Thompson helped John McCain secure the crucial South Carolina Primary and set the stage for John McCain’s nomination. Perry and Gingrich have the exact same chance to go and secure the nomination for Mitt Romney.

Of course, to be fair, it wouldn’t have been possible for Thompson to succeed had it not been for Thompson supporters. I was one of them in 2008. I gave Thompson donations and even when people in the field told me that Thompson’s campaign was not getting the response they needed, I basically refused to believe the obvious evidence that it was over.

Had I and other supporters of Fred Thompson faced reality and realized that campaign was going nowhere and realized what the real choices lay, it’s possible that John McCain wouldn’t have been nominated.

If conservative voters opposed to Romney cleave to sure to lose campaigns, than Romney will be the nominee. These conservatives may find that Romney is not the nominee they want. They may believe he is not the nominee the country needs. But he’ll be the nominee conservatives deserve.

And that’s the whole list. No names are missing.

And for Gingrich supporters, the only candidate to finish fourth and win was John McCain who: 1) Almost finished third, not nearly ten points behind  like Gingrich and 2)Won New Hampshire and had focused his entire campaign there ala Jon Huntsman.

The phenomenom of one candidate leading the GOP pack and then leading another has been described as “flavor of the month.” This is ultimately disrespectful to both the process and the candidates that have run the race. Each Conservative Candidate for President brings a lifetime of unique and exceptional experiences that has carried them through years and politics and business. You don’t get elected three times as Governor of Texas, rally thousands to the Capitol against Obamacare, win two terms in the Senate in a blue state, or lead the Republican Revolution because you are a flavor of the month.

Perhaps, the most apt comparison is to a marathon. While this might be slightly cliched, it is far more apt. Each candidate has had their chance to surge to the front, but ultimately was unable to go the distance.  It is Rick Santorum that ultimately crossed the finish line in the Iowa Marathon, because he ran the best rac.e

I have respect for many candidates. While they have their flaws, I admired many of the candidates who ran this race and would have been happy had they been our nominee. I decided to avoid committing myself until I saw the race play out. I supported Herman Cain, but when he left the race for November, I returned to neutral position. I waited to see who would emerge as the Conservative champion in the Iowa marathon. I hoped that it would be someone I could be proud to support.

My hopes were realized with Rick Santorum’s shocking showing in Iowa. Rick Santorum has been a strong conservative throughout his career.  I remember his leadership on the pro-life issue, where he lead the fight against the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. But I also knew Santorum as a blue collar fighter, a Mr. Smith in Washington, fighting battle after battle for our conservative values. He has lived up to them personally.

I do not say that Rick Santorum is a perfect candidate, he’s not, but he’s a good man and he is the best candidate we have. Realistically, this race will come down to a choice between Santorum, Romney, and perhaps Newt Gingrich, I choose Santorum. I believe Santorum will bring fresh ideas and revitalize our nation’s economy. I trust him to address the nation’s most pressing issues.

I’ve always thought Rick Santorum would be a good President if he could actually win.  However, I concluded that he lacked money, organization, and resources. I thought several times, he should quit to focus on the candidates who could win. I wondered whether his campaign was more like one of Alan Keyes’ prophetic crusades or Orrin Hatch’s legislative summation campaign in 2000.

Tuesday night, Rick Santorum proved he was for real. He proved the critics wrong. He proved me wrong. In a campaign dominated by Super PACs spewing negative attacks, and multi-million dollar personal hit jobs, Rick Santorum ran his campaign in Iowa with shoe leather.  He won the hearts of Iowans by connecting with them. He offers America a consistent and passionate and consistent conservative who we can have confidence to take on the big issues.

I’m declaring my support for Rick Santorum and I hope others who dismissed his campaign will take another look and get behind this great conservative warrior. For my part, I’ve never been happier to be wrong about a candidate.

Much has been said about the King James Version, which spent the best part of its 400 year history as the Bible of choice for Americans of all stripes. The King James brought the Bible to the common person and a common cultural language to English-speaking peoples. The beauty of the translation was unparalleled.

I was fortunate to grow up with the King James Bible, which is somewhat rare for someone my age. The KJV has fallen into disuse in the U.S.A. over the years as more modren translations are introduced constantly. Most would agree that the KJV could use some updating in some of its use of archaic words. However, no one quite agrees on how to update and no new translations stop with that. We now have dozens of translations on the market. I guess this is to be expected. Who can expect a country with more than 700 Christian denominations to have just one Bible?

I’m past the point of fighting about bible versions. Too many churches, friendships, and families have broken up into strife over the great Bible version debate. I’ve come to a point of acceptance. When I need to communicate something to the general culture, I accept that we live in a modern Bible version country where if you read a “peradventure,” or a “whosoever” people will stare at you fish-eyed. As such, if I want to communicate with that perspective, I wouldn’t use the King James any more than I would use the King James Version to communicate to Spanish-speaking people. For these purposes, I use the ESV, which is perhaps the best of the modern versions. I still use the KJV for my daily devotions.

The big thing I think that we are missing today in modern Bible versions is that sense of having a book that is, The Bible and provides a common frame of reference for Christians and the culture as a whole to communicate. While on the most important things, the Bible versions are solidly in agreement, the exact phrasing is often vastly different. The beauty of the King James was that the way it said things was easy to memorize and communicate ideas with.

One example of how this worked came in World War II. British soldiers were trapped at Dunkirk with the Germany Army advancing. The forces sent a simple message, “But if not.”  The three word phrase came from the book of Daniel where Daniel’s three friends refused to bow to the idol of King Nebuchanezzar:

If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

The phrase, “but if not” sent a message to not only the British army, but to the British people, and the world. The soldiers defending Dunkirk would be faithful to death.

“But if not” means nothing in many modern Bible versions.  With everyone reading different translations, we find ourselves without that common language, which Protestants of nearly every denomination used to share. It’s a tragic loss of our modern times.

Charles Dickens-The Seven Poor Travellers

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.-Luke 2:10, 11

Right now Congress is considering two bills—the Protect IP Act, and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)—that would be laughable if they weren’t in fact real. Honestly, if a friend wrote these into a piece of fiction about government oversight gone amok, I’d have to tell them that they were too one-dimensional, too obviously anticonstitutional.

Make no mistake: These bills aren’t simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the “good faith” assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn’t even have to be aware that the complaint has been made.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz has stated that Congress hasn’t done its due diligence is sending up red flags. Despite the entertainment industry’s lobbying campaign, even Ashton Kutcher realizes this is bad medicine. Is your Congressman smarter than Ashton Kutcher? Mine isn’t.

In a response to a constituent, “Simpson” writes :

Dear Phil:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261 on October 26, 2011. This legislation aims to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property. Currently H.R. 3261 is under consideration by the House Committee on the Judiciary.

While I do not sit on the committee with jurisdiction over this piece of legislation, I will continue to monitor its progress as it makes its way through the committee process. You can be confident that I will keep your thoughts in mind should it come before me on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Phil was annoyed because, “This is supposedly a “personal response.”  This of course is an obvious form letter with constituent name, bill name, sponsor, and other information merely inserted.

In addition, this is not some minor issue. This is an issue that is about our fundamental liberty and freedom of speech. Perhaps, Mike Simpson has been too busy trying to raise taxes to pay attention when a bunch of Hollywood lobbyists are trying to undermine our liberty in order to bolster their profits.

Isn’t it time that we had a Congressman who, I don’t know, provided a level of service and respect to his constituents that is at least on par with what fast food restaurants near BSU? Isn’t it time we had a Congressman whose business was defending our liberties rather than trying to find more ways to squeeze money out of us?

Hopefully, an election in the new year will at last bring us a new Congressman.

WASHINGTON—House Speaker John Boehner, bowing to heavy pressure from fellow Republicans, agreed Thursday to a two-month extension of a payroll-tax break, ending a stalemate that had created a wedge within the party.

The deal, which forestalls a Jan. 1 tax increase on 160 million workers, represents a retreat for the House GOP, which had been at odds with Senate Republicans and party elders who feared the party would suffer in the 2012 elections if the tax break was allowed to expire.

John Boehner is a good man and he’s awful Speaker of the House in terms of the basic ability to competently lead. The Boehner speakership heretofore has been a mess, marked incoherence and drift.  Boehner decided to take a battle he couldn’t win in fighting the payroll tax holiday extension and misplayed it badly, just as he did the debt ceiling debate earlier in the year.

To be clear the payroll tax holiday is bad policy, but good politics.  Louis Woodhill makes the case in Forbes quite well:

So, what we have here is a tax cut that does (at best) nothing for economic growth, does  (at best) nothing for employment, but adds more than $100 billion per year to the deficit and debt.  Why do most of the Democrats and many of the Republicans in Congress support it?  Here is one explanation.

America has a two-party system.  We have a Stupid Party (the Republicans) and an Evil Party (the Democrats).  Every so often Congress does something that is both stupid and evil, and we call this “bipartisanship”.

While the “evil and stupid” theory has definite merit, there is a simple fact is that Americans are not prepared to have a body blow to their paychecks. For those who are employed, Obamacare is already leading to massive increases in the costs of insurance.  If you add to taking 2% more out of people’s paychecks for the payroll tax, then take home pay is taking a huge hit.  It’s the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

So, of course that payroll tax holiday was going to be extended. Americans are going to be ticked off if they see $100 bucks less on their first paycheck than they did last year’s.

Republicans need some smart leadership in the House that will pick the right battles, and then when he goes into battle, keep the troops united. Unfortunately, that leader isn’t John Boehner and as long as he remains the most powerful Republican in Washington, the GOP has got a big problem.

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

According to Rabbi Hammerman, America is full of crazy all to certain Christians who are ready to go pillaging mosques and putting the ban on immigrants…if a football game goes the wrong way. It seems Hammerman practices the hysteria and hatred he accuses others of.

Of course, the question is where do Cain supporters go? The answer seems to be all over the place. If I were in Iowa, I’d probably be supporting Rick Perry. However, not eager to have to switch candidates again, I’ll wait until after the Iowa Caucuses and perhaps after New Hampshire to get behind another candidate.

Not Gingrich and Not Romney conservatives in Iowa seem to be in a bit of a pickle. Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann all have a little momentum going, picking up endorsements, making some good moves, but no one has the clear inside track. This seems likely to lead to a scenario where the top 3 in Iowa are Gingrich, Paul, and Romney, and the rest are left out in the cold. It would be almost impossible for Bachmann and Santorum to go on should they finish out of the top 3 and it would be futile for Perry to do so.  However, a 3rd place finish might give some hope.

Perry is probably the only one who could not win Iowa and still end up winning the nomination. If he were to finish 3rd in Iowa, it would signal a clear comeback. It would be particularly good if Ron Paul were to win the State, as it would hurt Gingrich. If Gingrich takes more damage, it could open the door for Perry in South Carolina.

For Bachmann and Santorum, there’s no way they can make it past Iowa if they don’t win the state or finish an extremely close second. Santorum has no money. To be honest,  if Santorum did win Iowa, I don’t know how he goes past that. Bachmann has some fundraising ability, but its limited and to grow that base she needs to show results.  

Of course, if all three of these choices fall flat and were left with Romney v. Gingrich, then I’d reluctantly back Romney.

Hopefully, we’ll know much about this race in three weeks when people start voting.

The ban has opened a war of words between worshippers in the Pike County community and provoked accusations of discrimination.

It was imposed after Stella Harville, the church secretary’s daughter, attended a service with her black fiancé Ticha Chikuni.

With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a good thing?

Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.

However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:

1)  Big Spending and Earmarks:

While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.

As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.

Gingrich’s speakership  was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”

One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.

Read the whole thing at Pajamas Media. One of the four items included was not Gingrich’s character issue, given the serious policy and ideology issues. I do give benefit of the doubt to the former Speaker that a combination of age and spiritual growth will make less likely a recurrence of what happened during his speakership. But, the past will be very tricky. Having at least one actual long-term affair would give any accusers (whether real or not) bonus credibility and we can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot more about this before it’s all said and done if Gingrich is the nominee.

On a personal note, I’d add that examining Gingrich’s record makes Romney look better. All of my concerns with Mitt Romney, such as his ability to effect needed change or his willingness to stick to conservative principles, as well as Romney’s typical politician behavior are even more severe concerns with Newt Gingrich. I still hope Cain has a comeback Kid still style resurgence and that I get to vote for him or we see a return of another of the more conservative candidates such as Bachmann. However, if we get to March, and it comes down to Romney and Gingrich, with Gingrich having a chance of taking the nomination, I’ll vote for Romney.