I’ve always had a thing for the Peace Garden State, choosing to drive across its vast plains when I returned to Los Angeles from my brother’s wedding in Cincinnati in 2004.  (It was not a direct route.)  So, I’ve followed their politics a bit more closely than most.  Although North Dakota voted only once for a Democrat on the presidential level (in the 1964 Johnson landslide) since 1936, it hasn’t sent a Republican to Washington since voters elected then-Congressman Mark Andrews to the Senate  in 1980.

Byron Dorgan, the state’s then-Tax Commissioner was elected to replace him in the House.  Now, Dorgan is calling it quits.

By all accounts, the junior Senator from North Dakota is a nice guy.  I met him once and found him to be a most pleasant fellow.  He crafted an image of moderation on the Great Plains, while voting in near lockstep with his party when in the nation’s capital.

Until yesterday, he had given every indication of running for a fourth term in the Senate.*  Polls showed him trouncing perennial Republican candidate Duane Sand, yet losing handily to incumbent Governor John Hoeven.  But, despite much pressure from Republicans, Hoeven had (heretofore) not offered any indication of his plans for the fall.

Given the collegiality of politics in North Dakota, my sense is that Hoeven called his state’s Senator to alert him of his intention to contest his seat.  It would be the gentlemanly thing to do, particularly given Dorgan’s service to the state and decency toward its residents (including Hoeven).   Realizing that he couldn’t win against the popular Republican Governor in a Republican state, Dorgan chose to bow out rather than wage a campaign he was sure to lose. (more…)

(h/t – Instapundit.com)

Our pal VodkaPundit weighs in with: “Obama Lied, Healthcare Died”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As House and Senate Democrats work to to reconcile the health care bills passed in each chamber into legislation both can approve and send to the president, they’re not just excluding Republicans from the process, they’re also keeping out anyone who would record the proceedings.

Even if it means breaking faith with the American people:

In response to CSPAN’s request that cameras be allowed to capture the happenings of the House-Senate conference on health care, Speaker Pelosi responded that “there has never been a more open process.” Yet, she won’t let cameras in—in spite of President Obama’s promise that the negotiations would indeed be aired on CSPAN.

Guess Mrs. Pelosi didn’t believe Obama’s campaign promises either.

Meanwhile, Michelle reports,

The most ethical, transparent, open Democrat majority ever is apparently going to short-circuit the House-Senate conference committee process to get the government health care takeover done.

And over in the Senate, it’s more of the same.  Jim Manley, spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Mt. Crumpit) offers lip service to transparency,  saying “Senator Reid appreciates C-SPAN’s commitment to ensuring transparency and we will continue to work to ensure that the American people have access to the work of their elected representatives,” yet ol’ Harry “wouldn’t assent to the network’s request” to televise the process. (more…)

With no break to the cold weather “in sight until at least next week. . ., Gov. Charlie Crist issued a state of emergency Tuesday due to the freezing temperatures across much of Florida.”

Guess Al Gore must have scheduled a speech on global warming in the Sunshine State this week.

Chris Dodd won’t be running for reelection.  He’ll be announcing his retirement later today.  Democrats have the inside track of holding his Connecticut Senate seat, but with the large suburban population in the Nutmeg State (demographically similar to regions of New Jersey and New York State which swung to the GOP last fall), a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican has a chance.

Not since Rob Morrow left Northern Exposure have I followed a network (or, for that matter, cable as well) TV series.  To be sure, I have enjoyed a miniseries here and there and an occasional episode of a number of well-written shows (including most recently Grey’s Anatomy), but until watching an episode of House with my sister-in-law on Sunday while in Cincinnati, I never really felt engaged by a TV series.

So compelling was this TV show that I heard myself telling my newly 4-year-old nephew that he would have to wait until the commercial for my assistance with his puzzle (I had spent the better part of the day playing and shopping with him and his younger sister who, like a TV character of yore, can “turn the world on with her smile“.)  While I left him alone struggle with the puzzle on his own (which could have turned out to be a good thing), I did have to turn away from the tube when his local uncle (my other younger brother) arrived at the house.

What I so liked about the show was not merely Hugh Laurie‘s crusty demeanor, but the ability to the writers to make the show about something more than the matter at hand.  In the particular episode I was watching, Dr. House was treating a one-time nice guy who started speaking his every thought about those around him.  (Kind of a foil for the show’s protagonist?)  Without saying so directly, he show thus seemed to be asking a great (and fundamental) question:  who are we really, our persona (the “mask” we wear everyday) or our passions (many of which we conceal in order to fit in — or not offend).  Good writing that–to pose such a question through a story-line.

The show, despite one major casting flaw, seems to succeed for the same reason a number of good shows have succeeded:  sharp writing, good casting and a smart premise.  Nice to discover something this good on the tube when I had thought the only good TV today was miniseries.

Coupled with the good news from the political world comes this from Tinseltown, Sandra Bullock, one of my favorite contemporary stars of the silver screen,

accomplished a box office feat that her fellow A-listers Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep,Angelina Jolie and Reese Witherspoon have never succeeded at – she’s cracked the $200 million mark at the domestic box office.

And if you haven’t seen the Blind Side, the aforementioned $200 million movie, yet, don’t ask any questions, just see it.

If, as I predict, Republicans hold all the seats of retiring Republican Senators (NH, FL, KY, OH and MO), then there will be at least 44 GOP Senators in the 112th Congress.

With the announcement today of the retirement of Byron Dorgan, the junior Senator from the Peace Garden State, Republicans can add North Dakota to the list of states (AR, CT and NV) where we are all but certain to pick up a seat currently held by a Democrat.

Some say Earl Pomeroy, the state’s sole Congressman, has a shot at the seat.  But, with a recent poll showing the 11-term Democrat “losing to an unnamed candidate 50 – 42“, he just doesn’t look as strong as he might otherwise look.

If Republicans can recruit strong candidates to run in Washington State, New York State, Maryland, Oregon and Wisconsin, we may see a GOP Senate a year hence.  To help make that possible, donate to Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown.

You can’t say we didn’t warn ‘em.  But, they just didn’t listen.   Two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 29 pulled the lever for Barack Obama last fall whereas the Democrat won only a bare majority (50-49) among their elders, all voters over 30 (you know the ones Bill and Hillary’s generation told us not to trust).

And now they’re bearing the brunt of the sluggish economy.  Unemployment among young Americans has surged to a record high, with “more unemployed youths in America today than at any other time since World War II.”

Just desserts?

Caveat Emptor.  They got what they paid for.  They should have known better.  Or should they?

According to the Free Dictionary by Farlex (an online legal dictionary), the doctrine caveat emptor (Latin for “let the buy beware) applies to commercial transactions:

When a sale is subject to this warning the purchaser assumes the risk that the product might be either defective or unsuitable to his or her needs.

This rule is not designed to shield sellers who engage in Fraud or bad faith dealing by making false or misleading representations about the quality or condition of a particular product. It merely summarizes the concept that a purchaser must examine, judge, and test a product considered for purchase himself or herself.

Well, Obama did make a number of false and misleading representations in the campaign. So, maybe these desserts just aren’t just.  After all, these young’uns can attribute their bad choice to youth and inexperience.

A great article from the journal “Foreign Policy” (h/t – HotAir)

In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary’s belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today’s Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness.

<…>

Like Carter in the 1970s, Obama comes from the old-fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party, and the strategic goal of his foreign policy is to reduce America’s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. commitments wherever possible. He’s a believer in the notion that the United States can best spread democracy and support peace by becoming an example of democracy at home and moderation abroad.

<…>

At their best, Jeffersonians provide a necessary element of caution and restraint in U.S. foreign policy, preventing what historian Paul Kennedy calls “imperial overstretch” by ensuring that America’s ends are proportionate to its means. We need this vision today more than ever: If Obama’s foreign policy collapses — whether sunk by Afghanistan or conflicts not yet foreseen — into the incoherence and reversals that ultimately marked Carter’s well-meaning but flawed approach, it will be even more difficult for future presidents to chart a prudent and cautious course through the rough seas ahead.

Since the Christmas Day terror attack (it was 99% successful, by the way), I’ve been having a recurring thought.  Has President Obama’s “worldview” been shattered?  After all, the election of Obama alone was supposed to endear the world to the USA and cause those pesky “man-made disaster” creators (aka – Islamic Terrorists) to throw up their arms and praise Obama’s name.

Victor Davis Hanson pointed out yesterday at National Review:

But more than one-third of all terrorist plots since 9/11 transpired in 2009 — despite loud chest-thumping about rejecting the idea of a war on terror, reaching out to the Muslim world, and apologizing for purported American sins. A non-impoverished Major Hasan or Mr. Mutallab (or Mr. Atta or KSM) does not fit with the notion that our enemies act out of poverty or oppression or want.

Clearly, Obama fell for his own hype and he has been governing like that for a year.  But maybe — just maybe — the 12/25 attack on America has shattered his extreme naivety.  Perhaps he will wake from his arrogance and realize that no matter how nice he is, no matter what gestures he gives — America has enemies bent on killing civilians and destroying our way of life.

Perhaps.  But I’m not holding my breath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

From DarkKnight3565 on Twitter:

The Bush Deficit of 2008 is roughly equal to the interest on the Obama Deficit of 2009.

Wowza.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I think it was John (AverageGayJoe) who asked that question in the comments a few days ago.  The Hill took that question to a variety of political pundit-types.

I agree with Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch:

The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policies have made the United States less safe.

Obama’s decision to end the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques prevents us from gaining intelligence that can save lives and prevent terrorist attacks (like the recent attempt to blow up the Detroit-bound airliner).

Obama’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is a public relations victory for Al Qaeda that will lead, among other deadly dangers, to the release of intelligence data that will help terrorists.

Obama’s decision to prosecute the recent airline bomber Abdulmutallab in the civilian system prevents our defense and intelligence agencies from gaining access to timely information that might prevent future terrorist attacks.  And it will encourage more terrorism by suggesting leniency can be had by terrorists in plea bargain negotiations with civilian prosecuters.

Obama’s decision to close Gitmo will result in terrorists being brought to the United States, with all the attendant risks to the homeland – which include the outright release of terrorists in the United States.

Obama’s decision to release terrorists from Gitmo and elsewhere will lead to more terrorism from recidivist terrorists. [GP Ed. Note -- Released Gitmo terrorists (under Bush) already have returned to the battlefield.]

But the real question is…. what do you think?  What do your neighbors think?  What do the majority of Americans think?  Is America Less Safe Under Obama?

I’d like to see Gallup ask that question.  The best part of this whole conversation is that Dick Cheney began the discussion with that very point.  Hooah.

UPDATE: A related thought from Marc Thiessen at National Review:

Thanks to Obama, the terrorists know they have nothing to fear — and thus have no incentive to talk. And even if they did face some enhanced techniques, the techniques would no longer work — because the terrorist would know from the memos that there are limits to what they would face. The effect of the techniques is psychological, not physical. They trick the terrorists into thinking what they are enduring is worse than it really is.

It’s like the show Magic’s Biggest Secrets Revealed — once you know how the magician saws the woman in half, you’re not fooled. The same goes for enhanced interrogation.

Obama’s policies themselves are making our nation less safe.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Yeah, very lame.  But it is a start!  We will soon be doing some shows on UStreamTV.  More details to follow.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

US in Grips of Long-Lasting Cold Spell:

Dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week.

Long-lasting? Is this part of some kind of trend? Have we seen the end of the Post-Industrial Warming Period and are due for some akin to the decline in temperatures seen in the late Medieval/early Renaissance period?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Heliotrope alerts us to these links on Drudge:

Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States…
CHILL MAP…
Vermont sets ‘all-time record for one snowstorm’…
Iowa temps ‘a solid 30 degrees below normal’…
Peru’s mountain people ‘face extinction because of cold conditions’…
Beijing — coldest in 40 years…
World copes with Arctic weather…

Hmmm. . . . record cold all over the place.  Lots and lots of temperature declines to hide.

So, where is Al Gore now?   Vermont?  Iowa?  Peru?  He does seem to visit those places experiencing cold and storms.  So, so, many places to choose from.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot):  Here is a great (and related) column from Neil Frank, the former director of the National Hurricane Center with his take on “Climategate” (h/t – Instapundit)

The revelation of “Climate­gate” occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

In a great short post on the contradictions of being Republican, Scott Ott offers a superb, succinct conservative manifesto:

We don’t need more politicians who want to help people through government programs. We need folks who want to become guardians of freedom by reducing the oppressive, confiscatory power of government.

And when we’re more free, we can better help those in our communities in need of assistance.  A less confiscatory government means we have more resources to devote to private organizations which help the less fortunate.  Fewer regulations give private enterprises greater opportunities to innovate and expand, increasing efficiencies and creating jobs.

Oh, and about those contradictions:

We’re working to elect politicians, but we believe the ultimate answers don’t lie in government, but rather in private-sector liberty, industry and the resulting dignity…and often prosperity.

Read the whole thing, print it out, post in in a prominent place.

Oh, yeah, about that other supposed contradiction.  When self-righteous liberals accuse our gay conservative readers of being a contradiction in terms, we can readily cite this “manifesto” because it defines the essence of our movement (conservative) in terms of that great idea which has animated American patriots for over two centuries:  freedom.  

The freedom to live our lives as we choose applies to gay people just as it applies to Christians.  And anyone else for that matter.

(H/t:  Mark Tapscott.)

The incoming Speaker of the California Assembly could learn something from one of his most illustrious predecessors.  Willie Brown, the former longtime Speaker (1980-1995), contends that politicians helped create the state’s current problems by increasing employee costs.

The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life.

But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits to private-sector levels while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workers almost as much as current workers.

Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.

Sounds like someone needs to stand up to the public employee unions. 

Somehow, I don’t think this will stop California Democrats and their cheerleaders in the MSM from blaming the state’s budget woes on Prop 13.

(H/t Instapundit.)

Generally, when two readers of different political persuasions send you e-mails alerting you to the same video, it’s worth posting.

As Robert Gibbs lashed out at Gallup last month?

And while the Bush White House may not have reacted as peevishly as did the Obama White House to its plummeting poll numbers, some on the right (including yours truly) have faulted a number of the “mainstream” polls for tilting left and have done so at least since the dawn of the Reagan Era.  Thus, it’s practically welcome news for us to hear about Dems ripping Rasmussen.

They’re saying some of the same things about Rasmussen’s polls that we’ve been saying about the CBS/New York Times poll, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll and the various AP polls, that they tilt toward the opposing party, Rasmussen toward Republicans, the others toward Democrats:

Nothing, however, sets off liberal teeth gnashing more than Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking polls, which throughout the year have consistently placed Obama’s approval numbers around 5 percentage points lower than other polling outfits.

Seems some of the other polls show Republicans performing about 5 percentage points lower than their actual standing.  Despite Democratic bellyaching, Rasmussen is remarkably accurate, having closely forecast the results in the past two presidential elections.  (“Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome.“)

What really gets the lefties is that Rasmussen dares ask the kind of questions that other pollsters don’t ask:

“I think they write their questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world,” said [Democratic pollster Mark] Mellman. “In general, they tend to be among the worst polls for Democrats, and they phrase questions in ways that elicit less support for the Democratic point of view.”

Um, Mark, some Republicans would say the mainstream pollsters ask questions which support a liberal interpretation of the world.   Just scan the conservative blogs any time a major poll comes out and you’ll find someone wondering about the liberal nature of the questions asked.

Now, that Democrats and others on the left are grousing about Rasmussen, will they now take more seriously conservative grumbling about the liberal nature of some of the “mainstream” polls?

Earlier today when flying from Florida (where I was vacationing with the PatriotFamilyWest) to Cincinnati (to visit the ol’ Homestead), I was reading the dead tree copy of the Wall Street Journal.  I had forgotten how much I enjoyed reading a newspaper.  It’s an experience you just don’t get reading articles online.  I didn’t seem as hurried as I do when surfing the web.  

As I reading Peggy Noonan’s reflection on the past ten years, I wondered if the explanation she offered for the failure (and/or disappointing performance) of many institutions in that era could also apply to one whose decline accelerated in the “aughts,” all but collapsing in the year just concluded:

Maybe the most worrying trend the past 10 years can be found in this phrase: “They forgot the mission.” So many great American institutions—institutions that every day help hold us together—acted as if they had forgotten their mission, forgotten what they were about, what their role and purpose was, what they existed to do. You, as you read, can probably think of an institution that has forgotten its reason for being. Maybe it’s the one you’re part of.

The problem with Log Cabin, however, was that its leaders never really seemed to develop a mission beyond their own advancement.  Or so it often seemed to those of us Republicans who happen to be gay.  If they had a mission, they didn’t do the greatest job of communicating it.

As did many institutions about which Peggy writes in her essay.  Their leaders, like those of the Catholic Church, “forgot they were servants of a great institution, and came to think the great church existed to meet their needs.”

One leader of Log Cabin departed to take a job with a left-wing group which had generously supported the organization during his tenure, causing one to wonder if he adopted its agenda while at the helm of the supposedly Republican organization not merely because of their financial support but also in order to further his own career.

Food for thought.  And perhaps future blog posts.

One of our readers, the blogger sometimes known as That Gay Conservative, alerted me to an interesting post that gets at something we’ve been saying for sometime: “Declaring people who don’t think gay marriage is good policy as ‘anti-gay’ was always an obvious slander.”

With these words, blogger Brian Garst comments on a New York Times article reporting that while Texans voted overwhelmingly (“by a ratio of three to one”) to enact “a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage“, citizens twice elected one lesbian as sheriff of Dallas County, another as district attorney for Travis County and yet another as Mayor of Houston, the state’s largest city.

The title says it all, “Gay Candidates Get Support That Causes May Not”.  Social tolerance of openly gay people grows with each passing day.  An overwhelming majority of Americans, including (I would daresay) most conservatives, don’t really care about an individual’s sexual orientation, they just don’t favor the “equality” agenda of the left-wing gay groups.  And while said groups may tar opponents of their ideology “anti-gay,” a good many (but alas not all) of these opponents are anything but.

Many simply believe the word “marriage” means a lifelong monogamous union between individuals of different sexes.

And it’s not just in the debate over gay marriage where those offering an inconvenient viewpoint or publishing inconvenient information are tarred as anti-gay.  Those who dare report one of the most underreported stories of the year just concluded are also slimed as “anti-gay.”