Rally at Independence Hall: Michele Bachmann in the O.C.!

As promised, here's my report on Michele Bachmann at Independence Hall, Knott's Berry Farm, in Buena Park. The location's just a few miles south from my campus. The event was from 3:00 to 4:00pm, and it was just incredible. As you can see, the park's Independence Hall is an exact replica of the original historic landmark in Philadelphia, PA. Both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were signed there. Here you can see contemporary patriots getting ready for the rally:

Here's the West Coast's Liberty Bell inside the hall:

A shot of the bell's famous crack:

Patriots inside the gift shop (the original Independence Flag took up the whole wall):

George Washington and Betsy Ross:

The sweeties at the gift counter, in 18th century dress:

Heading back outside, I introduced myself to David Horowitz. He would speak in just a few minutes to kick off the event:

Still waiting, I went back inside the hall for a couple of more pictures:

Amazing historical authenticity:

The Declaration of Independence (at the time, a piece of work in progress, to borrow from POWIP):

Back outside, Mr. Rooster and Mama Hens:

Here's Mr. Horowitz:

Representative Michele Bachmann waits before being introduced:

She thanked Congressman Ed Royce quite graciously and enthusiastically:

Representative Bachmann gave a rousing speech. She came to California straight from Washington and the last night's SOTU. She reminded the crowd that this time last year the big talk was Joe Wilson's "you lie," while this week it's Samuel Alito's "not true," and she turned that into a little chant to fire up the patriots in attendence. She was especially emphatic in stressing the president's defiance of the American people. Passing healthcare was not about improving lives, it was about Obama's personal agenda:

Down in front of the podium, Congressman Royce came back up for a Q&A:

Michele Bachmann's a political goddess. Lots of folks crowded around as she finished speaking. She posed for just a couple of pictures, and then was whisked away by her escorts/handlers:

My picture with Representative Bachmann will have to wait. But to my everlasting joy, I met Opus #6 of MAINFO:

She took some pictures as well, from right down in front (I'm in the picture at left). It turns out Opus headed straight over to the Lincoln Club fundraising dinner. She's mobile blogging the event. See, "Michele Bachmann Speaks in Newport Beach," and "I Am Sitting a Few Seats Down From Chuck Devore in Newport Beach."

You've gotta love the O.C.!!

UPDATE: In a correction, I've posted the right picture of the Declaration of Independence above.

'Freedom Makes Us Free'

Too hot for the National Post, at Blazing Cat Fur, "Guest Post By Laura Rosen Cohen: Freedom Makes Us Free":

If today, someone calls me a dirty Jew, I care very little -- and frankly don’t need the state to fight my battles. If suddenly, in Canada or America, the state were to suddenly decide that because we are Jews, that we are not legally entitled to own property or that we are no longer legally full humans, equal under the law, then, Houston, we would have a problem and civilized, western societies such as ours would reject the state’s totalitarian, antisemitic plans.

RTWT at the the link.

Try to Love Again...

GSGF sent me the American Power widget I just added at the sidebar. And for fun I included the "Moonage Daydream" clip as well (more on that tonight). So, I'll just post a little more music now before I head out to the Michele Bachmann rally. Sheryl Crow's liberal as all get out, but I like her, and she's beautiful in this video. (Pat Houseworth loves his '60s-era bands, even though they were all antiwar, so it's a common problem among conservatives). Actually, "The First Cut is the Deepest" is a Cat Stevens song, and I'm mostly familiar with Rod Stewart's cover. But Crow popularized it for me in the 2000s. I remember her live performance at the American Music Awards (I think), and the song stuck ... So, enjoy, and check back later to see if I was able to score a photo with Michele Bachmann!

Bachmann Bails on National Tea Party Convention

From Politico, "Lawmakers Back Out of Tea Party Event" (via):

In another sign that controversy is taking a toll on next week’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., two of its top attractions — Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — have decided to opt out of their prior plans to speak at the event.

The high-profile blows to the convention come as several sponsors have backed out and organizers are struggling to sell tickets to Sarah Palin’s keynote address amid controversy about the convention’s unusual finances.

As first reported by POLITICO, the convention is being run by a for-profit Tennessee corporation called Tea Party Nation, registered to a little-known Tennessee lawyer whose efforts to position himself as a national tea party leader have put him at odds with some state tea party activists. The lawyer, Judson Phillips, intended to turn a profit from the convention, with the stated goal of seeding a so-called 527 group that would air ads praising conservative candidates or criticizing their opponents, though he now concedes he’s hoping just to break even and has tabled the 527 idea.

Maybe the guy will cancel it. Some folks are taking Sarah Palin to task for her participation, although I just don't like the idea of ticket sales for a tea party.

I'll be heading over to meet Michele Bachmann this afternoon, so perhaps I'll hear more on this. And if I'm lucky I'll get some good pictures as well. So check back tonight for that stuff ...

Marcy Wheeler: 'I Didn't Actually Watch SOTU', But FU Obama and the Banks Anyway...

The admission obviously disqualifies Marcy Wheeler from being taken seriously:

I didn’t watch the SOTU last night – though I did follow along on Twitter.

Kinda like staying at Holiday Inn, I guess ...

Twitter's great -- awesome even -- although, naturally, you can tweet and watch/listen at the same time. That's just kinda the way it works, yo!

But this part is especially rich, on "punishing" the banks:

I am utterly fascinated by the way Obama dealt with this – probably his Administration’s single biggest failure – the failure to keep more people in their homes. Aside from the mention of those abstract children, asking why they have to move, there’s no admission of the human cost of the mortgage crisis. Instead, homes are just investments, the ability for individual families to spend more to stimulate the economy, a store of value ....

So while it’s perhaps a subtle rhetorical point, it is, to me, also a stunning revelation of the way in which the Administration still fails to see how the banks should be punished, because their fraud devastated all these families. Obama fails to see that housing has not just an upside–investment, jobs, growth–but also a huge downside of crumbling communities as one after another neighbor gets evicted from their home.

Actually, I watched and listened to the speech, and there's absolutely no question the president's concerned about foreclosures, and frankly, his latest plan imposing new regulations on commercial banks WILL punish them. The financial sector expects the administration to damage competitiveness, and thus to DESTROY jobs (which a rudimentary knowledge of business finance would indicate). Dr. Wheeler's thus not only disqualified, but clueless as well. Note how her essay constitutes post-modern conceptions of authority. Dr. Wheeler's supposed to be a expert on "literary-journalistic" traditions, but we're not talking state censorship here (which is apparently her expertise). We're talking about authenticity and credibility, and there's she's lacking. Note how without actually watching SOTU Dr. Wheeler privileges her own opinions over what actually happened -- and what actually has happened in the regulatory scheme of things -- which is exactly what she did with her allegations of Andrew Breitbart's involvement in the James O'Keefe bust at Senator Landrieu's office. Folks like this aren't to be trusted, especially coming from "Hammering" Jane Hamsher's crib (home of some of the netroots left's most despicable bloggers).

CA GOP Matchups With Boxer

From today's poll at the Public Policy Institute of California (via Memeorandum):

In a theoretical Senate matchup, Boxer falls short of a majority against each of the potential challengers. She and Campbell are in a close contest (45% to 41%). While 79 percent of Democratic likely voters favor Boxer, 84 percent of Republican likely voters favor Campbell. Independents are more divided but favor Boxer (42% to 37%). Gender differences among likely voters are stark: Boxer has a 14-point lead among female likely voters (50% to 36%), and Campbell has a 6-point lead among men (46% to 40%). Boxer has an 8-point lead over Fiorina (48% to 40%) and DeVore (47% to 39%).

There's not much difference between Fiorina and DeVore vis-a-vis Boxer, but considering the former's big money and name recognition, the results are a bit surprising to me (she should be doing better).

DeVore has improved a tiny bit in this poll (compared to here), although he's got a lot of ground to make up. (Name recognition is driving Campbell's support at this point.)

My sense is that he's got to get aggressive with some media and advertising, and that takes money. He's got a money-bomb gearing up for February 1st, so check that out if you're able to help. Tom Campbell will not protect innocent lives if elected, and as noted, Fiorina's pro-life posture is sketchy. See, "Life, Values, and California's GOP Senate Primary."

Noisy and Messy

From the president's speech last night:

Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Actually, a little messier than he'd like:

Update on James O'Keefe

Here's the latest from the Washington Post, "ACORN Foe Tweeted About Planned Sting of Sen. Landrieu's Office" (via Memeorandum). However, no tweet cited there says any such thing:

On New Year's Eve, conservative activist James O'Keefe telegraphed across the Internet that he was up to something big.

On the social networking site Twitter, he said that his past undercover video stings had exposed wrongdoing at Democratic-leaning organizations -- and he foreshadowed one more in the offing.

"2008: Planned Parenthood VPs fired 2009: ACORN defunded 2010: Get ready cuz this is about to get heavy," he wrote on his public Twitter page, dubbed "JamesOKeefeIII."

Actually, checking O'Keefe's Twitter page, it's interesting that it's the big media outlets who've been issuing retractions on this story. As I noted immediately on Tuesday, Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake (who crudely characterizes the episode as "TeaBuggerGate") had already accused Breitbart of involvement before any facts were known, and of course ACORN was throwing a party at the news. Our media world is TFUBAR when stories like this get turned around and folks like James O'Keefe are painted as criminals before anyone knows a thing. (And if you dig real dirt on the left's demonic shakedown artists, that's not "real journalism.") We now know, of course, that initial allegations of intent to wiretap Senator Landrieu's office were false. Jill Stanek has written a post reflecting her belief in O'Keefe and her vindication as new information has come in. See, "The arrest of James O'Keefe."

But in case you missed it, here this from the comments at Althouse the other night:

What's wrong with you people? James O'Keefe did America a big favor once, and I'll wait to hear what he was fishing for this time before I condemn him or call him stupid. If he has a legal defense fund, I'm in. Why should he pay for doing what the media refuses to do? That kid's a hero. Investigative journalism ain't no "15 minutes of fame" bullshit, it's serious business - y'all need to get serious as well.

I support good people - not goodie-goodie - and James O'Keefe's contribution to this latest incarnation of conservatism - The Tea Party Movement - can't be overstated. It's bigger than Scott Brown's, though Brown was in a better situation to have an impact, because these were kids - acting when nobody else would - proving to the world we were right about the corruption of ACORN all along. That was the crack in liberalism's facade and you know it.

This young man realigned our political world. Like I said, I'm with him until I hear more. The fact the rest of you have to think about it, or are assuming anything already, gives me pause:

What does loyalty mean to you?

Worst SOTU?

Jim Hoft's a bit more critical than I was last night, "McCain Seen Mouthing “Blame It On Bush” During Obama’s Hyper-Partisan Attack Speech":

This may go down as the worst State of the Union Address in history. The current administration tripled the national deficit, nearly doubled the unemployment from the average during the Bush years, and nearly bankrupt the country on failed stimulus while focusing on nationalizing health care and energy, but blamed the previous adminstration for all of his woes. President Obama could not get himself to admit we won in Iraq and inappropriately attacked the Supreme Court all in one awful speech.

Also, from Ruby Slippers, "More Lip Reading the SOTU Audience." And Doug Ross, "Larwyn's Linx: Requiem for Obamacare."

And related, "Justice Alito's Reaction," via Memeorandum.

Howard Zinn, Marxist Historian, Dead at 87

I saw him speak at Fresno State in about 1990. This was frankly before I really understood the new communism in the U.S. The Boston Globe has the report, "Howard Zinn, Historian Who Challenged Status Quo, Dies at 87." I can't imagine any other public intellectuals who've contributed more to the soft-thinking destruction of generations of young Americans. Michelle Malkin has some background. See, "Hollywood & Howard Zinn’s Marxist Education Project," and "'Social Justice' for Grade-Schoolers: The Howard Zinn Education Project."

Via Memeorandum. See also, Joshua Pundit (some background on Zinn's contribution), and JammieWearingFoo, "Marxist Crank Assumes Room Temperature: Chomsky, Affleck Hardest Hit."

A Purple Pleasing Speech?

While this video embed if via MSNBC, I watched the speech on ABC. During to opening chit-chat George Stephanopoulos noted First Lady Michelle Obama's purple dress, suggesting the wardrobe selection was no accident: the president was intent to appeal to the great middle of America (not the blue states nor the red states, but the mixed palette). While I found Obama to be actually quite partisan -- almost extremely so when he blamed the Bush administration for bequeathing him a crisis -- and thus the speech wasn't so "purplish" after all, the dude can f***king deliver an address when the pressure's on! If you get the chance, and I haven't scrolled forward at this video, be sure to look at the president just after signs off with the combative declaration that "I don't quit." ABC News ended their broadcast with a frozen image of the president face, with a clenched-jaw determination and an almost Clint Eastwood squint in his eyes. He's not going to back down, and frankly, as he didn't mention the Massachusetts election, I doubt the supposed reset everyone's been talking about is really going to reset much.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm tired, so I'm not going to spend time right now trolling around for reactions. The text of the speech is at NYT via Memeorandum. My biggest takeaway policy-wise clearly is the president's discussion of the economy. I frankly want to check all his numbers on tax cuts and will look those up in the next couple of days. His claims to transparency in implementing the financial bailout are pure bull, and his call for posting congressional earmarks all together on one website for everyone to see, before a bill is passed, is essentially an a priori lie. Obama talks a good game, but he may have screwed up in asking for suggestions on healthcare. Mitch McConnell was all too happy to stand and applaud at that point, so look for possible gotcha moments on that down the road. (This administration is not known for soliciting outside opinions.) Also memeorable were some of the reactions in the audience of assembled congressional members, Supreme Court justices, and the Joint Chiefs. John McCain looked over to Lindsey Graham and said "blame Bush," Obama's "blaming Bush" for the economic crisis (and this is after the president swore off blaming others previously). Justice Samuel Alito rejected the president's comments that the ruling on campaign finance would "open the floodgates" to special interests. And the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat like cold stones while the president pledged to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" (almost twenty years later, and this seems like something from the first Clinton administration).

Also quite noticeable was the president's faux outrage at the nation's partisan temper. This administration failed at post-partisan transformation all by itself. Thank goodness the GOP's been as unified as it has. I'd expect no less in the face of the Democratic-socialist onslaught.

I should note too that while I can sit and listen to an Obama address, because he really is a talented communicator, up there with Reagan and Clinton, in my opinion, it's not fun at all to have Vice President Biden and Speaker Pelosi back there with their s***eating grins and hubristic nods all night. That was almost too much. Fortunately, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gave an awesome speech hitting all the right notes. And the Jeffersonian touch -- stressing federalism and states rights -- was perhaps the most important volley of words launched all night. I'll have more on McDonnell's speech later. That man is presidential material, and I hope sooner rather than later.

Advice for Obama's State of the Union

This clip is from the House Republican Conference:

That's Conference Chairman Mike Pence, who is introduced as a "moderate." I'm not exactly sure what that is, since I'm not very familiar with Mike Pence. But he's certainly right that the administration doesn't get it.

I like watching the SOTU for the majesty of the event, frankly. While the importance of the speech can be debated (check the links below), I'm fascinated by the notion that this is the one time when you can actually see the entire U.S. government together in one place (and I still love the ritual of the "designated survivor," when at least one cabinet secretary skips the president's speech and instead is whisked away to a secret location with a briefcase containing the nation's nuclear launch codes).

Anyway, Jennifer Rubin makes a great case for lowering expecations, "When Conventional Liberalism Fails, What Next?"

And for those libertarian readers I seem to be picking up, check Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, "Advice to Barack Obama by Two People Who Didn't Vote for Him (or John McCain)."

I'll naturally comment on the speech itself, so check back later.

RELATED: From the Washington Post, "President to Address GOP Opponents Directly." (Via.) And Reaganite Republican, "State of the Union Address 2010" (live streaming).

From 'Protesting Activists' to 'Proactive Americans': O.C. Group to Hold 'Vet the Candidates' Workshop

This just in from a good friend in the local tea party movement: "VETTING THE CANDIDATES FACE-TO-FACE":

IT IS TIME

TO VET THE CANDIDATES FACE-TO-FACE

IT IS TIME

FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT from “protesting activists” to “Proactive Americans”

We are about to embark on a grand adventure - the re-taking of America.- and it starts in our own back yard.

Come join us for a hands-on Proactive American workshop on Saturday January 30, 2010.
There is no charge for the workshop - donations are appreciated to help us offset expenses.

CONTACT: Jim Cover

RSVP HERE AND THEN REGISTER FOR THE EVENT AT JamesCover.com.

This workshop will inform and empower you so that you can help make effective change in our government. You will learn about the political process as our founding fathers intended it to be, how to get involved and implement what you have learned. You will also help us identify and vet citizen candidates for local political office, including the Orange County Central Committee.

We are going to take our country back - starting with our own back yard - Orange County.

Click here as well, "VETTING THE CANDIDATES FACE-TO-FACE."

Joseph Farah Hits Back at Los Angeles Times

It's not my first stop on the Internet, although it was really cool when World Net Daily's Aaron Klein picked up my coverage of Michaele and Tareq Salahi's Palestinian ties. See, "White House 'Gatecrashers' Tied to Terror Sympathizer."

So I was a bit surprised that today's Los Angeles Times features a write-up of World Net Daily founder Joseph Farah. It's no surprise, though, that the piece is a poorly-edited hatchet job:

Sipping coffee in a strip mall, Joseph Farah looks like something out of a spy novel -- suave, mysterious, bushy black mustache. He's surprisingly relaxed, considering he believes his life is in danger because of his occupation. He runs a must-read website for anyone who hates Barack Obama.

Once a little-known Los Angeles newspaper editor, Farah has become a leading impresario of America's disaffected right, serving up a mix of reporting and wild speculation to an audience eager to think the worst of the president.

"Minister: Obamacare kills African-American babies . . . Sign at homeless camp: Welcome to Obamaville," the headlines holler at WorldNetDaily.com, an online tabloid thatrelentlessly skewers the administration and its every move.

The topic it pursues with tireless zeal, though, is the claim that Obama was born not in Honolulu but in Africa, and is therefore ineligible to be president. Farah has used his widely followed website to launch an electronic petition demanding proof of Obama's birthplace, a national billboard campaign ("WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?") and more than 400 articles suggesting America's first black president might not be a "natural born" citizen.

If Farah believes Obama is bad for the country, the president has been indisputably good for Farah's business.

WorldNetDaily's unique visitors nearly doubled to 2 million a month after Obama took office, according to Nielsen's ratings. Farah says his traffic is at least twice that, citing private data from Google Analytics, a traffic-counting service. By either count, that's higher than the online readership of the conservative mainstay National Review, not to mention many of the nation's regional newspapers.

Revenue is on track to hit $10 million annually, Farah says. (That figure could not be independently verified.) His success comes in no small part from the storehouse of "birther" T-shirts, books, DVDs and postcards for sale in his virtual "superstore."

WorldNetDaily's book division publishes titles from high-profile conservatives such as former Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a leader in the anti-illegal-immigration movement, and former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, whose role in George W. Bush's disputed 2000 presidential victory made her a conservative heroine. Perhaps one of Farah's greatest assets is the WorldNetDaily mailing list, recently rented by the Republican National Committee for a fundraising appeal.

Some Republicans wish Farah would abandon the birther issue, fearing his work makes the entire conservative movement seem wacky.

Obviously the folks at WND aren't too thrilled, with a link there reading, "L.A. Times: WND Feels Like a Scandal Sheet." And here's Joseph Farah's response, "L.A. Times Gunning For Me":

A few hours before I dashed off this column, the L.A. Times published this story: "Joseph Farah has found his calling in Obama-bashing."

I'll let you judge the paper's mission and motive.

But, first, there's a story behind the story.

I sat down for a series of interviews with one of the reporters bylined in this piece – Peter Wallsten – about six months ago. He wrapped up the story months ago and turned it in to his editors. It sat around for such a long time that Wallsten ended up leaving the Times and going to work for the Wall Street Journal.

He's been there for a couple months. I assumed the story would never see the light of day because it was fair.

The story Wallsten wrote never did see the light.

At some point, the editors at the L.A. Times looked over the story and determined it made me look responsible, eclectic, maybe even, God forbid, likable. So they turned the story over to another reporter, Faye Fiore.

Did she interview me?

No.

But she rewrote the story nonetheless – with an eye toward making me look like some kind of irresponsible, opportunistic monster.

Farah's full rebuttal is at the link.

Peter Wallstein wrote a fair and accurate report. The Times' editors created a hit piece out of it. The average reader, of course, knows none of this backstory, so it's just one more example of irresponsible journalistic ethics (that leaves the bulk of the readerships ill-informed).

No wonder the mainstream press is barely treading water these days.

Michele Bachmann at O.C. Independence Hall Rally!

I was in 5th grade the last time I visited the Knott's Berry Farm's replica Independence Hall (exact replica, by the way, down to the 2,075-pound Liberty Bell). But if my schedule works out tomorrow I'll be heading over there to meet Michele Bachmann, who is speaking at a local GOP rally, "Michele Bachmann in Southern California Jan 28th":

A fundraiser's scheduled for early evening at the Lincoln Club, the bastion of big-business conservatism in the O.C.:

Regime Change Iran

Here's Robert Kagan on changing regimes in Iran:

Regime change in Tehran is the best nonproliferation policy. Even if the next Iranian government refused to give up the weapons program, its need for Western economic assistance and its desire for reintegration into the global economy and international order would at least cause it to slow today's mad rush to completion and be much more open to diplomatic discussion. A new government might shelve the program for a while, or abandon it altogether. Other nations have done so. In any event, an Iran not run by radicals with millennial visions would be a much less frightening prospect, even with a nuclear weapon.

It's not just the "evil" neocons who see regime change as an increasingly likely solution to the Iran problem. See also, Richard Haass, "Enough Is Enough: Why We Can No Longer Remain on the Sidelines in the Struggle for Regime Change in Iran."

Nearly Three-in-Ten California Voters Identify With Tea Party Movement

From yesterday's Field Poll, "NEARLY THREE IN TEN CALIFORNIA VOTERS IDENTIFY STRONGLY OR SOME-WHAT WITH THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. ONE IN THREE VOTERS ALSO NOT CONVINCED THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN U.S.":

*****

Greater than six in ten California voters (61%) report having heard of the tea party protest movement. This includes 12% who say they identify with it a lot and 16% who have some identification with it.

Registered Republicans and strong conservatives report greater awareness of the movement and are significantly more likely to say they identify with it a lot. While majorities of Democrats, non-partisans, liberals and political moderates are aware of the movement, very few of these voters identify with it a lot or somewhat.

The poll also queried respondents on President Obama's qualifications for office, i.e., "Was Obama born in the U.S.?":

In this survey The Field Poll asked California voters their opinions on this matter. The results show that two-thirds of voters here (67%) say they believe that Obama was born in the U.S. However, 11% think that he was not and another 22% say they aren’t sure.

There is a wide variance in voter beliefs about Obama’s birthplace by party and political ideology. In addition, voter opinions are also correlated with whether or not a voter identifies with the tea party movement.

Eighty-five percent of Democrats, but just 42% of Republicans, maintain that Obama was born in the U.S. There is also a wide divergence of opinion between liberals, 96% of whom believe Obama was born in America, and conservatives, of whom fewer than half feel this way (45%).

Just 29% of the voters who say they identify a lot with the tea party movement believe that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.

Oregon to Tax Incomes Above $250,000

Perhaps I'm some kind of strange guy, but I don't think an annual income of $250,000 is all that big a deal. It's a comfortable living, sure, but for a family it's not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination. My wife and I filed taxes a few years ago for something not much less the $150,000, and we were hardly getting all that much more "ahead." And the tax bite on our return was close to 19 percent of income, so there goes nearly $30,000 of your income in a year, and that's not counting sales taxes. So, in this economy, why Oregon voters thought it's a good idea to increase taxes on ostensibly upper-middle class families is a mystery. Californians rejected tax hikes in last year's May 19 vote on Prop 1A. So my sense is that the good-government spirit will prevail over redistributionist arguments here at home. And remember Rasmussen's report the other day, "Most California Voters Don’t See Higher Taxes as a Budget Solution." Just 28 percent thought that raising taxes to solve the budget crisis was a good idea.

What's totally typical is that Oregon's big-union, pro-tax increase lobby campaigned on a bill of deception:

Overall statewide turnout was expected to be around 60 percent of Oregon's 2 million voters.

Tuesday's strong support also validated a strategy by Democratic lawmakers to single out the rich and corporations for targeted tax increases.

Campaign ads by supporters highlighted banks and credit card companies and showed images of well-dressed people stepping off private jets. They also hammered on the $10 minimum tax that most corporations have paid since its inception in 1931.

Those messages helped counter warnings by opponents that the taxes would lead to job losses, worsening the state's 11 percent unemployment rate, and prompt wealthy residents to move elsewhere.

"They did a great job of pounding, 'It's only $10,'" said Bob Tiernan, chairman of the state Republican Party. "We got swamped by the union money."

It's only $10.00? ... That is such a crock. Jesus. And it's obviously not just corporate executives. Those taxes always trickle down to average folks. The union thugs pitched class warfare to make the case, with teachers and public employees institutionalizing a reign of expropriation to prevent a rationalizing of public services. The best thing about this is that Oregon so far looks like an anomaly nationally, and conservative elsewhere have the example of the thugs of the Pacific Northwest for a rallying cry against creeping socialism in 2010.

Nearly Three-in-Ten California Voters Identify With Tea Party Movement

From today's Field Poll, "NEARLY THREE IN TEN CALIFORNIA VOTERS IDENTIFY STRONGLY OR SOME-WHAT WITH THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. ONE IN THREE VOTERS ALSO NOT CONVINCED THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN U.S.":

*****

Greater than six in ten California voters (61%) report having heard of the tea party protest movement. This includes 12% who say they identify with it a lot and 16% who have some identification with it.

Registered Republicans and strong conservatives report greater awareness of the movement and are significantly more likely to say they identify with it a lot. While majorities of Democrats, non-partisans, liberals and political moderates are aware of the movement, very few of these voters identify with it a lot or somewhat.

The poll also queried respondents on President Obama's qualifications for office, i.e., "Was Obama born in the U.S.?":

In this survey The Field Poll asked California voters their opinions on this matter. The results show that two-thirds of voters here (67%) say they believe that Obama was born in the U.S. However, 11% think that he was not and another 22% say they aren’t sure.

There is a wide variance in voter beliefs about Obama’s birthplace by party and political ideology. In addition, voter opinions are also correlated with whether or not a voter identifies with the tea party movement.

Eighty-five percent of Democrats, but just 42% of Republicans, maintain that Obama was born in the U.S. There is also a wide divergence of opinion between liberals, 96% of whom believe Obama was born in America, and conservatives, of whom fewer than half feel this way (45%).

Just 29% of the voters who say they identify a lot with the tea party movement believe that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.

'Cause You Can Never Really Tell When Somebody...

As much as I'm enjoying 100.3 The Sound (especially D.J. Larry Morgan), other than "Golden Years," I don't recall the playlist featuring anything from David Bowie's Station to Station. That recording includes songs from what's probably my favorite Bowie era, i.e., the Thin White Duke (I say probably because I'm torn between the late-'70s and the earlier Ziggy Stardust moment - a toss-up perhaps). I was thinking about what I'd write here, because I was into this album when I was a senior in high school and just after (1979), and of course we were all big partiers back then. Bowie fought some of his most intense personal demons at the time, and paradoxically produced some of his greatest work. Wikipedia's entry for Station to Station says it better than I can:

Station to Station is the tenth studio album by English musician David Bowie, released by RCA Records in 1976. Commonly regarded as one of his most significant works, Station to Station is also notable as the vehicle for Bowie's last great 'character', The Thin White Duke. The album was recorded after he completed shooting Nicolas Roeg's The Man Who Fell to Earth, and the cover featured a still from the movie. During the sessions Bowie was heavily dependent on drugs, especially cocaine, and recalls almost nothing of the production.

I've included two videos, primarily so that folks can listen to the studio production of "Stay." If you're a guitar lover, sink yourself into the sounds of Carlos Alomar, whose riffs here are as classic as anything from the likes of that other "Carlos," Carlos Santana. Plus, the funky - almost techno-Carribean sound -- is perhaps the hippest punk-pop-dance beats of the era. I was absolutely in heaven listening to the entire LP.

Anyway, get a kick here as well at Dinah Shore's introduction in 1976. Who's that with her and Henry Winkler? Not Ruth Buzzi or Jo Anne Worley or ...?

Life, Values, and California's GOP Senate Primary

I doubt these views are particularly representative, from the comments at my essay yesterday on Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts:

Personally, I don’t give a whit about social conservatism. As far as I’m concerned, there is not much of a difference between progressives and social conservatives in that both want to tell me how to live my life. I want the government to butt out of my pocketbook as well as my bedroom. One reason I’m turning away from the Republican Party is this insane insistence that somehow they know better than I do what is good for me. How does that make them think they’re any better than the Democrats?

If the Republicans make the mistake of playing up abortion or other social issues in this election, they will lose. For now, I’m leaning towards voting for Campbell.

This person sounds more like a concern troll than anything, although there were a number of others at the thread taking issue as well. Of course, folks had more emotion than facts. And despite insinuations to contrary, I never said a word about a Barbara Boxer/Chuck DeVore matchup in the general. Folks seeem to think that California's a wrap for the Dems. But don't believe it. Republicans have long won statewide, and in 1992 Bruce Herschensohn narrowly lost to Boxer -- and that's after a scurrilous Democratic smear campaign suppressed conservative turnout with just days left in the race. And as far as this bit about keeping government "out of the bedroom" ... well, for my money it's the left that's telling folks how to live. Just this week radical feminists launched a campaign against CBS, which plans to run a pro-life advertisement during the Super Bowl (focusing on college football star Tim Tebow,who was born after doctors advised his mother Pam to have an abortion).

In any case, I'm reminded of the most powerful advertisement during campaign 2008, Catholic Vote's "Life":

Time will tell how things turn out in the California primary, but Tom Campbell -- who recently jumped into the Senate race -- has proudly proclaimed his "pro-choice" credentials. And Carly Fiorina -- already squishy on pro-life issues -- has emerged as the "California quota queen" of campaign 2010.

RELATED: From Cliff Kincaid, "None Dare Call it Genocide."

Toyota Halts Sales on 8 Models as Recall Fallout Threatens Brand

At the Los Angeles Times, "Toyota Temporarily Stops Selling Eight Models Covered by Recall":

Toyota Motor Corp. has taken the unprecedented stop of halting sales and production of eight models, including the top-selling Camry and Corolla, because their accelerator pedals can stick and cause runaway acceleration.

Toyota sent an email to its roughly 1,200 U.S. dealers late Tuesday, asking them to immediately cease selling the vehicles. In addition, it told them to refrain from selling certain used versions of the same models.

At the same time, Toyota said it is halting production of the models in five assembly lines in the U.S. and Canada, effective Monday.

The news is the latest blow to Toyota's once-ironclad reputation for quality and safety, which has come under increasing fire in recent months amid rising complaints about of unintended acceleration and other defects.

The eight models affected by the news represented 57% of Toyota's sales in the U.S. last year, including the automaker's Lexus and Scion brands.

"This could be an extended issue. It is very serious," said Aaron Bragman, auto industry analyst at IHS Global Insight. He called the sales freeze, known in the industry as a stop sale, a "disaster," and pointed out that it came as Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Hyundai Motor Co. all were improving their quality and mounting aggressive sales and marketing campaigns.

I've been following this case through the Times' coverage. See December's investigative report, "Toyota Found to Keep Tight Lid on Potential Safety Problems: A Times Investigation Shows the World's Largest Automaker Has Delayed Recalls and Attempted to Blame Human Error in Cases Where Owners Claimed Vehicle Defects."

And especiall, from October, "Toyota's Runaway-Car Worries May Not Stop at Floor Mats."

Whoo Hoo! CBO Projects Only $1.35 Trillion Budget Shortfall!!

Hey, give it up for "Mr. Freeze"!

From Politico, "More Red Ink: CBO Projects $1.35 Trillion Deficit":

New deficit estimates Tuesday project a $1.35 trillion shortfall for the coming year even as Congress debates creation of a bipartisan commission to propose long-range steps to relieve the mounting debt facing the nation.

The 2010 deficit projection is only modestly less than the $1.4 trillion wave of red ink that the government experienced in 2009, as revenues continue to lag with the slow economic recovery forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even in 2011, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a nearly $1 trillion shortfall, and that picture could well be worse depending on the costs of the war in Afghanistan and what Congress decides on long-term tax policy.

CBO projects that unemployment will average slightly above 10 percent in the first half of 2010 and then turn downward in the second half. But the building debt carries with an added burden. Once the economy improves, CBO says, higher interest rates will come back and bite the Treasury trying to finance the accumulated deficits.

“Interest payments on the debt are poised to skyrocket,” CBO says. From 2010 through 2020, it projects the annual costs will triple in nominal terms from $207 billion to $723 billion and more than double as a share of GDP.

Release of the numbers came as the Senate was poised to vote before noon Tuesday on a proposal creating an 18-member fiscal commission empowered to force House and Senate action on deficit reduction steps after the November elections.

And Obambi's trying so hard!

RELATED: At the Director's Blog, "CBO Releases the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010-2020" (via Michelle, "Fill in the blank: Obama proposing spending freeze is like…").

Leftists Allege Breitbart Behind Landrieu Office Arrests

Andrew Breitbart has issued a statement on the James O'Keefe arrest at Senator Mary Landrieu's office, "James O’Keefe Arrested in New Orleans" (via):

Statement from Andrew Breitbart:

“We have no knowledge about or connection to any alleged acts and events involving James O’Keefe at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. We only just learned about the alleged incident this afternoon. We have no information other than what has been reported publicly by the press. Accordingly, we simply are not in a position to make any further comment.”

But the radical leftists are wasting no time concocting theories of Big Government's direct involvement:

Nothing like the presumption of innocence!

Davie Weigel's report is here, "Andrew Breitbart: ‘No Knowledge About or Connection to’ O’Keefe Scandal."

Nice Deb has a roundup of conservative reaction, "ACORN Sting Videographer, James O’Keefe Arrested!"

ACORN Thrilled at O'Keefe Bust

The full story is at the New York Times, "4 Arrested in Phone Tampering at Landrieu Office." And Michelle Malkin expresses the surprise on the conservative right, "Ugh: ACORN-Buster Busted at Sen. Landrieu’s Office in Alleged Bugging Plot; Affidavit Link Added":

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that James O’Keefe, half of the ACORN-busting duo that conducted undercover stings across the country last summer, was arrested today in an alleged wiretapping plot at the New Orleans office of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and three other young men were arrested by the FBI. One of the men is the son of the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.

The Times-Picayune has not posted the full FBI affidavit, but the details they have are damning. This is neither a time to joke nor a time to recklessly accuse Democrats/liberals of setting this up — nor a time to whine about media coverage double standards. Deal with what’s on the table ....

Obviously, the ACORN thugs are thrilled at the news:

And be sure to read the rest of Michelle's post on "knowing your limits."

How Your Leftist 'Friends' Think About You...

Are you concerned about threats to limited government, not unlike the very founders of our nation? Are you sympathetic to the concerns of tea party activists, even if perhaps you've never attended one? Well, then, this is how the lefties describe you (and vilify you), "Intra-Tea Party Bitchiness Threatens Tea Party Slumber Party!":

Everyone watch as the Tea Party’s national Tea Party Party next month slowly implodes as distrust, paranoia and insanity finally get the best of these distrustful, paranoid insane people. Everyone involved in the big Nashville summit (plateau?) suspects everyone else of trying to cheat someone else out of something, most of all Sarah Palin, whose $100,000 keynote speaking fee is a logical scapegoat in all this. And oh my god and one of the non-Erick Erickson ones learned the word “profiteering,” apparently.

Paranoid? Insane?

Remember: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, if you're a leftist.

See also, the New York Times, "Tea Party Disputes Take Toll on Convention" (via Memeorandum).

Dennis Prager: 'An Open Letter to Charles Johnson'

I did finally read the New York Times piece on Charles Johnson, but I haven't updated for want of something additionally useful to say. But via Glenn Reynolds, I got a kick out of Andrew Sullivan's extreme defense of political flexibility (which is mostly just an attack on those anchored souls with firm convictions). See Glenn for the link, or Google, "How The Internet Enforces Rigidity‎."

And for something serious, from someone of highly respectable ideological thinking, see Dennis Prager's, "An Open Letter to Charles Johnson": (via Memeorandum):

Dear Charles:

As you know, over the years, I was so impressed with your near-daily documentation of developments in the Islamist world that I twice had you on my national radio show — both times face to face in my studio. And you, in turn, periodically cited my radio show and would tell your many readers when they could hear you on my show.

So it came as somewhat of a shock to see your 180-degree turn from waging war on Islamist evil to waging war on your erstwhile allies and supporters on the right. You attempted to explain this reversal on Nov. 30, 2009, when you published “Why I Parted Ways With The Right.”

You offered 10 reasons, and I would like to respond to them.

First, as disappointed as I am with your metamorphosis, I still have gratitude for all the good you did and I respect your change as a sincere act of conscience. But neither this gratitude nor this respect elevates my regard for your 10 points. They are well beneath the intellectual and moral level of your prior work. They sound like something Keith Olbermann would write if he were given 10 minutes to come up with an attack on conservatives.

The rest of the letter is at the link.

Obama's Budget Freeze Symbolism

Jakie Calmes notes that Obama's budget freeze is mostly political symbolism. See, "Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs."

Also, until I have a chance to read over the whole proposal, see the Wall Street Journal, "Budget Freeze Is Proposed: White House Plan Applies to Only 17% of Spending; Small Impact on Deficit":

President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze in spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget—a move meant to quell rising concern over the deficit but whose practical impact will be muted.

To attack the $1.4 trillion deficit, the White House will propose limits on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs, according to senior administration officials. Also untouched are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared with what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.

The administration officials said the cap won't be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.

Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.

"We're not here to tell you we've solved the deficit, but you have to take steps to put spending under control," a senior administration official said.

The spending freeze, which is expected to be included in Wednesday's State of the Union address and the president's Feb. 1 budget proposal, is one of a series of small-scale initiatives the White House is unrolling as the president adjusts to a more hostile political terrain in his second year. On Monday, the president unveiled a set of proposals aimed at making child care, college and elder care more affordable.

"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio). "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."

Responding to criticism, administration officials acknowledged the freeze is directed at only a small part of overall spending, but that fiscal discipline has to start somewhere. President Obama had requested a 7.3% increase last year in the areas he now seeks to freeze. White House officials said they had achieved 60% of the $11.5 billion in cuts outlined in the budget for the current fiscal year.

Mr. Obama will also propose the creation of a deficit commission to look for potential solutions for the medium- and long-term deficit—a move to garner bipartisan support for what may be unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. A bipartisan group of senators has been trying to get such a commission passed into law in a way that would give teeth to its recommendations. The recommendations of any presidential panel would require congressional approval.

I can't take this talk seriously until I see some serious discussion of downsizing federal entitlements. Mostly, this is politics. More later ...

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

The 'One-Term' Smokescreen

I watched "World News Tonight." He's lying, obviously. No president wants to be a one-term president, whether good, bad, or every other which way to Sunday. It's a lie -- an Obamunist smokescreen -- for public consumption in the days ahead of his SOTU address. The model to keep in mind is Lyndon Johnson, who rejected a second term when he was repudiated at the New Hampshire primary in 1968. If Obama's serious about being a really good one-term pres, let him announce that he's not running for the Democratic nomination in 2012. I'll believe it when I see it:

The full ABC report is here.

'The Myth of Right-Wing Hate'

In my in-box, from Kathleen Stewart:

Taking Apart the Stimulus Package

There's a lot of discussion of the Obama administration's "porkulus-maximus" faux economic recovery initiative at Memeorandum. Especially interesting is CNN's poll, "Majority of Americans Say Much of Stimulus Wasted." Also good are the responses to Joe Klein's smearing of Americans as a bunch of "dodos." See Left Coast Rebel and Right Wing Nut House, for a start.

But readers also might take advantage of this cool chart from the Washington Post, "Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package":

Hat Tip: Dana Loesch, "Majority of Americans Say Much of Stimulus Wasted."

Tea Parties Resist National Unity

An interesting piece at the Los Angeles Times, "Still a Disorganized 'Tea Party'":

When Matt Clemente went to a December meeting of "tea party" activists in Worcester, Mass., he was shocked to find the hall packed.

"They were all talking about Scott Brown," he said.

That was when Clemente, a student at College of the Holy Cross, realized Brown wasn't just another Republican running a long-shot campaign for the seat held by liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy since 1962. He actually had a chance to win, and the conservative activists who had been organizing around the country against the healthcare overhaul, bank bailouts and increased government regulation could put him over the top if they could get organized in time.

Clemente is also a state coordinator for the Washington-based advocacy group FreedomWorks. After the Worcester meeting, he called the group and reported what he had seen.

The Senate race became a big moment for the sometimes fractured and ragtag group of right-wing activists.

"The movement rallied around the idea of defying the establishment," said Eric Odom, founder of another tea party network, American Liberty Alliance, which ushered volunteers to Massachusetts in the final days of Brown's winning campaign. "This had far less to do with Scott Brown and far more to do with proving we could coordinate and act in a mass way, showing we could move political mountains. We don't view this as support of a candidate; we view it as opposition to a candidate."

But as much as the various groups contributed -- with e-mails, volunteers, money, TV ads -- the victory still had the feel of a crowd running to the sound of the guns.

The movement is far from a well-disciplined army. Its pivot from protesting to politics has been fraught with internal disputes, turf wars and lawsuits. It has continued to struggle with its relationship to the Republican Party, which would very much like to harness the movement's energy without being subsumed by it.

Recent weeks have seen activists tangled in infighting over an attempt to organize a national convention. In Florida, tea party leaders have filed a lawsuit accusing a lawyer of hijacking their movement. Separately, two high-profile national groups are at odds amid accusations of coziness with the Republican establishment.

Underlying each dispute is a debate about how a movement born of an anti-incumbent fervor and homemade revolution ethos can cooperate with the political party it sees as tied to Wall Street.

"People certainly feel betrayed and ripped off by the Republican Party. But I think people are getting out of revenge mode," Odom said. "The primary goal is to defeat people who are not looking out for our interests, in defeating healthcare, cap-and-trade. That goal is to win politically."

There's evidence of success on that front beyond the Massachusetts vote. Tea party activists helped topple a Republican Party chairman in Florida who endorsed moderate GOP Gov. Charlie Crist in the Senate primary over the more conservative Marco Rubio. In California, Republican Senate candidate Chuck DeVore credits tea party activists with helping raise more than $1 million in small donations.

But DeVore said the financial effect of the tea party movement was hard to measure. "It's so decentralized I wouldn't even know how to do that," he said.

The rest is here. I have no problems with the discussion at the piece. In fact, the article provides a good overview of today's "crossroads" moment for the tea parties. And there's a good section on the movement's ties to the GOP. The piece suggests, correctly, I think, that many activists lean to the Republicans, although there's lots of anti-establishment sentiment on the ground. This passage is key for me:

Although many groups say they want to stay separate from the Republican establishment, only a few are pushing to create a third party. Many activists believe such a move would only split the conservative vote and put more Democrats in office.

I'd only remind folks of the old adage of Tip O'Neill, the former Democratic Speaker of the House: "all politics is local." 2010 is a massive year for conservatives and my sense is that movement infighting could well blow the moment. The article discusses the rifts surrounding the National Tea Party Convention that's scheduled for February. Once I heard that the event was going to be closed to the press -- and that includes bloggers like Glenn Reynolds -- I got a bad taste in my mouth (last I heard organizers have opened it up). Folks can turn to the Obama White House for secret meetings and lies about "transparency." I can't see how an event like that helps regular folks on the ground. It's not like a party convention, or anything, selecting candidates for office. So a national tea party event should be open and inclusive, reflecting the spirit of activists at the base.

Other than that, people need to just get out and get organized with their local tea parties. I was heartened yesterday to read Mark Meckler's interview at the San Francisco Chronicle, where he noted that California tea party movement is "incredibly strong." And no doubt there are strong tea parties with local leadership around the country. I've repeatedly noted the phenomenal St. Louis tea party activists, espeically my friends Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch.

Basically, folks need to keep plugging, and to resist most of all the establishment of a third party -- which'll be a sure-fire way to kill the momentum that's been building, and that continues to build.