'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."