After all, if on Twitter you search “hashtags,” which are those things on Twitter messages which start with “#” and then have a keyword – when we post Hayride links on Twitter, for example, we’ll use “#lapolitics” for Louisiana politics, or “#lasen” for the just-completed U.S. Senate race between David Vitter and Charlie Melancon – you can find entire discussions full of wonderfully informative and provocative material.

Like, for example, #ihadanabortion.

No, it’s not a joke. There is an entire Twitter hashtag devoted to people commenting on the abortions they had.

A taste…

Apparently, this got started on Wednesday, when someone on Twitter calling him/herself @IAmDrTiller opened the thread in response to “hardline anti-choice Republicans” winning elections all over the country with this message:

‘Time for us to come out. Who’s had an abortion? Show antis we’re not intimidated by scare tactics. Use: #ihadanabortion.’

So it’s a political statement. And a personal one as well.

We would like to talk about a Congressional race in the Mississippi Delta in an area roughly bounded by the Mississippi River, Natchez, Memphis, and Jackson, Mississippi/I-55. The district is majority black, but is not overwhelmingly so (in other words, there is a significant conservative voter base). The incumbent in this district is a 16 year black Democrat named Bennie Thompson who has more often than not had competitive Congressional races, but he has always won by double digits.

Recently, however, we conducted a poll of registered and/or likely voters of the district.

Continue reading at: http://winwithjmc.com/archives/1701

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

O’Donnell has been hammered by the GOP establishment in the past month, just as her campaign has eclipsed Castle’s and for the first time she has taken a small lead in the polls. There has been enough dirt on the insurgent candidate spread of late to fill in the Grand Canyon, and if you’re looking for an argument why she’s unworthy of support it’s not hard to find one. O’Donnell isn’t cut from the Carly Fiorina-Linda McMahon cloth, whereby she made millions as a businesswoman and demonstrated a keen ability for management or entrepreneurship. O’Donnell isn’t even a Sharron Angle, who made a reputation as a hard-core principled state legislator even if that meant lots of local politicos disparaged her for being an extremist.

O’Donnell is more your regular-Joe. She doesn’t have an impressive bio at all; in a more Republican-friendly state than Delaware she’d probably have won a small race or two and moved up from county commissioner to state senator, but instead she’s been something of a serial candidate and a performer of odd jobs in marketing and public relations. She only recently finished her college degree and it appears she’s embellished her accomplishments – though she hasn’t claimed to have fought in Vietnam or held herself out as a law professor – on her campaign bio.

Allen West or Rob Portman, she’s not. I get that. In a larger state than Delaware, with a healthier Republican Party, she wouldn’t have a chance at an office this high.

But, as Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among others, have noticed, O’Donnell is an actual conservative. She ran for Senate in Delaware as a real conservative in 2008, when it was supposedly poisonous to do so, and got clobbered in the process. And while she’s an unimpressive individual, unimpressive individuals in the Senate are the rule rather than the exception. The difference is that O’Donnell is an unimpressive individual who isn’t connected to the Ivy League-Wall Street ruling class like, for example, Kristin Gillibrand or Chris Dodd are.

Meanwhile, on the Establishment side of this divide we have Mike Castle, an entrenched incumbent politician who has been Delaware’s only congressman for nine terms (that’s 18 years) and was the state’s governor at one time. Castle is 70 years old and his voting record is absolutely noxious to conservatives. He styles himself a moderate, which would be an accurate description if your definition of a moderate politician would encompass Ron Wyden or Mary Landrieu. Castle is, in fact, the most left-wing Republican in the House of Representatives; he’s the very definition of a RINO.

How bad is Castle? Well, via Michelle Malkin let’s take a look at his record on energy for example:

 * Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
* Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
* Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
* Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
* Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
* Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
* Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)
* Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
* Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

That’s not a moderate voting record. That’s a left-wing nightmare of a voting record.

Castle also voted for the DISCLOSE Act, TARP, that $26 billion greasing of the teachers’ unions a couple weeks ago and Cap and Trade. He’s got a lifetime near-100 percent rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. The National Rifle Association has given him an “F” rating since the early 1990′s. The Club For Growth gave Castle a 43 percent rating in 2009, which was a high-water mark in recent years (and a product of increased party discipline with a smaller GOP caucus) after ratings of 35 and 26 in 2007 and 2008. In fact, when Castle earned a 26 in 2008 from the Club For Growth, Arlen Specter earned a 44.

As Limbaugh, Dan Riehl and Erick Erickson have both noted, GOP majorities peppered by Mike Castles are majorities in name alone. You can’t make policy with a Mike Castle in your camp, because you will either have to continually bribe him with pork and thus sabotage your credibility with the American people or you will watch him fight against you. Such a majority merely makes the Republicans responsible for policy and presents the Obama administration with an even more inviting target for demonization (the distinctly uncharismatic and boring Mitch McConnell) than their past and present bogeymen Limbaugh, George W. Bush and now John Boehner. With a Castle teaming with Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and (probably) John McCain, the GOP will be credited with 51 votes when they’ve actually got 46. There is no difference between the two other than having the responsibility for setting the agenda.

On the other hand, if Angle manages to knock off Harry Reid (she leads by one point in the latest poll), the Republicans might be in the minority in a Chuck Schumer-led Senate. This is electoral gold in 2012, when the vast majority of the seats up for re-election will be Democrat seats. When the country gets a look at Schumer’s leadership they’ll recoil in a similar fashion to what we’ve seen with Reid, if not more so.

This assumes the Delaware race will make the difference between 50 and 51 seats, when it’s probably more likely to make the difference between 48 and 49, or 51 and 52. In other words, it’s by no means proven that the nomination decided tonight will hold the GOP Senate majority’s fate.

How are you feeling? Blood pressure OK? You a little stressed out right now?

If you are, don’t hit the link. You might stroke out.

If not, come with me.

The Daily Caller reports that your tax dollars are being spent on political campaigns in Barack Obama’s ancestral homeland of Kenya.

A list of Kenyan organizations receiving U.S. government aid reveals interesting insights into the lobbying campaign for a new constitution in the East African nation. As The Daily Caller previously reported, U.S. federal funds have been used to essentially lobby for a new proposed Kenyan constitution that includes a provision legalizing abortion for the first time in the country’s history.

At the request of three Republican congressmen – Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Chris Smith of New Jersey and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida — the Office of Inspector General of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) released a report detailing the Kenyan groups it supports.

Among them is the Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance, which received $56,953.33 in funds from the U.S. government to contribute to the “overrepresentation of the YES voters at the next referendum.” The group organizes programs that “facilitate acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable the Muslim youth cope with demands of the changing world without compromising Islamic values.”

The Amani Peoples Theatre (APT) is a non-profit that employs volunteers in a similar manner to community organizers in America’s own urban districts. Focused on “peacebuilding,” APT volunteers facilitate activities such as training sessions for conflict resolution and art and drama therapy. Recently, however, it got $41,000 from the U.S. government to organize the registration of roughly 20,000 Kenyans to vote “yes” on the proposed new Kenyan constitution….

Even Kenya’s major labor union, the Central Organization of Trade Unions, received more than $90,000 of U.S. funds to organize a rally to “drum up political support for the proposed constitution.”

Religious groups in Kenya were also among those receiving U.S. aid to rally support for a constitution that expands access to abortion. The Pokot Outreach Ministries and the Christian Community Services, combined, received more than $75,000 to get out the “yes” vote.

Aside from art theaters and religious groups, the Provincial Commissioner of the North Eastern Conference – a position that is similar to a U.S. governor with the exception that the position is appointed by Kenya’s president — was given almost $100,000.

The Office of Inspector General for USAID has not responded to interview requests by TheDC.

Providing federal funds to support the expansion of legalized abortion overseas is a violation of the Silijander Amendment, which prohibits the use of foreign assistance funds from being used to lobby for or against abortion.

The new Kenyan constitution includes some American-style checks and balances, which are aimed at curbing abuses by a long string of that country’s presidents who have favored tribal allies and kinsmen in political appointments and government spoils. But it also calls for greater permissiveness on abortion and – here it comes – the adoption of Sharia courts for Muslims.

Your tax dollars are going to Africa to promote Sharia law in a predominantly non-Muslim country. And it’s happening just a dozen years after Muslims blew up the U.S. embassy in that country’s capital.

Yep.

Have a nice afternoon.

Elections Calendar

Latest News – Filing Deadlines

There will be no filing deadlines until May 25, when filing ends in Connecticut. After that will see a rapid succession of filing deadlines: Arizona (May 26), Colorado (May 27), Wyoming (May 28), and Alaska/Massachusetts (June 1). Once those deadlines have passed, the Congressional field will be set in 37 states. The last Congressional filing deadline will be Delaware’s, on July 30.

Latest News – Retirements

In the wake of the May 6 David Obey (D-Wisconsin) retirement, there has been no action on the Congressional retirement front. We are still keeping an eye on the possible retirement of 2006 freshman Michael Arcuri (D-New York), but we may not know anything definitive until July 15, which is the filing deadline for New York.

Latest News – Upcoming Primaries

Primaries held on May 18 will be worth watching, because they involve intraparty fights that political blog POLITICO described as “..the fullest measure yet of the depths of anti incumbent hostility…” Four states will be holding primaries on that day: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. We are watching the following three intraparty fights:

Pennsylvania

When 30 year incumbent Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic party last year, it was due to disastrous poll results showing him significantly trailing the same Republican he defeated in 2004 with 51% of the vote. And in that race, his victory was clinched by endorsements from former President Bush and former Senate colleague Rick Santorum.

The problem with Specter’s switch, however, was his reputation as an opportunist, which was bought front and center to the voters when he admitted at the time of the switch that “My change in party will allow me to be re-elected.” So despite the nearly unified support of Washington and Pennsylvania Democrats, his past and present conduct has created a high level of discomfort among rank and file Pennsylvania Democrats that Congressman Joe Sestak has exploited. TV footage showing Senator Specter with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin was the beginning of the playing of the “Republican card.” Then there were the Republican votes Senator Specter has cast over the past 30 years. And his twice referring to a local Democratic group as the “Allegheny County Republicans.”

Senator Specter’s line of defense, in addition to establishment support, has been to reiterate the benefits of his seniority and to argue that he is more electable than his opponent. However, none of these three lines of defense are likely to gather much traction in an anti incumbent year like this one. Though Specter maintained single digit leads in the polls before Sestak “played the Republican card”, recent tracking polls have shown the race a dead heat, with Sestak actually leading in several polls.

Another race that may be worth watching in Pennsylvania: up in Northeast Pennsylvania coal country, 26 year incumbent Paul Kanjorski was narrowly re-elected in 2008 with 52% of the vote in a district that gave Barack Obama 57% of the vote. This year, he has primary opposition from a local county commissioner. In addition to a voting record that has been mostly in line with the wishes of the Democratic leadership, Rep Kanjorski voted for TARP, and has taken some heat with the local Catholic community for his votes for healthcare reform. In the wake of Congressman Mollohan’s defeat in West Virginia, Kanjorski can’t feel entirely safe, and it’s worth noting that he didn’t release the results of a poll he commissioned.

Arkansas

In Arkansas, 12 year Senate Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln’s problem, in the eyes of Democratic activists, is twofold. First, she opposed “card check” legislation sought by organized labor. She also opposed the “public option” as part of healthcare reform, and for these stances, she received opposition from Lt Governor Bill Halter. Though Senator Lincoln has consistently led in the polls, she has remained beneath 50%., and a third candidate in the race may pull enough votes away to put the race into a runoff.

Kentucky

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the initial Republican favorite, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, has the staunch support of fellow Kentuckian and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. That support, however, has become a liability in an anti Washington year. His opponent is Rand Paul, an eye doctor who also happens to be the son of Presidential candidate Ron Paul. He also has the attention of conservative groups like the Club for Growth, various Tea Parties, and grassroots conservative groups. Dr Paul currently leads by double digits in the polls (a recent poill showed him up 49-33%); the question is how this political novice with his more libertarian views will fare against significant Democratic opposition this fall.

Latest News – Upcoming Special Elections

While the primaries being held next week will be a yardstick for the strength of anti Washington sentiment amongs primary voters of either party, two vacated Democratic held House seats will also be a barometer of current voter attitudes.

Pennsylvania

In Southwest Pennsylvania, Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns are locked into a tight battle in the only district in America to vote for Democrat John Kerry in 2004 then for Republican John McCain in 2008. While Mark Critz is denying his liberalism and reiterating his opposition to healthcare, he has brought in Vice President Joe Biden to campaign for him. He has also invoked the pork barreling ability of his former boss, the late Congressman John Murtha. Meanwhile, Republican Tim Burns is basing his campaign on opposition to the status quo in general and healthcare reform in particular. Though different polls tell a different story as to who’s ahead, a recent poll showed Burns with a 49-40% lead among those most interested in the election. And President Obama’s unpopularity in the district helps as well. Burns’ problem is that the special election is held on the day as contested statewide Democratic primaries. And the legacy of appropriations brought to the district by the late Rep Murtha is something that may or may not work in the Democrats favor this year in this district.

Hawaii

Over in Hawaii, a “winner take all” mail in election us now in progress and will culminate on May 22 between a Republican against two significant Democratic opponents. One of the Democrats is former Congressman Ed Case, a white male who once represented the other Congressional district and is supported by pillars of the establishment like the Washington Democratic political establishment, the Blue Dog Democrats, and both major newspapers in Honolulu. The other Democrat is Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who is an Asian-American legislator with staunch support of the Hawaii Democratic establishment and local unions. Early on, the Washington Democratic political establishment attempted to get one of the candidates to drop out but were unsuccessful, and have recently pulled out of the special election race because “local Democrats were unable to work out their differences.”

Some of those differences are personal: in 2006, then Rep. Case challenged an incumbent Democratic Senator who was 82 years old at the time. Case lost that race 55-45%, and in the process made an enemy of the state’s other Senator, Daniel Inouye, who not only has 48 years’ seniority, but has significant influence with Hawaii voters and chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Inouye has not only supported Hanaabusa, but has gotten involved personally in the campaign and has held multiple fundraisers for her.

The Democratic infighting has clearly benefitted the lone Republican in the race, Honolulu Councilman Charles Djou, but Djou has attractive qualities of his own and has adequate Republican funding. Djou has over time seen his lead expand in the polls and a recent survey sponsored by Aloha Vote  shows Djou in the lead with 40%. More significantly, among the poll respondents who said they have already voted, Djou leads with 45%. As of today, the state elections spokesman has indicated that 35% of voters have turned in their ballots – the deadline is 6PM May 22.

Meanwhile, in upstate New York, the House seat vacated in early March by Democrat Eric Massa has finally had an election date set by its Democratic Governor. The special election, however, will be held in November, so voters going to the polls will be voting twice; once to fill the unexpired term, and once for the full two year term.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

1.Why are you running for Congress? What should 3rd District voters take from your candidacy in terms of qualifications, expertise or ideas?

I believe that the Federal Government is out of Control. Under Pelosi and Obama, the size of government has been growing as fast as Louisiana’s coast is eroding. In addition our liberties and freedoms have been eroding as well.

When Congressman Charlie Melancon decided to leave his seat; I waited for months for a true conservative, someone with business experience, who understood what it takes to create good paying jobs to step forward. Someone, whom I could trust to help build a bright future for my son and the scores of other children in South Louisiana.

As I waited I watched old-time politicians contemplate running. Politicians who have been confused as to what party they belong to, what values they believe in. That only solidified my belief that if we were going to turn this country around, we needed to send someone to Washington who would put the people before the politicians, someone who had not been drinking out of the taxpayers cup for years.

So after thoughtful prayer and several discussions with my wife, Sharon, I decided to run for this seat.

Starting out in our sugarcane fields as a young man, I learned the meaning of hard work. Working on a farm, taught me the importance of agriculture to our nation. “As a nation that can feed itself is a secure nation.” As a successful business owner who serviced the oil and gas sector, I bring real business experience. I have created jobs. Therefore I know how to grow our economy and what it takes to create and keep good paying jobs. As a business attorney, who works with small business, I understand what crushing unneeded regulations and taxes do to our small businesses.

Studying at USL, in the Department of Life Sciences, I understand the importance of our coast. How our coast is vital to the many industries and our nation who depend on it for its resources and its recreational opportunities.

As a lifetime member of the NRA and Ducks Unlimited, I believe in protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. As a Veteran and member of the Armed Forces, I took a pledge to defend my country from all threats both foreign and domestic. Those eleven years of service have only strengthened my desire to protect our troops abroad and insure that our veterans receive the care they deserve here at home. I am pro-life. I believe that life is a gift from God. I believe in traditional marriage. I believe we must empower our families, not weaken them. I believe that we must fight for parental involvement in education.

And lastly, I believe in the Constitution of the United States, as written!

2. What do you think is the most important issue in the race this year?

I believe we must grow our economy, protect our jobs while creating a business friendly environment to help create new jobs, stop wasteful Washington spending.

3. What are your thoughts on the possible loss of the district in redistricting, and how might that affect this year’s race?

My thoughts are centered on representing the people of the 3rd Congressional district, now!

I don’t understand why people worry about whether a district will be here tomorrow, when it is here today. A district that affects the things we care so much about like our nation’s future, our economic future and our coast.

Only politicians worry about whether they will have a job tomorrow, I am only worried about the things that I can affect today that impact tomorrow.

4. With your background in the energy industry, can you tell us what a Jeff Landry energy policy would look like?

Like our agriculture and fishery industries, our domestic energy industry is vital to our national security. We need to increase domestic drilling and continue the tax breaks given to our domestic producers, while encouraging nuclear electrical generation and other alternatives. We must reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

5. The federal budget is unbelievably out of balance. Can you offer a plan to bring it into line?

Thomas Jefferson once said, “That it is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debt as it goes” I support a balanced budget amendment, reforms that make it harder for a liberal Congress to raise taxes.

6. Congress’ approval ratings are through the floor at present. What would a Congressman Jeff Landry propose to restore respect and confidence to the House of Representatives?

Over the years I have learned that in order to lead, you must lead by example. I believe that Congress must reform itself, before it can reform the Country. I would like to see an end to Congressional healthcare, making each Congressman responsible for his or her own healthcare.

I would like to see an elimination of Congressional retirement, public office is supposed to be an honor.

7. If you were to win this race, you’d succeed Charlie Melancon as the 3rd District’s representative. What is your opinion of the job Melancon has done?

I would rather leave that opinion to the voters who have an opportunity to grade his performance in the upcoming Senate election. My focus is on returning our nation to the core conservative values which built a great country.

8. Obviously, coastal restoration is a major issue for the 3rd District. Can you describe for us what your agenda might be on that issue?

Investment of federal dollars in coastal restoration in Louisiana is a smart business decision for the country.

More than $7 billion dollars a year is sent to the Federal treasury from Oil and Gas royalties produced off the coast of Louisiana alone. 25% of the seafood consumed in the continental U.S. comes from Louisiana. Our coast is not only important to the Country and Louisiana; it defines our way of life here.

I will fight to ensure that Louisiana receives it’s share of the federal dollars – already sent to the Treasury from royalties – in order to help protect and improve our Coast. I will also fight to ensure that the people of South Louisiana have a say in how our coastal communities are protected, not bureaucrats in Washington.

9. Can you talk about your interactions with national GOP organizations like the NRCC to date? What kind of response have you received from them so far?

Yes, I have been to Washington D.C. twice. I have had one on one meetings with NRCC Chairman and Rep. Pete Sessions; Rep. Eric Cantor, the Majority Whip; Rep. Dr. Tom Price, the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee – the conservative caucus in the House; Rep. Lynn Westmoreland; and Rep. Patrick McHenry who leads the House Conservative Fund.

The support and encouragement I received was tremendous. They recognize that voters are looking for fresh leadership – leadership not confused about what party or issues should be supported.

They have all been extremely pleased with the progress that our campaign has made in such a short time.

10. You’ve got a primary race up first against a political veteran in the district, Hunt Downer. How do you see that race shaping up?

If Hunt Downer does decide to run, I welcome him to the race. He has been on the government payroll, since the 70‘s, he ran for Governor in 2004 and was sorely defeated by Bobby Jindal and Kathleen Blanco.

His loss in the 3rd Congressional District was astonishing – not much has changed since then except for the fact Kathleen Blanco appointed him to the current job he is retiring from.

He has inquired about being Lt. Governor or possibly running for the position.

I don’t believe the tax payers are interested in giving him a second government pension, frankly I believe that I speak for the conservative voters of the 3rd Congressional District when I say I am tired of recycling politicians. That is part of the problem we are facing in Washington.

11. It looks like the general election opponent will be Democrat Ravi Sangisetty, who like you is a first-time candidate for Congress. Any thoughts on Sangisetty as a Democrat opponent?

I am sure that Ravi is a nice young man, but his past is a bit too liberal for me!

12. It looks like immigration might be one of the major battles in Congress this year, and in all likelihood it will be a major issue in 2011. What’s your stance on that issue, and what do you think of Arizona’s controversial new law on the subject?

I think illegal immigration is just that, illegal. I support Arizona’s right to enforce its border with Mexico. I am a strong believer in the Constitution, and believe that the 10th Amendment is an important, but a trampled on Amendment to our Constitution. From what I have read so far, they are certainly within their Constitutional authority to enact laws, they feel are needed in order to protect their citizens.

13. Republicans are universally opposed to Obamacare and should a GOP majority take hold in the House there will undoubtedly be a move of some kind to do away with some or all of it. How far would you go on a potential rollback? Do you favor a de-funding of Obamacare? A full-fledged repeal? Tweaks at the edges?

I believe that there are a few parts of the Healthcare legislation that are not fatal to the system. However, a vast majority of it is. This is a bad piece of legislation; it is a job killer, not a job producer. I have visited with countless businesses owners since its passage, all of them are saying the same thing, they will either quit providing insurance to their employees, or cut their work force in order to comply. If we are not in a position in the next Congress to repeal it, then I am certainly for de-funding. There are no edges to tweak, only crumbs to keep.

14. Comment, if you would, on the Tea Party movement. How important will they be in the 3rd District race this year? Are you a Tea Party candidate? Will you actively seek endorsements from Tea Party groups?

My family and I participated in Tea Party functions last year and again this year. I believe that they represent a vast majority of conservative voters, whether those voters participate in their activities or not. I am a Republican candidate that believes in the movement. I will actively seek the endorsement of all of the voters of the 3rd Congressional District.

15. Is there a particular leader or historical figure you model yourself from as a candidate or from whom you draw inspiration?

I am a student of history. Over the years I have come to appreciate what our founding fathers; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. worked so hard to construct. Our modern statesman – Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Anthony Scalia and others – have worked hard to continue the founders’ dream.

16. How important are social issues to you as a candidate, and how do you think they’ll play out in this race?

I am 100% Pro-Life, I believe that life is a gift from God. I support traditional marriage. I think voters will need to look at who stands behind these issues firmly and who only tries to say the right thing to win a political contest.

17. One national issue which has generated a lot of local attention is the Obama administration’s proposed policy change on recreational fishing. The administration has already come down pretty hard on commercial fishing in various areas around the country. With so many of the district’s voters being fishing enthusiasts or even making their livelihood from the state’s fisheries, where do you come down on the proposed changes?

I am not an environmental alarmist. I believe that industry and the environment can coexist. We must protect both our fishing industry and our fisheries. I have never met a fisherman that was not truly a conservationist, because if he’s not, then he is not a real fisherman. Obama’s proposals are unrealistic for the formula to succeed.

18. Melancon’s race against David Vitter this year has brought to light a contrast between two leadership styles one often sees in elected representatives. Melancon bills himself as a behind-the-scenes worker whose effectiveness can be seen in bringing resources back to his constituents and making bills better, while Vitter sees himself as fighting for a legislative agenda that would improve the lives of his constituents. While the two are not mutually exclusive, which of the two would you say more accurately might categorize your style as a Congressman?

A good leader knows when to lead, when to follow and when to get out of the way. As a business owner and attorney I must work to solve problems every day in a sometime contentious environment, so far I have been successful. I can work with anyone who believes in America and its exceptionalism.

19. As a lawyer and a veteran, do you have any thoughts on the controversy surrounding the Justice department’s handling of Gitmo terrorists and the potential closure of that prison?

Yes it is a tragedy that we have an Attorney General whose law firm formally represented terrorists, pro bono. I am tired of people who care more about the rights of terrorist, then the lives of Americans serving in our Armed Services. It is undisputed that these people want to destroy my Country and murder innocent people. They are not Americans and they have no right under our Constitution.

20. Finally, the President’s financial reform package is drawing howls of opposition from Republicans. What are your thoughts on “too big to fail,” and what size role should the government have in the financial sector?

We have gone from an individual entitlement system to a corporate entitlement system. The current Administration is destroying the American dream, by saying you are either too big to fail or too small to succeed.

At the age of 25 I started a small business with a friend. With the last of our savings and a bank who believed in our ideas, we were able to employ up to 35 people at one time. I just wonder if today was yesterday if I could still succeed.

That is what is so scary; we are destroying the dreams of young entrepreneurs with this philosophy.

The bill, which is part of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s legislative package, has exceptions in the cases of miscarriages or life-threatening pregnancies.

State Rep. Juan LaFonta (D-New Orleans), a candidate for Congress in Louisiana’s 2nd District, offered a number of amendments to the bill which Hoffman said would gut it. LaFonta tried to amend the bill to allow coverage to abort “non-viable” fetuses, and was voted down. He then offered an amendment to allow coverage for abortions in the cases of rape or incest, and lost that fight.

In the end, opposition to the bill came only from the black caucus from the House – an indication that caucus and its constituency seems to contain the vast majority of the left-wing thinking in Louisiana politics today.

- I mentioned this to Ryan in the discussion of his piece on Bart Stupak from last night a little earlier, and I’ll expand upon it here; maybe it’s time that conservatives and Republicans take another look at how they treat pro-life Democrats. It’s quite clear they’re a tiny, uninfluential minority within the Democrat Party – and a shrinking one at that. In other words, it’s a valid question to ask what they’re doing there.

And with that as the case, maybe it’s time to start villifying them the way the Left villifies black Republicans. The Left looks at the latter with the same quizzical disdain the Right looks at pro-life Democrats, and the treatment afforded to folks like Clarence Thomas and Mike Steele (certainly when he was running for the Senate in Maryland) is typically nothing short of abhorrent. It might be a nasty thing to do, but the Stupaks of the world should be targeted for destruction because they’re pro-life – so as to drive pro-life voters out of the Democrat Party.

After all, yesterday we saw how useless pro-life Democrats are to the pro-life cause. For all his talk, Stupak was more than happy to spread his legs for next to nothing to come aboard for Obamacare. A Republican in his seat who contributes to a majority is never in a position to ask for the executive order Stupak asked for; with a Republican majority in the House there is no Obamacare and thus there is no issue of whether the federal government is in position to fund abortions.

The pro-life position is a winner. It commands a majority of the American people. I have said that the pro-life argument is much better made in the culture rather than the legislative realm, but we’re not in position to debate that. The issue we’re currently debating is whether your taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, and regardless of that sham Stupak perpetrated yesterday this is a major danger. The American people understand that. And while a small majority of Americans are pro-life, a large majority of Americans are opposed to having their tax dollars pay for abortions. In that vein, Stupak and his group are totally useless to the cause; they’ve already demonstrated their willingness to sell out for socialism. Let’s get rid of every one of them, and let’s do it with a maximum of rancor and discord.

- Texas attorney general Greg Abbott sent this out on Facebook late last night:

“Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.”

There are, by my best count at present, 38 states engaged ton one degree or another in fighting Obamacare. You can make an argument that 38 states is a number sufficient to put federal courts on notice that they can’t slap lawsuits down as a matter of convenience. But in the event that happens, 38 states is more than enough to demand a constitutional convention targeted to an amendment – in this case one which would prevent, say, unfunded federal mandates on the states or individual mandates to buy goods or services. You only need 34 states for such a convention; there are now 38.

- I strongly suggest reading Victor Davis Hanson’s latest at Pajamas Media. He lays out an American future nobody wants which is all of a sudden no longer theoretical; and demonstrates why it’s no longer theoretical:

No, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, and is trying to reify the sloganeering of the 1960s. He apparently reasons along the following lines: that centrist talk was campaign fluff; the voters fell for it, and now it’s his turn to remake America with 51% of the House and 44% of the people. Think Sweden, or, better, Greece as our model at home, and something like America as Brazil in matters of foreign policy. Apparently, Obama figures that people now may not like the present partisanship, but they didn’t like FDR at the time either. Yet whom do they associate their Social Security checks with? Hoover? Coolidge? Harding?

I don’t see why the ram-it-through, health care formula won’t be followed by similar strategies for blanket amnesty, cap and trade, and expansions of the state takeover of cars, banks, student loans, and energy.

Remember, all these will be packaged as “comprehensive” reform — comprehensive health care, comprehensive immigration, comprehensive energy, comprehensive monitoring of even the banal decisions we make. So what does comprehensive really mean, other than all of us are going to get even more official looking letters in the mail, advising us to fill out a form, pay a fine, and be warned that a new regulation or tax is on the way — followed by the usual state/federal representative’s newsletter bragging about some new entitlement that he “won” for us with our borrowed money?

- Health insurance stocks are up today, which is not a surprise – a lot of us are now legally required to purchase their product. They’re not going to make a profit in the long run, though, because forbidding exclusions from pre-existing conditions will basically destroy the entire concept of insurance. The question is whether the providers in the market can survive until some or most of this can be repealed.

- For those “conservatives” who in 2006 and 2008 crowed about how the GOP needed to be taught a lesson, Obamacare is largely your fault. You abandoned the party, and in doing so you gave us the Alan Graysons and Al Frankens of the world, without whom last night’s bloody disaster would not have happened.

Does the Republican Party suck? Yep. I won’t argue with that. I think the GOP was sensational in its efforts to stop Obamacare, with perhaps the exception that Mitch McConnell was too soft in dragging out the vote in the Senate and making it more painful for the Democrats to continue with it. But even now we see a party which can’t coalesce around something so obvious as swearing off on earmarks, and can’t get Lindsey Graham to shut up.

But the GOP is all we have now. A third party will consign America to a generation of socialism under today’s Democrat Party, with a Nancy Pelosi speakership persisting for another 20 years and an Obama presidency followed by a Howard Dean or Chuck Schumer presidency. If this future makes you consider emigrating, then your only option is to get behind the Republican Party and push.

Or, if that analogy doesn’t light your fire, consider it this way – we’re the Russians, and this is Stalingrad. We’re the officers and the GOP’s politicians are our soldiers. What did Russian officers at Stalingrad do to those squeamish soldiers who tried to retreat? They shot ‘em. Well, if you’re disgusted by your Republican congressman or senator, you can shoot him in a primary. But if you shoot at him and you miss, he’s still your soldier. And you need him to win, or else the Nazis take the city.

(Hat tip: Lonely Conservative.)

At the end of the day, Stupak was always going to cave.

Stupak’s opponent in the upcoming will be Republican Dan Benishek. He’s a doctor and a conservative. Among the items on Benishek’s platform are:

· Job Creation. Our best hope lies within the private, not public, sector. In particular, we need to support small business, which creates the bulk of new jobs. Government should step aside and let the free market work by reducing burdensome regulation and taxation.

· Fiscal Responsibility. Government is out of control and is squandering our children’s future! I say no to more government bail-outs, business takeovers, and growing entitlements. It is time to make drastic cuts in spending, balance our budget, stop printing money and start paying down our ballooning national debt.

· Lower Taxes. I believe that a government which governs least is a government which governs best. We need a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We need to reduce oppressive taxation and allow individual citizens to keep and invest more of their hard-earned money. We need to shrink the size and scope of our government to be in line with that envisioned by our founding fathers.

· Secure Borders. Immigration must be legal and regulated and our borders must be secure. Uncontrolled access to our country increases entitlement expenses, decreases available jobs and renders us vulnerable to terrorists who want to destroy us.

· Health Care. America has the best health care system in the world – a system which needs fine-tuning but definitely not a government take-over! We need to focus on free market reforms which will increase competition and decrease costs. A good place to start would be to allow health care insurance to be tax deductible, portable and sold across state lines. Additionally, we must pass tort reform to rein in skyrocketing costs associated with frivolous medical law suits.

· Energy Independence. Radical environmentalism has rendered energy development next to impossible. While we must be good stewards of the earth, God gave us this earth and all its resources for our needs. America has huge coal, natural gas and oil reserves. We need to responsibly tap into these reserves and stop relying on other nations to supply our energy. In addition, we need to vigorously expand our use of nuclear power as a safe, clean and efficient source of energy.

· National Defense. It is a primary responsibility of our federal government to provide a strong national defense to protect our nation, our liberty and our ideals. We should honor and respect our armed services and veterans, not undermine their strength and dignity. Additionally, we must aggressively pursue the war on terror and we must try prisoners of war in military tribunals, not as citizens in our civilian courts.

· Second Amendment. I believe in the individual’s right to self defense. The right to bear arms secures other rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom to practice religion. If we allow disarmament of our citizens, we render our nation vulnerable to tyranny.

· Right to Life. I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Paramount is life. From conception to death, all human life must be considered sacred and must be protected.

Benishek’s campaign is just getting started; he announced his candidacy on March 15. If you’d like to contribute to his campaign, you’re welcome to do so. E-mail him for more information at BenishekforCongress@gmail.com, call him at 906-265-0272 or send contributions to:

Benishek For Congress
802 Pentoga Trail
Crystal Falls, MI, 49920

We’ll update our readers when Benishek’s campaign website is up and running.

While it’s without question possible this may happen, and while passing Obamacare later today would constitute a major blow to individual liberty and economic freedom, not to mention the constitutional limits on the federal government, it is by no means certain that past developments of entitlement programs will inform how this one proceeds.

First, should Obamacare pass today it will engender legal and political revolt by state governments. Some three-dozen states have passed or are in the process of passing legislation which would fight Obamacare on various constitutional grounds. In Louisiana, for example, a bill by state Sen. A.G. Crowe which would attempt to nullify this federal legislation has been filed in advance of the state’s legislative session which begins at the end of the month and is expected to pass. Crowe’s bill, SB26, is known as the Louisiana Health Care Freedom Act; it sets forth a number of constitutional objections in advance of what will inevitably be a legal fight.

• The bill relies on a 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Printz v. United States which forbade the federal government from imposing unfunded mandates on states. It declares that the Obamacare legislation, by expanding the Medicaid rolls, does just that.
• Louisiana state law prohibits public funding for elective abortions outside of a few limited cases, and the Senate bill’s shaky prohibitions on federal funding could bring it into conflict with Louisiana law. A proposed executive order to that effect won’t remedy legislative deficiencies in the federal bill, particularly if, as expected, that executive order is eventually rescinded by the current president.
• Crowe’s bill raises the constitutionality of individual mandates in the Obamacare bill by declaring that no Louisiana citizen or resident can be mandated to participate in a health plan of any kind, and no rule or law may prevent Louisiana patients or health-care providers from paying or performing lawful health care services directly. It also declares the right of a health-care provider to refuse to participate in any health care plan, which would be a wall of sorts against a federal move to keep doctors from refusing to treat Medicare or Medicaid patients in the future.
• Exemptions like Gator Aid and the Cornhusker Kickback which would alter the formula for Medicaid or Medicare funding for some states and not others are considered by Crowe’s bill to be violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, and also the Privileges and Immunities clause in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.

There are lots of other examples across the country of state legislation aimed at fighting the feds on health care. Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli is becoming a household name of sorts as he has publicly threatened to be in court next week should Obamacare pass, and that state has passed legislation to support his challenge. Idaho has done the same thing, and more than 35 other states have put their wheels in motion. Legal experts have mixed opinions on whether these various challenges might succeed in a constitutional format, but if there are indeed 37 states with legislation attempting to nullify Obamacare political reality will certainly color both the legal dispensation of those challenges and the attempts at implementing it as we go forward.

Historically, at least over the last 70 years, there have been few instances in which the Supreme Court has struck down the expansion of federal power. The guess here, though, is that if a state or individual challenge makes it to the Court there are at least four votes – Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia – to throw Obamacare out. Kennedy could well be the fifth.

The legal and constitutional fight this bill will generate is going to be a fascinating exercise and it should make for a renaissance of sorts in both constitutional philosophy (which is already underway thanks to the Tea Party movement) and a flowering of informal education on the history of the expansion of federal power (which is also underway thanks to books like Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man and Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism). That will be a healthy development, and the presence of the internet, talk radio, cable news and the other alternative or new media will help to insure that a variety of points of view are much better represented than they were, say, when Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was implemented.

Which brings us to November, because while the backlash against Obamacare on the legal front and within the relationship between the federal government and the states will be both fascinating and significant the real difficulty the president is going to have in implementing this thing will come when he loses one or both houses of Congress this fall.

And he’s going to lose the House in all likelihood.

The odds were probably better than 50-50 for a Republican takeover in the House before today’s vote. In yesterday’s Rules Committee hearing to mark up the first of today’s four votes, Republicans were openly and matter-of-factly discussing what will happen when they take back control of the House. The Democrats in the room were full of bluster at virtually everything else GOP members said, but not that assertion. Democrat pollsters and analysts like Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen have been screaming about Nancy Pelosi losing her speakership for weeks. Rasmussen shows the GOP with a 10-point lead in the generic Congressional ballot. Our own John Couvilion here at The Hayride has been making projections of Democrat losses up to 84 seats this fall. John made his first 84-seat projection back on March 4; that was before the ugly conclusion to this process and the campaign fodder it has generated has even intensified public disgust.

Mike Flynn at BigGovernment.com has an excellent analysis today which goes so far as to suggest a 100-seat change in the House. Flynn might be going too far with such a projection, or he might not. He also makes a terrific point in that along with a rough Congressional cycle, the Democrats will endure similar damage in state legislatures – where Congressional districts will be redrawn in advance of the 2012 election.

All of this will present Obamacare with implementation problems that none of the other major social legislation initiatives in American history have had. Just as a few examples - the income tax, Prohibition, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all enacted through bipartisan support and overwhelming favorable votes in Congress.

• The income tax came into being in its current form with the 16th Amendment, which originated in Congress on July 12, 1909 with a resolution passing by a 314-14 vote with 55 abstentions.
• In the case of Prohibition, which I include as an example of a federal grab of authority over indivdual liberty which was ulimately repealed, the 18th Amendment put in place the legal authority for it. The Volstead Act, which put it into effect, was passed by a 225-59 vote.
• Social Security was passed by a 372-33 vote in 1935.
• Medicare and Medicaid were put in place with overwhelming votes. The Social Security Act of 1965 passed the House by a vote of 307-116 in the House and 70-24 in the Senate.

Obamacare is going to pass, it appears, with a maximum of 225 votes in the House. No more than 40 percent of the American people want it to pass. This is unprecedented, and because it is something completely different from the historical game plan on how to accomplish major expansions of federal power it can’t be analyzed on the same basis. Nobody booed the Speaker of the House the day of those votes, and none of them were conducted amid a sea of protestors on Capitol Hill.

Much of the gloom on the Right about this bill also comes from a lack of faith in the Republican Party as a counter to the Obama clan’s leftward lurch. This is a valid concern; as shown above, those examples of major federal power grabs came with Republican support in every case and the GOP has done shockingly little to roll back entitlement spending on existing programs when they’ve been in power. As shown above, however, the political risk of rolling back past expansions has been something on an order of magnitude greater than this one; Social Security isn’t called the “third rail of American politics” for nothing.

But an entitlement that isn’t popular from the get-go is a different animal, and two realities seem apparent today. First, for better or worse the GOP appears to have hitched its electoral wagon to repealing Obamacare. And second, GOP victories this fall and in 2012 depend almost solely on fusing its traditional voting base with the Tea Party movement; an accomodationist agenda on the part of a new Republican majority will melt that fusion away in mere moments, and Republicans are well aware of it. The coming elections in the Senate, for example, of a Mario Rubio in Florida, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rob Portman in Ohio, among others, will indicate that the energy and excitement on the Republican side is going to be on behalf of an aggressive, ambitious, small-government agenda and not a Bob Dole big-government-but-not-quite-so-big stance. The pressure to fight is so intense that GOP mandarins are quietly terrified, for good reason, of the rise of a third-party movement if they aren’t seen as sufficiently committed to tearing down the Obamanation currently being crafted in Washington.

But there’s one more reality those who view this bill as a permanent fact of American life aren’t considering. The American people know overwhelmingly that the money simply isn’t there to put an expansion of the entitlement state in place, but the full implications of the current state of the country’s fisc is only just beginning to be felt.

In Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain the reality of a socialist nanny state is coming home to roost on the treasuries and those countries are headed almost inexorably for bankruptcy. In California and New York, the story is the same.

Never before have budgetary concerns held so high a position on the American agenda, and the primacy of budget deficits and unfunded entitlement programs as a national security threat is only going to become more pronounced. The major expansions of federal control over individual life all took place in an environment in which the size of government was not recognized as a tangible threat to the economic life of the country; even in the Depression the size of the federal government was miniscule by today’s standards. And with talk of economic collapse more than just some theoretical, goofy-sounding paranoid exercise, it’s a different game.

So while the passage of this bill, should it happen today, would make for a large increase in the fiscal conservative movement’s workload it is by no means certain that the game will change as a result of 216 votes in favor of Obamacare. Virtually none of the conditions which brought about previous landmark social legislation apply to what’s happening this weekend, and it is not a valid assumption that the trajectory of those initiatives – Prohibition excluded, obviously – will necessary be that of the most recent attempt at centralizing power in Washington.