Rick Santorum swept the Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado caucuses last night. Enough ink has been spilled on Rick’s “big night,” which indeed it was, and I think the political implications are fairly obvious: it will put increasing pressure on Newt Gingrich to get out of the race to leave just one non-Romney (whereas I incorrectly predicted that the pressure would be the other way because, frankly, I didn’t see this coming). It’s true that Mitt Romney spent no resources in Minnesota and Missouri, and he would be expected to shrug off those losses for that reason, though the magnitude of the losses was significant. After all, if Romney spent no money in those contests, then that means that he and Santorum spent similar amounts of money — leading to Santorum more than doubling Romney’s vote in Missouri (55 percent to 25 percent) with another major drubbing in Minnesota (45 percent to 17 percent, with Ron Paul taking second with 27 percent). But as a resident of Colorado, that’s the caucus I want to talk about. I attended my local caucus, but since it’s in Boulder, there were only about 200 people there. Also, since it’s in Boulder, it is not reflective of the larger, more conservative parts of the state. That’s why the results at my caucus location had Romney just barely beating Ron Paul, with Santorum and Newt Gingrich a distant third and fourth. Like I said, not representative of more Republican areas of the state — and obviously not representative of the more conservative caucus-goers in Minnesota and Missouri. Although Santorum’s victory in Colorado was narrower than in the other two caucus states last night, winning 40 percent to 35 percent over Romney, with Newt Gingrich taking 13 percent and Ron Paul taking 12 percent, anything other than a Romney win here is an important surprise. Rick Santorum did have a couple of high-profile endorsements, such as from former Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer. But many big guns were out for Romney, including the popular former governor Bill Owens, former Senators Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, and current Attorney General John Suthers. Robo-calls featuring recorded voices of many of the above were received with annoying frequency across the state in the prior 48 hours. I got at least two robo-calls featuring Mitt Romney and two more from Ann Romney. Furthermore, Colorado was one of the strongest early pro-Romney states during the 2008 Republican primary contest, with Romney taking 60 percent of the vote, more than tripling John McCain’s 18 percent second-place finish. And the state Republican Party organized a live conference call (which I listened to) during which the very popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie aggressively supported Romney as a true conservative, as most electable, and as a good person. If there were any state in which Romney should have been a prohibitive favorite last night, it was Colorado — and yet he lost. Perhaps the recent endorsement by the Denver Post of Romney as “right for Colorado Republicans” might have been the kiss of death, since the small number of conservatives on the editorial board there are routinely swamped by typical big-city newspaper liberals. So, what to make of a Santorum victory? At least in Colorado, it’s not just that Republican voters are worried that Romney isn’t a true conservative. They’re also sick and tired of “the establishment.” They’re tired of Republicans nominating the person who can claim to be “next in line”, who has diligently waited his turn, and who might lead to defeat against a beatable opponent, as we saw Bob Dole and John McCain, among others, do. Also, as a resident of Colorado, I didn’t see or hear a single negative ad aimed at Rick Santorum, quite out of character for Romney and the Super-PAC supporting him. Maybe they were around and I missed them, but there was certainly no saturation like we saw done to Newt Gingrich in Iowa. Maybe Romney was so confident that he decided not to spend money on advertising in that way. Maybe the fact that delegates won’t actually be awarded until April meant this contest was not worth buying airtime for. Who knows? But negative ads work, whether we like them or not, and it was surprising that there were so few here. But whatever the reason, losing Colorado should be a big wake-up call to Mitt Romney: He needs to show more passion and more principle. He has to be a better champion for conservative principles, not just technocratic “turnaround” expertise. He has to be more inspiring than his refrain of late that he “believes in America.” Heck, even Barack Obama can probably say that without his nose growing too much, just because it means so little. Romney has tremendous organization and a lot of money behind him. But as the country gets to know the candidates better, so that messaging in a particular state just before that state’s contest becomes a less dominant factor in voters’ opinions, he will have an increasingly difficult time winning if he doesn’t become a more appealing candidate to Republican activists. For this libertarian-leaning Republican, there is plenty not to like about Rick Santorum, not least his repeated statements that “I support the 10th Amendment, but…” with the next words being about some social issue that he wants to make a federal issue. There is, of course, plenty not to like about Mitt Romney, too, though those things are better-known than Santorum’s less-than-conservative positions. And I continue to believe that when the “mainstream” media is done with Rick Santorum, he’ll have a hard time winning anything. But when no gloves are laid on him, he’s proven himself with last night’s results to be the last anti-Romney going through the GOP wringer. Whether he’ll survive better than Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and others is yet to be seen. While I (and political bettors) still expect Romney to be the Republican nominee, his loss to Santorum in Colorado is, more than any prior result in this political season, a signal to me of Romney’s inherent weakness, and the remarkable change from 2008 when he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain. No doubt Santorum struck a nerve last night when he said ““I don’t stand up here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I am here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.” And as Rick Santorum was tossing that red meat to his Missouri audience, Mitt Romney was in Denver offering pablum about “restoring the values that have made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth,” calling for “fundamental, bold, dramatic change,” and asking supporters, with nary an ounce of passion, to “fight for the America we love because we believe in America and its Founding Principles…We have a long way to go, and I sure love this country.” Yawn. Come on, Mitt, you barely sounded sincere. The way you said “and I sure love this country” sounded as if you remembered a talking point which your consultants told you to mention every time you speak. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe in something, that you’re principled and not just a pragmatist. But you’re not making it easy. And with speeches like that, you’ll also start making me and others wonder whether you are indeed reasonably likely to beat Barack Obama. Everything Obama says is wrong, but at least he says it like he means it (his last State of the Union speech notwithstanding.) Colorado’s caucus results should be a slap in the face to the Romney campaign, perhaps the biggest one so far. Romney’s remarks last night show that at least in the minutes after he realized he was likely to be swept in three caucuses by a semi-appealing opponent with no financial backing, Mitt still hasn’t understood why.
View original post here:
Romney’s Colorado lesson
Sweetness. COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department was wrong to block South Carolina from requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote, the state’s top prosecutor argued in a lawsuit filed Tuesday. Enforcement of the new law, passed by state lawmakers last year, “will not disenfranchise any potential South Carolina voter,” Attorney
See original here:
South Carolina Sues Obama Regime Over Holder’s Decision To Block Voter ID Law…
Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation. However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation’s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio’s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his “ Ohioans for Workplace Freedom ” to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio’s November ballot, perhaps it’s time we explore what’s right and what’s wrong with Right to Work. What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn’t. Very simply, Right-to-Work laws outlaw a union’s ability to require employees to pay union dues (or agency fees) as a condition of employment. In states without Right-to-Work laws (known as Non-Right-to-Work states ), it is legal for a company and a union to agree to a contract that requires every employee in the bargaining unit to pay dues or be fired . For a union, the ability to collect union dues is the lifeblood of the union; it is how unions function, it is how they get paid. Therefore, the inability to require dues for their services (whether good or bad) threatens their very existence which is why, very often, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states will strike over their ability to collect dues . As importantly, it should be noted that, since Right-to-Work laws only came about as a result of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, Right-to-Work laws apply only to companies and employees covered under the NLRA . They do not apply, for example, to airline and railroad companies and employees, since they are covered under the Railway Labor Act. This is why airline workers in Texas (or any other Right-to-Work state) can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Note: Even in Non-Right-to-Work states, it is possible to removed forced dues from a union contract through a ‘ Deauthorization Election .’ The Union Argument. For unions, there is a legitimate issue that arises with Right-to-Work laws and that is the requirement to represent so-called “free loaders”—those employees who pay nothing to the union, but are “entitled” to union representation as well as “enjoy” (or suffer ) the union-negotiated wages and benefits. This, however, is part of the problem with the foundation of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the enactment of both the RLA and NLRA, unions have been granted “ monopoly bargaining power ” privileges, or the ability (or right) to represent entire bargaining units (even those who don’t want the union). However, this fundamental problem cannot be addressed unless federal labor laws are entirely re-written or eliminated. The double-edged sword of monopoly bargaining power is that unions in Right-to-Work states are required to represent non-members as well as well as dues-paying members. To a union representative, it is frustrating to have a “free loader” demand a grievance be filed on his behalf over something as benign as a vending machine continually being broken and taking his money, all the while knowing that this individual will never join the union or pay union dues, not out of ideology, but because he is cheap. [Yes, this actually happened .] The Upside of Right to Work. The economic impact of enacting Right-to-Work laws has been largely beneficial to those states as they do attract more business and incomes do rise. In that regard, because there is less union density in Right-to-Work states, unions decrying the fact that Right-to-Work entices companies to leave Non-Right-to-Work states is accurate. In Indiana’s case, according to one study : …if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, by 2008 per capita income would have been $2,925 higher—equating to $11,700 higher for a family of four. Another way to put it: Indiana’s personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana’s lack of a right to work law. Related: Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update Just as importantly, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states often use union dues to fund political activities to elect anti-business politicians [mostly Democrats] who, in turn, chase more businesses away by creating more burdensome regulations and higher taxes. Ironically, the more unions are successful in Non-Right-to-Work states, the more it hurts them by making “union states” less attractive to business investment and, as a result, less jobs are created (if not lost). [See California , for example.] The Downside to Right-to-Work. While Right-to-Work laws do have real economic benefits, unionized workplaces in those states are often rife with division between union dues payers and non-members. Very often, non-members in those workplaces are subject to harassment or harangued by union members and, occasionally, a “bounty” is placed upon them by union officials to try to get members to sign up non-members. In the 80s, our union paid between $15 and $25 per new member, although other unions pay more today. Legislative Action Vs. Ballot Initiative With Indiana’s passage of Right-to-Work legislation yesterday, the Hoosier State’s AFL-CIO boss, Nancy Guyott, shouted from the Statehouse steps , “We’ll take our state back, one citizen at a time! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” It is worthwhile to note this because, in Indiana’s case, the Right-to-Work legislation was passed over and above the tantrums of union-bought Democrats. During the fight inside the Statehouse, union-bought Democrats attempted to have Right-to-Work placed on the ballot in November. The purpose of this effort was simple. Union-bought Democrats like to ignore the fact that the United States is a Republican-form of Democracy. If given the opportunity to have Right-to-Work placed on November’s ballot, unions would spend tens of millions of their members’ money on deceptive advertising to defeat the legislation, as well as to turn out votes for Barack Obama and against “those evil Republicans.” In effect, it is running two campaigns for the price of one. This brings us back to Ohio. Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio’s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio. With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November. In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again). Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio’s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton’s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years. Even though Ron Paul has been cagey on stating he would not run as a third-party candidate, his son, Rand Paul, has stated that it would be impractical, knowing that it would ensure an Obama victory. Hopefully, his Ohio supporters are as practical in that regard when it comes to placing Right-to-Work on November’s Ohio ballot. As the saying goes: “Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.” Or, in the case of Ohio, another way to put this is: Forego the battle for now, if it helps you win the war later. With the nation nearing $16 trillion in debt and owing $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, despite the legislature in Indiana winning Right to Work, putting a Right-to-Work initiative in Ohio is not worth the risk. Not now. Not this year. Related: Right-to-Work is a Bandaid ‘Collective Bargaining’ is Compulsory Bargaining __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com
Read the original:
A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not…
That makes one person. Via Daily Caller: White House spokesman Jay Carney today declared that President Barack Obama has full confidence in his controversial Attorney General Eric Holder, despite the controversy over the department’s “Operation Fast and Furious” international gun-running program. “He absolutely stands by the attorney general and thinks he’s doing an excellent job,” Carney said during a midday press conference
See the rest here:
Carney: Obama Thinks Holder Is “Doing An Excellent Job”…
From the diaries by Erick . . . Eric Holder testifies before Congress today on his department’s outrageous Operation Fast and Furious scandal. Eager to provide political cover for Obama’s embattled Attorney General, House Democrats yesterday released a report attempting to exonerate Holder and his political appointees for failing to do their jobs. Of course, their report says Holder’s innocent. The facts say he’s guilty. I say he must resign. This cynical ploy is just the latest effort by Democrats to cover up the truth. Slowly but surely, their web of misstatements, falsehoods, and shifting blame is coming unraveled, revealing a reckless and incompetent administration. First, a recap: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) lost track of more than 2,000 weapons in a 2010 trafficking sting operation gone bad. Most ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Many ended up at crime scenes. Some were used in murders, kidnappings, and other violent crimes. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. border agent. It’s a disaster and tragedy that could have been prevented, and the Justice Department refuses to take responsibility. First came the denials. ATF chief Kenneth Melson claimed he didn’t know about Fast and Furious until January 2011. But DOJ officials said otherwise in a letter sent to Congress. Melson was briefed in December 2009, before the operation began, and received periodic updates afterward. Attorney General Eric Holder also feigned ignorance when questioned. First he said he hadn’t heard of Fast and Furious until Spring 2011. Then documents showed he received briefings in 2010. When called out, Holder admitted his testimony was “inaccurate” and “imprecise.” Holder frantically backpedalled again when it was discovered that DOJ officials sent a letter with false information to Sen. Chuck Grassley. When asked if they were lying, Holder dodged: “It all has to do with your state of mind.” Democrats will do anything to avoid blame. The DOJ withheld information. The White House accused congressmen of “playing politics.” Officials “screamed” and “cussed at” CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. The administration sealed the court documents connected to the murder of the border patrol agent. If Holder and Obama’s appointees are innocent, why won’t they hand over relevant documents? Why won’t they answer forthrightly in congressional inquiries? Why won’t they talk politely to investigative reporters instead of screaming and cursing? Why do they seal court documents from public view? It begs a bigger question: What more are they hiding? Amid all this, Obama still insisted in October that he has “complete confidence in Attorney General Holder and how he handles his office.” That’s the biggest problem. Obama has “complete confidence” in a scandal-ridden department. Perhaps it “all has to do with your state of mind.” Americans, meanwhile, have lost their confidence in this administration, and I, along with many other Republicans, have repeatedly called for Holder’s resignation. It’s time he heed those calls. In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis.” A new agency run by Eric Holder? I wouldn’t get my hopes up on that one.
More:
The Fast and Furious Cover Up
