…what district you’re in?

Try this link here.

A quick look at the redistricting map shows that the Fourth Congressional District – “represented” by Betty McCollum, the dumbest person in Congress – now extends straight east all the way down Highway 96 (?) through the parts that are now part of the Sixth.

All of you folks who moved to Woodbury, Lake Elmo, Afton and Stillwater to escape the DFL?  David Gilmour said it best; no matter how you tried, you could not break free.

That includes the city of Stillwater.  Which means it looks as if the big donnybrook the DFL wanted, pitting idiot McCollum against Mchele Bachmann, is in the cards.  Unless Michele moves a few miles north to Marine on St. Croix to stay in the Sixth.

To tell you the truth, it’s hard to say what I’d hope for.  I think it’d be fun fun fun to have Michele pull off what’d have to be an epic upset (not out of lack of her own merit, but because most of the DFL voting bloc in Saint Paul is so invincibly dim in its voting habits); it’d be even better to have her sitting as a foiuth-term incumbent with what’ll be a 20 point margin in the Sixth.

Update:  John Marty and Mary Jo McGuire will have to compete for SD66, and Mindy Greiling and Alice “The Phantom” Hausman for the new 66A.  On the other hand, my new representative-for-life is John Lesch.

Doh!  My side of the street is HD65A!  Senator Sandy “Foul-Mouthed” Pappas and Rep. Rena “The DFL Vote-Bot” Moran.

Meet the new DFL drones, same as the old DFL drones.

The Judicial Redistricting Panel has released the Minnesota maps.

Here they are.

More analysis when I have time, probably this evening.

The Dems are crowing about the drop in unemployment numbers.

But if you look a little further into the numbers, you see that the American job market is not better off than it was four years ago.  Indeed, it’s a lot worse.

On Inauguration Day in 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent (up from 4.4% as recently as May of 2007).  Notwithstanding his promises that Porkulus would cap unemployment at 8.5%, it soared to 10% in October of 2009, and didn’t dip down below 9% in any sustained way until last fall.  Last month, after three years of Obama, it was at 8.3% – or .2% lower than where he said it’d never get above if we spent what he proposed.

That’s bad.

“But 8.3% is better than 10%, right?”

Sure – if all you’re doing is comparing numbers straight-up.  But by itself, the unemployment rate is meaningless.  It’s a percentage of people out of work – but who are those people?  They are the ones that are participating in the labor market.

And fewer Americans than ever -ever! – are doing that!

So let’s figure the actual percentage of Americans working, overall.

January 2009: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Workforce Participation rate when Obama took office was 65.7%.  That means 34.3% of the workforce wasn’t even trying to participate, through discouragement, disability or whatever case.  Add to that the 7.8% unemployed, and you reach a figure of 57.1% of the American workforce actually working.

October 2009:  At this point, the “low point” of the Obama recession, the participation rate was an even 65% just in time for unemployment to hit an even 10%.,  55% of the American work force was working.

January, 2012:  As unemployment stood at 8.3%, the workforce participation rate was 63.7% – the lowest since records have been kept.  That means that overall employment in the American workforce is now a whopping…

…55.2%.

That’s a fifth of a percent higher than it was at the lowest point of the Obama recession.

Almost two full points lower than it was when Barack Obama took office. 

(And five full points lower than June of 2003, the worst month of George W. Bush’s before the GOP lost the Congress.  That’s five percent lower employment overall.  Six and change if you take one of Bush’s better months.  And I know, Bush benefitted from a bubble, yadda yadda.  But…five points!).

The media is spinning nonstop about the “Obama recovery”.  It’s vapor; in terms of percentage of the American workforce actually working, there is no recovery.

Are you better off than you were four years ago, America?  No – you’re doing two percent worse.

Minnesota government employee unions are running very, very scared of the proposed “Right to Work” constitutional amendment, which voters favor by a 55-24 margin.  And in those rare union strongholds represented by Republicans in the Legislature, they are coming out in force

Gary Gross was at a town hall in Saint Cloud, whose two House and one Senate seat have all gone GOP (including the 15B seat held by my friend and radio colleague King Banaian).

There were approximately 100 people in the room, with approximately 60-70 of those people union members. AFSCME had a strong presence at the meeting. AFSCME was clearly visible in their bright colored logo on the back of their windbreakers.

Several times, Rep. Gottwalt mentioned how union members, many of whom are nurses, have told him that they want the choice of whether to be in a union or not. At one point, a person in the audience suggested that Rep. Gottwalt was lying, saying that it was convenient that these union members didn’t have names and that they wouldn’t come forward.

Some of the discussion apparently got pretty ugly:

After that, the meeting went downhill fast. When Rep. Gottwalt attempted to respond to a different question posed by a union member, a different union member interrupted, asking “Are you wearing your legislator’s hat or your Coborn’s hat”? When Rep. Gottwalt replied that he’s no longer employed by Coborn’s, the man who interrupted quickly apologized.

That was the first time union members in the audience interrupted. It certainly wasn’t the last time. In fact, union members in the audience made interrupting the rule, not the exception.

In fact, the most confrontational moment came when Rep. Banaian was answering another right-to-work question. Jerry Albertine interrupted, saying “Don’t sit there with your hairspray and your tie, you’ve never worked labor, and say you know what the unions are about.”

That was a statement Rep. Banaian forcefully responded to, saying that he’s a college professor who’s paid union dues to the IFO [Inter-Faculty Organization, the faculty union for MNSCU faculty] for over a quarter century.

This sort of thing is of a piece with the DFL’s only apparent strategy this cycle; find some inchoate chanting points to repeat endlessly, regardless of truth, and repeat them until you get enough dumb people to take the ideas to the polls.

More on that last tomorrow.  Probably. .

It’s been almost two years since I launched what’s become one of those blog’s most popular features that doesn’t involve waving guns at drug dealers – the “Chanting Points Memo”.

Since we’re heading into a  new campaign, I figured it was time for a reset – a “relaunch” of the Chanting Points Memo.

What’s a “Chanting Point?”  From the Dictionary In The Dark, here’s the conventional definition:

Chanting Point:  (Noun)  Similar to a “talking point”, but intended to be recited by rote (often as part of large real or virtual crowds) rather than critically analyzed.

The term – and the idea – was sparked during the 2010 by the DFL response to Tom Emmer – which was almost entirely something I christened “chanting points”; bits of rhetoric that may or (generally) may not contain a grain of “truthiness”, but aren’t designed so much for substantial policy discussions as they are to be chanted by crowds, either in person or online.

I’ve related the story before: the term occurred to me in the summer of 2010 at the Minnesota State Fair.  Ed Morrissey and I were sitting on stage, across from the DFL booth, talking about the ongoing negotations that led to Obamacare back in 2009 and 2010.   A compact fiftysomething woman in a full Frankenware ensemble strutted to the middle of the audience area, folded her arms, and started shaking her head back and forth.

“Would you care to discuss this?” I asked her, getting ready to take the mobile microphone and hike out into the audience.

She took a deep breath as I stood up, and yelled “PUBLIC OPTION NOW!  PUBLIC OPTION NOW! PUBLIC OPTION NOW!”.  She then turned on her heels and scampered away as fast as her busy little legs could carry her.

Ed and I noted that that was about as close to a substantive argument that most Minnesota DFLers came then, and now.

Words designed to be bellowed over ones’ competition.

Chanting points.

The point is, people don’t have to understand the chanting points, much less the truth; they just have to be gulled into voting DFL.  It’s not about elucidating issues or informing the public; it’s about swinging the ill-informed just enough to gain and retain power.

It’s another election.  And the DFL has another set of chanting points rolled out;

• “Right To Work costs jobs!”
• “If you support traditional marriage, you’re a bigot!”
• “Voter ID disenfranchises voters!”
• “The rich aren’t paying their fair share!”
• “Dayton’s pork-barrel “Jobs” bill will create jobs!  Cutting taxes, rationalizing regulations and cutting the size and scope of government will cost jobs!”
• “The American Legislative Exchange Conference (“ALEC”) controls the Legislative GOP with their shadowy conspiracy!  And any lack of evidence of this conspiracy is proof of a coverup!”
• “Citizens United distorts and perverts democracy!” (a message passed along in a campaign paid for by liberal plutocrats and unions rolling in member dues).

None of the points ever stand up to logical scrutiny or analysis – and aren’t intended to.  They are intended to be chanted at people who aren’t informed, who don’t analyze and scrutinize logically.

Image courtesy Lassie from True North.

Follow along in the “Chanting Points Memo” category.  Pass ‘em around.  Learn ‘em.  It’s gonna be a long campaign.

I was out of town last week during Governor Dayton’s frankly weird performance, referring to supporters of the “Right To Work” amendment as “Extreme”.

More on that – it ties in closely with my piece on the DFL’s new PR effort to flood the state with unsupportable memes on wedge issues designed to fool the uninformed and gullible – later this week.

It’s just interesting to note how many “extremists” there are out there, according this SurveyUSA poll covering Minnesotans’ attitudes on the Gay Marriage, Right To Work and Voter ID amendments seem to show that a majority of Minnesotans are, by Governor Dayton’s self-indulgent standard, “Extremists”.

Let’s go through the numbers one issue at a time:

Marriage Amendment

This is the weakest of the bunch so far; it’s winning by 47-39, and over the top in most of the cross tabs (other than 18-34 year olds, cell phone users, Democrats, Liberals and people making over $80K a year).

This is in line – and maybe a little better – than the results I found in the fall of 2010, when a Lawrence Poll showed that Minnesotans’ preferences swung strongly to Tom Emmer when they were clear that Emmer supported referenda or legislative rulings on the issue, while Dayton and Horner both supported legislating the issue from the bench.

The problem is that these numbers aren’t nearly good enough to pass the bill, given one quirk in Minnesota’s law when voting on constitutional amendments; blank votes are counted as “no” votes.  Everyone who supports an amendment must vote affirmatively “yes”.

So let’s assume the numbers in this poll’s “Not Sures” – 4% overall – break evenly between Yes and No on election day, bringing the actual results to 49-41 in favor; then “Not Votes” stay on the sidelines, becoming “No” votes, making the final vote a bare 51-49 against.  That’s not counting “Ritchie Votes”: the dead, people being vouched into multiple districts, people who aren’t legally entitled to vote, and the like.

Even without that, the measure loses by default. By this count, the Marriage Amendment needs to arf up at least three more points – five as insurance against “Ritchie Votes”.

With a state this polarized, it’s a tall order.

Right To Work

Minnesota is much less polarized here – and it shows.  Governor Dayton’s memes on the subject have been more fact-free and desperate than usual – “right to work states have lower wages!”, he declared, ignoring the other context (closed shop states tend to be more urban, coastal and have much higher costs of living as well as wages) – showing how hard the DFL is going to have to dig for votes on this issue.

“Right To Work” leads 55-24% overall.  It leads in every single cross tab – the narrowest is 35-32 among identified liberals.  Bad news for the DFL – it leads among women even more than among men; more among the young than the old;

More importantly?   Even if you take the 12% “not sure” vote and split it evenly among “Yes”, “No” and “Not Voting” , the numbers become 59-28-13, which really means 59-41 (remember, blank votes become “No”, as noted above).  Even if every undecided voter decides to side with the unions – in other words, the hopelessly unrealistic breaks, things about as likely as me getting a third date with Amy Adams – or just sit the issue out, the issue ends up at 55-45.

It’ll take a lot of “Ritchie Votes” to beat “the extremists” on this issue.

Photo ID

Perhaps the best news of the poll is that the left’s idiot memes about Voter ID – “it disenfranchises the poor, the elderly and college students – are falling not so much on deaf ears, but ears that mock their idiocy.

During the 2010 campaign, the meme of the right was that Voter ID had 2-1 support in Minnesota.  The SUSA poll shows it’s actually 3-1 with a bullet; the measure currently leads 70-23.

The cross tabs?  Again – the measure is more popular among women than men (73% of women favor it, vs. 66% of men); more among younger voters, with a 77-20 lead among 35-49 year old voters); more among the educated (71-24 among college grads ys 63-23 among high school grads); about evenly across all income bands; even by 69-24 in the Twin Cities.

Most significantly?  Only 4% of Minnesotans are undecided on the subject, and 4% more claimed they’ll “not vote” on the issue.  Even if every single undecided voter is convinced to vote against the issue or sit it out, the measure passes 70-31%.

Even Mark Ritchie will have a hard time rigging this one.

Takeaways

Caveat up front; the conclusions below presume the SUSA poll is accurate.  The poll is of registered voters, rather than likely voters, which is inherently less accurate on the one hand, but traditionally skews things to the left on the other hand; for purposes of the conclusions below, I’ll presume those two factors roughly cancel each other out.

GOP legislative candidates need to closely align themselves with the Right To Work and Photo ID issues.  They need to hammer on their support for Right to Work and Voter ID, and the positive things that both bring to this state – more jobs, and an election system with actual integrity (although Voter ID is only one of many reforms needed).

The Marriage Amendment strikes me as a loser for GOP candidates – not because it’s off the ideological beam (although as a libertarian conservative, I’m less enthusiastic about it than some Republicans), but because presuming that this poll is accurate, candidates will spend more time and effort supporting the amendment than being supported by it.  By tying themselves to amendments that seem likely to pass overwhelmingly and which show the deep wedge between the DFL and the GOP, on issues where the DFL is both wrong and diametrically opposed to a crushing majority of Minnesotans, the GOP wins free votes; the Marriage Amendment will cost time and effort to prop up at the polls.  Not to say the votes can’t be found, but it’s going to take a lot of time and effort – which is the job of the various pro-marriage groups, not candidates.

The other takeaway, in light of the Governor’s prate and gabble on the subject(s)?  In every case, with all three of these amendments, the conservative, “extreme” position is the mainstream.

But we knew that.

See more on the subject from Ed Morrissey.

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network brings you the best in Minnesota conservatism!

• Ed is out on assignment today, so I’ll be in to do the voodoo I do from 1-3PM.  Today we’ll be talking religious freedom, Santorum vs Romney, Voter ID, and we’ll be talking with Rep. Michele Bachmann about her re-election bid in the Sixth.
• Brad Carlson’s show – “The Closer” – is on from 1-3 on Sunday.   He’ll be talking with Rep. Bachmann, too; tune in!
• The King Banaian Show! – King is on AM1570, Business Radio for the Twin Cities!  Join him from 9-11 every Saturday!

(All times Central)

So tune in to all six hours of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, the Twin Cities’ media’s sole guardians of sanity. You have so many options:

• AM1280 in the Metro
• streaming at AM1280’s Website,
• On Twitter (the Volume 2 show will use hashtag #narn2)
• UStream video and chat (at HotAir.com or at UStream) .
• Good ol’ telephone – 651-289-4488!
• Podcasts are now available on the AM1280 page!  (Ed and I are #2 – Brad is #3).
• And make sure you fan us on our new Facebook page!

Join us!

Earlier this week, I noted that the WaPo released a Presidential preference poll that…:

• Bucks all current polling and shows President Obama firmly in the dirver’s seat, which…
• releases no crosstabs or backup data for mere consumers to use to judge the poll’s context, parameters or validity.

As I predicted, only faster, the Strib is already on board.  Joe Doakes – making a rare two-fer today – wrote to ask about h this column by Sue Hogan at the Strib:

“Catholics” is a pretty broad label. Abortion advocate John Kerry claims to be Catholic and so do openly-gay parishioners at St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis as well as traditionalists who attend St. Agnes in St. Paul.

Who did they poll?

How was the question worded?

Silly Doakes.  Raw data is for gatekeepers.

Let’s take a look at Hogan’s piece:

A majority of U.S. Catholics support President Obama’s decision to require religious institutions to include birth control in health insurance plans, according to two new polls.

A poll by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C., found that support among Catholics (58 percent) is higher than that of the American public overall (55 percent).

And who exactly is the “Public Religion Research Institute?  They describe themselves as “non-partisan”, which pretty much inevitably means “left-leaning”.  You be the judge.  Their piece on the poll doesn’t go into a lot more detail than Hogan’s puff piece.

Likewise, a Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that Obama’s position enjoys support from 56 percent of American voters. Of the Catholics polled, 53 percent agreed with the president.

Meanwhile, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops continues to decry the president’s decision, saying that it violates religious freedom.

And as we’ve noted in the past, PPP voter polls trend left of reality.

Look – I’ve expressed my skepticism that the Catholic Street really cares that much about the issue, or that the “middle management” would choose Vatican doctrine over progressivism.  It could be that the polls are accurate.  Since they seem to confirm my hunch, that’s a point in their favor [1]

But who did they poll?  What questions did they ask?

And, more importantlly, why aren’t they teliling us who they polled and what they asked?

Remember – distrust but validate.  Then, usually, distrust some more.

(more…)

There apparently are a lot of Republicans out there who aren’t ready to accept Mitt Romney as “inevitable” just yet.  Santorum won Minnesota, and won pretty big.

The PiPress:

Santorum’s victory in Minnesota, combined with a win in the nonbinding Missouri primary and another win in Colorado’s caucuses, is almost certain to prolong the Republican nominating contest and make the former Pennsylvania senator, not Gingrich, the conservative alternative to the more moderate Romney.

Speaking in Missouri, Santorum said the votes there and in Minnesota “were heard loud and louder all across this country.”

The Minnesota results marked a reversal for Gingrich, who had been Romney’s strongest challenger.

Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley told the Pioneer Press his candidate’s strong showing makes him the biggest threat on Romney’s right.

Conservatism’s not rolling over and playing dead.

If Romney wants this nomination – or spare himself and the party quite a few Maalox moments on the way – he’s gotta step up his conservative game.

Chopping Obamacare would be a great start.

I agree with what Mitt Romney (I think – maybe it was Huntsman) said in one of the opening GOP candidate debates; any of the people on the stage, then and now would do a better job of rebuilding this country than Barack Obama.

Including Romney.

I’m not thrilled with Romney; I think the Gingrich camp’s attacks have verged on the hysterical, and swerved way too far into Alinsky for my taste; Romney certainly did the same in return.  And I’ll allow that there’s some context to his very “moderate” record in Massachusetts; a legislature that verged on Maoist, a state that was so far to the left that John Huntsman would have looked like Gengis Khan.  Still, that’s what we have to go by – that, and his impressive business and executive record.

And Ron Paul?  I used to be a Big-L Libertarian.   And Ron Paul certainly has uncovered the wellspring of inner libertarians – big and small “L” – that I always knew was out there.  I’d love it if Ron Paul were both a viable candidate and a credible choice for President.  I sincerely hope Rand Paul becomes both in the next four to eight years.

But tonight I’m going to caucus for Rick Santorum.  Not because I think he’s necessarily the best candidate – his record on spending and economic issues is adequate-to-good; he’s most famous as a social con, and his credentials there are truly impeccable, but it’s not my turf.

But I’m doing it mainly because if Mitt Romney really is “inevitable”, at least he’s going to know at least one GOP activist – and every one I can convince to follow suit – isn’t handing over his support merely because Mitt’s got a “GOP” behind his name.

Promise to repeal Obamacare?  Start listing cabinet departments that’ll be cut?  In addition to the parts of the Romney platform that do make conservative sense (and there are parts)?  We can talk business.

But for now?  Romney’s not inevitable with me.  Not yet.

How’s that Hopey Changey thing working for ya?

If you’re one of the 23 Democrat US Senators defending their seats this year, notso hotso, according to this NaJo photo-essay.  Democrats are distancing themselves from The One, especially in states not stuffed to the gills with The Governing Class.

Worth a read.

When it comes to D-list political punditry, hell is other peoples’ predictions.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m someone else’s “other people”.  And my predictions have been…well, generally good.  I called the 2004 Prez and 2006 Governor’s races pretty much to the point.  I nailed the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th CDs almost to the vote.  Yeah, I blew the 2006 Senate race by about ten, and there’ve been a few clinkers.  I also predicted Norm Coleman and Tom Emmer in squeakers over Senator Smalley and Governor Fauntelroy – and if you left out fraudulent  and multiple votes, I think I may still have been right.

Still, as much as I love doing predictions, there’s an intense Schadenfreud when other peoples’ predictions – especially journalistic A-listers – come a cropper.

And a cropper they came.

Funny stuff.

I get a lot of questions from readers.  Occasionally, I like to answer them.

“Hey, you got a piece published on Hot Air yesterday!”  –  That wasn’t really a “question”, but, well, yeah, I did, and thanks for noticing!  My piece, “Top Ten Things You Should Do If You’re An “Anybody But Mitt” Republican”, And One You Should Not”, appeared in the Green Room, and Ed Morrissey was kind enough to promote it to the main page, where it got a ton of traffic and close to 500 comments between the two sites.  And it turns out that a lot of commenters at Hot Air are pretty serious about their political purism!

“But it sounds like you’re a RINO!”  – Er, what part of “I‘m caucusing for Santorum” did you miss?  The point of the piece was, if you’re an anti-Romney Republican, the game isn’t over.  There are a zillion caucuses and primaries and, by the way, a convention.  Fight like hell!  And if it so happens that Romney is the nominee, then fight for a conservative Congress – which, by the way, we’re more likely to get than a GOP President, as of a few weeks ago, according to InTrade.   And a Republican Congress will be conservative.  Perfect, no, but conservative yes.  And that will encourage Romney to act like a conservative.

“Romney’s a flip-flopper.  If he acts conservative to get elected, it won’t be honest” – If he “acts” conservative to get, and stay, elected, and manifests that acting by, say, governing as a conservative for four years, and “acts” conservative enough to get re-nominated and re-elected for four years, and continuing the “act” until the end of a second term highlighted by even more insincere conservative policies – including two or three utterly disingenuous nominations and confirmations of suitably conservative Supreme Court nominations and the completely insincere repeal of Obamacare and a two-faced cutting of federal spending – I’d be fine with that.   Of course, he’d need a conservative Congress to make sure he stays honest insincere.  That’s our job.

“I’d rather teach the party a lesson!” – I may have it carved on my headstone; “Parties don’t learn lessons; they reflect the will of those who show up”.  And they truly do.

“But Tim Pawlenty was a RINO, too!”  – First, “RINO” has become a synonym for “Not as conservative as me”, whoever you are – and by that definition, most of you are RINOs.  Sez me.

But secondly, and more importantly, that’s not the issue here.  However Pawlenty governed, the fact is that had it not been for an uprising of conservatives in the party – people who showed up and bucked the status quo and imposed their will on the convention – he would have been worse.

I mean, you do remember 2002, right?  Tim Pawlenty wasn’t nearly conservative enough for a fair chunk of the State Convention delegates.  Eventually, he had to take the No New Taxes pledge.  And he went on to govern for eight years, largely – not perfectly, but largely – as a conservative.  Certainly better than any “Republican” we’d had in a few generations.

Did the MNGOP do that because they’d “learned the lesson” of Arne Carlson?  Indirectly, maybe – but it was entirely because the people who did remember the Carlson years showed up and gave that lesson some teeth!

“Sounds like you’re trying to get us to accept the same old crap sandwich” – Chalk it up to my scandinavian heritage; to me, life is all about learning to make the best of “crap sandwiches”.  Because life is mostly “crap sandwiches”, and the measure of a person is how they make those crap sandwiches not just edible, but tasty – and, maybe, once in your life, how they talk the cook into eating it herself.  And it shows; my biggest heroes – Ernest Shackelton, Eddie Rickenbacker, Alexandr Pecherskiy and Stanislaus Schmajzner – are people whose greatest achievements in life were dealing with “crap sandwiches”, like being trapped on an antarctic ice floe without a radio, or floating at sea for three weeks in a tiny raft, or being stuck in a Nazi extermination camp.  And – this is important – dealing with the “crap sandwich”.  They ate seals and jury-rigged lifeboats to sail across stormy oceans, or they lived on minnows and a seagull and kept their spirits up, or they made crude shivs and stole guns and killed their guards and lived in the forest until help arrived; they did not say “I’m going to sit on the floe until real help arrives!”

And so – is Mitt Romney a “crap sandwich?”  I’ll take a Romney nomination over being stuck in an extermination camp, yes.

Beyond that?  Sure, I’d rather have a more-conservative nominee.  That’s why I’m caucusing for Santorum on Tuesday – to try to avert the “crap sandwich“.  And if Romney truly is inevitable?  Then we do like we did with Pawlenty; push him to the right by whatever means we have available to us.  And if we’re good, and if we show up, and keep our will strong, and do the blocking and tackling right, it’ll work.  Not perfectly, but well-enough.

“But I’d rather vote with my principles” – Well, good!  So would I!  That’s why, again, I’m not caucusing for Romney this time.

But for me, the most important principle – after “honor God” and “take care of my family”, both of which have political implications as well – is “do what’s best for the Unites States of America and for government of, by and for The People”.  And Barack Obama is the worst President of my lifetime (and I survived Jimmy Carter), and maybe one of the worst in history, and that is largely because he and his party are corroding democracy and marginalizing this nation, ensuring that my children and grandchildren are going to get a…what?

Crap sandwich?

You got it!

So my first principle is to help, or at least mitigate the harm to, America and Democracy.  Then we can talk about principles of governance.

“Sounds like you’re an incrementalist!” – Duh!  No kidding!  That’s because in a democracy, all improvement is incremental – unless your opponents completely fail to show up!  As long as you have people who oppose you via democratic means, any improvement you get will always be incremental – in Congress, in Saint Paul, and even in the GOP, if your part of the GOP is contested.

And if MItt Romney is the nominee, and he’s an incremental improvement?  I’ll take an incremental improvement over excremental decay, every time.  Partly because in the real world, incremental improvements are all you get!  You never, ever get revolutionary improvements!  And partly because I think that with a conservative Congress (backed by a conservative majority that stays engaged, unlike 1994) will be a big incremental improvement, which is better than a small one, and much better than excremental decay.

“Appearing on KFAI?  Talking with people from American Public Media? Reading Leftybloggers?  You’re not going all wobbly – or turning into a RINO – are you? – Pfft.  I’m still more conservative than you, whoever you are.  Look – we have to try to run a civil society.  That means trying to talk with and understand – and co-opt, convince and of course defeat via democratic means – the other side is vital to having a “civil society”.  And yes, the other side is full of crass, vulgar people (and, I stress, plenty who are not) who see themselves in control and don’t feel the need to dialog with people they regard as their inferiors, from the Minnesota Progressive Project all the way up to National Public Radio’s executive board.  That’s fine, and it’s their choice, but for my part, I believe that if society doesn’t at least try to get along and play nice, the eventual alternative is civil war – which on the one hand doesn’t bother me, since our side has most of the guns and their people with guns all use the John Woo grip, but on the other hand does bother me because civil wars are noisy and unproductive, and I’d rather stick with dialog.

“Aren’t you worried some leftyblogger is going to take that “Civil War” comment out of context?” – Twin Cities leftybloggers take comments about going shopping out of context.   Shall one live in fear of what ones’ petty detractors will say, or shall one just live?  I say live.  And give the leftybloggers a break; if they couldn’t write about things out of context, they’d have to focus on their jobs.

That’ll do for now.

Dave Osmek – the Mound City Council member who’s running for Senate this fall – has gotten an op-ed in the Strib today hitting the same notes about light rail that he hit in this space a few weeks ago (Part One and Part Two):

Using the Met Council’s 2010 report, the cost of a single ride on the Hiawatha light-rail line is $2.46. Riders pay only 99 cents of this cost, leaving almost 60 percent to be subsidized by the public.

But this is not the true cost of a ride, as it does not include the 30-year amortized costs of bonding for the build-out of the line. Adding those costs in, at a 4 percent bond interest rate, a single ride actually costs $6.42, which means each ride is subsidized by 85 percent.

If a family of four rides the Hiawatha Line to a Twins game, the public is paying a total of $43.36, while the riders are contributing $3.96.

Right now, we are paying over $15 million each year to keep the Hiawatha Line operating. Adding in the amortized costs of building the line, it’s more than $56 million in taxpayer dollars each year. Yes, some of the costs were federally funded, and other revenue streams are bearing some of the burden. But with trillions of dollars of deficit spending, do we really want to add to the debt that future generations will pay for decades to come?

The comment-section trolls are claiming Osmek’s got the wrong numbers – which is odd, since all his numbers came from the Met Council website.

One of the things I predicted on election night back in 2010 was that, out of power, the DFL would revert to whatever forms of power it actually had with more passive-aggressive vigor.

One of those forms of power was the “bureaucratic complaint”.

The DFL has created a small industry of bureaucratic complainants.  Groups like “Common Cause” essentially exist, at least in part, to complain about non-DFL politicians and politics.  Of course, “filing complaints” is one of the few areas where the DFL allows do-it-yourself-ism in politics.

The reason, of course, is to create a buzz in the compliant media; the goal is to create the possibility that a voter – inevitably poorly-read, ill-informed, one who still believes anything the mainstream media says, especially about politics – will hear “corruption” and “Republican” and think “Hey, Republicans shore must be KerrRUPT!” and cease thinking right then and there.

That the complaints are pretty much inevitably dismissed?  Even if the mainstream media were to hypothetically report it as aggressively as they did the original complaint – and they never, ever do – the DFL knows that with at least a few voters, the damage is done.

And so the “Ethics Complaint” against Senator Dave Thompson of Lakeville got big play in the media – but the fact that there was no there there?

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has dismissed the Complaint filed by DFL Chairman Ken Martin against Senator Dave Thompson. In a letter dated January 26, 2012, the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board stated there is no basis for a claim against Senator Thompson. In the letter, Executive Director Gary Goldsmith stated, “Under the authority delegated to me by the Board, I have reviewed the complaint and concluded that it does not provide a sufficient basis for the commencement of a Board Investigation.”

(Echo)

On Monday, January 23, 2012, DFL Chairman Ken Martin filed a Complaint against Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board regarding an alleged failure to disclose payments made by the Republican Party of Minnesota.

Weasels chew things.  Ken Martin files spurious complaints about Republicans.  The circle of life.

Senator Thompson said, “I complied with all disclosure requirements. Therefore, I am not surprised by the Board’s decision. Still, it is gratifying to see a clear statement from Mr. Goldsmith concluding that the Complaint does not even provide a basis for an investigation.”

And yet for Ken Martin -the former executive from “Win Minnesota”, which collected contributions from plutocrats and unions to run an attack PR campaign against Tom Emmer – it’s “mission accomplished”.

Because somewhere out there, in a trailer park in New Prague, a gas station attendant with a DUI and a couple of misdemeanor domestics pled down to “disorderly conduct” but whose vote counts just as much as yours does is now thinking “G’huck – Dave Thompson and the GOP sure must be corrupt!”

And that’s a form of power you can’t take away from the DFL no matter how many elections you win.

Gallupp rreleased its final digest of presidential approval numbers.

And throughout 2011, the news was bad for Obama.  His net approval was only above 50% in ten states plus DC, according to Gallup:

In 10 states plus the District of Columbia, a majority of residents approved of the job Barack Obama was doing as president last year, according to aggregated data from 2011. His greatest support came from District of Columbia, Maryland, and Hawaii residents, while Utah and Idaho residents gave him his lowest levels of support — below 30%.

Here are the state-by-state numbers.

Now, let’s remember it’s still early in the year, and that the Democrat noise machine and media (pardon the redundancy) willl eke out some more points for The One, and that this is an aggregate approval number, not a candidate-vs-candidate number.

And memes like “No president has ever (gotten some number or another) and still won the election” tend to be true until they’re not.

But if you accept the meme that no President with popularity below 50% has ever won re-election, and you apply that number state-by-state, it looks rought for The One, according to Conn Carroll at the WashEx:

Carroll (with emphasis added):

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Again, that’s just popularity numbers based on the old “50%” meme.  Maybe it sticks,  maybe it doesn’t.

But bit by bit, I think this election might be doable – if we Real Americans don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Let’s say, hypothetically, for just a moment here, that some of the pundits are right – that Romney’s landslide victory in Florida means he really might be inevitable.

I’ve heard more than a few of you Newt and Paul supporters out there; “If Romney wins, I’m staying home on election day”.

While I’m not especially passionate about Romney just yet, I’ll reiterate what an awful idea this is.  Don’t go there, people.

I’ve got ten suggestions for much more-productive responses.

1. Keep things in perspective – Forget Gingrich’s Alinskiite rhetoric for a moment; Romney’s not a “liberal”.  Remember William F. Buckley’s advice – “Vote for the most conservative person who can win?”  Romney was the most conservative person who could win…in Massachusetts.  He was the most conservative person who could make any headway against a Massachusetts legislature that made Ted Kennedy look like Michele Bachmann.  Is he the most conservative candidate who could win in a nationwide general election?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  But if not?  We’ll come back to that.  The point being, he’s not just “not a liberal” – on economics, which is what really matters in this election, he’s conservative enough.  And for the rest?  Well, we’ll get back to that down the list a ways.
2. Relax.  Take a deep breath.  The world doesn’t begin or end with this nomination.  Or even with this election. Even if Romney is as bad as some of you claim, this nation has survived worse.  Hell, we’re surviving worse right now.  Focus, people; getting Obama out of office is the key – and while some of you reject incrementalism (and I reject the idea that Romney is especially incremental, and even if he is – well, we’ll get back to that below), sometimes it’s all you got, and you gotta deal with it, and when you gotta deal with it, you want the increments to move in the right direction.  Romney’s not perfect, but he’s the right direction – and, I suggest, not just a little.
3. Remember The Positive Influence You Do Have – The caucuses and primaries aren’t over.  We’re seven months away from the convention – and three months away from the state conventions that will empanel the delegates.  This isn’t a done deal yet.  I can live with Romney – maybe even better – but I’m caucusing for…I dunno, probably Santorum on Tuesday.  Not that I’m thrilled with Santorum, either, but I want Mitt and his supporters to know that to win me (and, I hope, millions like me) that he’s going to have to be more aggressively conservative than he has been acting.
4. Go Shooting. It’s great stress relief.  It focuses the mind.  And it shows Romney – and Obama – that you can’t whiz on the Second Amendment.  It’s a threefer.
5. Remember The Alternative – You think four more years of Obama would be better than four to eight of Romney?  There’s a caveat to this, of course – more below.
6. No, Remember The Real Alternative  – I hear those among you who say you’ll sit this election out.  “If the party loses because they didn’t go conservative enough for me, it’ll teach them a lesson”.   That’s not only groaningly solipsistic – it’s not, after all, all about you – it’s also just not the way political parties and organizations work.  I’ve said it a few times in the past few weeks, and I’m going to keep saying it until y’all get it right; Political parties don’t “learn lessons” – they reflect the will of those who show up.  And if conservatives – and all you libertarian Ron Paul supporters – don’t show up, then the “establishment wins.  And don’t be yapping about “voting Libertarian”, because…
7. Third Parties Are to “Parties” What Near Beer Is To Beer. Let’s be honest; if you are a conservative or a libertarian, the GOP is the only chance you have to actually affect policy for real.  The Libertarian, Constitution and Conservative parties are futile, vote-wasting protest actions at best,  intellectual onanism at worst.  None of them will ever, ever, ever, ever affect the way policy is enacted in this country.  Ever.  And I say that as someone who not only sincerely wishes they could, but worked for it as a Libertarian Party member.  And remember – you, the conservative and libertarian and Tea Partier, have had a huge effect already; four years ago, Romney was defending himself against charges he was “too conservative”; today, it’s the opposite.  This is a good thing.  You – we – have moved the needle in the GOP.  “But it hasn’t moved far enough and fast enough!”, you say?  Suck it up, little camper, and put down the TV remote; political parties don’t change like one of those jump cuts in an NFL game of the week.  It takes time, patience and effort.  Hell, it took Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater close to 20 years to change the GOP, and even that didn’t stick.
8. Be Honest: Campaign rhetoric is one thing – real records, and their context, are much more useful.  Romney needs to be kept honest – i.e, conservative – and we have the power to do that (see, again, below), but it’s not like we’re trying to reform Che Guevara, here.
9. Numbers Count:  Remember Buckley’s Commandment from earlier in the post?  “Elect the most conservative candidate who can win?”  Newt’s negatives shouldn’t be the dispositive factor in this nomination, but you might wanna be mindful of the fact that 60% of the American people would rather have Slobodan Milosevic for President.  And Ron Paul is a shoe-in in the4 general – so say his supporters.  Who are, so far, 1/6-1/10 of the GOP.  If he can’t win the GOP, I’m at a loss for how he has even a faint shot at the general.  I’d love to hear a Ronulan spell out a case that leads Paul to the White House that doesn’t include the phrase “and then Ron Paul convinces everyone that he’s ideal”.  Honestly – I’d love to hear it.  Rand Paul might be another story, and there, I’m all ears – but that’s the future.  As far as I”m concerned, for right now the electoral world ends in November.  Focus.
10. Checks, Balances. So what if the GOP had no candidate at all, and we were looking at a victory for Obama by default today?  What would you be doing now, all you good conservatives?  Working to make sure the conservatives hold the House and take the Senate?  OK – so let’s say Romney really is as bad as  you all want us to believe he is.  And let’s say he’s inevitable.  Your choices then are “stay home” or “do what you’d do if Obama was going to win – try to negate his power and influence by taking control of Congress”.  Why, precisely, should you not then be working to flip the Senate and extend our lead in the House/  Because the opportunity is there, folks, to not just flip Congress completely against either Obama or a hypothetical “moderate” Romney, but flip it to a version of the GOP that, so far, has been pretty Beltway-proof, and fairly dedicated to the mission for which they were sent to GOP by the Tea Party and a newly-resurgent conservative movement in the first place; to govern like conservatives.  Keeping them that way is our job.  Provided we don’t “stay home” and “teach everyone a lesson”.  Because the only “lesson” you “teach” by staying home is that you’re unreliable and marginal.  Don’t be that.

I’m going to go back to Dave Mindeman’s piece at mnpACT, about the most recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey of Minnesota politics, for the numbers on some issues that don’t pertain to Governor Dayton and the Legislature.

Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is headed for a close vote. 48% of voters say they support it while 44% are opposed.

I neither support nor oppose the Amendment, but I have a fearless prediction; if the PPP poll, which trends a little left and features a left-heavy sample, calls it a four point race today, it’ll be 49-41 in November.

Let’s go back to the whole “people like their own bastards” bit:  Mindeman, mindful of the poll results, asks:

So, WHERE is the DFL candidates for MN-02 and MN-06 ? MN-03 and MN-08 seem to have multiple candidates in the mix …. if there are going to be any coattails from the top to help the State Legislature candidates, doesn’t there need to be someone in every district ?

There are two answers:  First, it’s further evidence that people like their own bastards; while national polling shows that Congress is less popular than Slobodan Milosevic, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know that John Kline and Michele Bachmann will win their districts by 30 and 15 points respectively, even if the Dems endorsed Zombie JFK to run for the office.

“Even though Congress is unpopular?”

Yep.  As noted earlier today, polls of legislative bodies as a whole are almost always misleading.  Congress may be unpopular; Kline and Bachmann are not.

BTW … do you think the mature approach that Governor Dayton has taken on the Vikiings stadium has helped … even if the taxpayers don’t want to pay for it, they sure don’t want to the lose the business … and obviously the Governor is trying.

If by “mature approach” Mindeman means coming out of his closet long enough to croak “Uh want ivverbaddy to git to WOARK and sulve the prollum”, then retreating to the closet and letting the Legislature, the cities, the counties, the NFL and Wilf do all the work?  It may or may not be “mature”, but it’s certainly easier on the poll numbers.

This particular chanting point has been making the rounds this week – a “Public Policy Polling” (PPP) survey appears to show that Mark Dayton is dreamily popular, and the people just can’t stand the GOP-run legislature.

It’s made the rounds of most of the mainstream media, the leftyblogs, and the lowest of the bunch, the  City Pages.  I figured I’d pick on Dave Mindeman at mnpACTttp and his take on it because unlike way too many Twin Cities leftybloggers, he’s articulate, recites the chanting point pretty much verbatim, and is otherwise not an idiot.

Mark Dayton’s numbers have improved since PPP last polled Minnesota in May and he’s one of the most popular Governors in the country.

Now, the numbers would seem to bear that statement out.  Let’s unpack them before we move on.

In observing PPP polls over the past couple of cycles, their results seem to consistently fall a little to the left of how Minnesota reality eventually shakes out.  Not in an egregions-to-the-point-of-fraud kind of way, like the Humphrey Institute or Strib Minnesota polls, but it’s noticeable.

I also think – and this is a theory, not something I’m stating as fact, but a decade of observation has led a lot of us on the right to wonder if there’s something to it – that liberals are much more prone to answer polls, especially in between election cycles.

Let’s ignore both of those for the moment.  Let’s talk about the surface indicators for this polling:

A little belated birthday present for Mark. Dayton has an approval rating of 53%, while disapproval is at 34% — a 19% spread.

The numbers have led Mindeman – and most other lefties – to a misleading conclusion.  Not wrong – I’m not telling people not to trust their lying eyes – but there’s more in those numbers than meets the eye.  Mindeman and the rest of the lefties are ignoring a key bit of American political behavior.

The poll covers the time between the shutdown and the present – when Dayton really didn’t do anything.  For that matter, he really didn’t do anything during the last session, or the shutdown.  He’s been for the most part a non-entity.  And if you don’t do anything – either positive or negative – then your numbers are going to be juuuuust fine.  Or at least fairly steady.

(Opposite case in point – Tim Pawlenty, who fought a two-court DFL advantage in 2009 and 2010 with aggression and passion.  He did not sit in his office drinking Kombucha or, given his hockey-playing pedigree, PBR, and his poll numbers showed it.  They were “lived-in”.  Who was a better governor?  Depends, now, doesn’t it?)

During the session, and the shutdown, it was the Legislature that did all the heavy lifting.  Dayton sat in his office, released the occasional demand, and until his final, fatal tour around the state, where he realized that getting behind his own plan would be political suicide, really did nothing.  And after that tour, when he folded his cards, he did so quietly, minimizing if not the GOP’s victory at least his own defeat.

In other words, he’s played defense.  He’s sat back and let the other guys take the hit.  The media, naturally, abet this behavior.

And in a state as polarized as Minnesota is, when you actually do things, you will take the hit – especially given our DFL-owned-and-operated media, whose interest in fluffing Dayton is obvious and constant.

And the Legisature has done things – affirmative things during the session and the shutdown, many of which pissed off Democrats and a few of which irritated the more conservative, and also not-so-affirmative things that have been all over the news lately.  Of course, sitting back and being passive-aggressive, like Dayton, was not an option for the Legislative branch; they were sent to Saint Paul on a mission, and the mission wasn’t going to get done without some serious action, and given the number of GOP freshmen who said they didn’t care if they only served a term, some fallout was to be expected.  It was inevitable.

But there’s more.

Dayton may get himself an easier legislature to work with next year. Democrats lead the generic legislative ballot in the state by a 48-39 margin. If that holds through November they should win back a whole lot of the seats they lost in 2010. It’s not that legislative Democrats are popular- only 31% of voters have a favorable opinion of them to 49% with a negative one. But legislative Republicans have horrible numbers. Their favorability rating is 23% with 62% of voters viewing them negatively. That honeymoon wore off real fast.

And here Mindeman and the rest of the metro chattering class fall into the seductive charms of drawing using high-level data to draw high-level conclusions on low-level questions.  Mindeman – and the entire regional left – have scoped the data wrong. I suggest.  The fact is that “generic” never manages to get endorsed to run for the Legislature.

The Legislature will take popularity hits – they, as a body, did all the work.

The Legislature, as a body, will always lag a do-nothing governor under those circumstances.  Just like Congress does.

But aggregate polls of the entire Legislature – those mythical “generic” legislators – are meaningless, just like aggregate polls of Congress.  People may want to vote the bastards in general out, but people tend, generally, to support their own bastard.  There are exceptions – they voted a lot of incumbent “bastards” out in 2006 and 2010 – but as a very general rule, unless you have a wave election, incumbency has its virtues.  This election may be many things – it may return both chambers of Congress to the GOP – but I don’t think anyone’s predicting a wave yet.

Tack on the fact that PPP polls trend left, that poll respondents this early in the cycle trend left, that the PPP poll was of registered voters (who always trend left), and the fact that the poll is meaningless, and the additional fact that redistricting – provided that it reflects actual demographic shifts rather than the DFL’s rhetoric – should favor the GOP, and I’m a lot less worried about this poll than the DFL, media (ptr) and the chattering classes want you to be.

And despite those numbers the GOP legislature continues to play ultra partisan games.

Well, yeah, Dave.  They know the numbers are meaningless.  So does the DFL.

Here, basically, it is:

1. Take control of the House and Senate – and, possibly, the White House – this fall.
2. WIth Obamacare in jeopardy, and a decent chance of a new, Tea-Party-allied GOP majority in the house to gridlock Obama or (hopefully) bolster and enforce Romney’s courage as a conservative, business gets off the fence.  Private capital, currently sitting in banks all over the world, starts flowing again.  Businesses can get capital – and they’re willing to hire people rather than bank money against the regulations and expenses of Obamacare.
3. The economy quickly resumes boom mode…
4. …unless, of course, the GOP majority goes native, DC-style, again, the way they did from 1998 to 2006, and starts spending like worthless Democrats like our idiotic Frist majority did.  Hopefully the conservative grassroots will keep their fighting edge…well, forever.  I goess that’s partly my job.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media reports that the Catholic Church – or parts of it, anyway – are up in arms (as it were) over the Obama administration’s mandates:

My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

If true, that’s great news – but I gotta say I’m not nearly as sanguine.

I’m not Catholic – and in my observation, most Catholics outside the clergy and intelligentsia are as diligently observant of the Vatican’s rules as most Jews are of Kosher laws; birth control and hamburger on Friday are as common among Catholics as the odd bit of ham and Saturday shopping trips are among mainstream Jews.

And I know – exceptions exist, including among readers of this blog.  But in my observation, there are vast swathes of the Catholic Church, in major cities, that either turns a blind eye to the inconvenient parts of the Vatican’s rules, or is willing to rationalize and ignore them in pursuit of a “progressive” political agenda – which accounts for a huge number of Catholic liberals I personally know.

Oh, the Bishops will make a ruckus:

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

But if you go to St. Joan of Arc (to pick a far-left parish of my acquaintance), it’s all an un-issue, ignored for the “greater good”; many, perhaps the majority of Catholic parishes I know of in the Twin CIties would trade, at the clerical level as well as among a fair chunk of the laity, the Nicene Creed for single-payer health care and Cap and Trade.

So am I wrong?  I’d especially like to hear from Catholics, here.  Does anyone at your parish – from your priests on down – care about Obamacare?  Has that “caring” been manifested in the form of “telling the congregation that it’s wrong, and that it’s going to screw with the what the Catholic Church supposedly holds dear?”

I’d be interested in hearing.

Since everyone else is launching pressure groups and PACs, I figure it’s high time I did the same.

Just in time for the Minnesota Caucuses, I’m announcing my new PAC, “Eventual Romney Supporters For Santorum Or Paul”.

To be a member of (or contributor to) ERSFSOP, you need to do the following:

• Recognize the true goal for conservatives in the general election – to replace Barack Obama with someone who will shrink government and get it out of the way of economic recovery.
• Recognize, in addition, that most important facet of the endorsement process; pulling like mad for candidates that reflect your values, and do so with a voice so loud and powerful that whomever wins the nomination needs to pay attention, even if it’s not yours.

And so the ERSFSOP charter basically says this:

I, a conservative base voter, recognize the primary need to to get Barack Obama out of office in favor of virtually any conservative-enough Republican, and recognize that Romney is probably still on the inside track to the nomination.  I also am uncomfortable with the depth of Romney’s commitment to conservative economic princpiples.  And so until Candidate Romney makes his commitment to conservative economic policy – especially repeal of Obamacare and drastic cuts to spending and the size of government – an integral part of his campaign, I will be caucusing for Santorum, or Ron Paul, or even plugging my nose and caucusing for the born-again Alinky-ite, Gingrich.  And so until you commit to the policies we support, your path to the nomination has a speed bump.   

Your choice, Governor Romney; a 55 gallon drum of Maalox, or a clear path to the convention.

Your move.

Any takers?

The “bad” news?  While the GOP thrashes its way through an uncommonly-gnarly primary battle, the Obamessiah’s poll numbers look rosy in Minnesota:

President Barack Obama holds a comfortable lead in Minnesota over all the Republicans seeking the GOP nomination, according to a new survey from…

The better news?  It’s just…

….Public Policy Polling.

…whose results always give Democrats a couple of unearned points.  Not sure how, and I’m not saying they’re as bad as the Minnesota or Humphrey Polls, but the skew seems to have been consistent.  As much time as I spent tracking the one-sided inaccuracy of media polls last year (pointing out the disgraceful long-term pro-Democrat biases of the Humphrey and Strib polls), I’ll be doing even more this year.

Although Obama’s advantage over rivals such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich has fallen since last May, the president still holds an edge over the two current front-runners for the Republican nod among voters in Minnesota, the poll found.

All the usual disclaimers apply; it’s early, the GOP has no unified candidate and is stuck in intra-party squabbling (as we should be!), and the poll is getting media placement mainly to try to demoralize Republicans and prepare the ground for Democrat GOTV efforts, and likely as not there’s a systematic bias.

Against Romney, 51 percent chose Obama compared to 41 percent for Romney, the same margin by which Obama beat John McCain in 2008, the pollster notes. Obama holds a 15-point lead over Gingrich, 54 percent to 39 percent, and a 12- and 13-point lead over Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, respectively.

Nothing new here.  Carry on. .

At times like this, I like to remember William F. Buckley’s formula for picking candidates; picking the one that matched the title of this post.

Now, “most conservative” clause gets overlooked.  And I’m sorry to say, I’m less and less convinced Newt Gingrich is “conservative” as much as he is “opportunistic”; that he’s as “conservative” as Bill Clinton was “progressive”; in other words, whatever it takes to get elected.  And after Gingrich’s shameless descent into Alinsyite smear-jobbing his past month, I’m not convinced I could support the guy and sleep at night.

But for now, let’s focus on the “who can win” bit.

Romney led Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama topped Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.

“Newt Gingrich is weak among Florida independents and likely Democratic voters compared to Romney,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “If Florida is one of six key states that swings the national election, independents in Florida hold that key, and this poll suggests that Newt won’t be able to secure Florida for his party.”

In the popularity contest, Gingrich again did not fare well. He holds a 29 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable rating statewide among all likely voters. By contrast, Romney had a 44 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable rating. Romney’s popularity was lower among independents: 37 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable, while Gingrich’s popularity among independents imploded to 19 percent favorable with 70 percent unfavorable.

Even if I took Gingrich’s “conservatism” at face value – and I largely do not, not anymore – that, if true (and borne out by mo betta polling) really calls the question for me.

The question isn’t “who’s better at goading the media”; that’s not the President’s Press Secretary’s job.

The question isn’t “who can game the political mechanics better” – that’s what gave us Barack Obama.

The question is “Who is both conservative enough and who beat Obama?”

I have my serious, serious doubts.

And if Gingrich can’t convince me of both, he can forget it.

I’m going to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.

And I don’ think Gingrich is either.