I am not sufficiently outraged about all the comments this week about stay at home moms.

I’m sorry I refuse to be your outrage pimp on this issue.

But I want the Democrats and the left to say what they truly believe about stay at home moms. I don’t want to be so outraged that the pushback is so great that they are silent.

I disagree with the comments, but I am not outraged by them.

I want the American people to hear their comments. I know the American people, like me, disagree with the Democrats’ view on stay at home moms. And I want them to go to the polls knowing what the Democrats truly believe.

But I’m not going to be an outrage pimp over their different world view. I’m not going to try to extent your outrage over their comments. Besides, it doesn’t work. We will exhaust ourselves trying to get the media to keep the focus on this particular outrage while they move on rapidly. The media is only willing to fixate on left-wing outrage.

It’s fine that you are outraged. But I’m not going to exhaust myself pimping outrage on all these statements about stay at home moms. We’ve $16 trillion in debt, the President’s economic policy is failing everyone, and Republicans seem too willing to cut deals instead of cutting spending. That’s what I’m outraged about and that’s where I think the focus should remain.

Everything else is just a distraction from jobs and the economy. And the Democrats would much prefer you focus everywhere. In the meantime, in all their rhetoric about how out of touch Republicans are, the Democrats keep making statements proving just how out of touch they really are.

Hilary Rosen’s specific point was that Ann Romney, not having been in the workforce outside the home, cannot really relate to women in the workforce. I disagree. Here’s why.

In my experience, with both a stay at home mom raising me, my wife a stay at home mom, and many of my friends married to stay at home moms, the stay at home mother typically raises the kids, cooks the meals, cleans the house, oversees homework, and on top of that the stay at home mom pays the bills, buys the groceries, handles the insurance hassles, knows the co-pay, haggles with the bank, etc. etc. etc.

The stay at home mom deals with many of the same issues the working woman deals with in addition to a host of other matters. It is not that the working woman has it more or less difficult. It is that working women and stay at home moms have it differently difficult in different areas with some days better and some days worse. And single parents, mothers and fathers, have it most difficult. But none are homogenous automatons of one singular thought or view on all topics.

Move past Hilary Rosen’s remarks if you can. The amazing speed at which Democrats sought to distance themselves from her remarks suggests they know that in all the talk about Romney’s problem with women, they have their own.

After Hilary Rosen’s remarks, a number of leftwing pundits came out seemingly upset that Hilary did not go as far as they would have wanted her to. In so doing, these pundits, activists, and politicos have raised up the raw stench of elitism. Luckily, few smelled it because it was drifting in from MSNBC.

Nonetheless, there were people like Joan Walsh of the far left rag Salon. She thought it perfectly okay to pronounce on Hardball yesterday that of course working women have it harder than stay at home moms. Of course they do you women battling breast cancer and suffering from MS while raising five boys without nannies and cooks and maids contrary to what the left has been claiming is, was, and forever more shall be the case with Ann Romney. Never mind that Mitt and Ann Romney gave away their inherited fortune to build their own lives and fortune.

There there is Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC and the even further left than Salon The Nation. He said if Republicans really think that stay at home moms are workers, then they should be paid a wage. Seriously.

It went down hill from there. The most striking thing is the overwhelming presumption from so many on the left who waded into the waters who think only the wealthy can be stay at home moms. As a matter of fact, I know scores of stay at home moms and not a single one’s husband gets them into the 1%, let alone the top 10% for most.

The myopic view of not just stay at home mothers as rich socialites with nannies, but of women in general too, highlights the problem for the Democrats. They talk about the GOP as the party of the rich when they are increasingly a party of the elite. Many of them look on stay at home moms as inferior or second class. Consider Christy Hayes of MSNBC and the Nation who openly wonders if it can really be considered work if they are not getting a salary.

The Democrats seem to believe that all women believe what they believe and are the same. Instead of unique individuals, they are a stereotyped class of women who care only about birth control, abortion, and government benefits. Stay at home moms who fall outside this view are viewed as second class citizens who really can’t be related to and who cannot relate to women in the workforce. Liberal women who prided themselves on feminist advances into society and think of themselves as unique individuals go on twitter and television and radio to proclaim all women same thinking, same liking, same knowing, and . . . well . . . same.

Like black Republicans such as Condelezza Rice, Michael Steel, and Herman Cain who are ridiculed by the left as oreos, Uncle Toms, or worse, women who think differently are treated as second class citizens, inferior, or somehow “other.”

As former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer noted last night, in the 2008 exit polls only 30% of women classified themselves as “working women,” a category of woman the left seems to think is all that matters or counts as legitimate through their rhetoric.

This is precisely why the Democrats have their own problems with women. In thinking women only care about X, Y, or Z, they forget that in 2004 women were mostly concerned with who would keep them safe and this year will be mostly concerned with who will get them, their husbands, their children, their relatives, and their neighbors back into jobs that make ends meet. This is the one area Barack Obama prefers not to talk about.

I compared Rick Santorum a few weeks ago to Dug the dog in the movie Up!. The dog would be engaged in conversation (you have to see the movie to get it) with a person then yell “Squirrel” on the sight of a squirrel, changing his entire focus and attention. Barack Obama now hopes the American voter is like Dug the Dog and can be distracted from an economy that seems more and more like Schrodinger’s cat — alive as long as we pay no attention to it. Dead if we do.

If you went to bed oblivious of the news last night, there was a mini-bruhaha over a comment Hilary Rosen, the former head of the RIAA and a DNC Advisor, made to Anderson Cooper on AC360 last night. I was on AC360 with both Hilary and Paul Begala.

Hillary said that Ann Romney, a mother of five sons who has had breast cancer and MS, had “actually never worked a day in her life.” Ann Romney made her debut on twitter to take issue with the remark. The White House and Obama campaign were quick to distance themselves and say Hilary should offer an apology.

For what it’s worth, in context Hilary was talking about the workforce and recession and I don’t think she meant to insult stay at home moms or Mrs. Romney. On Twitter, Hilary explained she was taking issue with Mitt Romney using Ann Romney as his expert on women and Ann Romney did not work both a full time job and raise the five boys concurrently.

But more than that, I actually never even heard her make the remark originally because I was still dwelling on how Hilary had started her statement. Hilary said the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention. I turned on twitter and saw all the outrage and literally said out loud, “How’d I miss that?”

Saying the Democrats had never coined the “war on women” terminology threw me for a loop.

As the other statement about Mrs. Romney was being made, I was replaying in my mind where I’d heard the “war on women” rhetoric. Turns out the Democrats started it all the way back in February of 2011 and even Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC and a congresswoman has gone all in with the rhetoric.

Hilary saying the Democrats hadn’t started it threw me for a loop because I’d played on my radio show DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Meet the Press from March 4, 2012. From the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Nice to have you here in studio. So let me ask you about this issue of contraception and this fight over social issues. Just as I’ve asked your–the two other guests I’ve had this morning, can you appreciate where they’re coming from, which is–this is not a war on women, which they say is a vast overstatement, or about access to contraception, but this is about religious liberty that started with the president’s new regulation about faith institutions and access and who pays for contraception.

REP. SCHULTZ: Well, if it’s not a war on women, then let’s just look at what happened this week in contraception. First, you had the Blunt-Rubio bill that was on the floor in the United States Senate that wouldn’t just deal with making sure that women couldn’t have access to contraception, it would actually say that any boss could use their own moral conviction to decide what access to health care their employees could have, making sure that women would have to have their own access to health care, whether it’s to mammograms or contraception or to amniocenteses or any other type of health care access, decided by their boss. And that was defeated in the Senate. So the Republicans actually want to go much further than just saying women shouldn’t have access to, to contraception. They want to say that bosses should be able to decide what kind of access to health care women can have.

On Political Capital with Al Hunt on April 6, 2012, there was this exchange with the Democratic Congresswoman and DNC Chair:

HUNT: You have charged that the Republicans are waging a war on women. They say that is nonsense. The gender gap issue will disappear as we get closer, at least it will erode as we get closer to the election. And that the Democrats, in fact, have a Catholic problem.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well, it is clear in this country that the jury of women across America have ruled, that the Republicans have been unbelievably extreme and out of touch and hyper-focused on cultural issues.

I mean while we are supposed to be focusing, and should be, as President Obama has been, focused on getting the economy turned around and continuing to move us forward and create jobs, their side is obsessed with cultural issues.

Note that she does not deny using the phrase.

Likewise, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley just this past weekend pressed on whether or not there really was a “War on Women.”

“The focus of the Republican Party on turning back the clock for women really is something that’s unacceptable and shows how callous and insensitive they are towards women’s priorities,” she said. That’s not exactly a denial.

At the same time, liberal Talking Points Memo from just yesterday characterizes the “war on women” this way:

Mitt Romney has tried to turn Democrats’ claim of a “war on women” by the GOP against them this week, accusing President Obama of waging his own “war on women.” Slower job growth for female workers, Romney insists, is evidence of Obama’s war.

On just about every MSNBC show — official press organ of the Democratic Party — the hosts routinely use the phrase to characterize the GOP. For the past two weeks, it has been a consistent theme on the show. Given how MSNBC doesn’t actually read news, but DNC talking points, it’s a stretch to say the Democrats aren’t behind it.

MoveOn.org sent out a letter on February 19, 2011 (yes, that long ago) accusing the GOP of a “war on women” writing

Dear MoveOn member,

It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women.

Sadly, it’s not.

On March 25, 2011, NARAL Pro-Choice America, EMILYs List, and MoveOn.org started a “Stop the War on Women” campaign.

The list goes on.

It is the Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Democratic Party mouthpieces, and outside groups pushing the Democrats’ agenda that have all said the GOP is at war against women.

To now deny that the Democrats came up with the term and to say the GOP did it is not just unfair, it is factually wrong. But my guess is that this is an admission that the “war on women” approach isn’t working well for the Democrats.

In fact, we can verify that.

Just last week, Gallup released a new poll with this finding:

Eight in 10 independent women in the swing states said they were not familiar with Romney’s position on contraception, but those who were familiar disagreed with it by a 2-to-1 ratio. Independent women were more likely to have an opinion about Obama’s views on contraception (58% were unfamiliar), and were divided about evenly between saying they agree or disagree with them.

Two things stick out like a sore thumb to me on this. First, 80% of independent women in swing states have no idea what Romney’s position is on contraception despite all the Democrats’ rhetoric. Second, of those who know about Obama’s position, they are split roughly 50-50 on liking his position. That doesn’t seem like it’ll be a problem for Mitt Romney.

I’m seeing some real panicked shouting online about CISPA, a new bill that some are calling “the new SOPA.” It’s absurd. The bill may not be perfect. It could have flaws. But the argument being hammered against CISPA again and again is that it may be used against copyright infringers who abuse networks. So? The only reason to oppose that is if you wish to destroy copyright property rights entirely, as the radicals do.

I warned about this way back during the SOPA debate. I predicted that the left side of the anti-SOPA coalition would try to hijack the movement into a general one against copyright, as the anarchists over there tend to do, and the shrieking over CISPA is proving me right. CISPA is not a bundle of mandates. It is an avenue to information sharing. Note that everything in CISPA is “totally voluntary,” per The Hill.

If someone and disprove that, and point to one or more mandates in CISPA, I’d like to know. Until then, the burden of proof is on the radicals to prove they’re not really out to protect Anontards and copyright infringers.

For now, it’s looking like CISPA is a solid response to The plans by the President and Democrats to expand government online, by regulating the Internet. Double regulating in fact, as every ‘critical’ industry is already regulated. So this whole “critical infrastructure” thing is more pretext than anything

Speaking of copyright, Adam Theirer suggests a parallel between copyright over-regulation and privacy over-regulation. I can see what he’s getting at, but there is one key difference between the two: copyright is a Constitutionally-enshrined principle. The nebulous concept of privacy, which in practice often amounts to buyer’s remorse of people who give away their information in exchange for free services, but then regret it, is not.

That said, when Obama talks about a huge new Privacy regulatory scheme, I worry. FCC is already grabbing power online through Net Neutrality. The administration and Lieberman-Collins are trying to bring DHS online. Now Obama wants FTC online, too?

Remember that “retransmission consent” scuffle between Jim DeMint and the ACU? DeMint is supporting a bill that would deregulate the process by which cable companies negotiate to retransmit over the air broadcasts. Here’s a defense of ACU’s position. I would suggest that we remember the fundamental reason for retransmission consent rules: a desire to have government protect over the air broadcasters from being stepped around by cable companies. All local broadcasters have to do in order to keep their feeds from being swiped entirely, is to include copyrighted content that would be illegal to be rebroadcast.

So that’s not the fear. The fear is that cable companies will negotiate directly copyright holders to rebroadcast the specific works, without keeping the Local News at 11, shutting out the local broadcaster entirely. The fear is an open market and free wheeling competition. So I support the DeMint plan. Defang the FCC.

So let’s have some more FCC: Bloomberg apparently wants Cable Neturality against Comcast, demanding government regulation of channel lineups. Give me a break. I don’t want Nanny FCC dictating channel numbers.

FCC seems to be doing the job of GSA by trying to facilitate potential government contractors. Now why would they do that? Oh right, the Obama GSA is corrupt.

Attention Brian Bilbray, Joe Pitts, and Lindsey Graham: You are allying with John Kerry. Pull up now before it’s too late. Defense came out against the LightSquared plan. FCC ruled against it. The combination of the two seems pretty conclusive, particularly when FCC is obstructing Chuck Grassley on the matter of favoritism in favor of LightSquared.

Trademark Wars: Rosetta Stone goes after Google. I don’t know, if your name is Rosetta Stone, that’s a pretty generic name for translations. There may or not be a legitimate case for calling AdWords shenanigans trademark dilution, but a generic name like Rosetta Stone, based on an actual historical object, seems like a bad case for me.

Jim DeMint sounds skeptical on the matter of a sales tax interstate compact. DeMint suggests that the compact is a way for high tax states to avoid having to compete for jobs, and that the net effect is a tax hike. I think that’s a reasonable position, but I disagree. I think if we reform sales tax in this way, and add careful safeguards to avoid a true national sales tax, this could broaden tax bases and allow states to have simpler tax regimes. Tax simplification has benefits as well, as Ronald Reagan saw in 1986.

It’s on: The Holder DoJ is suing Apple for working with book publishers to try to rig the online book market against Amazon and book purchasers, as buyer and seller tried to rig the market for the agency pricing model to prop prices up higher.

There may be facts that haven’t come out, and the law against this may or may not be good, but as it stands, they sound pretty guilty to me. It doesn’t help that the key information about this seems to have come out in a post-mortem Steve Jobs biography.

Monday night, as promised, we still have some catch up work to do. So let’s start with those Amazon Taxes, those Internet sales taxes of dubious Constitutionality. Colorado’s got tossed in federal court and Illinois’s didn’t raise any money. Obeying the Constitution counts, folks. Pass a true interstate compact through the Congress first.

Also as promised, there’s the matter of the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. This is the one where ACU has come out against Jim DeMint, and that caught my attention. I have to side with the bill DeMint is sponsoring. I think ACU simply misunderstood what’s at stake here and had good intentions, but the excessive complexity of the regulations defeated them here.

The bill does not let cable providers become free riders, retransmitting others’ streams for free. It just stops the law from trying to dictate the parameters of the negotiations on retransmissions. I see no harm in that, and potentially much good.

Here we go again. Apparently we’re supposed to be unhappy with the CISPA information sharing bill by Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger because it potentially could be used against copyright infringement. And SOPA is invoked against that. SOPA wasn’t defeated because everyone hates copyright. It was a power grab. Take your anti-copyright anarchy battles home, Reddit kiddies. You and your Anontard buddies.

More cybersecurity still: We cannot and must not have DHS start regulating the Internet. Government can’t even secure itself yet and so has no standing to dictate to others. Information sharing in the private sector, without government gatekeepers, is far more useful for protecting our country’s Internet resources. Further, with the irrationality and secrecy of TSA and its regulations, how can we trust them at all?

Going back to SOPA, Comcast was apparently for it, which doesn’t surprise me. Comcast is an ISP particular vulnerable to Bittorrent users flooding the network with high volume copyright infringement dragging down service for everyone.

Is a problem with tech patents, including software patents, that the system isn’t scaling well? Size, not just speed?

Apparently all the fuss over FCC reform, using white spaces as an excuse to oppose all FCC reform out of the Congress, was resolved with white space use marching on. This could be interesting. We’ll have to watch and see how it works, or whether we just get a tragedy of the commons.

An interesting development in the Do Not Track saga: Radicals and businesses are interpreting them differently, but frankly, the interpretation of the radicals is stupid. There already is a way to not be tracked at all, and not just exclude third parties: Disable cookies, dummies. The radical agenda apparently to be promoted by the FTC is out of touch with the actual technologies involved.

Apparently the FTC folks don’t understand that if you don’t want tracked by, say, Amazon’s recommendations, then you simply shouldn’t log into Amazon all the time.

LightSquared may be on the verge of bankruptcy, but Chuck Grassley is still fighting tenaciously for FCC transparency with respect to LightSquared, and is going to maintain his holds on the new FCC appointees. Go Chuck Go!

Here’s a potentially huge deal in the tech/copyright nexus that I hadn’t heard about at all Google is under concerted attack by a number of copyright holders in a move that potentially risks undermining the whole DMCA safe harbor system. Google has taken many steps to curb copyright infringement on YouTube, but they’re being dogpiled upon anyway by firms going after those deep pockets. If being a rich and popular website that gets taken advantage of by copyright infringers is enough to knock down the Safe Harbor, then it seems to me that the entire Safe Harbor system of the DMCA is at risk. That’s not good, as that was a careful balancing of interests in that bill. We cannot let the scales get tilted one way.

If the Youtube case goes too far, new legislation may be needed, and that’s going to be a big old mess. Especially when the MPAA and RIAA interests will inevitably be comingled with legitimate international concerns of Chinese and other foreign firms ignoring US copyrights

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:1-9

Happy Easter to each and every one of you.

H/t to Ben Domenech for this excellent quote:

“In perfect freedom, the Son become the goat become the Lamb of God is condemned by the lie in order to bear witness to the truth. The truth is that we are incapable of setting things right. The truth is that the more we try to set things right, the more we compound our guilt. It is not enough for God to take our part. God must take our place. All the blood of goats and lambs, all the innocent victims from the foundation of the world, all the acts of expiation and reparation … all strengthen the grip of the great lie that we can set things right. The grip of that lie is broken by the greatest of lies, ‘God is guilty!’ … God must die. It is a lie so monstrous that to suggest it invites instant annihilation–except that God accepts the verdict.”

– Richard John Neuhaus

H/t to Ben Domenech for this excellent quote:

“In perfect freedom, the Son become the goat become the Lamb of God is condemned by the lie in order to bear witness to the truth. The truth is that we are incapable of setting things right. The truth is that the more we try to set things right, the more we compound our guilt. It is not enough for God to take our part. God must take our place. All the blood of goats and lambs, all the innocent victims from the foundation of the world, all the acts of expiation and reparation … all strengthen the grip of the great lie that we can set things right. The grip of that lie is broken by the greatest of lies, ‘God is guilty!’ … God must die. It is a lie so monstrous that to suggest it invites instant annihilation–except that God accepts the verdict.”

– Richard John Neuhaus

Vero Possumus!

I like and appreciate both Moe Lane and Leon Wolf. I’ve been rewarded vastly beyond my limited abilities getting to front page on this blog with them both. However, they’ve each made a serious error in judgment this week which I’ll hopefully rectify in today’s issue of Repair_Man_Jack.

Leon and Moe have both weighed in on Admiral Obama’s reckless sortie athwart the iniquitous US Supreme Court. Leon harkens back to the old USSC decision Marbury v. Madison, and claims our Commander-In-Chef slept through that one in High School Government Class just like the rest of us working stiffs. (Never you naysayers mind that he was snoring away in The Punahou Academy). Or even that he dozed through it a 2nd time in Jolly Old Harvard Law.

Moe then totally over-analyzes the situation. He suggests the President has simply overlooked Federalist #78. Just tell him Alexander “Rip” Hamilton wrote it, and His C-In-Cness will have it knocked out before lunch. Not to disillusion Mr. Lane; but I seriously doubt that our president is aware that the Marbury in Marbury v. Madison, is not the same Marbury that plays Guard for The Beijing Ducks these days.

Athwart Mr. Wolf and Mr. Lane, I posit that Mr. Obama’s reaction to what his attorney Elena Kagan told him yesterday was not a high-minded legal theory session. It was something our president should have gotten spanked out of his system by the time he turned six. It seems he is privy to at least partial information that the highest court in the land does not hold a favorable opinion with respect to the constitutionality of The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. This was not the outcome Mr. Obama had in mind when he acquired the services of Elena Kagan. As a result, he threw a Presidential Temper-tantrum.

Barack Obama does not have a coherent state of mind about how this entire courtroom drama over his healthcare reform has turned out. It could be the first time in his life that he has ever heard the Deplorable Word “No.” The man is older than 40 and has never been told once that he should like it or lump it. So of course he yells at the Supreme Court. Like every other aspect of the US Government, they exist to keep Barack Obama happy and make him look good.

When President Obama got his healthcare law enacted in 2009, it was supposed to be “settled science.” Emperor Obama had issued his decree. The United States Supreme Court seems perched on the edge of teaching Emperor Obama a very painful lesson in Constitutional law. The lecture could be entitled “Judicial Review and It’s Vital Role In The American Checks-and-Balances System.” Thus, the Emperor needs a new diaper. He is not happy. He is about to learn that the Presidency is not his personal Disneyland.

All of this causes me to pity* President Obama. He is actually making me feel sorry for him. It pretty much no longer matters what he can write on his resume under “Experience.” There is nothing more pathetic in life than an adult who does not know “no.” It’s almost as sad as the sight of an electorate willing to vote this man a 2nd term of office in spite of his grown-up temper-tantrums.

*- When I say pity, I mean all the contempt and disrespect properly implied by the word.

In the race for U.S. Senate in Texas, the conservative candidate clearly is Ted Cruz. His record of fighting for conservative ideals is clear, as I have noted before. Senator DeMint has endorsed him, as has Senator Mike Lee, the Club for Growth and a number of other important conservative voices.

But the establishment and conventional wisdom remains behind Lt. Gov Dewhurst as the favorite – despite the fact he has shown relatively poor polling, mediocre fundraising and is relying on his personal wealth to try to persuade Texans he is actually conservative. But the truth is hard to hide. I have pointed out before that Dewhurst is a moderate in the mold of Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Thus, we affectionately refer to him as Dewcrist.

Everyone in Austin knows DewCrist is a moderate. Everyone in Austin knows he stands in the way of conservative policy. Everyone in Austin knows he would be the first guy in the U.S. Senate to join the “club” and saddle up to Mitch McConnell to be a “team player,” no matter what principle dictates or what the people of Texas actually want.

But now, even academic research is making this crystal clear. In the Texas Tribune, Rice University Professor Mark Jones explains his rather detailed analysis of Dewcrist and his ideological placement among those in the Texas Senate, the body over which he presides as Lt. Governor. Jones describes him as follows:

“Is Dewhurst a “moderate?” Yes, if by that one means that he would appear to be significantly less conservative than approximately one-third of the Republican delegation in the Texas Senate.”

and

“The [data] reveals a Dewhurst-run Senate where the senators who enjoyed the most success were in the moderate and center wings of the Republican Party. Bills opposed by these senators rarely were passed — a sharp contrast with both their more conservative colleagues as well as the most liberal members of the Democratic delegation.”

Reports of cheering from Mitch McConnell’s office just came in…

The problem with the race for Senate in Texas is that no one is focusing on it and too many people believe Dewcrist is actually conservative because he can hide behind Governor Perry’s conservative leadership and he is ostensibly pro-life. But when push comes to shove, Dewcrist has consistently been a “centrist” – which is not-too-tricky-code for future establishment hack in Washington if we don’t stand up for the only real conservative in the race, Ted Cruz.