Let tell you a parable.

Once upon a time that has not yet happened – and will almost certainly not actually happen – there will be a certain starship, with a certain Captain… captaining it. And this starship will, as starships of that sort often do, encounter an amazingly heavy-handed metaphor in the form of two anthropomorphized black-and-white cookies determined to destroy each other.

(pause)

Hold on: this has a point, I swear.Well, our Captain is not particularly interested in this conflict, given that neither black-and-white cookie is a large-breasted female – but the two cookies are determined to drag him and his ship into their unsubtle social commentary*, so the Captain decides to blow up his own ship with a computerized self-destruct sequence, just to get the two cookies’ attention. And this works: getting the cookies’ attention, that is, not blowing up the ship. Attention is definitely gotten, and the captain gets the cookies to stand down. And then one of the cookies, being only an idiot when the script requires it, goes and burns out the portions of starship’s computers that regulate the computerized self-destruct sequence**.

Annnnnnd now you know why former Senator Bob Bennett (R, UT) got tossed out on his ear in 2010, while current Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) looks like he’s in a good place to survive a challenge in 2012. It’s because Hatch paid attention to what happened to Bennett, and acted accordingly. Which in this case meant organizing like crazy for the delegate selection process. And, if first accounts are accurate, it’s paid off; Hatch’s delegates largely won over those of Hatch’s primary opponents.

Moral of the story? Just because something works once doesn’t mean that it’ll work every time, unless of course you’re facing an idiot. And it would appear that Senator Hatch is not an idiot, so anybody trying to replace him in the Senate would probably be well-advised to not assume that he’s as dumb as, say, your average Democratic politician.

Or an anthropomorphized black-and-white cookie.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Did you know that people complained that the new Star Trek reboot just blew stuff up, and didn’t give us amazing social commentary like the Black-and-White Cookie Episode? – And, yes, the people complaining were mostly progressives. How did you know?

**From there it’s only a short trip to the cookies’ original planet, where we discover that the rest of the population has already conveniently killed each other off over a point of chromatic patterning. Unaccountably, the episode does not end with the starship Captain dropping a photon torpedo on the two black-and-white cookies now pointlessly fighting on the planet’s surface, then calling Starfleet to let them know that he’s just found a perfectly nice M-Class planet whose inconveniently belligerent and powerfully psionic population have conveniently killed each other off… and left the ruins for other species to loot.

In what’s become a biennial spectacle, supporters of unprincipled Republicans – who often vote with Democrats – are maligning conservatives as “purists” and accusing them of gambling away Republican control of the Senate.  Today, Kimberley Strassel published a column in the WSJ, “Conservatives vs. a Senate Majority,” insinuating that Freedom Works and The Club for Growth are helping elect Democrats to the Senate.  Specifically, she charges that conservatives opposing Lugar, Bruning, and Thompson will deny Mitch McConnell “the Senate majority leader’s office.”

There is one predominant point that is overlooked throughout Ms. Strassel’s column: it is the very insipid Republican candidates and senators that she supports who have helped the Democrats control the Senate – both in the minority and the majority.  It is the very people like McConnell, Lugar, and Thompson who have supported big government, and will continue to support big government in the majority.

The column starts off on the wrong foot with this oleaginous opening line: “Two things stand between Mitch McConnell and the Senate majority leader’s office: Democrats, and the conservatives who might help elect Democrats.”

Wait a minute.  Even if Republicans take back the Senate, who coronated McConnell to be majority leader?  The very fact that she deems the election of McConnell as majority leader to be the superlative endgame tells you everything you need to know about her politics.

Does she not realize that McConnell has failed to lead his conference against the plethora of bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and market interventions that Democrats are itching to pass and have already passed?  Or does she support these ideas, so as not to be branded as a truculent purist?  The sad reality is that control of the Senate is worthless if less than 51 Republicans are willing to support basic Republican proposals and oppose fundamental Democrat big-government ideas.  At present, Senate Republicans are capitulating on so many things that I’ve had to prioritize which issues to highlight for lack of space in these pages.  And I’m sorry, but if we’re forced to nominate a guy who still supports Eric Holder in a state like Nebraska, we should all call it quits.  Ditto for Indiana.  Even in Wisconsin, we didn’t do too bad last time with the purist Ron Johnson, and that was against a well respected incumbent.

Strassel goes on to implore us to nominate these non-purists, who are supposedly paragons of electability, because they are the only ones who will bequeath to us a 51-seat majority to “roll back ObamaCare through a “reconciliation” process that skirts the filibuster.”

I love how establishment Republicans talk so boldly about repealing Democrat bills and ideas, yet when the rubber meets the road, they capitulate and even lampoon conservatives for urging them to fulfill their promise.  They did that on numerous occasions last year.  Repealing Obamacare through reconciliation is absolutely vital to preserving this country.  But it is also an extremely bold move that will require 51 members with intrepid courage.  Does anyone really believe that a bare majority of 50-52 Republicans, comprised of the current flaccid crop, along with a couple of new marginal Republicans, will be sufficient to orchestrate reconciliation?  There are already numerous Republican senators – not even the most moderate of the bunch – who have gone on record expressing reservations about full repeal.

In fact, it is for this very reason why we feel it is so important to elect conservatives who will fight for repeal of Obamacare with all their political capital.  Without conservatives, there will be no Republican majority in the Senate; not one that supports Republican ideas and risks their careers on full repeal of Obamacare.  In 2006, then-Sec. of HHS Tommy Thompson, who always had an affinity for government intervention in healthcare, praised Romneycare for “showing us a better way, one I hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a healthier and stronger America.”  Then in 2009, when the Democrat Congress did just that, he praised them.  Please forgive my purist instincts for not fully trusting him as the 51st vote on Obamacare repeal.

Ms. Strassel closes by drudging up the banal paradigm of Sharon Angle.  She fails to disclose to her readers that Angle’s main competitor in the primary was someone who became even more unelectable after suggesting that people will have to barter for their healthcare.

As we noted earlier this week, it’s not about purity, it’s about consistency.  We are looking for candidates who have consistently supported the very fundamental Republican ideals that supposedly unite all factions of the party.  Obamacare is definitely one of them.  And had we left the Senate races to the likes of Ms. Strassel, we would be at the mercy of Charlie Crist, Bob Bennett, and Arlen Specter.  That’s not even accounting for Murkowski, Collins, and Brown.  We’d need a lot more than 51 “Republicans” to repeal Obamacare. We better do it right.

After all, what’s a Republican majority without Republican values?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

In what’s become a biennial spectacle, supporters of unprincipled Republicans – who often vote with Democrats – are maligning conservatives as “purists” and accusing them of gambling away Republican control of the Senate.  Today, Kimberley Strassel published a column in the WSJ, “Conservatives vs. a Senate Majority,” insinuating that Freedom Works and The Club for Growth are helping elect Democrats to the Senate.  Specifically, she charges that conservatives opposing Lugar, Bruning, and Thompson will deny Mitch McConnell “the Senate majority leader’s office.”

There is one predominant point that is overlooked throughout Ms. Strassel’s column: it is the very insipid Republican candidates and senators that she supports who have helped the Democrats control the Senate – both in the minority and the majority.  It is the very people like McConnell, Lugar, and Thompson who have supported big government, and will continue to support big government in the majority.

The column starts off on the wrong foot with this oleaginous opening line: “Two things stand between Mitch McConnell and the Senate majority leader’s office: Democrats, and the conservatives who might help elect Democrats.”

Wait a minute.  Even if Republicans take back the Senate, who coronated McConnell to be majority leader?  The very fact that she deems the election of McConnell as majority leader to be the superlative endgame tells you everything you need to know about her politics.

Does she not realize that McConnell has failed to lead his conference against the plethora of bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and market interventions that Democrats are itching to pass and have already passed?  Or does she support these ideas, so as not to be branded as a truculent purist?  The sad reality is that control of the Senate is worthless if less than 51 Republicans are willing to support basic Republican proposals and oppose fundamental Democrat big-government ideas.  At present, Senate Republicans are capitulating on so many things that I’ve had to prioritize which issues to highlight for lack of space in these pages.  And I’m sorry, but if we’re forced to nominate a guy who still supports Eric Holder in a state like Nebraska, we should all call it quits.  Ditto for Indiana.  Even in Wisconsin, we didn’t do too bad last time with the purist Ron Johnson, and that was against a well respected incumbent.

Strassel goes on to implore us to nominate these non-purists, who are supposedly paragons of electability, because they are the only ones who will bequeath to us a 51-seat majority to “roll back ObamaCare through a “reconciliation” process that skirts the filibuster.”

I love how establishment Republicans talk so boldly about repealing Democrat bills and ideas, yet when the rubber meets the road, they capitulate and even lampoon conservatives for urging them to fulfill their promise.  They did that on numerous occasions last year.  Repealing Obamacare through reconciliation is absolutely vital to preserving this country.  But it is also an extremely bold move that will require 51 members with intrepid courage.  Does anyone really believe that a bare majority of 50-52 Republicans, comprised of the current flaccid crop, along with a couple of new marginal Republicans, will be sufficient to orchestrate reconciliation?  There are already numerous Republican senators – not even the most moderate of the bunch – who have gone on record expressing reservations about full repeal.

In fact, it is for this very reason why we feel it is so important to elect conservatives who will fight for repeal of Obamacare with all their political capital.  Without conservatives, there will be no Republican majority in the Senate; not one that supports Republican ideas and risks their careers on full repeal of Obamacare.  In 2006, then-Sec. of HHS Tommy Thompson, who always had an affinity for government intervention in healthcare, praised Romneycare for “showing us a better way, one I hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a healthier and stronger America.”  Then in 2009, when the Democrat Congress did just that, he praised them.  Please forgive my purist instincts for not fully trusting him as the 51st vote on Obamacare repeal.

Ms. Strassel closes by drudging up the banal paradigm of Sharon Angle.  She fails to disclose to her readers that Angle’s main competitor in the primary was someone who became even more unelectable after suggesting that people will have to barter for their healthcare.

As we noted earlier this week, it’s not about purity, it’s about consistency.  We are looking for candidates who have consistently supported the very fundamental Republican ideals that supposedly unite all factions of the party.  Obamacare is definitely one of them.  And had we left the Senate races to the likes of Ms. Strassel, we would be at the mercy of Charlie Crist, Bob Bennett, and Arlen Specter.  That’s not even accounting for Murkowski, Collins, and Brown.  We’d need a lot more than 51 “Republicans” to repeal Obamacare. We better do it right.

After all, what’s a Republican majority without Republican values?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

David DewCrist . . . er . . . Dewhurst is Texas’s Lieutenant Governor and is running for the United States Senate against RedState endorsed Ted Cruz. Lt. Gov. DewCrist has been making sure local news outlets in Texas understand he understands healthcare. He has studied healthcare. In fact, Dewhurst has joined up with a top expert to figure out how to save costs in healthcare.

There’s just one problem.

David DewCrist’s top advisor is a man named Guy Clifton. Mr. Clifton “was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow in Congress, assigned to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.” Oh, and Mr. Clifton and David DewCrist were in a “years-long collaboration” according to DewCrist.

What the Lieutenant Governor did not discuss was that Dr. Clifton is an advocate of the individual mandate.

It really is amazing these experts and a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle up until 2010 were all in favor of the individual mandate even though its constitutionality is dubious. But hey, no one reads the constitution anymore. It’s too old.

David DewCrist . . . er . . . Dewhurst is Texas’s Lieutenant Governor and is running for the United States Senate against RedState endorsed Ted Cruz. Lt. Gov. DewCrist has been making sure local news outlets in Texas understand he understands healthcare. He has studied healthcare. In fact, Dewhurst has joined up with a top expert to figure out how to save costs in healthcare.

There’s just one problem.

David DewCrist’s top advisor is a man named Guy Clifton. Mr. Clifton “was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow in Congress, assigned to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.” Oh, and Mr. Clifton and David DewCrist were in a “years-long collaboration” according to DewCrist.

What the Lieutenant Governor did not discuss was that Dr. Clifton is an advocate of the individual mandate.

It really is amazing these experts and a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle up until 2010 were all in favor of the individual mandate even though its constitutionality is dubious. But hey, no one reads the constitution anymore. It’s too old.

When Orrin Hatch ran for the United States Senate the first time, he campaigned against then Democratic Senator Frank Moss. Hatch traveled Utah asking and answering a simple question: “What do you call a Senator who’s served in office for 18 years?” “You call him home,” he said.

That was thirty-six years ago. Orrin Hatch beat Frank Moss and has been in the United States Senate ever since. This week, voters in Utah will begin the process of deciding whether or not it is time to call Orrin Hatch home, having served twice as long as the Senator he decided to challenge successfully in 1976.

I was one when Orrin Hatch beat Frank Moss. He is the longest serving Utah Senator. He is, for those of us who started paying attention to politics in the 1980′s, a seminal figure in late twentieth century American politics. From his seat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hatch’s face has been a visible presence in American homes for decades.

Each time I have met Orrin Hatch, I’ve come away liking the man. But were I in Utah this week, I’d want to do as he wanted to do thirty-six years ago and call him home.

My problem with Orrin Hatch is not, as it is for some, the seemingly inexplicable relationship he had for so long with Senator Ted Kennedy. It’s amazing the number of people who hold that against him. But I give him credit for forging a friendship with a polar opposite who he routinely matched wits against.

One issue I have with Orrin Hatch is that he has been in Washington for thirty-six years. Many of my friends and colleagues within my office and elsewhere are Hatch supporters. He has done a tremendous job over the years building strong relationships and bases of support within the conservative movement. Fighting for conservative judges will do that for you. For so many of those battles, Orrin Hatch was the guy we all relied on.

But Orrin Hatch is not an indispensable person. No man is indispensable. I am not a term limits advocate, but thirty-six years wanting to make it forty-two years does seem a bit much.

Frankly, my biggest issue with Orrin Hatch is, counter-intuitively, just how well he’s voted in this session of Congress. In Orrin Hatch’s thirty-six years in the United States Senate, it sticks out like a sore thumb. He, and most Republicans, have voted well on every big issue. Orrin Hatch has, for his Senate career, always fought the good fight on judges. In fact, much of Hatch’s support comes from his zealous advocacy on behalf of conservative judges.

But as I have learned sitting in my editor’s chair these past few years, most Republicans are always right on the big votes. It is the fights behind the scenes, the small votes, and the votes between conservatives and Republicans that separate the wheat from the chaff.

On many of those votes over the years, Orrin Hatch was no different from any of the other Senate Republican leaders. We’re now past $15 trillion in debt and Orrin Hatch voted for a good bit of spending contributing to that debt. Some of it was necessary, but much of it was not.

He sees the light now. His colleague, Bob Bennett, got tossed out by the tea party and replaced with Mike Lee. Suddenly, Orrin Hatch is voting in near lock step with Mike Lee. He, the senior Utah Senator, seems to be the junior partner in Utah’s conservative shift.

As we’ve seen time and time again, though, many a Senator gets right with the voters in the fifth and sixth year of any term headed into an election, but in years one through four, they march to a different beat — one they seem to only tune out when they run for election.

I’m not worried about Orrin Hatch on the big votes. He’d vote with the conservatives more often than not. But I am worried about Orrin Hatch on the small votes that matter between the status quo and smaller government. I worry about Orrin Hatch in the years he is not worried about re-election. And if he were to win re-election, surpassing forty years in the Senate, I’d worry he might decide then to end and so we’d have six years of Orrin Hatch in the Senate caring little what conservatives or Utahans think.

We moved Utah to the right in 2010. We should try to do it again. Orrin Hatch is a fine and decent man. He deserves a lot of praise for putting so many conservatives on the federal bench. But I think it is time, after thirty-six years, to call him home.

When Orrin Hatch ran for the United States Senate the first time, he campaigned against then Democratic Senator Frank Moss. Hatch traveled Utah asking and answering a simple question: “What do you call a Senator who’s served in office for 18 years?” “You call him home,” he said.

That was thirty-six years ago. Orrin Hatch beat Frank Moss and has been in the United States Senate ever since. This week, voters in Utah will begin the process of deciding whether or not it is time to call Orrin Hatch home, having served twice as long as the Senator he decided to challenge successfully in 1976.

I was one when Orrin Hatch beat Frank Moss. He is the longest serving Utah Senator. He is, for those of us who started paying attention to politics in the 1980′s, a seminal figure in late twentieth century American politics. From his seat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hatch’s face has been a visible presence in American homes for decades.

Each time I have met Orrin Hatch, I’ve come away liking the man. But were I in Utah this week, I’d want to do as he wanted to do thirty-six years ago and call him home.

My problem with Orrin Hatch is not, as it is for some, the seemingly inexplicable relationship he had for so long with Senator Ted Kennedy. It’s amazing the number of people who hold that against him. But I give him credit for forging a friendship with a polar opposite who he routinely matched wits against.

One issue I have with Orrin Hatch is that he has been in Washington for thirty-six years. Many of my friends and colleagues within my office and elsewhere are Hatch supporters. He has done a tremendous job over the years building strong relationships and bases of support within the conservative movement. Fighting for conservative judges will do that for you. For so many of those battles, Orrin Hatch was the guy we all relied on.

But Orrin Hatch is not an indispensable person. No man is indispensable. I am not a term limits advocate, but thirty-six years wanting to make it forty-two years does seem a bit much.

Frankly, my biggest issue with Orrin Hatch is, counter-intuitively, just how well he’s voted in this session of Congress. In Orrin Hatch’s thirty-six years in the United States Senate, it sticks out like a sore thumb. He, and most Republicans, have voted well on every big issue. Orrin Hatch has, for his Senate career, always fought the good fight on judges. In fact, much of Hatch’s support comes from his zealous advocacy on behalf of conservative judges.

But as I have learned sitting in my editor’s chair these past few years, most Republicans are always right on the big votes. It is the fights behind the scenes, the small votes, and the votes between conservatives and Republicans that separate the wheat from the chaff.

On many of those votes over the years, Orrin Hatch was no different from any of the other Senate Republican leaders. We’re now past $15 trillion in debt and Orrin Hatch voted for a good bit of spending contributing to that debt. Some of it was necessary, but much of it was not.

He sees the light now. His colleague, Bob Bennett, got tossed out by the tea party and replaced with Mike Lee. Suddenly, Orrin Hatch is voting in near lock step with Mike Lee. He, the senior Utah Senator, seems to be the junior partner in Utah’s conservative shift.

As we’ve seen time and time again, though, many a Senator gets right with the voters in the fifth and sixth year of any term headed into an election, but in years one through four, they march to a different beat — one they seem to only tune out when they run for election.

I’m not worried about Orrin Hatch on the big votes. He’d vote with the conservatives more often than not. But I am worried about Orrin Hatch on the small votes that matter between the status quo and smaller government. I worry about Orrin Hatch in the years he is not worried about re-election. And if he were to win re-election, surpassing forty years in the Senate, I’d worry he might decide then to end and so we’d have six years of Orrin Hatch in the Senate caring little what conservatives or Utahans think.

We moved Utah to the right in 2010. We should try to do it again. Orrin Hatch is a fine and decent man. He deserves a lot of praise for putting so many conservatives on the federal bench. But I think it is time, after thirty-six years, to call him home.

So, Erick Erickson decided to make a big push against SOPA today, again bringing out the primary threat card. I also had a post on SOPA and PROTECT IP today.

We were heard. On the House side, Speaker John Boehner echoed Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and said the committee needs to find consensus before the bill can get a vote. And again, conservatives like Darrell Issa, Justin Amash, and Jason Chaffetz aren’t going to lie down and quit. So as long as Boehner and Cantor are true to their words, SOPA is dead in the House this Congress.

On the Senate side, of the 16 Republicans co-sponsoring PROTECT IP, I’ve received word of six of them changing their minds. Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Marco Rubio are dropping their support. Moe was keeping track, but I think Ayotte flipped after the posted.

The threat of electoral consequences is all a politician will listen to. Democrats know that the online left won’t lift a finger, so Democrats are still backing SOPA and PROTECT IP, much to Markos Moulitsas’s disappointment. We stood on principle, while Daily Kos just whined. We got results, he got blown off.

Erick even tried to make this a bipartisan thing, where both sides would primary the SOPA and PROTECT IP supporters, but he got crickets.

Lamar Smith remains primary target number one though, as he does his best impression of the Saddam Hussein Ministry of Propaganda. The Allies are not in Iraq! SOPA is still in control of the country! It’s all lies! Also, Lamar Smith is himself an E-PARASITE. Will he resign and report to prison?

And remember: being against the SOPA/PROTECT IP plan is not the same as being pro-infringement. There are better, more workable ideas.

I started talking about PROTECT IP last May, back when the Kos left was all in favor of Internet regulation. So I’m staying ahead of the game and will continue to beat the drum about the next fight: national and Internet sales taxation. There’s a plan gaining steam called the Marketplace Fairness Act, and we all know what it means when people talk about “tax fairness:” Grab your wallet.

Governors love the plan, no, really, as it’s a way of raising taxes while claiming you’re not raising taxes. That saves them a political fight to cut spending.

They then resort to personal attacks on the opposition, by claiming they’re “evaders” or “cheats” or other such nonsense. Those shameful attacks change the subject from the undeniable fact that the Constitution reserves the regulation of interstate commerce to the Congress. Without an interstate compact, state attempts at interstate taxation defy the Constitution and are illegal.

Beware the compact plans currently coming about though. Demand that they contain safeguards, such as the compact being dissolved immediately, or state accession documents requiring the states to withdraw immediately, in the event of a national sales tax plan, in the style of the Canadian HST. Demand that tax rates be limited. Tell these sponsors that you oppose back-door national sales taxes with the full brunt of income tax left in place.

News flash: it’s not illegal for Google to do something just because you don’t like it. It annoys me that there are people who want to bring government into this. Bunch of whiners. Use something else if you don’t like it. Grow up!

Bad spectrum regulations harm access to the Internet. Yes, yes they do. I’m not going to adopt the language of these groups and say it’s a “civil rights issue,” but I agree that we need more competition. And that means less regulation and smaller government, not a runaway Justice and FCC. We need to let firms large and small get the spectrum they need.

So, Erick Erickson decided to make a big push against SOPA today, again bringing out the primary threat card. I also had a post on SOPA and PROTECT IP today.

We were heard. On the House side, Speaker John Boehner echoed Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and said the committee needs to find consensus before the bill can get a vote. And again, conservatives like Darrell Issa, Justin Amash, and Jason Chaffetz aren’t going to lie down and quit. So as long as Boehner and Cantor are true to their words, SOPA is dead in the House this Congress.

On the Senate side, of the 16 Republicans co-sponsoring PROTECT IP, I’ve received word of six of them changing their minds. Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Marco Rubio are dropping their support. Moe was keeping track, but I think Ayotte flipped after the posted.

The threat of electoral consequences is all a politician will listen to. Democrats know that the online left won’t lift a finger, so Democrats are still backing SOPA and PROTECT IP, much to Markos Moulitsas’s disappointment. We stood on principle, while Daily Kos just whined. We got results, he got blown off.

Erick even tried to make this a bipartisan thing, where both sides would primary the SOPA and PROTECT IP supporters, but he got crickets.

Lamar Smith remains primary target number one though, as he does his best impression of the Saddam Hussein Ministry of Propaganda. The Allies are not in Iraq! SOPA is still in control of the country! It’s all lies! Also, Lamar Smith is himself an E-PARASITE. Will he resign and report to prison?

And remember: being against the SOPA/PROTECT IP plan is not the same as being pro-infringement. There are better, more workable ideas.

I started talking about PROTECT IP last May, back when the Kos left was all in favor of Internet regulation. So I’m staying ahead of the game and will continue to beat the drum about the next fight: national and Internet sales taxation. There’s a plan gaining steam called the Marketplace Fairness Act, and we all know what it means when people talk about “tax fairness:” Grab your wallet.

Governors love the plan, no, really, as it’s a way of raising taxes while claiming you’re not raising taxes. That saves them a political fight to cut spending.

They then resort to personal attacks on the opposition, by claiming they’re “evaders” or “cheats” or other such nonsense. Those shameful attacks change the subject from the undeniable fact that the Constitution reserves the regulation of interstate commerce to the Congress. Without an interstate compact, state attempts at interstate taxation defy the Constitution and are illegal.

Beware the compact plans currently coming about though. Demand that they contain safeguards, such as the compact being dissolved immediately, or state accession documents requiring the states to withdraw immediately, in the event of a national sales tax plan, in the style of the Canadian HST. Demand that tax rates be limited. Tell these sponsors that you oppose back-door national sales taxes with the full brunt of income tax left in place.

News flash: it’s not illegal for Google to do something just because you don’t like it. It annoys me that there are people who want to bring government into this. Bunch of whiners. Use something else if you don’t like it. Grow up!

Bad spectrum regulations harm access to the Internet. Yes, yes they do. I’m not going to adopt the language of these groups and say it’s a “civil rights issue,” but I agree that we need more competition. And that means less regulation and smaller government, not a runaway Justice and FCC. We need to let firms large and small get the spectrum they need.