Dumb and dumber at it again (Feds micromanaging schools)

This may be one of the biggest money wasting items I've seen since the stimulus package. Only the nanny state thinks of this stuff.

From Todd Starnes at Fox News

A Florida school district is considering a plan to install surveillance cameras on cafeteria trash cans to monitor what kids are throwing away – after they discovered that students were tossing out their federally-mandated fruit and vegetables. The Lake County School Board said more than $75,000 worth of vegetables have been thrown in the garbage. The veggies and fresh fruit are party of the Obama administration’s policy to force schools to provide healthy produce in lunch rooms.

“It’s fairly specific recipe of what they would like us to serve,” Lake County School Board member Tod Howard told Fox News. “Unfortunately, much of it has to do with fresh fruit and vegetables and it seems to be going into the trash. And that’s not okay.” So Howard suggested the district attach security cameras to the trash cans to monitor exactly what is being thrown away. “It will also give us documentation so that we can go back to the federal government and say here’s what we are finding,” he said. “We do know there’s an issue.”

School districts across the nation are furious with the Obama administration’s orders. Some students have staged strikes while others have launched petition drives urging the federal government to change their policy. But Lake County is believed to be the first to actually videotape kids tossing their veggies – and that has some parents upset.

Dumb - Cameras used for surveillance to make sure kids are eating the vegetables. How much do they cost? How is this going to be enforced? Is it possible to enforce? Etc. In Howard's defense, he SAYS that it's for evidence to tell the feds that the policy doesn't work.

Howard called those concerns “conspiracy theories” and said they were not going to force kids to eat their vegetables.

“I don’t want anybody to be on camera at all,” he told Fox News. “This would be aimed directly into the trash can. By no means would any of our students be in the picture.” He said the cameras were meant to give the school district evidence they need to push back against the federal guidelines.

Surveillance cameras aren't needed for that. Take a picture of the trash bin and send it to the dipsticks at the federal government. While I'll take Howard at his word here, the feds may just tell them to do exactly what Howard said he doesn't want to happen in the era of Obamacare. That leads to dumber.

Dumber - The Feds. What the Hell are they doing involved in what should be local decisions in the first place?  We have school boards. They work for our local communities. We hire and fire them as voters, and also vote with our feet. While local school boards have their issues, they are a hell of a lot more qualified than some federal bureaucrat in DC. I thought "No child left behind" from Bush and Kennedy was bad and this is even worse. Whether the kids eat or do not eat their vegetables are not the feds business. It's mom's business, not the Peter Principle in Chief's business.

Outside of the eyes of the parents, whether kids eat their vegetables or not will be their decision. The nannies don't want to hear that, but that's just the way it was, is, and will be unless you have armed guards patrolling the lunchrooms enforcing that policy under criminal penalties. That's quite possible in the future as lines between public schools and prisons are blurring some in the post Columbine era of "zero tolerance." .

The federal government is neither smart enough, nor trustworthy enough to be involved in local school matters. 

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, self-defense, and manslaughter

Everyone knows about the George Zimmerman case in Florida, or at least all of the speculation with it. The speculation has taken a life of its own. The reality is that few actual facts are known. They are as follows.

1. George Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch volunteer.
2. Zimmerman saw someone he thought was suspicious and followed him. This was Martin.
3. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed him when Martin tried to avoid him. Dispatch said he did not need to do that. That wasn't a lawful order, but is relevant to state of mind.
4. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.
5. At some point, there was a physical confrontation. There is speculation as to how it occurred and who initiated the physical confrontation.
6. Somebody was yelling for help. Speculation has conflicting sides to who it was.
7. Zimmerman had some sort of bleeding wound on the back of his head and nose, as well as grass standing showing that he was on the ground at some point.
8. As some point Zimmerman fired his weapon, killing Martin.
9. Police arrived and initiated a manslaughter investigation, detained Zimmerman and took him to the station.
10. Zimmerman was later released without charges. There is speculation as to whose decision it was for released. Zimmerman was not arrested. That means either there was no probable cause for an arrest or the prosecutor did not think there would be a conviction.
11. There is going to be further investigation, so this case is not closed.
12. Zimmerman has no convictions. Yes, he was arrested, but not convicted so that's irrelevant. Martin has no convictions. Yes he was suspended from school, but that's irrelevant. Those have no bearing on what happened in this individual case.

That's it. The rest is speculation, or irrelevant unless you have the inside information, and we don't outside of what has been released. Most of the rest is 'go team' bullshit going on between those who love the race card and limelight and those who want Zimmerman to win just so the Jesse Jacksons of the world lose. I like to see them lose too, but other things are more important here. You have politicians running their mouths on this when there's an ongoing case. Obama didn't help matters, but Santorum was actually worse with his comments, and I say that as a Santorum voter. Both of them are attorneys, should know better, and should let the system play out. The media at first, largely based on George Zimmerman's German or Jewish last name, played this up as a white on black shooting, stirring stuff up, even though Zimmerman's half Peruvian and does not look white. They made this a racial issue. Political correctness at its worst.

You have ABC likely doctoring a video so it fits their politically correct narrative. You have the New Black Panthers taking out a $10,000 bounty. You have Al Sharpton of Crown Heights infamy running his mouth. Jesse Jackson doing his thing. This is an ongoing case. State attorneys are still looking at this. Zimmerman deserves a fair investigation and if probable cause is found, a fair trial, and a chance to be either convicted or acquitted based on facts and the evidence, no more, no less.

You also have gun grabbers using this to attack the "stand your ground" law. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this. Michigan has a "stand your ground" law as does Florida. Here's Michigan's law. It sounds very controversial, right. Jennifer Granholm signed it, and she wore a hoodie in protest of this case and made comments on these laws. Does she know what she actually signed?

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

This wasn't that controversial and passed easily.

Senate vote:
Roll Call No.463 Yeas--27

Allen Cropsey Jelinek Schauer

Barcia Garcia Kuipers Sikkema

Basham George McManus Stamas

Birkholz Gilbert Olshove Switalski

Bishop Goschka Patterson Toy

Cassis Hammerstrom Prusi Van Woerkom

Cherry Hardiman Sanborn

Nays--10

Brater Emerson Leland Thomas

Clark-Coleman Jacobs Scott Whitmer

Clarke Johnson

Excused--1

Brown

House Vote 1:
Roll Call No. 371 Yeas--91

Accavitti Elsenheimer Law, David Sak

Acciavatti Emmons Law, Kathleen Schuitmaker

Adamini Espinoza Marleau Shaffer

Amos Farhat Mayes Sheen

Anderson Farrah McDowell Sheltrown

Angerer Gaffney Meyer Smith, Virgil

Ball Garfield Miller Spade

Baxter Gillard Moolenaar Stahl

Bennett Gleason Moore Stakoe

Bieda Gonzales Mortimer Steil

Booher Gosselin Newell Stewart

Brandenburg Green Nitz Taub

Brown Hansen Nofs Vagnozzi

Byrnes Hildenbrand Palmer Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Palsrok Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Pastor Walker

Caswell Huizenga Pavlov Ward

Caul Hummel Pearce Waters

Clemente Hune Plakas Wenke

DeRoche Jones Polidori Williams

Dillon Kahn Proos Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Robertson Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Rocca

Nays--15

Cheeks Hood Lemmons, Jr. Murphy

Clack Hunter Lipsey Smith, Alma

Condino Kolb McConico Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Meisner


House Vote 2:

Brandenburg Green Mortimer Stewart

Brown Hansen Newell Taub

Byrnes Hildenbrand Nitz Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Nofs Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Palmer Walker

Caswell Huizenga Palsrok Ward

Caul Hummel Pastor Waters

Clemente Hune Pavlov Wenke

DeRoche Jones Pearce Williams

Dillon Kahn Plakas Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Polidori Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Proos

Nays--16

Cheeks Hood Lipsey Smith, Alma

Clack Hunter McConico Smith, Virgil

Condino Kolb Meisner Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Murphy Vagnozzi

--------

These passed with super-majorities. These passed easily nationwide, including Florida. Florida's version is quite similar.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

776.012 covers stand your ground.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013's circumstances are:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

What's a forcible felony under Florida law? It's what you'd think it would be.

776.08 Forcible felony. —“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Just to cover all the bases, here's aggravated assault and aggravated battery as defined under Florida law.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

And:

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The stand your ground law there is very similar to ours, although Florida's more detailed. It doesn't cover this case at all any more than normal self defense.

Reasonable is a key word here. Reasonable not as viewed by George Zimmerman, his dad, those who don't like race baiting assholes and want to teach them a lesson, those who are race baiting assholes who want to teach cracker and whatever is derogatory for Peruvians a lesson, Al Sharpton, or anyone else except the jury or police/prosecutors when they decide to charge/not charge.

The questions that need to be answered are this as the process unfolds.
1. Is there probable cause to charge George Zimmerman with Manslaughter?
2. If yes, can he be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial?

No more, no less. The best thing the general public and media can do is let the system play out and quit poisoning the case.

Establishment RINO candidate Charlie Crist bolts GOP - NRSC with egg on their face

I didn't call Charlie Crist a RINO until today. He sure is one now. I save that term for those who deserve it.
From Redstate

One year ago today, NRSC backed Arlen Specter bolted from the GOP. Today, the media is reporting NRSC backed Charlie Crist is also bolting the GOP.
Seeing a trend here, aren’t we?
Charlie Crist will not only run as an independent in Florida, but he has also reserved all of his air time in Florida through November, or as much as he can.
Why?
Because he knows the Club for Growth is going to do what they did to Specter — fund an effort to have Crist donors ask for their money back. Well, because Crist has spent it all on television advertising holds that he may or may not later use, he can say he has none to give back.
Classy, Charlie.

It's time for the NRSC people to get out of the beltway, away from the cocktail parties,  and take a good hard look at how things work in the real world away from the Capitol reporters bureau, Bethesda, DC, Arlington, and Alexandria.

Two establishment supported candidates are now gone. Arlen Specter left the GOP and went to the democrats after Pennsylvanians rejected him. Joe Stesak is running against him in the democrat primary. I hope he wins the primary and teaches that bum a lesson. If not, oh well. Screw the NRSC, back individual Candidates only

The NRSC is at it again. They officially broke their longtime policy of getting involved in open primaries when they endorsed Charlie Crist, Florida's governor in the open Senate race which is held by Mel Martinez. Marco Rubio, the Florida Speaker of the house, is another candidate.---------------------
I think the DC establishment STILL has not learned their lesson, and will have to be defeated over and over until they get it. They know jack and squat, and jack left the building. They didn't get it with Laffey. They didn't get it with Specter. They don't get it here either. They lost something like 14 seats in 4 years and are doing the same crap they've done before.

If McConnell and Cornyn and the NRSC are backing Crist, then I'm leaning towards Rubio strictly by default. I don't know that much about him, outside of the Weekly standard piece and his website, but what I've heard sounds more good than bad. While I'd probably vote for Rubio over Crist based on fiscal issues, I wouldn't support the NRSC backing either candidate.

The NRSC endorsements bring up another can of worms. When do they endorse and when do they back off? There a major primary battle in Missouri between DC's establishment guy Roy Blunt and Missouri's statewide elected official Sarah Steelman. That's also an open seat. Steelman is attacking Blunt's ties to DC and K-street and fiscal responsibility. That's a valid attack after the job DC's done on fiscal issues the past eight years. Is the NRSC getting involved in one and not the other? That's a can of worms that should not have been open.

And it could have been prevented by the NRSC doing its job and winning general elections. This mismanagement and poor decisionmaking is why you will not see me give one dime to the NRSC. Only individual candidates deserve donations.

I followed that up later the October with Washington Establishment gets Right Hook.

I've said for almost four years that the Republican Party is at a crossroads, mainly due to fiscal issues. It can follow the lead of the Republican Study Committee, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and Jeb Hensarling in its opposition to deficit spending, or it can follow the lead of Ted Stevens, George W Bush, and Charlie Crist in their support for big spending policies. The choice made here, will determine whether the GOP can take the house back in 2010, and the senate back in 2012 or 2014. It will also determine if Obama will be a one-termer. The bailout in 2008 turned the election from a close race to an ass kicking. The fiscal policies in 2006 caused an ass kicking. Democrat-lite policies from the GOP do not work. Why vote for democrat-lite when the real thing is always available.

While I understand that what works in one community does not always work in another, basic principles should always apply, and that they should be less government and more freedom.

Many in the GOP are starting to get that message again with Obama's radical leftism, Mike Pence having a more visible role, Ted Stevens being defeated, and George W Bush being gone. Starting being the operative word. There's still a lot of trust that needs to be earned, and nobody trusts the government right now. That's why we have the tea parties. That's why the calls are flooding the offices. That's why people are involved in politics who have not been involved.
Speaking of fiscal conservatism and tea parties, they aren't GOP. They are conservative. There's a difference, and people are getting right hooked by it. Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is a big example. He was at the Mackinac Conference and probably wants to run for president someday. I was real tempted to get a big banner up there that said "Marco Rubio for Senate." Marco Rubio is Charlie Crist's opponent in the primary. Rubio has one of my favorite quotes. “If you are unhappy with the Republican establishment, then let’s get a new establishment.” Right now, we're in the process there in Washington. The DC insiders don't support Rubio, but that's changing. Rubio called out Crist and rightly so in the magazine Human Events. 
-------------------------------
  In 2005, the NRSC ran negative ads against Steve Laffey who ran against RINO Lincoln Chafee. Chafee got the establishment GOP support and won the primary. He still lost in the general in 2006. The NRSC spent money meant to support republicans, not fight them.

In 2009, the NRSC endorsed big spending Arlen Specter for re-election. Specter is now a democrat because the grassroots republicans had enough of him. Pat Toomey for senate. Toomey is an electable (won three times in a district that went for Gore and Kerry) conservative who can win a tough state like Pennsylvania.

Also this year, the NRSC said they would stay out of the Florida open primary, changed their mind, and supported Charlie Crist. My response? Rubio for senate.

The NRCC isn't much better. In Arizona, they flodded a district with money in an open primary for a candidate that lost. Wasted money.

Those are reasons why I don't give money to the establishment committees. If you plan on donating, the best way to go is to individual candidates, like Rubio, Toomey, Pence, DeMint, etc. Cut out the middleman.

That leads to the Politico article today which was very interesting. Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership. I wouldn't say, "turned" on GOP leadership. Most of the tea partiers I know and talked to never liked the GOP leadership anyway. This is grass roots. These aren't followers, but they chose their own paths. If you give them a big spending republican, they will get opposed just like an Obama democrat.

The way to combat this is to drain the NRSC and back individual candidates for senate. Marco Rubio for senate. Pat Toomey for senate. 

It's up to us as political watchdogs to look at who is running in the different races, research the candidates, be patient and watch how things go, and then make an intelligent decisions on which candidates deserve our support. People like more of the same, Charlie Crist, aren't worth it. Floridians figured that out, and Crist turned tail and left the party. Screw him.

The best revenge here is for Crist to finish third, behind Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio

Florida Special Election - FL-19 (April 13)

I knew about the Hawaii and Pennsylvania special elections, but we have another one I forgot about. Florida 19th. Ed Lynch is running against Ted Deutch in the traditionally democrat stronghold. From the Palm Beach Post.

We initially missed this Friday appearance by Republican congressional hopeful Ed Lynch on the Fox Business Network in which he says he’s received “probably a thousand percent increase” in contributions since Democrats passed a health care overhaul bill March 21.
Lynch also tells host Stuart Varney that “poling that we’ve done” shows him ahead of heavily favored Democrat Ted Deutch. Deutch’s consultant called that claim “just plain silly.”
Lynch, Deutch and independent Jim McCormick are running in an April 13 special election in Palm Beach-Broward District 19, a Democratic bastion that elected “fire-breathing liberal” Robert Wexler seven times. Wexler stepped down in January to head a Middle East think tank.

Lynch said his contributions spiked after the House passed the legislation March 21 and again after President Obama signed it two days later.

This is possibly the biggest longshot of the three special elections. Robert Wexler, a far leftist democrat, won here seven times. It's treading "republican", and Obama had the lowest total of the three recent democrats in this district, but it's still a democrat stronghold. Palm Beach County and Broward County are democrat. However, as with most special elections, low turnout makes the rules thrown out.

Ed Lynch has a shot to win. Democrats have won districts more republican than this is democrat. Joseph Cao won a special election in a district 10%  more democrat than this. If we're fighting the democrats on their turf, they won't be fighting as much in the swing districts. Now is the time to strike, and special elections put all districts on the table. This is one of them. Good luck to Ed Lynch.

You got to be kidding me

This is a joke. Charlie Crist, the establishment supported (NRSC) economic liberal governor of Florida and senate candidate now wants us to buy this.

From The Hill

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is now denying that he endorsed the stimulus package, the same package he promoted at a rally with President Obama in February.
......
"Well, I didn't endorse it," he said.  "You know, I didn't even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians."
It's true that as governor Crist didn't have a vote on the package, but he has reportedly said that he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate.

What the hell? He may not have "endorsed" it, but he certainly supported it, and in political terms, they mean essentially the same thing. In fact, Crist supported it so much that he campaigned with Mr. Obama in support of the stimulus bill, which has been an absolute failure and waste of almost 1 trillion dollars.

Here's Charlie Crist in May of 2009. From the Orlando Sentinel.

Gov. Charlie Crist, now a U.S. Senate candidate, said Tuesday he would have made the “pragmatic” decision to vote for the $787 billion federal stimulus bill, differentiating himself from fellow-Republican opponent Marco Rubio and the man he is trying to replace — Mel Martinez.
Speaking to a politically mixed crowd in Daytona Beach, Crist emphasized his support for the bill as practical and pragmatic, though it would have meant crossing party lines. Only three Republican senators backed the stimulus bill, and Martinez wasn’t one of them.
Now Florida stands to get about $15 billion over the next two years through different stimulus grants.
“A lot of that $15 billion dollars you sent to Washington, D.C., and my view is we ought to get it back," Crist told his audience. "Florida deserves her fair share.”

15 Billion back out of 700billion+ spent, much of that by Floridians. That doesn't even make sense. The bottom line is that money should not have been spent in the first place. Pragmatism and Practicality is not spending money that is not there. Decisions like this are reasons why the GOP lost bad in 2006 and 2008, and in the case of NY-23, the GOP only got 5% of the vote because there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between DeDe Scozzafava and Bill Owens. It was so bad there that the so called republican Scozzafava endorsed the democrat.

Now Charlie Crist isn't quite as bad as Scozzafava, but he's not what is needed in DC. We do not need big spending economic liberals and big government - from either party. The NRSC, once again, has ignored the people outside the beltway with its recruitment AND primary endorsement of Crist. Nothing new for them. They endorsed Arlen Specter for re-election and got all the establishment behind him. Then Specter switched parties when the people of Pennsylvania had enough of him and the polls showed him getting sent home in the primary. Sounds similar to the 5'er in Scozzafava who was thoroughly rejected by the people of the 23rd district in New York.

There is a choice in Florida, unlike New York-23rd's special election. Marco Rubio, a recent state rep from democrat leaning Miami-Dade county Florida. Rubio would help bring fiscal conservatism back to Washington. His win would also send a strong message to party leadership on what is expected of them. Change or cronyism? That's the choice.

Screw the NRSC, back individual candidates only

Real quickly.

The NRSC is at it again. They officially broke their longtime policy of getting involved in open primaries when they endorsed Charlie Crist, Florida's governor in the open Senate race which is held by Mel Martinez. Marco Rubio, the Florida Speaker of the house, is another candidate.

Crist is a centrist Republican on social issues and a liberal Republican on economic issues with his support of tax increases and Obama's pork bills. So far, he's real good on 2nd Amendment issues, and he is pro-life on the abortion issue. He's not my favorite, but I wouldn't consider him a RINO but a center-left Republican. There's a difference. A RINO is Lincoln Chafee, Bill Milliken, or Colin Powell. RINO's back democrats for President or Governor.

Rubio is a less government conservative from relatively blue Miami-Dade county.

I have a big problem with the NRSC's decision. The job of the NRSC is to defeat democrats, not get involved in the Republican primaries 15 months in advance. This trash is one of the reasons why the GOP is in a minority and the funds to the NRSC dry up. If I'm a donor whose goal is to take back the Senate, I don't want my money to be dried up in primary spending, and I damn well don't want it to be dried up in attack ads. These jokers are throwing good guys to the wolves in GENERAL elections, while backing their pets in the primaries. What the hell are they thinking?

What's the NRSC going to do in this primary? It is going to spend money on ads bashing Rubio like they did to Steve Laffey in Rhode Island (against real RINO Lincoln Chafee in 96....who lost re-election). The NRSC supported Arlen Specter until he switched parties. On the other hand, they couldn't find one person to run against Mark Pryor in Arkansas? On the NRCC side (House), they pushed in primaries for their pets and got beat in the primary AND general. Good job fools.

The NRSC also previously said they would stay out of the Florida primary.

FLASHBACK: Just last week, Cornyn told the Politico he would stay out of the race, saying, "I don't think it's the proper role of the NRSC or folks in Washington to try to tell Floridians who their nominee should be, so I think that will have to work its way out."

Nice switch, guys. Thanks a lot. The National Journal gives a warning.

Today's biggest news: The NRSC will back Crist, their goal being to dry up Rubio's money. Will it also rile up conservatives who want DC to stay out? Nothing helps an underdog like taking it to "the man." We're still waiting to see if the Club for Growth weighs in.

I'm all for sticking it to the DC establishment. I loved Rubio's response to the NRSC endorsement.

Rubio's spokesman Brian Seitchik had this to say about the NRSC's endorsement: "We knew that Governor Crist was going to have the establishment's support in Washington and Tallahassee. The NRSC endorsement is not a surprise. But this campaign is about more than Marco and Charlie Crist. This campaign is about the future of the Republican Party. Marco and Crist have fundamentally different approaches to solving problems, and this campaign will be about those differences."

This was followed by this youtube ad seen at Roll Call

“Some politicians support trillions in reckless spending, borrowed money from China and the Middle East, mountains of debt for our children, and a terrible threat to a fragile economy,” an announcer in the ad states over a visual of Crist and Obama together. “Today too many politicians embrace Washington’s same old broken ways but this time there is a leader who won’t. Let the debate begin.”

I think the DC establishment STILL has not learned their lesson, and will have to be defeated over and over until they get it. They know jack and squat, and jack left the building. They didn't get it with Laffey. They didn't get it with Specter. They don't get it here either. They lost something like 14 seats in 4 years and are doing the same crap they've done before.

If McConnell and Cornyn and the NRSC are backing Crist, then I'm leaning towards Rubio strictly by default. I don't know that much about him, outside of the Weekly standard piece and his website, but what I've heard sounds more good than bad. While I'd probably vote for Rubio over Crist based on fiscal issues, I wouldn't support the NRSC backing either candidate.

The NRSC endorsements bring up another can of worms. When do they endorse and when do they back off? There a major primary battle in Missouri between DC's establishment guy Roy Blunt and Missouri's statewide elected official Sarah Steelman. That's also an open seat. Steelman is attacking Blunt's ties to DC and K-street and fiscal responsibility. That's a valid attack after the job DC's done on fiscal issues the past eight years. Is the NRSC getting involved in one and not the other? That's a can of worms that should not have been open.

And it could have been prevented by the NRSC doing its job and winning general elections. This mismanagement and poor decisionmaking is why you will not see me give one dime to the NRSC. Only individual candidates deserve donations.

Electoral College Math - Part 3 - South

Part 3 - South
Solid McCain - 103 votes
Lean McCain - 39 votes
Tossup - 40 votes

The three best areas for the GOP have typically been the South, Plains (Midwest and South), and Mountain West. That probably won't change much outside of a couple of outliers that are competitive.

I'll get some heat for this, but I included Texas in the South. I know Texas thinks itself as its own region and not the South or West.

Solid McCain:
Oklahoma (7 votes) - Democrats are locally competitive in Oklahoma, but not in the presidential race. Bush won every county in 2004, even the American Indian counties. In 2000, he lost those areas but still won big. He won 65-34% in 2004 and 60-38% in 2000. Bob Dole even won here easily. A July poll had McCain up by 29. This is as solid as it gets.

Texas (34 votes) - Bush's home state. He won 61-38 in 2004 and 59-38 in 2008. The latest poll in August (Rasmussen) had it a 10 point McCain lead. That's a significant drop from Bush's numbers, but I expect that with the homer vote gone. The best recent democrat run there was Dallas mayor Ron Kirk for Senate in 02, and he got 43%. I think 45% is the ceiling there for Obama, and that's if he runs an ace campaign there. There's not enough of a black vote statewide to win there (11%), and Austin's too small to carry the day.

Alabama (9 votes) - Alabama will vote for a southern democrat at times, but even then did not vote for Clinton in 92 or 96. Bush also won here twice going 62-37% in 2004 and 56-42% in 2000. Two July polls had McCain up by 13 (AEA) and 20 (Rasmussen), which is in between the 00 and 04 numbers. The black vote is significant, but more so in state elections. Alabama is 26% black, enough to make a dent, but not to win the election on their own.

Mississippi (6 votes) - Bush won here 59-40 in 2004 and 58-41 in 2000. It is 36% black, so more winnable than Alabama for the democrats, but the whites here are slightly more Republican than in Alabama (Alabama stayed democrat longer than much of the South). 48% of the white vote here is Evangelical, and the cultural issues, particulary on abortion, are a major factor in the vote. An August Rasmussen poll had McCain up 13 points.

Tennessee (13 votes) - I thought about putting Tennessee in the lean GOP column, but it really is solid now at the federal level. Gore lost here in 2000 despite being a homer. Clinton won twice here narrowly, but Bush won 51-47% in 2000 and 57-43% in 2004. The two latest polls in August expand the 2004 lead. Rasmussen has McCain up by 25 and Ayres McHenry has McCain up by 15. In simplistic terms, East Tennessee is very Republican (Knoxville area, Johnson City), West Tennessee Democrat (Memphis), and Middle Tennessee deciding the election (Nashville democrat, others mixed). Democrats are strong locally, but not as much federally. Harold Ford Jr gave it a good shot in 2006, but was stuck with 48%. Obama won't come close to Ford who was a homer (and who did get 40% of the white vote - far more than Obama will get there).

Kentucky (8 votes) - After the 06 disaster of Ernie Fletcher, I thought about putting this in the leaner category, but need to see more before doing so. Bush won 57-41% in 2000 and 60-40% in 2004. Kentucky has, like much of the South a Federal Democrat v State Democrat attitude. Louisville is slightly democrat, and Lexington is competitive (and likely democrat this year with University of Kentucky). Some of the eastern hills are still yellow dog democrat today, but they are balanced by other hills counties which are as Republican as the others are democrat. Example is Elliot County which went 70% for Kerry and 64% for Gore. Johnson County next door was 63% and 58% for Bush. Right next door and similar demographics. That is the history of the state that gave us both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. The biggest reason though I think for its Republican shift is Cincy. There's been a lot of growth in Northern Kentucky, and most of it is Republicans from the Cincy, Ohio area. Those counties there are all 65%+ Republican. The latest poll in August (Survey USA) has McCain up by 18. I'm not expecting that based on Fletcher and 2006, but I think this will be at least a 12 pt win for McCain.

West Virginia (5 votes) - Once among the most democrat states in the union voting even for Dukakis. I would have had this as a tossup if Hillary was the nominee. The Western Pennsylvania results, along with the rejection of Gore and John Kerry by a wide margin stopped me from putting this as a lean GOP. Bush won 56-43% in 2004 and 52-46% in 2000. Rasmussen in June gave McCain an 8 point lead. I'd like to see another poll here, but I don't see Obama selling here. He's the wrong type of Democrat, just like John Kerry.

South Carolina (8 votes) - Generally, the most Republican state in the South overall. It's a competitive state downticket, but more Republican downticket than much of the South which still has a lot of local democrats. Unlike most of the South, it didn't vote for George Wallace, but Nixon. Only Carter won here recently. Bush won 57-41% in 2000 and 58-41% in 2004. Two polls in July had McCain a lead. Research 2000 gave him a 13 point lead, and a democrat polling firm, Public policy polling, gave him a 6 point lead. South Carolina is 29% black, but the only democrat to win there statewide recently was Fritz Holling who was there for 30+ years. I see Obama doing better than Kerry, but not much.

Arkansas (6 votes) - Arkansas is somewhat similar to West Virginia with its strong downticket democrat roots still alive. Bush won twice, 51-46% in 2000 and 54-45% in 2004. If Hillary was on the ticket, this would be a lot more competitive. Obama's too culturally liberal to win here, like John Kerry. A 16% black population isn't enough to put him over the top either. Fast growing and economically conservative Northwest Arkansas is strongly Republican, and Little Rock, East Arkansas (even Kerry won) and South Arkansas is strongly democrat. I expect a lot of ticket splitting here once again.

Louisiana (9 votes) - I think democrats had a shot here, but blew it with an incompentent New Orelans mayor and incompetent governor who didn't run again. Blanco. Bobby Jindal, who should have won in 2003, won in 2007 and is by all accounts, proving himself to be one of the most capable governors there in a long time. Bush won 53-45% in 2000 and 57-42% in 2004, but throw those numbers out after Hurricane Katrina. The polls so far are going heavily McCain. Rasmussen in August shows an 18 pt lead, larger than even 2004. I'm not sure it will be that high, but I don't think it will be a contest.

Leans McCain
Georgia (15 votes) - Georgia is in most years probably the 2nd most Republican state in the south behind South Carolina. It also went 55-43% for Bush in 2000 and 58-41% Bush in 2004, so why am I showing this as leaning and not solid GOP? Two reasons. The latest poll (August, Rasmussen) has McCain up by 9, but earlier polls had it by 2 and 8, with the 8 pointer being a GOP poll. The other reason, more concerning to me as a Republican is the demographics. 35% minority, much of it metro Atlanta, and it is fast growing. This state should stay ours, but Obama has been working the area hard enough to where it needs to be watched. I think the formerly competitive South Georgia will go to McCain, along with the mountain areas outside of liberal Athens. I think whether the GOP wins depends on getting the normal exurbs vote, along with holding the line in Cobb and Gwinnett Counties.

North Carolina (15 votes) - This one scares me more. Obama has a very strong base here. Bush won it 56-43% in 2000 and 56-44% in 2004. It's 21% black, and also has a lot of college towns and Northeastern transplants (although many of the transplants vote Republican - making the Northeast more democrat). The Triangle portion is the strong base for the democrats. Orange County (Chapel Hill) which is like Ann Arbor, Durham, the home of Mike Nifong, and Wake County (Raleigh) which is the state capital. The Charlotte area is a swing area and important in 2008. Bush won it in 2000 and lost it in 2004. The Mountain areas are strongly republican outside of Asheville (College town). The eastern rural areas are competitive and will matter here. Polls show NC close. Five polls in August (pre-convention) show McCain leading from 2-6 points. The democrat poll has him at 3% and the republican poll has him at 6%.

Tossups:

Virginia (13 votes) - One of the most regional states in the South. It has shifted towards the democrats because of DC government workers to go along with a 20% black base. Signs were on the horizon as Bush only won 52-44% in 2000, although he improved to 54-45% in 2004. While Bush improved in 2004, Northern Virginia shifted more and more to Kerry. The bad news, and Obama know it - The rich areas there shifted more democrat. Alexandria and Arlington are 66% democrat now, and Fairfax strongly leans Democrat. Two exurban counties there, Loudoun and Prince William, are no longer gimmees. Outside of DC, the democrat areas are heavily minority like Richmond, Norfolk, and Hampton. Where Bush made up for a lot of his losses were in the Republican interior and the formerly democrat leaning Southwest area. He ran good enough for a slight edge in Tidewater, winning big in military friendly Virginia Beach and Chesapeake which are not gimme areas either. I think the biggest advantage for the GOP here is McCain and his military background. Northern Virginia will be a major challenge however, and that's why I have this as a tossup. Two September polls have McCain up 2. Rasmussen and Survey USA. A democrat poll in August had Obama up 2. It's even here for now.

Florida (27 votes) - Along with Ohio, this is THE must win for Republicans. Florida is a microcasm of the entire country. There is the "South" in the panhandle. There are military areas. There is New York South. There is the Midwest. There are black areas. There is Cuba, Haiti, Columbia, and every ethnic group you can think of here. It usually runs 1-2% to the right of the popular vote. Bush won it by 537 votes in 2000, and by a "landslide" of 52-47% in 2004 thanks to getting a million more votes than in 2000. In 06, there was some backlash against DC, but Charlie Crist won 52-45% for Jeb Bush's open gubenatorial seat. Florida can be divided into these sections

1. North Florida. This is the Republican base of Florida. It's heavily Southern and military. 75%+ of the vote on the panhandle is common. The democrats do well in Tallahassee (Florida State) and Gainesville (University of Florida), but the Republican take the rest of the area, including Duval County - Jacksonville.

2. I-4 Corridor/Central Florida - From Tampa/St Pete to Orlando to Daytona Beach down to the Space Coast. This is the area that decides most elections. Orlando leans Democrat. Tampa and St Pete itself leans democrat, but the burbs go Republican. The area itself there is close to 50/50. Daytona Beach leans Democrat, but the Space Coast leans Republican (Melbourne area). Lakeland leans Republican. The most Republican areas are north of Orlando.

3. Southwest Florida - The gulf coast south of Tampa was a strongly republican leaning area in 2004, but the vote there isn't a gimmee. They almost sent a democrat to congress in 2006. I'd keep an eye out there.

4. Gold Coast - The Democrat base. Palm Beach where people don't know how to read ballots (Buchanan and Gore look nothing alike), Broward County, and Miami-Dade County. Palm Beach and Broward are over 60% democrat each. Miami-Dade is closer because of the Cuban population, but the blacks, Jews, liberal whites, and others outvote the Cubans. It went 53% in 2004. Palm Beach and Broward areas are mostly black or "New York South" and usually vote that way. The democrats have a 350,000 vote margin from those three counties. Luckily, there are almost 8 million voters.

The latest polls for Florida are close. The only September poll (Rasmussen) shows a tie. The four August polls are as follows. Mason-Dixon - Obama by 1, Strategic Vision (R) - McCain by 7, Quinnipac - McCain by 4, Kitchen Group (D) - McCain by 3.

Translation - Florida will be close once again.