I came across this Fox News video from 2009 of a very enthusiastic supporter of Earmarks, Rick Santorum, even declaring “I’m very proud of my Earmarks”.  In his interview with CNN’s John King, Santorum flip-flopped on his love for earmarks when he said “we’ve all learned from our mistakes…”, but is he just pandering and politicking?  Listen, I can stand someone changing a position here and there, for the better, because we all mature in life’s perspective.  What I cannot stand is hypocrisy.  Attack Governor Romney all you want to differing views, but don’t attack him for being a flip-flopper when you claim to be perfectly consistent.

Here is the interview with John King from earlier today. King asked Santorum the question: “So are you making the case that people should vote for neither you or Governor Romney because you both supported Earmarks?”

BWAHAHAHAHA! A wee slip of the tongue! Seriously, I believe that this is nothing more than a tongue slip but it does bring back memories of one of the funniest political slip ups ever. In Mitt’s first run for public office, his 1994 run for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, his opponent, John Lakian had a similar faux pax. Lakian had raised the issue of “can a Mormon be elected in MA” and the press got on his case for it, to their credit. In one debate, Mr. Lakian was asked if he thought that Mr. Romney’s religion was fair game and, in a moment that will live forever in MA political history, Mr. Lakian swore that he would never dream of using “Mr. Mormon’s” religion against Romney. Local talk show host Howie Carr holds this moment as one of his favorite political missteps of all time. Too funny!

ABC News’ Amy Walter & Michael Falcone

Romney on Gingrich’s immigration ad:

Romney Defends His Wealth:

Romney on Gingrich promise to build Moon colony by 2nd term:



While you are watching these videos,  please vote in the following polls for who won tonight’s CNN debate:

Drudge Report

My Fox Philly

The Swash

News Press

World Magazine

Orlando Sentinel

Forgive me for posting these constant updates on the polls in South Carolina. The news just keeps getting better and better. A new CNN/Time Poll was released today with Governor Romney at 37%, Rick Santorum at 19%, and Newt Gingrich at 18%. I recommend reading the details of the poll. Mitt Romney did better than everyone else including among Born-Again Christians and members of the Tea Party.

I took the excerpt below from the NPR website which is hosting a poll between Fox news and The White House.  I still can’t believe that the Obama administration even cares to get involved with media battling when it should be spending it’s energy on the issues.  It shows the lack of maturity of this administration.  Obama is indeed a “man-child President” as Rush Limbaugh suggested.

The stories about what the Obama White House has to say about Fox News Channel keep coming.

There was White House communications director saying telling Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN “let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Also last week it was NPR’s David Folkenflik reporting that “the White House is taking direct aim at Fox News, the news organization that is the home to the most potent collection of its conservative critics.”

This week it’s ABC News’ Jake Tapper asking why the Obama team was treating one of the “sister organizations” so badly — and the news that the White House had tried to block a Fox News reporter from interviewing the so-called pay czar. (After all the networks objected, the White House relented.)

It seems like time for a survey:

Go here to vote:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.html

The Gloves Are Off

Mitt Romney spoke at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan last Saturday. He didn’t mince words.  Mitt said:

After listening to Obama and Netanyahu, many bloggers have pointed out that many people are wondering who is the real leader of the free world?

CNN reported this:

MACKINAC ISLAND, Michigan (CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had sharp words for President Barack Obama’s handling of foreign relations Saturday, saying that the president is “above” the world stage and acting too much as a “neutral arbiter” who uses only words to tell other nations what’s right and what’s wrong.

Referring to the first months of Obama’s presidency, the former Republican presidential candidate said there’s been a “dramatic shift,” with that shift going in the wrong direction.

“America has always been a ardent supporter of democratic efforts and protecting and defending American values and western values,” Romney said, “but this president seems intent to step back to — if you will — lift himself above the world stage and say we’re not a player down there with everybody else between the democracies and the autocracies.”

“Instead we’re going to become the neutral arbiter,” Romney continued. “We’re going to be above everybody. Almost like the United Nations, sort of telling people what’s right and what’s wrong, instead of coming down firmly, solidly, and vehemently in favor of democracy.”

Romney pointed to Obama’s handling of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s return to Brazil last week to illustrate one example of the president’s poor judgment when it comes to world affairs.

“Honduras…tosses out their president who’s trying to violate the constitution,” Romney began. “This was a person who was a pro-[Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, anti-American president. And then they installed instead an acting president [Roberto Micheletti] who will follow a democratic process, [a] pro-U.S. individual. Barrack Obama comes out for the pro-Chavez president and says put him back in charge.”

Romney was speaking at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Romney has been widely suspected to be laying groundwork for another run at the White House.

A few of his comments were aimed at the specific economic woes of Michigan — a state Romney’s father governed.

Romney, and his wife Ann, heaped love on the state, saying he was “heartbroken” to see so many people out of a job but that it “doesn’t have to be that way.” He said one of the first things needed is a “Giuliani-style” cleanup of Detroit

One of the bigger applause lines of the night came when Romney said the state should do a few things to help attract more business folks, including lowering business taxes.

“Another thing to do would be to say we’re going to make this a state which is a right to work state,” he said to thunderous applause. “Of course the most convincing thing you could do would be to throw the democrats out of [the capital city of] Lansing.”

Finally, Governor Romney is able to defend the MA health care bill that got nearly every citizen in MA insured.  He was able to clear the record on CBS, as well as on CNN, and is well positioned to be the alternative in 2012.  I can see it now -Romney Vs Obama on health care and economy.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Mitt Romney was interviewed by CNN and was asked how questions about Romneycare as well as Obamacare.

To listen to Governor Romney on Sean Hannity’s radio show, click here.

What a great ad!

By Michael Steele

(CNN) — Friday marks President Obama’s 200th day in office, and in most respects, his second hundred days as president have been worse than the first 100.

Obama campaigned on bringing “change” to America, and during his first 200 days as president, his real definition of change is becoming absolutely clear to Americans.

Obama and congressional Democrats are determined to conduct their reckless and costly liberal experiments on the American people without any regard to the consequences.

Whether a $787 billion stimulus bill, a “cap-and-trade” scheme that is nothing more than a huge national energy tax on every American family and business, or a $1.6 trillion government-run health care plan, more and more Americans are rightfully concerned about Obama’s change for this country.

Since Obama and Democrats rushed through Congress a $787 billion stimulus package, unemployment in America has risen close to 9.5 percent, and every indication is that it will climb even higher when July’s unemployment report is released Friday.

In total, more than 2.6 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office. But what has the president’s stimulus bill brought us, if not the jobs he promised?

By Naftali Bendavid

WASHINGTON — So-called Blue Dog Democrats continued to resist key aspects of their party’s health-care overhaul Sunday, despite pressure from party leaders who fear they will endanger President Barack Obama’s most ambitious legislative effort.

A leader of the fiscally conservative group of representatives said he expects any vote on the House’s health proposal would have to wait, likely until after Labor Day. “I think the American people want to take a closer look at this legislation. They want to feel more comfortable with it,” Rep. Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog from Tennessee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Blue Dogs

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disputed any suggestion that the Blue Dogs’ protests threatened the bill’s passage. “Absolutely, positively not,” she said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “When I take this bill to the floor, it will win…We will move forward. This will happen.”

Blue Dogs have emerged as pivotal players in the national health-care debate, a swing group that the White House is wooing more intensely to keep its initiative on track. The group, which accounts for about one-fifth of House Democrats, wants to make sure the health-care plan isn’t too expensive for small businesses and hopes to keep the government’s costs down. They don’t want private health insurers to compete with a federally funded plan, and seek to reduce the share of lower-income Americans who would receive health-care subsidies.

Following a week in which the Blue Dogs challenged several key planks of the Democratic plan, most lawmakers agree a delay in the House legislation is likely. The House is set to adjourn next week, and unless lawmakers decide to stay in Washington for a few extra days, a decision would be put off until after Labor Day.

The Blue Dogs’ clout arises from simple math — they account for 52 seats in the House, enough to topple any law in cooperation with Republicans — and some irony. Hungry to retake Congress, Democrats actively recruited moderate candidates in conservative districts. The strategy was strikingly successful in recapturing the majority. But now the Democrats are learning the price as they try to enact their agenda.

The power of the Blue Dogs was on full display Friday, when they humiliated California Rep. Henry Waxman, one of the most liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill. Late last year, Rep. Waxman had shown his power by gaining control of the Energy and Commerce Committee, wresting the chairman’s seat from Congress’s most senior Democrat. On Friday morning, Rep. Waxman went before cameras and fired a blast at seven Blue Dogs on his committee who have blocked the health legislation from proceeding to the House floor for vote.

The chairman said he was done negotiating with them. “We’re not going to let them empower the Republicans to control the committee,” he said.

Hours later, the Beverly Hills Democrat was back in front of reporters with one of the seven, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. “Our colleagues have pulled us both back and said let’s all take a deep breath, that nothing is irreconcilable,” the chairman said.

The Blue Dog Coalition came together after the Democrats’ loss of Congress in 1994. Some representatives, mainly Southerners, believed the party’s losses stemmed from a drift to the left. They decided to take a name that played on the old term “yellow dog,” Southern Democrats who were ostensibly so loyal they would vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the party’s ticket.

One of the founding members, former Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, had paintings of blue dogs in his office by artist George Rodrigue, prompting some of the roughly 20 lawmakers to joke that they were yellow dogs who’d been “choked blue” by the party’s liberals. Rep. Tauzin later switched to the Republican Party.

The Blue Dogs’ numbers expanded with the election of lawmakers such as North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an ex-Washington Redskins quarterback who opposes abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Democrats begged him to run for Congress in 2006, believing he could win his rural, religious district. The coalition retains a Southern sensibility but many of its members now come from other areas. Nineteen members, called “Blue Pups,” won seats in the past two elections.

Beyond health care, the Blue Dogs have helped delay a climate-change bill and block legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.

That frustrates liberals, who say the Democratic Party’s victory last November, including a 256-178 majority in the House, gives it a once-in-a-generation chance to enact a liberal agenda.

“Since they can vote with the Republicans in order to get their way around here, that doesn’t sit well with progressives — who don’t want to vote with Republicans ever,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus.

Rep. Shuler, for his part, said that before agreeing to run, he spoke to Rep. Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to make sure he’d have the freedom he needed.

“One conversation I had with both of them before coming to Congress was, ‘I’m going to vote my district,’” Rep. Shuler said. “It’s one of those swing districts that can go either way…They’re aware of that.”

As long ago as May, the Blue Dogs complained of being shut out of the health-care debate. In a sharp letter to Democratic leaders, they wrote they were “increasingly troubled” by their exclusion.

Rep. Pelosi and others set up a flurry of meetings with them, but the Blue Dogs were not satisfied — especially their point man on health care, Rep. Ross of Arkansas, a former drugstore owner.

“We want to be the brokers of this health-care debate,” said Rep. Ross, who leads a bloc of seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee. “Not a roadblock.”

Overall, House Blue Dogs are not always in alliance. But the bloc of seven on the Energy and Commerce Committee — an eighth Blue Dog there, Rep. Jane Harman of California, is a liberal on health-care issues — has shown every sign of remaining unified.

The question now is whether Democratic leaders could bypass the committee and take the bill directly to the House floor. Rep. Ross and others say that without the Blue Dogs, Democratic leaders do not have the votes to pass the bill on the floor. So far, Democratic leaders have not wanted to test that proposition.

If Democratic leaders ultimately satisfy the Blue Dogs, the health bill will likely clear the House this week, marking a significant victory for President Obama. A version of the bill is still mired in the Senate, where Democrats and Republicans are engaged in tough negotiations to produce bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Obama met with the Blue Dogs for an hour at the White House last week. Rep. Pelosi recently spent 90 minutes listening to their concerns.

Tennessee Blue Dog Rep. Cooper, who clashed with then-first lady Hillary Clinton over her failed health-care revamp in 1993, is considered by many Democrats a key player to win over this time. He says his group has spent “endless hours” with White House aides seeking common ground.

The Blue Dogs’ resistance has angered other Democrats. At a heated closed-door meeting of House Democrats last week, Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, complained about the Blue Dogs holding up the health bill in Energy and Commerce Committee, noting pointedly that all are white men.

Some critics also point out that while the Blue Dogs proclaim their desire to cut the health bill’s costs, they are also demanding that rural doctors — who serve their districts — get more money, which could drive up those same costs. The Blue Dogs say they are asking for a redistribution of funds among care providers, not an overall increase.

Emotions have run high among Blue Dogs as well. When the health-care talks nearly broke down Friday, Rep. Ross said Rep. Waxman had reneged on agreements he’d reached with the Blue Dogs. Rep. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana said he’d been “lied to.”

“We’ve always been in the middle,” said Rep. John Tanner, a Tennessee Blue Dog. “If you’re going to get some of these really tough issues done, it has to be done somewhere in the middle.”

When Mr. Obama took office in January, with Democrats sweeping to dominant majorities, many in the party were giddy at the prospect of an agenda that would mark a third great wave of progressive Democratic legislation, after the New Deal and the Great Society.

It didn’t take long for the Blue Dogs to play their cards. When Mr. Obama unveiled his $787 billion economic-stimulus plan, a crucial priority of his early presidency, the Blue Dogs said they would not go along unless Democratic leaders agreed to pay-as-you go budget rules. Those rules require new spending and tax cuts to be offset so the deficit doesn’t grow.

The White House had little choice but to agree. That deal bore fruit Wednesday, when the House voted 265-166 to impose a “paygo” system. Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, a leading Blue Dog, exulted that this had been one of the group’s signature issues for a decade. Republican critics said the legislation still doesn’t go far enough because it exempts all discretionary spending, and applies only to nonroutine increases in entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.