Courtesy: Flickr

Mitt Romney is a monster! Haven’t you heard?! He pulled an embarrassing prank on some kid some number of years ago.  E gads!

Let’s get real here.  In From Watergate to Wedgies, Reason Online points libertarian-minded readers to two concurrent problems in our political culture.

For starters, the benchmark for what qualifies as a -Gate level scandal has devolved from the heights of Watergate and Iran-Contra to the depths of Wedgiegate.  It is pathetic what raises eyebrows in Washington nowadays.

Reason’s Gene Healy chides, “If last week’s “expose” on Mitt Romney’s prep-school bullying is any indication, from now on the fully informed voter will have to pore over every nasty prank potential candidates committed as kids.”

Secondly, there is an outsized gasp at any Republican comma splice versus real scandal in… oh, say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department, Hilda Solis’s Labor Department, or Big Sis’s Homeland Security Department.  I mean, really.  How is it possible that Haircut-gate is on the front page while real scandals like Solyndra and Fast and Furious are back in the obituaries?

The real scandal here is the death of investigative journalism.  The MSM is officially a left wing cheer squad.  If the Washington Post cared as much about uncovering truth as they care about destroying Republicans, they would look into the president’s sordid youth.  Tomorrow’s headline: my infinite ability to be surprised.

The Lee Plan works in three steps:

• 1 unified tax rate
• 2 credits (health insurance and Earned Income Tax Credit)
• 3 deductions (mortgage interest, higher education, charitable giving)

The #LeePlan drastically simplifies the tax code, reforms runaway entitlements and caps receipts at 18.5% GDP.  It will balance the budget by 2017 and keep it balanced.  This is what serious reform looks like.  Check it out.

You’ve probably read all over the place that nearly 50% of tax filers pay no net taxes or actually take more money from Washington than they pay in.  Starting in earnest with the Reagan administration, refundable tax credits and other exemptions aimed at the working class and families have taken millions of taxpayers off of the tax rolls altogether.  The Bush tax cuts significantly grew this group of non-taxpayers.  But although several conservative administrations have patted themselves on the back for championing tax plans that have created a swarm of non-taxpayers, they have unwittingly created a whole class of citizens that depend on government services without bearing the burden of paying for them.

Take a wild guess how these tax vampires vote.

With the federal deficit spiraling further out of control and a shrinking base of taxpayers shouldering the burden, a growing bipartisan (though mostly Republican) chorus has begun to argue that every American should pay at least a little something toward government. Honest brokers admit that even taxpayers that chip in a modest amount toward government services are acutely more concerned over the cost, necessity & effectiveness over those services.  But in a hyper-partisan political environment, either party would be only too pleased to brand the other as hiking taxes on working families by asking those currently receiving totally free government to chip in even a little.

The NPR story is about stiff college competition over prospective students.  The narrator makes the point that because many universities offer similar college life and amenities, the way rival colleges really go after the best students is by offering them so-called merit scholarships to offset the cost of their stay.  Basically, they bribe them with free goodies and the other students get stuck with the bill.

Sounds just like Uncle Sam, right?

“And the school gives out a lot of these scholarships. It’s a great way to land the best students. On top of that, the school gives need-based grants to many students. A majority of students get grants of some kind — fewer than 50 percent actually pay the full sticker price.

But, weirdly, all those grants are one of the things that keeps pushing up the sticker price at Lafayette and other colleges — that big, full-fare number that you always hear about.

If you give discounts to lots of students you have to make up for it somehow. To a large extent, the people making up for it are the students who pay full price.”

As this story comes to a close, the parallels between colleges fighting over new students and candidates fighting over voters could hardly be missed.  But more importantly, how sad is it that NPR nails the point right on the head in their college story, yet can’t wrap their minds around the shortsighted rationale of Uncle Sam doing the same?

Could it be because NPR relies on the merit scholarship of taxpayer funds to keep their own doors open?

Today, I watched a truly touching C-span video from an April 25th gathering where Democrat Senator and former V.P. candidate Joe Lieberman and Republican Senator Marco Rubio advocated a strong, robust foreign policy in a speech at none other than the left-leaning Brookings Intitution.

Senator Lieberman said of Rubio, “Marco Rubio’s foreign policy is principled, patriotic, and practical. It grows, I believe, from his own life’s journey from tyranny to freedom, but also from his dedicated study of history and contemporary challenges. His foreign policy, as I’ve come to know it, puts him in a proud bipartisan tradition that links together our greatest Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and our greatest Democratic presidents like Harry S. Truman. It is a tradition that recognizes that America is defined not by the land under our feet or even by the blood in our veins, but by our founding values, first among them being freedom and equality of opportunity whose promotion and protection will always be our first national purpose. It is a foreign policy tradition that is bipartisan and idealistic and recognizes that there is evil in the world, that we should not be afraid to call it by its name; that we have enemies who cannot be negotiated into peace, but must be confronted with our strength. And it is a bipartisan foreign policy tradition that recognizes that the survival of liberty and prosperity in our country ultimately depends on the expansion of liberty and prosperity throughout the world.”

Rubio returned the compliment in a profoundly personal way. “Thank you, Senator Lieberman. You know, one of the best things about working in the Senate is the opportunity to learn and to know from colleagues whose statesmanship is an example for the rest of us. In my brief time in the Senate, I’ve had the chance to know Joe Lieberman and learn from him. He represents a view of America’s role in the world and the tradition of Democratic leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman through John F. Kennedy and “Scoop” Jackson. In my every experience with him, it’s been evident that Joe Lieberman is a statesman who takes positions on every important national issue because he believes they best serve our country’s interests and values. So, thank you, Joe, for your introduction and, more importantly, thank you for your example. I’m privileged to serve with you.”

Senator Rubio’s lavish praise for his colleague from Connecticut was hardly the only cross-party kudos doled out.  During his foreign policy address, Rubio made plentiful references to continued policies from the Reagan administration through the Clinton and Bush administrations, as well as several throwbacks to Kennedy, Truman and even the oft-vilified FDR.

To be clear, bipartisan cooperation in Washington depends on the task at hand.  Senator Rubio’s embrace and gushing over Senator Lieberman was as much a matter of promoting hawkish foreign policy with any willing participant as it was a gesture of good will.  Contrast that with Governor Charlie Crist embracing President Obama, and in effect embracing the 2009 stimulus package and one can easily discriminate between the good, bad and ugly sides of bipartisan cooperation.  In its worst form, it’s flaky pandering.  At its best, its statesmanship.  Senators Rubio and Lieberman clearly showed America the latter.

Copy courtesy of the Brookings Institution online.

Clearly, liberals are happy to affix the “far right wing” label on Governor Romney as a slur. But while attacking his conservatism, they neglect the 40% of Americans that identify themselves squarely in the red team’s corner. They aren’t counting on too many Obamicans this time around, I guess.  But if Romney’s agenda is severely conservative, doesn’t he risk losing the great center? No, as polls and history both suggest.

Independent or unaffiliated voters tend to skew right, and indeed Republican presidential candidates often win this bloc. Recent polls show Romney splitting or stealing Independents away from Obama. And history shows that if a GOP contender can make his case for a bold choice election and take that case to the whole electorate, he will win Independents as well as peel away some Democrat support. In cases where a moderate candidate appeals directly to the center, he often (if ironically) finds himself in a political nosedive (McCain ’08, Bush ’92, Ford ’76).  You know that old saying about support being a mile wide and an inch deep.  That is a real problem for “moderate” candidates.

Neither Romney nor any presidential candidate serves themselves well by pandering to the widest constituency. Mitt is never going to make everybody happy. But if he can remain authentic and consistent and avoid the trap of sliding to the center, he will likely be our next president. Then we can get to work replacing the most liberal agenda in generations with the most conservative one.

Amen to that.

Learn more about Mitt’s jobs agenda at www.MittRomney.com

Drawnlines Funnies brought to you via @ImpeachTheIdiot.  For more funnies, check them out on Twitter.

This November, voters face a stark choice.  Do Americans believe in America, or do they believe in Ameritopia?  Will we unleash our entrepreneurial spirit to combat the challenges of our society, or will the Nanny State rein in our ambitions at the expense of our future?

Mitt Romney loves America for the ever-improving investment in liberty that it is.  President Obama loves America for the statist utopia he wishes it were.  To those who truly believe in the exceptionalism and greatness of our country, rest assured that a better America begins this week.  Mitt Romney will lead the way to victory, put Big Brother in a time out, and set us free to remind ourselves what’s so great about being American.

Read Mitt Romney’s remarks here.

by Nick Stone

Do endorsements matter on the campaign trail?

People are dogging on Mitt Romney for racking up primary endorsements, but I think they speak volumes.  Those who know how to make government work trust Mitt Romney to make it happen.

In Florida, Jeb Bush’s endorsement matters when he cares enough to get out on the stump for a candidate.  He could have done more to make Bill McCollum our governor, but I digress mildly appalled.

In Louisiana, popular Governor Bobby Jindal could sway voters.

In Ohio, many credit Bob Portman for pushing Romney over the top.  In Michigan, Governor Bill Snyder’s endorsement could have meant the world to Republicans on the fence.

Endorsements might not make up people’s minds but they do make undecideds take a second look at the candidate receiving them.  Stealing an endorsement from an opponent can also push squirmy or soft supporters back into the undecided camp, making them easy to pick off.  So let’s say endorsements do matter but it also matters: whom they are from, when they are rolled out and if they are otherwise effectively used.

In the presidential race, perhaps we’ve overlooked the most significant endorsement of all.  In 2008, Rick Santorum unequivocally endorsed Mitt Romney as a real conservative leader that would be a great presidential candidate.  What do you say that in 2012 we hold Santorum to his words or call him out for being a liar?

That’s what I thought too.

Well, Palm Beach County strikes again.

According to the Palm Beach Post, the wrong winner was declared in two of three seats in the village of Wellington municipal elections on March 13.  After results were certified last week, machine recounts determined that the wrong winners had been declared.  The incident is a huge embarrassment for the county and the supervisor of elections in particular.  But she is quick to pass the buck. “This is not a human error. This is a computer-generated error, one that is on a computer system that is tested and certified by the state of Florida,” Bucher said.

Bucher called the problem “unprecedented,” telling [a] crowd, “We have a computer system that never failed like this before.”   But Palm Beach County also had serious problems in 2010 and 2008.  No, really.  Click the links.  You won’t believe the ineptitude.  Nancy Smith took Bucher to task asking aloud, How many more Susan Bucher Sci-Fi thrillers can Palm Beach County tolerate?

The 2010 screw-ups also revealed Bucher’s incapability to multi-task.  In a quirk befitting the county, Palm Beach still trucks in all of its ballots to one vote tabulation center in Riviera Beach rather than transmitting results electronically from individual precincts.  Because of the vast geography of the county as well as bottlenecks at the processing center, returns can be delayed by as much as five hours.  Asked 23 months into her tenure as supervisor of elections, Bucher claimed she was “too busy” to look into updating voting software for outlying precincts.  But she assured CBS 12, she would look into it soon.

That was two years ago.  Obviously her efforts worked like a charm.

via Gaypatriot

By Nick Stone

The Angry Left doesn’t have Andrew Breitbart to kick around anymore. I’m sorry to admit I never considered the legendary blogger a hero until he was gone. But his absence hit me and the country with a deafening thud.

Andrew dedicated himself to the cause of bringing to light the hypocrisy and vulgarity of the so-called “progressive” left. He wasn’t about to let them get away with pretending to be open minded and accepting of individuality. He knew the dark history of the Left and their penchant for the politics of division. Thanks to his work, many of us know the truth too.

Sometimes Breitbart got it wrong when breaking a story. With his flair for the dramatic, he would occasionally overplay a nugget of truth as though he had the scoop of the century.  But along the way, he did uncover some doozies and got Americans talking about unspeakable political truths. Beyond muckraking, he used his larger than life personality to rally unlikely groups around the conservative brotherhood.

Andrew was a man of inclusion. He served on the advisory council of gay republican group GOProud and was known to have many gay, liberal and minority friends. While this fact rarely caused any right wing outrage, it did however spark left wing meltdown. The rumor mill spat vile epithets at Breitbart including that he himself was a closet gay, would die of AIDS, would rot in hell, etc. In his lighthearted fashion, Andrew would just retweet the messages as an homage and reminder of the true nature of the left.

Mr. Breitbart urged conservatives from all walks of life to keep focused on opposing the radical left (read: the entire left) rather than each other. At a recent gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he admonished the GOP faithful to rise above personal differences for the urgent cause of defeating the political opposition.

“The Republican Party and the conservative movement is not what ABC and CBS puts up on the screen.  They try to portray you in the worst possible light.  And when I walk through CPAC or I travel through the United States and I meet people in the Tea Party who care – black, white, gay and straight – anyone who’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive Left, I will be in that bunker.  And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, [then] more than shame on you.  You’re on the other side.”

Breitbart knew how to remind us that what united us was more important than what divided us.  In some strange way, he made it “cool” or at least acceptable to be conservative. Was he a gay hero? For those of us that want both parties fighting for inclusion and equality, maybe he should have been.  The truth is that the world at large was a much, much better place with him in it.