Blog

• Presidential stuff:
  • Bob Novak puts McCain ahead in the electoral college. Would this even be a race if we nominated anyone else?
  • McCain beats Obama in Michigan. Are these bitter, churchgoing, gun owning working class whites? MyDD notes that putting Hillary on the ticket would swing the state back to the Dems
  • McCain winning the foreign policy fight.
  • White women don’t like Barack.
  • Barack has another pastor problem.
• Sarah Palin getting looked at by McCain.
• Senate races:
  • Wicker down by 1 in the MS Senate race. We need more info on this.
  • Rothenberg calls LA Senate a tossup. We need more info on this.
• Tom Davis unloads on VA GOP.
• Richard Cizik on evangelicals and global warming.
• Obama’s first 100 days: an attack on 14% of the US economy.
• A Democrat lies in VA-11.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal talks about how stopping earmarks is the path back to a majority:

 The key parts:

It’s about opposing these earmarks, these bridges to nowhere.It’s about going after corruption. Whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, we can’t make excuses for them. It’s about being on principled positions. … Republicans aren’t going to get the majority simply by being cheaper Democrats. We’ve got to stick to our core principles and understand the reason that conservatives go out and vote is they want lower taxes and effective, competent government. They’re not looking for earmarks or cheaper versions of liberal programs.

 Why aren’t more people saying this stuff? This guy is single handedly reshaping his state after running on reversing a history of corruption.

In particular, why haven’t the Republicans offered an ethics pledge like a tax pledge? We have a couple of primaries that will be a showdown over ethics. Sean Parnell in Alaska (give here) but who else?

Hopefully this will be a regular feature. Things that you need to read today.

• Hillary actually is a better candidate for the Demcrats than Barack Obama, according to Gallup.
  • Ben Smith has more on this, with maps.
  • In the meantime, Rasmussen has McCain up 4 over Obama.
• LA-06 GOP primary runoff rematch. Will voters care that Woody Jenkins got trounced in the special?
• Either Republican potential nominee in NH-1 defeats Democratic anti-war protester and Deaniac turned Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. H/T badlydrawnjeff.
• Robichaud and Johnson Open Memo to Republicans about the trouble we are in.
• DNC wheels out lawyers to provide Florida and Michigan with only 1/2 their vote.
• Mark Hemingway notes that Obama has big lobbyist/bundler problems himself. Bet the press won’t cover that.
• Heritage (an advertiser) points out that Obama opposes the South Korea FTA which would decrease the between trade deficit $3b and $4.5b (net) and add to the economy.
• Jeffrey Toobin interviewed Roger Stone (!)

What else is out there that we missed?

The Wall Street Journal trashes Barack Obama’s abysmal trade rhetoric:

Here’s one “change” presidential candidate Barack Obama apparently believes in: higher prices. Witness his letter last week urging President George W. Bush not to submit the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement to Congress for ratification.

Heritage notes that this would have an impact on trade by lowering the trade deficit by between $3b and $4.5b.:

The U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated it would increase annual U.S. exports to South Korea by between $10 billion and $11 billion, and increase imports from the longtime Asian ally by between $6.4 billion and $6.9 billion.

But Obama opposes it…:

On the record so far, Mr. Obama is the most protectionist U.S. presidential candidate in decades. In February he inserted a statement opposing the Korean trade deal into the Congressional record only days before securing the endorsement of the powerful Teamsters union.

This is the same union that he also wants to end federal oversight of, even though he knows they are corrupt.

How does that help American workers or the Teamsters members who would ship those goods?

There will be plenty of attention to the Presidential race this year, and for good reason. Keeping the White House has got to be the highest priority for Republicans of all stripes.

One of the goals of The Next Right is to provide a central location at which junkies, activists, interest group people, etc. can find good information. If people are operating off of the same information, hopefully we as a movement can start to get on the same page.

We would like to invite contributors who know about these races to write about these races and others that might be important. Stuart Rothenberg’s list of races and his categorization are below.

My sense is that these are basically correct. A number of these depend on primaries. (note that Redstate’s Erick Erickson has posted a calendar and feed of primaries) For example, if former Rep. Jeb Bradley (NH) wins his September 9th primary, I suspect that race moves into Toss Up. However, if Don Young (AK) wins his primary, I suspect it moves into Tilt D. (local polling suggests that)

I also suspect that Darren White (NM-1) is, perhaps, our best recruit of the cycle, and will probably be able to pull this off.

I want to know more. What is out there?

Barack Obama argues that his judgement is why he should be elected President. His whole campaign is predicated on a speech that he gave in October of 2002 in which he claims to have demonstrated that judgement. Here’s part of that speech:

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

Like Auschwitz, Treblinka was in Poland and liberated by the Soviets. Obama’s staff claims that he misspoke yesterday. Instead, it turns out that one of his stock lines is just false.

And the speech in which Obama claims to have demonstrated his judgement, he instead demonstrated his ignorance.

Today, Barack Obama, gave a speech on the housing crisis. In the speech, he said:

I do not accept an America where Washington’s only message to working people is: “you’re on your own.”

But Barack Obama didn’t need Washington when he was buying a house. Because he had a politically connected real estate developer, Tony Rezko, under federal criminal investigation who subsidized his house.

Is that Barack’s lesson? That if you aren’t lucky enough to know a corrupt real estate developer, you need Washington?

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, writing about Barack Obama’s problems with his numerous and contradictory statements on Iran says:

I attribute Obama’s predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.

That about nails it.

And if he doesn’t know what he is saying now, what is he going to do as President?