Is it any wonder that Floridians are fed up?

Read it and weep.  And then get mad.  Emphasis added. 

Secret contract, lavish spending push Republican Party of Florida to crisis

As a volatile election season gets under way, the Republican Party of Florida is facing its biggest crisis of confidence in decades.

Donors and party activists are livid over newly revealed records that suggest outgoing chairman Jim Greer used the party as a personal slush fund for lavish travel and entertainment. The records also show that executive director Delmar Johnson padded his $103,000 salary with a secret, $260,000 fundraising contract and another $42,000 for expenses — at the same time the once mighty Florida GOP was having to lay off employees amid anemic fundraising.

Another sign of trouble came Monday with news that incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon transferred $665,000 of party money in the days surrounding Greer's resignation to a separate political committee called the Florida Liberty Fund, suggesting lack of confidence in the party election machine.

Greer has long been known as a flamboyant chairman who enjoyed entourages, charter jets and belting out Elvis at party galas. But even the biggest critics of Gov. Charlie Crist's hand-picked chairman were stunned by revelations that he entered into a lucrative secret contract with a stealth company set up by his most loyal aide de camp, 30-year-old Johnson, a former Crist campaign aide. The contract would pay Johnson a 10 percent commission on all major donations to the state Republican Party.

How does that make you feel about money you've donated to the Florida Republican Party?  Not good?  Well, it just keeps getting better.

Greer made a show of rescinding the party credit cards of top elected officials and cutting up his American Express card last summer to stem criticism of party spending. But internal records obtained by the Times/Herald show heavy spending continued — on Johnson's card: $100 flower arrangement for the wives of Greer and Gov. Crist; thousands of dollars in meals; $15,000 to charter a jet to George LeMieux's swearing in as U.S. senator; and another $1,800 for in-flight catering services. The spending helped Johnson rack up more than 1 million American Express points.

I guess it really pays to be a friend of Charlie.  But then, money is no object when you are paying with other people's money.  Somehow, I don't think that this is what donors had in mind when they dug deep in to their pockets mistakenly believing that they were supporting Republican candidates.  Here's the kicker:

Crist has said he didn't know about Johnson's contract, but some activists aren't satisfied. Crist is the de facto head of the party and its biggest fundraiser.

Sorry, but if anybody believes that Charlie was unaware of what was going on in his own inner circle I would strongly suggest they put the pill bottle down.

I don't donate to the party anymore and I won't in the future unless I see some very big changes.  Any money I wish to donate will go straight to the candidate of my choice.  The way I see it, I can't afford to go jetting around and I'm sure not going to pay for party "leaders" to do it.

Yes, oh, YES!

Yes, I miss you President Bush.  And I miss your brother, too.

H/T Troglopundit

Geez, have they looked out their window?

How do you explain such humongous inanity?

Wall Street Journal

As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.


NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.

Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.

When I read stuff like I wonder if my personal Hell isn't to be stuck in some eternal comedy club where none of the comedians are funny.  Climate change has turned out to be one very bad joke yet we continue to pay for the comedians at the NOAA and others to keep yucking it up. 

Will Megan McCain's fifteen minutes NEVER end?

There is just so much that I could say but I am trying so hard to be nice today.  Well, at least nicer than I was yesterday.  Besides, I just can't top Dan Riehl:

McCain Blahgette: One Jelly Donut Away From Catastrophe

My gawd! Does her car have an explosive device on board sign? The Obama's ought to adopt this misguided girl so Michelle can get her into an obesity program. Her arms are starting to look like flippers and it ain't all about the breasts. With the right hat and a honky horn, I'd think she was a trained seal!

I mean, seriously: arr arr arr. That poor girl.

As for the commentary, what is wrong with Americans today? People actually watch this dumb stuff?? Fat, dumpy and stupid is no way to go through life, Megan. Get a grip on yourself, dear, instead of that next Krispy Kreme. You'll live longer, not that that's necessarily a good thing.

Now that is HEH worthy.

Sanity at last!

Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics:

American is Not Ungovernable

Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America's "political instability" was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed "obstructionist Republicans," "spineless Democrats," and an "incoherent public" for the problem.

Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.

The bold face type is mine.  I showed incredible restraint.  I wanted to put it in all caps and throw a slew of exclamation points at the end.
 

Let's acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III's government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.

The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing but somehow things got off kilter.  Rather than three separate but equal branches of government, Obama acts as though the Congress and Supreme Court owe fealty to him.  The president may be the head of the Executive branch but he is still an employee.  The only fealty is to our Constitution.

The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind - but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.

The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.

It's not accurate to blame this on the Republicans. From Arlen Specter's defection to Scott Brown's swearing in, Democrats had total control over the policy-making process. The only recourse the Republicans had was the First Amendment. They used it well, but don't let it be said that the President lacked access to it. Given Mr. Obama's bully pulpit and his omnipresence on the national stage, his voice has been louder than anybody's. If Mr. Obama has lost the public debate to the beleaguered rump that is the congressional GOP, he has nobody to blame but himself.

This is where the president and I part company.  He seems to be saying, you didn't get it the first five hundred times I explained my position, I'll explain it again.  I get it.  I understand the president's positions.  I simply but emphatically disagree.  And I am not alone.

It's not accurate to blame this on "spineless Democrats," i.e. rank-and-file legislators who balked at the various solutions offered by Mr. Obama. Moderate Democrats might have defected because they were worried about their jobs - but the point of popular elections is to link the personal interests of legislators with the interests of their constituents. It often fails to work - but in a situation where "spineless Democrats" clearly voted with their districts, it seems to have been working pretty well. One might argue that they should have shown some leadership - voted for unpopular bills because they were good for the country. But ask those thirty to forty House Democratic defectors on the health care, cap-and-trade, and jobs bills whether they thought the bills were good for the country, and you'll hear a different answer than the one Newsweek is quick to give.

Exactly.  If the majority of voters in district whatever hold a particular position then their representative has an obligation to advance that position.  In fact, I think that may be why they are called "representatives".  If I do a poor job of representing my employer I will be fired.  Our elected officials should expect to play by those same rules.

No, we are not ungovernable but Obama doesn't even attempt governance.  Instead he walks around with his chin up in the air while he oozes a "make it so" attitude. And it is indicative of Obama's total lack of understanding of this country, its citizens and what governing consists of.

Read the rest of Cost's post.

Via Memeorandum

Rep. Mike Pence endorses Marco Rubio

RedState:

The steady drumbeat for Marco Rubio keeps going on and on. Today he is picking up the endorsement of Congressman Mike Pence.

Congressman Pence said, “I am proud to endorse Marco Rubio for the United States Senate. Marco Rubio’s faith in free markets, limited government and traditional moral values make him the right choice for Republicans in this race. At a time when the American people long for leaders of principle, Marco Rubio will be a courageous check and balance on the current Washington establishment.

“With Washington spending money we don’t have and empowering the government at the expense of individual freedom, we need more leaders like Marco Rubio who are willing to take a stand for the common sense and common values of the American people.”

Rubio has gained the trust of Florida's voters because he espouses the values that we need so badly in these truly dark times.  He knows that if this country is going to turn around the first thing we need to do is get government the heck out of our way.  Rubio, unlike so many currently holding office, has a deep faith in the citizens of this country ability to thrive and prosper.  I have had the honor of listening to Rubio speak on three occasions and each time I have been remind of why I love this country and why, even though I am currently disappointed in our elected officials, I am proud of this country.  Yes, I have days when I am deeply frustrated but I believe that through a partnership between the citizens and Rubio and politicians who share his and our values,  we can make it through this difficult period.

Skip over to Babalu, there is a related video that is well worth a view.

Via Memeorandum

Rep. John Murtha has passed

Michelle Malkin writes:  Yes, we can show Murtha’s family more decency and respect than he ever showed the Haditha Marines.

I am tempted to ignore Michelle's words but now is not the time to air my grievances about the despicable way our brave Marines were treated.  He served his country as a Marine during Viet Nam and for that he has my gratitude.  My prayers go out to his family.

What? Were you expecting groupies?

Carol at No Sheeples Here thinks that Obama seems bored:

Quote of the Day

"POTUS delivered a vague and cheerful pep talk to the Organizing For America team these last days, and he again used the old campaign rhetoric of how the hard stuff was hard, and that changing Washington was hard, and that it was hard not to give up but it was the right thing to do…and so forth. The cheers were prefab. POTUS appears distracted, and, if he were not POTUS, there would be the suspicion of boredom."

Well yes, life is a bitch when you have to work for a living.  Constituents just aren't as much fun as groupies and there are days when you are surrounded by people who don't want to be buried wearing your tee shirt.You have to deal with people who have no flippin' clue what the hell arugula is and couldn't afford to buy it anyway.  You have to deal with people would rather eat plaster than apply for food stamps but they haven't worked for months and their kids are hungry.  You have to deal with people who don't give two shits whether a bunch of honor killing, genital mutilating terrorists like us-they just want to get on a plane without worrying about some inbred thug blowing up his nasty bits and taking the entire plane out in the process.  You have to deal with people who don't give a rat's ass about Global Warming because (a) they don't believe it exists, (b) they think it is a scam and (c) they don't want to pay more for their electricity just because you and your buddies stand to make a killing off selling carbon credits.  You have to deal with people you are happy with their medical care and aren't going to stand for the government seizing one sixth of our economy for themselves.  You have deal with people who think that you are a self-serving arrogant schmuck.  Don't like it?  Look on the bright side-only three years to go.

The Professors new project

Prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection worked tirelessly on the Scott Brown campaign and now that the election is over and Brown has won has found himself a new project:

My New Project: Patrick Kennedy Must Go

 As readers of this blog already know, I am cursed with two of the looniest Congressmen in existence, Patrick Kennedy in my home state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and Maurice Hinchey in Ithaca, NY, where I live during the academic year.

In the wake of the victory by Scott Brown, I wondered what my next project(s) would be at this blog, What Should I Do After The Election? Now I know:

Patrick Kennedy must go.

So must Hinchey, and others, but that is for other posts.

Patrick referred to Scott Brown's swearing-in as a "joke," which has sparked the inevitable "the joke is on Patrick" comments in light of a recent poll showing Patrick with high negatives and in a vulnerable position.

The professor suggested reading Kennedy's wiki entry to get an idea of what kind of person Kennedy is.  Summing it up, we have multiple bouts with drug addiction and alcoholism, a rape cover-up and a series of car accidents in which he was at fault and "appeared" to be under the influence but we will never know for certain because, you know, he's a Kennedy.  A typical Kennedy.  On the bright side, at least he never married.

Kennedy is a prime example of what we don't need in Congress.  He is an arrogant little legacy brat who believes he is owed a seat in Congress.  Not so much.  We need someone who will serve the people not himself.  Being rid of him sounds like an excellent project to me.

If you throw a rock at a pack of wild dogs, the one that yelps...

People are throwing stones at Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC (which according to Doug Ross stands for International Panel on Climate Crime), is starting to get a might testy.  Note this from the Ace of Spades:

"Dr." Pachauri: Hey, Those Who Claim I Profited From IPCC Decisions Should Rub Asbestos on Their Faces (And Die of Cancer)

Rajendra Pachauri, the besieged head of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that he is the victim of a "carefully orchestrated" campaign to block climate change legislation.

"I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods," he told the paper, swatting away allegations that his India-based climate institute, TERI, has benefited from decisions made by the IPCC, which he also chairs.

Climate change skeptics "are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder," he said.

"I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day."

Well, that is kinda mean.

Look, I barely made it through physics in college.  Science is not my thing.  However, I did manage to stay awake through a couple of my classes and I seem to remember that skepticism is crucial to good science.  Beyond that, when people start making ridiculous statements such as comparing Global Warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers or that skeptics believe that asbestos is as good as talcum powder then I know that the speaker is on shaky ground. 

The truth is, Global warming adherents don't want to talk about facts.  If you ask a disciple about previous warming periods they are likely to change the subject altogether.  A week ago I actually had someone respond to my question by launching into a weird ramble about our "illegal" invasion of Iraq.  Global warming/Iraq???  Um, wouldn't it have been just as easy to admit that he didn't have the answer rather than making an ass of himself by going off the deep end over something totally unrelated?

People have a perfect right to know what relationship exists between Pachauri's enormous wealth and his position as head of the IPCC.  Methinks that his answer belies a man with something to hide.