The Orange One Seems Particularly Desperate.

Remember, this is a sitting Governor speaking about a member of his own party:

UPDATE: Recent polls showing Marco Rubio ahead by as much as 32 to 34 points suggest that Crist should indeed be getting very desperate.

What A Difference Three Years Makes.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has become something of a polarizing figure in certain conservative circles and much of the criticism against him is his own fault. Yet we were recently sent the below video of a Fox News interview from May of 2007 and can not help but give Mr. Paul credit where credit is due.

The link below starts at 1:15, be sure to watch for at least the next minute. Neil Cavuto's nearly flippant comment at 1:37 is especially ironic. Also, take note of the Dow at the right of the screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU2RK0TNbXk#t=1m15s

What A Massa.

We wrote earlier on the odd circumstances regarding Congressman Massa’s resignation. The story has gotten even more bizarre. According to a recent Politico article , Massa's account of the alleged harassment is as follows:

"I have to come find out that on New Year's Eve, I went to a staff party — it was actually a wedding for a staff member of mine," Massa said. "There were 250,people there. I was with my wife, and in fact we had a great time. She got the stomach flu, I went down to sing "Auld Lang Syne." And with cameras on me — I'm talking three of them — filming me, I danced with the bride, and I danced with the bridesmaid. Absolutely nothing occurred.

I said goodnight to the bridesmaid. I sat at down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them, by the way, bachelors. One of them looked at me and — as they would do after, I don't know, 15 gin and tonics and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne — a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid. His points were clear, and his words were far more colorful than that.

And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and I said, 'What I really ought to be doing is frakking you,' and then tossled the guy's hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where I shouldn't be there."

The events detailed above seem extremely benign in comparison to the average congressional scandal: nothing illegal, nothing overtly sexual, nothing but alcohol induced comments. Just words.

Furthermore, Congressman Massa is now noting that he would have been the deciding vote against ObamaCare. Massa is essentially saying that the White House blew this small incident out of proportion in retaliation for his stance on health care. This may all die out soon as a simple "he said-he said" issue. But there is a chance that this story, the issue of White House Chicago-style intimidation, could get legs and turn into something big. Forcing the resignation of a Congressman is getting dangerously close to enemy list territory.

You Are MEAN Congressman!!!

New York Congressman Eric Massa resigns tomorrow. When we first heard about this, we were not that interested. It seemed like a standard same sex harassment case. But upon further investigation there is more to it.

Representative Massa is accused of harassing a male staffer. Yet no one – no one- is claiming that Massa is himself gay. Rather it would appear that Massa is accused of using language that was deemed harassing by the staffer. Massa blames the situation on his “salty” language learned in the Navy.

Most likely Congressman Massa used an un-PC term for homosexuals around a homosexual staffer.

All judgment aside, there is some humor in the fact that this Republican-turned-Democrat Congressman (he made the change in 2006 of all years) likely hired an ultra liberal staffer who would eventually betray him for using “mean” language.

The New York Times Provides More Sage Insight On Life.

A recent New York Times article stated the following:

"The likelihood that a marriage will last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, a study found."

The Times then waste several hundred words and their readers' time discussing the issue without once even approaching the real cause.

What the Times does not say: The biggest factor in divorce probability is a couple's attitude towards divorce, and most couples who would simply never get divorced for moral reasons would probably never live together before marraige either.

Liberal Conservatism Is Nearly Always A Failure.

Despite growing disapproval of the socialist left, British conservatives find themselves losing ground in recent polls. One of the major voter complaints according to these polls: The Tories don't stand for anything. And it seems that they don't. They promote higher taxation and flip flop on fiscal issues, while taking pains to stay always politically correct.

If there is one group of Americans who should learn from this, it is moderates and those who belittle and degrade the tea party movement.

Standing for something, especially something voters get truly excited about, (even if *GASP* it might offend your opponents) goes along way when looking to regain the majority - whether that majority be in Capitol Hill or Westminster.

Court Watch: Guns And Liberty!

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. Most legal observers predict that the case will result in a victory for the 2^nd Amendment, but there is also hope in free market circles that the case will be a win for economic freedoms as well.

Lawyers for the plaintiff gun owners in the case are advancing a libertarian theory based upon the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that would overturn the infamous Slaughter-House decision and open the door for greater constitutional protection of basic economic liberties. (While other 2^nd Amendment advocates, including the legal team from the NRA, have advocated a less sweeping, more gun-centric approach.)

From early reports of the hearing, it appears that the Court came across as very friendly towards the 2^nd Amendment and gun rights, but the Justices seemed unlikely to go as far as to make the sweeping overturn of Slaughter-House:

From the initial questioning through the end, it was quite clear that those living in Chicago — and, by extension, New York, San Francisco, and other places with extreme gun restrictions — will soon be able to rest easy, knowing that they will be able to have guns with which to protect themselves. Unfortunately, the Court did not seem inclined to adopt the arguments propounded by petitioners’ counsel Alan Gura (and supported by Cato) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the way to go. Chief Justice Roberts expressed reluctance at having to overturn the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and other justices joined in concerns over how activist judges would use the Clause if the Court revived it — even if that were the path that hewed more closely to the constitution’s true meaning.

This turn of events is unfortunate because reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause, far from giving judges free reign to impose their policy views, would actually tie them closer to the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. As it stands now — and as it seems will be the case after McDonald is decided — many of our most cherished rights are protected only to the extent that judges are willing to label them as sufficiently “fundamental” to warrant such protection. That is an unprincipled jurisprudence and one that hurts the rule of law.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/02/gun-rights-secure-liberty-less-so/

For a further explanation of the two competing pro-gun rights legal arguments see:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald