But McCain has a secret weapon, and it’s neither Romney nor Palin. None other than Mr. 41 himself, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) stumped for McCain yesterday at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix.

“We need good people, honest people, people who are greatly respected, people who are not out for themselves,” Brown told the audience, according to the Associated Press.

At first glance, these politicians don’t have much in common–one hails from the conservative Southwest and the other from the liberal Northeast; one was finishing flight school while the other was just entering the world; one was Navy and the other was Army–but their political futures are inextricably linked as both represent a shrinking coalition in a Republican Party whose political composition is becoming markedly more conservative.

McCain and Brown are center-right Republicans. While McCain has an extensive track record of centrism, from McCain-Feingold to McCain-Lieberman to McCain-Kennedy, Brown’s centrist credentials extend insofar as a relatively small jobs bill passed last month. Both have histories of bucking the party establishment on key issues like the environment, though Brown is more liberal than McCain on social issues. Ultimately, McCain and Brown are ideological bedfellows.

Moderates like McCain and Brown are entrenched in an ideological battle over the direction of the party. By most measures, the moderates appear to be losing ground to a Tea Party movement becoming increasingly ubiquitous on the national stage. Texas Governor Rick Perry might not have been recruited by the Tea Party, but ingratiating himself with their ilk helped him trounce moderate Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in the Republican primary. The Conservative candidate in NY-23, Doug Hoffman, pulled off a near upset in the general election after ostracizing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava.

McCain could win as either a moderate or a conservative in Arizona in most years, but Brown has no choice but to stake out moderate positions on key issues or risk moving too far to the right for liberal Massachusetts, which might satiate his constituents, but will leave him with his fair share of enemies, particularly among the Tea Party ranks. And once the honeymoon is over, Brown should expect campaign donations and resources to come pouring in from unfriendly conservative interests to prop up legitimate primary challengers.

The GOP seems to be abandoning the consensus-reaching, coalition-building strategy that propelled moderates like McCain to national prominence in favor of a less inclusive, more principled approach to campaigning and governing. The quintessential case study in principled conservatism, Rick Perry campaigns exactly how he governs: with tenacity, conviction, and self-righteousness. The Tea Party movement doesn’t talk about leadership summits and it doesn’t care about ending the bitter partisanship in Washington–they are a movement of ideas, principles, and self-evident truths.

In determining the future direction of the party, institutional idiosyncrasies will factor just as much as ideological incongruities. The House of Representatives is traditionally the more volatile of the two chambers, designed by the Founders to reflect current political trends. Conversely, the Senate is historically the more deliberative chamber, designed to be relatively insulated from public sentiment. As such, moderates generally have an institutional advantage in Senate races while ideologues generally have an institutional advantage in House races.

2010 is a watershed year for the ideological makeup of the Republican Party. If moderates hope to salvage the party they know, they will need to well, build a coalition. Besides, it’s what they do best.

America’s debt and deficit are mounting, ever so steadily, and most politicians in Washington don’t seem to care. In fact, it is in their best interest not to care, as pork-barrel spending and special interest handouts have long been the lifeblood of many political careers.

But at least two members of Congress are prepared to go against self-interest and atone for their colleagues’ reckless ways. Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) are poised to introduce the Spending Limit Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would limit annual federal spending to one-fifth of national economic output.

In an editorial appearing on the Daily Caller, Pence charts the rapid growth of government in recent years and spells out his plan to fix it.

“After a decade of runaway federal spending, the appetite in Washington to spend without regard to the taxpayer is still strong,” writes Pence. “Lawmakers from both political parties have broken their promises for fiscal responsibility and therefore have broken all historical records for deficits and debt. Our children will soon pay the price.”

Pence says setting the one-fifth standard would reflect historical precedent since World War II, allowing the federal government to provide vital goods and services while forcing politicians to spend within their means. As a safeguard, the limit could be exceeded by a declaration of war or by a supermajority in Congress.

Tying the practical with the philosophical, Pence writes, “The burden of proof falls on those who believe the government deserves more than $1 out of every $5 of an economy built on the strength and sacrifice of American workers and businesses.”

He continues: “No doubt, some will try to make such an argument. Many in power believe government spending is the only sure foundation for economic growth. The philosophy of John Maynard Keynes is alive and well in Washington. But it’s clear that government spending is not ‘picking up the slack,’ it is holding back any economic recovery we hope to achieve.”

Pence also expounds on the national security implications, arguing that China is exerting considerable leverage over the United States because it owns almost $800 billion in our debt.

“We should never be forced to sacrifice our moral responsibilities out of economic necessity,” he writes.

While the Pence-Hensarling amendment would undoubtedly curtail federal spending and help stave off an impending fiscal disaster, its short-term political prospects, to put it lightly, are less than probable. However, if Republicans take back the House, as Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report predicts, and close the gap in the Senate, the amendment would put Obama in an awkward rhetorical position. On the one hand, the president supports a limited freeze on federal spending. On the other hand, most Democrats, particularly the progressive elements in the party, could never sign on to such an amendment as it directly conflicts with their Keynesian worldview.

Republicans, even with a House majority, would need Obama to sign on to the amendment for it to have a chance. But even if the president invested his political capital in it, the amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the country’s state legislatures. This task, while daunting, could be made easier after the 2010 elections if Republicans hold firm in Red states and capitalize on the anti-incumbent mood in key states.

If nothing else, Pence-Hensarling will elevate an oft-ignored policy issue to political relevancy and compel reckless politicians in both parties to reconcile their records with their rhetoric.

While my proximity to this horrific event coupled with reports that the shooter was a 9/11 Truther and a Bush hater grips me with fear and anger, I am careful not to overreact. For someone in my position, the reflexive response to this event is to condemn the shooter as a radical left-winger with an ax to grind against conservatives and supporters of the Iraq War. But to do so would be hypocritical.

When the liberal media attempted to associate the IRS bomber with conservatives, many conservatives like myself were disgusted and outraged. A cursory examination of the IRS bomber’s online rant revealed grievances against both liberals and conservatives. But this didn’t stop liberal outfits like MSNBC from fancying this troubled man a symptom of conservative rage.

Instead of allowing political zealotry to seize control, conservatives should pause, take a collective breath, and move on to more relevant things. With liberals on the brink of dramatically transforming our health care system and a midterm election only eight months away, we can ill-afford to grovel about some grand liberal conspiracy.

Ultimately, it was wrong for the liberal media to throw the IRS bomber in with the conservative ilk, and it would be wrong for conservatives to characterize the Pentagon shooter as a liberal extremist.

UPDATE (2:42pm): In the battle to label the Pentagon shooter, the Christian Science Monitor is the first to draw blood, dubbing the man a “right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.”

After leading with this presumptuous and inflammatory declaration, the paper feebly attempts to qualify its assertion, but the intent is clear: go on the offensive by connecting the dots as early and often as possible and let the other side play defense.

Hopefully the American people will see through this thinly-veiled smear against the right and swiftly reject it.

About a week ago, Congress just renewed the Patriot Act without any additions to the protection of our privacy. The Senate approved the measure without any debate on the topic, and the Democrats chickened out again and left their improvements to the bill, which would restore most of our privacies, waning in the wind due to the lack of a supermajority. 97 bold members of the House of Representatives stood up against this legislation, and voted not to extend the provisions of the bill, but the legislation passed easily, and President Obama signed it without hesitation.

The Associated Press reports that the the main three sections of the Patriot Act that will remain enforced are

–Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

–Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

–Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

While many people would say that these provisions should be enforced, the lack of debate about this issue is quite astonishing. Where are all the Libertarians, the supporters of Ron (and now Rand) Paul? Where are all the liberals? I would assume that the people who want terrorist suspects tried in a judicial court would want the law rescinded.

Many people say that they don’t care about their liberties being infringed on the basis of security. However, those people do not realize what a slippery slope that actually is. Let’s hope people who speak out against the government, are not defined as part of a “terrorist” operation.

We have to watch our liberties closely or they may disappear. Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The only good news is that the renewal is only for a year, we better be ready to oppose this piece of horrendous legislation when it is up for renewal next February. Keep Your Eyes Open!

We all talk about how “dissatisfied” all Americans are with “Obamacare” and the oncoming socialist/quasi communist takeover within our government, but do any of you obstructionists begin to wonder how frustrated and fed-up many other Americans are at you?! In the end, your dreaded “Obamacare” will pass despite the fact you tried to hold the bill, and the nation, hostage with your promised “filibustering.”

But just to be clear on the whole matter, I have severe issues with the current health care bill, such as how it short changes many states which have great Medicaid programs (e.g. New York). Also, I am kind of worried as to how this whole bill will affect small businesses. (There are plenty more, but these are the ones that pop to mind as of right now…although we shouldn’t forget about all the healthcare lobbyists’ fingerprints on this bill either)  Nevertheless, some of the positives of this bill, such as expanding coverage to tens of millions of more Americans and eliminating all that pre-existing conditions garbage, makes it better than having no bill at all.

As for what Republicans had to say about all of this, listen to Mitch McConnel, the Senate Minority leader, when he says, “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it. We think that’s a policy mistake, and we think resorting to these kind of tactics, to thumb your noses at the American people, is something that ought to be resisted.”

Oh, shut still your quasi-turtle face, Senator McConnel! You’re partly the reason we’re in this mess.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?hp

As the Senate prepares to take an up-or-down vote, the NRCC is applying pressure on undecided Democrats on the House side. Project Code Red is designed to inject paid media featuring Republican physicians in Congress into targeted districts to tip the scales just enough to kill the Democrats’ health care plan.

Obama made no mention of a public option in his remarks and said a government-run health care system might work in other countries, but would not work in America.

ANALYSIS: Before Obama intervened, Senate Democrats were supposedly going to wait to move forward with reconciliation until Speaker Nancy Pelosi whipped up enough votes in the House.  The president’s order forces Sen. Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote on an unpopular bill using an unpopular procedure regardless of the plan’s politically feasibility in the House. This is a politically unwise move that reveals a glimmer of frustration the country is not accustomed to seeing from the usually patient, calculated Obama.

If he continues down this path, Obama will find himself with fewer political allies, a cantankerous electorate, and his political capital diminished.

Passed in December, the Senate version of the bill which Obama’s plan is based off of imposes a $750 fine on individuals who do not purchase insurance.

Obama does not believe the fine constitutes a tax, but the Senate plan requires American taxpayers to list their insurance status on their tax returns.

ANALYSIS: I have been waiting, tepidly, for this day to come. The promise to not raise taxes on the middle class while crafting an ambitious plan to extend insurance to millions of Americans was fallacious on its face. Proponents of an activist federal government like to supplant the term “taxes” with “fees” and “penalties.” Any serious person knows these three terms are different species within the same genus; their means may be different but each ends with less money in your pocket. When the American people finally figure out they’ve been duped, they will turn against this health care plan more voiciferously, if that’s possible, than they already have.

If Obama were attune to the current political climate, he would abandon all plans currently under considearion in Congress and meet behind the scenes with Republican leaders to pass a set of limited, targeted, cost-effective reforms. Too bad Obama, for whatever reason, is unwilling to change the direction and spirit of the plan in a way the American people could support. This portends political turmoil for Democrats in 2010, but more importantly, economic catastrophe for the country in years to come.

Yesterday Bunning objected relentlessly for several hours to stall a vote on the extension of unemployment benefits that thousands of jobless Americans rely on amid economic malaise.

Today Bunning defended his objections, citing concerns over the egregious and expanding federal debt and deficit. Of course, the left is criticizing Bunning, with some going so far as to question his mental health. And despite the fact that Bunning may have a mixed track record on similar votes in previous years, his motives are fundamentally sound.

Nevertheless, deciding to pick a fiscal fight over unemployment benefits with a 10% national unemployment rate looming ominously overhead smacks of bad timing. The only possible explanation is that he realizes his soapbox will be taken away from him soon and he wants to get his last word in before time runs out.

Instead of using a political charade to draw attention to yourself in the twilight of your politician career, why not let the politicians who are running for re-election–the ones who will be forced to deal with our impending fiscal disaster–co-opt the debt and deficit issue as a campaign issue? It makes you look more dignified, Senator, and makes your Party look less like the Evil Empire, as the mainstream media would have the public believe.

UPDATE:

POLITICO reports Sen. Bunning has agreed to stop stalling the vote to extend unemployment benefits after striking a deal with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to put to vote a measure to pay for the $10 billion price tag. The measure, however, is expected to fail.

The theatrics don’t stop there. Bunning said he plans on stalling all upcoming presidential nominations. This leads any rational person to the obvious conclusion that Bunning’s sideshow was not driven solely by a desire to draw attention to the federal debt and deficit, but by an inkling to obstruct the machinations of government for its own sake. If true, as it appears to be, this is a sad development.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/02/cnn-fact-check-is-sen-jim-bunnings-stand-against-unemployment-extensions-in-line-with-his-past-votes/?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/bunning_defends_his_position.html

However, with ordinances passed by city government in the last decade, no future cigar lounges may be opened within city limits. For the foreseeable future, the New York City is stuck with the lounges it has. Deciding to take part in this timeless tradition, Envision More sent an operative to dive feet-first into New York’s cigar culture, sampling lounges along the way.

Davidoff’s at Columbus Circle:

Located at The Shops at Columbus Circle (housed inside the Time Warner center) in Manhattan, Davidoff’s combines the premier lifestyle-and-cigar-store that has made the brand famous with an incredibly intimate cigar lounge. Essential to any lounge, Davidoff’s carries an expansive collection of cigars, particularly the ones produced by the company itself. The lounge, compared to most others in New York, can be considered to be small, with seating limited to under ten or twelve individuals when filled to capacity. This results in a forced camaraderie of sorts, with conversation between persons at the lounge being particularly rich. The major detracting feature of the establishment –its relatively small size- can be viewed in a positive light to due to the interactions between patrons. A great place to relax and have a smoke after a busy day at the office, Davidoff’s comes highly recommended.

Cigar Inn on 2^nd Ave:

Since Cigar Inn opened its notable Cigar Aficionado lounge in February 2009, smoking in New York City has never been the same.  Located on 2^nd Ave between 53^rd and 54^th Street in Manhattan’s Midtown East, Cigar Inn has one of the most versatile lounges in the city. Wooden furnishings, a nice walk-through room humidor, large leather couches, multiple wall-mounted flat-screen televisions, and a beverage-filled refrigerator, Cigar Inn provides an extraordinarily relaxing environment designed for lounging and conversation with good friends. While alcohol may not be purchased on the premises due to city laws, the lounge’s BYOB policy is most welcome and makes the cigar experience all the more enjoyable. Its late night hours (closing at or after 1:00AM for Monday through Saturday) are always welcome. If you’re looking for a place to watch a sports event or wish to have a relaxing evening with a drink and a good cigar, this is the place to be.

                The SFL Conference, jointly held with the Ivy League Alliance for Liberty and sponsored by the Columbia University Libertarians, took place on October 10^th at Columbia University, with events lasting from before 9:00AM to well after 9:00PM. Topics of discussion included issues regarding economic freedom, personal liberties, governmental tax policy, and foreign policy, among others.

                Students For Liberty, a recently-founded organization dedicated to promoting liberty-orientated values on American college campuses, ensured that the event progressed swimmingly and without any major hiccups in programming. The speakers, diverse in their specialties and all at the forefront of their fields, were particularly engaging. Dr. Nigel Ashford of the Institute for Humane Studies and CJ Maloney, a Mises.org contributor, were particularly well received for both their humor and wisdom. Among the more educational of the presenters were Damon Root and Mario Rizzo. Root, a Reason magazine employee, conducted a wonderful lecture regarding libertarianism and the fight for racial equality in America, with emphasis on historical figures who operated using pro-liberty ideals in order to combat racial injustice. Professor Mario Rizzo of New York University went in depth about governmental economic paternalism and how it affects individuals today. The keynote address was delivered by Fred L. Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a speech which ended the evening on a humorous note.