Divergent Superdelegates

Hillary supporter and Congressional Black Caucus dean Representative John Lewis (D-GA) seems to be switching his support from Hillary Clinton to... well it's not clear. It seems like he's going to "follow his congressional district" and throw his support to Obama. But he hasn't quite declared his intentions yet. No matter what he ends up doing, Clinton cannot afford to lose his support. He is a standard-bearer of the CBC and a widely respected opinion-shaper. 

From the other pole comes Gov. Brian Schweiter (D-MT), who has effectively ceded his superdelegate status:

"I think the people ought to decide this. I just don’t like the notion of backroom deals," he said. "What I don’t want to do is disenfranchise anybody — particularly new voters. People who have shown up because it’s a movement. They want to be part of the group that elected the first woman president, or the first black person to be president"

Perhaps another trend-setting opinion by a popular Red-state governor and possible Vice President. By disavowing the powers granted as a superdelegate, does Gov. Schweitzer give rise to a procedural mutiny in the Democratic Caucus. We'll see.

McCain Advisor To Step Down If Obama Gets Nomination

Interestingly, Mark McKinnon, a top advisor to John McCain, has told the NPR that if it's Obama in the general election, he's out. Clearly stating that he'll support McCain "100%" either way, McKinnon added:

"I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal. I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would be a great race for the country and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

Your thoughts.

Ethanol's Dark Secret

It no mystery that we need to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil. U.S. consumption of oil makes us dependant or foriegn countries for resources and production of carbon dioxide from gas burning cars may contribute to cliamate change. Although climate change is still up for debate, I think it is safe to say that most Americans think we we need to find alternative sources of energy. The solution, at least at present: Ethanol.

The problem is most advocates of ethanol power fail to recognize reality. For those who don't know, Ethanol is made from plant matter, such as corn. Farmers love it as a source becuase it makes corn a cash crop and raises demand in the market. Additionally, it does reduce our dependance on foriegn products becuase we can grow lots of corn at home.

Although, ethanol use may seem good that is a faulty assumption. Even if every kernel of corn was converted into ethantol it would still only replace about 12% of the oil we consume. Additionally, reliance on ethanol and the political acceptance of ethanol fuel (yes Iowa the first state with a caucus is a major corn state) hinders the development of better technology. Furthermore people fail to realize that ethanol use raises costs in other areas like food prices (farmers convert to growing corn at the cost of other items), milk prices, and even beer prices.

The far better solution is to continue looking for alternative sources. Although the politican supporting ethanol can say he supports the farmers, he is very far from reducing dependance on foriegn oil. Here's a better clue. The last time I check America was surrounded by two major oceans. Time to put more money in technology and less money into appeasing the politcal agenda.

Dollars and Sense

At the risk of piling on, I offer my own assessment of what economic policy would look like in an Obama administration. Senator Obama's father had a PhD in economics from Harvard, so he must be of the genealogy, Homo Economicus. Anyone who posits that he will adhere to traditional "liberal" economic theory is clearly unaware of several points.

First, he is the only candidate running on middle-class tax cuts. While it is true that he has mentioned raising the social security payroll tax (past the $97,500 threshold), it's not a hallmark of his social security bail out, while the tax-cuts are most definitely the focus of a multi-faceted economic package.

Second, Senator Obama seeks a technocratic solution to simplify tax filing for Americans by digitizing tax forms and the reforming the archaic tax code. While saving money on preparation, this will economize the cost to the Federal Government of processing tax returns and decrease tax avoidance, thereby increasing revenue without changing tax rates.

Third, his economic growth formula, investing in higher education through tuition breaks and localized job-training while driving research on innovation and energy independence to grow new industry, is the exact mix of primer to return this country to prosperity. Rolling back the final tax bracket, from 35 to 39% (4%!!)
Lastly, it's important to know who's advising the Senator on economic issues. His roster includes a brilliant young U of Chicago Economics Professor  Austan Goolsbee, an innovative free-marketer whose focus on new economy is a refreshing break from old supply-siders and their retread ideas.

His current proposal (reported as $210b for new jobs) is to be spent over 10 years, which by math is $21b a year of spending. The Federal Budget in FY '07 was $2.7 Trillion dollars. So, before everyone gets their panties in a knot about spending, admit that it's less than 1% of spending, on an annual basis. And infrastructure matters. Two of the most progressive and solutions-oriented executives, Michael Bloomberg and Arnold The economy doesn't grow unless public infrastructure improves because the global economy needs wide lanes to run. And investment in education and infrastructure is the best way to grow the economy and give people the tools to succeed on their own. 


At the risk of piling on, I offer my own assessment of what economic policy would look like in an Obama administration. Senator Obama's father had a PhD in economics from Harvard, so he must be of the genealogy, Homo Economicus. Anyone who posits that he will adhere to traditional "liberal" economic theory is clearly unaware of several points.

First, he is the only candidate running on middle-class tax cuts. While it is true that he has mentioned raising the social security payroll tax (past the $97,500 threshold), it's not a hallmark of his social security bail out, while the tax-cuts are most definitely the focus of a multi-faceted economic package.

Second, Senator Obama seeks a technocratic solution to simplify tax filing for Americans by digitizing tax forms and the reforming the archaic tax code. While saving money on preparation, this will economize the cost to the Federal Government of processing tax returns and decrease tax avoidance, thereby increasing revenue without changing tax rates.

Third, his economic growth formula, investing in higher education through tuition breaks and localized job-training while driving research on innovation and energy independence to grow new industry, is the exact mix of primer to return this country to prosperity. Rolling back the final tax bracket, from 35 to 39% (4%!!). Any conservatives who oppose spending on some "principled" basis have clearly been asleep for 7 years. The Federal Budget has grown by $1 Trillion since 2001. I offer another proposal: Instead of reflexively opposing Federal spending (except of course of tax-subsidies to countries that ship jobs overseas), perhaps supply-siders should consider competent fiscal management and pay-as-you go rules. The worst problem since 2001 has been incompetence, inefficiency, no-bid contracts and cronyism. If you want to see where your dollars are going, see www.usaspending.gov. You can watch your tax dollars melt away and see an example of the open, transparent government Senator Obama would run. This website was created as a result of a bill co-sponsored by Senators Obama and Coburn (R-OK). 

Lastly, it's important to know who's advising the Senator on economic issues. His roster includes a brilliant young U of Chicago Economics Professor  Austan Goolsbee, an innovative free-marketer whose focus on new economy is a refreshing break from old supply-siders and their retread ideas.

His current proposal (reported as $210b for new jobs) is to be spent over 10 years, which by math is $21b a year of spending. The Federal Budget in FY '07 was $2.7 Trillion dollars. So, before everyone gets their panties in a knot about spending, admit that it's less than 1% of spending, on an annual basis. And infrastructure matters. Two of the most successful, pragmatic and progressive executives, Arnold Scharzenegger and Michael Bloomberg, have explicitly called for investment in Federal infrastructure. For the United States to lead in the new economy, we've got to invest in our transportation and human capital. Investment in education and infrastructure is the most efficient way to continue American economic leadership and give people the tools to succeed on their own. 

At every opportunity in his career, Senator Obama has crafted positive, pragmatic and successful solutions to problems he's faced. Still, it is important that voters examine his record fairly and thoroughly. I believe they will like what they find.

The Colvin Report: The 21YO Super Delegate

So, you didn't believe me, you thought all your 'Super Delegates' must be people you can count on. Well, I bet you didn't count on this.

In Wisconson, Jason Rae was elected to a 4 year term to the Democratic National Convention as a Super Delegate when he was 17 years old. Granted, he is a 21 year old junior in college at this point and is now old enough to vote, but is it right that his vote is worth more then the town he came from? I sure hope this counts as an excused absence.

I'll tell you one thing, Ms. Clinton wants his vote and the hundreds of normal people in his 'Super' position. I think its naive to think these delegates wont come into play. Will it be the collapse of the Democratic Party's nomination process?

Don't take my word for it, just watch as Chelsea Clinton wines and dines them.

The Economical Way to Raise Money

I blogged yesterday about Mr. Obama's proposal to raise the funds necessary to increase spending on bridges and other government projects. Perhaps Mr. Obama should consider some of these ideas to increase spending while promoting jobs.

1.) Kill the AMT (alternative minimum tax). The AMT was orginally designed to only hit the richest people in society. It limits the amount of deductions they can take thereby forcing them to pay a portion of tax liability. However, the AMT has never been adjusted for inflation. It now hit middle class earners, forcing many people to go through the hassle of filing an extra return to see if they qualify. I am completely against the AMT. If people want to contribute massive funds to charity in order to avoid tax liability, I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Additionally, we could abolish the AMT and raise taxes by an additional 2%. I'm sure the middle class would not complain becuase now they only have to file one return.

2.) Tax C corporations like a partnership and kill the tax on qualified dividends. I mentioned this in a previous blog and discussed the potential economics from the corporate side. However, now I'm going to discuss it from the taxpayer's side. The current tax on qualified dividends makes little sense. Imagine TP (taxpayer) X earnes 150K per year. This places him in the 35% bracket. However, imagine TP Y, a wealthy tycoon, is unemployed and reinvested all his money in stocks. He would be taxed at the 15% rate on his vast fortune. Yes, many middle class people probably pay more taxes than Bill Gates. By abolishing the C level tax, we could encourage more corporations to come here, and force the people with money invested in the corp. to pay tax at their income level. This is the most fair way and everyone would be paying their share of the tax.

Those are my two ideas. Feel free to comment.

Obama's "Big" Proposal

Recently, Mr. Obama finally took a stand. $210 million for new jobs in the construction and environmental sectors. Sounds like a good idea right?? Think again. Notice where Mr. Obama is planning on getting the money from.

- Ending the Iraq War

- Ending Tax Breaks for Corporations

- raising taxes on high income earners

- taxing carbon pollution.

Okay the first one, I have no complaints. The Iraq war is best left for another post. I am going to focus on the economics of Obama's plan. Now don't get me wrong I am all for building new bridges, and I think his idea is laudable. However, look where the last three sources of income are coming from.

Yes, that is right; the entities that already employ the most workers in this country as is. As I have stated in a previous blog, we need to reduce the taxes on corporations so they can compete on the global market. Mr. Obama is adopting the antithesis of sound policy in his proposal.

Taxing Carbon would also endanger certain industries in this country including the already devestated auto-industry. Furthmore, taxing emissions from powerplants would ultimatley serve to squeeze low income families that can hardly afford power as is. Don't think the power industry would not just pass the tax onto the consumer.

Finally, the tax on high income earners is more regressive than anything. This tax would curtail spending from a group that actually has the money to spend. If anything we want to encourage consumption, which would ultimatley increase production, and thereby jobs.

Mr. Obama you have a good idea, but while creating jobs in one industry you would be destorying the hard workers in other industries. The costs of goods would increase as companies pass off the new taxes to consumer, and the poor people we should be helping will ultimately feel the squeeze.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is trying to relive the George H. Bush speech with a new twist.

"My fellow Americans, read my lips, lots of new taxes."

Dear Courts: Stay Out of My Bedroom

Happy Valentine’s Day boys and girls. On the eve of a holiday where card companies, chocolate makers, and other companies are making millions on people scrambling to find last minute gifts for their loved ones, some people still might need to deal with big brother looking over their shoulder. Of course I’m talking about State bans on the sale and purchase of sex toys.

Recently courts have taken up the issue on whether State law can ban sex toys. Perhaps even worse is that circuit courts are currently split on whether to uphold bans on such devices. Recently a Texas court held that a ban on sex toys violates the Lawrence v. Texas right of "adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home." However, not all courts agree in this decision and the 11th circuit recently upheld a similar law in Alabama just last year.

The circuit split indicates the case of sex toys might be going to the Supreme Court. The real question is whether the Court should even be considering such a thing. The 11th circuit fails to recognize how the laws would even be enforced. Additionally, should we really be telling consenting adults what they should and should not buy? The last time I checked a person’s home is a castle, and it should remain as such. I’m looking forward to seeing the Supreme Court take up this issue if they ever decide to touch it. For now, the 11th Circuit can dispatch the thought police in an effort to quell the illegal traffic in “sex toys.”

-I would like to thank both David Kopel and Eugene Volokh whose posts on the Volokh Conspiracy alerted me to the story. For their commentary see http://volokh.com/

The Colvin Report: 'Change' Round 2

I knew I had recognized Obama's campaign tactics from somewhere, it finally came to me. Remember middle school elections for class president? The kid who promised the vending machines always won. Obama is that kid. He has no plan or means of delivering, but everyone loves the way it sounds. Everyone likes candy, especially if it's free.

My next issue, Obama's take on government provided health care.

He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies, and politicians to the table and working together (Remember, I've already questioned his ability to work together)to come up with a feasible plan. I appreciate that he recognizes he needs a plan, but come on, If that would really work, don't you think we'd have universal health care by now. Well, we don't. If you can't break party lines, how do you bring corporations with billions of dollars and their shareholder's interest at stake to the table and expect them to turn over their livelihood. Goodbye vending machine. Hello reality.

Here is my take, we have Medicare/Medicaid to provide health care to low income families and we have Welfare, job training, and various supplemental income programs that vary slightly by state. We also have an unemployment rate of almost 3 times less than the European average. Like they say, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. That still holds true.

For lower middle to middle income families, is the real issue that they can't afford health care or that they have their spending priorities wrong? Everyone hates paying for insurance, but sometimes you have to plan ahead. If a flat panel tv, a car stereo, or nice clothes are more important to you than providing your family with health care, I understand, I'm materialistic too. But, lets admit there are better ways to solve this problem. Let's not turn hospitals into the DMV, one is bad enough.

My suggestion: Tax credits for insurance premiums. No free money, but if you pay it, you can get it back. More feasible and allows the benefits of privatized health care. Maybe I should run for president.

Reducing the Corporate Tax: Wishful Thinking or Economic Necessity

Currently in the U.S. corporations termed as C corporations are taxed at a rate of 35%. See IRC 11. The corporate earnings are again taxed at the shareholder level when the corporation distributes dividends to the shareholders. The problem is that no other country taxes corporations at the same level as the U.S.

This disparity in tax treatment ultimately creates problems for U.S. companies is the global markets. In fact corporations looking for bigger tax incentives might even be more willing to incorproate overseas in an effort to avoid the tax liability the U.S. puts on the corporations. With technological advances like the internet and IM, it is easy to maintain offices in the U.S. while keeping a headquarters in an overseas location.

Although critics might argue that the U.S. courts have access to better case law regarding businesses, and that overseas incorproation statutes are difficult, if the price is right a business might be willing to take the risk. In fact, some countries might even be willing to make incorporation easier in order to raise capital.

Given the current U.S. recession, perhaps it is time we thought about lowering the tax burden on corporations. The businesses might even lower the price of goods and make things more affordable. Also, keeping corproations in the U.S. lets us better monitor them and might even create jobs here. Overall, it might be best to adopt the pass through method of taxation used by other business entities and allow the corporations to operate on a more equal footing on the global market.

The Colvin Report: Party Lines and Baseball

Do Republican's like baseball better than Democrats?

I can't help but notice that every Republican has Roger's back during the Congressional Hearings on Steroid use in Baseball, but as soon as a Democrat gets on the mic the trend changes and Roger is back on the defensive.

I thought Liberals loved drug use and civil liberties, but they seem to want to crucify The Rocket. Do liberals have it out for baseball or do politicians just have to divide among party lines no matter the issue? Maybe Republicans and Democrats held a fantasy draft for baseball players accused of steroid use and the Red team got Clemens.

The only evidence is from a man who has admitted to lying under oath on multiple occasions and is only testifying because of a plea deal with federal prosecutors. Republican Representative Shay points out that he is an ex-cop who became a drug dealer. Why is he the key witness and what is the point of this whole thing?

Even assuming Congress wants to develop a plan to end the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball, that could be achieved without naming individual players or forcing them to testify. If Congress is worried about protecting the image of professional athletes, I don't think naming and attacking them individually is the way to do so.

Do politicians have any business messing with baseball?

Clinton To Drop Out in 5, 4, 3, 2....

One.

Senator Hillary Clinton will drop her bid for the presidency.

You read it here first.

After finally relinquishing the delegate lead tonight to Senator Obama, she has no choice but to begin a slow winding up of her enormous campaign apparatus and to begin printing Hillary 2016 signs at midnight. She has lost this game on multiple fronts, on the outside, in the crowds and the vote, and, most strikingly, on the inside, where her ruthless political operatives should have thrived. She has been outmaneuvered and outwitted despite her sterling roster of elite Washington consultants and pollsters and the help of the greatest living politician on the planet, William Jefferson Clinton. She is a fundamentally flawed political pariah, a woe-as-me sap that paradoxically threatened to turn back the clock on women's liberation fifty years by her ultra-reliance on pitifully-scripted emotion and her brash husband. Her breathlessly hyped campaign yielded only modest results among an electrified democratic electorate while simultaneously staining the Clinton-brand forever. How did we come to this point? What led us to this day? Let us recount the ways that the SS Hillary now lays at the bottom of the sea:

• Hillary Clinton is fundamentally disliked

For whatever reason, whether it be her shrill, endlessly poll-tested politics or her relation to the scandal-ridden Clinton White House, or her hyper-partisan perspective of America, she entered this race with the highest negatives since.... well, since George W. Bush's last poll numbers. Her campaign would be perfectly happy playing a Kerry +1 strategy, capturing "Blue America" and ever so slightly nipping a GOPer in Ohio or Florida to take the Presidency with rail-thin margins throughout the country. Americans are rightly suspect of a candidate that wishes to continue the governmental gird-lock partisanship of the last eight years when such a regime produced the most disastrously poisoned atmosphere in the 20th century.

• The "inevitability" train was derailed
  

George W. Bush pushed his 2000 candidacy as the resumption of the throne, as if the presidency was (perhaps) a family heirloom, one which he most obviously should reclaim, rightfully, as an outsider bent on cleaning house in Washington and installing the beginning of a compassionate turn on conservatism and building majority for decades to come. He shoved party stalwarts such as John McCain, and neophytes like Steve Forbes, to the side as the establishment leaped onto his bandwagon. As recently as October, Hillary Clinton still rode the white horse toward her inevitable crowning as national savior and flag-bearer of the Democratic Party. She ignored questions about her ability to inspire the electorate, to draw independents, to offer a new direction in a country convinced it was on the wrong track, and she arrogantly assumed a George W. Bush-like disposition of smugness. The American people have a limited tolerance for arrogance, and Mrs. Clinton pushed it.

• Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Democracy should never resemble oligarchy. When the Clintons effectively ceded the presidency to George Bush by refusing to commit to a full-throated endorsement of Al Gore in 2000, they clearly saw Gore as a roadblock to Hillary's coronation. Setting Bush up as a pansy they could topple in 2004 seemed like a bright idea, before 9/11 that is. And now, with Bush out of the way, the field should have been clear. Keep in mind, for those born after 1980, the White House has held a Bush or a Clinton continually. That's almost thirty years, breeding considerable voter fatigue. If not for this fact, Jeb Bush would be your republican nominee.

• The War

Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her complicity in the worst strategic mistake in American Foreign Policy history. Trusting this President with an open-ended commitment to the use of force in Iraq was the wrong choice, even given the evidence at the time. It does not really matter whether you want to remove troops today or in two years, but it does matter that a leader be able to admit mistakes. George Bush does not suffer such trivialities, and neither does Mrs. Clinton.

• Ruthless and Unprincipled Politicking in a New Media Age

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist and pollster, wrote a book called Microtrends, in which he describes the method of relentless categorization that he believes will deliver victory to your next product launch, or political candidacy. Certainly, marketing heads may debate the merits of such a strategy for targeting toothpaste customers, but voters are another story. Karl Rove demonstrated the use of such groupings to squeeze incredible victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Penn loves Rove, and so does Bill Clinton. The bare-knuckled, brutal, win-at-all-costs mentality appeals to the Clintons. Of course, the downside to such a strategy is a fractured, divided electorate and an acrid, hyper-partisan airspace. Namely, gridlock. In an election about unity and change, microtrends seems like a desperately anachronistic venture.

• Axe-Grinding

Bill Clinton made many friends during his triangulation-happy eight years at the helm. He presided over a period of peace and prosperity which saw Americans become richer and more competitive globally. Nevertheless, progressives always faulted Clinton and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which he chaired, for taking the Democratic Party so far to the right. Clinton co-oped Republican ideas like welfare reform and open trade. He never pushed for the progressive institutions that many liberals believed would perpetuate American leadership into the 21st century. And many never forgot this missed opportunity. Democrats of all stripes have great reason to sink Hillary's campaign in a vengeful strike at Bill's betrayal. As a result, the knives are out.

• The Death of Conservatism
  

Conservatism's great promise throughout the 20th century was limited government, strong national defense and social traditionalism. Unfortunately, as a result of the rise of the Neo-conservatives (really, traditional liberal or imperialistic political thought) from the Project for a New American Century and the Bush regime, the conservative coalition collapsed. Hillary Clinton was deftly prepared and uniquely suited to cobble together this waning movement into an opposing electoral force. Economic, fiscal conservatives are largely aghast at the Bush regime's big-government philosophy. From the bloated No-Child Left Behind Act to the creation of an entirely new Federal Bureaucracy(Department of Homeland Security) If not for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2002, Bush would have nothing to show for his supposed fiscal modesty. Those interested in limited government cannot at all be pleased with the constant and dedicated invasion of Civil Liberties (avoidance of FISA, Habeas Corpus, Domestic Intelligence Expansion) despite being in the name of national security, nor his liberal stance toward the expansion of amnesty for illegal immigrants. And lastly, the compassionate, social conservative that slipped into office in 2000 has hardly pleased the flock with the approval of torture, the very un-Christian waging of endless war abroad, nor the disgraceful manner with which he ignored American citizens as the floodwaters raged in Louisiana. By most any measure, Bush 43's tenure has been a momentous failure and a permanent blow to the conservative front first formed by Barry Goldwater in the wake of his defeat in 1964. All this could be forgotten if the right's "Great Satan" would kindly be on the ballot in November.

Fortunately for the American people, it seems as if conservatism's one remaining unifying factor, Mrs. Clinton, will be sitting on the sidelines this November. And this is a very good thing. While she provides the competent leadership we've lacked for the last eight years, she fails on most every other point. She represents all the things we need to put in our past. And that is why we must wish her luck in her second full term as Senator from her adopted state of New York.

The Colvin Report: 'Change' Round 1

I may be the only one challenging this concept of CHANGE, but I am willing to be 'that guy' as I'll be taking a few jabs at Obama's positions in a series of blogs.

For one, I think Obama is naive on developing foreign policy and maintaining foreign relationships. I point to back in August, when Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. What is he thinking? I sure would like to hear this plan. When asked: the plan would “depend on how best to conduct them."

Further, he has also said, and i quote, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” I may be a conservative, but I'm not sure we need a war in Pakistan, the nation that continues to cooperate with the Bush administration.

I know what your thinking, "But Obama is going to change things, he will bring people together."

This brings me to my second point, he hasn't been very successful during his tenure in Congress. According to National Journal, he ranked as the most liberal senator in Congress. In 2007, he voted the liberal position 65 out of 66 casted votes. I'm reminded of a previous candidate being a "uniter not a divider." In a democratic controlled Congress, he doesn't seem to be a leader of change, more of a follower of the 'same ol' actually.

I think Obama is a charismatic speaker with lots of conclusions and no plans. Maybe that comes from his lack of experience. What do you have to say about that?

A Vice President Called Rice May Be The Answer to a Diverse Democrat Ticket

What might the Republicans do if faced with an Obama-Clinton (yeah, I got that the right way) ticket? Well, the talk is that McCain may have Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a black woman, on his short list for VP. It makes a lot of sense that Republicans would want to court the black and women voters by having a a ticket that is as diverse as the Democratic's will—and, yes, it will—be.

And I couldn't think of a better move.

Vice Rice.

I'm a fan of Condi, and she is a foreign relations expert. A McCain-Rice ticket would be a foreign relations juggernaut. As ready for change as the nation may be, if it's McCain-Rice the Democrats may be in trouble if the focus of the election becomes foreign relations. Imagine Hillary and Rice debating in October. It would be historic.

While we know that McCain is not all that conservative and, therefore, needs a conservative as a running mate to woo conservative voters, but how conservative is Rice? No one really knows. Might it be more important to the Republicans that they have a diverse ticket as opposed to an über-conservative ticket? I doubt it, but this should be interesting.

The Colvin Report: Transgender Toddlers?

As I watch the snow pour down in lovely State College, I can't help but think of my childhood in Virginia, back when kids only came in two genders. Male and Female. I remember always wanting to check "Yes" in the "Sex" box, but my only chooses were "Male" and "Female," I had no idea I could be a transgender. Was I cheated out of something?

Well, the courts may soon determine that answer. Off some place in Liberal Land a family stands up for their 7 year old son, who they allow to dress like a girl, because they are distraught that he/she is being denied a basic constitutional right of equal protection.

These 'parents' believe their transgender child deserves "Unisex" bathrooms in all publicly ran facilities; mainly: elementary, middle, and high schools across America. They argue that he/she should be secure in his/her sexuality and other children should use the bathroom together so that they can have that same opportunity. Let me reiterate, this child is 7 years old.

Personally, I don't think i was cheated, I like being a guy quite well actually. I think this 7 year old is the one who has been cheated by bad liberal psycho-babbling politically correct parents. I understand the separation of Church and State, but when did it become a bad thing to instill good values and morals in your children?

Maybe I'm not progressive, shame on me, but i prefer my bathrooms in 2 genders.

Judicial Policing of Cap and Trade

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington struck down a Bush administration proposal that would exempt power plants from EPA regulation. It appears that finally the courts have decided to put some teeth in EPA regulation. However, with this recent ruling there is still a question of what the ruling means for society.

The proposed cap and trade plan was to go into effect in 2010, but originally exempted power plants from implementing strict technology for pollution control. However, with the recent decision the court has finally showed a willingness to move into the modern era. Traditionally, the energy industry has lagged behind other sectors of the economy in implementing strict technology controls. This new ruling seems to indicate that this era has come to an end.

This decision, along with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, shows the judicial system has a real determination to enforce environmental regulation. However, the effect of ruling remains to be seen because even after Massachusetts v. EPA the EPA has been slow to implement any meaningful regulation. Perhaps the Bush administration is willing to take a Jacksonian approach to Judicial activism. In an adverse ruling against his policies, Jackson was heard to say, “let them send the military to stop me.” Jackson won that debate 1800’s and it appears the Bush administration appears poised to win the regulation debate as well.

'Dubya' Talks Clintons, the War, Polls and Takes a Jab at Obama

I don't recall Obama ever saying that he'd "attack Pakistan" or that he'd "embrace Ahmadinejad." C'mon, Mr. President! Taking up for the Clintons but taking a jab at Obama? Looks like Dubya is beginning to think that Obama, not Hillary, will be the Democratic nominee.

The Colvin Report: Super Delegates

They are bound by one thing and one thing only: their conscious. I know Democrats are known for their kind heartedness, but how much do you really trust them?

2,025 Delegate votes are needed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination and the Democratic presidential candidates are at a near standstill. There are approximately 850 available Super Delegates that could make all the difference.

These Super Delegates consist of (1) Elected members of the Democratic National Committee; (2) Democratic Governors; (3) Democratic US Senators and US Representatives (including non-voting delegates); (4) Distinguished party leaders (current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents; former Democratic leaders of the Senate and House; former DNC chairmen); and (5) Unpledged "add-on's" chosen by the DNC (Nancy Pelosi's daughter, for example).

Maybe it's the skeptic inside of me, but something seems severely wrong about this process. It should be simple, the people come out and vote, those votes are pledged to the winning candidate (in proportion or totality), and the candidate with the most votes wins the presidential nomination. To me, this tells the voter one thing; that the Democratic party does not trust you to make an informed decision about who should be the presidential nominee.

What do you have to say about that?

McCain-Huckabee '08?

If you'd asked me this question a couple of weeks ago, I would've said it was a sure thing. Not so much anymore. That's because Mike Huckabee won't back down, and it seems like his staying in the race hurts John McCain. Everyone, me especially, was shocked that Mitt Romney suddenly but honorably called it quits at CPAC. And when we heard his reasons, claiming his staying in the campaign would "forestall the launch of a national campaign," it made you wonder: why doesn't Huckabee drop out for the same reasons?

McCain and Huckabee, to put it mildly, seemingly disliked Romney. Romney didn't seem to be too fond of them either. He had more delegates than Huckabee and while Huck is pinching pennies, surely Romney had the money to go on (you can't spell "Romney" without the m-o-n-e-y). If anyone should've dropped out under the circumstances, it should've been the Huckster.

But Huck and all his wit is still here.

And if that isn't enough to make you scratch your head, consider this: it is nearly mathematically impossible for the Immortal Huck Hogan to even get the GOP nomination. Even if he handedly won every remaining contest in every remaining state, he'd still come up short. So, what is Huckaberry Finn trying to prove? Maybe that he can win across the nation and, therefore, should be a shoe-in for VP?

I don't know. That would be a strange tactic; it seems to draw a rift between the senator and the governor rather than prepare them to be on the same ticket.

I do know, however, that Huck's going on polarizes the GOP and reminds conservatives everywhere that McCain is no conservative. It even reminds McCain who was booed at CPAC at the very mention of the word immigration that he's no conservative. At least if Huck dropped out and McCain was the sole Republican standing (sorry, Ron Paul supporters) then Conservatives could focus on McCain, talk themselves into backing him, and pinch their noses to cast that vote. At least they'd have more time to get used to the idea that McCain will be the nominee.

And that'll certainly take some time.

Obama, Clinton on 60 minutes

Bush Endorses McCain...

Jeb Bush, that is. The former Florida governor announced today that he was throwing his support to John McCain. Bush had been mum on who he would support for the GOP nomination, but rumors circulated last year that he favored Mitt Romney. With Romney out of the picture and the Republican nominee all but declared, Bush has now made it official.

Not that endorsements mean much in the first place (see Massachussetts Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama), with the race to the GOP nomination being practically over, this one means even less.

WSJ: Michelle Obama Solidifies Her Role In the Election

Looking around on WSJ.com this morning, I came across this article and found it rather interesting. Michelle Obama has been painted as a woman who doesn't mind saying what's on her mind, and she's caught a lot of slack for it. But what's wrong with that? I certainly respect it, but others do not. We all should agree, though, that she is a very intelligent, successful woman, and I doubt that she would be where she is had she been afraid to stand up for herself.

Your thoughts.

///Be sure to catch Michelle Obama on Larry King Live! Tonight at 9 est. on CNN. ---R

A SIGN OF TROUBLE: Clinton Campaign Replaces Manager

After last night's sweep by Obama, it is just been reported that Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided to change campaign managers, a sign that someone saw a need for the campaign to head in a different direction.

Patti Solis Doyle, ex-campaign manager, now serves as a senior advisor. Her replacement, Maggie Williams, was Clinton's chief of staff back when the senator was the First Lady.

As I post this, Obama has a marginal lead in today's Maine Caucuses.

Obama Sweeps, Huckabee Won't Go Away

Yesterday, Mike Huckabee told a group of supporters that he was hoping for a "miracle." And to get the Republican nomination, he'll need just that. In fact, the Huck would need to win every single primary from here on out, and he would need to get 70, 80, 90, probably even 100% of the votes. Unlikely? You bet. One thing's for sure, he's not giving up.

Saturday, Huckabee carried Kansas and Louisianna but still trails McCain by several hundred delegates.

As for the Democrats, Barack Obama took all four primaries. Voters in Louisina, Nebraska, Washington and the Virgin Islands decidedly chose Obama over Hillary Clinton, whose losing a considerable amount of momentum. With Obama likely to sweep the Potomac Primaries on Tuesday, Clinton desperately needs to win Maine today. Otherwise, he will have gained 8 victories since her last.