House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate. “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.” Pelosi’s stand may put her at odds with a growing number of members of the Democratic Caucus who have been moving toward possible compromises with Republicans on ways to expand domestic energy production. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Wednesday told reporters that expanded offshore drilling is not off the table, and that Democrats will take a look at whether states should be able to choose to drill off their coasts. “I’m not knee-jerk-opposed to anything,” Reid said.

When Ms. Pelosi says that drilling is a hoax, how does she explain the cuban Economic Zone?

Ms. Pelsoi apparently thinks that holding symbolic votes on non-energy energy plans is enough to placate the public. She's wrong about that. The only thing that'll satisfy consumers is if production is increased. Consumers know that that's the only thing that'll bring prices down quickly.

I'd further point out that it isn't this administration that's had trouble keeping prices down. Look at this chart of retail gas prices:

According to this graphic, gas cost between $2.30-2.40 a gallon when Pelosi took over. It also shows that it's jumped to $4.10 a gallon. Here's another piece of information that's worth noting:

WASHINGTON — The average U.S. retail price of unleaded regular gasoline fell sharply last week, dropping more than 12 cents to $2.60 a gallon, the Energy Information Administration (search) said Monday.

The national pump price has tumbled some 32 cents in the past three weeks, but still remains 57 cents a gallon higher than one year ago, according to the EIA's weekly survey of U.S. service stations.

The drop reflects falling crude oil prices and a decline in gasoline demand as American motorists balked at paying record high prices in September after two hurricanes disrupted supplies.

U.S. crude oil futures ended at $60.32 a barrel Monday, down more than $10 from a peak in late August.

However, diesel fuel prices paid at retail stations rose by nearly a penny to an average $3.16 per gallon, according to the weekly EIA survey. The price remains 95 cents a gallon higher than one year ago.

Energy industry analysts are closely watching oil data to assess if the downturn in use is temporary or represents "demand destruction," in which high prices trigger longer-lasting changes in oil use by consumers and businesses. The American Petroleum Institute (search) said last week that sharply higher prices in September cut U.S. gasoline demand by nearly 4 percent.

I find it just a bit too coincidental that that spike was during the Democrats' watch.

The Democrats' energy package also would:

• Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
• Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
• Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

The only thing it's good for is to have Democrats thump their chests and say 'We're punishing evil big oil'. It apparently isn't important that they've done nothing to be part of the solution. In fact, it apparently isn't that important that they're part of the problem.

People are looking for solutions. The Democrats' plan (I'm using the term loosely) isn't a solution; it's a political ploy. If Republicans keep pushing Newt's plan, they'll quickly be seen as having a solution. If Republicans are seen as having the solution, they'll get a big fundraising lift and in the polls.

Oil executives, testifying before Congress last month, called the proposed taxes "punitive" and warned that they would discourage domestic oil and gas exploration and production, possibly causing prices to rise instead of fall.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the early 1980s, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies domestic oil production dropped and imports increased.

But Democrats reject the comparison.

Most Senate Republicans have a different approach to dealing with the growing energy crisis: pump more oil and gas.

The GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.

"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," said McConnell.

Everyone knows that renewables and other alternative energy sources must be part of the solution but they know that everything has to be on the table. Here's a question for Democrats:

Why would you unilaterally make anything offlimits in finding a solution to this crisis?

The D's don't have an answer for that question. That's because they shouldn't make any capability offlimits in brainstorming for a solution to this crisis.

Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC's convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

H/T: Gateway Pundit

Continuing to use her office for campaign activities, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently touted her support from the right-wing radical organization Club for Growth on her congressional Web site. The club is a far right-wing group made up of Wall Street financiers. You may be familiar with the group for its negative ads in 2004.

Instead of denouncing extreme groups like them, Bachmann is proud of its support and is now taking direction from the club. After the club demanded that representatives submit to their “key votes,” Bachmann opposed the recently passed farm bill, which promises to bring major support for area farmers, environmental initiatives and hungry children and families.

This group, like Bachmann, is far more conservative than the Minnesotans she is supposed to represent.

In fact, the club has been known to go after moderates who vote their district. The club’s support for Bachmann illustrates her own far-right positions are out of line with those of the 6th District.

But I digress.

Let's find out what CFG is interested in. Here's what their About Us page says:

Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

Club for Growth Policy Goals:

• Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
• Death tax repeal
• Cutting and limiting government spending
• Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
• Expanding free trade
• Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
• Replacing the current tax code
• School choice
• Regulatory reform and deregulation

I wonder how many independents think that that's an extremist's agenda. I wonder if independents think that replacing the current tax code is a good idea or part of an extremist's agenda. I wonder how if independents would characterize school choice as an extremist and unwelcome approach to education. Somehow I don't think many people would think of any of thoes things as part of an extremist agenda.

Here's how Mr. Mogen finishes his anti-Michele diatribe:

The 6th District is made up of independent-minded voters looking for a moderate to carry their views. El Tinklenberg is that moderate. A former minister, mayor and state transportation commissioner under Gov. Jesse Ventura, Tinklenberg is committed to challenging the Washington status quo, and will not be controlled by the big money forces of the Club for Growth. I encourage you to support El Tinklenberg in November.

I'd bet that the Sixth District isn't "looking for a moderate to carry their views." I'd rather bet that this is just Mogen's wish, not statistical fact. In 2006, the Sixth District was often described as "Minnesota's Bible Belt."

Finally, I'll repeat what I said here: that El Tinklenberg isn't a moderate. Here's what he said in May, 2006:

“I [Elwyn Tinklenberg] would support a resolution for impeachment if it was brought to me. I would not introduce one. I think there are so many issues that have been waiting for resolution. So many issues that have to be addressed from the war to the economy to health care that we need to move on and move on aggressively.” Source: Star Tribune, May 10, 2006

Announcing that you'd support impeaching a president (a) before you're elected, (b) before articles of impeachment were even debated in the House Judiciary Committee and (c) before your political party had control of the House of Representatives isn't the mark of a moderate, independent-thinking individual.

Rather, it sounds like a man pandering to the MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Huffington Post wing of the Democratic Party. Those aren't the voices of moderation.

"Sen. Obama has been to Iraq once, a little over two years ago he went and he has never seized the opportunity except in a hearing to meet with Gen. [David] Petraeus," McCain said at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada. "My friends, this is about leadership and learning."

Again raising the issue of Obama's willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain also said of the Illinois senator, "He wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn't yet sat down with Gen. Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?"

Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months.

In short, Sen. Obama is utterly unqualified to be commander-in-chief. What's worse is that he hasn't shown any inclination to learn enough to be commander-in-chief.

It's time we woke up to the realization that we shouldn't send a toy messiah to do a man's job.

Instead, what a group of activists have done is turned the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers) into the Activists' News Network. Many of our state legislators stay in touch with what's important to working class people by reading blogs like True North, Powerline, MDE, SCSUScholars, Let Freedom Ring, Ladies Logic and Shot In The Dark. Our House GOP leadership reads the blogs on a daily basis, as do their staff.

The House GOP Caucus has used this to stay in touch with what's important with activists. That's important because the activists/citizen journalists stay in touch with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. I can't emphasize this point enough. If the GOP wants to return to majority status anytime soon, it has to start with listening to what the people are saying.

It's my contention that the reason why earmarks have proliferated at the rate they have is in direct proportion to the RNC and other Beltway 'alphabets' not having a coherent or appealing agenda. To get an appealing agenda, the RNC must listen to the people living in the Heartland because what's importatnt in the Heartland is dramatically different than what's important to the Beltway's opinion shapers.

The reality is that the RNC, much like the Minnesota GOP, has become a strategist-driven, top-down organization. Grass roots activism is frowned on. We're told that only moderates can win in certain districts. That's insulting. Conservatism at its finest is about common sense. I refuse to believe that common sense isn't appealing, especially when common sense is combined with verifiable facts.

After the 2006 midterm elections, I wrote two posts about how to rebuild the GOP. One of the things I said was a must was for the GOP to start picking principled fights. At the time, I was thinking in terms of national politics. What surprise me was that the Minnesota House GOP Caucus started the 2007 session fighting for time-tested conservative principles.

The first example of the House GOP Caucus's feistiness was supplied by Rep. Laura Brod, who had the audacity of offering tax cut legislation as amendments to a tax conformity bill. The DFL didn't want to vote against tax cuts in the first week so Speaker Margaret Kelliher ruled Rep. Brod's proposed tax cuts not germane to the tax leegislation.

That afternoon, I sent an email to Rep. Brod, thanking her for pushing a pro-growth conservative agenda. A month later, Reps. Brod, Dean and McNamara met with members of our local GOP. What we told these legislators was that we wanted them to keep pushing the legislation and to let us know what they were proposing. King Banaian, Leo Pusateri and I made sure that people heard about that agenda. We also started covering the town hall meetings.

That's how we turned the MOB into the Activists' News Network. Our local BPOU (Basic Party Organizing Unit) chapter regularly links to our posts to keep the activists informed. Other BPOUs across the state are doing the same with their bloggers.

This has served two important purposes, the most important being that people can't credibly argue that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Each day, we prove that there are billions of dollars worth of difference. the other important benefit from this is that we're daily emphasizing the fact that we have a positive agenda. We're arguing that the House GOP shouldn't be returned to majority status because we stink less than the DFL. We're arguing that we should be returned majority status because we have an appealing, pro-growth agenda.

Frankly, if I were elected to be the next chairman of the RNC, the first thing I'd do is call for a nationwide listening tour. We can't rebuild the GOP if we don't listen to what's important to the average Joe. Listening would then informs their opinions. Equally important is that it tells the people who showed up that their opinions matter. Nothing is as energizing to a person as knowing that they're important.

The minute we start inspiring people around a coherent, appealing agenda is the day that everything will come back together. GOTV operations get more robust, campaign coffers will fill to overflowing, candidate recruitment will pick up, elections will be won.

Most importantly, it will have been accomplished by doing the right things for the right reasons. Once that day arrives, and I'm bullish that it will happen sooner rather than later, great things will start happening again. I'm bullish about that because Americans are a nation of achievers.

Finally, let's keep in mind this Ronald Reagan piece of wisdom: It's "amazing what we can accomplish when we don't care who gets credit" for the long list of accomplishments.

If the thought of a reformed Republican Party appeals to you, then it's time to help make it happen. There's no usefulness to be a passive activist.

"The Clinton campaign has been stirring this up for fairly transparent reasons," Obama told reporters on the plane from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Chicago, adding she had not done so earlier in the race when she did not need the delegates to win.

"Let's not...pretend that we don't know what's going on. I mean this is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win, and I understand that," Obama said.

He didn't get serious questions when he was the messianic candidate. The minute he started looking mortal, though, he started getting grilled on a daily basis. Since the grilling started, he's lost ground with blue collar workers. If that doesn't change, Obama can't win the November election.

Based on this article, it's obvious that Bill Clinton isn't about to stop pressuring Obama, either. Here's how he kept the pressure on today:

Speaking to a crowd of about 200 in Fort Thompson, S.D., Clinton seemed slightly subdued during his 30-minute speech, which largely focused on the issues important to the Native American community. As he wrapped up his remarks, a woman in the audience asked him a question about voting for Hillary Clinton.

"If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote," Clinton said. "And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan because they are claiming that it only takes 2029 votes on the first ballot to win, and it takes a lot more than that if you put Florida and Michigan back in. Well, they will have to unless we want to lose the election. I mean, look, so there is that that is going on."

The former president was strong in his assertion that his wife has the best chance to win against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, arguing that many electoral map predictions have his wife winning more electoral votes than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the Democratic frontrunner, in a general election.

"She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. Her only position was, "Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win but let's let everybody vote and count every vote.'"

Now they're finding out what it's like every day to be the GOP candidate. This isn't anything new for Republicans. It's what happens daily.

The funniest thing is that Billary is whining about the press coverage, Obama is whining about Hillary not rolling over and playing dead and John McCain just stays positive while he's campaigning.

Is it any wonder why John McCain is doing better than expected?

The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski's ridiculous proposal.

I'd love seeing the oil companies establish a high profile policy board that questioned the federal government's interfering with the oil companies' ability to do what they're supposed to do. Perhaps they could call it the 'Reasonable Regulations Board' or something like that. I'd suggest that this Board hold monthly town hall meetings all across the country telling citizens all the ways that the federal government prohibits the oil companies from delivering their products to consumers in an inexpensive price.

Capitalists rightly cringe whenever they hear words like fair or reasonable used in connection with economics. They have the right to do that because anything after either of those words is bad news to capitalists. It's arrogant to think that government at any level knows what's fair or reasonable. Bureaucracies aren't littered with people who understand the concept of supply and demand, which means their determinations will automatically be wrong.

I'd further ask Rep. Kanjorski why he thinks the oil companies' profits are setting records. Does he think that stifling American companies' ability to find new reserves plays a role in that? Might today's high gas prices have anything to do with Bill Clinton's 'environmental legacy' that made hundreds of thousands of acres off-limits for oil exploration? Does Rep. Kanjorski think that prices would be dramatically different had we opened those federal lands up for exploration?

If we armed citizens with this information, I don't think it'd take long to start an anti-regulation revolt. People are mad as hell about gas prices. If they were shown proof that Democrats were standing in the way of reasonable oil prices, I'd bet that you'd see a revolution rise up within no time.

Isn't it time to start an anti-oil exploration regulation revolt? Isn't it time we increased domestic production instead of putting huge oil reserves off limits for 'the environment'?

Most importantly, isn't it time to retire socialists like Rep. Kanjorski?

The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for "progress." At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.It's great having spokesmen like Sen. Thompson making the case for conservatism but that isn't enough. What's needed are an army of spokespeople who can make conservatism's arguments in whatever setting they find themselves in. Part of what's necessary is to have a bold attitude. Something else that's necessary is that these ambassadors should make their arguments personal. If we explain why we hold conservatism's first principles dear, we're doing well. If we're able to explain those first principles on a personal level, we're doing better.

I'd argue that movement conservatives are ready to start another movement. It isn't that there aren't willing foot soldiers for the conservative cause; it's that we haven't seen enough conservative standardbearers to follow. When Rush has talked about the RNC's fundraising woes, his bromide is always the same: Start acting like conservatives and the money will come flooding in like it did in the not-so-distant past.

Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:

• Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.
• In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.
• An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.
• Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today's problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.

Isn't it time that conservatives pledged that they'd fight the good fight under all circumstances? Isn't it time that conservatives pledged to rebuild their state parties from the ground up, thereby ensuring that the Republicans we send to Washington are solid conservatives?

Isn't it time we built our own movement?

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch "from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system" to avoid losing its delegates.

"The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast," Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.

GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): The popular vote is, to me, a much fairer indicia than the pledged delegates because the pledged delegates are elected in a very undemocratic way.

Theoretically, a candidate should win 60% of the delegates if they win 60% of the vote. I think most people would agree with that thinking. Of course, we're talking about Democrats so logic doesn't apply.

This lawsuit will likely have a chilling effect on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee's deliberations. I'd have to think that the people serving on the Rules and Bylaws Committee will have that in the back of their mind as they deliberate. Rest assured that they'll know that their decision might well be overturned.

Here's the argument that the lawyers will be making:

Geller, a Cooper City lawyer, said the Democratic National Committee has repeatedly argued that the reason it is punishing Florida is because it held its primary before the February date authorized by the party and then refused to conduct a post-primary caucus to designate delegates.

Geller argues that a caucus would have replaced the vote of 1.75 million Floridians with an event that was expected to capture only about 100,000 voters at 120 polling sites, thereby disenfranchising thousands of Florida Democrats, including those serving in U.S. military based outside Florida.

Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini.

Barack Obama claims he's against HAMAS and Hezbollah and is offended by President Bush's speech in Israel about Obama's ethos of "appeasement." So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah's most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini? And why is this open anti-Semite and supporter of Israel's annihilation getting to discuss "the Arab-Israeli conflict" in a private one-on-one meeting with Obama? What was said? I think we can do the math.

The first, and most obvious, question I have is this: If it's wrong for a campaign staffer to meet with Hamas, why isn't it equally wrong to meet with Hezbollah? Both terrorist organizations are dedicated to Israel's destruction. Both terrorist organizations commit acts of violence against Israel in the form of rocket attacks. The inevitable conclusion one must draw of Hamas and Hezbollah is that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

The next question I have is why this isn't being reported in the press. Is the media that unaware of the meeting? Or are they that disinterested in the meeting? You'd think it was big news if a presidential candidate meets with an agent of Hezbollah.

Here's more of what Debbie Schlussel is reporting about Qazwini and his mosque:

Qazwini is very open about his support for Palestinian homicide bombings, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. And he's a good friend of Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah--the man who issued the fatwa to Hezbollah terrorists to murder over 300 U.S. Marines and U.S. Embassy civilians in cold blood. Qazwini's mosque has held rallies and celebrations in support of Hezbollah, and many of Hezbollah's biggest money-launderers and agents in America are his congregants.

When I went undercover to his mosque in 1998, he and others welcomed Nation of Islam chief racist Louis Farrakhan as "our dear brother" and "a freedom fighter." Qazwini applauded Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements saying that Jews were the "forces of Satan" and that there needed to be a "jihad" on the American people.

I don't see anything virtuous about sitting down with terrorists, which is what Sen. Obama did in meeting with Qazwini. In fact, he gave Qazwini a special, private meeting.

Another question I have is why his campaign didn't publicize the meeting. If Sen. Obama thinks that this is simply outreach to the Muslim community, shouldn't he highlight this on his website? The fact that it isn't highlighted on his website tells me that he didn't want this publicized because of the meeting's controversial nature it points out another weakness in Obama's candidacy.

He's had difficulty earning the trust of Jewish voters throughout this process. While many Jews are liberal, I'd doubt that anyone in the Jewish community would tolerate him meeting with a representative of Hezbollah. This meeting will fortify Jews' belief that Sen. Obama can't be trusted.

This meeting also reinforces the image of Sen. Obama being a Cartesque pacifist, too. People like inclusive candidates until they start including terrorists in their meetings.

Joe Andrew, a Democratic National Committee chair for five minutes, lives and operates out of Washington, D.C. But when it comes to giving news conferences about the presidential campaign, his podium is in Indianapolis. That is where Andrew went from Beltway boy to Hoosier to make his "big" announcement on changing sides from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

And the whole word gasped.

Well, not really the whole world. In all honesty, the collective gasp was heard from within the Beltway, that patch of geography where the chattering elite class of politicos live, breathe and eat.

But drive 15 minutes in any direction outside of the Beltway, and no one knows who Joe Andrew is or why his deflection should affect their vote.

Here is the problem that the media seems to ignore in this race for the Democrats: While there is plenty of headlines and pontifications about superdelegates moving their support to Obama, there is a curious dismissal of Clinton's string of strong wins with the John Deere voters.

As blogs become the voice of Mainstreet America, the superdelegates' opinions matter less and less. That's where the disconnect is most clearly seen. At the center of this is Howard Dean, the man who fancies himself as an outsider. In reality, he, like Markos Moulitsas, is a Washington insider with a brash voice pretending to speak for the people.

Salena does the nation a great service by calling voters in the Heartland John Deere voters. They're trying to tell people who their preference is for the Democratic nomination. The superdelegates aren't listening. Here's one of Salena's most stinging rebukes:

While putting nearly 2,000 miles in the Hoosier State in the past week, the reflections and opinions of the voters is not that different than what I saw in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And those opinions are that superdelegates to them are people who make their minds up based on their experiences and geography, i.e. Washington D.C.

The voters make their opinions and decisions on their experiences in their geography, i.e. Middle America.

Yet the story remains that Clinton cannot mathematically win. Well since Barack Obama cannot win either without her dropping out, perhaps what the analysis should be is why voters continue to vote her in while Beltway news conferences tell them "no, no, no."

Neither compares with how Bill Clinton connected with how he connected with John Deere voters. That's diminished now, mostly attributable to his spending the last 16 years inside the Washington-New York media bubble. That's another post for another day.

Here's another key Salena observation that the Democrats have ignored:

There is a huge disconnect between the Joe Andrew voters and the John Deere voters in this world. No one can win in the general election without them. They are the Reagan Democrats that swing elections. The last time I checked, the voters who live in the Beltway have never swung a national election. Ever.

As one Hoosier voter said to me along the road, "just let us vote. Stop telling us it is over before we go to the booth."

Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.

That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.

What I saw last year opened my eyes to how corrupt the system had become. One Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman threatened another Representative on the floor of the House, telling him he'd never get an earmark in any billhe was responsible for crafting, all because of a difference of opinion.

Here's what ABC News reported at the time:

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who for six years served as an FBI special agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago bureau's organized crime unit, says that Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, violated House ethics rules Thursday for threatening to strip any funding for Rogers' projects after Rogers pushed for the elimination of a government center in Murtha's home district.

On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha, upset by Rogers' aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha's home district, said something along the lines of "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

Rogers said he replied by saying, "This is not the way we do things here" and "is that supposed to make me afraid of you?" "That's the way I do it," Murtha said, according to Rogers.

Minnesota's senior member in the House, Jim Oberstar, will likely fight her tooth and nail because he's in love with this corrupt system, too. Here's what President Bush said in chastizing Jim Oberstar:

“The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,” Bush said. “That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

Rep. Bachmann is the polar opposite of John Murtha and Jim Oberstar. I've said, half-kiddingly, that they should 'retire' John Murtha's office when he's no longer there. If they don't choose that option, then I've suggested that they rename the office to "The Corporate Welfare Headquarters".

I'm proud to call Michele my representative in the US House of Representatives. I'm thankful that she cares about spending our tax dollars efficiently. That's why she's one of the rising stars in the GOP.

Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.

Reverend Wright is not the man he thought he was…..so naturally people will ask: what took you so long to figure it out? 20 years and only yesterday? are you that oblivious or is this statement political and calculating? and others will applaud him…saying what courage to address the issue…that he is standing up for what he believes even if it means denouncing someone you had admired..and that he is showing candor…

Let's pose this hypothetical question: If Sen. Obama truly didn't notice Pastor J-Wright's disgusting statements over a 20 year period, why should we think that he's qualified to be the leader of the free world?

I don't doubt that people will defend Sen. Obama. I don't doubt that some will praise Sen. Obama for distancing himself from Pastor J-Wright. To those Obama apologists, I'll simply ask one question: Why didn't Sen. Obama distance himself from Pastor J-Wright faster?

In fact, I've thought of another question: Considering Michelle Obama's statements that America "is a downright mean country" and that she was finally proud to call herself an American after people started voting for her husband, why should we believe that Sen. Obama doesn't believe in much of what Pastor J-Wright preaches?

For that matter, why did Sen. Obama stay on the board with William Ayers? Why didn't he utterly renounce Ayers' terroristic attacks in the harshest language possible? After all, the things Ayers did and the things that Pastor Wright said weren't just mildly controversial. Ayers killed people but didn't think he'd done enough. Wright said that white people had invented the AIDS virus to commit genocide on the black race. Wright also told the audience at the National Press Club yesterday that America is a terrorist nation.

Greta, thanks for saying on a large stage what many of us on smaller stages have been thinking for quite some time.

It's time to start questioning everything that Sen. Obama says. We really don't know who he is or what his beliefs are. Based on the information available, America should be worried about him getting elected in November.

Before this year's historic campaign, poisoned at the root by overt and ugly sexism and covert and coded racism, Democrats have never been asked to choose quite so nakedly which absolutely necessary demographic they would like to do without. Here is the question, a cynic might suggest, that the Democratic Party must answer this summer: Do we want to lose because we drove away blacks or because we drove away white women?

In fact, it's more accurate to say that this rift first started with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He repeatedly said that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That rift got wider in August, 2006, when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That night, a new type of Democrat was born: Lieberman Democrats. Brendan Loy typifies Lieberman Democrats, socially and economically liberal but hawkish about national security.

Let's return to the present. Pennsylvania's primary is a perfect illustration of the split that's becoming more apparent each day. Blue collar Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Rich, white liberals will join African Americans in enthusiastically voting for Sen. Obama. Once Sen. Obama wins the nomination, alot of Hillary's DLC supporters will leave the Democrats' coalition and vote for John McCain.

While it'd be wrong to think that these DLC types to abandon the Democratic in dramatic numbers, their defections would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

What's that got to do with this year's race? Sunday night, I talked with a political insider in Pennsylvania. This insider told me that Sen. McCain has a definite shot at putting Pennsylvania in the red state column, regardless of the candidate. That figures to be the case in other blue collar states across the country.