A Lincoln County, West Virginia Sheriff and Clerk are to plead guilty to charges of vote fraud in the 2010 Democrat primary after the pair were arrested during an election fraud investigation conducted by state and federal authorities.

Sheriff Jerry Bowman and Clerk Donald Whitten were caught in a scheme to file fraudulent absentee ballots in an effort to get Whitten elected Circuit Clerk. Whitten will also plead guilty to lying to an FBI agent hired by WV Secretary of State Natalie Tennant to investigate the false absentee ballots.

Sheriff Bowman, who is at the tail end of a second term and is term-limited from running again, conspired with Whitten and a thus far unidentified candidate for county commissioner to help Whitten win a close election with the fraudulent absentee ballot scheme.

“The Candidates further agreed that they would complete absentee ballot applications for voters,” the agreement documents said. “The Candidates also agreed that on those applications they would state certain reasons that voters were legally eligible to vote absentee, regardless of whether those reasons were true.”

In 2004 several Lincoln and Logan County officials were convicted of vote fraud in a federal vote-buying case. Convicted included Lincoln County Circuit Clerk Greg Stowers and county Assessor Jerry Weaver. Amazingly, Weaver is now running for county sheriff.

But, remember… left-wingers and Democrats say there is no vote fraud in the USA.

(Fox News) In an effort to cut the unemployment rate among veterans, the Obama administration is calling for a new conservation program that would put veterans to work rebuilding trails, roads and levees on public lands.

Let’s give him some credit for wanting to reduce the unemployment rate among veterans, even if it is surely politically motivated, geared towards peeling off some veteran support from the GOP for Election 2012. But, let’s face it, it is pathetic that Obama thinks the best use of men and women who served in the most professional, educated, modern, and high-tech military ever seen is to get them jobs as menial workers. Granted, they would get paid well, being federal money and all. But, they are certainly more capable then being offered ditch digger jobs. Not to mention simply creating new government jobs, rather than private sector ones.

Of course, much like with his Stimulus, the jobs probably do not exist. Furthermore, the idea, like most of his ideas, isn’t particularly original

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the Civilian Conservation Corps that operated during the 1930s could be viewed as a model for what the administration will try to accomplish through its “Veterans Jobs Corps.” He said that the administration will propose spending $1 billion that would be used to put an estimated 20,000 veterans to work restoring habitat and eradicating invasive species, among other activities.

So now the Obama admin. is looking towards Depression era make-work programs that failed to stimulate the economy, and helped keep the USA mired in depression for a decade.

(Fox News) Romney received 46 percent of the Florida vote. Gingrich had 32 percent, followed by Rick Santorum with 13 percent and Ron Paul with 7 percent.

Romney won all 50 of Florida’s convention delegates.

The Politico’s Maggie Haberman, who has done a pretty good job in covering the GOP primaries, even for a liberal, I have to admit, provides 5 takeaways

1. Mitt Romney is once again running two campaigns – Romney’s election night speech, in which he mentioned Newt Gingrich only to congratulate him, left no doubt that Team Mitt is now heading into general election mode after a commanding victory in Florida.

The focus was almost entirely on President Barack Obama, whom Romney excoriated repeatedly.

2. February is uncharted territory – Newt Gingrich is not giving up. Neither is Rick Santorum. And Ron Paul is continuing with his delegate slog. (Gingrich will need a few big wins in Southern states, or at least strong showings)

3. Conservatives are still resisting Romney – No matter how heavily he won certain portions of Florida, the restored front-runner is still unable to lock down certain swaths of the GOP electorate.

4. Hispanic voters gave Romney a boost – Despite Gingrich’s potential appeal among Florida’s Hispanic immigrants, it was Romney who won more than half of the crucial voting bloc’s support.

5. There is no ‘new normal’ for campaigns – Gingrich has focused on running a nontraditional campaign, as he has put it, but certain time-honored rules still apply.

Which rules? Negative campaigning works. Ground games are important. And so is money.

And what of Santorum and RON PAUL!!!!11!!? Santorum is going to keep going, as well he should. There is still time for him to catch fire. As for Ron Paul, 7% is a pretty poor showing, considering he said he does great with seasoned citizens and all the military folks in Florida.

Takeaway #6 is that all four candidates, but, especially Newt and Mitt, need to dial back the negative ads and talk. They need to stop it, and ask the groups that support them to stop it. 92% of the ads were negative. The idea here, as all of them will tell you, is to defeat Obama and turn this country around. Repeal ObamaCare. Fix the economy. Get people working again. And create the atmosphere where people once again have disposable income. We’re almost 5 years out from the start of the recession. We’re well over 2 years out from the official end of the recession. Yet, there is complete stagnation in the economy. All the negativity may get one of these gents over the primary finish line, but will only help Obama come the general election.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Fox News) As President Obama prepares to rev up his re-election drive with his third State of the Union address Tuesday night, he and his aides have already begun framing the fall contest as a “choice” election, not a simple up-or-down referendum on his own job performance in the Oval Office.

In so doing, the president borrows a page from an unlikely playbook: that of the man he has spent the last five years disparaging, George W. Bush.

It was President Bush, in his 2004 matchup against John Kerry, who perfected the “choice” strategy. Buffeted by mounting opposition to the Iraq war, the incumbent argued that the alternative to a second Bush term – that being the Democratic senator from Massachusetts – was so dangerous that voters should put aside any misgivings they might have about the president.

Well, it is very interesting that Obama would reach back and attempt to run in this manner, but, digging deep, President Bush actually had a record to run on, besides painting Kerry as dangerous. Bush dealt with a lingering economic downturn when he first came in to office, then a big downturn post-9/11, and turned both around. He lowered taxes for all (unfortunately, his tax plans removed a large amount of workers from paying federal taxes.) He saw historic lows in the unemployment rate. He reached across the aisle to get Ted Kennedy’s “No Child Left Behind” passed. He responded to 9/11 by taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, freeing tens of millions from an oppressive Muslim fundamentalist regime. He took out Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime, freeing tens of millions of people. He provided enormous relief for AIDS patients domestically and around the world. Expanded Health Savings Accounts (which Obamacare now restricts). He pushed his “Healthy Forests Initiative”. No attacks on American soil post 9/11. Got Libya to renounce their terroristic ways and give up their WMD programs. And the list goes on and on. Not all of it good, but, a solid list of accomplishments.

What does Obama have to stand on? An unpopular ObamaCare bill which is raising costs, high unemployment, historic deficits, $5 trillion in new debt, low consumer confidence, stopping the Keystone XL pipeline (of which Canada is not waiting to see who wins in 2012 before turning to China to sell the oil), giving billions to Brazil so they can develop deepwater oil fields, of which Brazil is now going to sell to China, people giving up on the workforce, and wasting almost a trillion dollars on his Stimulus. His idiotic policies have unfortunately turned people away from investing in alternative energy sources due to his malfeasance, and the way he has pushed electric vehicles has made them a joke, setting them back by decades. His EPA is on the wrong track and failing to protect and engage on real environmental issues. He has failed to reign in the TSA under his watch. He has pissed off our allies around the world, and pandered to our enemies (and failed there, too).

And let’s not forget the historic and unprecedented number of golf days, vacation days, and campaign events.

But, let’s give him his due: he did authorize the mission that took out Osama Bin Laden, which I still maintain was a gutsy call. He has ramped up military actions against Islamists, and expanded them into other countries. He did ramp up deportations for awhile, and go after the companies that hire them. And, um, well, ah, …… well, he keeps burger shops near the White House in business!

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“I have come to the growing realization that Newt Gingrich is the guy who can articulate what America is all about.”

(MSNBC) Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina Republican primary, capping off a remarkable comeback for his presidential bid that reshapes the trajectory of the battle for the GOP nomination as the race now heads to Florida and beyond.

The results mark the end of a tumultuous week in politics that saw Gingrich erase and then overcome the lead former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had in the Palmetto State following his victory in the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary. Gingrich came on strong in the closing days of the campaign, looking to rally under his banner the many conservatives unwilling to get behind Romney, who had sought to posture himself as the eventual nominee.

How spectacular was the win? (graphic via the Politico, cut off the small amount of votes for the also rans)

Newt went from being way behind in the polling to an almost 13 point win. What does this mean? We now have three different winners for three contests. Two things we know are that Gingrich did incredible due to his debate performances in South Carolina, and the attack by ABC on Gingrich using one of his ex-wives was not only a liberal failure, but surely garnered him some sympathy support. We also know that Newt is at his best when he is going after Obama and the Democrats, along with the legacy media, in his professorial mode.

We also know that this very much hurts Mitt Romney, who might now be having a few issues in Florida. The Politico’s Maggie Haberman, in her 9 takeaways article mentions that “Romney may not realize he’s having a near-death experience.” Though, I’m not so sure that Perry’s backing had all that much to do with Newt’s big win. And Maggie is thrilled that Nikki Haley saw the guy she backed, Romney, come in a distant 2nd. Liberals do despise women who refuse to stay within the boxes liberals put them in. But, Newt did very well with women, 36% to Romney’s 30%.

What about Santorum? Personally, I wouldn’t characterize this as a bad showing. He’s never been a top tier candidate, despite the Iowa win. He’s always been known as a social issues guy, even though he is good on fiscal issues, and this election will be about fiscal issues.

The big loser? Well, Romney, for one. Even more so, Ron Paul. The debates were, again, big for the S.C. voters, and I’d suspect they didn’t appreciate the possibility of putting Cranky Uncle Ron in his ill-fitting suits up against Obama. They obviously didn’t appreciate Paul’s typical blame America rhetoric, which Newt took Paul to task on. How will the Florida voters, who often tend to be a little older, deal with Mr. Blame America? We’ll see what Paul says during the Florida debate. Florida has quite a few retirees who served in the military, and do not appreciate put the blame for everything bad on America as Paul typically does.

That said, I think, with all due respect, Erick Erickson is way off base

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since.

Yes, Romney may be the party insider choice. But, this surge by Newt is not due to any sort of base revolt. This kind of talk always amuses me, because it’s just not in our DNA to say “hmm, those big shots in D.C. support Romney, and they aren’t doing what we say, so we’ll vote for the other guy.” If that was the case, Perry would still be in the race, and more votes would have gone to Paul or Santorum. There’s no revolt going on, because, let’s face it, Newt would be the face of the GOP Washington insider.

Now on to Florida! Who do you think will win? If it’s anything like South Carolina, it’ll depend on the Monday night debate.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(CBS News) It wasn’t an endorsement, but Sarah Palin gave Newt Gingrich the next best thing on Tuesday, saying she would vote for the former speaker — if she lived in South Carolina.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox News, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee declared Gingrich the winner of Monday night’s Republican debate, comparing his performance to boxing legend Joe Frazier.

“He came out there swingin’, talking about work,” Palin said. “Talkin’ about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that’s what a lot of voters have been craving to hear.”

I’m not a big Newt fan, mostly due to his support of anthropogenic global warming legislation and regulations, but, I could vote for him, unlike Ron Paul. That said, he did have a fantastic debate, and gave the best answers.

Asked if she was any closer to giving an endorsement, Palin told the Fox News host that she could only tell him what she’d do if she were a South Carolinian. “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt, and I would want this to continue.” Such a position indicated her desire for the political vetting to keep unfolding.

So, kind of a back-handed endorsement. We’ll see if this helps or hurts Gingrich in the upcoming Primary. In reality, though, the next few debates will probably make the most difference. Palin lost quite a bit of support after she finally decided (late) to not run for president after all that time hemming and hawing.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

◼ South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate – brevardtimes.com

The first live South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary Debate with all five remaining candidates: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich, will air on Fox News tonight at 9 p.m. E.S.T. (6 p.m. P.S.T.) ◼ Live Stream
Location: Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Sponsor: Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party

Paul is doing too well and there are many reasons besides his uncanny ability to raise lots of money and a spooky, devoted blind following. He is one of the best spokesmen for libertarianism out there and people are tired of what the status quo two party system has been bringing to the table. He preaches small government and fiscal conservatism and has a record to back it up and that is the appeal to many people.

His anti-war and irresponsible isolationist philosphy on foreign policy is appealing to many independents and democrats weary of war. As a matter of fact more Democrats voted for Ron Paul in New Hampshire than Republicans. He got 24% of the Democrat vote, 32% of the independent vote, and only 16% of the Republican vote. Huntsman got 41% of the Democrat vote! I guess appealing to all parties is important in the general election, but there is no way it will make much of a difference against Obama.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul, as right as he is on many issues, has a dangerous foreign policy position that everyone needs to study closely before jumping in and pulling the lever for him. He also has a lot of fringe baggage. Just so it’s all out in the open while his popularity is pulling votes away from other conservatives….there is a case against Ron Paul.

He may be worse than Obama on foreign policy. He is an isolationist that would allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. That is a big deal. Remember that the leaders of Iran are insane and have repeated several times how they would wipe Israel off the map. Ron Paul blames America first, and as a matter of fact has blamed America for the 911 attacks while courting 911 conspiracy nuts. There is also the racist publications published under his name. Fair or not, don’t think that won’t come up in the general election running against the first black president.

If his magnet to fringe isn’t enough, then take a careful look at his foreign policy. First off, he doesn’t want a border fence because it could be used to “keep us in”. He uses arguments of moral equivalency as the foundation to his isolationist views. I understand that Viet Nam and Iraq were unpopular wars and I understand people weary of America’s interventionalism, but not all interventions are unnecessary. What would the world be like if America had not intervened against Hitler? What if we didn’t contain Communism? Standing by and doing nothing but talk and appease while allowing evil to play by its own rules is a recipe for disaster.

Rich Lowry has a good summary of some of Paul’s views:

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.

This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”

On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Check out what a former staffer of his has to say:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

The majority of Republicans and Americans in general will not get behind Ron Paul. He is too fringe and too radical. So as far as Ron Paul asking everyone else to get out so he can beat Romney, I think he should be the one dropping out. I don’t like Romney, but I’d rather vote for him than take a risk with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a pure, absolutist libertarian extremist with a dangerous isolationist foreign policy. He may be right on some things, but not on everything (foreign policy for sure). If the only issue important to you is the legalization of drugs then vote for Ron Paul. If you think foreign policy is even a little important pick someone else.

Doug Mataconis says last night was Paul’s high mark. I agree, but he is still sucking votes away from other non-Romney candidates and while he should drop out I think we all know he won’t. So, perhaps someone else should so the votes for “other than Romney” are not so divided up. I pray South Carolina shakes things up for this race, and I pray Ron Paul doesn’t run third party in the general.

And Curt, please…you are scaring me.

Update: More insane positions from Ron Paul:

Other than abortion, there is no particular on which Ron Paul differs with either libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Like them, he would legalize hard drugs and abolish age of consent laws, which violate the rights of 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds.

(Fox News) Once again, going green has taxpayers seeing red. This time however, billions in federal subsidies for electric vehicles are going those who need them the least: the 1 percent.

According to the CEO of General Motors, the average annual income of buyers of the Chevy Volt is $170,000. Those who buy the luxury electric Fisker Karma or Tesla roadster earn more than $250,000 a year. Yet every wealthy buyer receives a hefty handout from Uncle Sam, adding more than $7,500 to the federal debt for every car sold.

When all the federal and state subsidies to General Motors and its Volt suppliers are totaled, Hohman estimates each Volt sold costs taxpayers as much as $250,000.

“If you’re wealthy enough to afford one of these electric automobiles more power to you,” but Hohman says the handouts and tax breaks simply transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to corporations and the rich who can afford cars that cost as much as a small home.

Doesn’t that make you feel great? Obama can play the class warfare card all he wants, but his policies have tended to help the 1%, of which Obama is part of. And his policies especially help the 1%ers who are campaign donors. And, while I support newer technologies that will provide us (eventually) with cleaner, cheaper, and more abundant power and vehicles, using money earned by hard working taxpayers to provide silly vehicles like the Chevy Sloth to people who want a status car is idiotic and deplorable.

Fortunately, there are plenty of plans to continue to provide the 1%ers with more free taxpayer money. In Raleigh, the city has built 29 electric vehicle charging stations, provided at taxpayer expense. The electricity is also free for the EV owners, paid for by the taxpayers. Supposedly, they will eventually charge for the usage.

In California, they will charge $2-$3 per charge, at a taxpayer cost of $1.3 million from a grant to build the stations.

In Detroit, electric cars and hybrids are flooding the Detroit auto show, meaning taxpayers will further fund the lifestyles of the rich. Remember, the Prius was a status vehicle early on, and has morphed into a usable vehicle. There are many usable hybrids out there, including some SUVs, like the Escape and the Highlander. But, then, hybrids can travel more than 50 miles at a clip, and they can use the air conditioning and heat. Until EVs can be purchased by regular people and take people on long trips, regular people will continue to buy gas vehicles that get great mileage.

(Photo from Political Clown Parade)