Some of you may remember that Harrington was unable to defeat Schultz in the 2010 elections, but Mrs. Harrington believes things will be different this time and answers my questions as to why and how that will be the case and what reasons might have existed in 2010 that will not exist today.

I also interviewed FreedomWorks Dean Clancy about their Tea Party Debt Commission where they are hoping to provide a grassroots answer to the “Super Committee” by having a super committee of our own.  Listen in to find out how you can get involved.

All this plus my usual awesomeness can be found at the link below.

Follow @Ben_Howe

Sit back and enjoy some awesome schooling from one of the authors of Cut, Cap & Balance.

And in case you need further evidence of how ahead of the curve RedState is, look no further than our very early front page interview with the Congressman.

Follow @Ben_Howe

Cross-Posted at Redstate.com

I also interview Dean Clancy, the Legislative Counsel for FreedomWorks, about the impending Debt Ceiling.  We discuss whether or not it matters, what we as Republicans should do, and how best to deal with the likely impasse.

I also take a few minutes to talk about the art of negotiation and compromise as well as address my new status as a Palin supporter as established through last week’s review of the film “The Undefeated.”

Renewing America – July 18, 2011

Tune into Renewing America with Ben Howe every Monday night at 9pm EST, only on FTR Radio.

Follow @Ben_Howe

At least that’s what I thought.

Admittedly, it took me some time to actually post this review of the recently released film “The Undefeated” about Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to fame. It took time because, for numerous reasons, Sarah Palin is an emotional topic for a lot of people.

She seems to be one of those national figures that you either love with adoring affection, or hate with an uncontrollable rage. Rarely have I met someone who simply doesn’t have an opinion of her. Many pretend to, but most you can see through. At least I can. I can see through it because my opinion of her was much more specific than I ever liked to admit.

Certainly I believed that the media had been incredibly unkind to her. I believed that her stepping down as Governor was more the loss of an intense battle than simply the “giving up to go get rich” that others had labeled it. But the truth, I didn’t too much care for her, in spite of my public facade of being mostly opinion free.

I didn’t think she’d really done much in Alaska, or if she had, that it was enough to act like she was the second coming of Reagan. I thought that her contributions when being interviewed were bubble-gum and lacking of any real substance. I would never finish hearing a story about her and think, “Wow, I never thought of that before.” I just didn’t see that she had that much to offer.

There was so much media coverage of Palin, and so many people that were incredibly unfair to her, that I had been desensitized. I didn’t realize it, but I had actually developed a sort of immunity to believing anything positive about Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh, a personal hero of mine, sang her praises every time her name came up. In spite of that, I still felt no reason to look further into her story.

Rush had actually gotten to the point of making it a personal game to get opinions about Palin from others because he finds the dislike remarkable. I recall that one time, he was marveling that even the conservatives that don’t want her to run for president, still talk about how great they think she is, and it seemed to confuse him. I tried to call in to tell him, “Rush, they’re saying that because they’re afraid of you! They can’t admit they don’t like Palin to you because they know you do like her and you’re the voice of the movement!”

I was absolutely right that this was the case for many people, but the only reason I knew it, was because I was one of them. Hell, if I’d actually gotten through and had the opportunity to say this to him, and he’d asked me my opinion, I’m sure I would’ve acted like she was the cat’s pajamas, just to save face.

Ultimately, I thought she was the type of political force that was going to be around, needed to be treaded on carefully, but would never have anything substantial to offer to the cause of conservatism other than rallying troops which I still believed was a valuable service.

I thought she hadn’t gotten a fair shake in the media, but I felt confident that I could see through the bias and that I understood who she was, what she had done and what my opinion would probably be about her going forward.

I was entirely incorrect.

I consider the director of “The Undefeated”, Stephen Bannon, to be a friend of mine. He’s advised me in my own fledgling productions. I’ve interviewed him a handful of times on my podcast and we always talk for over an hour effortlessly. When I heard he was making this film, I immediately wanted to interview him, but I assumed that everything I knew about Palin would simply be confirmed by watching this.

We popped the film into our DVD player, and sat back to watch. One thing I had no doubts about was that Stephen Bannon would make a visually impressive, compelling film that would stir emotion. I was pleased to see that he used his trademark method of letting the people directly tied to the events tell the story (I often find narration cumbersome) adding their own particular emotions and perspectives to the narrative. These were all things that I expected and Bannon did not disappoint.

The film moves at a breakneck pace while still laying out a level of detail that brings you so close to the events, you feel like you personally experienced them.

Even had the substance not convinced me that I had Mrs. Palin pegged wrong, the film itself would most certainly have scored high for me as my all important test was passed: Did I look at my watch? No I did not.

In short, the execution of this film is excellent.

But what had me and my wife blown away by the time it was over, was the avalanche of information and perspectives that had been hidden from us over the years. As I would like for you to listen to my interview with Steve, I will not get into the substance of what caused the change. I want you to hear it for yourself.

I pride myself on my ability to know when something is baloney, almost instinctively. On Sarah Palin, I was so incredibly hoodwinked that the one word that my wife and I agreed described how we felt after watching it, was shame. Yes of course invigoration, satisfaction and all the other things you experience when watching a good film, but about how we had handled our vetting of Mrs. Palin, shame was the word that best described it.

Shame for not bothering to look up her record. Shame for not reading her story. Shame for turning the channel when she came on the tv. Shame for not listening to people that we had a great deal of respect for like Andrew Breitbart, Tammy Bruce, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.

I urge you to see this film when it hits theaters tomorrow. And I urge you to put aside your preconceptions about who this woman is. You don’t have to think she should be the next president to believe that the way she has been presented, even by conservatives, has been completely wrong.

Please listen to my interview with Mr. Bannon and see the film.

July 11, 2011 – Interview With Stephen Bannon

Ken Boehm, of the National Legal and Policy Center, has called for an investigation into the matter where he lays out what the issues are:

I write to request a formal inquiry by the Public Editor into a series of articles published last week in The New York Times about the natural gas industry and the investment banking world.  In the “Drilling Down” series, Ian Urbina alleges that there is a speculative bubble in the shale gas industry, “in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.”  But at least two of the sources for his articles are not industry insiders at all.  Rather they appear to be two individuals whose agenda is to publicly disparage the shale gas industry’s image and outlook.

The accusation sounds soft at first, but harsh words followed:

I am concerned that the Times, in a serious breach of long-established journalist   standards, ignored, concealed, or was misled regarding the conflicts of some of its key sources.

Not using industry sources to support this series would be oversight enough, but Boehm had a specific person in mind.

In fact, however, the likely source of some of these emails is Arthur Berman of Labyrinth Consulting Services in Sugar Land, Texas, who does not work for the shale gas drilling industry.  As Mr. Urbina acknowledges at one point in the June 25 story, Arthur Berman is actually “one of the most vocal skeptics of shale gas economics.”  Yet the Urbina stories do not disclose that Mr. Berman is much more than that.  He is the creator and leading popularizer of the shale gas “bubble” critique embraced by Mr. Urbina, and seems to have been his main source.  Perhaps most egregiously, the Urbana stories also neglect to mention that Arthur Berman makes his living providing investment advice based upon his own position as a shale gas critic.^[1]

Compelling to say the least.

After growing pressure from a chorus of critics, reports began appearing that NYT editors were mounting a vigorous defense in response to Boehm’s request. In fact, New York Magazine reported that Rick Berke, national editor of the NYT, sent “an internal memo defending the gas investigation.”  New York Magazine provided excerpts of the “surprisingly detailed” letter to NYT Public Editor Arthur Brisbane:

The terms that have attracted the most attention — ‘ponzi scheme’, comparisons to Enron, ‘dot-com bubble’ — are not terms that the Times itself used,” Berke wrote to Brisbane. “These terms come directly from internal emails that were written by industry officials, market analysts, and others. So that readers could judge the context of these comments, the Times published the emails themselves. The emails are indeed striking in their bluntness. Some of the authors of the emails say they have been ‘sounding the alarm bells’ about what they see as serious issues that are being ignored. We were further careful to add calibration and qualification language about the emails.”

Either Berke is actively trying to not understand the point of the concerns, or he’s doing the written version of placing his hands on his ears and humming an annoying song.

Urbina and the NYT are not under fire because the accurately reported the content of the emails.  They are being challenged because they gave the distinct and misleading impression to readers that the emails on which they relied represented a broad cross-section of gas industry insiders.  In fact, many of the emails that they relied upon appear to have been communications from or to one lone source – Arthur Berman of Labyrinth Consulting Services – who has financial interests as a critic of shale gas and routinely encourages short selling of shale gas among investors.

Boehm’s detailed letter to Brisbane charges editors at the NYT with “obsur[ing] the fact that Mr. Berman is clearly the author or recipient of many of the emails cited as the basis for Mr. Urbina’s story.”  The NYTs response to the story is incomplete and potentially dishonest if Berman was in fact the source.

Let’s see if the New York Times is ready to shine that magnifying glass onto themselves the way they happily have on others over the years.

Cross-Posted at Big Journalism and RedState.com

Follow @Ben_Howe

Suffice it to say, some are quite upset that an open primary means that anyone can vote if they so choose, regardless of party affiliation or ideology.  That’s why it’s called “open.”  But, in spite of this, Tom Tolan, a writer for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, has also taken to connecting a business called Patriot Advisors to the Republican party of Wisconsin.

First the denial from the GOP:

The state GOP has been saying it’s not doing anything to help any of their protest candidates in Tuesday’s elections, other than to help them collect signatures on their nomination papers.

Then the damning evidence!

Last week, calls were made to voters in Hopper’s district, and a flier was sent out, in support of John Buckstaff, the protest Democrat challenging King on Tuesday. The flier was identified with a little-known group called Patriot Advisors, which registered June 29 with the state Government Accountability Board to oppose King and support Buckstaff.

The same group also registered to oppose Rep. Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse), who’s challenging Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse), and in favor of James Smith, the fake Democrat in that district. Calls in favor of Smith were reported in that district. A reporter left messages at a phone number listed on Patriot Advisors’ filing, but they were not returned.

One problem: I’ve spoken directly to sources close to the group, and they say that Patriot Advisors did respond to the reporter, but the reporter simply decided not to include their response in his story.

And really why would he?  It wouldn’t fit the narrative at all that Patriot Advisors is a for-profit group conducting a business development case study.  Much easier to simply glaze over this by omitting the part where they respond and make clear what their interests are.

But speaking of conspiracies, it does raise an interesting question:  If Tolan deliberately witheld this information, what does that say of the press involvement in these recall elections?  Is it somehow less scandalous for a member of the esteemed press to be witholding information, making connections in spite of evidence and completely ignoring Patriot Advisors claims to the contrary of these reports connecting them to the Republican Party?

In an open primary, why is it that the press is continuing to cast this as a “republican trickery” story when clearly, an open primary is an invitation to any and all voters who would like to have their voices heard?  Are the Tolan’s and Sargent’s of this world simply reporting the news?  Or are they deciding for the public what ideology is allowed to be represented in a primary that the Democrats themselves chose to make open?  Are they telling both sides of the story?  Or are they painting a for-profit enterprise with the broad brush of conspiratorial dirty tricks (an arena usually occupied by their brethren in the Democrat party)?

Who’s to say for sure? Luckily, I have no intention or desire to hide my partisan nature, and so for the second time in two days, let me encourage any Republicans in Wisconsin: Go out and help restore the party of Jefferson!  Buckstaff (D) in the recall election!

But this probably leaves an open question for anyone reading this: Why did I title it “You asked for it Democrats?”  Well, that’s simple. The Democrats are using an unpopular, previously obscure method of simply nullifying the democratic election of a sitting state senator.  It’s laughable to see them feign offense at the notion that the Republicans can use the system to their advantage as well.

Don’t mistake my tone here either.  This is not a defense of open primaries.  Personally, I think that primaries should be purely partisan events and are at the heart of a political party’s decision making for it’s direction and platform.  Which is why it’s stupid to make them open.  But I can’t help but be openly hostile towards Democrats who, instead of fixing their own “loopholes,” decided to exploit the system themselves.

This is a really long way of saying “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  You asked for the game to be played this way Democrats.  Don’t get all weepy now that the tables are turning.

Cross-Posted at RedState.com

Follow @Ben_Howe

Out of his three and a half minute response to this question, someone on youtube picked out this highlight:

For the video impaired, let me summarize: Our dependence on foreign oil will only be solved by jamming unwanted products down the throats of the American people, regardless of the impact on employment and industry. That’s right; it’s all about increased fuel efficiency standards. His response shows how little he actually knows about the auto industry, or worse, how much he intends on misleading the public. For instance, he spends a fair amount of time making the case that the American people really want high gas mileage electric cars, not the same old gas guzzling SUV’s.  Except that’s not true.

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokeswoman Gloria Berquist said environmentalists have an overly optimistic view of Americans’ commitment to buying fuel-efficient vehicles. The industry’s message to the White House “is that we need to preserve affordability, vehicle choice, jobs and safety as we improve fuel economy,” Berquist said, noting that a pickup truck outsold all 30 hybrids on the U.S. market combined in 2010.

One could assume that loading all of your construction materials into a Prius may not be optimal for most building contractors.  But as usual, Obama knows best.  The American people want electric cars that are the descendants of the great and powerful Yugo.  We want them, but we apparently just don’t realize it.  That’s what Obama and his team, in all their infinite wisdom, have decided for us anyway.  And how will they force us to join them in this realization?  As has been discussed here at length, by making gas mileage unattainable for SUV’s and trucks.  We’ll choose the cars of green dreams when we have no other choice available, of that Obama is surely correct. He also refers to the need to rid ourselves of “10 mpg cars.”  The only cars that I can think of that get gas mileage in that range are the gas guzzling limos which have doubled on Obama’s watch.  But hey, I don’t judge.  The President is looking to increase safety for visiting diplomats, and limos are cool.  Then again, I’m not the one trying to force the American people to make sacrifices that I exempt myself from. But the most disturbing thing about this answer is Obama’s persistent belief that innovation can be forced.  The old saying is “Necessity is the mother of invention,” so Obama has taken this to the next logical (or illogical as it were) conclusion by adding, “yes, so what we need to do is manufacture necessity.” The truth is that the auto industry is well aware of the need to innovate, and they are doing it with appropriate speed and foresight.  In fact, they have worked on so-called “green” technology for some time now and without the government holding a gun to their head.  Auto manufactures have been producing green vehicles that actually appeal to consumers and in numbers that reflect the demand.  Generally speaking, this is how free market dynamics works: you make the product that people want to purchase and in quantities that roughly fill the demand for that product. In fact, President Obama had been one of those happy consumers having purchased his own Hybrid Ford Escape in 2007.  That car only gets a combined fuel efficiency of 30 mpg.  This falls dramatically short of the 56.2 mpg that he is proposing.  Once again, I’m fine with his choices.  I’m just irritated that he’s not fine with mine. But as I said, this all boils down to the view of necessity and innovation.  The Obama administration is filled with people that have very little experience in the private sector.  Their understanding of economics is based on theory and text books, not on real world experiences like success and failure.  As such, they believe that when the need doesn’t yet exist in such a way that will create innovation, the only sensible answer is for the government to  step in and manufacture that need.  This way of thinking is the basis for almost all of their policies. Rahm Emmanuel famously said, “you never want a serious crisis go to waste,” but he was only telling half of the story.  The real mantra of this President is “crisis, whether real or manufactured, shall be the tool of change.”  And he will never waste an opportunity to use it. Cross-Posted at Redstate.com Follow @Ben_Howe

This is nothing new of course, Democrats love to play tricks to win, it’s Alinsky 101. They’ve practically made an art out of creating fake tea party candidates to siphon votes away from Republicans (as scheme that was attempted in more than one location).  And interestingly, cases such as those linked above are directly tied to the Democrat party apparatus.  While there are plenty more examples of individuals who may or may not have official ties trying to muck things up on their own, one thing is certain: Democrats have been and continue to look for ways to infiltrate the GOP and direct where votes will go through misinformation and blatant fraud.

But now, it’s the Republicans that are under fire for supposedly using the very same type of trickery.

Via the JS Online:

Recall elections for six Republican senators are scheduled for July 12. If there are multiple candidates from the same party in any of those elections, the July 12 election becomes a primary election and a general recall election will be scheduled for Aug. 9.

Fitzgerald said Republicans would be recruited to run as Democrats – likely in all six races — so that the elections would be pushed back a month. He said he was persuaded by campaign staff that it was a good idea and consulted with state election officials to make sure it was allowed.

Fitzgerald said the idea was developed in response to a fake Republican running last year against Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc. Ziegelbauer was a Democrat who long voted with Republicans; he quit the Democratic Party last year and ran for re-election as an independent.

So, the Republican party is openly admitting that they are running additional “fake” candidates, not for the purpose of misinforming voters, but simply as a move to delay the recall process, known commonly as a mulligan for Democrat voters that are unhappy with the guy they didn’t vote for.  If you’re thinking these are vastly different types of “fraud”, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post is here to prove you wrong!

As you know, Wisconsin GOP state officials have hatched a scheme to run fake Democrats in Dem primary elections against the Democratic recall candidates, in order to delay the general recall election between Dems and the GOP state senators they’re targeting. As the labor-backed We Are Wisconsin warned recently, this could have major ramifications: Because Wisconsin law allows cross-party voting, Republican voters can vote in Dem primaries and vote for the fake Dem candidate in order to keep the real Dem out of the general election.

Horrors! But, this is all conjecture right? Is there any proof?  Detective Sargent continues:

Allies of one of the top GOP targets in the recalls, state senator Randy Hopper, are circulating flyers in his district trying to get out the vote for the fake Dem in the Democratic primary against his Dem opponent.

You can view the flyer, which was found and passed along by We Are Wisconsin, right here. It urges voters to go out to the polls to vote for one John Buckstaff against the real Democrat, Oshkosh deputy mayor Jessica King, a strong candidate against the vulnerable Hopper.

The flyer is the work of a group that calls itself “Patriot Advisors,” which is registered as an opponent of the real Dem, Jessica King, and an ally of the fake Dem candidate, John Buckstaff, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board tells me.

So, for anyone that needs a quick translation, let me give it a shot.  ”The Rethuglicans are trying to trick voters into voting for FAKE democrats in the recall, and the people behind it are directly tied to the party establishment!!”

Well, it turns out, not quite.

A source close to the Patriot Advisors tells me that it is a for-profit company conducting a business development study to determine whether their method of robo calls and live calls, coupled with a literature drop, will successfully identify people who don’t usually vote in primaries and then turn them out on election day. They have identified a group of people in Wisconsin who support Gov. Walker and oppose unions, and they have dropped flyers (shown below) at their houses.  In other words, they are quite aware that the primary process will be ruled by and dominated by party Democrats.  They’re just using it as an opportunity to test out how they will conduct on the ground efforts once the election begins.

Of course, fraud would be sending in fake Democrats to vote in a closed primary, but, as much as Sargent may be upset at the idea, this is an open primary.  Therefore, trickery cannot be at play as by it’s very definition, an open primary is open to anyone.  Even Republicans.  Even independents that support Governor Walker and oppose the unions.

In fact, a quick look at the flyers reveals that there is zero trickery involved, as Patriot Advisors very blatantly acknowledge what they would like to accomplish:

I’m not seeing any tricks here.  What I see is a flyer that is very honestly explaining that it doesn’t like the positions of the candidate Jessica King and is thus asking voters to support the primary challenger, John Buckstaff.  You’d have to be an idiot of elephantine proportions to believe that this flyer was trying to convince Democrats that Buckstaff is in line with their party ideology.

But even putting aside the for profit nature of the group behind these flyers.  Putting aside the fact that they are not affiliated with any candidate or committee.  This whole thing begs the question: Why bother having an open primary if you’re going to refer to any open challenge as “sleazy, dirty tricks?”  If you want to keep debate out of it, then close the primaries.  Because until you do, I believe it is the right and the duty of any voter that believes as I do that the Democrat party has been overrun by unions and progressive extremists, to get in there and try to restore the party of Jefferson to it’s former glory.

Far from sleazy, I’m looking at this as democracy at work.  It’s an open primary, let the open minded go in and vote what they believe and have the chips fall where they may.

In other words, let Operation: Chaos – Wisconsin edition, begin.

Cross-Posted at Redstate.com

Follow @Ben_Howe

Prior to the interview, I brilliantly railed against the standards that the Obama administration is putting forth for fuel efficiency (you know, the ones that make the Nissan Leaf, Smart Cars & the all powerful Prius dirty polluters?), as well as a few words on the madness that is the TSA.

Renewing America – June 27th

Renewing America with Ben Howe airs Monday nights at 9pm EST only on FTR Radio.

Cross-Posted at RedState.com

Follow @Ben_Howe