11 county Republican straw polls — 11 wins for Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist.

But this one was different.

The fact that Crist lost in Pinellas County, which he represented in the state Senate and where he’s lived nearly all his life, can’t be a good sign for Crist.

This is another in a string of positive events for Marco Rubio. Nearly unknown and trailing significantly in the polls just a year ago, Rubio’s conservative message has energized party faithful and impressed those less politically aware.

One common, if anecdotal, theme is that Rubio stands out because of his beliefs, but also because of how genuine he appears to be.

I wish more politicians understood this:

Scott Brown in his debate with Martha Coakley. (h/t Gina Cobb)

He also had a pretty good day fund raising, ending the day with over a million dollars.

The Democrats from the bluest state in the nation have to be in panic mode. To actually win this seat every star will have to align perfectly, not a high odds bet. Still, it could happen and, whatever the outcome, it will be a quite a indicator of conservative chances in the rest of 2010.

A pair of Democratic Senators will not be running this fall.

North Dakota’s Byron Dorgan made the announcement yesterday.

North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan stunned fellow Democrats when he decided not to seek re-election this fall and swung open a race that Republicans are convinced will help the GOP dent the Democrats’ fragile majority in the Senate.

Today Connecticut’s Christopher Dodd will announce his retirement.

Trouble-plagued Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who has for months been considered the most vulnerable Senate incumbent seeking re-election this year, will announce Wednesday that he is ending his bid for a sixth six-year term, a Democratic source confirmed.

Dodd will make the announcement at a press conference at his home in Connecticut.

I guess this moves Harry Reid up to the “the most vulnerable Senate incumbent” spot. Unless he wants to join the departure parade.

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is going to be the keynote speaker at CPAC.

CPAC Director Lisa De Pasquale made the announcement on the conference’s Twitter feed.

“We chose Rubio because he is an upcoming leader. He is someone that a lot of people are excited about,” De Pasquale told POLITICO. “His name keeps getting brought up and we decided that he would be a good keynote for 2010.”

He is an excellent choice. As Allahpundit said at Hot Air:

It’s an easy pick because there’s no pol in America aside from Sarahcuda whom the base is more excited about, and he needs this exposure a lot more than she does. It’s essentially a huge, free advertisement for his Senate campaign with all the earned media that goes along with that. And of course it’s a great advertisement for conservatives too: He’s young, charismatic, and a minority, which makes him almost the polar opposite of the standard media caricature of right-wingers.

My guess is that the crowd at CPAC is going to love this choice. He is extremely popular with party activist, going 12-0 in straw polls, winning most by huge margins.

The race between Rubio and Crist is being touted as an indicator of conservative sentiment and power. CPAC may give Rubio the name recognition he needs, and then the real test can begin.

Larry Thornberry writes about the Florida U.S. Senate primary between Governor Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio saying, “Marco Gets It.” He had the opportunity to sit down with Rubio. Here’s a taste:

His answers to my questions give a feel for what kind of a conservative he is.

Larry Thornberry – The American Spectator: Why do you think your campaign is increasingly successful, both in collecting money and in better poll numbers?

Rubio: I think it’s because my candidacy offers Floridians the opportunity to decide that we don’t want to be the party of cap and trade, that we don’t want to be the party of stimulus, that in fact we want to send people to Washington who will stand up to the direction this administration is taking our country and offer a clear alternative. We already have a Democratic Party. We doesn’t need two Democratic parties.

The base is enthusiastic about our candidacy. An authentic center-right message, an authentic limited-government message is where the mainstream of American politics is. The extremists in American politics are the ones who want government to take over our economy. The extremists are the ones who want government to dictate energy policy. The extremists are the ones who want America to become more like the rest of the world and less like the exceptional country that we know and love. Those are the ones who are out of touch with everyday Americans. Those of us who believe government shouldn’t spend money it doesn’t have, who believe the government shouldn’t become so involved in the economy that it becomes impossible to open a business in the spare bedroom of your home, we’re in the mainstream of American thought.

Do read the whole post. The Rubio campaign website is here. You can follow @MarcoRubio on Twitter.

Govenor Charlie Crist has made his choice to replace Senator Mel Martinez, who is resigning.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced Friday he will appoint George LeMieux, his former chief of staff, to succeed Sen. Mel Martinez after the Republican incumbent resigns his seat in early September.

LeMieux, who ran Crist’s successful 2006 campaign for governor, currently serves as the chairman of the law firm Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, which has offices in major cities across Florida.

I don’t know anything about LeMieux, but I’ll be looking. If you know anything about the appointee, please leave a comment.

I hope, and will be working to ensure, that Marco Rubio will be replacing LeMieux in 2010. You can follow @MarcoRubio on Twitter. For anyone in the Lakeland area of Central Florida, Rubio will be speaking at a luncheon in Lakeland on September 2nd. I will be there. Will you?

UPDATE: LeMieux is reported to have remarked that he, “is a Charlie Crist Republican” following the announcement of his appointment. Well that’s not good news.

UPDATE II: Rubio calls the choice “disappointing.”

“This is a disappointing pick for Florida. George LeMieux is a talented political operative and the governor’s best friend, but that doesn’t make him the right choice to represent Florida in the Senate. Governor Crist had a wealth of consistent and principled conservative candidates to choose from, all of whom would have been a reliable check and balance on the excesses of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.”

Sphere: Related Content

It’s a trend that has been repeating itself, in spite of the “official” position of the state party. Senate candidate Marco Rubio has been winning county REC straw polls by impressive margins. The latest was in Bay County.

Mirroring the sentiment established by Republican Executive Committees statewide, the Bay County REC overwhelmingly gave their informal support to Marco Rubio in his bid to replace U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez during a straw poll at their Monday meeting.

Rubio got 23 votes; Gov. Charlie Crist received two votes, and two members voted for none of the above. Despite having the formal endorsement of the Republican Party of Florida, Crist has not faired well in REC straw polls statewide, a possible indication that he has not won over the party faithful.

In one of the most recent straw polls, for instance, Highland County’s REC voted 75 to one in favor of Rubio.

I need to roundup all the REC straw poll votes I can find. If you know of any results, please let me know in the comments.

You can follow Marco Rubio on Twitter.

I know this video has been around for a while now, but I’m posting it here for two reasons. One, so I can go back and find it when needed, and two, because it just needs as wide an audience as possible.

So, has Sen. McCaskill issued that apology yet?

Heh. I just have to add this video.

As Van Helsing noted, “Anyone less arrogant and out of touch would have known the answer without having to invite a crowd to yell it at her.”

Yesterday’s Senate confirmation hearings were the Superbowl-like Pre-game to the real business at hand starting today. The only things missing were the clever new ads for the pundits to analyze. Yet, in spite of the generally collegial speeches, some were surprised at the “tough attacks”.

[T]he panel’s ranking member, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said he found troubling Sotomayor’s views on the role of personal experience in rendering decisions from the bench.

“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court,” said Sessions.

In addition to saying, “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed and I don’t think you will,” Sen. Lindsey “Please Like Me” Graham (R’ish – SC) noted this on the “Obama Standard”:

“I can assure you that if I applied Senator Obama’s standard to your nomination, I wouldn’t vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background.”

The key focus appeared to be on how previous comments would influence her decisions. Not surprisingly, several Republican Senators found some troubling possibilities.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Sotomayor’s public statements seemed inappropriate for a sitting judge. “I fear they don’t comport with what I and many others believe is the proper role of a judge or an appropriate judicial method,” he said. “The American legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the courthouse … Ideally, the Supreme Court shouldn’t be made up of men and women who are on the side of one special group or issue.”

“Many of Judge Sotomayor’s public statements suggest that she may, indeed, allow, and even embrace, decision-making based on her biases and prejudices,” Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) complained. “The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her ‘gender and Latina heritage’ and foreign legal concepts that get her ‘creative juices going.”

It was the remarks, and the philosophy behind the remarks, of several Democratic Senators that I found troubling.

“I do not believe that Supreme court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes, rather I believe that they make the decision of individuals who bring to the court their own experiences and philosophies,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said.

I think that explains the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy of the judicial branch pretty clearly. When I’m watching a baseball game I don’t want the umpire to make a call based on what he thinks the outcome should be. When the highest court in the land makes a decision I don’t want the Justices to do so either.

Living in government housing used to be limited to military personnel (I still remember visiting my uncle and his family at Ft. Dix) and, what we used to call, “the projects”. Not anymore.

I bet you thought that if you bought a house, you actually own it and can, with reasonable exceptions, do with it what you want. You probably think that if you want to live in a log cabin, with wood stoves that belch smoke into the air for heat, and an old washer and dryer that don’t have those little EnergyStar stickers on them you can because it’s your life and your property. You paid for it with money you earned with the sweat of your brow and what the heck is America anyhow if a body can’t live in the home they want furnished with the appliances they want?

Ah, silly you. You didn’t reckon on the Democratic Party’s desire to control every minuscule aspect of your life.

Jimmie Bise’s post is a sobering and disturbing look at just one section of passed-without-reading Waxman-Markey mess. It’s section 304, and it says, in part:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of–

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

(B) other appropriate means.

As Bise notes, “Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live.” You need to read his whole post. If your head doesn’t explode (I make no guarantees) head over to this post by Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson and read about 49 other little tidbits of nanny state delight, including:

43. Waxman-Markey also enables Obama to indulge his persistent desire to use the tax code to transfer wealth from people who pay taxes to people who don’t — i.e., from likely Republican voters to likely Obama voters. The bill “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain low income taxpayers a refundable energy tax credit to compensate such taxpayers for reductions in their purchasing power, as identified and calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting from regulation of GHGs (greenhouse gases).”

44. Not only will Waxman-Markey slip more redistribution into the tax code, it will establish a new monthly welfare check. It will create an “Energy Refund Program” that will “give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act.”

45. Another new class of government dependents will be created by Waxman-Markey: Americans put out of work by Waxman-Markey. The bill establishes a program to distribute “climate change adjustment assistance to adversely affected workers.”

The bottom line is you are going to have less (much less) on your bottom line. Beyond that you are going to have less (much less) personal freedom and rights.

It’s passed in the House. We can not allow it to move forward in the Senate. The amount of damage this bill can do between now and 2010/2012 is mind-boggling. Make no mistake, this bill will do nothing to stop “climate change” (how can you fix a hoax?), but will do plenty to stop prosperity and replace capitalism with government redistribution of wealth.

If this doesn’t scare you, you’re just not paying attention.

Our Constitution: Viewed by the left it is a “living, breathing” document full of emanations and penumbras invisible to the uninitiated. But sometimes a chimera constitution doesn’t even cut it. What do you do when the limits imposed are inconvenient? NP, as the online folks say. Just ignore them.

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”

Wow! Ed Morrisey gets right to the heart of this.

Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification? The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated.

Well, that is, if the deal actually does put in place an effective verification system and doesn’t amount to a de facto unilateral disarmament. With exactly five months to win Senate approval, the effort by the Obama White House in floating this idea now makes it sound like Obama wants to give away the store in order to score some points with his 1980s no-nukes agenda.

Wyatt Earp, Curt, and Mark Noonan have more.

I received a response from my rep. Adam Putnam when I wrote regarding the Cap and Tax bill. He voted against it, as I expected, but one paragraph from his email was very striking.

Fundamentally, the bill fails to ensure that an adequate amount of renewable or alternative energy sources are developed and deployed to compensate for the bill’s declining cap on fossil fuel emissions, as well as foster development of clean nuclear power. Instead, it would impose 397 new regulations and 1060 new mandates on the American public.

Wow! No wonder they didn’t want anyone to read it before they voted. It has hard to imagine a more intrusive, destructive piece of legislation (although I’m sure they’ll try). We must stop this in the Senate. Call, write, fax, email your Senators today.