The longest serving Republican Senator in history has been indicted by a federal grand jury.

In a press conference, acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich said that according to the indictment, Stevens is being charged with seven felony counts of making false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms. The indictment alleges that Stevens did not, as he is required to do, report gifts he received from Veco Corp., which included $250,000 of materials and labor related to the renovation of his home in Girdwood.

Ted Stevens is well known for his love of bacon and ability to direct it toward his home state of Alaska.  Even the imminent threat of a corruption investigation couldn’t slow down his rampant porking.

“He’s at the head of the pack,” Ellis said. “His ability to bring home the bacon to Alaska is legendary and he doesn’t make any bones about doing that.”

Stevens gets his buying power from his staying power. With nearly four decades in the Senate, now at age 83, he’s the longest-serving Republican senator in history.

Less than three months after the FBI searched his Alaska home in a bribery and public corruption probe, Stevens proved he hasn’t lost an ounce of clout. He added an incredible $215 million in earmarks to the defense bill - more than any other senator.

Ted Stevens epitomized the failures of the republican party to govern responsibly.  Let’s hope his eventual replacement brings with him more respect for the taxpayer.

Remember, this bill was signed by a man who was a featured speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

California, a national trendsetter in all matters edible, became the first state to ban trans fats in restaurants when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill Friday to phase out their use.

Under the new law, trans fats, long linked to health problems, must be excised from restaurant products beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011. Packaged foods will be exempt.

New York City adopted a similar ban in 2006 — it became fully effective on July 1 — and Philadelphia, Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md., have done so as well.

Vocal do-gooders have once again conspired to deprave citizens of their freedom to choose.  You are simply not trusted to make the correct decisions in your own life, even if the weighting of risk versus reward is entirely subjective. That this charge was enabled, if not actually led by, a prominent republican illustrates the sad state of our national affairs.

If there’s any doubt left as to why the republican party has suffered the collapse that it has, let it go. The reason is obvious: republicans have turned into democrats - big government, big spending, control your life democrats.

Here’s a prime example:

An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide, with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.

There is no case for government intervention here. The benefits of driving 55 are had by those who are doing the driving, therefor they have every incentive to do so already. They can balance the considerations on their own (using less gas versus more time spent driving) and decide which matters more to them.

If people actually care about using less gas and saving money, then they will drive at about such a speed without government mandate. If they don’t care, then there’s no justification for a politician, elected to represent the people, to institute something they don’t want. In either case, government should butt out. A republican should know better.

The talking heads have been abuzz, salivating at the prospect of a decapitated republican party, with many already writing up the eulogies. Reports of the party’s demise are, of course, premature. While the landscape this election is unquestionably bad, the party can regain its strength in the long run if it returns to a proper understanding of its role in the American political landscape.

The party must quit trying to play the democrats’ game.

Republicans have fared so poorly in recent years primarily because the party has abandoned the ideological framework which successfully guided the party into power and replaced it with the democrats issue-oriented, say-whatever-it-takes-to-achieve-power approach. Lacking any significant overarching ideology, the democratic party jumps from issue to issue, adopting whatever position is most popular by pandering to a public that may or may not be capable of understanding the consequences of its positions. The Republican party cannot win by adopting this appeal-to-popular-feelings approach. It lacks the ability to out pander the democrats, in large part because the media are less inclined to call democrats out on the inconsistent positions which will necessarily arise when candidates act on whim rather than coherent ideology.

Unable to actually win many new voters with this approach, Republicans are still perfectly capable of losing them. No longer given the option of a “thinking man’s party,” ideological voters who once saw a sharp contrast between parties now find little reason to consistently choose republicans over democrats.

The way out of the wilderness is fairly straightforward. The party must quit trying to play the democrats’ game. Don’t berate oil companies just because democrats are doing it; point out the numerous ways in which government has forced high gas prices upon us. Don’t whine about fictional “price-gouging”; defend the free market system and acknowledge the important role that price fluctuations play in simultaneously signaling a need for, and encouraging the movement of, additional resources. Don’t jump on board the “climate change” bandwagon; point out the very real dangers in ceding control of so many realms of private society out of fear for an unproven environmental threat. The republican party needs to justify its existence in a political landscape in which the role of panderer is already taken. To do so it must not only pay lip service to the free market, classical liberal ideology, it must live it.

*Delegate numbers incomplete

12:18 PM EST Update: FOX has called California for Romney. This and the lose in Missouri are disappointments for Romney, though he’ll get a lot of delegates from California. The exact numbers won’t be known until tomorrow.

12:00 PM EST Update:Will this clown never shut up?

11:52 PM EST Update: Colorado now goes to Romney.

Also, does Obama ever say anything of substance? No wonder his supporters always come off so vapid when interviewed.

11:15 PM EST Update: Romney picks up Montana caucus. He’ll probably add Colorado to that list shortly.

10:41 PM EST Update: Huckabee picks up Tennessee and Georgia. McCain finally wins his home turf in Arizona.

10:33 PM EST Update: Romney picks up the North Dakota caucus.

10:11 PM EST Update: Huckabee speaks and takes a shot at Romney. “People have been saying it’s a two-man race. It is, and we’re in it.” That will sound rather empty if Romney ends the day with more delegates, as is likely if he shows strong in California.

10:02 PM EST Update: FOX called Oklahoma for McCain. Utah polls just closed and immediately called for Romney, obviously.

9:21 PM EST Update: FOX calls New York for McCain. No surprise there. Still no call in Arizona.

9:03 PM EST Update: Echoing what we saw earlier, FOX is saying they cannot yet call Arizona, John McCain’s home state. He’ll probably end up winning, but even the fact that it’s remotely in play is a blow to McCain, and shows just how much his immigration position has alienated Republicans.

8:28 PM EST Update: Polls in Arkansas will close momentarily. Huckabee will be called the winner immediately.

8:05 PM EST Update: Right off the bat we see McCain taking Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey. No surprises there. Huckabee will Take Alabama and Romney has his home state of Massachusetts.

7:58 PM EST Update: Georgia is still trickling in. It looks like a battle between McCain and Huckabee, with Romney 10% behind in a distant third.

Nine states are about to close their polls.

7PM EST Update: NRO has some exit poll numbers from key states.

Romney had been surging in California leading up to the vote, but so far these very early numbers (which won’t include California’s large percentage of absentee voting) show McCain up on Romney 40-36%. In MO, which is an important bell-weather and winner-take-all state, the race is even with Romney barely up 34-32 over McCain.

Possible bad news for McCain in his home state of Arizona, where he has only a 44-39 lead over Romney.

Polls have just closed in another important and competitive state of Georgia, which is way too close to call and the exit polls have a three way dead heat.

It’s a big day for the Republican nomination. McCain comes in the heavy favorite following a flurry of endorsements and media pronouncements that he has the race wrapped up. With a strong national lead in the polls, McCain is sitting pretty. Huckabee still has no shot at the nomination but is staying in to help McCain. Romney’s objective is to stay within 250 or so delegates of McCain. If he can do that he can stick it out for the long haul. With a recent poll showing him up by 7 in California (note: California is not state-wide winner-take-all, but awarded county by county), that’s certainly a possibility.

Our first news of the night comes from West Virginia. In what will no doubt further fuel rumors of a McCain-Huckabee alliance, Huckabee has won the closed convention after being behind Romney 41% to 33% after one round. In this caucus style convention, voting is conducted until a candidate receives a majority, with the lowest supported candidate being removed after each round. After the first round, it was Ron Paul that was dropped, and yet all of McCain’s support mysteriously went over to Huckabee, giving him the majority and a 52-47% win over Romney.

The democrat race is quite easy to summarize: It’s a toss-up.

The Republican race is a bit more complicated. First things first, ignore the media. They’ll tell you Mitt is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Rudy is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Fred is out. They’re wrong.

Why is the media so wrong? Simply put, they have an overstated opinion of themselves and what they mean to the race. They buy into the idea of massive coverage generating overwhelming momentum for whoever they anoint as the front-runners. Their ego’s prevent them from questioning this assumption even as the present election represents a completely new phenomenon and is unprecedented in it’s compactness.

Here’s the real truth. Yes, momentum matters. But no one has enough to have eliminated anyone else. Rudy is still sitting on some big delegate states and, despite being written off by the media, can easily take the delegate lead on super tuesday. Amazingly enough, Mitt Romney is being declared dead even as he has the most delegates! He’s very competitive in Michigan and, with a win there, would probably be the *real* front-runner. Fred is hurt, but still not out. While McCain, Romney and Huckabee are duking it out in Michigan, he’s in South Carolina all by himself. A win there could give him a crucial second look, though another else is the end of the road.

So that’s where it stands. Don’t listen to the media. No one is out and everyone still has a path to the nomination.

As we conservatives in the coming weeks scour over the candidates’ records, read the pundits’ analysis and strain to keep our eyes open during debate after debate after debate after debate trying to decide which candidate most deserves our support, we should take a moment to remind ourselves of why it is we associate with republicans to begin with. It’s important not to get caught up in the sort of tribal mentality that often sweeps over people when dealing with politics. Us versus them, because we’re us and they’re them. No. Your party affiliation should be a fully deliberate decision based on a hard look at what’s important to you in comparison to what the various parties have demonstrated is important to them. No party should ever be able to consider your vote a given regardless of their performance. With that said, the Democrats have just reaffirmed why they won’t be getting my party affiliation anytime before the next ice age if they keep up the way they are.

The dems are down to four in their race to the bottom, and they’re clawing each others’ eyes out to be the one who hits first. During ABCs New Hampshire debate Saturday, and this is to Charlie gibson’s credit, they were asked if the surge has worked, and further whether the progress we’re seeing now in Iraq would have happened had they gotten their way on pulling troops out last year. In responding, each and every one of them proved that they can’t handle the truth. Obama was the worst offender.

Obama claimed the decision by Sunnis in Iraq to embrace American forces was a response to the Democratic capture of Congress in the 2006 election. Sunnis in Anbar province “started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?” They saw the likelihood of a withdrawal of U.S. troops and feared they “would be left very vulnerable to the Shias,” Obama said. So they joined the Americans.

This is a figment of Obama’s imagination. There’s no evidence for this explanation–quite the contrary. Even before the 2006 election, Sunnis had begun to turn against al Qaeda, their one-time ally
in the insurgency, and its brutal tactics. Their rebellion against al Qaeda even has a name, the Sunni Awakening. Desperate for help against al Qaeda terrorists that they turned to Americans.

Depends on the meaning of the word “was” I guess.

Bill Richardson was worse than Obama. Calling Iraq “a massive failure,” he made a string of inaccurate claims. He said there had been no reconciliation. Wrong. He said there had been no sharing of oil revenues. Wrong. He said the Iraq government had made no effort to train more security forces. Wrong. He said there was only a political solution in Iraq but not a military solution. The truth is, both are required.

This is willful ignorance.

John Edwards provided a whopper of his own. He said the withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq caused “a significant reduction in violence.” In fact, it was the British presence–not the withdrawal–for so many months that had pacified that region.

By the way, the Iraqis are now administering that region on their own. Is that not exactly what success in this effort should look like? They could admit they were wrong and salvage some of their credibility. But no, they’d rather lie and hope no one checks them on it.

Hillary Clinton also refused to acknowledge any success in Iraq. She reaffirmed what she told General David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, last September during a Senate hearing. Then, she said she had to “suspend disbelief” to accept Petraeus’s testimony that the surge was working.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of your politically convenient skepticism and hatred of the military.

Support these bastards I will not. Let the primaries commence! And let’s take back our country.

Find a transcript of the debate here if you missed it.

Here I’ll rank how the candidates did on each issue. The topics came back and forth a little bit so it’s not strictly arranged by subject. But I’ve tried to kept it in the sections Wallace used.

Taxes & Social Security

Rudy: Rudy laid out his tax cutting record, then went on to talk about cutting corporate taxes. He correctly pointed out that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate. 4 points

McCain: Despite being criticized for voting against the Bush tax cut, McCain actually came out alright on taxes because of his focus on spending and explanation that he wanted the tax cuts to include spending cuts. This also just so happens to be what most conservatives wanted as well. He didn’t make the argument for his vote against the Bush tax cuts as clear as he could have, and that kept him from the top spot in my ranking on this issue. McCain’s additional comment on social security was also a solid boost. 3 points

Romney: Romney’s tiff with Huckabee on this issue got things off to a heated start. Mitt got a little flustered when he fell back and meekly repeated his “facts are stubborn things” line. Still, he gave a good low tax answer and came out the better against Huckabee. 2 points

Thompson: Wallace dragged Fred into a discussion of Social Security and didn’t let him answer the taxes question. I think I understand his explanation of why reducing future promises of increases isn’t a cut, but it was probably all too confusing for most. 1 point

Huckabee: Huckabee dodged Mitt’s question and came off rather weak here. Zero points

Populism & “Change”

Romney: You’re not going to help the wage-earner in America attack the wager-payer in America. Romney leveraged his private sector experience well here. In his battle with McCain he came out on top. “Washington is fundamentally broken” was succinct and to the point. He managed to successfully hit all the issues in this section. 4 points

Thompson: Thompson, as usual, gave an honest answer on the Fair Tax. A constitutional amendment to ensure that an income tax won’t return in addition to a consumption tax makes this an unlikely solution. Otherwise he likes the idea. “Change has been a part of every election since the dawn of elections, if you weren’t an incumbent.” More important than change is leadership and being honest with the people about the problems we face. That’s the change we need. 3 points

Rudy: Rudy took Wallace’s question on the Fair Tax and completely disregarded it, instead choosing to reach into his New York grab-bag to pull out welfare reform. Not a bad issue in it’s own right. He made a strong case in explaining how important it is to take the case to all people that conservative solutions work better than liberal pandering. But so blatantly not answer questions doesn’t impress voters. Rudy recovered well when he was able to speak on “change”. It can be for good or bad, what matters is the direct. “Change is a slogan.” Essentially he is saying Democrats are for bad change. 2 points

Huckabee & McCain: Huckabee gave a decent answer and avoided the demagogic populism that he uses on the campaign trail. But the video played of his prior statements was enough to hurt him here. Romney twisted that knife further. McCain sounds like he was in the Democratic debate, trying to out “change” the changeofiliacs. His new “agent of change” persona sounds too much like what Hillary to adopedt after Obama’s Iowa victory, and no more sincere. Such platitudes don’t belong in serious discussion and is unbecoming a Republican. He recovered a bit when he was able to bring up his leadership experience in the Navy. 1 point each

National Security & Leadership

McCain & Romney: Romney and McCain highlighted the historically lopsided battle between Senators and Governors. Both won because they were able to dominate the discussion and left the other three candidates all but forgotten on this issue. They were both able to highlight their own experiences and both did so impressively. McCain gets the slight edge because he got the last word and said it wasn’t just his Senate experience, but also his life experience that he brings (which reminds us all he is a war hero). 3 points each

Thompson: “These are different” times that require more foreign relations experience. Fred made fun of the other candidates listing off all the countries they’ve visited and then went on to lay out his solid credentials. He got in a hit on Huckabee’s positions on Gitmo, Cuba and his “bunker mentality” statements. 2 points

Rudy: Trying to compare managing New York to dealing with foreign threats was a stretch. Romney made a much better case for translating domestic executive leadership to the Commander-in-Chief role. Rudy wasn’t bad, but wasn’t strong either. 1 points

Huckabee: Wallace’s litany of Huckabee’s gaffe’s on knowledge of foreign issues was a huge blow. He was obviously flustered by the question and never recovered on this issue. That he had to fall back on leadership of domestic issues only highlighted his weakness. Fred also got the best of him. He scored some points saying Gitmo is too hospitable, but flopped when he said it doesn’t matter where we keep them. Zero points

Immigration & Amnesty

Romney: Pointing out McCain’s statement saying amnesty must be part of the solution was a blow. Pointing out the incentives that amnesty gives to encourage others to enter illegally was an excellent answer. He took a hit when McCain struck back and threw out his quote stating McCain’s plan was reasonable and not amnesty. 4 points

Rudy: Rudy hit all the solid points. Nothing flashy but he got in the “secure the borders” and everything that comes with it lines. 3 points

Thompson: Rudy and Huckabee had polices that “if you made it in, you were home free.” Our policies are encouraging the next generation of people to try and cross the border. Finally someone criticized the President of Mexico for thinking he can tell us not to enforce our borders. He didn’t give any specific for what he would do though. 2 points

Huckabee: Huckabee gave an alright answer. People in the U.S. should live in the shadows, he says. In order to live with dignity they should go home and come back legally. I don’t think his taking umbrage at Mitt’s question came off too well. He didn’t answer Wallace’s question well on when exactly it’s punishing the children and when it’s not, as Huckabee said in the past children should not be punished for the parents crimes. 1 point

McCain: McCain struggled and seemed defensive. He says fixing borders first is his priority, but no one believes him at this point and I don’t see he did anything to change that fact. Zero points

Bonus Round

*I’m not going to rank the question on negative ads and the various questions that went with it because the candidates got different questions. Rather, I’ll give plus or minus one point depending on how each did, or zero if I think they came out about even.

Romney: +1. Romney got in a good point about the difference between an attack ad and an ad on people’s records. Contrasting records has an important role in the campaign process. Once again providing both the setup and punch line to the joke about hair was lame, though. He answered the flip-flopping charge very well.

Huckabee: -1. Mitt got the best of him yet again.

Rudy: 0. Did a good job of dispatching the Kerik debacle, but didn’t gain anything

McCain: +1. Dealt with the age issue with good humor and dispelled it well

Thomspon: -1. Fred loses through no fault of his own. Not included in this discussion, the viewer probably forgot he was even in the debate.

Closing Arguments

Romney: Romney wins basically just on presentation. With a question in which all candidates are saying basically the same things, presentation matters a lot. He came across as the most inspiring. 3 points

McCain: McCain was as positive and upbeat as he is capable of, but still couldn’t match Romney. Having the last word also helped. 2 points

Rudy, Thompson & Huckabee: Rudy is the man for big ideas, he says. Good answer, but yet again nothing stood out. Fred got in the only reference to appointing judges that aren’t activists. Cited his 100% pro-life record. Made reference to being on the short-end of some 99-1 votes, but didn’t explain how that was an example of his strong federalist principles. His tone was rather lackluster and uninspiring. Huckabee starting with a religious reference got him off on the wrong foot. He went into a stronger answer after that but it didn’t stand out. 1 point each

So here’s how my tally came out:

Romney: 17
Rudy: 11
McCain: 10
Thompson: 8
Huckabee: 2

Disappointed by Fred’s Iowa showing, my initial analysis following the Hawkeye cauci about his chances to win the nomination was rather pessimistic. Well, that’s an understatement. I gave him no chance. I still am pessimistic about his odds, but after watching the ABC New Hampshire debate I now see a path for him back to competitiveness.

It’s not yet clear whether Romney or McCain will come out ahead in New Hampshire, but it is all but certain that Huckabee will not have a strong showing. With a split in the early primary winners, no candidate will have control of the race heading into the next big momentum shifting state: South Carolina. The Thomspon campaign has made it clear they are targeting South Carolina and hope ride a “southern strategy” to the nomination.

In the ABC New Hampshire debate, Thompson dogged Guiliani on the issue of immigration (see video), asserting that if illegals receive any reward for their law-breaking is amnesty. Thompson’s lawyerly background is on evidence here as he first lays out a clear definition of amnesty for all to understand, and then proceeds to hold Rudy’s feet to the fire by repeatedly questioning if his plan would allow illegals to remain in the U.S.

Every single major candidate but Thompson has a weak record on immigration. South Carolinians rank immigration has their number one issue. If I’m Fred Thompson I’m saying one thing between now and January 19th: Immigration, immigration, immigration. If his campaign is on the ball they’ll continue to lay the groundwork on that issue in tonight’s Fox debate.

Radio host and Townhall.com columnist Michael Medved wants conservatives to “Call Off the ‘RINO’ Hunt“.

Medved’s argument is strictly one of numbers. Parties need more than their opponents to win, so the bigger the better. But is it really wise to make no consideration of ideology?

…Those who make war on RINO’s, however, ought to confront an obvious question: would you really prefer that such people drop the Republican designation? How does it help if politicians or office-holders with whom you disagree leave your party and join the opposition? When alleged “RINO” Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP and joined the Democrats, it gave them control of the US Senate. When another RINO, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, lost his Senate seat in 2006, it also gave the Democrats control; if Chafee had won, we’d still have a Republican majority and GOP committee chairs. The truth is that no successful political party has ever been built on ideological purity. You can construct a majority coalition by bringing people into your party, not by driving them away.

The problem with this argument is that he only considers one side of the equation. He relies heavily upon two extremely rare cases where control of the Senate hinged on one seat, and in so doing missed the boat on what allowing people like Lincoln Chafee to run powerful committees usually means: conservative disillusionment in the Republican party. If the party has to compromise on all its principles just to gain one more seat, it can’t possibly hope to retain the support of its core constituency for long.

The fact of the matter is: it’s the big spending, big government Lincoln Chafee’s that made the previous election close in the first place. Obviously it would be unproductive to obsess on ideological purity to the point of paralysis, but it’s not unreasonable, and in fact it’s advantageous in the long run, to hold members accountable to the principles the party built its majority on in the first place.