Leave it to the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Propagandists, to cover for Barack Obama’s Uncle Omar, formally known as Onyango Obama. Today, Uncle Omar was given a slap on the wrists so light it’s hard to imagine he even felt it.

Today’s AP cleanup in Massachusetts arrives via Denise Lavoie, whose principal contribution to the spin is to tell readers that Uncle Omar is “appealing a deportation order,” when in fact he ignored an order for 19 years until his arrest for “operating under the influence” in August of last year. Excerpts, including the “say as little as possible” headline, follow:

(more…)

In what is apparently completely unimportant news to just about everyone except NBC2 in Southwest Florida and Andrew Breitbart, numerous instances of illegal voting by non-citizens have been uncovered. Projecting the problems across the state and the rest of the nation would seem to indicate that many thousands of people who are registered to vote should never have been allowed to register and are routinely casting ballots illegally.

A Google News search on “Florida vote fraud” (not in quotes) at Google News at 11:00 PM ET indicated that there was a grand total of six stories on this disturbing development. Immediately below the reference to the non-citizen voting news is a link to a Tampa Bay Times editorial posted two days ago which claimed that voter fraud is “a nonexistent problem in this state.” Uh huh. What follows are excerpts from each segment (Part 1; Part 2) of Andy Pierrotti’s NBC2 report (also look at the TV reports at the links, which differ from the text below):

(From Part 1)

NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud

Two elections supervisors are taking action after an NBC2 investigation uncovers flawed record keeping and human error allowing people who are not citizens of the United States to vote.

No one knows how widespread this problem is, because county election supervisors have no way to track non-citizens who live here.

So NBC2 did something election officials never thought to do, and found them on our own.

“I vote every year,” Hinako Dennett told NBC2.

The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she’s registered to vote.

NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn’t serve as a juror because she wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters.

… Based on our investigation, both election offices say they’ll now request a copy of every jury excusal form where residents say they can’t serve because they’re not a citizen.

(From Part 2)

Poor record keeping is what’s leading to potential fraud in the elections system. And election supervisors say registering non-citizens will continue until they get more help.

Officials we spoke to say non U.S. citizens are voting in Lee and Collier counties.

“If there is a change by one vote and somebody’s voted that really has no right to be voting,” said Lee County Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington.

Nearly 100 registered are now under investigation for possible voter fraud.

“It could change the whole complexion of an election,” Harrington said.

We found those 100 people after reviewing jury excusal forms. We compared the names of those who said they couldn’t serve because they were not U.S. citizens to those listed on Florida’s voter registration rolls.

“I was surprised that there were quite that many,” Harrington said.

It would have been nice if Pierrotti had told viewers what the error rate was, i.e., how many jury excusal forms did it take before they got to nearly 100 ineligible voters? 200? 500? 1,000? It would also be nice to know what percentage of registered voters are called for jury duty in any given year, because the chances that there are non-citizens voting who have never been called for jury duty would appear to be quite high, and might possibly be a multiple of the number who were caught through excusal forms.

Depending on the error rate found, projecting the problem across all of Florida could lead one to reasonably believe that there are thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of non-citizens who either registered themselves and are voting illegally, or that others who have posed as them, with or without their knowledge, have registered and are voting on their behalf. It’s not a great leap to speculate that the number of illegally registered non-citizens is in the tens to hundreds of thousands nationwide.

But voter fraud “a nonexistent problem in this state.” Just ask the Tampa Bay Tribune. What a crock.

Don’t expect the rest of the establishment press to notice this disturbing and disconcerting story.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

What follows is a video Ann Barnhardt, who courageously quit her cattle brokerage business in the wake of the client fund-raiding actions at MF Global two months ago, put up in June 2011.

In the opening minutes (beginning at about 1:05 through about 4:40), she makes the points yours truly and so many others, up to and (finally in December) including Rick Santorum, have been making for years about how Romney unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by violating the state’s constitution and the oath of office he took when he became the state’s governor — because he promised that he would.

But don’t stop there. Listen or watch the whole thing.

Here goes (language is PG-13):

A much longer video with snarky inserts made by others is here (HT Noisy Room). I personally like my Barnhardt straight up, undiluted, as presented above.

Three items in Ann Coulter’s latest column are so self-evidently false that they simply cannot be accidents.

First:

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

This is from the woman who falsely claimed last week (as shown in two BizzyBlog posts: long version; short version) that Santorum opposes E-Verify because he voted against the de facto immigration amnesty bill (which happened to contain E-Verify — big whoop), but has otherwise consistently supported E-Verify.

Oh, did I mention that the amnesty bill Santorum voted against was co-sponsored by John McCain, who endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday, and, uh … Ted Kennedy?

And who can forget that Ann Coulter’s very next column after the 2006 shamnesty vote ripped into Republicans who supported the law, thereby taking the same position of opposition Rick Santorum took when he voted against it the previous week?

Coulter’s “Ted Kennedy” slur — and yes, I consider associating Rick Santorum with the criminal of Chappaquiddick a slur — is not an accident or oversight. Santorum corrected “Chairman Ann” about McCain-Kennedy and E-Verify publicly last week. Clearly, she has thrown any concern about the truth overboard.

Second and third:

The Catholic missionary (i.e., Santorum — Ed.) was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.”

Coulter has a point on earmarks, but it ends there:

• A Manchester Union Leader editorial today with a great title (“Establish-Mitt: Romney the insider”) notes that Coulter’s guy Mitt Romney also supported No Child Left Behind, which was championed by George W. Bush and, uh … Ted Kennedy.
• Mitt Romney didn’t just do a “drug entitlement.” He established comprehensive, state-run, abortion-allowing health care, i.e., RomneyCare, something Santorum has always opposed, when he was Massachusetts Governor, using many of the same people who moved on to design the statist nightmare known as Obamacare. Standing by at the RomneyCare law’s signing ceremony was the one, the only … (as seen at the top right) Ted Kennedy.

That’s three huge whoppers about Santorum or Santorum v. Romney.

What Bill Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection wrote a week ago has again been shown to be true, this time in triplicate:

Ann’s a lawyer, so she knows that omitting material facts can be just as much a fraud as stating false facts.

… Ann Coulter is willing to say anything to elect Romney.

Coulter’s high-water mark was Treason. That was nine years ago. Since then, when it comes to Republican presidential politics, she has gradually turned into a reckless polemicist with almost no regard for the truth.

Oh, and one more thing — Here’s Coulter in yesterday’s column:

Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that (i.e., defeating Obama — Ed.) won.

Here is Coulter in February 2011:

(at the 0:45 mark) I’ll put it in a nutshell: If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee, and we’ll lose.

__________________________________________

UPDATE: At Legal Insurrection — “Coulter: Santorum ‘more of a Catholic than a conservative’”

UPDATE 2: The comments at the NewsBusters post of Chairman Ann’s column are mostly less than complimentary.

A perfect match:

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 and a two-time winner of the New Hampshire primary, plans to endorse Mitt Romney on Wednesday in the nation’s first primary state, sources close to the Arizona senator confirm.

The expected backing of the Arizona senator would lend more establishment support to Romney’s campaign and potentially add to the sense of momentum following his ultra-narrow, eight-vote victory in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday.

If this doesn’t motivate Tea Party-sympathetic conservatives to ensure Mitt Romney’s defeat, nothing will.

And a note to establishment conservatives: If McCain’s endorsement doesn’t prove that Romney has no consistent convictions on anything (e.g., on shamnesty, which McCain supported in 2006 and which Rick Santorum opposed, contrary to Ann Coulter’s deliberate mislead last week), and therefore no ability to withstand a general election takeout by Team Obama (or to attack Obama on his far-left vulnerabilities, which McCain himself rarely if ever did in 2008), I don’t know what will.

Yesterday: “Rick Santorum to Ann Coulter: ‘I Mean, Ann, Should I Have Voted for Amnesty?”

Excerpt:

Santorum explained to the Iowa folks that he voted against “E-Verify” when it was part of John McCain’s amnesty bill in 2006 — a bill that Coulter and every other American with a shred of honesty, intelligence or patriotism also opposed. And what he said next was Tweet-worthy:

“Tell @AnnCoulter, next time you see her, get her facts straight.”

Wow. It’s takes a lot of confidence to throw down with Chairman Ann and, even though I’m having a hard time figuring out her pro-Romney turn in recent weeks, I could imagine the MSM headlines:

REPUBLICAN TELLS COULTER TO ‘GET HER FACTS STRAIGHT

Well Stacy, it also takes a lot of confidence (better word in this paragraph’s example: “courage”) to break a virtual seven-year blackout in a nationally televised debate over how the same-sex marriage saga in Massachusetts really went down, i.e., that Mitt Romney made it happen all by himself when he didn’t have to. What Rick didn’t also add it that Mitt Romney did it because he promised that he would.

As to Stacy’s claim that Ann has had a “pro-Romney turn in recent weeks,” it’s quite a bit longer than than that. Her mid-January 2008 column was correctly interpreted as a virtual Romney endorsement — “My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate” is a pretty clear statement of support.

In 2009, Coulter was already hanging up on interviewers who dared to try to bring up Mitt Romney’s real abortion and same-sex marriage records. So Ann’s fandom of the Mittster is no recent phenomenon.

____________________________________

Previous related posts:

• Dec. 29 — Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on E-Verify in 2006)
• Dec. 30 — Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum: The (Sort of) Abbreviated Version

Lord have mercy, that Coulter write-up yesterday was how long? (Over 1,900 words)

In an era where 140 characters supposedly gives you an enough space to communicate a meaningful message, it seems like a good idea to abbreviate yesterday’s post proving how Ann Coulter (though she’ll probably never admit it) really endorsed Rick Santorum in her Wednesday column.

So here goes. Hopefully readers can hang in there during the remaining 550 or so words.

* * * * * * *

Ann wrote that the two most critical issues we face in the upcoming presidential election are “repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration.”

Coulter’s erroneous take on the first issue was as follows: “All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare.”

But Mitt Romney is absolutely NOT promising to “overturn” Obamacare, because he bitterly clings to the need for the individual mandate, i.e., the government requirement that each and every citizen have and (unless you’re in poverty) buy health insurance. Eight weeks ago, Ohio voters rejected the idea of an individual mandate and incorporated that objection into the state’s constitution by a 66%-34% margin.

The problem with the individual mandate is simple: If the government can force you to buy health insurance, there really is no practical constraint on what else it can force you to do in virtually any aspect of your life.

Here’s video proof that Romney insists on the individual mandate (Direct YouTube; HT Hot Air):

If you “repeal” Obamacare and “replace” it with something containing an individual mandate, you have not “overturned” Obamacare. Mitt Romney will NOT “overturn” Obamacare, period.

Regarding her second standard (“halting illegal immigration”), Coulter validly eliminated Perry and Paul from contention, but she erred on Santorum when she wrote:

… Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.

But Rick Santorum does NOT oppose E-Verify. A campaign source communicated that fact, and proved it by reference to two roll-call votes with appropriate explanations, accompanied by a reiterative “Rick supports the E-Verify program.”

Ann Coulter tried to claim that Santorum opposes e-verify simply because he opposed John McCain’s “shamnesty” immigration bill in 2006. That’s hogwash, especially because … (wait for it) … Ann Coulter also opposed it, in her June 1, 2006 column, the first one she wrote after the May 25 vote. Additionally, Santorum ran as a clear supporter of E-Verify in his unfortunately unsuccessful Senate seat defense in 2006.

So, based Ann Coulter’s own requirements and mindset:

• Romney — Out. He won’t overturn Obamacare. (He’s not credible on any other issue either, but for some reason Coulter and millions of other Republicans either don’t or won’t understand that.)
• Gingrich — Out, as he has “never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts,” and for a host of other reasons.
• Perry and Paul — Out, because of their opposition to E-Verify, and because they both ran in an extremely red state that doesn’t “resemble the American electorate” (plus surely other reasons relating just to Paul).
• Bachmann — Out, because, “2012 isn’t the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.”

That leaves Rick Santorum as Ann Coulter’s only supportable candidate, based on HER December 28 column’s benchmarks. Santorum will overturn Obamacare, supports E-Verify, and is electable, having “won a statewide election in a blue state” — twice (Mitt Romney only won once).

Rick Santorum really is Ann Coulter’s guy. Ann Coulter just need to be woman enough to admit it. Based on how she has failed to face the truth about Mitt Rommey for well over four years — Good luck with that.

____________________________________________

UPDATE: “Stacy McCain Notes Rick Santorum Calling Out Ann Coulter”

(Note: I’m interrupting the “So Much Material, So Little Time” series showing relatively recent reasons why Mitt Romney is an unacceptable and objectively unfit presidential candidate to respond to Ann Coulter’s disgraceful column yesterday.)

___________________

Meet your guy, Ann Coulter. He’s pictured on the right.

Note that your guy is NOT the guy whose image is crossed out on the left — where he most definitely belongs because of his issue positions and track record).

Your guy is the other guy, Rick Santorum.

You endorsed him yesterday in your latest column.

Oh, you think you endorsed Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, but I will prove that you really endorsed Santorum.

Here we go. (Update: A briefer version is here.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Coulter’s December 28 column, entitled “Only One Candidate Is Right on the Two Most Important Issues,” was meant to be a process-of-elimination exercise performed on the remaining contenders for the GOP presidential nomination (I’m going to exclude Jon Huntsman, because he, unlike the six others, has never been more than a cipher in any poll).

Her column is an epic fail on the facts.

Coulter starts out strongly by identifying what she believes are the two most critical issues we face:

In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

I would throw the economic Armageddon coming at us if we don’t do something about the federal debt and deficit situation (as I’ve noted several times, I’m not convinced that we’ll be able to reach November 2012 or January 21, 2013 without hitting a financial wall first). It just so happens to be the number one issue on voters’ minds. But if you want to contend that any one of the remaining credible contenders would do a passable job in these matters if armed with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, fine.

After articulating why her two issues are of all-encompassing importance, Coulter commits her first obvious unforced error, one which was proven to be an error literally just yesterday as the ink was drying (or the electrons were cooling) on her column (bolds are obviously mine throughout this post):

All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?

If you go to every candidate’s website, I’m sure you’ll find a pledge to “repeal Obamacare.” In fact, even Mitt Romney is promising to do that (“Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs.”). But the question, using Ann’s word, is who will “overturn” it?

Mitt Romney is absolutely NOT promising to “overturn” Obamacare, Ann.

One of Obamacare principal features — in fact, it has been described as the feature on which the viability of the entire abominable law depends — is the individual mandate, i.e., the government requirement that each and every citizen have and (unless you’re in poverty) buy health insurance.

To demonstrate how unpopular the individual mandate is, Ohio voters just eight weeks ago hardwired an amendment into the state’s constitution declaring that no citizen shall be required to participate in a health insurance plan, and that no citizen shall be required to purchase health insurance. Buckeye State voters did so by passing Issue 3 by a 66%-34% margin.

But it goes way beyond popularity to constitutionality at the federal level, and to the relationship between government and its citizens at all other levels. As Mark Steyn said in his guest-hosting role on Rush Limbaugh’s program today (paraphrasing), if the government can force you to buy health insurance, there really is no practical constraint on what else it can force you to do in virtually any major or minor aspect of your life. At the federal level, such a mandate is plainly unconstitutional; at the state level, it’s authoritarianism at its worst. Regardless of who’s imposing the requirement, it negatively and probably irretrievably changes the nature of the relationship between the government and its citizens forever.

A video playing all over the place from Wednesday demonstrates that Mitt Romney, the creator of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, still supports the individual mandate, and would clearly want to see states incorporate an individual mandate into any form of replacement for Obamacare. Roll tape (Direct YouTube; HT Hot Air):

Here’s the perfect-pitch reaction of Erick Ericksen at RedState:

TODAY, December 28, 2011, Mitt Romney Calls Obamacare “Conservative”

This isn’t a flash back. This is today. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “conservative.”

To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product. Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.

(Aside: It must really sting to see a core contention of a column you’ve just written debunked — by your guy — in virtually real time.)

Ann, in case you haven’t figured it out, if you “repeal” Obamacare and “replace” it with something containing an individual mandate — what Erick properly characterized as “the foundation of Obamacare” — you have not “overturned” Obamacare. “Overturning” Obamacare is YOUR column’s benchmark, and Mitt Romney fails your first test. I suspect that many readers are tiring of my employment of the word, but the point is simply not arguable.

That leaves the remaining candidates to be tested against Coulter’s second standard: “halting illegal immigration.” Here’s Ann’s “analysis”:

Only Romney (already eliminated per the above — Ed.) and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election. (This knocks out Michelle Bachmann, as Coulter later notes. — Ed.)

But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue — illegal immigration — and he’ll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.

… almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.

Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees’ Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.

Although wildly popular with Americans — including Hispanic Americans — the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.

Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.

Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.

There’s only one problem with Ann’s “logic.” Rick Santorum does NOT oppose E-Verify. A source within the Santorum campaign forwarded me the following concerning Rick’s position on E-Verify (internal links to roll call votes added by me):

Rick voted against the McCain / Kennedy Global Immigration bill on May 25th 2006. The bill passed 62 – 36. DeMint, Grassley, Coburn, Inhofe, Sessions, Thune (some of the most conservative Senators) all voted no. One of the cornerstones of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty immigration bill was the reauthorization of the E-Verify program. By opposing the overall bill, Rick in turn opposed the re-authorization of E-Verify program.

Actually, Rick supports the E-Verify program. Original E-Verify Program was known as the Basic Pilot Program Act. It was included in H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997. Rick voted for the entire bill on July 18, 1996 at 10:27am.

On 11/12/2003 the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 passed the US Senate by UC (if Rick opposed, he would have objected). Signed into law by President Bush on 12/3/2003. (“UC” stands for “Unanimous Consent” — Ed.)

The program was eventually reauthorized (Rick was out of Congress) till September 30, 2009. Then it was granted a one month reauthorization till October 31, 2009 (Rick was not in Congress). In October 2009, the Congress agreed to a three year extension of the E-Verify program.

Ann Coulter is trying to say that Rick opposes e-verify simply because he opposed John McCain’s liberal / amnesty immigration bill in 2006.

Concerning that 2006 vote mentioned in the email’s first paragraph:

• Santorum had to oppose Kennedy/McCain even though it contained E-Verify, because the rest of the bill was so awful. He had a lot of sensible conservative company.
• (You really can’t make this up, Ann — gotcha bigtime) Ann Coulter also opposed what the Senate did in her very next column on June 1, 2006. Specifically, she vehemently criticized “The ‘path to citizenship’ that Bush and the Senate are trying to pawn off on Americans …” Uh, so did Rick Santorum.

Thus, Ann Coulter is obviously wrong. What about “Rick supports the E-Verify program” don’t you understand, dear?

Okay, let’s recap based on actual facts and Ann Coulter’s requirements:

• Romney — Out, because he won’t overturn Obamacare. (He’s not credible on any other issue, given his history of flip-flops, but one reason, especially this big of a reason, is enough.)
• Gingrich — Out, partially because, in Coulter’s words, he has “never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.” Coulter also spent her entire December 21 column on reasons why Newt shouldn’t get the nomination. Her likely correct conclusion is that “Gingrich would be a disaster for everything they (newly active conservatives) believe in.” She also contends with historical support that (at least for a conservative or Republican) Newt “is almost certainly unelectable based solely on his having cheated on and divorced two wives.”
• Perry — Out, for two reasons. First, his opposition to E-Verify. Second (again, Coulter’s take), Perry ran in an extremely red state that doesn’t “resemble the American electorate.”
• Paul — Out, for the same two reasons as Perry (I’m sure there are others from her point of view, but that’s plenty for now).
• Bachmann — Out, because, even though she meets Coulter’s issues benchmarks, “… 2012 isn’t the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.”

That leaves Rick Santorum as Ann Coulter’s only supportable candidate, based on her December 28 column’s benchmarks. Specifically, Santorum:

• Will overturn Obamacare.
• Supports E-Verify.
• Is electable, having “won a statewide election in a blue state” — twice. (Mitt Romney only won once, and was a fairly good bet to lose had he run for reelection.)

You can pretend to be Mitt Romney’s gal all you want, Ann Coulter, but by your column’s benchmarks, Rick Santorum is your guy. I’m sure he’s grateful for your well thought-out endorsement. You should be grateful that I’ve straightened you out.

______________________________________________

UPDATE: Santorum ran on his support of E-Verify in his 2006 race against prolife pretender Bob Casey. Specifically (bolds other than headings are mine) –

No Amnesty
Giving blanket amnesty, approving guest worker programs masked as amnesty, or charging nominal fines to become an American citizen mocks and demeans the sacrifices of legal immigrants. Illegally crossing our border and breaking our immigration laws must carry real and serious consequences. Rick Santorum will not vote for any immigration bill that includes amnesty.

… Reform the System and Defend American Culture
Rick Santorum supports an improved worker verification program to protect American taxpayers from fraudulent benefit payouts. He is pushing to make temporary workers just that — temporary, not citizens.

“An improved worker verification program” means “an improved E-Verify.”

Rick Santorum is quite serious about illegal immigration.

Really Ann, I’m supposed to believe that you didn’t know ANY of this?

UPDATE 2: “Stacy McCain Notes Rick Santorum Calling Out Ann Coulter”

Nicely done (HT to an emailer):

Cain believes that 1/3 of African-Americans would vote for him in a general election. I think he might exceed that.

He also says that he could support Mitt Romney if he means it about ObamaCare repeal, and that he could not support Rick Perry if he were the nominee based on his immigration- and border-related positions.

(Note: Very smart. Besides being principled, he disses the guy who’s stronger [Perry], and throws a bone at the guy who not only isn’t [Romney], but who will also never be convincing in his promise to repeal ObamaCare.)

Crunch the numbers and you realize that if Cain gets only 30% of the African-American vote instead of 1/3, and assuming a slightly lower African-American turnout due to a general pullback by younger people (15 million vs. 2008′s 15.9 million), Obama’s margin in the African-American community would shrink from 14.3 million to 6 million (hard to believe, but true, because McCain got only 5%). That 8.3 million vote difference is about 87% of Obama’s entire 9.7 million vote victory margin over John McCain in 2008.

Barack Obama would have to get a bit over 47% of the rest of the population to pull off a squeaker in the popular vote; he only got 48% in 2008. Though 13-1/2 months is forever in politics, based on the realities on the ground right now, there’s no way Barack Obama would get that today.

In his opening to Friday evening’s show:

Key mentions (mentioned in the order indicated):

… The Republican establishment doesn’t get to tell us who our nominee is — and a couple of states don’t get to tell us who our nominee is.

… Now I watched that debate yesterday, every bit.

Now Herman Cain was superb. Herman Cain should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Rick Santorum was superb. He should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Michelle Bachmann was superb. She should be considered seriously for President of the United States.

Newt Gingrich was superb. And he should be considered too.

As should of course should Romney and Perry, but let me tell you something.

… In Romney’s case, he keeps digging in on RomneyCare and he keeps sounding like a left-wing Democrat on Social Security.

In Perry’s case, his in-state tuition (for illegal immigrants) position, he dug in on that and it’s a position that I reject.

Levin goes on to note that those rooting for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to enter the race should know that he supports in-state tuition rates for illegal-immigrant Floridians.

Listen to the whole thing.

… but not because he’s a fan (30 seconds in):

The mystery is why someone like Ann (“Annie Get Your Gun“) Coulter would be a big Christie fan.

Christie’s done some good things in New Jersey, but I have a real problem with many of his positions having potentially negative national impact, some of which Levin identifies in the audio.

The last half of the audio concerns in-state tuition for illegals and Mitt Romney’s hit at Rick Perry on Social Security. Perry’s position on in-state tuition is problematic. Christie’s probably is too.

From Tony Lee at Human Events, reacting to last night’s debate:

Can Herman Cain start gaining momentum?

If Perry keeps faltering and voters do not warm to Romney, could Herman Cain become a viable contender? His positive intensity score, as measured by Gallup, remains at the head of the field despite his name recognition registering below those of the front-runners. His “9-9-9″ economic plan is catching on, as is his inspirational life story. Cain survived cancer, pulled himself up from his humble roots, and turned around franchises many thought would fail. Further, Cain combines substance with flair while mixing in a host of anecdotes that illustrate broader points he tries to make. For instance, he will tell the story of speaking to children at a lemonade stand and teasing them if they had the proper permits to make the broader point about excessive government regulation in the private sector, of which he was a part–unlike President Obama. Or he will electrify audiences by telling the story of his grandfather who took bumpy roads to bring potatoes from the farm to the market so that the big potatoes would rise to the top to illustrate the point that changing the culture in Washington will not be easy, but could be done with his practical experience in the private sector.

If given time to tell his story and offer his solutions, Cain has all the ingredients to catch fire, and that is why he is perhaps the most undervalued out of all the candidates at this time. It will be interesting to see if voters who intensely like him view him as “presidential” enough to flock to his side.

Rick Perry shows signs of implosion on immigration. Mitt Romney has long since proven that he is objectively unfit. The rest of the field is not meaningfully distinguishing themselves (yes, that includes Ron Paul). That would appear to leave the main refrain in the hands of Cain.

__________________________________________

UPDATE: Glenn Beck observes –

Perry vs. Romney = 2012 depression

Watching Perry and Romney bicker over who said what in their books was not exactly the inspiring talk conservatives want to hear. It’s petty but worse yet – it reveals that each have far too much in common with Barack Obama, leaving many conservatives feeling like it’s prom and they don’t have a date.

UPDATE 2: Erick Ericksen –

Herman Cain Won the Debate

Rick Perry was a train wreck in this debate. He flubbed his response on Romney flip-flopping. He got the first question tonight and stumbled. Good grief.

Romney did so much better than Perry. So much better. But I still cannot believe these candidates have pulled their punches on Romneycare. He’s getting a free pass on it. But his answers on so many questions, while smoothly delivered, were Democrat like.

The winner is Herman Cain. The audience loved him. Other than his question on Israel, Cain’s answers really were out of the park awesome. He provided the most uplifting moments and the most memorable lines, with substance included.