In the meantime, we’re encouraging all those that love dogs to pray for Bo.

Volume II:

Volume III:

Volume IV:

Here are the standouts this year: (I think all from Maryland State Taxes)

1. Credit for aquaculture oyster floats
2. Donated farm products to a gleaning cooperative
3. Purchased an on-site sewage disposal system system that uses nitrogen removal technology, for which the Department of Environment’s payment assistance program does not cover

John Avlon writes about Rep. Allen West’s “communists in congress” comment.  He laments the lack of civility and how this is horrible to associate members of the Democratic Party with Communism, which is responsible for the death of millions of people.

I personally have no idea why West said what he did, but Avlon’s dismay at the lack of condemnation causes him to draw the following comparison.

And just for a moment imagine if a liberal member of Congress made an equal and opposite accusation, saying that all the members of the tea party caucus were Nazis. It would be rightly greeted with wall-to-wall outrage.

I assume John Avlon simply collects a check from CNN for word count.

Small only because of the Defcon 1 damage control:

President Obama
There’s no tougher job than being a mom. Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.

Michelle Obama
Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected. –mo

Jim Messina
I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Disappointed in @hilaryr ‘s comments. As a mother of 3 there’s no doubt that raising children is work.

David Axelrod
Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.

But still nuclear because of this kind of reaction:

UPDATE:

You can see why team Obama ran from this faster than most people even learned about it.

The president said he believes the United States has a “moral obligation” to act and lead the world in reducing nuclear stockpiles.  He continued, “I say this as president of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons.  I say it as a Commander-in-Chief who knows that our nuclear codes are never far from my side.  Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”

His comments build upon stuff he talked about in his Prague Speech a couple of years ago, and I mention it here.

I’m not sure what the end goal really is behind this kind of rhetoric.  It is hard to believe that the man occupying the Presidency actually believes that we can eliminate nuclear weapons.

As Bill Kristol says,

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war.

I would take it further.  To eliminate any kind of weapon that gives you any advantage, you have to remove human nature from humans.  Evil exists in the hearts of men across the world, and to deny that is to deny reality.  Past, present and future.  I know Obama said that the rise of the oceans began to slow during the primary last cycle, but can he really perfect us all?  Has the messianic vision of himself extended beyond his followers of 2008 and permanently affixed itself upon his mind?

More concisely explaining the general theme of that point of perfection, Jonah Goldberg was recently on Uncommon Knowledge and explained how progressives will never be satisfied because they believe in perfection.  Conservatives recognize that humans are flawed and that perfection is not attainable.  At least for the time being.  It is these diverging world views that drive much of the political debate.  (An unconstrained vision versus a constrained vision.)  Progressives believe that a utopia exists somewhere out there, and will enact policies in an attempt to achieve their vision of it.  Conservatives recognize the failings of humans and are more interested in establishing conditions through which imperfect beings can best thrive and prosper, despite their imperfection.  The US Constitution, traditional morality and ethics, etc…

This ambition to reduce nuclear armaments, with the goal of reaching zero, embodies this difference in vision of what is real, and what is not.

The narrative is that he somehow isn’t connecting with people, even though he now has more delegates than all the other candidates combined. And then some.  I think it is safe to say that Romney doesn’t have a “connection” problem, he has an “expectations” problem.  Expectations seem to have become Romney’s biggest challenge.

Some might argue that his inability to seal the nomination somehow represents a problem, irregardless of the fact that the current occupant of the White House was mired in a contested primary for months before becoming the nominee.

So when you take a step back and objectively look at what happened last night, Romney won the state that all eyes were on.  The rest of the races were essentially a wash.  Romney won everything he was expected to, with the exception of swapping North Dakota for Alaska, and Santorum won everything he was expected to.  And Gingrich of course won his home state of Georgia which really opens the path to the nomination for him because…..he has more delegates than Ron Paul or something.

A pattern has really emerged this cycle.  Romney is so far and away more polished, prepared, organized and funded than other candidates, that it isn’t that he can’t quite seal the deal with the voters, but instead he can’t seal the deal with the media that expects near perfection from him.  If he wins a state like Washington or Arizona by a huge margin, it is simple victory, unworthy of much attention.  If he barely wins his home state like Michigan, it is a near catastrophic miss.  And if he barely wins a swing state like Ohio, he apparently has fundamental problems with his campaign.

In every scenario presented, Romney wins, and yet, the reluctance to give him his due is palpable.  It is as though there is a new normal wherein Romney must pad with a sizable margin or else risk discredit for the victory.

If Romney wins the White House this November, expect the following possible headlines from these same political analysts and pundits distressed at how to explain Romney’s victory:

Thin Margin of Victory Raises Questions Over Mandate to Govern
Romney Won, But Unfavorables Still an Issue
Mitt’s Triumph Overshadowed by Narrow Win
Romney Wins, but do Voters Trust Him?

The media loves a horse race I suppose.

Throughout the campaign, someone has consistently risen above Romney, only to plummet down again to allow another candidate to repeat the process.  Gingrich broke this trend by rising, falling, then rising again.  And now instead of Gingrich getting a second go at it, it is Santorum who was originally trending upward following the Iowa caucuses.
It seems that now that Santorum is the major national contender to Romney, one thing will most certainly happen.  He will be scrutinized more and more over the next couple of weeks, and everything that most people don’t know about him, will be revealed.

If you look at the polls coming out, Santorum is only polling a few points ahead of Romney nationally.  Unless he continues to trend upwards, he ought to be very concerned given the pattern into which he is now playing perhaps the final part.  Can he break the cycle and actually rise above Romney consistently over the coming weeks and months, or will he drop about as quickly as he rose?

I read an interesting post this morning that suggests to me that the more thorough vetting he never received earlier in the campaign is well underway.  And it doesn’t paint a rosy picture of him, or of the Tea Party that is helping fuel his rise.

Santorum has surged among Republican voters who as recently as 2010 claimed to oppose earmarks, big government, and over-regulation.

Rick Santorum passionately defends earmarks, even today. There has been no come-to-Jesus moment for the unrepentant former Senator and Congressman, who during his 16 years inside the Beltway racked up a $1 billion in earmarks. During that time, Santorum sided with Democrats to block cuts to federally-funded food stamps programs and to raise the minimum wage. He sought (and got) money for “green” projects in Pennsylvania and, among numerous other wasteful votes, voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

  “Fundamentally dishonest,” “establishment,” “factually” etc…

Also, in the boilerplate talking points, Gingrich has swapped some common phrases for others:

  In: Massachusetts Liberal
  Out: Massachusetts Moderate

  In: Wall Street Money
  Out: Millionaire Friends

  In: Bold Ideas
  Out: Reagan Conservative