Appearing on The Dan Patrick Show this morning, former NFL coach Tony Dungy said he felt Rush Limbaugh should have had the right to "go through the NFL process." 

You can listen to the full interview here.

A while back, Dungy appeared on The Rush Limbaugh Show.

I know, I know, it's not the most earth-shattering news you've ever heard ...

... But after taking some heat for a provocative self-portrait she posted on her feed, Meghan McCain has threatened to (gulp) quit Twitter.

I just wrote a piece on why this would be a mistake for her to do.  At the same time, I understand why someone in her shoes might be tempted to do so ...

Writers who develop organically have time to grow a thick skin. With each job advancement comes more attention and more criticism. But just as Sarah Palin was dropped into the middle of a presidential campaign with little time to prepare for such a high-profile role, McCain was thrust into the spotlight without having developed a solid political philosophy -- or the callused ego one gets from enduring the slings and arrows fired by the public each day.

You can read the whole thing here.

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell began airing a new TV ad today featuring Democratic businesswoman Sheila Johnson.

How the government helped create our traffic problems. 

(And why American conservatives should give Mass Transit a second look) ...

The Washinton Post's Dana Milbank perfectly, if unintentionally, summarizes why conservatives are upset with Olympia Snowe:

Democrats, who already have 60 votes in the Senate, theoretically don't need her support. But in practice, they do -- to persuade their own wavering moderates to support the legislation.

Snowe's vote also gives Democrats the right to claim that their bill is technically "bipartisan," even if it is opposed by the 39 other Republicans. Thus, Snowe's support vastly improves the legislation's prospects, as demonstrated by the retreat of health insurance stocks on Wall Street after Snowe announced her support for the measure.

As is often the case in life, credit (or blame) is rarely distributed fairly. Such is the case in the battle for NY-23, where national conservatives have rallied around the Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress, Doug Hoffman, much to the chagrin of the Republican-endorsed candidate for Congress, Deidre “Dede” Scozzafava.  But the story of how this came to be has been largely untold.

In terms of rallying support for the Conservative, the straw that broke the camel's back was the Club for Growth's endorsement of Hoffman.  This was rightly judged to be huge news, inasmuch as The Club's involvement injects the resources needed to create a viable third-party candidacy. 

It should be noted that establishment Republicans hoped a Republican victory in this special election would demonstrate momentum going into the 2010 off-year elections.  The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and top Republican Congressional leaders view Hoffman as merely a "spoiler" who will ensure the Democrat is elected. They, of course, would prefer conservatives to line up behind the liberal Republican.

Regardless, Scozzafava is clearly a liberal and -- over the last several weeks -- national conservatives began backing Hoffman in earnest.  The culmination of this phenomenon was the Club for Growth's endorsement, which, based on the immediate chatter on conservative blogs, served as a tipping point for conservative thought regarding NY-23.
[# More #]
But while the final straw which breaks the camel's back gets the most attention, one should not discount the first straw, either.  The untold story of how this all came to be demonstrates that support for political candidates is usually the product of slow growth -- often pushed by unsung individuals.

Months ago, at a prominent conservative conclave, a senior conservative movement leader suggested conservative activists should reject the Republican candidate.  This made sense because the Republican candidate is more liberal than most Democrats. 

But it was the Concerned Women of America's PAC (CWPAC) which first made the plunge and endorsed Hoffman.  This occurred weeks prior to recent spate of Hoffman endorsements, and likely provided Hoffman with the credibility and momentum he needed to become what he is today -- a viable candidate for Congress. 

Nothing just happens in politics; After endorsing Hoffman, Mike Mears, the Executive Director of CWPAC assiduously pounded the phones and attended conservative meetings, announcing the endorsement with the hopes it would inspire other conservative groups to support Hoffman.  For weeks, his efforts seemed fruitless.

For a time, CWPAC essentially stood alone against the Republican establishment.  The move was risky -- perhaps too risky for other groups to join.  Hoffman, after all, could doom chances for Republicans to maintain this seat -- and conservatives would be blamed

But it worked.  Aside from the aforementioned Club for Growth, several other conservative groups endorsed also Hoffman in recent weeks -- and conservative blogs have lined up against the GOP establishment's candidate. 

Many of the subsequent articles on this race have failed to mention CWPAC, or the role they played in helping make Hoffman a viable candidate.  This is unfortunate.

To be sure, they are not yet a powerhouse when it comes to supporting candidates financially -- but they are demonstrating themselves to be something equally as impressive -- a bellwether.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is urging folks to sign a petition to "fire Nancy Pelosi."

... In all honesty, I don't think they can fire her from her liberal San Francisco congressional seat -- but they certainly can retire her as Speaker of the House.

As the NRCC writes,

Republicans are in a strong position to take back the House majority and fire Pelosi in the 2010 midterm election. In terms of candidate recruitment, fundraising, and issue development, we are far ahead of where we were at this point in 1993 - and you remember what happened in 1994.

The NRCC is hoping to get at least 204,997 signatures on the petition -- a number which matches the margin of victory for Pelosi's 2008 race.

Isn't this, at least, a bit premature?

I mean, shouldn't you at least do something before winning such a prestigious award?

As Reuters noted, the Nobel Committee,

awarded the prize to Obama less than nine months into his presidency. Despite setting out an ambitious international agenda, he has yet to score any breakthrough on the Middle East or Iran's nuclear program, and faces difficult choices on the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

The award could not have been given for accomplishments, but the committee did note in a citation that Obama has, "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

It seems Obama was awarded based on zero accomplishments, but on lots of "hope" for the future ... 

In winning the award, President Obama joins Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919) and Jimmy Carter (2002). 

A week or so ago, I wrote a post titled, "Why the Post Can't 'Macaca' Bob McDonell (so far...)"

Essentially my argument was that, for a variety of reasons, this was still McDonnell's race to lose.  Furthermore, I argued this race was fundamentlly different from the Allen/Webb race of just a few years ago -- and thus, the Post's attacks on McDonnell would not resonate as they did in '06.

But I received quite a bit of push back from friends who still suspected that McDonnell's controversial thesis -- and the subsequent WaPost stories that ensued -- may have mortally wounded McDonnell.

That was a week ago.  Now that a new Washington Post poll shows McDonnell up by 9 points, I wonder if my hypothesis has been redeemed in their minds ...

Greetings from the road!  Today RedState co-founder Josh Trevino and I had a chance to discuss religious liberty over tea in Istanbul, Turkey.  Here's the video...

Matt Lewis and Josh Trevino in Istanbul. from Joshua S Trevino on Vimeo.