The event will be held at the Orange County Convention Center Sept. 22-24 and will coincide with the first-ever Florida Conservative Political Action Conference.

In a press release, former Republican Party of Florida chairman Dave Bitner said the event will “give the candidates an opportunity to bring their message directly to the people of Florida while allowing voters to participate in a poll that has historically predicted the eventual Republican nominee for President.”

The first such Republican Party of Florida-sponsored event (Presidency 1) took place in November 1979. The majority of attendees voted for Ronald Reagan over his primary opponents. Reagan went on to receive the national party nomination and eventually won the presidency over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Watch an ad for the event:

P5 Live Promo from The Victory Group on Vimeo.

“Step by step we have realized that this issue of homosexuality has the same adverse and progressive elements as when we dealt with the race issue 50 years ago.”

Watch his full response to the question below:

Last week TAI profiled Fred Karger, a former political consultant who is likely to make a run for the GOP 2012 presidential nomination. Karger would be the first openly gay presidential candidate if he makes his campaign official.


Unfortunately for Karger, Carter’s statements were on the promising future of the American electorate but not a reflection on where things stand today. “I would say the answer is yes. I don’t know about next election, but I think in the near future,” Carter said.


When he spoke with TAI, Karger was aware of his position as a longshot, insurgent candidate and appeared to believe that his lasting impact might be laying the ground work for future LGBT politicians. “If I do nothing else … [I can] put a face on this issue, as opposed to what happened in previous elections like 2004, where the gay community was getting used as a political tool to strengthen the president’s reelection,” Karger said. “If I can do that I’ll have done quite a bit.”

It’s important to note that there is a strong underlying political back story surrounding these panels. It comes down to Carter (who installed the panels) vs. Reagan (who took them down). For environmentalists this dynamic tells a broader story about the positions of Democrats and Republicans on climate change, and it is a not-so-subtle metaphor for the current dynamic in Congress.

At the same time, the decision is meant to send a signal that solar technology is alive and well, despite the fact that it lags far behind wind.

According to the White House, the installation is part of a broader “Department of Energy demonstration project showing that American solar technologies are available, reliable, and ready for installation in homes throughout the country.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said:

This project reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to U.S. leadership in solar energy and the jobs it will create here at home. Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come.

In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, McKibben said installing solar panels on the White House would be a much-needed symbol of the Obama administration’s support of renewable energy, one that environmentalists need following a crushing legislative defeat on climate legislation this year.

McKibben, in the op-ed, also serves a bit of cold, hard reality regarding the likelihood of passing strong environmental legislation any time soon:

Clearly, a solar panel on the White House roof won’t solve climate change — and we’d rather have strong presidential leadership on energy transformation. But given the political scene, this may be as good as we’ll get for the moment.

It’s important to note that there is a strong underlying political backstory surrounding these panels. It comes down to Carter (who installed the panels) vs. Reagan (who took them down). For environmentalists this dynamic tells a broader story about the positions of Democrats and Republicans on climate change and it is a not-so-subtle metaphor for the current dynamics in Congress.

“Is President Obama better or worse than Jimmy Carter?” Shapiro asked.

“Worse. Easily worse,” responded Bachmann.

Shapiro continued, “I agree. So far, you’d have to say he’s the worst president in United States history.” Bachmann agreed, “No question. No question.”

She continued: “And the thing is, here we are, people can’t wait until November. They’re practically lining up for polls now, they can’t wait to go out and vote. The only thing is people wish Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, because they’d honestly love to have a chance to throw him out of office. Everywhere I go, people ask me, ‘Michele, can we impeach the president?’ They want a referendum on him. I also had someone today say, ‘There’s no way he’ll run for a second term. No way. No one would vote for him.’ I don’t know if the White House understands how the floor has dropped out under support for this president.”

Shapiro later asked, “Michele, would you ever consider running for president?”

Bachmann deflected the question, instead invoking Israel in referring to her re-election fight this year.

You know it’s not what I’m doing right now. I’m one of speaker Pelosi’s top targets this fall, so all I’m focused on this fall for 2010 is making sure that I win. Speaker Pelosi is very clear that she wants to take me out of the election this fall. This will be a very expensive race. Very hard fought. It’s already hard fought. I come from a very difficult territory. I’m from Al Franken territory… I come from a very tough neighborhood, Israel knows all about tough neighborhoods.

That Pelosi is personally targeting Bachmann is a claim the Star Tribune called “grossly misleading” back in January.

“‘They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years’ with the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s,” Balz wrote, quoting Gingrich.

That statement led to my short post yesterday, questioning why Gingrich would suggest that political expediency should trump reforms as vital as those ensuring basic human rights. More recently, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also latched onto Gingrich’s comments, asking today: “Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality?”

Turns out Gingrich didn’t like the way his words were framed, and he let Balz know it in a series of emails yesterday. That exchange led Balz today to issue this separate addendum, in which Gingrich says the Civil Rights Act was a moral necessity.

Gingrich responded with several emails saying that the context misrepresented his views by implying that he believed Johnson was wrong to sign the major civil rights legislation of the 1960s. To the contrary, he said, the civil rights revolution of 1956-1965 was “morally absolutely necessary” for the country and Johnson was correct in pushing for the legislation. Other Johnson actions, he said, inflicted more damage to the Democratic coalition.

Johnson shattered his party, Gingrich went on to say, because he had “grotesquely overreached” in four areas: mismanagement of the economy, the failure in Vietnam, the cultural divisions that emerged in part over Vietnam and later civil rights initiatives. Johnson’s mistake on civil rights, he said, was not in signing major legislation but in later getting ahead of the country by supporting school busing and failing to take a firmer stance against racial violence in the cities.

“If LBJ had done nothing on civil rights,” Gingrich said, “he would still have been in trouble on the economy, Great Society big government, the counter culture and the war.”

For the sake of argument, let’s say he’s right about that. It still doesn’t clear up the issue. For one thing, Gingrich’s comments weren’t intended to be friendly advice for Democrats. (What does he care if they flail in chaos for the next 40 years?) They were lobbed as a Hail Mary attempt to kill the health reform by causing House Democrats to fear the political repercussions of their support. And what single vote under the Johnson White House would make that point most clearly but the one enacting the Civil Rights Act?

Joe DeSantis, a Gingrich spokesman, wrote in our comment thread this morning that “Gingrich was not drawing an analogy between the health care bill and civil rights legislation.”

Maybe not. But Balz is standing by it. Indeed, despite the separate addendum, the original story remains unchanged.

Thus: Hissy fits. Tantrums. Opportunities for people like John Bolton, whose very name sends the Secretary of the State into a laughing fit, to grasp for relevance and some time in the spotlight. My favorite commentary might be this, from the sublime and strange propaganda network Russia Today, because at least no one pretends they have credibility.

The Politicians

- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says Obama won the prize for “de-emphasizing defense in favor of multi-national cooperation” and that it could inspire him to “reject the feelings of the military commanders” and oppose a surge in Afghanistan.

- Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) rips into the president for “waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel,” and so on.

- Former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) calls it “part of the apotheosis of Barack Obama” and adds, “The president is already pretty taken with himself. Now, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s just further encouragement.”

The commentators

- Ronald Radosh uses the occasion to dabble in the Bill Ayers-wrote-Obama’s-memoirs conspiracy theory.

I do have this thought about which speechwriter he will use to pen his acceptance speech. I suggest that he will have to turn to none other than Bill Ayers, and arrange a secret way to ferret the drafts back and forth. Then, he will offer that Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, accompany him and Michelle to the ceremony. That will pose a problem. To do that, Ayers would have to agree to wear a tuxedo.

- Rush Limbaugh interprets it as a “defeat,” and a message from the “European elites” not to surge in Afghanistan.

- Erick Erickson brings in the racial angle: “I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.”

- Andy McCarthy just keeps taking whacks:

If the mullahs established an award for “Greatest Humanitarian” would you be cheering “USA! USA!” in the hope that some American would win it?

- Jed Babbin goes right after the “Nobelistas,” writing that “his utterly inept approach to foreign policy… can meet the Arafat-Carter-Gore standard easily.”

- Reason.tv puts Nick Gillespie in a suit (!) to read fake “breaking news” about new, undeserved Obama prizes.

And Jed Lewison rounds up the early media hits.

“It seems to me that President Carter got a lot of criticism when he was president,” said Blunt. “I guess they were offended by a white man in his 50s.” Conservatives, said Blunt, “can’t be intimidated” by those sorts of attacks.

“Do we still have racism?” asked Huckabee. “Yeah! Of course we do. But that’s not what this discussion over health care or over foreign policy is all about.” And he talked for about three minutes about his own racial tolerance.

“For me, personally? Who appointed the first African-American attorney general in my state when there was a brief vacancy? Who had more African-Americans  in my cabinet, and in my staff, than even Bill Clinton or Jim Guy Tucker did? Who got 48 percent of the African-American vote, as a Republican, which is unheard of? I’m especially offended.”

Watch it:

From an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday:

Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

And it’s not just the gun lobby Carter goes after, but the “acquiescent” lawmakers who are swayed by it as well.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

But Carter might not want to hold his breath for Congress to act. As we wrote here recently, there’s not much appetite in Washington to take up gun reforms this year — least of all an assault weapons ban.

“You can feel your toes wiggling on the slippery slope,” Doug Pennington, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said of the assault weapons ban a few weeks ago. “[The NRA] will say it’s the first step to eliminating handguns from the universe.”