Recent calls for reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has prompted members of Congress, talk radio and blogosphere to take action. This morning, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., spoke to bloggers about recent efforts by congressional Democrats to reinstate the policy.

"I think it's a very serious threat," he told the group of roughly a dozen bloggers. Pence came direct from the floor of the House, after introducing a bill, called The Broadcaster Freedom Act, which "will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

"This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill."

Calls for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine have been repeated by several prominent Democrats. Sen. John Kerry recently appeared on WNYC with Brian Lehrer, stating, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back." Watch the video of Kerry's interview.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recently said "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine [...] I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

Pence believes Democrats are thinking about how to move their liberal agenda more effectively, and that the Fairness Doctrine to cut their critics in half, or taking their main critics off the air. Even if the Fairness Doctrine was defeated, there's nothing to stop a Democratic president in the future with Democrat appointments to the FCC and a Democratic Congress from reinstating it in the future. "If people in power think they can manage criticism they will do it," Pence told the group of bloggers.

Few people are probably aware of the fact that John Kerry has a primary challenger for his U.S. Senate seat. Ed O'Reilly, a lawyer hailing from Gloucester, Mass., launched his bid to oust Kerry in May. His campaign largely targets Kerry's vote in favor of the war in Iraq.

Local media has essentially predicted that O'Reilly has a snowball's chance in hell of defeat Kerry, but recent polls from a couple months ago did suggest that Kerry is in fact vulnerable.

A 7News-Suffolk poll from this past April said that 56 percent of Massachusetts registered voters want to give someone else a shot at Kerry's Senate seat. Only 37 percent say he should run again.

Could Kerry be ousted in the primaries? It could happen.

The party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is learning the hard way that power without leadership isn't enough to win over the confidence of the American people. According to the latest Gallup poll, a mere 14% of Americans have confidence in the new Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Clearly, Democrats have proven an inability to lead, and the public is noticing. One can't help noticing that that the last time the confidence rating was nearly that low was just before the Republican Party tookover Congress in 1994.

What does this mean? It means that the Democratic majority is not guaranteed for longevity. Low approval (or in this case, low confidence) can only spark an interest in new, strong leadership. If the Republican Party unites behind a common agenda that is popular with most Americans they could easily win back the majority

A new 7News-Suffolk poll says that 56 percent of Massachusetts registered voters want to give someone else a shot at John Kerry's Senate seat. Only 37 percent say he should run again.

This is clearly bad news for Kerry, and, according the Boston Herald's Wayne Woodlief, "very good news for any well-heeled Republican who might try a run against Long Jawn. Or even for somebody who isn't rich but is [...] 'an aggressive, strong politician' who could see the national GOP open its coffers if Kerry's numbers stay that low. Especially with control of the Senate at stake."

Sure, this offers a very small glimmer of hope for the Massachusetts Republican Party. But, Kerry's vulnerability may also inspire some Massachusetts congressmen with large campaign coffers to take Kerry out in the primaries. Now, if Kerry survives the primaries and the Mass GOP offers a viable candidate to oppose him, the seat could very well become competitive... certainly the most competitive race for Kerry in quite some time.

As if being in the majority wasn't enough, Democrats have sought even more power by proposing legislation that would giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The White House says Bush would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto of legislation giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, possibly prolonging a two-century-long wait for representation in Congress.

The bill, the White House said in a statement, violates constitutional language saying the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the people of the states. "The District of Columbia is not a state," it said, and if the legislation reaches President Bush's desk, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The House is to vote Friday on the legislation that would give a vote to the D.C. delegate while creating, until the 2010 census, a new at- large seat for Utah.

That would increase House membership to 437, with the seat from overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. offset by the extra vote from Utah, a predominantly Republican state. Utah narrowly missed obtaining a fourth House seat after the 2000 census.

The White House cites the Constitutions clear language that statehood is a requirement for voting rights, and to change that would require a Constitutional amendment.

This legislation, while only affecting the House, would likely be the predecessor to legislation proposing D.C. get a vote in the Senate, too -- which is likely the ultimate goal of the Democrats' plan... Two more liberal votes in the House would only have minimal impact in the long run. Two more Democrat votes in the Senate, however, would have a much bigger impact.

Mitt Romney has won the CPAC Straw Poll, and that they had the biggest number participating in the straw poll in CPAC history.

Here are the first choice results:

• Romney 21
• Giuliani 17
• Brownback 15
• Gingrich 14
• McCain 12

Combined first and second choice:

• Giuliani 34
• Gingrich 30
• Romney 30

Democrats only a few days ago were talking tough about revoking the authorization for the Iraq war, but coincidentally, after reports of Joe Lieberman leaving open the possibility of caucusing with Republicans, they are backing away from their Iraq plan.

Do they still want to cut and run and deliver a victory for the terrorists? Yes. But the last thing they want to do is entice Joe Lieberman to hand the Republicans a majority in the Senate again.

I don't think this waffling of the Democrats has anything to do with "divisions in their ranks," as the story says. It has to do with Joe Lieberman. They know that in order to hold on to their majority status in the Senate, they need to start supporting the troops and supporting victory in Iraq. Otherwise, they can kiss their majority in the Senate goodbye.

If he's going to advocate socialized health care, he doesn't have a shot at being president.

Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," Obama told a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.

The Illinois senator did not provide specifics on his plan for coverage.

We certainly don't have a perfect health care system, but we have the best care there is and I don't understand why a first-term senator with presidential ambitions is advocating such a terrible idea that will have a huge negative impact on the quality of our health care, and raise taxes to ridiculously high levels.

Republicans, much to my surprise and pleasure, have really out-manuevered the Democrats in the battle over a destructive increase in the federal minimum wage.

An effort to increase the minimum wage in all states, even those that already have wage floors higher than the federal base, failed Thursday after Democrats labeled it a "poison pill."

Democrats said the Republican proposal was designed to kill underlying minimum wage legislation.

An amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was an effort to show how raising the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 26 months would have no effect in eight states because they already have wage floors of $7.25 or higher. Another two states have scheduled minimum wage increases that also would place them above the proposed federal floor.

Eighteen other states have higher minimum wages than the current federal floor, but not as high as the $7.25 in the proposed legislation.

"This is a mandate on low-cost-of-living states, but not on high-cost-of-living states," DeMint said.

Perhaps by the end of the debate people will understand why a federal minimum wage increase is a bad idea.

VIDEO: DeMint explains his amendement

While Democrats think a 12 year-old-girl has the right to "choose" to have an abortion without the consent or awareness of her parents, they do not believe parents and children have the right to choose what school they can attend.

During his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President Bush called on Congress to renew one of his key domestic accomplishments -- the No Child Left Behind Act -- this year, and the administration yesterday laid out its suggestions, including new requirements for high schools, a new focus on science, and aggressive restructuring tools for schools that have failed to make progress during the past five or six years. [Education Secretary Margaret] Spellings told editors and reporters at The Washington Times yesterday that she thinks a bill to renew the law will be ready to move through the Senate education panel by March or April.

"We must be much more aggressive and much more vigorous about those restructuring notions, including offering real school choice to the kids on those campuses," Mrs. Spellings said. "We've given them a chance, we've given them resources, and it's time for us to say '[The law] is a real promise and other options have to be brought to bear.' "

Top Democrats, such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate education panel, immediately balked at the school-choice provisions, while indicating agreement in other areas. Democrats' top goal is to secure a steep funding boost for the law, and Mrs. Spellings indicated the administration will use that as a bargaining chip.

George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House education panel slammed the pro-choice education idea, saying it "didn't pass muster when Republicans controlled the Congress, and it certainly won't pass muster now that Democrats do."

You've got to give Nancy Pelosi credit. Only she would have the guts to claim moral high ground on corruption and ethics as a campaign strategy, and then invite an ethically-challenged fellow Democrat and former House Speaker as your guest at the State of the Union:

Former House Speaker Jim Wright was there when Nancy Pelosi was just starting out in Congress. Tuesday night, he was on her guest list as Pelosi took her seat as House speaker behind President Bush for his state of the union speech. Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat who served from 1987 to 1989, swore in Pelosi after she won a special election to Congress in June 1987. Wright left Congress in 1989 during an ethics investigation.

Wikipedia has a brief synopsis of the ethics investigation of Wright.

Democrats have been reliable adovocates of abortion--taxpayer-funded abortion, abortion-on-demand, partial-birth abortion, etc. etc. But they're finally starting to wake up to the fact that abortion isn't a winning issue for them, and they are trying to steer clear of it, and pretend to be much more moderate on the issue than they really are.

Eager to avoid a resumption of the culture wars, the new Democratic leaders are trying to tiptoe around the abortion issue by promoting legislation to encourage birth control and assist women who decide to proceed with unwanted pregnancies.

Democrats acknowledge that they alienated many social conservatives and churchgoing voters during years of combat with Republicans over the explosive issue of reproductive rights, and they want to change their emphasis to woo some of those voters back into the fold.

This is the biggest problem Democrats have. They don't believe in anything, they just take the most advantageous or neutral positions they can in order to get elected. Republicans, for the most part, actually believe in what they support.

Democrats are not trying to welcome social conservatives and churchgoers into their party, they're trying to con them into voting for them. Democrats don't share their values or believe in the same things, they just want their vote.

After a long campaign of criticizing the so-called Republican "culture of corruption" in Washington DC, it boggles the mind that Democrats would actually be fighting against a proposed ban on relatives lobbying.

As the Senate works on sweeping new ethics rules this week, Majority Leader Harry Reid and other leading Democrats are resisting changes that strike close to home.

A proposal by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would ban senators' spouses from lobbying the chamber has triggered intense debate with key senators such as Reid and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., promising to oppose it if it affects senators already married to lobbyists.

Reid, D-Nev., would support the ban "as along as it's not retroactive," his spokesman Jim Manley said Wednesday. Feinstein, who oversees the committee that governs Senate rules, also backs a provision that would exempt current senator-lobbyist couples.

"No one has been able to produce a problem," related to the spousal lobbying, she said.

Now, it's no surprise Harry Reid would oppose a retroactive ban on relatives lobbying Senators, his lobbyist sons would lose their best ally in the Senate!

The Democrats can say all they want about their 100-Hour Plan... They may even call it a success, but don't be fooled, it's been a joke since before it even began.

When they first started talking about it, it was the "first 100 hours."

It was later revised to the first "100 legislative hours."

While the Democratic agenda has been characterized by some critics as unambitious, the goal of getting it accomplished in 100 hours has certainly not - if anything, it has been described as unrealistic.

So talk of 100 hours became talk of 100 legislative hours. According to a search of the Nexis database, Pelosi's first reported use of the phrase "100 legislative hours" was on October 27, when she wrote, in a letter to USA Today, that "in our first 100 legislative hours in office, we have a bipartisan and achievable plan" to enact the new agenda.

It was changed again to mean only the time spent on the Democrat's agenda.

The recent formation of Barack Obama's presidential exploratory committee has many people speculating about his electability due to his apparent inexperience, and lack of a record.

His inexperience speaks for itself, and I wouldn't bank on his electability either. But, since he is most recent Democrat to officially declare his potential candidacy, and the media eating it up, it's a good time to ask these questions.

The question I plan to ask (and offer an answer to) now, is what Obama's campaign strategy will be. What would be his strategy? As a resident and voter in Massachusetts, I witnessed firsthand Deval Patrick's successful quest for governor. Based on what we've seen so far, I believe that Barack Obama's potential presidential campaign will be in the mold of Deval Patrick's. I'll explain after the jump: