In particular, I spent a great deal of time helping a Senate candidate named Adam Light. Running in the coal-friendly reaches of Southwest Virginia, Light is a Tea Party favorite who pursued the GOP nomination for Congress in 2010. He was beat, but he then put a tremendous amount of effort into helping Morgan Griffith (now Congressman Griffith) upset veteran Democrat Rick Boucher. Light’s efforts helped curry party favor, and he received the nod to run for State Senate.

Light was running against another Southwest Virginia veteran, State Senator Phillip Puckett. Puckett is a unique political creature, having campaigned for President Obama in 2008, but since he has been nothing but an opponent of the President. Despite previous support for tax increases and consistent votes to put hard-line liberals into positions of power in Richmond, Puckett painted himself as a conservative. Puckett survived the Light challenge, barely, in a district which favors Democrats. Still, Puckett was one of few rural Democrats to survive yet another Republican cycle:

“We’re endangered,” said Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-Russell, one of only four rural Democrats remaining after lest week’s election, which swept out three others.

“One of the things I think certainly hurts us is trying to run as Democrats with people associating us with what goes on at the national level,” Puckett said. “A lot of Democrats are saying, ‘I’m not leaving the Democrats — they’re leaving us.’ And there’s some truth to that.”

Puckett, who considers himself a social and fiscal conservative, hung on to his seat this year thanks in large part to support from the coal industry, which views President Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency as mortal enemies.

Puckett’s life vest was his early disavowal of the president, in which he made it clear that he would not support his re-election bid.

Puckett is right in saying that the Democrat Party is leaving most rural voters, especially in pro-life, pro-gun areas of the country like Southwest Virginia. Puckett continues to defend his party brand however, touting the same “Democrats stand for the middle class” talking points that national liberals are dragging out as part of their class warfare scare tactic strategy.

I stood next to Puckett for 9 1/2 hours on election day, at a polling location in Pulaski, Virginia. I watched as a number of voters bombarded him with questions on abortion, guns and other issues where the faux conservative claims to stand strong. Puckett’s emotional spectrum went from jovial to offended whenever a voter held him responsible for the liberal Senate leadership he voted for, year-in and year-out. Puckett lost all three precincts that voted at that location, but carried the district as a whole.

How did Puckett survive? Fear. Puckett attacked Light on a number of issues that have nothing to do with state-level politics, and everything to do with a scare-based campaign. He accused Light of wanting to end Black Lung benefits for miners, as well as wanting to phase out Social Security and Medicare. A State Senator has no control over either of these issues, but Puckett saw an opening and took it. Light pushed back, but with less money and a commitment to principle over anger, it wasn’t enough. Several older voters at the Pulaski polling location told me Light needed to hit back harder.

At the end of the day, Virginia continued their systematic march toward being a true red state again, but the strategy for 2012 is crystal clear. Surviving Democrats, such as Puckett, are perfectly willing to demagogue the issues to scare seniors and incite class warfare. In many cases across Virginia, reason won. In some cases, fear did. Still, Republicans took control, and Obama should fear his prospects in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2012.

In 2008, I went on a similar chase for perfection. I liked Romney at the beginning, appreciating his approach to campaigning that emphasized the three-legged stool. I, like many voters, learned about Romney’s evolutions on ideology. Romney was a moderate in 1994, a typical Northeastern Republican in 2002 and a conservative in 2008. I understood the evolution, but it wasn’t perfect, so I went searching.

Speculation surged about former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who combined charisma, national appeal and a conservative record. In much the same way that Perry was anticipated then collapsed, Thompson entered the race, earned my support, then fizzled. When I realized Thompson wasn’t capable of running a winning national campaign, I looked at Governor Huckabee, and at the also-rans like former Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. I ended up where I started, and Romney earned my vote because he was a competent mainstream conservative alternative to McCain’s flirtations with liberalism and Huckabee’s economic floundering.

I had a similar experience this cycle, but now that the field is settled and I believe I have seen the full and true nature of the candidates, I am in the same place. I supported Governor Tim Pawlenty, but his campaign never caught fire. I threw my support behind Perry, only to find that not only is he an incompetent messenger, but he is not sure of his own message aside from “Texas is doing well”. There are two candidates in this race who are the adults, with real policies, real experience and a real chance of beating Barack Obama. Our winning options are Mitt Romney and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

In our quest for perfection, as conservatives, we spent much of the last election flirting with Thompson, figuring out Huckabee and wasting our time on the also-rans. Romney, at the end of the day, represented our best hope for a conservative President. Despite his evolutions on policy, Romney governed in Massachusetts like he promised and turned around the Olympics like he said he would. Mitt Romney may hold different positions today than he did 9 or 17 years ago, but he has always lived up to his promises. I have confidence that Romney will be the President he says he will be. If conservatives had recognized this in 2008, we would’ve been able to cast our votes for Romney, not McCain, and nearly every conservative I know would’ve preferred to pull that lever.

A friend on Twitter shared the following video, reminding that conservatives at CPAC rallied behind Romney and hated his exit from the race in 2008. In that time he has attacked the President’s policies and has not cast a single vote. How can we honestly say this man is not acceptable now when he was to us then?

At the end of the day, if we’re choosing between candidates who can actually win the nomination and the Presidency, our choices come down to Romney and the unfortunately liberal Huntsman. Are we prepared to spend our last electoral breaths hoping for a perfect conservative savior who simply does not exist? Are we willing to have another nominee who would rather preach “civility” than conservatism, while opponents slander him? Romney is a conservative, maybe not in the mold of Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley, but surely in the mold of Ronald Reagan, whose own conversion from liberalism was viewed as a strength, not a weakness.

I have spent time in this cycle pushing for the most conservative candidate who can win. In the moments when I threw my support behind previous contenders, I believed I was doing that. I promised myself that, in this cycle, I would not allow an endless pursuit of the perfect candidate to prevent me from picking someone who could win and would steer the country in a better direction. Romney, as he was in 2008, is that reasonable conservative choice. Should we not rally behind him now, we might be surprised at how scary the alternatives are, in our own party and in the prospect of an Obama second term. I fully endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Who is the likely Democrat challenger to Brown? Obama’s former consumer protections chief, a Harvard professor and class warfare acolyte named Elizabeth Warren. The Massachusetts Republican Party has already put out an ad highlighting some of Warren’s words. She doesn’t seem to be afraid of looking like the divisive partisan she is. Check it out:

Yesterday, Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing Obama beating the Texas Governor 49-35, a massive 14-point thumping. Those results are somewhat confirmed today by a Time poll which shows that despite half of the country disapproving of Obama, Rick Perry goes down in flames head-to-head:

Obama leads Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who sits atop the GOP presidential field, 46% to 43% among likely voters. The President has opened a double-digit lead over Perry, 50% to 38%, highlighting concerns percolating through the GOP that the Texas governor would face a steep uphill climb should he capture the nomination.

Romney supporters have been making the electability argument ever since Perry entered the race, but several early polls showed that Perry could hold his own. As voters began to learn more about Perry, the poll numbers reversed, showing that Romney backers had a point. Perry has work to do.

COLUMBUS — Democrats in the Ohio House have joined one of their minority party counterparts in the Ohio Senate in calling for a moratorium and increased regulations of an emerging means of extracting oil and gas from underground shale deposits.

Rep. Denise Driehaus, from Cincinnati, and Rep. Nickie Antonio, from the Cleveland area, hope to convince the Republican-controlled chamber to pass bills they are sponsoring to ensure horizontal hydraulic fracturing doesn’t hurt groundwater supplies and areas around wells.

Driehaus introduced legislation Wednesday that would stop fracking activities until a federal study on the potential impacts is completed.

Driehaus and other Democrats are essentially calling for a two-year moratorium on job creation in Ohio, a two-year moratorium on energy production and a two-year moratorium on an economic catalyst. Studies have already been done on this issue, but the EPA continues to study the impacts; as they should. After this particular study runs its course, there will be more, and these same voices will call for “further study” and further regulation just to keep drilling from occuring. How big is this “fracking boom” for Ohio?

Utica shale is a largely untapped resource, thousands of feet below the eastern and central parts of the state.

Several companies and industry groups have issued forecasts that suggest exploration of the Utica shale could have a major impact on the state’s economy. The Ohio Oil and Gas Association said it expects the state to gain $14 billion in income and 200,000 jobs by 2015.

Ohio has some of the most stringent oversight requirements in the country. Drilling and mining for energy is not new to our state, and neither is opposition. Luckily for Ohioans looking for jobs in this emerging energy field, Ohio Republicans are embracing domestic energy and will be able to stop Ohio Democrats from killing these jobs.

Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel piled on an additional $1.5 million during the third quarter, POLITICO has learned, solidifying his reputation as a prodigious fundraiser.

Mandel’s haul will likely stack up as one of the top totals for any Republican Senate candidate and place him ahead of many Democratic incumbents.

A spokesman for the state treasurer also pointed to the lack of a competitive primary as one of the reasons Mandel is having such success on the fundraising circuit.

“Unlike states such as Florida, Missouri, Wisconsin, etc., where there are multiple Republicans clawing each other’s eyes out in competitive primaries, we are in a unique position where we don’t have a competitive primary and all Republican factions are coalescing behind our candidacy,” spokesman Joe Aquilino told POLITICO.

Mandel’s spokesman is right in saying that there’s not a competitive primary in Ohio, and someone should make that point clear to former State Senator Kevin Coughlin, who is in over his head. If Coughlin really wants Brown to be beaten, he’d make sure Mandel can take his impressive war chest into the General Election.

Seeing her used in that way, supporters of Issue 2 recut the ad, focusing on the fact that Marlene’s family, and all Ohio families, will be safer if Issue 2 passes. Here’s the new ad, which has kicked off a growing controversy:

Issue 2 opponents, upon seeing the truthful ad which uses an opponent’s words, began a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to try to push it off the air. Much in the same way that it is often effective to use a politician’s own words against them, the arguments for safety made by Quinn more accurately helped supporters of Issue 2. She’s fearful of cuts to safety services, and a “Yes” vote on Issue 2 will help prevent them. If the cost-cutting reforms of Issue 2 are overturned, here are community options:

• Lay off safety services workers because they are required to balance their budgets and have no way to trim the fat from bloated pension programs.
• Attempt to pass a levy, which in many parts of Ohio is likely to get rejected because of the country’s poor economic climate. If the levy fails, they lay off safety services workers because they are required to balance their budgets and have no way to trim the fat from bloated pension programs.

If Issue 2 stands, reasonable contributions to health care and pensions can be required, and cuts can be avoided. If Issue 2 fails, huge cuts are likely, and the only way to prevent cuts will be to increase the tax burden on struggling Ohio families. Yes, they recut the ad, but they made it more honest.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) raised $1.9 million for his House reelection bid during the third quarter of the year, his campaign announced Wednesday, an eye-opening number that reaffirmed the intense energy surrounding the reelection of this polarizing freshman representative.

The day before, two of West’s Democratic challengers released their fundraising figures, which were impressive in their own right, but amounted to about one-quarter of what West hauled in.

More than 40,000 individuals contributed to West, with the average donation less than $50, the campaign said, an indication that a wide base of supporters was motivated — not just wealthier donors.

It’s worth noting that even high-profile Senate races struggle to attract this type of money, and there are a number of Presidential candidates (i.e. Santorum and Gingrich) who wish they had an additional $2 million in the bank, with Iowa approaching. West is right on the issues, although his rhetoric sometimes cuts a little too blunt for him to receive traction should he pursue higher office. Still, he’s a warrior for the Tea Party movement and he’s receiving financial support because of it.

Mayer said that on average, wealthy taxpayers carry a disproportionate share of the overall tax burden and pay a greater percentage of their wealth in taxes than lower- and middle-income workers.

The Associated Press recently reported that households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes this year, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

“The data doesn’t support them (protesters),’’ Mayer said. “There’s a massive disconnect between what they think is the system and how the system actually works.’’

The myths of tax inequality appear to be pervasive. One OWS supporter argued to me that the top 1% don’t pay their burden. I explained that the top 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes in this country. He argued that while that’s true, they pay a lower percentage of their wealth. I shared the figures above, which show that our progressive tax system is still indeed progressive. Anecdotal evidence, like the story of Warren Buffett paying a lower rate than his secretary, make a great argument for tax reform. The system is complex, filled with loopholes, and there are some that benefit and some that pay an unfairly high share. We need to reform the tax code, but this insanity of calling for tax hikes on “the rich” based on perceived inequality just isn’t rooted in facts.

Former U.S. Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy of Columbus joined the Jobs Not Cuts group as it prepared to move to the Statehouse. Kilroy, a Democrat, is running for Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District in 2012.

“People want to work,” Kilroy said. “People need to work. We need our president’s jobs bill to be passed.”

Kilroy said Medicare, Medicaid and education programs should be protected from cuts, and she stressed that job creation is the key to reducing the federal deficit.

“Jobs are our best deficit-attacking program,” Kilroy said.

GDP growth and job creation does increase government revenue, which helps fight deficits, but Kilroy is ignoring how our current predicament is hurting job growth. According to a Harvard study, countries with over 90% debt-to-GDP ratio (we’re sitting around 100%) experience a full 1% lower GDP growth than countries with more reasonable amounts of debt. Basically, the debt is stifling economic growth, and you need to tackle the debt to create jobs. Kilroy is confusing correlation and causation, and showing why in a swing district, she couldn’t hold onto her seat.