Rand Paul, a Kentucky ophthalmologist and son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is running for US Senate and has received a political blessing from Redstate Editor, Erick Erickson. That’s a pretty big deal. You may or may not remember that in October of 2007, during the Republican primary process for the 2008 presidential campaign, Ron Paul’s zealous supporters were banned from the Redstate website.

The influential conservative blog Redstate.com placed a ban last night on all Paul commentary from readers who are recent arrivals to the blog.

The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.”

Redstate founder Erick Erickson said he woke up this morning bombed with hundreds of e-mails, “the overwhelming majority very angry.” His own readers, though, loved the ban.

“It is the most recommended user diary in Redstate history,” he said.

In his carefully worded endorsement of Rand Paul, Erickson points out that there are distinct differences between Rand Paul and his father and that Rand Paul is simply a better choice than his competitors. He also points to Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul and the obvious fact that Paul can pick up the Libertarian vote. Here are some excerpts from Erickson’s post earlier today.

We’ve taken a pretty hard line on all things “Paul” here at RedState, and even amongst the contributors I get unmitigated hell for saying I’d support Rand Paul.

But I would.

I have real reservations. No, I do not think he is a truther. No, I do not think he is a birther. No, I do not think he’d be soft on Iran. In fact, in all of the flagged statements about Rand Paul, viewing his statements in context, it is clear the reporters and others are trying to pin him down on his father’s views, not his.

SNIP.

…of the candidates running in the Republican Primary in Kentucky, I find him to be the best choice. He is really for limited government. He is really for not just the idea of freedom, but the idea of liberty — two words treated as synonyms, but with specific meanings. We often times put all our emphasis on freedom, but we should be putting our emphasis on liberty as the founders did and understood it — the right not just to be free, but to act in a moral way such that our freedoms do not encroach on the freedoms of others.

SNIP.

I have no doubt that a Senator Paul and I would but heads on issues, but no more so that I do with other Republicans. Rand Paul transcends GOP politics and picks up libertarians as well. He is not his father and I will not heap my issues with his father on his head.

I’ll join Sarah Palin and others and support Rand Paul for the United States Senate. He can win. And he’s the best of the lot in Kentucky. Your mileage may vary — I know I’m in the minority with even the other contributors — but I hope you’ll step back from your view of his father and give Rand Paul a look as his own man.

There’s been a lot of talk about the renewed alliance of Libertarians and Republicans lately, especially after the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was held a couple weeks ago.

Erickson’s endorsement of Rand Paul seems to be a continuance that trend.

An excellent question which IBD answers in their own column. The media can’t ask that question because they’re all too busy praising Obama for his brilliant, incredible performance made of awesomeness.

Many viewers were wowed by the president’s performance at the health care summit, his command of facts and ability to rebut every point the Republicans made. We must have been watching another channel.

‘Obama dominates the room at health care summit” was the headline on a Reuters dispatch that found the president “always in command not only of the room but also the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with.”

In a Washington Post column titled “Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health care reform,” Dana Milbank marveled at how the president “controlled the microphone and the clock, (using) both skillfully to limit the Republicans’ time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word.”

Milbank went on to tell how Sen. John McCain got his “knuckles rapped” by the learned professor, how Sen. Mitch McConnell was made to “look small in his chair” and how various other Republican low-achievers felt the sting of Obama’s “big rhetorical paddle.”

But neither Reuters nor Milbank — nor many others, it seems — noticed Obama’s conspicuous non-rebuttal to Rep. Paul Ryan.

Ryan was the GOP superstar of the Health Summit. You can confirm it for yourself by watching this video:

My guess is that Obama didn’t respond to Paul Ryan because he can’t. To respond to Paul Ryan is to admit that everything he said in the video above is true. ObamaCare is an insane plan which sucks and the majority of the American people don’t want.

Facts like that don’t fit the narrative or help Obama in any way. Why would he respond?

Many people are noticing a Libertarian shift in the GOP, especially since CPAC this past weekend. I seem to remember a certain blogger predicting a Libertarian shift in the GOP as far back as July, 2009. Let me see, who was that again? Oh yeah…

IT WAS ME.

Mike Huckabee doesn’t like this shift and went so far as to criticize CPAC this year for being too Libertarian but as Allahpundit points out at Hot Air, this just makes the Huckster look a bit out of touch…

What political benefit is there, in this year of all years, to knock CPAC for being “more libertarian” and “less Republican”? Libertarianism has never had more cachet within the GOP than it has right now; it’s not perfectly synonymous with the tea-party movement (of which Huckabee is predictably complimentary) but it’s close enough, especially with Beck in the role of TPers’ patron saint.

My feeling is that Mike Huckabee is just angry about Ron Paul winning the CPAC straw poll this year. If you remember the Republican primaries leading up to the 2008 election, you’ll recall that there was no love between Huck and Paul as they both slugged it out to the end, even when it was apparent that McCain was the nominee.

But forget about the Ron Paul win in the straw poll. It’s very doubtful that Ron Paul would run in 2012 and even if he did, the chances of him getting the nomination are slim to none. The significance of Paul’s libertarian leanings are the only matter of relevance. His young supporters from the Campaign for Liberty were out in force at CPAC. Even Ann Coulter acknowledged the libertarian contingency in the room.

Even Ann Coulter, who drew a huge crowd herself, felt compelled to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy — a statement met with cheers.

The younger, Libertarian Republicans in the room were largely responsible for booing one speaker offstage when he singled out a gay Republican group which had co-sponsored the event. Whether the establishment GOP realizes it or not, this was a defining moment which wasn’t lost on the conservative gay blog, Gay Patriot…

Folks, I’m relegated to writing this from my iPhone. But it is big news and a huge topic tonight at CPAC.Earlier today, during a student activist session on the CPAC main stage, one brave young man thanked the group for including GOProud as a sponsor this year. A few minutes later, another student launched into an anti-gay tirade from the same podium. The CPAC attendees turned on him and booed him off-stage.

You see, when libertarians and conservatives can focus on fiscal conservatism, smaller government and increased personal liberty, amazing things can happen. It also scares the living hell out of rank and file Democrat voters. Even the liberal gay blog Americablog sat up and took notice…

When conservatives are standing up for gays, and Democrats treat us like we are an embarrassment, there’s a problem. And when the Republicans increasingly say the right things, like repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell now, and even supporting marriage, and all the Democrats show is political homophobia, gays get the message. To the White House, the DNC, and our leadership in Congress: You are messing with people’s lives, and we know it. And the day that an anti-gay bigot gets booed at CPAC, you all better start being very afraid.

If libertarians feel as welcome in the Republican Party as social conservatives, and they should, America’s independent voters will follow in even greater numbers.

If that alliance can hold together in 2010 and 2012, it will be an unstoppable force.

Young Libertarian style Republicans care about fiscal conservatism, defense, liberty, love of country, and many more of the same things that motivate conservatives. What they don’t care about is if their friends and neighbors are gay or straight, what people choose to eat drink and smoke, and which religion a person does or does not practice.

If the GOP really wants to attract more young voters, they will embrace this young Libertarian Republican faction. With their enthusiasm and activism the sky would be the limit.

Just remember, I said “if.”

Evan Bayh (D IN) has announced his retirement. Why? The guy has $13 million in his campaign war chest and was running 20 points ahead of his competitors in the polls. This is a guy who was considered VP material by Democrats in 2009.

Are Democrats that nervous after the election of Scott Brown? Bayh’s decision pretty much hands his senate seat to the GOP in November.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh announced Monday that he will not seek re-election this November, an unexpected decision that hands Republicans an opportunity for a pick-up in a year when Democrats are already defending several open Senate seats.

Bayh, calling his decision a “very difficult, deeply personal” one, said he had been discouraged by the intense partisanship on Capitol Hill and that he had no interest in running in November solely “for the sake of winning an election.”

The situation is prompting liberal bloggers to use the obvious headline.

President Obama has invited Republicans to a health care summit but influential conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are warning the GOP that it could be a trap.

First, Michelle Malkin says:

Please.

The White House spends a full year trashing Republicans for having no ideas on health care reform.

The White House spend a full year promising transparency while subverting it.

And now, after a year’s worth of closed backroom meetings and midnight holiday weekend legislative sessions in which Republicans had severely curtailed ability to offer amendments, President Obama wants to invite them to a televised health care summit to talk about the GOP alternatives he said didn’t exist?

Rush Limbaugh agrees…

And what do you know? The Washington Post is now reporting that the Republican Party might be listening…

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama’s proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration about reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the summit, which would be held Feb. 25.

“If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” Boehner and Cantor wrote.

How does that old saying go? Fool me once…

I offer my condolences to the family, friends and supporters of Congressman John Murtha. I salute Mr. Murtha’s service to America.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam War veteran who staunchly supported military spending and became a master of pork-barrel politics, died Monday at Virginia Hospital Center. The 19-term lawmaker died from complications of gallbladder surgery. He was 77.

From a political standpoint however, Mr. Murtha’s passing almost guarantees his seat will go to a Republican in an upcoming special election. The Democrats know it too…

The Democratic party faces another election test after the death yesterday of John Murtha, a congressman dubbed by his colleagues the “king of pork”.

Murtha, aged 77, had been in the House of Representatives since being elected to his Pennsylvania district in 1974.

The fear in the party is that Republicans will notch up another victory when a special election is held, probably May.

The Democrats have been panicking since losing Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans last month.

The Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, appeared on Greta Van Susteren tonight and described the reception Scott Brown received today from Republican senators in Washington, DC.

McConnell also sent out a very complimentary press release about Scott Brown via his official website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday welcoming Senator-elect Scott Brown:

“The Senate’s newest member is coming down from Massachusetts today, so we’ll have a chance to welcome Senator-elect Brown to the Capitol. We’re delighted to have him.

“Senator-elect Brown has captured the attention of the entire country, but he captured the attention of Massachusetts voters first. And the people of Massachusetts sent a strong message. They were looking for someone who could help change direction in Washington. And they put their hope in the candidate whose views best reflected the kind of change they were looking for.

“So we welcome Senator-elect Brown to the Senate. We look forward to working with him to bring about the change that Americans are telling us they want. Now we need to show them we were listening.”

Dr. Charles Krauthammer once again says so eloquently what many Americans are thinking. Obama can try to spin the Scott Brown victory into an anti-Bush vote all he wants but the American people aren’t stupid.

In his new column, Krauthammer makes his point crystal clear.

WASHINGTON — On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.

After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that … it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull’s-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

Read the rest here.

BONUS VIDEO: Here’s Dr. K “hammering” the point home on Special Report last night. Bottom line? “This was an election about substance and the Democrats lost on substance.”

Can someone please explain this to me?

Democrats last week: Scott Brown is a reincarnation of George W. Bush. An evil Republican who hates rape victims…

President Obama yesterday: I’m just like Scott Brown. In fact, we were elected for the same reasons.

Funny thing, that.

OK, the CATO Institute didn’t actually say that Libertarians are wicked smart but they did suggest that Libertarian minded voters are probably the lead indicator of political trends in 2010.

David Kirby and David Boaz wrote the report:

Libertarian — or fiscally conservative, socially liberal — voters are often torn between their aversions to the Republicans’ social conservatism and the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility. Yet libertarians rarely factor into pundits’ and pollsters’ analyses.

In 2004 libertarians swung away from Bush, anticipating the Democratic victories of 2006. In 2008, according to new data in this paper, libertarians voted against Barack Obama. Libertarians seem to be a lead indicator of trends in centrist, independent-minded voters. If libertarians continue to lead the independents away from Obama, Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections they would otherwise win.

We find that 14 percent of American voters can be classified as libertarian. Other surveys find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 23 percent held libertarian views. A Zogby poll found that 59 percent considered themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” and 44 percent agreed that they were “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian.”

Read it all here.

BONUS VIDEO: The CATO guys analyze the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. “This is like Ted Kennedy being elected in Utah.”

Oh, but watch out for the CATO Institute! According to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), those Libertarians are just a bunch of right wing extremists!