Poll Watch: Rasmussen Texas General Election

• John McCain 48%
• Barack Obama 39%

Favorable/Unfavorable (Net)

• John McCain 61% / 34% (+27%)
• Barack Obama 50% / 48% (+2)

A third of voters in Texas think Hillary Clinton should be Barack Obama’s running mate, while 45% disagree.

While just over a quarter (26%) of voters in Texas think McCain is too old to President, over half (53%) think Obama is too inexperienced.

Two-thirds of Texas voters (69%) favor drilling in offshore oil wells while 22% disagree. If offshore drilling were allowed, 59% of voters in Texas think it would be likely that gas prices would go down, while 34% find it unlikely.

Texas native President Bush earns good or excellent ratings from 41% of Texas voters, while 42% think the president is doing a poor job.

Many here seem to think that McCain is a new believer in state wide gay marriage amendments. Sorry to disappoint you, McCain has always stood the line against gay marriage in his home state:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=j7DHscURg3E[/youtube]

I probably shouldn’t go too “YouTube crazy” in my first few posts here. But this video on Obama’s flip-flop on the DC gun ban (via Redstate) is too good to pass up:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFSWG2ut0Cc&eurl=http://www.redstate.com/[/youtube]

Thankfully, it looks like the voters are not fooled (per Rasmussen):

On the evening the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision on the Second Amendment and gun control issues, 68% of voters said they followed news coverage of the story Somewhat or Very Closely. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 64% of all voters knew that the Court overturned the Washington, DC law banning handguns in the city limits. Only 9% of all voters mistakenly thought the Justices had ruled in favor of the city law.

Among those who knew how the Court ruled, 63% agreed with the decision and 25% disagreed. These attitudes are very similar to results found in polls conducted before the Court ruling. Prior to the ruling on gun control, public approval of the Supreme Court had declined rapidly over the past month. Just 26% of voters said the Justices were doing a good or an excellent job.

By a 58% to 8% margin, voters believe that John McCain agrees with the Court ruling. Voters are evenly divided on Barack Obama’s view—43% believe the Democrat’s presumptive nominee disagreed with the ruling while 41% think he agreed.

Hello Race42008 readers! My name is Mike Doerr and I will be filling in for Kavon for a few days while he deals with a family emergency. Big shoes to fill… No pressure…

Here’s the lastest from the McCain Campaign-a national cable ad which deals with energy security entitled, “Purpose”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O85jpuFKT4[/youtube]

Variations of his name have been tossed around liberally as insults and the guilt-by-association surrounding the man as reached a fever pitch. Call it the Hand of Bush: anything it touches turns to mud. But it should be rather obvious to clear-thinking American citizens (that is to say: a few people) that we all need to take a step back, and, separate from electoral politics — where, by all means, we should tie cement blocks to his feet and toss him off of a boat (those drunken sailors McCain always used to talk about can help us) — evaluate George W. Bush’s presidency at this point in time from a detached perspective. We’re only going to have him for another half of a year, so we really ought to be deciding: are we going to miss Dubya or join the McClellan Express in spitting upon his political grave?

Well, count me among the lonely 28% that rather like President Bush. Here came the accidental president, the son of privilege, the idiot that wants to put food on your family, that transformed himself, before our eyes, into a political leader with the sort of moral vision that the nation desperately needed in the war against Islamofascism. It’s easy to forget now, you know — thanks to one George W. Bush — but just seven years ago, nobody considered it a war. The conventional wisdom was that terrorism was merely a law enforcement matter, that al-Qaeda was simply a band of crazy thugs with no serious power. From Abu Abbas (captured in Iraq, by the way) to the U.S.S. Cole incident, to the various embassy bombings, to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the declaration of war on the United States in 1996 by al-Qaeda, no one ever thought to treat Islamic terrorism as anything but an annoying nuisance; no one ever seemed to take seriously the notion that our military should be involved.

But then came 9/11, and President Bush decided that we would no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that our enemies were plotting our destruction before our very eyes — and shouting it from the rooftops, no less. He implemented a bold vision for radical change in the Middle East which recognized the fecklessness of negotiating with madmen and jihadists, the sort of threat that they posed, and what needed to be done, both at home and abroad. It cannot be said enough: we have not been attacked since 9/11 (look at all of these plots that have been foiled), toppled the Taliban — perhaps the most pro-Islamist regime that existed in the Middle East circa 2001 — and have taken the fight to the Middle East rather than sitting with our fingers crossed, hoping that we’ll receive word of the next plot before it happens.

Wait a second, you may say: isn’t this a rather rosy portrait of the events that have taken place since 9/11? Well, no. Perhaps, being accustomed to the media of today and the idiotically hyperbolic pessimism of Our Brilliant Electorate, your mind instantly screams: What about the 4,000 soldiers that have died? What about the failed initial Bush strategy? What about the ongoing violence in Iraq?

Well, what about it? We have a volunteer military, comprised of honorable people that do very difficult work — but nonetheless people that knowingly signed up with the understanding that, should they be sent into the line of battle, they could die. That is, to paraphrase Michael Scheuer, the reality of professional soldiering and it’s about time that our electorate accustomed itself to that idea. At any rate, historically speaking, the casualty rate has been astonishingly low: something that we should all be thankful for.

And as per the second point, it’s inevitable that mistakes will occur in a war. But a strategy shouldn’t be dumped at the first hint of a setback, nor should setbacks determine the judgment that one places upon a war’s success. Needless to say, we experienced a litany of setbacks and foolish judgments in past wars. The difference is that, during those wars, the media didn’t harp on every setback simply to generate negativity that undermined public morale because they disagreed with the president’s politics — to say nothing of the fact that — and it cannot be said enough — the media are completely ignoring the positive press out of Iraq. And the true test, most importantly, is a leader’s willingness to adopt a new strategy — even one that is electorally unpopular — in order to win the war. And President Bush did embrace the surge, which, as we now know, worked. And support for the war has actually increased dramatically since January 2007, when the newest Congress, riding that anti-Iraq wave, was sworn in.

The U.S.A.D.D seems to think that five years should be enough time to topple a dictatorship, root out an insurgency, and implant a successful, functioning democracy, although I’m not exactly sure what kind of spacey trip that Our Brilliant Electorate was on when it deluded itself with such a notion. Judging the United States’ early years by the perfectionist standards of today’s media and electorate, it was doomed to fail. (We even had to trash our first attempt at putting together a proper system of government, if you’ll recall this brilliant document). A little patience would be nice. (Oh, and not using Western-style democracy as a measuring point would be a great change, too: they haven’t really had much of the benefit, in Iraq, of the past 250 years or so of progress that we’ve reaped!)

The Iraq War was a logical extension of the Bush Doctrine, which uses Middle Eastern liberation as a way to push the Middle East away from the sort of radicalism and despotism that breeds terrorism and cruelty, which threaten U.S. interests at home and abroad, both short-term and long (most scarily in the demographic trends of Europe), and, equally importantly, the policy of pre-emption in order to take a smaller hit now to reap enormous benefits later: no longer will we wait for threats to gather before taking them on. By the time the threat is imminent, it’s already too late.

President Bush refused to play the games of the international community — whether condemning appeasement from abroad, sending John Bolton to the United Nations, refusing to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, or giving the middle finger to France and Germany (and as a delicious follow-up, pro-American leaders were elected in both countries, while conservative Silvio Berlusconi was sent back to Italy’s top slot), he put America first. Everything he did on the foreign policy front was about America’s interests. He never proposed any sort of “global test” a la John Kerry. The global test was: will this alter the globe to benefit America?

Listen, I’ve got my qualms with George W. Bush, even on the foreign policy front, but this article was written as a reminder that there’s a lot to like about the man. He’s been tarred and feathered mercilessly over the past months, mostly unfairly. Forget his record on economics (on which his record is mixed-to-positive), his social-issues stances (which will be irrelevant in twenty years), and even his judicial appointments (which, we all tend to agree, were strong). His true legacy, as far as we should be concerned, is one of waking the country up to the threat of Islamic jihadism. At the very least, we now have a Republican nominee that also understands the threat and a party that won’t roll over to the demands of al-Qaeda or Iran (with a special slot excepted for Chuck Hagel). For that, George W. Bush, we should all be profoundly sorry that your name has been turned into a campaign smear and should only hope that John McCain measures up to your foreign policy courage. For what you’ve accomplished in eight years, George W. Bush, I, as an American that cares about the Islamist threat that faces this country, thank you.

Rasmussen Mississippi General Election

• John McCain 50%
• Barack Obama 44%

 

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• John McCain 58% / 37% (+21%)
• Barack Obama 48% / 51% (-3%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted June 24. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

A look inside the numbers…

While McCain has a solid 57% to 38% lead among men, Obama leads 49% to 44% among women. Obama also dominates among the youngest set of voters (age 18-29), 75% to 22%. McCain holds the advantage in voters of all other age groups.

McCain attracts 84% of Republican voters in Mississippi and 54% of voters who are not affiliated with either party. Obama’s support in the Magnolia State comes from 78% of Democrats and 33% of unaffiliated voters.

One-out-of-four voters (28%) in Mississippi think McCain is too old to be President, while half (51%) think Obama is too inexperienced.

Mississippi voters are divided when it comes to the next President and the War in Iraq. While half of voters (50%) think it is more important the troops are brought home sooner, nearly the same amount (46%) think winning the war should be top priority.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters in Mississippi think drilling in offshore oil wells should be allowed in order to help reduce fuel prices. One in five voters (21%) disagree. Over half of voters (64%) think it is likely fuel prices will drop if offshore drilling is allowed, while a third of voters find this unlikely.

From the Brody File:

“I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Good news. Brody has some more on the background of this:

Here’s how this went down.

The Brody File has learned that the McCain camp wanted to be of help to the California traditional marriage group in their efforts to get the constitutional amendment passed. The group of supporters thought a McCain statement that made clear he was FOR the constitutional amendment would help.

The group will now use the statement when they get on an upcoming conference call with Evangelical pastors. They will also include it in an upcoming press release.

This is a good move by McCain. It’s not a pander at all.

McCain may be AGAINST a federal marriage amendment but by issuing a declarative statement FOR a state constitutional amendment he stays consistent with his principles.

The Supreme Court continues to do America a favor and chip away at the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in a far less publicized decision today:

The Court today struck down the “millionaire’s amendment” to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, with Justice Alito writing that it’s unconstitutional to set different limits for candidates competing against one another, even when one of them has the resources to self-fund. Election law expert Rick Hasen believes that the “5-4 decision has much broader implications, laying the groundwork for striking down limits on spending by corporations and unions” and may signal the beginning of the end for public financing because “the opinion repeatedly (see maj opn 10-18) rejects the idea that Congress has any ability to try to level the playing field, stating that doing so would take the question away from voters.”

Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg e-mails to say that “[t]he case itself means that wealthy individuals will once again be able to write checks to their congressional campaigns without being penalized by the Millionaires Amendment. On a broader scale, it’s the latest as applied challenge chipping away of BCRA since it was upheld in a facial challenge in 2003. It does provide encouragement — as did Wisconsin Right to Life — for additional challenges to BCRA.”

Two great decisions make this a great day to be a conservative and an American. (Oh, and for whatever it’s worth, I agreed with their decision to not apply the death penalty to child rapists as well… mainly because if you get the death penalty for both rape and for murder, what’s to stop a rapist from just killing their victim when the penalty is the exact same? “An eye for an eye” to me is meant to limit punishment to the same level as that inflicted on someone else and avoid increasingly spiraling retributive justice. So that makes three great decisions in a row for me.)

h/t Marc Ambinder.

Really…?

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.”

Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.”

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes.

Adding even further skepticism to Obama’s claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute — an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.”

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights.

“[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.”

In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws.

“In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.”

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.”

Question from a 1996 Independent Voters of Illinois questionnaire: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s answer: “Yes.

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: “I Don’t Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns.”

John Lott: “In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ I responded ‘Yes, I guess so.’ He simply responded that ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.’”

Despite Obama’s current moderate rhetoric on 2nd Amendment Rights, his record on the issue is as extreme as they come.

And the chance that the MSM will hold Obama accountable for his flip-flop on this issue and not just report his current “stance”? Don’t hold your breath.

Per Jonathan Martin:

Republicans might have a reason to smile: John McCain and his allies seem to have finally settled on a way to draw a stark contrast with Barack Obama.

After weeks of criticism from Republicans about the leisurely pace at which they seemed to be preparing for the general election, McCain’s campaign has apparently settled on a highly personal campaign theme that aims to differentiate McCain and Obama on both character and issues.

The strategy: Paint Obama as conventional politician who always takes the safe and easy political road, then amplify the distinction by framing McCain as a patriot, somebody who has put sacrifice above self.

It’s seemingly an effort by McCain to remind voters of his Vietnam-era heroism and compelling life story while touching on key issues to avoid running purely on biography. The message also is designed to underline McCain’s unique record of service to his country without touching on subterranean questions about Obama’s patriotism.

Whether it will work — or if the famously improvisational McCain will even stick to it — is an open question.

But it is finally clear that McCain and many of his allies — including Karl Rove and Mitt Romney — are finally working in unison to push one message, and push it aggressively.

Read the whole thing.

The McCain Campaign held a conference call to discuss today’s decision in DC v. Heller attended by Sen. Sam Brownback and Senior Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann. I was not able to attend myself today due to prior commitments, but I was able to get the highlights.

Here is Sen. Brownback:

I am very pleased to see the Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and this has been a long time coming. It’s an important one. It recognizes the Second Amendment as the other amendments in the Constitution are an individual right.

I am amazed at the flipping on this position by Barack Obama. Initially, he comes out and says that he believes in banning hand guns. He is for the D.C. gun ban, and now seems to be sidestepping the issue and acknowledging support — at least saying that this seems to be a right. Of course, it’s an individual right. This is either an incredible flip-flop or incredible inexperience. On this issue, anyone who’s been around politics in Washington , D.C. , for a period of time knows the centerpiece of this gun ban debate is whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual or a collective right. And, I’m really surprised about this move by Barack Obama.

It does seem to reflect a willingness that as the campaign changes from a primary to a general, willingness to change on positions, to be more liberal in the primary, to moving more conservative in the general election. I guess I should welcome that, but it looks like, to me, either inexperience or incredible flip-flopping. We’re seeing this take place on campaign finance, recently, now on the FISA bill that’s on the floor of the United States Senate. He has said previously that he would filibuster it and now he says he’s open to the compromise.

I want to put a marker out there that I think the next thing to move, that you may watch and see Senator Obama move on has got to be on Iraq , with the news coming out about the surge and its success. I think you’re probably going to see that start to take place. I really would just hope that Senator Obama would look at this the way I do. I didn’t initially support the Surge and said, ‘Look, I was wrong. Senator McCain was right. This is working and God bless him for maintaining that position. That, at this point in time, we’re looking now at securing Iraq rather than toward exiting with a failed terrorist state.’ There was a lot at stake in this, and John fought to put his name, his reputation, his campaign on the line and did the right thing. John McCain’s a maverick. He’s fought for a bipartisan fashion. I think that the biggest thing I’ve seen from Barack Obama is a willingness, aggressiveness, to talk bipartisan and yet to vote the hard left– most liberal member of the United States Senate.

Here’s Randy Scheunemann:

Let me just add a little bit of detail about Sen. Obama’s positions — plural — on firearms issues. He has expressed support for the D.C. gun ban saying that he thought it was constitutional. He sidestepped questions for months on how he thought this case, Heller and District of Columbia , should be decided. He refused to sign an amicus brief that a large bipartisan majority of the Senate signed that Senator McCain was pleased to sign, arguing that the Supreme Court should decide the decision the way they in fact did decide the decision today. Despite being a professor of constitutional law, he said he had no position on this because he hadn’t reviewed all the briefs at one point.

In his votes, you can see Senator Obama’s position clearly on Second Amendments. He has voted to ban guns. He has voted to allow politically motivated lawsuits. He has voted in the Illinois State Legislature against self-defense rights. He has a clear and consistent record of opposing Second Amendment rights and our expectation is he’ll try to have it both ways and say that he supports the decision today even though he was unable to express support for it at any time over the previous period of months when he was asked about it.

Second, I think what’s becoming clear in this campaign that for Senator Obama the most important issue in the election is the political fortunes of Senator Obama. He has demonstrated that there really is no position he holds that isn’t negotiable or isn’t subject to change depending on how he calculates it will affect his political fortunes. You can see that in his changing positions on public financing for campaigns, on the immunity provisions in FISA legislation, on his position on NAFTA where he called for a unilateral renegotiation, on his positions on unconditional meetings with dictators like Ahmadinejad in Iran, on his position of Jerusalem being an undivided capital and twenty-four hours later saying it’s a subject for negotiations.

And frankly, I think we are going to see, as Senator Brownback pointed out, yet another position from Senator Obama in coming days and weeks on Iraq . You literally need a kaleidoscope to follow Senator Obama’s positions on Iraq . In 2005, he was against cutting off funds and putting a timetable in place. In 2007, he voted to cut off funds and he said the surge would not reduce sectarian violence. In 2008, he said he would disregard the advice of military commanders and proceed with a timetable for withdrawal, and then he told Iraqi Foreign Minister Zabari that he would listen to the advice of military commanders. I think what we see is that he will say and do anything if it furthers his political purposes. That’s what we’re seeing today on the Second Amendment and what we expect to see in the future on Iraq .

You can listen to the entire conference call here.

Gallup shows a tie for the second straight day:

Gallup Daily General Election Tracking (6/26)

• John McCain 44%
• Barack Obama 44%

The general-election results are based on combined data. For results based on this sample of 2,828 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Quinnipiac Colorado General Election Poll, conducted June 17 – 24, 2008

• Barack Obama 49%
• John McCain 44%

1,351 Colorado likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percent

Quinnipiac Wisconsin General Election Poll, conducted June 17 – 24, 2008

• Barack Obama 52%
• John McCain 39%

1,537 Wisconsin likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent

Quinnipiac Michigan General Election Poll, conducted June 17 – 24, 2008

• Barack Obama 48%
• John McCain 42%

1,411 Michigan likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percent

Quinnipiac Minnesota General Election Poll, conducted June 17 – 24, 2008

• Barack Obama 54%
• John McCain 37%

1,572 Minnesota likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent

Quinnipiac is not generally known as one of the most reliable pollsters out there, so I will have to look at the crosstabs in greater depth to see if I can find any fault with their methodology.

My gut reaction is that if Quinnipiac has it this close in CO and MI, McCain may actually be leading there by a small margin.

Here’s Sen. McCain’s statment:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

I will post Sen. Obama’s mincing flip-flop whenever it is released.

Rejoice! More to Come!

Update: Despite speculation that Breyer of Souter may side with the Constitution, it appears that it is a 5-4 decision with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy for, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg against, and Justice Scalia writing the opinion.

Update II: You can read the opinion (courtesy of SCOTUS Blog) here.

Update III: Scotus Blog is absolutely essential reading today. They have complied a list of the crucial quotes from the decision here.

Word is that SCOTUS will release its opinion on the seminal 2nd Amendment Case DC v. Heller later this morning. So allow me to take this opportunity to remind you of Obama’s opinion of the case from earlier this year:

In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

Because of the importance of the decision (and the fact that if the Court ruled correctly, it will be one of the great triumphs of the American Conservative Movement), I will be posting a great deal on the decision throughout the day.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has many virtues.  He is intelligent, well-spoken, attractive and brings much to the table as several Race 4 2008 contributors have written over the last several months.

However, as Cato’s Michael Tanner explains, being a small-government fiscal conservative is not one such virtue:

The Washington rumor mill has Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as the leading candidate to be John McCain’s running mate. If so, that would be a clear slap in the face to small-government conservatives.

Pawlenty, who reportedly coined the term “Sam’s Club conservative” to describe his political philosophy, has been an economic populist and big-spender generally. Among other things, he:

• Supported government subsidized health care for all children as the first step toward universal health insurance, and opposed President Bush’s veto of a Democratic bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP) to families earning as much as $83,000 per year;
• Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate;
• Has called for banning all prescription drug advertizing, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare;
• Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
• Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars;
• Increased the state’s minimum wage;
• Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country;
• Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill;
• Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

It was the Republicans’ big-spending, big-government ways that helped ensure their defeat in the 2006 midterm elections. Suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up not just with the war and corruption, but also with the Republican drift toward big-government who stayed home, or even voted Democratic, on election day 2006. That night, more than 65 percent of voters told a pollster they believed that “The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders they used to oppose.”

Tanner concludes thusly:

McCain needs to reach out to Reagan/Goldwater small-government conservatives. Vice President Pawlenty would be sending a very different signal.

Reuters reported this morning that Senator McCain was asked Tuesday about the possibility of bringing back a military draft during a telephone “town hall meeting.”

McCain responded, saying: “I don’t know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III.”

McCain further added that the draft during the Vietnam War weighed most heavily on lower-income Americans, and that this should not be repeated.

“I do not believe the draft is even practicable or desirable,” McCain said.

So, how disingenuously did The Huffington Post report this?

McCain Last Night: World War III Would Justify A Draft

McCain In 2006: We’re In The Early Stages Of World War III

In citing McCain’s comments, they oh-so-conveniently omitted McCain’s quote in which he said “I do not believe the draft is even practicable or desirable.”

And to place face-to-face profile shots of McCain, deliberately drawing attention to the scar he received after surgery 8 years ago when doctors decided as a precautionary measure, after removing a melanoma from his temple, to dissect surgically down his face and into his neck to examine his lymph nodes, where they fortunately found no evidence of cancer…well, that’s nothing short of classless. And even with all the money in the world, class is something Arianna will never be able to buy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk[/youtube]

And just in case you need a recap of all of Obama’s “No’s” when it comes to energy security, here’s the breakdown:

John McCain Wants To Increase Energy Independence By Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore, But Obama Says No:

John McCain Proposed Lifting The Ban On Offshore Drilling And Letting States Decide If They Wanted To Explore And Drill For Energy. McCain: “But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we should place as a very high priority. And again, I don’t want to dictate to the states what they should do, but I think that the states can be provided with additional incentives such as a greater share of the revenues than is presently the case.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Press Availability, Arlington , VA, 6/16/08)

Obama Opposes Lifting The Ban On Offshore Drilling. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville , FL, 6/20/08)

John McCain Wants Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families, But Obama Says No:

John McCain Proposed Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. “Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain calls on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.” (John McCain For President Website, www.johnmccain.com, Accessed 6/25/08)

Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell , PA, 4/21/08)

John McCain Wants To Reward American Innovation For Developing The Next Generation Battery , But Obama Says No:

John McCain Called For A $300 Million Prize For A Next Generation Battery . McCain: “I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Campaign Event, Fresno , CA, 6/23/08)

Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas , NV, 6/24/08)

John McCain Wants To Expand Nuclear Power, But Obama Says No:

John McCain Has Proposed Building 45 New Nuclear Plants. McCain: “So, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America .” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield , MO, 6/18/08)

Obama Recently Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington , but it doesn’t make sense for America . In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain .” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas , NV, 6/24/08)

SurveryUSA has Big Mac dominating in Mizzou:

SurveyUSA Missouri General Election Poll

• John McCain 50%
• Barack Obama 43%

Survey of 543 likely voters was conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.

With the Veeps:

P.S. The Party ID in this poll is 44/33/21 D/R/I. So that means that SurveyUSA has Big Mac winning MO in this poll by +7 in a Dem +11 hypothetical electorate. Also interesting is that McCaskill does nothing for Obama in her home state.

Rasmussen Nebraska General Election Poll

• John McCain 52%
• Barack Obama 36%

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 23, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Inside the numbers:

McCain picks up support from 19% of Democrats, and from 76% of those in his own party. Obama is supported by 69% of Nebraska Democrats in Nebraska. The race is tighter among unaffiliated voters in the state, in which McCain leads 41% to 39%.

While McCain has a commanding lead among conservative voters in Nebraska (79% to 10%) Obama leads 53% to 36% among moderate voters and 76% to 16% among liberals.

Newsweek and the LA Times have allowed their polls to, unapologetically, become an extension of the DNC’s propaganda department.

Just how bad is it?

This excerpt from within the poll’s report reads like a hand-wringing internal memo within the Obama campaign:

Independents, which helped careen Obama to his victory over his Democratic rivals, still agreed that Obama is too inexperienced for the job (54% to 41% disagreed). And a majority of independents who agreed that Obama has a lack of experience are supporting McCain. A question on the other side about the Republican candidate continuing with Bush’s policies is a cause for concern. More than half of voters agreed with the statement that McCain will continue the policies of George W. Bush. But more independents thought Obama was too naïve and inexperienced for the job than thought McCain would continue the policies of the president (54% vs. 47%).

While the LA Times will do all they can to shape the narrative of an Obama presidency as inevitable, a quick perusal of the polling data shows they and their liberal cohorts in the tank for Obama have just cause to be shitting in their pants.

Here are some of the results to which I refer (and keep in mind that the sample is weighted +17 for the Dems, and that doesn’t even include Democrat-leaning independents):

Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think would be best at handling the situation in Iraq?

• McCain 44%
• Obama 42%

Among Independents

• Mccain 54%
• Obama 31%

Regardless of your choice for president, who would be best at protecting the country from terrorism: Barack Obama or John McCain?

• McCain 49%
• Obama 32%

Among Independents

• McCain 60%
• Obama 21%

Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think has the right experience to be president: Barack Obama or John McCain?

• McCain 47%
• Obama 27%

Among Independents

• McCain 57%
• Obama 13%

Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think has more honesty and integrity: Barack Obama or John McCain?

Among Independents

• McCain 35%
• Obama 26%

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Barack Obama is too naive and inexperienced for the job of president”?

• Agree 46%
• Disagree 50%

Among Independents

• Agree 54%
• Disagree 41%

Only 22% of independents and 53% of Democrats strongly disagree that Obama is too naive and inexperienced to be president.

How would you describe the views of Barack Obama on most matters having to do with politics: Do you generally think of Obama as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative or very conservative, or haven’t you heard enough about him yet to say?

Among Independents

• Liberal 57%
• Moderate 14%
• Conservative 8%

As you may know, there have been some proposals made about opening up more land in the United States for oil and gas drilling, including off the nation’s coasts. Supporters say such drilling can be done in ways that minimize harm to the environment. Opponents say that in practice, that seldom happens. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view: “Drilling is usually done in a way that harms the environment and should not be allowed in environmentally important areas,” or “Drilling can be done safely and should be allowed in environmentally important areas with proper controls in place,” or “The nation’s energy needs are so pressing that drilling should be allowed even if environmentally important areas may suffer damage as a result”?

• Do not allow 24%
• Allow with proper controls 55%
• Drilling should be allowed even if damage results 13%

Among Independents

• Do not allow 22%
• Allow with proper controls 65%
• Drilling should be allowed even if damage results 5%

(Note: These results are amazing considering the gross bias in the wording of the question.)

Positive / Negative Rating
Among Independents

• McCain 54% / 23% (+31%)
• Obama 48% / 31% (+17%)

Here’s the link to the poll’s internals.

The Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rapists.

This was a 5-4 decision. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child”

At one time in America, a child’s innocence was sacred. There was a general understanding that for our society to continue we had to protect children as our most vulnerable members. So any attack on the safety of children had to be dealt with more seriously.

This is a common behavior in the animal kingdom for species that only have a few offspring.

Here in America, married couples with a children are a minority of voters. They used to be an overwhelming majority. On the private side I notice parents taking extraordinary measures to keep their kids safe as our society becomes more dangerous for children. Children are becoming segregated from the rest of society as non-parents relax their attitudes about protecting children.

You may agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, out of opposition to the death penalty. However what this ruling signals is that children’s innocence and safety is becoming less sacred to us.

I hope John McCain makes our irresponsible Supreme Court an issue in this election.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg General Election Poll, conducted June 19th-23rd, 2008

• Barack Obama 49%
• John McCain 37%

The Times/Bloomberg poll, conducted under Pinkus’ supervision, interviewed 1,115 registered voters. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

With Nader and Barr included, Obama’s margin over McCain grows to +15.

Public Policy Polling (D) Michigan General Election Poll

• Barack Obama 48%
• John McCain 39%

Survey of 571 likely voters was conducted June 21-22.