Forgive me if this was already reported at Race42012.  I’m just now absorbing the entire story, and the whole thing is amazing.

Here’s John Boehner last Thursday, June 18:

Boehner Statement on Passage of GOP Proposal to Prohibit Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Washington, Jun 18 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today applauded passage of a House GOP proposal during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act (H.R. 2847).  The proposal, offered as a motion to recommit by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), would prohibit any funds under the act being used to provide the rights Americans enjoy under Miranda v. Arizona by the Department of Justice, to terrorist detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan:

“Terrorists who want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life should not be granted the same rights as American citizens.  I am pleased House Democrats joined Republicans to send a clear message to the Obama Administration that terrorists should not be given Miranda rights and an opportunity to take advantage of the U.S. legal system.  As this legislation is finalized, House Democrats who supported this proposal must ensure it remains a part of the bill ultimately sent to the President’s desk.  Let’s be clear: terrorism is not a law enforcement issue.  That is a pre-9/11 mentality that helped pave the way for deadliest terrorist strike in American history, and granting terrorists Miranda rights would be a significant blow to our efforts to defeat the terrorist threat.”

Here’s The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes on the Campaign Standard blog June 10:

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Mirandarights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

And here’s another article by Hayes in the print-edition Weekly Standard scheduled to be published today, June 22, and so it may have been written prior to the June 18 House vote.

I don’t have time right now to find out, but it would be interesting to know whether there was a recorded vote on the Miranda-related amendment (and who voted against it).  After searching around a bit, it looks like the amendment was offered by California Rep. Jerry Lewis (R), and I’m thinking the answer to the roll call question might be on this page, if a reader has time to interpret that page.

On the heels of the surfacing of John Ensign’s affair, John Thune stands to gain more than arguably any other Republican in the Senate (as noted by Max Twain in his most recent Presidential Power Ranking):

U.S. Sen. John Thune is vying to become chairman of the Republican Senate Policy Committee, a post that’s being vacated by U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada.

Ensign announced that he would quit his leadership position after admitting that he had an affair with one of his staffers.

“I think we need to be coming up with positive, forward-looking creative policy ideas and solutions for the future. I think that’s an area I can contribute in,” Thune said.

Andi L. Fouberg, Thune’s communications director, said Thursday that Thune has been making calls about where his support will be.

…The unanticipated situation brings another blow to Republicans at the national level. Party members are debating what course Ensign should take.

Some suggest Ensign could survive the storm, but others feel Ensign’s affair could hurt the party.

For Thune, who was elected to the U.S. House before defeating incumbent U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, serving as chairman of the GOP Senate Policy Committee would enhance his status in Washington.

That could be important because when chatter erupts about Thune’s future, it often involves talk about a possible vice presidential nomination or even a run for president.

Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst for the Cook Political Report, says any promotion such as this won’t hurt Thune’s future. However, she cautions that these decisions also can’t be influenced.

“You have 40 members voting, and they will do what they want. And it is not a bad start up the ladder,” Duffy said.

Politico reports that Obama’s decision to extend “limited benefits” to same-sex partners of federal employees has failed to satisfy gay rights activists:

Obama said he also favors extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but that such a move is currently prohibited by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which passed in 1996.

“Are they kidding us? Domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT health insurance because of DOMA?” gay fundraiser and activist David Mixner told POLITICO in an e-mail. “It is like rubbing salt in the wound.”

“From what you describe, it seems to me to fall very far short,” said C. Dixon Osburn, a gay activist in Washington. “A patchwork approach that doesn’t amount to a full array of benefits one would want or expect … does not seem like a very good olive branch.”

Thursday, the Washington Times published a nice summary of Marco Rubio’s campaign message:

But the state’s former House speaker, who is the conservative underdog in a contest that will be decided in a party primary next year, has hit the campaign trail early, and he expects to rally voters with his message of smaller government, a flat tax and a stronger defense posture.

…His message includes a sharp attack on the $787 billion federal economic-stimulus package, which Mr. Crist embraced early this year, his support for a $1 a pack cigarette-tax increase and his record of appointing “the most liberal members for the state Supreme Court in our state’s history.”

Mr. Rubio points out that Mr. Crist “just didn’t accept the dollars [from the stimulus package], but he actually campagined in favor of it” – adding that “the stimulus package is indicative and illustrative of everything that’s wrong with the federal government today.”

With almost a year and a half until election day and Rubio turning in such a strong showing in the recent Pasco County straw poll, perhaps Good Time Charlie should worry…

I just saw this from The Weekly Standard:

Josh Kraushaar reports on some good news for Marco Rubio, who’s challenging Gov. Charlie Crist in the 2010 GOP Senate primary:

Rubio won overwhelming support from Republican party leaders in Pasco County (around Tampa-St. Petersburg), which neighbors Crist’s home base of Pinellas County.

Rubio received 73 votes to Crist’s 9 votes in a countywide straw poll of the Senate primary.

That’s a blow to Crist, who was endorsed by the country GOP when he faced a competitive primary in 2006. And it’s consistent with the (anecdotal) gripes of many prominent conservative activists throughout the Sunshine State.

On the Sunday, 6/21/09, Rasmussen poll, one other noteworthy fact — I’m surprised Rasmussen didn’t mention this — is that we’re in the longest-running period yet (10 consecutive days) with the “strongly disapprove” numbers being equal to or greater than 32.

My recollection is that the numbers always seem to dip on the weekends for Obama; I’m curious if this is due to the sample of voters (who are more/less likely to answer the phone), or if there’s something about the weekend that makes likely voters less likely to support our president.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

PPP (D) Ohio 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

• Ted Strickland (D) 44% (45%)
• John Kasich (R) 42% (39%)

Among Independents

• John Kasich (R) 54% (39%)
• Ted Strickland (D) 33% (34%)

Among Moderates

• Ted Strickland (D) 50%
• John Kasich (R) 34%

Among Men

• John Kasich (R) 45% (47%)
• Ted Strickland (D) 41% (39%)

Among Women

• Ted Strickland (D) 46% (50%)
• John Kasich (R) 38% (32%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Ted Strickland’s job performance?

• Approve 43% (48%)
• Disapprove 42% (35%)

Among Independents

• Approve 46% (42%)
• Disapprove 41% (37%)

Among Moderates

• Approve 49%
• Disapprove 35%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of former Republican Congressman John Kasich?

• Favorable 31% (34%)
• Unfavorable 30% (24%)
• Not sure 39% (42%)

Among Independents

• Favorable 34% (33%)
• Unfavorable 23% (17%)
• Not sure 43% (50%)

Among Moderates

• Favorable 21%
• Unfavorable 34%
• Not sure 45%

Survey of 619 Ohio voters was conducted June 17-19. The margin of error is +/- 3.9%. Party ID breakdown: 50% (D), 35% (R), 15% (I). Political ideology: 48% Moderate, 34% Conservative, 18% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 17-18 are in parentheses.

I would work for his Presidential campaign.  Ryan is currently the brightest star the GOP has in Congress. 

Paul Ryan’s Bio and campaign website.

_________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Mason-Dixon Nevada Political Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Barack Obama 49% / 32% (+17%)
• John Ensign 39% / 37% (+2%)
• Harry Reid 34% / 46% (-12%)
• Jim Gibbons 10% / 57% (-47%)

President Obama’s Job Performance

• Excellent 25%
• Good 22%
• Fair 25%
• Poor 25%

Among Independents

• Excellent 13%
• Good 29%
• Fair 26%
• Poor 27%

Governor Jim Gibbons’ Job Performance

• Excellent 2%
• Good 12%
• Fair 33%
• Poor 49%

Senator Harry Reid’s Job Performance

• Excellent 14%
• Good 29%
• Fair 20%
• Poor 35%

Senator John Ensign’s Job Performance

• Excellent 9%
• Good 39%
• Fair 30%
• Poor 15%

If the 2012 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, would you vote to re-elect incumbent John Ensign, would you consider voting for a challenger, or would you definitely vote to replace Ensign?

Among Republicans

• Re-elect Ensign 61%
• Consider a challenger 24%
• Definitely replace 11%

Among Independents

• Re-elect Ensign 21%
• Consider a challenger 37%
• Definitely replace 26%

U.S. Senator John Ensign called a news conference Tuesday to acknowledge a nine-month affair with a woman who worked on his Senate campaign and his political action committee. Which of the following positions best describes how this information affects your view of the senator?

Among Republicans

• I like him less 27%
• I did not like him anyway 2%
• It does not change my opinion 67%

Among Independents

• I like him less 32%
• I did not like him anyway 19%
• It does not change my opinion 41%

In 2007, Senator Ensign was among several prominent Republicans who called on Idaho Senator Larry Craig to resign after he was arrested in an airport men’s restroom on disorderly conduct charges. Do you feel Ensign should or should not resign because of his admitted affair?

Among Republicans

• Should 17%
• Should not 79%

Among Independents

• Should 27%
• Should not 66%

Do you feel the private lives of elected officials should or should not be public business?

Among Republicans

• Should 46%
• Should not 40%
• Depends 14%

Among Independents

• Should 42%
• Should not 35%
• Depends 23%

Survey of 625 registered Nevada voters was conducted June 18-19. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% (D), 36% (R), 20% (I). In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Nevada, 55-43 percent. Independents, who comprised 32 percent of the electorate in last November’s election, voted for Obama over McCain, 54-41 percent.

Sure Barack Obama’s bad, but I’ve been reading a lot about the original “share our wealth” guru, Huey Long and…well, here’s a bit from one of his most famous speeches.  Clean up the bits of your exploding brain when you’re done:

1. The fortunes of the multimillionaires and billionaires shall be reduced so that no one persons shall own more than a few million dollars to the person. We would do this by a capital levy tax. On the first million that a man was worth, we would not impose any tax. We would say, “All right for your first million dollars, but after you get that rich you will have to start helping the balance of us.” So we would not levy and capital levy tax on the first million one owned. But on the second million a man owns, we would tax that 1 percent, so that every year the man owned the second million dollars he would be taxed $10,000. On the third million we would impose a tax of 2 percent. On the fourth million we would impose a tax of 4 percent. On the fifth million we would impose a tax of 16 percent. On the seventh million we would impose a tax of 32 percent. On the eighth million we would impose a tax of 64 percent ; and on all over the eight million we would impose a tax of 100 percent.

What this would mean is tat the annual tax would bring the biggest fortune down to $3 or $4 million to the person because no one could pay taxes very long in the higher brackets. But $3 or $4 million is enough for any one person and his children and his children’s children. We cannot allow one to have more than that because it would not leave enough for the balance to  have something.

On a side note FDR, who was often called a socialist and a populist (though he wasn’t truly either) was only ever afraid of Huey Long, who was both.  I’m sure there are fascinating alt-histories where Long isn’t assassinated in 35′ and either FDR loses renomination or Long squeaks into the oval office in a third party bid.  In the former, maybe the famous Southern Democrat split in the 30′s never occurs (it was as much regional as ideological) and we’re treated to 40 years of…well, real socialism.  So yeah, it could be worse all around. 

On a second side note, I’ll just point out that if Obama is a poor man’s FDR (and I’ve always thought FDR was a better analogue than RFK or JFK) than should we be looking for a Republican Huey Long?   Full-throated, populistic rabble-rousing without the socialism?  Know any Republicans who fit that bill…?

As Americans:

So Newt Gingrich says that paganism is our biggest threat, that saving people is our greatest job as Americans — not as Christians, but as Americans — and that we need a new Great Awakening.

Romney’s all alone on the secular side. And even that’s all things being relative, given that he thinks that “freedom requires religion.”

Will someone please stand up for the secular wing of the GOP in 2012?

More: Gingrich: First Step Back to Power Is Fighting for Religion

For the first time since moving into that huge white house on Pennsylvania Ave., Barack Obama now finds himself floundering with an underwater mortgage. Perhaps even the president is starting to wonder whether that $787 billion home equity loan was the wisest course of action.

I’ve got the perfect Sunday night movie for the Obamas to watch after putting the girls to bed, which should help put their present plight in perspective.

Happy Father’s Day, Barry!

Barack Obama’s Job Approval Rating

• Strongly approve 32%
• Somewhat approve 21%
• Somewhat disapprove 12%
• Strongly disapprove 34% [-2%]

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 40.1% Democrats, 33.1% Republicans, and 26.7% unaffiliated.

Inside the numbers:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama.

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats Strongly Approve of the President’s performance but only 8% of Republicans share that view. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.

UPDATE: Gallup is also reporting the lowest approval (and highest disapproval) ratings for the president to date; with 57 percent approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, and 35 percent disapproving. In just the past few days, Obama’s support among Independents has plummeted seven points, from 60 percent down to 53 in Gallup’s Daily Tracking Poll. Whether it’s the president’s perceived weakness in not showing stronger solidarity with the Iranian people, politically unpopular positions like his proposed healthcare plan, the Oval Office’s 60 percent ownership in GM, its illogical commitment to closing the prison at Gitmo, rising unemployment rates with nary a sign of success resulting from the stimulus, the conclusion of an adventurous honeymoon, or all of the above remains to be seen.

First, we noticed during the 2008 campaign that Senator Barack Hussein Obama always referred to America’s Number One Racist with the honorific of “Minister” Farrakhan and never merely as Mister or Louis.

Then, President Obama greets the King of Saudi Arabia with a deep, subservient bow during a foreign apology tour last month.

This week, the Leader of the Free World refers to Ayatollah Khamenei, the architect of Iran’s sham election,  thusly:

You have seen in Iran some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people had deep concerns about the election.

Malcolm X was assassinated when he could no longer abide, much less honor the anti-Semitic theology of the Nation of Islam which teaches that all White people are devils.

Yet, the Christian?, Chicago Hate-America Church of Obama’s 20 year pew-parked butt, honored the “Minister” in their church literature and from Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit.

Two weeks ago Obama’s Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against Black Panther thugs caught on tape in Philly harassing voters at the polls. His first nominee to the nation’s highest court deems herself superior to white males due to her Latina blood and estrogen.

Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush never found it necessary to genuflect before foreign potentates even during oil embargoes. Yet, they also never insulted Queens with back slaps and Blockbuster DVD’s; returned 911 solidarity gifts; nor re-located graduates of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida training camps to Kingdom tropical paradises.

Finally, even President Jimmy Carter understood the “ordinate” fear of communism as Soviet tanks rolled into Kabul.

Should freedom-seeking Iranians succeed in toppling the despotic, tyrannical Mullahs and become the true “supreme” leaders of Iran, how receptive will they be to a man that bent over backwards to appease their oppressor?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

CBS News/New York Times Social Issues Survey

Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, OR gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, OR there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

Among Democrats

• Allowed to legally marry 45%
• Civil unions 27%
• No legal recognition 23%

Among Republicans

• Allowed to legally marry 13%
• Civil unions 35%
• No legal recognition 48%

Among Independents

• Allowed to legally marry 35%
• Civil unions 30%
• No legal recognition 32%

Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it, abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now, abortion should not be permitted?

Among Democrats

• Generally available 47%
• Available but limits 39%
• Should not be permitted 13%

Among Republicans

• Generally available 18%
• Available but limits 43%
• Should not be permitted 36%

Among Independents

• Generally available 35%
• Available but limits 42%
• Should not be permitted 19%

More than 35 years ago, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe versus Wade established a Constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court’s decision was a good thing or a bad thing?

Among Democrats

• Good thing 74%
• Bad thing 21%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 1%

Among Republicans

• Good thing 40%
• Bad thing 51%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 7%

Among Independents

• Good thing 63%
• Bad thing 30%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 2%

Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?

Among Democrats

• Yes, overturn 23%
• No, not overturn 71%

Among Republicans

• Yes, overturn 45%
• No, not overturn 47%

Among Independents

• Yes, overturn 25%
• No, not overturn 68%

(more…)

The mullahs have basically total control of the infrastructure in Iran, from power, to communications, to water, to public services. The rest of the public and privately held resources are also subject to the current government’s whims.

That being said, it does not seem absurd that the mullahs and their proxy government should have the ability to really block most ISPs/ Cellular networks pretty darn quickly. Now that this uprising has been going on for a few days, for sure they should have shut down the pipes that are airing the “dirty laundry”.

This seems like a pretty basic and easy way to kill the communications from the common man.

So, why haven’t they done this? Do they want this aired in this fashion while feigning righteous indignation for some other cause/ propaganda? what is the up side? Do they NOT have this type of control (over the ISPs and Cellular networks?) Am I totally off my rocker here?

I have been watching Fox News today and they sure are using this event for an advertising bonanza. Most programming has been cancelled and Shepard Smith is getting real annoying at this time.

Your thoughts?

Keep up the good work Meg! Your flip to liberal positions sure seems to be winning them over!

Over at Townhall.com Greg Hengler describes the President as a “brilliant windbag.” 

I’m sure this is a highlight of Mr. Heingler’s journalistic career, but I’m left to wonder when a place like Townhall published it. It’s a petty little ad hominem that disses the President of the United States, and actually weakens the legitimate story. (Only 6% of Israelis belieiving Obama was pro-Israel.)

Sorry, but this is a bridge too far and really uncalled for and Townhall letting that stuff go up from the main blog reduces their credibility.

Lest anyone think I’ve forgotten, I remembered the open forum.

The largest scandal of Pres Obama’s administration to date has occurred, and it gets barely a whisper’s coverage.  What am I talking about?  None other than the firing of Gerald Walpin.

Why is this story important?  A summary of facts:

• Gerald Walpin is an inspector general, who inspects recipients of federal funds
• Mr Walpin investigated Mayor Kevin Johnson, a good friend of Pres Obama, and found he had misused about $900K in federal funds.  This finding would preclude Myr Johnson from ever getting federal funds.
• The relevant prosecutor cuts a deal with Myr Johnson for paying back half the funds and restoring his ability to receive future federal funds.
• Pres Obama, through staff, tells Mr Walpin to resign or be fired.  Mr Walpin refuses to resign.
• In direct violation of the 2008 Inspector General reform bill that Pres Obama co-sponsored, Pres Obama fires him immediately.  The reform bill required 30 days written notice and a formal explanation made to Congress.

The implications are clear: Pres Obama fired one of the people watching our tax dollars for no more reason than the inspector investigated one of his friends and cost his friend nearly $900K (and potentially a lot more, as the initial finding would have cost him stimulus funds).

Now, to be fair, Pres Obama has said he fired him because he was “disoriented, confused, and ignored exculpatory evidence.”  If that’s true, he should have been fired.  The explanation just seems bizzare, though, and probably would have warranted a psych evaluation (to see if he’s got mental issues that would preclude him from doing this kind of work).

Anyway, I find this kind of behavior to be a certain indicator of corruption (perhaps because I’m in the auditing field), and a very troubling indicator of pay-for-play kind of politics learned at the foot of fmr Gov Blago.  This isn’t a “people around him” kind of issue, this deals directly with Pres Obama and his politics.  No real surprise, but one that should be discussed.

Far outside the corridors of Washington’s capitol building, the White House press gallery and the Sunday talk show studios, a feeling of disappointment and resentment is sweeping across the nation.

President Obama’s economic plan is failing to put a halt to the growing number of Americans lined up at unemployment lines and food banks.  His Iraq and Afghanistan policies are failing to bring the conflicts to an end and the Pelosi led Congress are showing themselves to be incompetent managers of the nations state of affairs. 

Citizens are beginning to realize they were sold a bill of goods filled with utopian analogies and unrealistic promises.  As insiders fixate on President Obama swatting at flies, millions of students are graduating with no prospect of steady work, baby boomers are losing their investments and homes, while watching their children’s future mortgaged for the sake of an ideology that promises everything to everyone, no matter the cost to the next generation of taxpayers. 

Americans are now opening their eyes.  They wonder how China and India can now have a middle class larger then the entire population of the United States, yet we cannot seem to educate enough engineers to fulfill jobs in all of the stimulus projects.  Small town communities are questioning why the President and large media outlets have decided to no longer focus on the deaths in far away places of their youngest adults, even though it was their primary focus for the last four years.  They are asking themselves if the deaths of their best and brightest was just a political story used by the media to elect Democrats to the White House and Congress?   

The stock brokers and shareholders who had supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are furious that their investments are being obliterated to please union bosses and Keynesian enthusiasts.  The school teachers, small business owners, nurses, salesmen and truck drivers who are creditors in some of Americans largest corporations are watching their life savings disolved because of new regulation and the re-writing of bankruptcy laws for the sake of screwing the American bank executive and propping up the UAW. 

People are beginning to feel abandoned by big media and the new leadership in Washington.

The François Mitterand loving, Potomac aristocracy are leading you to believe the GOP is divided, leaderless and hopeless, with no clear path to victory. 

They are not only wrong, but they are purposely misleading you.

An all-star cast of Republican candidates are assembling for upcoming elections.  The best of what the Republican party has to offer is taking aim at the limping Democrats.  Portman, Kasich, Crist, Mcollum, Thompson, Rubio, Toomey, Gerlach, Fiorina, Whitman, Brownback, Castle, Simmons, Lingle, Kirk, Land, Cox, Zanetti, Fallin, Walden, Krolicki, Giuliani, Pataki and Grayson are some of the candidates who have either decided or are considering representing the GOP in critical 2010 elections. 

All of these successful men and women, most of whom have never lost an election or failed in private enterprise would not be willing to place their names on ballots unless they could sense a tide turning within the American electorate.  They smell victory in 2o1o. 

A group of dynamic, young conservative Governors are forging an opposition to the radical left wing agenda of our nations new leadership.  They are intelligent, attractive and electable for national office.  These young stars are feeding a 2012 pool of what may become the most exciting and diverse group of contenders for any Republican primary in our nations history.   

Obama’s approval ratings are falling, Republicans are out-fundraising Democrats and the public is beginning to side against liberals on the issues of spending, taxation, health care, national defence and corporate welfare.      

So keep swatting flies Mr. President, as you’ll need the practice to keep angry voters away from your jugular in 2012. 

______________________________________________________________

Why can Americans be trusted to buy, sell, and manufacture our own cars?  Are we not incapable of making these decisions?

That’s what we ask at KansasProgress.com:

A recent Reuters article describes just one more liberal-led intrusion by the federal government into what should be a mostly-private national economy:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate rejected on Thursday an attempt to strip a $1 billion program aimed at spurring flagging U.S. car sales from a pending $106 billion war funding bill.

The Senate voted 60-36 to keep the program that would provide vouchers of up to $4,500 for consumers to trade in their less fuel-efficient cars for ones that get better mileage, a program known as “cash for clunkers.”

It must be asked: why has Obama repeatedly stated that he does not wish for the federal government to permanently run General Motors; and rather than approving of this voucher for used cars, why are Congressional Democrats not instead telling us exactly which cars to buy?

A car is a complex piece of equipment. We are told by nearly every level of American authority — federal, state, and local governments, most local Chambers of Commerce, Johnson County Republican Party Chairman Ronnie Metsker — that parents are too stupid to be able to choose where to send their children to school.  In terms of providing the service of education, the elites tell us that parents are either ill-equipped, or worse, that their religiosity cannot be trusted.

Cars are also more dangerous in the short-term: sure, the lives of children may be slowly ruined within government-run schools, particularly those operating in the inner cities, but a passenger can die instantly in a car.  Shouldn’t Congress instead be telling individual Americans exactly which cars we should be purchasing?  And shouldn’t Congress be permanently operating automobile companies, just as they are permanently operating our providers of education?

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

What is Twitter? Is it 140 characters of drivel or a vital lifeline of timely information?

I heard someone say the following recently:

Blog: what I’ve been thinking of this week.

Facebook: what I’m thinking about today.

Twitter: I just made a poopy.

I can see a few good uses of twitter.

Twitter makes it possible to open up the politician’s day-to-day activities to their constituents. It also is useful in settings like Iran where media censorship or fast moving events leave citizens to cover breaking news.

However twitter really isn’t for me and you. Twitter may be a tool for campaigns but it’s not going to be a killer app. It’s not going to reach much beyond the hardcore volunteers, supporters and political junkies.

______________________________________________________________

This is going to be the hottest site on the right for the 2012 primary…the politicians, public and media cannot wait for the drama to begin.  It will be the most highly funded and frequently covered primary in US history.

Thank you to our readers and contributors for being here, early!

“Obama Falls Below 60% Approval in Most Polls“

—-

Prospective Republican Candidates Vie to Succeed Barack Obama in 2012.

Away from the Washington limelight, prospective candidates for the party’s next nomination are forming political action committees, meeting potential fund-raisers and making speeches in the right places and shaking hands with the right people. In an election cycle that keeps getting longer, there are only 1,241 days to go until polling day.

The state of Iowa, which will become the national centre of attention for a few weeks again when it kicks off the next primary season in early 2012, is proving a very early attraction for hopeful contestants.

The Examiner Reviews Mitt Romney’s Prospects for 2012.

For a lot of reasons Mitt Romney is the early front runner for the GOP party. The most important of these reasons is he does not have a day job at the moment so he can focus himself on being out in the public eye criticizing Obama policies and he builds up his campaign infrastructure.

Pollster: Gov. Barbour Exploring White House run.

Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour plans to make back-to-back trips this month to the early presidential voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. The former Republican National Committee chairman is headlining fundraisers in both states, but says the visits are part of his duties as incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Both states have governors’ races next year.
 
Dave Woodard, a Clemson University political scientist and pollster, says Barbour is clearly exploring a potential White House run.

The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots.

As President Obama thunders ahead with his liberal agenda, unencumbered by any significant opposition in either chamber of Congress, the focus for the Right has been on how to re-invent the Republican Party so as to be competitive in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. This renewed and urgent focus is more akin to a meeting of rival mafia families, each faction unwilling to cede influence, power, control or status to another, than it is a quorum of individuals dedicated to true and original Republican principles. In light of this it is appropriate to revisit the founding platform of the party.

Thune Could Replace Ensign on GOP Policy Committee.

We’re hearing that South Dakota Sen. John Thune has locked up support to replace Sen. John Ensignas chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. The opening came when Ensign admitted to an affair with an ex-aide and could clear the way for Thune, talked about last year as a vice presidential nominee, to run against President Obama in 2012.

Republicans Would Do Well To Consider Pawlenty.

Republicans would be well advised to give Pawlenty some serious consideration. I can think of two reasons.

First, his home state. The following chart tracks the Democratic “tilt” of Minnesota from 1968 through 2008:

Second, Pawlenty could provide a nice tonal contrast to Barack Obama. He was, of course, a contender for McCain’s vice-presidential slot – but the rap on him at the time was that he was not exciting enough. That was probably a fair criticism last year. Given the macro forces working against the GOP – McCain was smart to think he needed a veep candidate to shake things up.

______________________________________________________________

Speaker Gingrich penned an excellent article on the power shift of banking regulation to Ben Bernanke.  The Speaker highlights the negative impact Sarbanes-Oxley has had on American enterprise and suggests the new regulation would have a similarly negative impact on our competitiveness in the global economy.  

The financial regulatory regime announced by the Obama Administration is Sarbanes-Oxley on steroids; yet another power-grabbing, bureaucratic trap for the financial sector.

 

Especially troubling is Obama plan’s drastic expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority over the economy, what the plan itself calls “the biggest changes to the Federal Reserve’s authority in decades.”

 

The Fed would become nation’s “systemic risk” regulator. It gains unprecedented authority to “unwind” any “troubled” firm, and the power to subpoena any document from any corporation—public or private—foreign or American.

 

Worse, under the Obama plan the impartiality of the Fed— key to the function of our financial system since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act—is replaced by politics. In some cases, the Fed would need to obtain written permission from the Treasury Secretary to perform certain actions.

 

So not only does the Obama plan expand the power of the Federal Reserve, it gives Treasury—an agency run by a political appointee—a vehicle through which to assert influence on how that power is to be wielded. This is a stunningly dangerous change.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Sex Ed Survey

At what age do you think it is appropriate for teachers to start discussing pregnancy and birth control in sex education programs at school?

Democrats

• Elementary school (K-5) 20%
• Middle school (6-8) 61%
• High school (9-12) 15%
• Not appropriate 3%

Republicans

• Elementary school (K-5) 5%
• Middle school (6-8) 62%
• High school (9-12) 14%
• Not appropriate 16%

Independents

• Elementary school (K-5) 12%
• Middle school (6-8) 61%
• High school (9-12) 17%
• Not appropriate 8%

At what age do you think it is appropriate for teachers to start discussing homosexuality and sexual orientation in sex education programs at school?

Democrats

• Elementary school (K-5) 16%
• Middle school (6-8) 42%
• High school (9-12) 17%
• Not appropriate 23%

Republicans

• Elementary school (K-5) 3%
• Middle school (6-8) 30%
• High school (9-12) 18%
• Not appropriate 45%

Independents

• Elementary school (K-5) 8%
• Middle school (6-8) 34%
• High school (9-12) 30%
• Not appropriate 26%

(more…)

Pew Research Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 61% (63%)
• Disapprove 30% (26%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 52% (60%)
• Disapprove 40% (33%)

Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic that Barack Obama’s policies will improve economic conditions in the country?

• Optimistic 65% (66%)
• Pessimistic 28% (26%)

Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic that Barack Obama’s policies will reduce the budget deficit over the long term?

• Optimistic 55% (54%)
• Pessimistic 36% (36%)

Since taking office, have Barack Obama’s economic policies made economic conditions better, worse, or not had an effect so far?

• Better 26% (26%)
• Worse 16% (17%)
• No effect 49% (47%)

When it comes to national policy, who do you think Barack Obama is listening to more?

• Liberal members of his party 39% (40%)
• Moderate members of his party 35% (33%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the problems faced by U.S. automakers like General Motors and Chrysler?

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 44%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the problems faced by major U.S. banks and financial institutions?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 40%

From what you’ve read and heard, do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s roughly 800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan passed by Congress in February?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 39%

As you may know, the federal government has taken several steps to address economic problems facing the nation. Do you approve or disapprove of the government spending billions of dollars to substantially increase spending on roads, bridges, and other public works projects?

• Approve 73%
• Disapprove 23%

Do you approve or disapprove of the government spending billions of dollars in an effort to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business?

• Approve 36%
• Disapprove 58%

Do you approve or disapprove of the government spending billions of dollars in an effort to keep financial institutions and markets secure?

• Approve 49%
• Disapprove 45%

In dealing with important issues facing the country, are Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress working together or not working together?

• Working together 39%
• Not working together 50%

(more…)

This is Professor Carol M. Swain.

Yesterday, the Senate approved a resolution apologizing for slavery, and this woman, being a good slave to her Democratic massas, had a decidedly mixed reaction, according to the Washington Post:

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday’s vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate’s resolution “meaningless” since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

“The Republican Party needed to do it,” Swain said. “It would have shed that racist scab on the party.”

Whatever “racist scab” would that be?

If I recall correctly, Ms. Swain — oops, I should call you ‘professor’ in case you go Barbara Boxer on my ass — there are a few things you may have overlooked:

* The Republican Party was founded as an expressly anti-slavery party, in opposition to the slave-holding Democratic Party at the time.

* The Confederates were all loyal Democrats.

* Democrat Woodrow Wilson was a rabid white supremacist who loved the pro-KKK film The Birth of a Nation.

* It was Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by a Republican, who led the court in the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Democratic Party, the party of Southern bigots, predictably hated integration.

* More Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

* The Democratic Senate Majority Leader in the late 1980′s was a former KKK member. He is now the Senate Pro Tempore.

*The last two Republican presidents appointed black Supreme Court justices and Secretaries of State.

In light of all this, I find it very appropriate that the Democrats are apologizing for slavery. Don’t you, professor?

EDIT: Commenter MWS points out that you can take any Confederate or Southern segregationist between the start of the Civil War and the end of segregation and you can be assured that they were a Democrat. “Demanding the Republican party apologize for slavery is like demanding Nelson Mandela apologize for apartheid,” he says, rightly.

1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. He gave a wide ranging speech on national defense spending and budgets to the Heritage Foundation, the most convincing sign yet that Romney is all in for 2012.  Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012.

2) Sarah Palin - The tabloid stories seemed to have quieted down, as Palin’s fans welcomed news of the Governor’s book due out next year.  Palin continues to weigh in on national issues, firing off press releases either countering the President’s policies or giving her own opinion on national events.  She continues to compile an impressive email list and grassroots network that could make her a juggernaut in the early states.  However, until she proves she can take the heat in interviews and debates without self-immolating, she will be on the outside looking in.

3) Mike Huckabee - Huck is staking out a solid anti-establishment position, attacking the GOP rebranding effort led by Rep. Eric Cantor.  He had decided to endorse Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, stoking his anti-establishment cred even further and setting himself up as the top populist in 2012. However, as long as Palin looks likely to run, Huck will likely end up on the losing end of a populist brawl with the former VP nominee.

4) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message.  I imagine T-Paw’s  Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012 after years of bailouts and debt. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters.  Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. Having decided against a third term bid, Pawlenty is now free to build a national organization and shape his message for a GOP primary. 

5) John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012.  He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years.  His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation.  Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates.  Sen. John Ensign’s scandal all but eliminates him as a potential 2012, and Thune stands to gain the most from it politically.  Not only does it eliminate a fellow senator and rival, but now Thune is the leading candidate to replace Ensign in the Senate Leadership, proof of Thune’s rising star.

6) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative Governor of South Carolina is quickly becoming a favorite for both insiders and the Libertarian Ron Paul supporters. That kind of combination could make Sanford the real dark horse in 2012. His stimulus fight with Obama may be lost in the short term, but it could potentially set Sanford up with the moral high ground against the President. Sanford’s stance against both the Iraq War and the bailouts could position him as the major populist candidate, both on domestic and foreign policy

7) Jeb Bush - Bush joined the National Council for a New America, signaling his desire to take on a larger role in the national GOP.  His name hurts now, but his popularity in Florida shows that he can outrun his brother’s shadow.  As of December his brother’s approval rating in Florida was 29%, while his was 65%. His passing on a guaranteed senate victory is telling though. The National Council for a New America gives Jeb a new forum to reintroduce himself and his family name in a much different light, showing people that he is much more the pragmatic and thoughtful leader his brother never was.  His name has started to come up from both welcome sources (the Daily Beast) and unwelcome sources (Dick Cheney) as a potential candidate.  Expect those calls to get louder and louder, especially with Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the SCOTUS possibly creating even greater losses for the GOP among Hispanics and Jeb’s proven appeal to the Hispanic community.

8 ) Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised.  Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness. 

9) Newt Gingrich - The former Speaker continues to get some positive coverage, and is making moves that indicate a possible run. It’s clear Gingrich is staking his claim as leader of the party, and is even teasing a New Contract with America in 2010. Gingrich has reformed his image somewhat, from the polarizing figure of the mid-90s to the idea-man of American Solutions.  A ‘New Contract with America’ could be a big vote getter and help the former Speaker once again lead a Republican Revolution back into power. 

(more…)

Rasmussen Pennsylvania 2010 Senate Election

• Arlen Specter (D) 50%
• Pat Toomey (R) 39%

• Joe Sestak (D) 41%
• Pat Toomey (R) 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Pat Toomey 50% / 35% (+15%)
• Arlen Specter 53% / 43% (+10%)
• Joe Sestak 42% / 32% (+10%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted June 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters favor Toomey in a match-up with Specter, who draws 74% of the Democratic vote and 23% of Republicans.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of GOP voters support Toomey in a race against Sestak, who earns 64% of Democrats and just 13% of Republicans.

Fifty percent (50%) of Pennsylvania voters have a favorable opinion of Toomey, including 15% whose view is very favorable. Thirty-five percent (35%) have an unfavorable view, with 16% very unfavorable. But 16% don’t know enough about Toomey to have an opinion of him.

Specter, who has represented the state in the Senate since 1981, is viewed favorably by 53%, with 24% very favorable. His unfavorables total 43%, with 26% very unfavorable. Just three percent (3%) are not sure what they think of Specter.

Forty-two percent (42%) have a favorable opinion of Sestak, a second-term congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs who is defying party leaders to challenge Specter. Of that group, 12% view him very favorably. Thirty-two percent (32%) regard Sestak unfavorably, including 11% very unfavorable.

But a large number of voters (26%) don’t know him well enough to have an opinion.

CBS News/New York Times Political Survey

So far, do you think Barack Obama’s policies have made the economy better, made the economy worse or haven’t his policies had any effect on the economy yet?

• Better 32%
• Worse 15%
• No effect 48%

Which comes closer to your own view? The federal government should spend money to stimulate the national economy, even if it means increasing the budget deficit, OR the federal government should NOT spend money to stimulate the national economy and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit.

• Stimulate the economy 41%
• Reduce budget deficit 52%

So far, do you think the Obama Administration has developed a clear plan for dealing with the current budget deficit, or hasn’t it developed one yet?

• Has developed clear plan 30%
• Not developed clear plan 60%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 34%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the problems facing the auto industry?

• Approve 41%
• Disapprove 46%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 59%
• Disapprove 23%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 35%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 24%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 63%
• Disapprove 26%

(more…)

When recently asked for their reactions to the dangerous expansion of our Federal government, Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford used near identical talking points.  Then last week, Palin went out of her way to defend Governor Sanford from the activist Judges in South Carolina who were forcing him to accept stimulus funding and the Federal mandates that accompanied the legislation.

Now this from the AP:

Sanford sent Palin what he called a consolation prize-sized portion of shrimp, grits and She-Crab soup from a Charleston restaurant. He wrote Palin that he hoped the gift would “help you in consoling those rough feelings that will probably plague you for months, if not the years, ahead, as a result of the defeat of the Aces by the almighty Stingrays!”

Sanford also hoped Palin could sweeten the deal with some of her state’s famed Alaskan king crabs, perhaps “a full tractor-trailer load,” he wrote in the June 10th letter. 

Sanford spoke with Palin soon after the Stingrays took the series in seven games on June 5.  He closed his letter with a greeting to husband Todd “and the gang” and hoped their paths cross soon.

On the surface, it appears to be a light moment between the two conservatives, but as we all know, there is always a political motivation behind the selected details released from the offices of politicians.  I believe these two Governors are developing an alliance. 

Palin and Sanford have near identical policy positions on domestic issues.  They are both dedicated federalists, strongly pro-life, pro-gun and pro-growth.  It is believed Palin supported Sanford in his run for RGA Chairman. 

I have no idea where this is headed, but they are clearly in communication more often than not.  Could Sanford be angling for a Palin endorsement or a shot at the Vice Presidential nomination in 2012?  Do these two Governors believe they will become the leading voices of opposition against President Obama’s big government agenda? 

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 50% [52%] (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% [39%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 49% [53%] (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 41% [36%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 48% [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 40% [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 52% [56%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 40% [37%] (41%)

Among Republicans

• Huckabee 79% [74%] (77%)
• Obama 17% [15%] (13%)

• Gingrich 76% [73%] (75%)
• Obama 16% [16%] (14%)

• Romney 74% [66%] (71%)
• Obama 19% [18%] (16%)

• Palin 72% [65%] (71%)
• Obama 18% [27%] (21%)

Among Independents

• Huckabee 46% [35%] (37%)
• Obama 40% [55%] (53%)

• Gingrich 42% [31%] (38%)
• Obama 41% [54%] (54%)

• Romney 42% [30%] (35%)
• Obama 35% [55%] (52%)

• Obama 46% [52%] (51%)
• Palin 41% [37%] (44%)

Among Men

• Huckabee 48% [41%] (47%)
• Obama 45% [50%] (46%)

• Gingrich 46% [40%] (44%)
• Obama 46% [50%] (48%)

• Obama 46% [49%] (49%)
• Romney 44% [38%] (44%)

• Obama 48% [53%] (49%)
• Palin 44% [41%] (47%)

Among Women

• Obama 54% [54%] (52%)
• Huckabee 37% [36%] (37%)

• Obama 53% [56%] (56%)
• Gingrich 36% [32%] (33%)

• Obama 55% [58%] (56%)
• Palin 36% [34%] (36%)

• Obama 50% [56%] (52%)
• Romney 37% [31%] (34%)

Obama Job Approval

• Approve 52% [55%] (53%)
• Disapprove 44% [38%] (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Mike Huckabee 43% [44%] (42%) / 34% [32%] (34%) {+9%}
• Mitt Romney 41% [40%] (40%) / 36% [36%] (35%) {+5%}
• Sarah Palin 43% [42%] (42%) / 49% [50%] (49%) {-6%}
• Newt Gingrich 35% [30%] (36%) / 46% [47%] (44%) {-11%}

Among Independents

• Mike Huckabee 46% [44%] (37%) / 31% [36%] (36%) {+15%}
• Mitt Romney 40% [37%] (36%) / 33% [42%] (39%) {+7%}
• Sarah Palin 44% [34%] (38%) / 42% [58%] (51%) {+2%}
• Newt Gingrich 35% [27%] (34%) / 42% [53%] (46%) {-7%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 72% [73%] (67%) / 21% [17%] (20%) {+51%}
• Mike Huckabee 68% [60%] (56%) / 17% [19%] (18%) {+51%}
• Newt Gingrich 61% [51%] (59%) / 23% [22%] (18%) {+38%}
• Mitt Romney 58% [59%] (54%) / 22% [18%] (19%) {+36%}

Among Moderates

• Mike Huckabee 33% [40%] (36%) / 38% [36%] (41%) {-5%}
• Mitt Romney 35% [35%] (34%) / 40% [42%] (44%) {-5%}
• Sarah Palin 33% [29%] (28%) / 58% [64%] (67%) {-25%}
• Newt Gingrich 23% [21%] (23%) / 53% [58%] (60%) {-30%}

Survey of 638 voters was conducted June 12-16. The margin of error is +/-3.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 14-18 are in brackets; from April 17-19, in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 43% [40%] (D), 34% [34%] (R), 23% [26%] (I). Ideological breakdown: 46% [47%] Moderate, 38% [38%] Conservative, 16% [15%] Liberal.

H/T: Tommy Boy, for defeating yours truly in a wager over just how well (or poorly) Palin would be perceived by moderates in the aftermath of the brouhaha between the Alaskan governor and David Letterman. So, for those of you who roll their eyes at an irrelevant, meaningless poll taken nearly three and a half years before the next presidential election, just know that there was something genuinely at ‘steak’.