And yes, I realize that particular news network is sometimes frowned upon, but they had a god report and they were kind enough to put it on YouTube (only one I could find) – and frankly, it’s more important to put up a memorial than to avoid Al Jazeera.

Am I a total ass for thinking of this in purely political terms?

The economy sank at a pace of just 1 percent in the second quarter of the year, a new government report shows. It was a better-than-expected showing that provided the strongest signal yet that the longest recession since World War II is finally winding down.

The dip in gross domestic product for the April-to-June period, reported by the Commerce Department on Friday, comes after the economy was in a free fall, tumbling at an annual rate of 6.4 percent in the first three months of this year. That was the sharpest downhill slide in nearly three decades.

The economy has now contracted for a record four straight quarters for the first time on records dating to 1947. That underscores the grim toll of the recession on consumers and companies.

Many economists were predicting a slightly bigger 1.5 percent annualized contraction in second-quarter GDP. It’s the total value of all goods and services — such as cars and clothes and makeup and machinery — produced within the United States and is the best barometer of the country’s economic health.

“The recession looks to have largely bottomed in the spring,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. “Businesses have made most of the adjustments they needed to make, and that will set up the economy to resume growing in the summer,” he predicted.

Less drastic spending cuts by businesses, a resumption of spending by federal and local governments and an improved trade picture were key forces behind the better performance. Consumers, though, pulled back. Rising unemployment, shrunken nest eggs and lower home values have weighed down their spending.

Okay, so it wasn’t good. But it could have been a lot worse.

But even if things do start getting better sooner than we anticipate, the public is slow to catch onto things, so it’s not like Obama or his beloved stimulus package are going to be seen as economy-savers in November 2010. Please remember that Bill Clinton won in 1992 on the back of the “poor economy,” which had been out of a recession for an entire year by the time the election rolled around.

Obviously, though, either way, it’s more important for people to start finding work again than for Obama’s poll numbers to drop.

Early fundraising reports not very good, unfortunately.

Here’s Kasich’s cash-on-hand in his campaign finance report he quietly filed today: $451,292.78.

Compared to Strickland’s cash-on-hand: $4,015,716.49.

That’s nearly a 9 to 1 fundraising advantage. Strickland never had that kind of advantage even over Blackwell.

Wonder if that makes Mike DeVine, who has announced for Attorney General, want to reconsider?

Something must be said, though: money simply doesn’t matter like it used to. And Ohio, I think, is going to be one of our prime targets in 2010. The economy is hurting especially badly there, and Strickland simply isn’t as popular as he used to be. Kasich can definitely pull this off, but it wouldn’t hurt if he’d start to pick things up on the fundraising front.

________________________________________________________________

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

Hays Research Alaska Political Survey

Would you say you feel positive or negative about Sarah Palin?

• Very positive 30.0% (30.5%)
• Somewhat positive 16.8% (23.5%)
• Somewhat negative 16.2% (16.8%)
• Very negative 31.2% (24.8%)

Would you say you feel positive or negative about Sean Parnell?

• Very positive 26.0%
• Somewhat positive 40.5%
• Somewhat negative 5.5%
• Very negative 2.2%

Survey of 400 who voted in at least 2 of the last 4 state or local elections within the State of Alaska was conducted July 29-30. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 4-5 are in parentheses.

An increasingly common trait in this new Obama Era of Democrat super majorities is the constant creation of strawmen, false adversaries elevated by those in power to take blame for their own failings and short comings. The President of hope and change began this tactic immediately by elevating Rush Limbaugh, a bombastic but powerless radio talk show host, to the level of leader of the opposition. With 15 hours of radio programming per week to sift through, Democrat minions poured through the shows, seeking sound bites to attack Republicans with.  This was not a tactic generated by lowly staffers at the DNC, rather the White House Chief of Staff and other high level strategists like James Carville.  Soon after the Limbaugh-as-strawman attack fizzled, they moved on to a series of other targets.  Fox News, Glen Beck, AIG, Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, and John Ensign have all had their moment as ‘strawman of the week’ in the Democrats’ vain effort to distract from their miserable failures on the economy. Now, as Democrat infighting threatens to ruin their universal healthcare bid, the strawman tactic is once again being deployed, this time in the form of the ‘Birthers’.

The Birthers are a small fringe group who suggest Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.  In the history of wild conspiracy theories, it’s actually pretty mild.  Crazy accusations about JFK, Nixon, Free Masons, the NWO, and 9/11 have produced far more insidious and ridiculous conspiracies.  The big difference is that the left has chosen  to use this particular theory as yet another strawman to distract from further rounds of legislative failures.

The left has a nasty habit of this.  For example, Pastor Fred Phelps is a nationally known figure through now ability of his own. The notorious ‘God hates fags’ radical religious leader runs one of the smallest churches in the country, with only 50 followers (more then 40 of whom are relatives of the Phelps family).  So why is this man famous?  He clearly hasn’t gained a following through his own actions and the microscopic following he does have is a joke compared to real ministers and churches across the country.  The difference with Phelps is that in him liberals saw a chance to smear all evangelicals, so they constantly put a microphone in front of him and broadcast his hate, holding him up in an attempt to smear all who have religious faith.  In the eyes of the left Fred Phelps is no different then Mike Huckabee or Rick Warren. They are up to their same tricks again with the Birthers.  The Birther theories have been out there for years, but only now as Obama’s healthcare push is crumbling, do we hear about it daily from the media. Coincidence? No.

Imagine if George W. Bush had made Kieth Olbermann the strawman that Obama used Rush as.  The outcry of a President attacking a private citizen would have washed across the country. Imagine if the GOP had used the 9/11 Truth Movement, a group that accuses Bush of having blown up the Twin Towers himself and is far larger then the Birthers, to attack Democrats they would have been hammered for using 9/11 for political gain.

In the end, this tactic will fail. There is only one party with meaningful power in this country at the moment, and that party is responsible for what happens to our economy and our security.  No amount of strawmen will save Obama from the rising unemployment, his destructive Cap-and-Trade system, and his awful handling of healthcare reform. 

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

I subscribe to the mindset that government can do virtually nothing to meaningfully improve the economy.  Where government may be able to rarely take credit for (what appear to be) short-term improvements, one can expect many more problems to wait down the road.

I’m not even sure anymore how much government can wreck the economy.  Don’t misunderstand me: government gets in the way and does harm.  What I mean is that I’m going to guess that capitalism (even when it’s in hiding or being oppressed) — and the resulting entrepreneurism and innovations — are more resilient than I appreciate.

What we know:

• There are regular economic cycles.  Ups and downs.  They’re difficult to predict, but we know that they happen, and we know that there’s little we can do about them.
• The current economy will improve.
• Obama’s wasteful “stimulus” isn’t going to do anything to improve the economy.
• In Western democracies, whether the economy is good or bad, voters give far too much credit or blame to their leaders for the current condition of the economy.

What we don’t know:

• When will the economy improve?

To use a phrase from Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post, some of “The Most Important Numbers Today” are 51 and 43.

• According to a recent Rasmussen poll, on the question of which President is blamed by likely voters for the present economy:  “Those not affiliated with either major party are more evenly divided — 51% blame Bush and 43% say Obama.”
• Interestingly, Democrats blame Bush more than Republicans blame Obama:  ”Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Democrats point the finger at Bush while 65% of Republicans say Obama now bears responsibility.”

If the economy remains weak, Unaffiliated and Republican voters will increasingly blame Obama.

Larry Kudlow asked a good question yesterday:  ”Are Republicans too pessimistic about the economy?”

But the fact remains that numerous signs are now pointing to economic recovery. And the GOP needs to craft a smart political response to this. Obama and Biden will surely take credit for the better economic news, just as any White House would. It’s the way the political game is played.

I’ll only add: with some degree of success, will Obama attempt to take credit, if the economy improves under his watch (it’s very likely to improve at some point while he’s President).

Only the most extreme partisan Republicans do not want the economy to improve, in order for it to damage Democrats as much as possible in 2010.  The rest of us look at two situations — the economy, and the state of the GOP — as independent situations, and we want the economy to improve as soon as possible.

But we do want the Republican party to succeed, as well, and the best way for the Republican party to be strengthened in the long-term is not to sit around and wait for the Democrats to completely implode, but to focus on reforming the Republican party.  Of course, reforming the Republican party will mean a principled, conservative/libertarian agenda, and this will, in turn, benefit the American economy.

To conclude:

• Life isn’t fair.  If the economy improves, the Democrats will successfully claim some credit.
• The GOP is going to perform better in 2010 than in either 2006 or 2008, regardless of the economy.  I have little doubt of that.  But if the economy improves soon, that makes it significantly less likely that there will be 1994-like numbers for the GOP.
• Remember that, after 2010, there’s that re-election thing for Obama.  The economy will most likely look better by then.  If the elected GOP Congress is afraid or ashamed of conservatism, as much of it is today, Obama will win re-election.

A non-exhaustive list of solutions for the GOP, in my opinion:

• Be bold.  Speak truth.
• Change leaders, if necessary.
• Don’t be afraid to say “no” when bad ideas are simply bad ideas.  Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander appear impotent, not intellectual or courageous, in supporting the activist Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor.  To use a recent phrase from Obama, this could be a “teachable moment” for Republicans.  Alexander is the 3rd-ranking Republican in the Senate, and that’s a problem.
• Balanced budget amendment.  What happened to that?
• Get rid of at least one branch of government — the in-name-only Department of Education.  What happened to that (Reagan campaigned on it in 1980; Gingrich in 1994)?  Also, I can think of 1-2 more cabinet positions that seem less-than-critical.
• Term limits.  What happened to that?
• Raise money privately to fund the DC voucher program.  I think I read somewhere (probably Redstate) that it costs a whole $15 million/year.  Romney alone could pay for that.
• End earmarks.
• Make itemized spending mandatory, for just about everything under the sun.
• Immigration:  I haven’t heard anybody who will attempt to justify how we can simultaneously have open borders and our generous, costly welfare programs.  Nor have I met anybody who can justify why we should be unconcerned about the national security risk of our open southern border.  There are only so many options here:  enforce the border, and/or prohibit most federal funding going to sanctuary cities, and/or make welfare more of a welfare program and less of an entitlement program.
• Nuclear energy.
• Until we have nuclear plants:  Drill, drill, drill.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former board member at Johnson County Community College.  You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

Pew Research Political Survey

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

• Approve 54% (61%)
• Disapprove 34% (30%)

Among Independents

• Approve 48% (56%)
• Disapprove 37% (29%)

Among Moderate/Liberal Republicans

• Approve 32% (54%)
• Disapprove 57% (39%)

Among 30-to-49-year-olds

• Approve 49% (63%)
• Disapprove 37% (28%)

Among Whites

• Approve 48% (52%)
• Disapprove 41% (38%)

Among White Evangelicals

• Approve 29% (35%)
• Disapprove 60% (55%)

Among Married Men

• Approve 44% (53%)
• Disapprove 45% (39%)

Among Married Women

• Approve 49% (59%)
• Disapprove 40% (35%)

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

• Approve 38% (52%)
• Disapprove 53% (40%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% (56%)

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

• Approve 42% (51%)
• Disapprove 43% (26%)

Among Independents

• Approve 38% (50%)

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

• Approve 47% (57%)
• Disapprove 32% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 43% (63%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 32% (50%)
• Disapprove 53% (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 27% (45%)

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

• Approve 39% (50%)
• Disapprove 42% (33%)

Among Independents

• Approve 31% (45%)

(more…)

For readers living in Kansas or otherwise interested in Kansas politics, I would like to announce the formation of a PAC called Kansans for Reform of State and Local Government.  It is a state-wide PAC, and I do intend on endorsing candidates across the entire state.

Though, because of time limitations, I will first focus most of my energies on Johnson County, where 50% of voters are registered Republican, which has about 20% of the state’s voters, and which has about 30 local government bodies that receive billions in tax dollars.  Our Web site for now will be found at JohnsonCountyReform.com.

According to the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity:

• State and local taxes in Kansas are at an all-time high, and they consume 11.2 percent of our incomes.
• Kansans in all income brackets are fed up with tax increases and government waste.

We will focus heavily on “good-government issues.”  Most of these issues are ones that voters enthusiastically support, but which, unfortunately, most government bodies passionately oppose.  These issues include:

• Income, sales, and property tax reform, including a super-majority requirement (and/or voter approval) in order to increase or create new taxes.
• Property rights.
• Mandatory, detailed spending transparency.
• Compliance with open records laws and open meetings laws.
• Competitive bidding for major contracts.
• Parent-driven school choice, particularly for the poor, for students who have learning disabilities, and for students who are being bullied.
• Opposition to taxpayer-funded lobbying.  At minimum, city councils that refuse to pick up the phone to contact state legislators and, instead, hire taxpayer-funded lobbyists should forfeit all salaries, and the city managers’ salaries should be decreased.
• First-amendment rights for government employees.  In particular, for faculty.  I can give you two cases in the last two years where, in Kansas, the KNEA refuses to represent teachers in cut-and-dry First Amendment-related cases (and where the punishment was overturned after a minimal amount of sunshine and pressure were applied).

One of our first projects will be establishing a fair and consistent rating system for state and local officials.  Before being elected to the Sedgwick County Commission in 2008, the well-respected Karl Peterjohn used to do this with the Kansas legislature through his Kansas Taxpayers Network (later absorbed by Americans for Prosperity).  And there’s never been a voter guide like this for most local offices.

It will likely be non-partisan, for a few reasons:

• All of our local offices are non-partisan.
• Some county offices are non-partisan.
• There do remain a significant number of conservative Democrats in the state, including just north of me in Kansas City, Kansas.
• For various reasons, there are large numbers of conservative voters (some fiscal, some social, some both) who have little patience for either major party, and who are uninterested in participating in our closed primary process.  I would like  to be able to effectively reach these voters.

I welcome your participation and input.  Thank you for your time.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former board member at Johnson County Community College.  You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

Just a few possible ideas:

1.  Allow Bare-Bones Tube TV Plans

This weekend, I stopped by my dad’s house to play with my little brother’s and go fishing.  At some point, I ended up in his newly built home theater- loafing on the plush leather chairs, arranged in stadium seating, and watching Blue Ray episodes of Tru Blood projected onto a 10 by 15 wall.  I’m not going to lie; it’s a pretty fun experience.  Still, I don’t have the several thousand dollars my dad plunked down on the set-up so, when I go back to my own house, I make do with my 20 inch tube TV, and my 20 dollar DVD player.  They do in a pinch.  It strikes me that this kind of model of consumer goods applies to almost everything EXCEPT healthcare.  Folks who want a 8 thousand dollar home theater, stocked with the newest technology, can find all kinds of products to their liking.  Those with more modest means, or tastes, can do as I did; buy the perfectly serviceable 15 year old models for a fraction of the cost.

Or take a look at Dell.com.  They have netbooks for $274 and Alienware gaming laptops for $1799, with a dazzling level of options and customization in between.  In short, most markets have a serious tier system.  That principle should be brought to healthcare.  There’s no reason at all why insurance companies shouldn’t offer low-cost plans that only cover treatments 10 or more years old.  Let’s take diabetes for instance.  The Archives of Internal Medicine report that the cost to treat diabetes has skyrocketed of late.  Why?

The types of medications prescribed shifted—the use of sulfonylurea drugs decreased from 67 percent to 34 percent of treatment visits, while use of newer drugs such as biguanides and glitazones increased, so that by 2007 these agents were prescribed at 54 percent and 28 percent of treatment visits, respectively

The increasing use of glitazones—along with other new treatments, including new forms of insulin and other new classes of drugs—accounted for increases in average cost per prescription (from $56 in 2001 to $76 in 2007) and in overall medication expenditures for those with diabetes (from $6.7 billion in 2001 to $12.5 billion in 2007).

In other words, new and experimental drugs are being used on an increasing number of patients and this is driving up costs.  Another innovation in diabetes treatment, which wasn’t around 20 years ago, is the insulin pump.  This, generally inserted into your hip,  releases insulin at timed intervals.  Convenient but, unfortunately, far more expensive than the traditional needle insulin injections.  There’s no reason at all why there shouldn’t be a wide variety of bare bones plans that fail to cover, at all, the cost of the insulin pump, but provide for basic insulin injections.  Offering these types of plans would move the market for health care insurance into something like alignment with other markets.  You could get your 20 inch tube health care plan for $150 a month, or a $600 a month, state of the art projector health care plan.  Here the government could even take a role, by subsidizing high-deductible, bare-bones plans for the poor.

Why hasn’t there been a move in this direction?  Probably because Americans are adamant about having the best health-care available.  After all, some conservatives might argue, aren’t we so opposed to Obama-care precisely because we oppose rationing?  Not quite.  Government rationing would make it impossible for even Americans who can afford the best care, experimental drugs, etc, to receive it.  Nothing like that is occuring under this scheme.  Those who can afford to buy insulin pumps can still do so.  Those who can’t- as in every other market- can’t.  These folks won’t be receiving stone-age health care; they’ll be presented with the same types of options that almost everyone was given 10 or 15 years ago, when Americans somehow managed to keep from dying from dysentery in the streets.

2.  Lift the Veil That Shields Consumers from Costs

All too often, under the current health care regime, health insurance shields consumers from the costs of procedures.  Some strides have been made in this area; the proliferation of HSA’s and the increase of high-deductible health care plans for instance.  These efforts should be extended where they’ve worked.  But, there are a few other things to be done.  First, make health care costs across hospitals transparent.  You should be able to go online and, in five minutes, find out the average (real) costs to remove a kidney in every hospital in the area, along with data on waiting times, readmission rates, etc.  And the government should reward you- with tax breaks- for choosing hospitals that perform well on these metrics.  Tim Pawlenty has worked on this sort of thing in Minnesota- with the public employees health care plans- to great effect.  Second, reward even those without subsidized plans for following “best practices”; i.e, choosing “value” treatments, over experimental treatments.  Again, if someone wants to follow treatment X, which has a 96% success rate, instead of treatment Y, which has a 94% success rate, but costs half the price, they should be free to do so.  But, we should at least make consumers aware- through tax breaks, electronic “best practices” lists- which treatments best combine affordability and quality.

3.  Get Rid of the Employer Based Health-Care

As John McCain and others have proposed, end the system which rewards those who stay in one job, and penalizes those attempting to switch careers, transition to new fields, or become self-employed entrepreneurs.  Replace the employer-based system with flat tax deductions.

This would be a nigh perfect allegory for the Obama Administration except I don’t think he has realized he needs to go back and read slowly from step #1 just yet.

Edit:  minor tweaks MBL

Check out the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll.

He has been flirting with double digits since Sunday when he first broke that barrier by going to -11.  He briefly came up for air at -8 on Tuesday but returned to -10 yesterday.  Today he is at minus twelve.

This comes at a crucial time for his agenda.  With ObamaCare in trouble, and Cap-and-trade and Card-check legislation both bogged down, these numbers couldn’t come at a worse time.  With the August recess giving the GOP a full month to beat-up on ObamaCare, that is still pending in Congress.  What makes matters worse, all Obama’s normal tricks of the trade don’t seem to be working.  He held a Prime-time Press Conference last week, and has attended several staged “Town-halls”.  The only tangible results have been “Gatesgate”, and plunging number on all majory polls.

Moderate Democrats who hold the balance of power in Congress are getting increasingly antsy.  Why should they stick their necks out voting for programs they can’t defend back in their conservative districts if they cannot rely upon Obama’s star power to carry them to victory?

Plus Republicans smell blood.  With plunging numbers, why should they be afraid of Obama?  Why should they hold back on attacking his key programs over the August recess?

The more I reflect on the various proposals to overhaul the health care system in the United States, the more I begin to wonder if whether or not the solution is to find a way to replicate the old employer-based health insurance system using the consumer-based system that we’re now moving towards. As I’ve discussed in previous pieces on the subject, the problem with health care in America isn’t with the care itself, it’s with the inflated costs and limited access to that care due to a changing economy, in which semi-permanent employment with a single employer who offers a generous, affordable group plan is becoming rarer and rarer, while entrepreneurship, moving from job to job, and self-employment are on the rise in an economy where people study longer, work smarter, and don’t go directly from high school to the GM plant to retirement anymore.

But with the end of the four-decade-long employment at GM (or wherever) comes the end of the efficacy of the current health insurance regime, which only works for everyone if risk can be spread, if people are insured with the same insurer for the majority of their adult lives, and if premiums are split between the insured and employers. As we shift to a consumer-based health insurance market, individuals end up paying higher premiums due to the lack of an employer contribution, which results in individuals going without coverage until they get sick, which leads to insurance companies either refusing to cover their pre-existing conditions, or setting their premiums unreasonably high, or refusing to cover them at all, because doing so would result in a net loss for the company and companies exist to make a profit. These perverse incentives result in folks heading to the emergency room for basic procedures, often being financially destroyed in the process and passing the bill onto you, and have yielded the practice of rescission by insurance companies, which often drop folks from the rolls once they need care the most.

As such, the system is broken because it was designed to operate under a certain set of conditions that no longer exist. It seems that the two logical solutions to the problem, then, are to either design a completely new system that responds to present-day conditions (which I think will happen eventually, but not in the near-future), or to try and re-create the former conditions in today’s society. In other words, one way to fix the system without a major overhaul that scraps health insurance altogether in favor of an alternate health care financing system is to replicate the old employer-based model within the consumer-based health insurance market. That way, we’d basically have an employer-based system without the involvement of employers. How can this be done? It seems to me that the solution is far less revolutionary than it initially appears.

There’s simply no way that a 45-year-old can ever get the same premium from an individual insurer as a 25-year old, or that a chronically ill individual can ever get the same premium as a healthy individual. This is because the company would be losing money by covering these folks, and in order to turn a profit, insurers would either have to raise premiums on everyone else, or price premiums for the older and sicker folks so high that insurance is basically unattainable. Either way, somebody goes without care. But if that 45-year-old was forced to buy insurance when he was a 25-year-old, and if he paid into the plan for two decades, then the insurer would be able to provide him with a premium that he could reasonably afford when he reaches middle age, when things start achin’ and breakin’ (or so I’ve heard). Similarly, if the chronically ill individual of any age was being offset by all the healthy 25-year-olds who were required to buy insurance, insurers would be able to cover the sicker folks among us due to the many healthy folks who would be paying into the system but who would rarely use it. This is essentially the way the employer-based system worked.

As such, insurance companies should be required to “take ya as ya are” and cover individuals with pre-existing conditions and other factors that tend to suggest a bleak health outlook (age, weight, etc.), and should be prevented from rescinding policies absent real, actual, material fraud. In return, individuals should be required to purchase health insurance, with a voucher provided to those who truly can’t afford it. The introduction of the young, healthy folks who are currently absent from the system into the system will allow insurers to continue to turn a profit and will prevent premiums from going up for everybody because of insurers’ new obligation to cover treatment that they otherwise wouldn’t.

In addition to all of this, health insurance has to be portable, i.e., individuals who move from one job to self-employment to another job have to be able to take their health plan with them, so to speak. There are laws on the books now that essentially make this happen with regard to group plans. As far as I understand the issue, as long as no more than 63 days pass between enrollment in one employer-based plan and enrollment in a subsequent employer-based plan, the new plan has to cover all of the conditions that the old plan did. Something like this should be applied across the board, to both the individual and group health insurance markets.

Finally, because membership in professional associations is becoming more permanent than employment, associations should be incentivized to create their own group health plans. If individuals were able to spread the risk throughout the membership of, say, AAA or their state Bar Association, the nation would once again have a model similar to the old employer-based system. Premiums would still be higher in many cases due to the fact that AAA (or whoever) wouldn’t be paying into the system, but the semi-permanence of the plan and the ability to spread risk throughout the organization would presumably lead to more affordable premiums and greater access to coverage for everyone.

Exit question: if centrists on both sides of the aisle in Congress negotiate a health bill that contains many or most of the aforementioned principles but ditch the public plan and the other more left-wing aspects of Obamacare, will the bill become law, and, more importantly, will such a bill be a victory for Obama or a sign that the president’s legislative agenda is significantly to the left of the political center of gravity of the country?

They resort to abuse.

Mitt Romney op-eds on Health Care. His salient points seem to be:

• What’s the rush? Slow Down. It takes time to do it right.
• Don’t pork it up trying to get a mish-mash that everybody hates, but they each get their one slice of the pie they like. If you are going to do it, it must be one comprehensive, cohesive package
• You have to be bi-partisan. Republicans are just as interested in correcting problems in the Health Care system as the Democrats are. Fixing a system this huge and this complex requires all people to be at the table.
• Don’t try to make it a European style single-payer system, even by stealth.

The road to PC police Hell was paved with good White Guilt intentions. The Road from ObamaGates Hell was paved by Obama’s election.

The fact of the election of a Black man by an overwhelmingly Caucasian nation purges the long misplaced white guilt and with it, indulgences for ObamaGates race cards.

For at least the past 25 years, most Americans have been living a post-racial life. Unfortunately, most of the Americans in the Press, Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party haven’t joined us and too many in the Republican Party have lived in fear of being branded racists by the PC police, and so, the majority have been silenced.

The effect of the election of Barack Obama is too end the silence in the face of blacks’ acting the fool and their race hustling apologists of all hues.

My first column in the dead-tree MSM with the Charlotte Observer challenged whites to move beyond white guilt and to treat blacks as equals by holding them to the same standards of behavior as they would other whites.

Sgt. Crowley, his racially diverse colleagues, Republicans, Bill Cosby and Juan Williams refused to indulge the childish behavior of Harvard Professor Henry Gates and were repelled by President Obama’s racial profiling, i.e bigotry against whites and the police.

Crowley refused to apologize; fellow officers of all major racial groups vouched for his character; a black female officer and Obama voter vowed never to vote for him again; many Republicans eschewed the usual “on the one hand, on the other hand” beltway gobbledygook; and Bill Cosby denounced Obama’s uninformed playing of the race card. Juan Williams called the President a liar.

It takes some level of courage to publicly challenge a President that stands between his (banker) enemies and the pitchforks!

The presumption of guilt against whites is impossible to maintain in the first nation in  history to elect a minority to its highest office, and given the stakes of war and peace and one’s wallet, the days of lip-biting indulgence of leftist racial BS are over!

How dare you not recognize me

The Professor’s face is well-known to the elites in Cambridge, Mass., and C-Span policy wonks. He imagines his visage must be venerated in all the homes of his Harvard hometown. He also thinks the vulgar rap lyrics of 2LiveCrew are the 20th Century equivalent of William Shakespeare reincarnated in Robert Burns’ body, but I digress.

The eminent “scholar” resorted to yo’ mama dozens when the protector of his property dared not recognize him, despite the fact that the chiseling of Gates bust had only just begun at Mount Rushmore…

Rev Wright’s G-D KKK America and Michelle’s down right mean country

I read Obama’s two biographies; understood the obvious import of the 20-year pew-parked butt and learned in the alternative media of his dismissal of voter intimidation charges against New Black Panther Party thugs in Philly, so I wasn’t shocked at Mr. Barack Too Cool for School’s racial profiling of a white cop.

Barack Hussein Obama is an angry at White America, middle aged man. Period.

Pinocc-ear-o

And he is increasingly seen as a liar by more and more Americans post non-Stimulus bill and health care bill surprises.

Moreover, given his nomination of a Sonia Sotomayor that denied earned promotions to white and Hispanic firefighters because they weren’t black, and given even liberals’ revulsion at the thought of being denied advancement due to their race or gender, the President is increasingly being seen for the angry, leftist he is.

He and Sotomayor are out of step with whites and blacks that are weary of rolling their eyes in silence at the ridiculous court manufactured concepts of “disparate impact”, “institutional” racism, and diversity, as excuses for American self loathing.

Do we want to catch burglars or not?

I cringe when I listen to liberals bemoan the suggestion that criminal suspects not be fully and accurately described so that they can be apprehended. General Honore had it right with the media after Katrina and it applies to the race hustling left: They are stuck on stupid.

Oh yes, there is huge hole in Manhattan and 3000 are dead. Yes, we saw 18 guys that were, variously 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet 2 inches in height; weighing from 170-220 pounds; with short well coiffed hair.

Go get ‘em! Oh, what color were they? Why, what good would that do in capturing them?

Stupid! Call it stupid. Don’t fear the PC police.

Handcuffs

The President and others bemoan the fact that Yo’Mama Gates was handcuffed? Does Obama and the left not understand that most police departments long ago adopted policies of handcuffing all those arrested for the very reason of not wanting to be accused of favoritism based on, among other things…race!

Wonder if Gates will have to miss his next hectoring session at the National Press Club due to wrist injuries?

Please!

Americans have no more patience for blacks acting the fool. If OJ gets paroled tomorrow and kills another blond woman and a thin white man, there will be no more silence if blacks  with glazed over eyes claim the blood was from a rare T-bone. We will call them fools this time. I actually did the first time.

Treating a group like children for 40 years, as the the Left, Democratic Party, Media, Academia and the Press have, will produce child like actors named Gates and we will be saddled with them for a time. But that these incidents occur doesn’t define if we are a post-racial society or not.

How We the People react decides that verdict.

And don’t confuse America with its pathetic press.

America needed the JFK style Affirmative action that sought out qualified blacks and many whites needed to be shamed into changing, but it was never right for courts and the government to construct legal fictions and impose such change.

We the People did the job just fine in spite of the Left.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Pay special attention to 4:40 where Katrina whoever accuses Ryan of being an anti-American commie bastard for…not supporting a public option.  Hysterical.  Ryan’s long been my second favorite choice for VP, after Jindal, and these kind of performances reinforce that feeling.

H/t Hotair

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

In case you missed it, although you probably do not care, the beltway cable news pundits have decided to declare a rhetorical war on one another.  Ironically enough…it was all a misunderstanding.  

Maddow called Dobbs a racist for saying Obama was not a citizen.  Dobbs called Maddow a tea-bagger (the urban dictionary version).  Dobbs thanked O’Reilly for standing up for him.  O’Reilly accused Dobbs of skulking for ratings.  Todd called for the firing of Beck.  Beck accused Obama of racism.  Schultz called Beck a ‘hate merchant’.  Fox accused MSNBC and CNN of promoting everything Obama.  CNN’s Martin compared those who are requesting a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, to Holocaust deniers. The President’s of the three networks are denying anything is wrong.

To think, all of this began because a liberal blog purposely mis-stated that Lou Dobbs denied the truth of Obama’s US citizenship.  He didn’t deny it…he just wanted the document released for transparency. The network hosts are spending so much time talking about one another, you’d think they would actually read the transcripts, instead of relying on second-hand gossip from a teenager with 640k of memory.                   

A famous performer better overdose soon, because I cannot watch a second more of this ego-fed slander war, between;

…the communists at CNN, the right-wingers at Fox and the liars at MSNBC.

________________________________________________________________

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

Sarah Palin does not have the gift of the gab. She is not glib. It was to a large extent Obama’s glibness that got him elected. But what Palin has that Obama doesn’t are  policies based on sound principles well worth carrying out, and the competence to do so.   She knows how to value and use freedom, and she is honest, decent, and efficient. These are qualities of gold.  Obama has none of them.

The speech she made Sunday July 26 when she stepped down as governor of Alaska was not well crafted. It probably sent no thrills up anybody’s leg. She struck no poses. She did not give the impression of being ‘above it all’. (The Huffington Post sneered at it.) But it testified to her strong character, her bold vision, and her solid achievements.

She listed the promises she’d made – and fulfilled: ethics reform; a fair return for Alaskans on the exploitation of their natural resources; protection of the environment; increased funding for, and improvements in education, including better opportunities for special needs students; managing fish and wildlife for abundance; producing energy solutions, getting a natural gas pipeline underway; and defending the constitution.  She was able to report in truth to Alaskans, ‘WHAT I PROMISED, WE ACCOMPLISHED.’ (Notice the ‘we’ – she gives credit to the many who helped her achievement.)

She went on:

So much success! And Alaska there is much good in store further down the road, but to reach it we must value and live the optimistic pioneering spirit that made this state proud and free. We can resist enslavement to big central government that crushes hope and opportunity. Be wary of accepting government largesse. It doesn’t come free , and often accepting it takes away everything that is free. Melting into Washington’s powerful “care-taking” arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free.

I resisted the stimulus package. I resisted the stimulus package and we have championed earmark reform, slashing earmark requests by 85% to break the cycle of dependency on a stifling, unsustainable federal agenda, and other states should follow this for their and for America’s stability. We don’t have to feel that we must beg an allowance from Washington, except to beg the allowance to be self-determined. See, to be self-sufficient, Alaska must be allowed to develop – to drill and build and climb, to fulfill statehood’s promise. At statehood we knew this. At statehood we knew this, that we are responsible for ourselves and our families and our future, and fifty years later, please let’s not start believing that government is the answer. It can’t make you happy or healthy or wealthy or wise. What can? It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals …

Alaskans will remember that years ago, remember we sported the old bumper sticker that said, “Alaska. We Don’t Give a Darn How They Do It Outside?” Do you remember that? I remember that, and remember it was because we would be different. We’d roll up our sleeves, and we would diligently sow and reap, and we can still do this to carve wealth out of the wilderness and make our living on the water, with strong hands and innovative minds, and now with smarter technology. It is what our first people and our parents did. It worked, because they worked. We must be prudent and persistent and press for the people’s right to responsibly develop God-given resources for the maximum benefit of the people.

And we have come so far in just 50 years. We’re no longer a frontier outpost on the periphery of the world’s greatest nation. Now, as a contributor and a securer of America, we can attain our destiny in the promise of our motto “North to the Future.” See, the pressing issue of our time, it’s energy independence, because there is an inherent link between energy and security, and energy and prosperity. Alaska will lead with energy, we will prove you can be both pro-development and pro-environment, because no one loves their clean air and their land and their wildlife and their water more than an Alaskan. We will protect it.

Yes, America must look north to the future for security, for energy independence, for our strategic location on the globe. Alaska is the gate-keeper of the continent…

She vowed ‘to fight harder for what is right’. She never felt, she said, that it was necessary to have a title to do that.

True, she needs to learn more about foreign affairs (as do Obama and Hillary Clinton). And she needs a good speech writer. But these are lacks that can be supplied. She already has what is essential for a great political leader – vision, confidence, competence, integrity, an ability to inspire others, and a profound understanding of what has made America the greatest and freest nation, along with the determination to keep it so. And that means she could be a worthy candidate for the presidency.

___________________________

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative.

We are pleased to announce the two newest editions to the Race42012 team, Jillian Becker and Kelly H. Estes.

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative, started in May 2008. In January 2007 she moved to the US from England, where she had been Director of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism from 1985 to1990. She has contributed to numerous newspapers and periodicals on both sides of the Atlantic. Her published books are both fiction and non-fiction, and her writing on terrorism has been translated into many languages. She is a long-standing council member of The Freedom Association.  Jillian’s Wikipedia page.

Kelly H. Estes is a political and financial blogger.  She is a former award-winning newspaper journalist with a passion for politics.  Kelly has a BA (double major) in English and Communications, with emphasis in journalism from Jackson University (Jacksonville, FL).  Kelly was editor-in-chief of the Navigator, the college newspaper at JU.  Following graduation, Kelly spent a couple of years as a newspaper journalist and now is a freelance blogger/writer.
Welcoming to the R42012 team, Jillian and Kelly!

Yes – you read that correctly. Somebody bombed the car of a political adviser to adult entertainer turned Senate candidate Stormy Daniels – luckily nobody was hurt.

UPDATE: Daniels herself was arrested today in Florida on a domestic violence charge. Apparently she hit her husband in the head several times, thew a potted plant at the sink, threw a wedding album on the floor, and knocked some candles off a table. Neither of them were hurt, so I’d be interested in hearing how hard she “hit” him. Either way, heck of a week for the Daniels campaign.

Buckle up Louisiana, it looks like you’re in for quite a ride.

CBS News/New York Times Political Survey

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

• Approve 58%
• Disapprove 30%

Among Independents

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 33%

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

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 41%

Among Independents

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 46%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 43%

Among Independents

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 45%

So far, do you think the federal government’s stimulus package has made the economy better, made the economy worse, or has it had no impact on the economy so far?

• Better 25%
• Worse 13%
• No impact 57%

Among Independents

• Better 21%
• Worse 13%
• No impact 62%

Do you think the federal government’s stimulus package has made the economy in your local community better, made the economy in your local community worse, or has it had no impact on the economy in your local community so far?

• Better 19%
• Worse 12%
• No impact 65%

Among Independents

• Better 13%
• Worse 14%
• No impact 68%

In the long run, do you think the federal government’s stimulus package will make the economy better, will make the economy worse, or will it have no impact on the economy in the long run?

• Better 44%
• Worse 22%
• No impact 28%

Among Independents

• Better 42%
• Worse 24%
• No impact 28%

In the long run, do you think the federal government’s stimulus package will make the economy in your local community better, will make the economy in your local community worse, or will it have no impact on the economy in your local community in the long run?

• Better 44%
• Worse 13%
• No impact 37%

Among Independents

• Better 41%
• Worse 17%
• No impact 37%

From what you know so far, which comes closest to your own view? 1. the economic stimulus package has already created a substantial number of new jobs in the U.S. OR 2. it will create a substantial number of new jobs but hasn’t done that yet OR 3. it will not create a substantial number of new jobs?

• Has already created jobs 4%
• Will create jobs 53%
• Will not create new jobs 41%

Earlier this year, Congress passed a nearly 800 billion dollar stimulus package in order to get the economy back on track. Some people say the stimulus package was not large enough, others say it was too large. In the months ahead, if things continue the way they are now, would you favor or oppose the government spending additional money on another stimulus package?

• Favor 27%
• Oppose 65%

Among Independents

• Favor 23%
• Oppose 68%

Would you favor or oppose another stimulus package, if passing an additional stimulus package meant that the federal budget deficit would increase?

• Favor 18%
• Oppose 74%

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 35%
• Reduce budget deficit 58%

(more…)

I’ve got to speak out and at last join and share the outrage of many moderates with a female politicians who chose to abandon her post. This woman has sacrificed every shred of credibility she has and abandoned the post she took on for the great people of her state. It’s confusing, bewildering, and no one will take her seriously again.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson is now a joke. How can you have a political career after resigning from any office for any reason. Oh wait, Kay is a pro-choice moderate challenging a conservative Governor. Never mind…

NBC/Wall Street Journal Political Survey

Would you like to see Sarah Palin as president some day, or not?

• Would like to see 21%
• Would not like to see 67%

Would you like to see Mitt Romney as president some day, or not?

• Would like to see 24%
• Would not like to see 50%

Positive / Negative (Net)

• Hillary Clinton 53% / 31% [+22%]
• Barack Obama 55% (60%) / 34% (29%) [+21%]
• Mitt Romney 28% / 20% [+8%]
• Democratic Party 42% (45%) / 37% (37%) [+5%]
• Sonia Sotomayor 31% (30%) / 27% (16%) [+4%]
• Joe Biden 38% / 36% [+2%]
• Sarah Palin 32% (32%) / 43% (38%) [-11%]
• Republican Party 28% (25%) / 41% (44%) [-13%]
• Nancy Pelosi 25% (24%) / 44% (46%) [-19%]

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 24% / 16% [+8%]
• Sarah Palin 28% / 39% [-11%]

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 53% (56%)
• Disapprove 40% (34%)

Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy?

• Approve 49% (51%)
• Disapprove 44% (38%)

Do you think that the recently passed economic stimulus legislation is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 34% (37%)
• Bad idea 43% (39%)

Do you think that the recently passed economic stimulus legislation is beginning to help improve the economy, will help improve the economy in the future, or will it not help improve the economy?

• Beginning to help improve the economy 16%
• Will help improve the economy 32%
• Will not help improve the economy 38%

Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the issue of health care reform?

• Approve 41%
• Disapprove 46%

From what you have heard about Barack Obama’s health care plan, do you think his plan is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 36% (33%)
• Bad idea 42% (32%)

And from what you have heard about Barack Obama’s health care plan, do you believe it will result in the quality of your health care getting better, worse, or staying about the same as now?

• Quality will get better 21% (22%)
• Quality will get worse 39% (24%)
• Quality will stay the same 29% (29%)

(more…)

From MSNBC.com:

WASHINGTON – Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation’s health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Pluralities now say that the president’s health care plan is a bad idea, and that it will result in the quality of their care getting worse. What’s more, just four in 10 approve of his handling on the issue.

The poll also finds that Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped to 53 percent. And it shows a public that has grown increasingly concerned about the federal government’s spending as the administration defends its $787 billion economic stimulus and supports a $1 trillion-plus health-care bill.

Read the whole story here.

Here we go. She sees her poll numbers slipping and has decided she’d like to campaign full-time:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-Texas) announcement that she will resign her seat this fall sets off a rare Senate special election next spring.

“The actual leaving of the Senate will be sometime — October, November — that, in that time frame,” Hutchison told Mark Davis, a conservative talk radio host in Dallas, this morning.

Hutchison had long been expected to resign from the Senate to focus full time on her challenge to Gov. Rick Perry (R) in next March’s primary although some national Republicans held out hope that she might stay in the Senate. (She doesn’t have to resign to run thanks to Fix Political Hall of Fame member Lyndon Baines Johnson.)

When Hutchison makes her resignation official, Gov. Rick Perry (R) could — and Republicans observers believe will — appoint a successor for the few months before what is expected to be a May primary to coincide with already scheduled municipal elections. (Predicting who Perry might pick is a fool’s errand given that the choice will be so freighted with calculations about his gubernatorial fight against Hutchison.)

Interesting.

I support Hutchison in this race, whole-heartedly. Rick Perry is a liability to the party and a favorite of the Confederate-loving wing of the party. Hutchison’s chances of winning are probably low at this point, given that Perry’s catering to the base in Texas and Obama is getting a backlash (which will only get worse in the coming months), but Hutchison is a more popular figure overall. Still, with Perry as being more of the outsider/anti-Obama-type, it seems unlikely that he’ll lose. Still, I hope that Hutchison can pull this off.

Two recent Pawlenty interviews.  In the first, from last night, Pawlenty wades once more into the healthcare debate, specifically clarifying his criticisms of Masscare (and Romney).  In the second, he addresses Palin’s resignation.

Any thoughts on his proposed reforms to healthcare?  I’m in almost total agreement, but I think he’s probably wrong on the pre-existing conditions reform.  If he means that insurance companies should have to insure those with pre-existing conditions…well, that’s a debatable but plausible reform proposal.  It would be absolute mistake, however, to require insurance companies to offer the same rates to those with pre-existing conditions.  The Massachusetts plan, which Pawlenty rightly derides, shows the folly of this approach.  Because the Massachusetts market doesn’t penalize individuals for pre-existing conditions, folks are waiting until they get sick to purchase insurance, running up a variety of medical expenses over a few months, and then dropping the coverage and paying the fees the plan imposes.

A genuine free market would adequately punish people for not getting insurance BEFORE they get sick, by charging them higher premiums for…yes, pre-existing conditions.  A market which did this efficiently enough- wedded to certain government reforms- could mitigate some of the adverse selection difficulties without the heavy restraints of Obamacare or Masscare.  For instance, what if, in addition to allowing insurance companies to charge higher rates for most pre-existing conditions, the government offered tax credits of some sort to folks who’d owned an insurance policy (any insurance policy) for a certain percentage of their adult life?  So a 25 year old male, looking to logically hold off on insurance until it makes financial sense (i.e, until the actuarial tables start putting him at risk for various expensive things), will have dual incentives to sign up early; he won’t end up paying higher rates if he gets sick, and he’ll get money back every year for being a “consistent” contributer” to the health insurance system.

Financial Times has an opinion piece on California’s budget crisis that I found very interesting. Give it a read.

There were two specific passages that struck me – if only as pithy expressions of truths I see as obvious. One is the description of how Californians have abused direct democracy:

In voting on “propositions” … citizens of the Golden State have stood up consistently for two principles: the state should provide vastly more services to its citizens, and citizens should pay vastly less to the state.

That’s a perfectly rational way to act, of course. If you ask me if you can give me something, of course I’ll say yes. If you ask me if I want to pay for it, of course I’ll say no. Perfectly rational – though totally irresponsible. Such thinking, however irresponsible, is widespread, and not just in California.

We had a classic case of it a couple years ago in the little community where I live in the Chicago suburbs. In the nineties our local school board behaved very irresponsibly and got into a tremendous amount of debt. Because our community has no industry and no retail bigger than grocery stores, our tax base is entirely residential and property taxes are extremely high; residents therefore have resisted school tax increases (which are proposed every election), so spending had to be cut and the debt has been being paid down slowly for the past ten or twelve years, but is still substantial.

A couple years ago, the proposal for increasing taxes was once again put on the ballot, together with a proposal to replace the existing high school, at a cost of several million dollars. When looked at together, there were four possible ways I could vote, three of which made sense:

• I could vote No on taxes and No on the building plan, reasoning that we didn’t need a new campus, at least for now, and that we could continue paying down the debt slowly.

• I could vote Yes on taxes and No on the building plan, reasoning that we didn’t need a new campus, but that we should be paying down the debt more quickly.

• I could vote Yes on taxes and Yes on the building plan, reasoning that we needed a new campus, and that with that added expense, it was necessary to increase taxes.

• I could vote No on taxes and Yes on the building plan … oh, wait, no I couldn’t, unless I was reasoning that we needed a new campus, but I didn’t feel like paying for it.

Can you guess the results of the election?

The second item of interest in the FT article was this assessment of our two parties:

It is an enduring mystery why US pundits should see a difference between the philosophy of Democrats (who stand for spending more than you raise) and the Republicans (who stand for raising less than you spend).

It stung, because it’s too close to the truth. There was a time when Republicans believed in fiscal responsibility, but the brand was severely tarnished, if not destroyed, by the behavior of George Bush and the Republican congressional leaders of recent years.

GWU Battleground 2009 Political Survey

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President? Do you approve or disapprove of the job he is doing?

• Strongly Approve 40%
• Somewhat Approve 13%
• Somewhat Disapprove 5%
• Strongly Disapprove 37%

Among Independents

• Strongly Approve 27%
• Somewhat Approve 15%
• Somewhat Disapprove 7%
• Strongly Disapprove 43%

Among Men

• Strongly Approve 34%
• Somewhat Approve 15%
• Somewhat Disapprove 5%
• Strongly Disapprove 41%

Whether you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President, what is your impression of Barack Obama as a person? Do you approve or disapprove of him?

• Approve 72%
• Disapprove 20%

How would you rate the job Congress has been doing this year? Do you approve or disapprove of the job they are doing?

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 57%

Among Independents

• Approve 21%
• Disapprove 71%

If the election for Congress were being held today, and you had to make a choice, would you be voting for the Republican candidate or the Democrat candidate in your Congressional district?

• Democrat candidate 43%
• Republican candidate 40%

*Note: Among the 60% most likely to turnout on Election Day, 45% choose the Republican candidate, followed by 40% Democrat and 16% Undecided.

Do you prefer to have:

• Divided government where Congress is controlled by one party and the White House is controlled by a different political party. 41%
• Unified government where Congress and the White House are controlled by the same political party. 39%

Among Republicans

• Divided government 56%
• Unified government 26%

Among Independents

• Divided government 53%
• Unified government 29%

Among Democrats

• Divided government 22%
• Unified government 55%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Barack Obama 61% / 36% (+25%)
• Joe Biden 49% / 38% (+11%)
• Democrats in Congress 46% / 44% (+2%)
• Sarah Palin 42% / 47% (-5%)
• Republicans in Congress 37% / 48% (-11%)
• Harry Reid 15% / 31% (-16%)
• Nancy Pelosi 32% / 51% (-19%)

Among Independents

• Democrats in Congress 36% / 52% (-16%)
• Republicans in Congress 27% / 57% (-30%)

Who do you think will better handle this issue — Republicans in Congress or Democrats in Congress?

Holding down taxes

• Republicans in Congress 53%
• Democrats in Congress 29%

Promoting a strong national defense

• Republicans in Congress 53%
• Democrats in Congress 33%

Controlling wasteful spending

• Republicans in Congress 41%
• Democrats in Congress 33%

Reforming health care

• Democrats in Congress 51%
• Republicans in Congress 30%

Turning the economy around

• Democrats in Congress 47%
• Republicans in Congress 33%

Defending middle class values

• Democrats in Congress 48%
• Republicans in Congress 35%

Being honest and trustworthy

• Democrats in Congress 38%
• Republicans in Congress 27%

Promoting energy independence

• Democrats in Congress 49%
• Republicans in Congress 33%

Sharing your values

• Democrats in Congress 42%
• Republicans in Congress 40%

(more…)