If the latest Survey USA poll is to be believed, that would be the case. SUSA has the GOP candidates winning in the race for Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General – and winning each race by double digits. Here are the top lines:

Survey USA Virginia Governor General Election Matchup

• McDonnell – 55%
• Deeds – 40%

Lt. Governor General Election Matchup

• Bolling – 54%
• Wagner – 42%

Attorney General Matchup

• Cuccinelli – 53%
• Shannon – 42%

Survey of 526 likely voters was taken July 27-28.

There’s plenty of crosstab goodies in there, so click over to check them all out. SUSA’s highlights show that all three Republicans have over 50% in every region of the state.

I am beginning to suspect so. 

Voters gave President Obama the benefit of the doubt when questions were raised regarding his relationships with known anti-Semites and racist Pastors and community activists, but it is his own actions and words that are beginning to raise concerns about President Obama’s own impartiality towards ethnicity, culture and faith.

Obama is favoring Arab nations over our brothers in Israel and he immediately attacks the Cambridge police, all in an effort to defend his close friend, who himself has made radical statements on race, Malcolm X and people of non-color.

“You Could Never Trust White People:”

Here are Beck and Malkin’s take on the controversial issue.   

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvYtH2ka-7g[/youtube]

__________________________________________________________________________

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

Is Norm Coleman running for governor? Eh…ask him again in March:

Norm Coleman isn’t quite ready to make another run for office — but isn’t ready to say he’s not running, either.

Coleman, a former Republican senator who lost re-election to Democrat Al Franken after a battle that lasted eight months past Election Day, said Monday: “I clearly do not intend to rule out anything.”

He said he’s going to wait to decide whether he will run for Minnesota’s open governor’s seat in 2010. Spokesman Tom Erickson said Coleman will announce that decision in March or April.

“After enduring the longest election campaign in Minnesota history, I am not looking to break the record by starting another anytime soon. I intend to do a lot of fishing, spend time with my family and make a living,” Coleman said. He has not said whether he has a new job lined up, but that might be disclosed soon.

If he sticks to his intended timeline and decides to run, he would be jumping in almost two years after some candidates began making their pitches to replace Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who will step down next year after his second term is complete.

Republicans who have already made moves to run include former state Auditor Pat Anderson; state Sens. David Hann and Mike Jungbauer; state Reps. Tom Emmer, Paul Kohls and Marty Seifert; and former state Rep. Bill Haas.

He needs time, of course, to see how the stigma he acquired in the post-election fight wears over time. He needs to feel out support within the state party. He needs to get some internal polling done. He needs to see where Pawlenty’s loyalty lies. He needs to see how the Democratic primary field shapes up. So on and so forth. Big-name candidates like Coleman can afford to wait. And hey — he’s still the guy who beat Walter Mondale, even after Paul Wellstone died.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/NPR Political Survey

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

• Strongly approve 33%
• Somewhat approve 20%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 34%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing?

• Strongly approve 7%
• Somewhat approve 25%
• Somewhat disapprove 19%
• Strongly disapprove 42%

I know it is a long way off, but thinking about the elections in 2010, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your district where you live?

• Republican candidate 43%
• Democratic candidate 42%

Now, on a scale of 0 to 10, tell me how good a job you think the Democratic Party/Republican Party is doing addressing the country’s priorities so far this year with 10 meaning a very good job and 0 meaning a very bad job.

• Democratic Party 4.4
• Republican Party 3.9

I’m going to read you some pairs of statements. After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

• President Obama’s economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis, and are laying the foundation for our eventual economic recovery. 45%
• President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses. 48%

(more…)

What is (or should be) the first goal of conservatives in elections?  To elect the most conservative person on the ballot, right?  Sure, not everyone can be satisfied with every position a candidate holds, but if he (or she) is signficantly better than the alternative(s), it should be an easy choice.

Unfortunately, too many people don’t realize that life will go on if their candidate isn’t the one to make it to the ballot, and we’d be better off electing a candidate who wasn’t our first choice in favor of someone who is diametrically opposed to us.  Hense, we have people who threaten (and do) stay home during elections or, even worse, cut off their nose to spite their face and vote for the other guy.  Going one step further, some people go personal against a member of their party, reinforcing negatives not just on the hated candidate, but on the entire party itself.

Are there instances where people should attack their own, if that person’s very presence in the party is a hindrance?  Yes, I could see, for instance, standing up and renouncing a David Duke, a Charles Manson, or some other equally disreputable individual.  Do any of the “Big 25″ deserve such denunciation?  I can’t think of a single one.  Mind you, there are several that I think would be wrong for the party to nominate for dog catcher, but none of them deserve personal smears on their religion, their kids, or any number of other non-policy stances.

While it’s certainly bad form politically, it’s also awful on a personal level.  I mean really, how do you justify treating a fairly mainstream religion (and represented disproportionately by good people) like a bunch of lepers for the sole purpose of opposing Gov Romney?  How do you sleep at night, justifying the dragging of Gov Palin’s kids through the mud, on the basis that she *gasp* brought them on stage with her and acknowledged she had them in speeches, as if she’s the first politician to ever do it?  It’s sick.  Just as bad, why would you constantly make snide comments about a candidate with no substance behind them?  Not only do you drag that candidate down, but you take the party with them.  For your personal quest for political blood, you will sacrifice the ability to gain enough seats to ever hope at enacting the legislation you want passed.

Wise up, those of you who spew hate against other candidates of your own party.  You just may succeed in pushing the agenda…of the other party.

PPP (D) New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 50% (51%)
• Jon Corzine 36% (41%)
• Undecided 14% (9%)

Among Men

• Chris Christie 56% (61%)
• Jon Corzine 34% (33%)

Among Women

• Chris Christie 45% (42%)
• Jon Corzine 38% (48%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 54% (60%)
• Jon Corzine 26% (26%)

Among Republicans

• Chris Christie 86% (93%)
• Jon Corzine 6% (3%)

Among Democrats

• Jon Corzine 64% (75%)
• Chris Christie 20% (16%)

Among Whites

• Chris Christie 55% (60%)
• Jon Corzine 32% (33%)

Among Moderates

• Chris Christie 43% (47%)
• Jon Corzine 41% (42%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 42% (43%) / 32% (33%) [+10%]
• Jon Corzine 33% (36%) / 56% (56%) [-23%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 47% (46%) / 26% (28%) [+21%]
• Jon Corzine 29% (24%) / 61% (70%) [-32%]

Among Men

• Chris Christie 47% (52%) / 32% (26%) [+15%]
• Jon Corzine 35% (30%) / 56% (63%) [-21%]

Among Women

• Chris Christie 38% (34%) / 32% (38%) [+6%]
• Jon Corzine 32% (42%) / 55% (50%) [-23%]

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 53%
• Disapprove 39%

Among Independents

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 42%

Did Barack Obama coming to campaign for Jon Corzine make you more or less likely to vote for Corzine, or did it not make a difference?

• More likely 18%
• Less likely 32%
• No difference 51%

Among Independents

• More likely 9%
• Less likely 34%
• No difference 57%

If Sarah Palin came to New Jersey to campaign for Chris Christie would that make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it not make a difference?

• More likely 19%
• Less likely 42%
• No difference 38%

Among Independents

• More likely 20%
• Less likely 36%
• No difference 44%

Among Republicans

• More likely 32%
• Less likely 28%
• No difference 40%

Survey of 552 voters was conducted July 24-27. The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% (43%) (D); 32% (30%) (R); 26% (27%) (I). Political ideology breakdown: 59% (51%) Moderate; 27% (28%) Conservative; 13% (21%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted June 27-29 are in parentheses.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics 2012 GOP Nomination (UPDATED)

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 22% (18%)
• Mike Huckabee 21% (20%)
• Sarah Palin 17% (13%)
• Rudy Giuliani 13% (12%)
• Newt Gingrich 9% (14%)
• Bobby Jindal 3% (3%)
• Jeb Bush 1% (3%)
• Tim Pawlenty 1%
• Mark Sanford 0% (4%)
• Too soon to say 10% (7%)

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 22% (12%)
• Rudy Giuliani 16% (19%)
• Mike Huckabee 15% (16%)
• Sarah Palin 13% (10%)
• Mark Sanford 5% (2%)
• Newt Gingrich 3% (5%)
• Bobby Jindal 3% (2%)
• Jeb Bush 2% (2%)
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Too soon to say 8% (14%)

Among Republicans/Independents (Combined)

• Mitt Romney 22.0%
• Mike Huckabee 18.8%
• Sarah Palin 15.5%
• Rudy Giuliani 14.1%
• Newt Gingrich 6.8%
• Bobby Jindal 3.0%
• Mark Sanford 1.9%
• Jeb Bush 1.4%
• Tim Pawlenty 1.4%
• Too soon to say 9.3%

(more…)

A slow day, so I’ll post again — on something nice, fun, and controversial. This one has undercurrents of elitism, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.

William F. Buckley is famous for saying that he would rather be governed by the first thousand names in the phone book than by the Harvard faculty. There are two ways of reading this: the commoner reads it and says “Hah! Those elites don’t know what they’re doing. The wisdom of the common man is always preferable.” The conservative elitist reads it and knows what Buckley actually meant: that the Harvard faculty is comprised mainly of ‘intellectual morons’ — people who, in Ben Franklin’s words, can talk about horses in nine different languages but are so dumb that they buy a cow to ride on. He was insulting them by comparing them to random plebes — by saying that even the herd is better than their pseudo-intellectual idiocy. Certainly, Buckley was no exponent of home-spun folk wisdom.

Buckley was a celebrated wit, an intellectual, and, as I understand it, a bit of a misanthrope. He had nothing in common culturally with Sarah Palin and probably would have defended her — as I did — only to the extent that she’s better than Barack Obama — an intellectual moron — and that the media savaged her.

His quote, moreover, is not the end of our choices. We can reject both the Harvard faculty and the first thousand names in the phone book, and take exceptional leaders cut from a conservative, classical liberal, or libertarian mold. There’s more to the political world than the Liberal Elites and Joe Six-Pack.

Rasmussen today demonstrates further evidence that among independents, there’s movement away from Democrats and towards Republicans.  Rasmussen shows a consistent 3-4-point preference amont likely voters, in favor of Republicans.  Right now, it’s 42-39%.  That is good news, without a doubt.

But I want to see a consistent 45-35% in favor of Republicans.  I think we can do that.

I remain concerned that:

1. Democrats deserve more credit than Republicans, and voters are more turned off by Democrats than attracted to the Republican brand.
2. A common reaction from Republicans will merely be: Sit and wait for independents to come back to Republicans.
   1. A.  Policy-wise, this is obviously not a strategy.
   2. B.  But also from a purely political strategy, this will minimize the level of Congressional victories, for two reasons:
      1. Reliable-voting independents do want to see — well, change.  But do they merely see two 90%-identical political parties?
      2. Bush’s 2004 election and, particularly, Obama’s 2008 election demonstrated the importance of maximizing your base.  A 1-2% increase in otherwise-not-voting conservative independents in 2010, and spread nation-wide, will produce a tremendous result.
3. What does the Republican brand mean to independents?  Does it merely mean a socially conservative version of Democrats, with most of the same:
   1. A.  wasteful spending,
   2. B.  financial hand-outs to a few inefficient large corporations while ignoring responsible businesses,
   3. C.  corruption,
   4. D.  energy dependence (answer: build nuclear, drill in the meantime),
   5. E.  and the exact same “education” policies, with regular no-strings-attached blank checks written to monopolistic labor-union-drive schools (answer: law mandating 10-year phase-out of of Dept. of Ed, returning all K-12 policies and funding to states).
4. Notes:
   1. A.  I am pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and I am not suggesting that Republicans talk less about social conservativism (for policy or strategic reasons).  I am suggesting that Republicans talk — and act — more on economic conservatism. I’ll point out that the functional result will be, proportionally, less talk about social conservatism.
   2. B.  In 2006 — both in DC and in the Kansas legislature — the members of the Republican majority were pro-life but not fiscally conservative, and this will not change without an intentional, persistent effort.  The government worker labor unions are extremely powerful, and it’s tough to find elected officials who will stand up to them.
   3. C.  I am a supporter of the Club for Growth-type mindset that, sometimes, liberal Republicans simply need to be removed from office, through the primary system.

For your information, here are lists of generic ballot polls arranged by PollingReport.com:

• 2002
• 2004
• 2006
• 2008
• 2010
• 2010 (Real Clear Politics)

Here are the numbers from Rasmussen, after the fold: (more…)

It’s a slow news day. Let’s talk about something interesting. I’ve been reading a lot of philosophy lately, including works of Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle, Aquinas (eat your heart out, MWS), Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hayek and Rand, in addition to reference works about the major ideas of the past. I’ll get on certain ‘kicks’ here and there in my reading, and this happens to be it right now.

Since it’s a slow day, I’ll just throw out some miscellany.

—

Here are a few fun paradoxes and confounding thoughts that I’ve encountered while reading:

1. The ‘heap paradox.’ A pile of a million grains of sand could be described as a heap, right? And one pile of sand can’t really make the difference between a heap and a non-heap, right? So 999,999 is still a heap. And so is 999,998…and so on and so forth…500,000 still is…200,000…1,000? 50? A series of what seem to be logically coherent steps leads us to a nonsensical conclusion. But when did it stop becoming a heap? At, say, 50,000? Oh, so 49,999 isn’t a heap, then? This paradox demonstrates how we arbitrarily use language to describe things — and how arbitrary cut-off points can be.

2. The Problem of the Trolley: There are five people tied down, about to be run over by a trolley. However, you can flip a switch and the trolley will change course, running over one person instead. What do you do? Most would say that flipping the switch is appropriate — better to save five than one, no? Well, what if there were no switch — but you could push a person in front of the trolley in order to stop it and save the five? Better to save five than one, no? But most people would say that you shouldn’t push the man in front of the trolley, I imagine. But what’s the difference? It’s a thought experiment about utilitarian ethics (‘the greatest good for the greatest number’).

3. Theseus’ Ship: Theseus wants his ship repaired. One by one, the boards are replaced until a new ship is created over the course of a couple of years. But someone has been gathering all of the old pieces, reassembling them. And the old ship sets sail, too, when the new one does. Which one is Theseus’ ship? Similarly, all cells change over time — so what is a man? How are we to define ourselves? If your wife were replaced tomorrow by an identical clone, similar in literally every single way except that it’s ‘not her,’ would you be upset? Why? Do you love those particular atoms? This thought experiment is to make you think about what the essence of something is.

—

Works I recommend: Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, the Discourses of Epictetus, The Ayn Rand Reader eds. Leonard Peikoff and Gary Hull, The Enlightenment Reader, ed. Isaac Kramnick, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

The Discourses of Epictetus are positively life-changing if read carefully.

—

Why is modern philosophy so vacuous? The analytic school and the linguistically-obsessed have taken over. Virtue ethics are out. The art of living out. Nonsense like Deconstruction (from Jacques Derrida, who declared that underneath it all, words are meaningless, including his own) is actually taken seriously. Debating epistemology — the least-important branch of philosophy by far — has become the order of the day. “Can we trust our senses? Can we know that his blue is my blue? How certain can we be that our world is not just simulated?” — No, I guess we can’t really know, okay? But what practical difference would it make if Aron Goldman’s blue looked like my pink? There’s no evidence that it does, of course, but we clearly treat them with the same function. The alternative to objective reality is only one: mind-created reality in the vision of that bastard Immanuel Kant, which is utter nonsense: are we making things up as we go? If so, why do we create such visions of horror as terrorism? Why do we allow awful functions like pain and torture to occur?

Aristotle, where are you? Spinning in your grave, no doubt.

—

Finally, I’ve been doing a bit of writing myself. I will post some of what I’ve been working on in the comments section, should anyone be interested.

How much money is President Obama willing to spend in an attempt to repair the damage his Cambridge police comments have created? =  $1 Billion dollars!

Biden’s Russia blunder?

Russian Foreign Min Astonished By US VP’s “Bush-like” Remarks

Obama Needs a “Contain Joe Biden” Czar!

That would be the affable and damn near clown figure, Vice President Joe Biden, who provides comedic relief for an administration in desperate need of a few laughs to offset the melancholy surrounding Obama’s failed presidency, which after just six months stands in ruins.

Over the past six months, Biden has obliged with a number of terrific laughs such as when he undercut Obama’s call for calm during the swine flu scare by warning the public against flying in airplanes, riding subways, and other common modes of moving about.

On the economy, Biden undercut the president by declaring that the administration had “misread the economy,” at the same time as Obama and other spin doctors were reassuring the media that the stimulus bill was working exactly as planned.

Dabbling in foreign policy just long enough to create mass confusion, Biden stated that, with respect to Israel, “The US “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do. Israel can determine for itself – it’s a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.”

Those charming words were in marked contrast to those of President Obama who advocated keeping Israel on a much tighter leash.

Showing no signs of slowing for the summer vacation season, Biden ignited a fuse in Russia with comments about the Russian economy and the nation’s competitiveness with America.

Biden was quoted as saying that Russia’s economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.

Unfortunately, Biden’s words contradict those of President Obama who, while in Russia less than three weeks ago, said that the U.S. wants to see a peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Nice job, Joe. Leave the president to clean up after you at a time when his plate is overflowing.

Clearly, there is a significant manpower shortage in the White House.

What Obama urgently needs is a “Contain Joe Biden” czar. The successful applicant must have significant experience in cleaning up after dumb animals and be well versed in abnormal psychology!

__________________________________________________________________________

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

Continuing the fallout from the Mark Sanford incident, the Republican Governors Association has appointed T-Paw vice chairman, succeeding now-chairman Haley Barbour.  From Politico:

A two-term governor who is not seeking reelection next year, Pawlenty can use the RGA perch to develop relationships with governors, candidates, donors and party activists. Advisers to Pawlenty indicate he’ll also eventually open a political action committee, the traditional favor-dispensing outlet used by White House

prospects.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was the RGA’s vice chairman, but took over the organization when South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford stepped down in the wake of his admission of an extramarital affair. The decision to elect Pawlenty as vice chairman was made earlier this month by GOP governors at the National Governors Association conference.

“The RGA now has the best political strategist in our party’s history working with one of the GOP’s brightest stars to compete in 39 governors races over the next 17 months,” said Nick Ayers, the group’s executive director.

GOP strategists are hopeful that the elevation of Pawlenty will provide more exposure to a prominent non-Southern face in a party increasingly dominated by elected officials from Dixie.

H/T: TB

Respected republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Hannity this evening, providing analysis on Sarah Palin’s farwell speech (Foxnews July 27 2009).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXi34pGctI[/youtube]

___________________

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

Eccentric, unpopular Kentucky senator Jim Bunning is retiring.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning bowed to political reality today, announcing that he would not seek a third term in 2010 — a move that drastically increases Republicans’ chances of holding the seat next fall.

“Over the past year, some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising,” said Bunning, referring to his testy relationships with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas). “The simple fact is that I have not raised the funds necessary to run an effective campaign for the U.S. Senate. For this reason, I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2010.”

McConnell took the high road in his quote, praising Bunning as having had “two Hall of Fame worthy careers” and adding: “I am honored to have worked by his side in the Senate for the past several years.” (Bunning won 224 games in 18 major league seasons and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1996.)

Well, there was a lot of chatter that this might happen, and this is definitely good news. Bunning is deeply unpopular amongst insiders — making him ineffective — has no compelling appeal to outsiders — making him pointless — and continually puts his foot in his mouth.

The question is, who do we want to replace him with? Secretary of State Trey Grayson is probably the frontrunner, although expect an interesting insurgent campaign by Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul. Both have formed exploratory committees in anticipation of a Bunning retirement announcement and will probably launch official campaigns in the coming weeks.

On the off chance that there are some well-written graduate papers on the following two topics, sometime I would enjoy reading articles covering, in a semi-impartial manner:

1. The correlation of any 2-3 consecutive US Presidents and the change of popular music.
2. The correlation between the longevity of bumper stickers remaining on cars after the election, and the success of that president’s party in the next 1-2 election cycles.  In my suburban county, Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 each produced an enthusiastic bumper sticker following (and Obama far-outperformed John Kerry).  Today, I’m not seeing many Obama stickers (I concede that, as a human, maybe I’m seeing what I want to see), and I can’t recall what this time in 2005 looked like for Bush stickers.

______________________________________________________________

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.

Well, the One who was to bring the world together in harmony, holding hands and singing Kumbayah, can’t quite get those pesky terrorist regimes like Iran and North Korea to join in. Apparently, they didn’t get the memo of how very sorry we are over whatever it is we supposedly did to offend their sensitivities in the past.

And now, Barack has an even bigger problem at the global campfire singalong: our staunchest ally in the Middle East has declined the invitation to roast marshmallows with us, too.

There are today “large scale” protests in Jerusalem against the United States of America for the first time in nearly 35 years.

Reread that sentence and let it sink in for a moment. Let the historicity take its toll. Allow your mind to take in the depths to which this nation and our new foreign policy have sunk.

Because while Obama is out apologizing to dictators and terrorist regimes, he is making demands for concessions from, and ticking off, our allies. And I thought George W. Bush was unique in his ability to tick off every end of the spectrum at the same time.

H/T: Win Martin

It is not exactly the infamous, never to be seen, Michelle Obama whitey tape, but it is equally offensive. 

Apparently, this is what Dr. Gates wrote on his college application.  

“As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself.”

Wright, Ayres,  Khalidid and now Gates. One can conclude that our President has some eccentric and narcissistic friends, to say the least.

____________________________________________________

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

Deval Patrick hits record low approval rating.

Only a little more than 1/3 of Mass. voters approve of Deval Patrick’s performance as Governor.

————————-

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

H/T: Marc Ambinder

From PEW:

The religious tradition, founded in the United States in 1830, has come under increased public scrutiny in recent years as a result of prominent Mormons in the news, such as Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential primary candidate and former governor of Massachusetts, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader in the U.S. Senate, as well as the involvement of the LDS church in political issues, such as the recent debate over gay marriage in California.

A new analysis of the Landscape Survey data reveals that as a group Mormons are among the most devout and conservative religious people in the country.

Keep in mind that GOP identification is very low right now–only 35 percent of the general population identify themselves as Republicans–making the Mormon numbers even higher by comparison. Evangelicals, for instance–a group that has, for the past decade, been counted as an influential Republican voting bloc–identify with the GOP at a 50 percent rate, a full 15 percent lower than Mormons.

The only group that’s more partisan is members of historically black churches, according to Pew, 77 percent of whom identify themselves as Democrats. (Though that’s more of a racial subset of a religious category, than it is a religious category in its own right.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mormons are much more socially conservative than both the general population and other groups: 70 percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, compared to 42 percent of the general population and 35 percent for Evangelicals. 68 percent say homosexuality should be discouraged, rather than accepted–that’s in line with evangelicals (64 percent) and Muslims (61 percent)–hence the LDS church’s involvement in Prop. 8–but lower than the general population, 40 percent of which shares that opinion.

____________________________________________________

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

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

A lot will definitely be said about Gov. Palin’s farewell address today – it was one of the best speeches I have ever heard from her. However, we should remember that today was really Sean Parnell’s day. With Palin moving on to bigger things, Gov. Parnell now leads the nation’s largest state, and I am enthused to see such a stand-up guy taking the reins. I hope we will be hearing more about him here, because he is the first person in the country to openly take on the Palin mantle. He is the first official, other than Palin herself, who can be unquestionably labeled as coming from the “Palin wing of the GOP”, and so he by nature will play at least some role outside Alaska as an example of how “Palinism” works when the media circus fades. Gov. Parnell’s success will be a reflection on his former boss -so for my part, I hope that we can keep one eye on Alaska even as our main focus goes national.

Congratulations to Govs. Palin and Parnell. You both embarked on huge new journeys today, and you both definitely count on the support of this blogger.

Senator Sam Brownback  now has his David Souter, the surprise judicial activist about whom nobody did their homework, prior to President George H.W. Bush appointing him to the US Supreme Court in 1990.

In large part because of Brownback, the largest county in the state of Kansas has an activist as its top law enforcer.  Due to in-name Republican Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe (left), whose office is charged with enforcing the rule of law in a county with a fifth of the state’s voters, the 30 or so local governments bodies that receive receive billions of tax dollars can now completely ignore the state open meetings law.  During the Republican primary of 2008 for the Johnson County District Attorney’s office, Brownback unnecessarily decided to endorse Howe, a candidate with a blank slate, over a proven conservative who would have faced a tougher chance of winning the general election.

Did Brownback know that DA Howe would fail the voters?  Probably not, but I don’t care.  Brownback failed to properly vet this guy.  Brownback took a calculated risk for political reasons, and lost the bet.

I don’t have a clear answer for how Brownback can or should fix this situation, but the bottom line is this:  we’ve now got a major problem in Kansas, Brownback shares a significant amount of the blame for the problem, and Brownback is one of the few people who can now do anything about it.  And, no, it’s not as simple as waiting for Brownback to become governor, because the current law is fine, as it is.  It doesn’t need to be changed; it needs to be enforced.

I will provide detailed notes after the fold. (more…)

 Podcast Show Notes

Obama “takes credit” for perfect game.  (Hat Tip: Baseball Crank.)

What’s in the Obamacare bill? (Hat Tip: Doug Ross.)

Obama don’t know much about the House health bill. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Rick Perry threatens to refuse to follow the Obamacare on Tenth Amendment grounds. (Hat Tip: Save the GOP.) 

Obamacare supporter makes the case for rationing.

Now the White House worried about dangerous precedents in allowing some Chrysler dealership to remain open.

The pay as you go scam.

An uncommon ground bill on abortion.

Teachers union forces school to teach less.

Big minimum wage increase leads to big increase in unemployment.

Hillary Clinton apologizes for America in India.

North Korea tests biological weapons on disabled children.  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Music by Nancy Krebs via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen.

It seems that the new talking point from our party’s officials is that the Obama health care plan is “too much, too fast.”

Michael Steele is at it:

A day after Michael Steele fired sharp criticisms at President Obama’s health care reform plans, the chairman of the Republican Party had a new message for the president: slow down.

In an interview with “The Early Show” Tuesday, Steele repeatedly criticized what he termed as the president’s “excessive push” to get his reform plans in place by the time Congress takes its August recess.

“How do you do that in two weeks?” Steele asked.

And:

The Barack Obama experiment with America is a risk our country cannot afford. It’s too much, too fast, too soon.

Apparently, this talking point is part of the new strategy.

So, what, the plan is okay if it comes at a slower pace? Or in smaller doses? Or if we get it in small doses over time? What are the implications of this? We need to slow down?

This feeds into Obama’s stupid sophistry: that “there are those who say that change can wait.” How about just outlining the problems with the proposal?

I suppose it helps feed into skepticism about the plan, but any look at the talking point beyond the most shallow level reveals that no thought whatsoever was put into it.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

MWS thinks the Princess Bride is one of the top 20 movies ever, and I thought it’d be fun to have a late Saturday open thread on the topic.  What are the 10 best (some people have trouble remembering 20 movies) movies you’ve ever seen?  Say why, or just put up a list.  Here’s mine:

1.  It Happened One Night- Clark Gable + Claudette Colbert +Frank Capra+ a flawless script= genius

2.  The Graduate-  For those who can get past the scandalous affair (and that’s mostly everyone nowadays), it d0es a terrific job of showing how the modern world has sort of displaced man.  Also, nice love story (yes, I persist on considering it a love story, an impression Webb’s recent sequel seems to confirm).

3.  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-  Features the best screen pairing in Hollywood history (Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur), in my humble opinion.

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- Though I’m a professed fan of all things “indie”, the genre can get tiresome at times.  This is one of the few recent entries that is heady, without being too cerebral.  Gorgeous film.

5.  LA Confidential-  In important ways, a profoundly conservative movie.

6.  The Big Sleep-  Bogey and Bacall’s best I think.

7.  Groundhog Day- Still the funniest movie I’ve ever seen.

8.  Rear Window- Hitchcock and Stewart never missed together, and this is their best.

9.  The Godfather-  I don’t usually love typically “guy” movies, but the Godfather is a truly classical story, in modern dress.

10.  Lord of the Rings:  Return of the King-  Probably the best film in the best trilogy of all time.

Honorable Mention:  Singin’ in the Rain-  Best Musical Ever.

Bonus: What are the three worst “critically acclaimed” movies you’ve ever seen?

1.  Closer-  Just awful, awful, awful.  I wanted to claw out every character’s eyes.

2.  Sin City-  Nicely shot, captivating visually, but utterly bankrupt on narrative, message, etc.

3.  Gone With the Wind-  I like drama and romance more than the next guy, but what was this all about?  A few memorable lines surrounded by 4 hours of meh.  It’s not so bad on its own (not nearly as bad as the first two), but it probably wins the award for the greatest divergence between hype and reality.

-Recent history showed we couldn’t even trust a GOP Congress under Bush to control government spending. The past century of history reveals the myth of the conservative blue dawg Democrat…

Blue dawgs are mostly drawl and that’s all, when it comes to final votes on major legislation, and yet, they are now Americans’ only hope to avoid, at minimum, a near decade long Great Recession prolonged by a government take over of the 1/6 of the economy that is health care.

A yellow dawg democrat is one that would vote for a democrat even if he were a yellow dog. Blue dogs are democrats from mostly conservative districts that vote republican for President, and who claim to be fiscal conservatives but whose main claim to fame has been to advocate for tax hikes to pay for the liberal welfare state and pork for their districts.

We are told there are 52 such creatures in Nancy Pelosi’s House kennel, and yet only 8 House members in total voted against the $780B stimulus and 2 against the $4T budget outline with a $1.8T deficit in 2009-10 and none against the $480B Omnibus Spending bill.

Did we mention drawl and that’s all?

Millions of yellow dawgs chose to board the elephant in the 80s after too many kicks in the head from the donkey; even more fled to Newt in the 90s; yours truly fled from Gore in 2000; and now this message from an even more recent convert:

Republican Ralph Hall knows a lot about politics, having been first elected a county judge when Harry Truman was president. Now the 86-year-old is a member of Congress from east Texas, a job he’s held the past 29 years. Yesterday, he stood up at a conference of GOP House members to issue some words of warning about the health care bill they’re now debating.

He reminded them that he had served for nearly a quarter century in the House as a Democrat before switching parties in 2004, so he knows the mindset on the other side of the aisle. He warned fellow Republicans not to pay too much attention to the opposition to radical health care reform from moderate Blue Dog Democrats.

“In the end, Speaker Pelosi will break them,” he told his colleagues. She will use every tactic available, he said, to force wayward Democrats to vote for “her bill,” much as she did on cap-and-trade legislation. Another Republican who had often tangled with GOP House Speakers agreed, saying that Speaker Pelosi is “far more willful” than Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert were in their day.

This rooster recently heralded the possible dawn of Blue Dawg democrat power based mainly on a group of 8-12 Senate democrats led by Evan Bayh (D-IN) who have blocked the energy tax assault on the poor and middle class that ObamaDems call cap and trade. Much less than 52 democrats voted against the energy bill in the House in a vote that the Speaker manipulated to win by a few votes while giving “cover” to all the drawls that needed same proving:

DeVine’s Law: To Be a Democrat is to empower the left

So, while it is heart warming to see some democrats blocking ObamaPelosi’s non-health care bill in committee and making statements of revulsion with same on television, I feel like I have seen this movie before and that the ending was not a Mr. Smith Goes to Washinton moment. In this Capra classic Claude Rains shoots Jimmy Stewart and successfully covers up the murder.

But all hope is not lost, especially if one looks to the now bluer than in the past Tar Heel State where a recent Raleigh News and Observer story stumbled into the following reality concerning budget negotiations:

Democrats generally agree that tax increases are needed…

Heard that song before? It was number one on the charts during the last Great Democrat Recession called the 70s Show.

And yet, after months of advocating tax increases alomg with her Democrat majority pals in the state legislature, the newly elected on the coattails of Barack Obama Governor Beverly Perdue rejected a general income tax increase on all taxpayers. Of course, the rejection was accompanied by the class warfare rhetoric and a wink that tax increases on “the rich” would be acceptable. South Carolina and Alabama may soon have an even greater influx of this demographic from NY and NC, but I digress.

The main point is that when We the People assert ourselves, like we did on amnesty for illegals two years ago and cap and trade two months ago, and like the Tar Heels above, we can tame even rabid tax and spend blue dawgs and keep them from going yellow with cowardice.

The blue dawgs are already being threatened with “floor votes” publicly. I can’t imagine what is happening behind closed doors, but some of the dems’ drawls are sounding a bit higher in tone. Liberals do, after all, favor “fixing” canines and males of all species.

Imagine though, using a floor vote as a threat? Boggles the mind, so fearful are the ObamaDems of what the public already knows about the health care bill and what will be found out during an August recess during which time the dog’s ears will be prickling with the sound of their voting masters. They fear scared dogs in September won’t be as fearful of Master Pelosi’s Clyburn Whip after We the People taming.

But the seeds of We the People’s defeat at the blue dawgs’ paws are already becoming clear to observers of past cavings, and they lie in the possible “fixes” of specific provisions already highlighted in the alternative media. The danger is the all too frequent exercise, even at times with republicans in starring roles, of supposed antidotes for specifically toxic provisions highlighted in the press that ignore much more dangerous provisions elsewhere and which doesn’t even fi the problem intended.

Diversions that could give Blue Dogs cover

Few private insurance plans cover abortions unless to save the life of the mother. The total amount of money spent on abortions, despite the over 49 million babies killed since 1973, is put a drop of water in the ocean of the money spent on health care.

It has been pointed out that ObamaCare does not prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions. Of course, it should prohibit same, but even if it did the greatest evils of the overall bill that threaten the elderly with pain pills instead of life-prolonging surgery; the private insurance industry overall; and the long-term health of a medical cost-burdened economy would remain.

Greatest dangers are public (government) “option and broad grants of authority to bureacracy

So long as any health care legislation includes a mandated public “option”, it is clear that the government insurance would become the only option within a few years at most as employers substitute the cheaper version sold by a profit-loss immune Big Brother.

Moreover, so long as the executive branch, government agencies and/or panels of medical experts retain vast authority as to the specifics of which patients qualify for what treatements at what age, the public would be buying a pig in poke and essentially giving up their present rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via health care purchases in a free market in favor of handing over their lives and Liberty to an all powerful Big Government:

Isn’t the point of the Democrats‘ push to reform the health care system based on establishing health care as a right?  That’s what the politicians say of course.  But in reality the result will be the exact opposite.

Part of the problem is that most Americans don’t understand what a right is.  A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free.  We have the right to engage in religious expression, but that doesn’t mean that the government pays for the construction of the church.  We have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government doesn’t promise to supply your transportation.  You have the right to keep and bear arms, but don’t expect the government to provide you with a free firearm and bullets.  You have the right to free speech, but the government won’t grant you free radio or TV air time.

What makes something a right is not whether the government can force somebody else to pay for it.  What defines something as a right is whether the government can or cannot prohibit you from doing it. (President Obama notoriously called these “negative liberties”.) If the government can’t stop you from doing it, then it’s a right.

When Poison Pills are the cure

We the People must insist upon reading the government insurance company’s policy provisions before buying it. No medical experts like the current Most Powerful Man on the Planet who slanders pediatricians prescribing organ removals for profit and who coldly tells the daughters of pain-free centenarians to take pain pills sans pacemakers as they await the inevitable ticker malfunction.

Let’s see the treatment schedule first. Surely your experts are better than those that stopped and 572 laws in Leviticus?

Insist that President Obama, Michelle and the girls, all members of Congress and their families and all government employees take the government option as a condition for passage.

Then, after ObamaCare dies with the passage of that amendment maybe we can get down to some real reform that would open up interstate commerce to a free nationwide insurance competition and make government only a safety net insurer of catastrophic illness.

Auto insurance doesn’t cover oil changes, after all, and just because a Democrat feigns affinity for Huckleberry Hound doesn’t mean the blue isn’t the same hue as the blue in Obama and Pelosi’s shades in Chicago and Fisco.

There are a few real conservatives among the pack like Parker Griffith of Northern Alabama, but no where near 52, and so only if We the People will kill ObamaCare, will it be killed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

-For the first time ever, GOP Judiciary Committee veteran will vote against a Supreme Court nominee…

South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham is now the leader of a, thankfully smaller, Republican group of Senators equating the consequences of presidential elections with repeal of advise and consent clause and fealty to Oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

When Justice David Souter announced his retirement in May, this column made clear our loathing of past GOP Supreme court nomination strategies led by the former Chairman or Ranking Member (depending on which party held the majority in the U.S. Senate) Orrin Hatch (R-UT), pictured, and our hope that the clear failure of those past strategies coupled with the decision of the GOP caucus to elevate Alabama’s Jeff Sessions to Ranking Member on the committee would un-Hatch Hatch.

Cockstradamus’ wish and prognostication came true yesterday:

For the first time in his 33-year Senate career, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch will vote against a Supreme Court nominee.

Hatch decided Friday to oppose Sonia Sotomayor when her nomination comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Sotomayor, who would become the high court’s first Hispanic justice, is widely expected to easily win confirmation in the next few weeks.

“I reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, have found that I cannot support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Hatch said in a statement. “Although Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life story and dedication to public service, her statements and record were too much at odds with the principles about the judiciary in which I deeply believe.”

Of course, the statements and records, respectively of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were ever bit as much at odds with the principle of fealty to the Constitution; judicial restraint and every other principle about the judiciary that the senior Senator deeply believes in, as are those of Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

But Hatch famously later bragged on the 80-90% GOP votes for those liberal activists on the grounds that “elections have consequences” and that President Clinton’s nominees were “well qualified” based on the “gold standard” of ABA recommendations. No matter that the ABA’s gold was given to anyone that could walk and chew gum at the same time; hadn’t been disbarred and were never discovered in various states of undress with live boys or dead girls (or vice versa).

The mantle of Hatch’s past diminution of the consequences of the elections of senators; their Oath to uphold the Constitution and their equally as significant Advise and Consent role in the seating of federal judges and Supreme Court justices has been taken up now by the senior Senator of the Palmetto State, despite his withering cross-examination of President Barack Obama’s nominee to the point of uncomfortable embarrassment with her disembling:

The Palmetto State’s senior senator excoriated Sonia for her blatantly bigoted brunch staple that her sex and ethnicity made her more likely to render better decisions that white men, reminding her that had he made a similar statement he would be bum-rushed from elected office.

Graham recounted the approbation of a fellow 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals jurist for her summary dismissal of the claims of Frank Ricci and other non-black firefighters that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Finally, the Republican lawyer painstakingly and repeatedly questioned the former board member/fund raiser concerning her Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund’s civil court advocacy that the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of slavery requires taxpayers to pay for the abortions of poor women.

Yet, despite all that, Senator Graham (R-SC) announced he would vote for her. To date, only four other Republicans have announced for Sotomayor, and reports indicate at least 75% of the Republican caucus will vote against her, despite her sterling personal story.

This is quite a turn around from the failed Hatch strategy that eased two liberal activists on to the court; failed to adequately defend Robert Bork from character assassination; and failed to draw clear lines of distinction for voters on the dramatic differences between the parties on the rule of law.

Polls indicate that the public already were repulsed by Sotomayor’s racist statements even before the hearings and with the anticipated strong GOP vote against her, it is just possible that for the first time in two centuries, the courts could well be an issue in an election campaign in 2010.

Thanks to the new Sessions strategy (that Cockstradamus also DeVined) Sotomayor and Obama’s brand of race-based injustice will be hung around the ObamaDems’ necks.

Note: This column is the latest in a series, all parts of which may be accessed here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

I saw it again this morning. Somebody referred to the Massachusetts Healthcare program as “Socialist”.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]

Government merely “telling me what to do” is not socialism. Otherwise requiring you to drive on the right side of the road instead of the left would be “socialism”. Government merely “telling me what to do what I don’t want to do” is not socialism either. If it were, paying taxes would be “socialism”.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Socialism is defined as:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So where exactly does a plan that has the citizens of Massachusetts purchase their own private insurance from the private insurance company of their choice constitute, “advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration”, or where it is a system of “no private property”, or is “a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”?

Words have meaning, folks.

More random thoughts:

• Obama’s government healthcare plan is in serious jeopardy.  If you live in a blue dog’s district, give them an earful.  The only shot we’ve got at stopping this is keeping the pressure on, and it currently looks like we have momentum.  Don’t let up!
• Judge Sotomayor looks like a lock, as several GOP senators have already voiced support.  The issue is a loser to prevent.
• I haven’t heard anything more related to Iran protests.  I certainly hope they continue, not because I have a great love for meddling in other nations’ business, but because the current Iranian regime is (a) illegitimate through a fraudulent election, and (b) a major supporter of terrorism in the ME and, by extension, the rest of the world.
• Gates v Cops: Why is it considered acceptable to be a complete jerk to the cops?  Their job is tough enough as it is, and the more we permit jerks to abuse them and demand no reaction from them, the less effective they are going to be.  Let’s be real.  We need the cops to be at their peak efficiency, and minimal cooperation should be required.
• How long are we supposed to permit current bad behavior based on race to make up for past bad behavior based on race?  I never owned a slave, and neither did my grandparents (not into geneology, or I’d go further back).  I’m all about a helping hand, but not when it’s being bitten.

Have at!

Where are we at this point in time? How are we feeling about the GOP’s position for this November and next? Our prospects for defeating Obama’s proposals? (Not to mention the Race 4 2012…)

–

Will Obamacare pass? If so, when? They simply don’t have the votes. The problem is akin to the paradox seen with Congress: everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s  members are in agreement that there’s a crisis of apocalyptic proportions in our health care system, but no one likes the other guy’s solution. August is an absolute no-go, so don’t even think about that. Obama seems to be suffering the Clinton Curse, here — using more capital than he really has, taking on issues that he isn’t ready for and, moreover, really doesn’t have a good grasp of. His stock is slipping, too: he keeps stepping, unnecessarily, on political minefields. His press conference went very poorly, as he both insinuated that doctors are swindlers and that cops are racist. Not that I trust Rasmussen, but he claims that Obama’s nationwide approval rating has slipped to 49%. To even be hovering near that number — I think it’s probably more like 55%, in reality — is awfully dangerous for a president who has almost 90% of his term left to complete.

Who will win in 2009? By what margins? Remarkably, it looks like Chris Christie is not only in the driver’s seat, but is cruising toward a mandate. New Jersey has been fool’s gold in the past, but this year is a perfect storm for Christie: an off-year election when the Democrats were the previous winners, an unpopular Democratic governor, a general anti-incumbent mood, and — best of all — a state where corruption is a major issue and the candidate is a former US attorney known for tackling it and winning. I can see Christie winning by 10% or so.

Bob McDonnell will probably win, but by a narrow margin. Despite the turmoil within the Deeds campaign in securing fundraising and endorsements from prominent Democrats, it should be noted that it really doesn’t matter like it used to. If it did, we’d be talking about the McDonnell-McAuliffe race. Deeds is still a centrist Democrat in the Kaine-Warner mold, and Virginians really do go for that. Still, the climate tends to favor McDonnell. In 2005, I’d give the edge to Deeds. But this is 2009, and things being as they are, the edge goes, ever so slightly, to McDonnell.

Will Carly Fiorina run for the Senate? With numbers like today’s Rasmussen poll, she’ll probably find it difficult to resist. She’d better be prepared to explain her comments — which are as toxic, politically, as Boxer’s “senator” moment — that outsourcing should be called “rightsourcing.” She’s right, of course, on the merits of the argument, but the booboise doesn’t understand how trade works. Maybe Fiorina — who understands business, and, more importantly, knows how to explain business to the layman — is just what we need in California. Thanks to the Democratic legislature’s incompetence, the state has been utterly run into the ground, and Californians are open once more to alternatives to rank-and-file leftism.

Will Rudy Giuliani run for governor of New York? I imagine so. Between his policy-laden speech to the American Enterprise Institute and his state-focused op-ed in the New York Times, he appears to be gearing up for a run. He can trounce David Paterson and can probably defeat Andrew Cuomo, who I’m coming to believe will not run.

But why won’t he? Two reasons: (1) He doesn’t want to tarnish his reputation by walking into the race minefield. Al Sharpton and Charles Rangel have told him to stay out, lest he defeat a black man, and (2) The Village Voice, a liberal rag, has declared him one of the chief architects of the financial meltdown surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thanks to his policies as Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Do you think that Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know this? Do you think that Andrew Cuomo doesn’t? Cuomo’s young and has plenty of time to run against Gov. King after President Giuliani is sworn into office in 2012.

Can Toomey win? Aren’t I just a massive boob for bashing him now that he’s shown tying Specter? People are pissed off at Specter because he’s some jackass opportunist. But let’s be serious: there wasn’t some grand strategy here to force Specter into the other party, make him look bad, and increase our chances at putting a conservative into the seat after the Democratic Party’s numbers tank. The plan was originally to go RINO-huntin’ and run Toomey against Sestak.

If Toomey wins, no one will be happier than I will: he’d make a wonderful senator and will be a great voice for capitalism (one hopes). But I don’t take back anything I said about him, about pragmatism, about Specter — any of it.

That said, I don’t think he’ll win. Voters are fickle — and they have soft spots for entrenched incumbents. Who’s gonna kick out some old man with cancer in his twilight years? Call it Ted Stevens syndrome. He was prepped to lose by 10% and yet lost only by 1%. Yeah, yeah, he still lost, but Specter ain’t behind by 10% and never will be.

Who will win in 2010? By what margins? (Including confidence estimates on a scale of A-F, A being the most confident) Dodd by 2% (B), Boxer by 5% (B), Whitman by 7% (B), Giuliani by 20% (B-), Portman by 5% (C), Crist by 15% (A), Carnahan by 3% (B), Specter by 5% (B), Vitter by 10% (A), Bunning — if he runs — by 3% (C), Castle — if he runs — by 4% (B), Perry by 10% (A), Gillibrand by 6%, if Pataki runs, otherwise by 15% (A), Reid by 8% (A), Kirk by 3% (C), Bennet by 5% (C), and Hodes by 5% (B). Ehrlich — if he runs — could potentially win the governorship of Maryland (B).

All others will be won by incumbents or the incumbent party’s nominee.

Will Sarah Palin run for the presidency? Yes, on the “citizen’s revolt” platform I described in a previous piece.

Who will the nominee be in 2012? At this point in time, I predict a Romney-Jindal ticket.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

H/T: Matt Lewis

Patients United Now is a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is a nonprofit.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p2vOZJZiLE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

____________________________________________________

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