Poll Details.

AP Analysis.

That was fast. The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama‘s presidency are giving way to harsh realities.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.

–

The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. Ditto for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.

On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.

____________________________________________________

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

Public Policy Polling (D) 2010 Louisiana Senate Poll

• Vitter 44% – Generic Democrat 38%
• Vitter 44% – Melancon 32%

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Sen. Vitter: 44 / 39 (+5)
• Charlie Melancon: 26 / 32 (-6)

Job Approval / Disapproval

• Vitter: 44 / 36 (+8)

7/17-19/09; 727 registered voters, 3.6% margin of error.

For background on the arrest of Harvard University’s Dr. Henry Gates, see this account here.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was wrong. Not only was his arrest warranted, but the entire situation was within his power to control.  His arrogance combined with the liberal black intelligentsia’s natural antagonism of police officers led directly to his arrest.  The arresting officer’s report of the incident display quite clearly that Dr. Gates was hostile and antagonistic during the entire encounter, and in my opinion, got off light.  Of course, he and his ilk like the Reverend Al Sharpton will try to exploit this for all it’s worth.  But the report makes quite clear that the hysterical and bizarre display put on by Dr. Gates was the cause of his arrest, not his race.  (One of the officers at the scene was also African American, a fact that will likely go unmentioned as the race-baiting media covers this story.)

Read the report here.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

From Rasmussen:

Comparing racial demographics:  ”The President earns approval from 41% of white voters, 97% of black voters, and 58% of all other voters.”

Comparing age — note this is the “approval index” that subtracts “strongly disapprove” from “strongly approve”:  ”The President’s Approval Index is positive among those under 30, even among 30-somethings, and negative among those 40 and older.”

Just before the November vote on October 29, 2008, Rasmussen found that:

Among those who “always” vote in general elections, Obama leads by just a single point. Obama does better among more casual voters. However, among those with a high degree of interest in this year’s campaign, Obama leads by four. Among those who say they are following the race closely on a daily basis, Obama leads by five.

Among those who have already voted, it’s Obama 54% McCain 45% with other candidates picking up a single percentage point.

My thoughts:

Say what you want about George W. Bush’s approval ratings during his second term, but he did win TWO terms (something Obama has not yet achieved), he was in office during one of the most partisan media environments in American history, and he did not have to pretend to be somebody he was not (I understand that many voters experienced disillusionment with WMD/Iraq, but that’s different than the risk Obama is taking, in terms of governing far, far to the left of how he campaigned, and on a consistent basis).

I see under-30 voters being one of the first critical parts of Obama’s coalition to tire of  Obama, sooner rather than later.  And as that reality is made clear, the joke that is the American mainstream media will find it increasingly difficult to justify their unquestioning support of Obama.

What an enormous racial gap in Obama’s approval numbers.  Has the disparity ever been this great, for recent presidents?  I don’t see Obama maintaining 97% support among black voters for his entire first term, but it appears to be anybody’s guess on when and how far that number will drop.

I’d be interested to see the detailed methodology, in particular with the younger voters:  is Rasmussen talking to a) 2008 voters, b) typical presidential-year voters (my understanding is that 2008 brought out a larger number of under-30 voters than normal), or c) likely 2010 voters.

______________________________________________________________

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

Right now, Pres Obama is trying to frame the debate on healthcare as either being for the treatment of the poor or for wanting the status quo.  In typical fashion, the GOP doesn’t refute this scenario with a meaningful, comprehensive alternative (and I don’t mean Romneycare), but instead points out (rightly) that Pres Obama’s plan will increase our debt and decrease the quality of care.  It’s a testament to how bad government’s reputation is that this argument may actually be enough to derail the plan, despite the proposition of allowing Dems to set the terms of the debate.

Defining gov’t “care” as a bad thing is quick and easy.  Do you want to wait 6-9 months to see a specialist concerning your cancer diagnosis, like they do in Canada?  Would you rather run to Mexico for treatment (I don’t think they have a gov’t-run system), since that’s the nearest place that can even look at you before you die of a treatable illness?  This and more is what awaits us on gov’t care, and not due to laziness or waste (which could be fixed), but on the very nature of “something for nothing” that gov’t peddles (which can’t be fixed).

The very best of intentions won’t change the fact that, when offered “free” care, people will use it over and above what they need, which will cause cost-overruns and long lines.  Don’t want to go into work today?  Spend all day in line at the emergency room (since you won’t have to pay for it).  You’ll probably see some friends, and you can reminisce about the poker game last night, and set up a time for next weekend’s drinking party.

What should be done to make the debate more potent?  Put up a plan that unleashes the free market into healthcare and insurance (which only partially exists now).  Quit mandating unnecessary coverages, allow policies to cross state lines, and tort reform to lower malpractice insurance (which the doctor passes on to you in order to stay in business) are good places to start.  Also, how about tax breaks for individuals to buy their own policies, which won’t be threatened if they lose their job?

Pres Obama would try to spin this as “more of the same failed policies,” but it is far from that.  The counter-argument is the current system is broken, Pres Obama’s plan will break the bank, and the GOP plan will bring healthcare back to the doctors and the patients.

I am sure most have you watched this, but I have to agree with Harry Alford…what Senator Boxer did to him was nothing more than racial politics.  I was extremely uncomfortable watching her performance.

What occurred the other day, was that an African American business leader (Alford) was testifying to the Environment Committee, chaired by Senator Boxer.  Boxer used quotes from African American political leaders to attack Mr. Alford’s message (and apparently they were false quotes that were not made in favor of the Cap and Tax bill), instead of using reputable liberal environmental groups who support the legislation.   

On Fox this evening, Mr. Alford called Boxer a liar and suggested that she has a history of race-based politics in California.  

“She loves poor black folks and black folks in their place”

____________________________________________________

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

H/T: bluegrass pundit

http://notsosure.org/ is a non-profit, grassroots organization supporting a Conservative agenda.

____________________________________________________

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

In an interesting bit of news, the AP reports that official Census figures depict a decline in voter turnout, as a percentage of population, in 2008:

Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, cast ballots last November. Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters, the turnout was a decrease when taking into account population growth. In 2004, the voting rate was 63.8 percent.

According to the data, more older whites opted to stay home compared with 2004, citing little interest in supporting either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Could the lower turnout among older whites suggest a small opportunity for the GOP in future elections?

Congressman Mark Kirk has officially announced his campaign for Obama’s former Senate seat:

Kirk says Illinois has become a laughingstock since Democrat Roland Burris was appointed to the Senate seat by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who’s accused of trying to sell that seat.

During an interview on Chicago’s WLS Radio on Monday, Kirk said he’s announcing his candidacy and hopes to “restore ethics and integrity to Illinois government.” Kirk says Burris hasn’t been able to be effective in Washington because of the controversy over his appointment and it’s time to change that.

Although Kirk voted for cap-and-tax, he may represent the IL GOP’s best chance at taking the seat.

Gov. Palin has offered a statement on Bowe Bergdahl’s imprisonment:

“Todd and I are praying for Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, his family, and all of his fellow soldiers who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and protect democracy abroad,” Governor Palin said. “The capture of Private Bergdahl and the bombings in Jakarta prove that we have not defeated terrorism, and that radical extremists will stop at nothing to attack Westerners and our ideals.”

More than 7,000 soldiers and airmen stationed in Alaska are currently deployed overseas.

“Our men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform have the best training and experience of any military in the world,” said Lt. Gen. (AK) Craig E. Campbell, Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard. “We know that when we deploy that anything can happen, and we pray that PFC Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers can find him quickly and reunite him with his family.”

The special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, has found that federal spending on the approximately 50 programs dedicated to fighting the recession would total $23.7 trillion (yes, that’s $23,700,000,000,000) if they reach their maximum levels:

Barofsky’s estimate means that if each federal agency spends the maximum potential amount involved in these 50 different initiatives — if the Federal Reserve ends up spending $6.8 trillion on its programs. If the Treasury Department spends $4.4 trillion, if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation spends $2.3 trillion, and so on — then the numbers add up to a total of $23.7 trillion.

For the entire world’s sake, let’s hope the final sum for this batch of spending falls FAR short of this.

Update: I owe Gov. Palin and everyone on the site an apology.  As commenter alaska jake informed me, PFC Bergdahl’s home base resides in Alaska, making Palin’s statement perfectly logical and appropriate.  My now-removed commentary on the statement reeked of ignorance and distaste, so again, I apologize.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% {50%} [52%] (49%)
• Mike Huckabee 42% {43%} [39%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 50% {49%} [53%] (52%)
• Newt Gingrich 42% {41%} [36%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 49% {48%} [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 40% {40%} [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 51% {52%} [56%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 43% {40%} [37%] (41%)

Among Republicans

• Huckabee 76% {79%} [74%] (77%)
• Obama 12% {17%} [15%] (13%)

• Gingrich 80% {76%} [73%] (75%)
• Obama 11% {16%} [16%] (14%)

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

• Palin 79% {72%} [65%] (71%)
• Obama 14% {18%} [27%] (21%)

Among Independents

• Obama 44% {40%} [55%] (53%)
• Huckabee 43% {46%} [35%] (37%)

• Obama 46% {41%} [54%] (54%)
• Gingrich 39% {42%} [31%] (38%)

• Romney 43% {42%} [30%] (35%)
• Obama 42% {35%} [55%] (52%)

• Obama 47% {46%} [52%] (51%)
• Palin 41% {41%} [37%] (44%)

Among Men

• Huckabee 49% {48%} [41%] (47%)
• Obama 43% {45%} [50%] (46%)

• Gingrich 49% {46%} [40%] (44%)
• Obama 44% {46%} [50%] (48%)

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

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

Among Women

• Obama 53% {54%} [54%] (52%)
• Huckabee 36% {37%} [36%] (37%)

• Obama 54% {53%} [56%] (56%)
• Gingrich 35% {36%} [32%] (33%)

• Obama 54% {55%} [58%] (56%)
• Palin 40% {36%} [34%] (36%)

• Obama 51% {50%} [56%] (52%)
• Romney 35% {37%} [31%] (34%)

Obama Job Approval

• Approve 50% {52%} [55%] (53%)
• Disapprove 43% {44%} [38%] (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable / Net

• Mike Huckabee 42% {43%} [44%] (42%) / 33% {34%} [32%] (34%) / +9%
• Sarah Palin 47% <46%> {43%} [42%] (42%) / 45% <45%> {49%} [50%] (49%) / +2%
• Mitt Romney 37% {41%} [40%] (40%) / 37% {36%} [36%] (35%) / 0%
• Newt Gingrich 36% {35%} [30%] (36%) / 42% {46%} [47%] (44%) / -6%

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 73% <77%> {72%} [73%] (67%) / 18% <17%> {21%} [17%] (20%) / +55%
• Mike Huckabee 65% {68%} [60%] (56%) / 16% {17%} [19%] (18%) / +49%
• Newt Gingrich 59% {61%} [51%] (59%) / 18% {23%} [22%] (18%) / +41%
• Mitt Romney 53% {58%} [59%] (54%) / 20% {22%} [18%] (19%) / +33%

Among Moderates

• Mike Huckabee 34% {33%} [40%] (36%) / 36% {38%} [36%] (41%) / -2%
• Mitt Romney 33% {35%} [35%] (34%) / 39% {40%} [42%] (44%) / -6%
• Sarah Palin 33% <27%> {33%} [29%] (28%) / 58% <59%> {58%} [64%] (67%) / -25%
• Newt Gingrich 24% {23%} [21%] (23%) / 52% {53%} [58%] (60%) / -28%

Survey of 577 voters was conducted July 15-16. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 6-7 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 14-18 are in brackets; from April 17-19, in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 42% (D), 35% (R), 23% (I). Ideological breakdown: 43% Moderate, 39% Conservative, 18% Liberal.

H/T; Tommy Boy

Obama is weakening and the three leading 2012 GOP candidates are getting stronger in head-to-head match-ups.  2010 will be a Republican year!

Here’s the link to the actual poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_720.pdf

Here’s the link to the poll from last month:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_720.pdf

Here is the ”Inside the Numbers” analysis:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-continues-to-drop.html

PPP’s monthly national survey shows Barack Obama’s approval rating continuing to drop. It’s now at 50% with 43% of voters disapproving, continuing a steady decline from 52% in June and 55% in May.

Compared to a month ago his numbers are largely unchanged with Democrats and independents but he continues to lose the little bipartisan appeal he had to begin with. His approval with Republicans is now 12%, down from 18% in June.

While he’s continued to maintain a high level of popularity with African Americans and Hispanics, his approval with whites is now at 39%. That’s four points below what exit polls showed him earning last November….

The six point lead over Huckabee is the first time in the four months we’ve been polling these match ups that Obama has shown an advantage against any of these candidates smaller than his popular vote victory over John McCain.It’s also the fourth month in a row that Huckabee has fared the best of the Republicans possibilities.

The numbers from this poll also seem to indicate that Sarah Palin did not do herself any immediate damage with her decision to resign as Governor of Alaska. Her favorability spread of 47/45 is the best PPP has found it over the course of six surveys conducted in the last four months. Also, her eight point deficit against Obama is the first time it’s been in single digits over the course of these monthly 2012 polls. She also continues to have easily the highest percentage of GOP voters holding a positive opinion of her.

____________________________________________________

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

On July 7, I wrote here that, at KansasProgress.com, we would be asking for comments from Kansas Congressman Jerry Moran (left) and Todd Tiahrt (right), with regard to the NRSC’s involvement in the open Florida Senate seat.  It’s a near-certainty that either Moran or Tiahrt will be the newest US Senator from Kansas in 2011, which means that one of them will also be voting on NRSC leadership.

Here are the results:

Moran for Senate campaign: We spoke on the phone with Jerry Moran’s campaign manager Aaron Trost, who said that First District Congressman Moran will not be getting involved in issues or campaigns that aren’t directly related to his Senate campaign. For another example of Moran remaining neutral, Trost said that Moran has not yet endorsed (and we presume he won’t endorse) in the very competitive Republican primary race in the First District.

Tiahrt for Senate campaign: Not only is Tiahrt not commenting, but the Tiahrt campaign, so far, is not returning any attempts at communication. After two Emails to a Tiahrt field director — one on July 4 and another on July 7 — and one phone message with a live answerer at Tiahrt’s Wichita campaign location last Thursday, July 16, we’ve heard nothing back from Tiahrt.

Read more here.

______________________________________________________________

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

There has been a great deal of confusion as to how Obama compares to other Presidents after six months in office.  Searching on the web, I came upon this site that contains charts of all the Presidents since FDR and their approvals over time. By eyeballing the charts, I came up with the following graph:

Here is the raw data:

Start/6-Month/Delta/%Delta

FDR:          60/58/-2/-3%
Truman:   88/70/-18/-20%
Ike:            68/70/-2/-3%
JFK:           72/75/+3/+4%

LBJ:           77/75/-2/-3%
Nixon:      69/60/-9/-13%
Ford:        71/39/-32/-45%
Carter:      66/60/-6/-9%

Reagan:    55/60/+5/+9%
HW Bush: 53/68/+15/+28%
Clinton:    67/45/-22/-33%
W. Bush:   57/55/-2/-4%

Obama:     69/55/-14/-20%

The President with the lowest approval rate AND the biggest drop was Gerald Ford. He was the one, after all, that pardoned Richard Nixon.

As to biggest drops, Ford fell 32 to end at 39%, Clinton fell 22 to end at 45%, Truman fell 18 to end at 70%, and Obama just fell 14% to end at 55%.

For six month in, the lowest was Ford at 39%, followed by Clinton at 45%, and then a two-way tie with Obama and W. Bush at 55%

And finally, the President that lost the biggest percentage of his approval was Ford (45%) followed by Clinton who lost 33% of his total, followed with a two-way tie of -20% of their totals for Truman and Obama.

So Ford lost big in every category. Clinton came in second in every category, and Obama either holds down third place by himself or shares a tie with someone else in all categories except the biggest aggregate drop. Third place there belongs to Truman. Obama comes in fourth on that one.

Once again, I stress that these are eyeballed figures from graphs. They will be off by a small amount. However, they should be accurate within +/- two or three percentage points.

In another one of it’s straw-man attacks, the White House plans to attack the comments made recently by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.  On Friday, DeMint said the following during a conference call:

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,”

Clearly desperate as his healthcare ship continues to sink, President Obama responded like this:

“Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking American families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. We can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat.” 

So the President attacks playing politics….by playing politics.  Maybe he can show us how not to play politics by attack radio talk show hosts some more. On the bright side, the President’s lame push back gives me the chance to post this:

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

President Barack Obama to CNN’s Anderson Cooper:

That’s part of the African American experience. You are, in some ways, connected to this distant land, but on the other end, you’re about as American as it gets in some ways. African Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience because they don’t have a recent immigrant experience to draw on. It’s that unique African American culture that has existed in North America for hundreds of years long before we actually founded the nation.

What’s more disturbing? That our President believes one group of people are fundamentally more American than others or that a so-called journalist like Cooper could hear such a thing without even attempting to follow up? Read more about this here.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

The New York Times!

The final paragraph gets to the point:

Beyond the criminal investigation, a full-scale ethics inquiry should be pressed by House Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If not, the Murtha money trail could lead them back to the minority.

Any bets on how likely it is that they will heed that warning?  Have they investigated ANY Democrat since 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate?

WaPo, Chris Cillizza has the story;

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) will wade into the national debate over health care this week by penning op-eds in Politico and the Wall Street Journal and appearing on a series of cable chat shows today and tomorrow.

“Governor Jindal has seen enough,” said Curt Anderson, a consultant for Jindal. “As a health-care policy expert, he strongly believes that the House Democrat[ic] plan would be a disaster for the long-term health of the American people, and the long-term health of the economy.”

That Jindal is adding his voice to the chorus of Republican critics of Democrats’ approach to President Obama‘s chief policy priority — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele will offer his own critique today at the National Press Club — is evidence that the youthful governor sees a role for himself in the national policy debate despite a rocky introduction to the country earlier this year.

Jindal, who is widely regarded as one of the rising stars within the Republican party, was chosen to deliver the party’s response to Obama’s February address to Congress. His performance was, to be charitable, weak and turned him — briefly — into fodder for the late night talk shows due to his resemblance to one Kenneth the Page.

Allies of Jindal insist his disappearance from the national stage from February until, well, now, had everything to do with his engagement in the legislative session and nothing at all to do with his lackluster performance.

They note that Jindal spent much of his 20s and early 30s working on the issue of health care — he was named the head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals at age 24 (!) — and is a natural spokesman for the party nationally on the issue.

Regardless of the reason(s) for Jindal’s re-emergence, it is certain to re-ignite chatter about his presidential prospects in 2012.

Continue reading the entire story, here:

—-

Update: Jindal has started this evening.  He is appearing on Hannity at 9:15PM EST.

____________________________________________________

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

I’ll first repeat what I wrote on July 12:

• Polls can change, and quickly.
• Even when they show numbers that are positive for Republicans, I’m not yet convinced that voters are more likely to want Republican policies or Republican politicians; they’re just tiring of Democrats. I do believe that any minority political party must, to a large degree, be the “party of no” and object to policies that are objectionable. But they must also offer alternatives, and I’m concerned that, with spending, the majority of elected DC Republicans merely want to act like “Blue Dog” Democrats pretend to act.

That said, Rasmussen today shows the least favorable numbers yet for Obama:  50% approve, and 49% disapprove.  See trends.

Today’s Romney vs. Obama match-up provides some encouragement, doesn’t it?  One of the best parts:  ”When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%.”  I searched around Rasmussen’s site a bit and could not find the ending numbers for McCain, in terms of his proportion of unaffiliated voters.  If readers happen to know that number, feel free to post it in the comments.

Update:  Tommy Boy reports that the final numbers in the November 2008 election showed that unaffiliated voters supported Obama over McCain  by a 52-44% margin.  So here we are today, less than a year later, and unaffiliated voters have swung 15 points, from Obama +8 to Romney +7.

______________________________________________________________

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

This has little to do with politics, but a little laugh now and again is a good thing.  It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously.

Enjoy

Hat-tip Drudge:

Rasmussen 2012 General Election Poll 2012 poll

• Mitt Romney 45%
• Barack Obama 45%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Sarah Palin 42%

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on July 18-19, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Inside the numbers:

Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Last November, Obama defeated Republican presidential nominee John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin.

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Obama, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

$1,191,200 for sliced ham.

That’s right… $1.1 million dollars borrowed from China and saddled to your children’s children’s backs–for deli meat.

Now that the bottom has dropped out for President Obama, how much farther will his numbers can fall if the GOP leadership has the fortitude to hammer unacceptable waste such as this home?

In the last week it seems like liberals have become of one mind. Any editorial about Sonia Sotomayor must mention the phrase “white men” and then go on to imply all sorts of bad things about white men.

Today Al Hunt says White Men Can’t Trump Sotomayor on Life Story.

Maureen Dowd the poor lady thinks opposition to Sotomayor is the White Man’s Last Stand.

The Times tells us America’s White Men are Back and Raging.

Frank Rich couldn’t string three sentences together without the phrase ‘white male’ and a negative adjective in his last Op-ed.

I don’t know why liberals have such an unhealthy fixation on ‘white men’. I’m not suggesting liberals are race-baiting but it seems they want to demonize the 46% of voters who voted for John McCain by calling them “white men” (shudder).

Excuse me for asking but I do happen to be a white guy. So what? I’ve not got a tail or horns and I don’t represent ‘the Man’. I work for ‘the Man’ but liberals have no problem with him. So why do they seem to have a such a problem with me?

Since my good friend has lost his way…

This is an elite, Canadian, dedicated to far-left social issues. Your boss, Alex.

—–

Alex, This is a working-class, American.  Who routinely faced fist-fights after high school, only due to the passport he carried.

and btw, Adam Brickley was raised on a farm in rural CO.

New evidence shows that President Bush’s PEPFAR program has had its intended effects:

The president of the International AIDS Society says new research indicates the incidence of HIV is decreasing in African countries helped by George W. Bush’s AIDS initiative.Thousands of AIDS experts at an international AIDS conference cheered Sunday when Dr. Julio Montaner announced the result, saying it is from a yet-to-be published analysis of the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, called PEPFAR.

Bush’s pet project is credited with saving millions of lives. It focused on the worst-hit African countries.

Apparently George Bush does care about black people.

Today, Gov. Pawlenty traveled to Iraq to meet with members of the Minnesota National Guard and offer his condolences for the deaths of three of the Guardsmen:

The subdued Pawlenty, whose Iraq visit was scheduled months ago, said the late soldiers’ colleagues praised the trio as among the best people – not just soldiers – they had known.

The governor also sent a message to the soldiers’ families: “We are thankful for their sons and what they represented … and their service to their country.”

And finally, governors from both parties have expressed serious reservations about the strings attached to health care plans circulating through Congress:

“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.”

The governors’ backlash creates yet another health care headache for the Obama administration, which has tried to recruit state leaders to pressure members of Congress to wrap up their fitful negotiations. Both Ms. Sebelius, who was Kansas’ governor before she joined the cabinet in April, and the federal Medicaid chief, Cindy Mann, made appearances at the meeting on Sunday. Meanwhile, other administration officials spent the day pushing President Obama’s proposal on television talk shows.

…Although many governors said significant change in how the nation handles health care was needed, they said their deep-seated fiscal troubles made it a terrible time to shift costs to the states. With the recession draining states of tax revenues even as their Medicaid rolls are surging, the National Governors Association projects that states will face aggregate deficits of $200 billion over the next three years.

Each of several health care bills coursing through Congress relies on a large increase in eligibility for Medicaid, the state and federal insurance program for the poor, as one means of moving toward universal coverage.

Because the states and the federal government share the cost, any increase in eligibility levels, benefits or payments to doctors would impose new burdens on the states unless Washington absorbs them. In at least one of several bills circulating in Congress, the states would eventually pick up a share of the new costs, and the governors fear they cannot count on provisions in other bills that they will not bear costs.

The obstacles to Obama seeing his beloved health care “reform” become reality seem to grow larger every day.

Why did Ron Paul call Sarah Palin’s backers country-club types? Aren’t Palin types, as Adam Brickley noted, usually criticized for being country bumpkins?

But Mr. Brickley, heralded by many in the media for having been at least partially responsible for launching Palin into the national spotlight, ought to know better. Brickley, a well-read, articulate, would-be Beltway type, personifies exactly what launched Palin into the spotlight.

Followers of Palin’s career know the story: she was spotlighted in 2007 by William Kristol on a Weekly Standard cruise to certain high-level Republican backers: here she was! Someone fresh, new, folksy, and able to connect with the lower classes, Mencken’s “booboise.” This was exactly the sort of Operation: Gringo candidate that could keep the GOP strong: clean, mavericky, and yet so folksy in her demeanor that the backwoods types would never catch onto the fact that she’s really a maverick like J-Mac. (We’ll just mold her to our liking a bit, and then she’ll be perfect.) Meanwhile, her grassroots support online came from those with just the same agenda: Kristofer Lorelli and Adam Brickley, two Palin4VP veterans, sum this up it well. Kristofer is a Canadian who is decidedly far-left on social issues, while Adam is an aspiring DC insider living within the Beltway. I myself was once a Palin booster, having penned an article in June 2008 (the link escapes me) calling for a reform-minded ticket with Sarah heading the VP slot. (What a wonderful way to get the Huckabee people on board without having to deal with, well, the ideology of Mike Huckabee!)

Once chosen, on a whim, by John McCain in 2008 when he decided that he wanted to take a risk, she was immediately handed over to Randy Scheunemann, who couldn’t really do much with her. We know what happened. We saw Couric, Gibson, etc. We saw the mediocre debate performance. And nothing has changed — William Kristol remarked on Fox News Sunday recently that he’d seen no evidence that Sarah had been ‘studying up’ by inviting foreign policy wonks to Alaska to help her prepare for 2012.

In other words: their entire plot fell flat. You can take the girl out of Wasilla, but you can’t take Wasilla out of the girl. Sarah didn’t want to play along with the games of Kristol & co., having decided that she’d rather raise the pitchforks for “her types.” You don’t want to bring up Obama’s terrorist associations? Screw you, Steve Schmidt. You don’t want to say that one part of America is the “real America”? Well, screw you, I think that rural areas are the heart and soul of this country. You think I need to be a governor to hold influence? Forget it, this job is boring. My people won’t care. If I run and win, I’ll be citizen-in-chief. This is all she’s ever known.

The fact that Sarah Palin can’t be controlled is bothering her Beltway boosters and firing up her cheerleaders from the “real America.” She’s got a built-in base within the GOP ready to crawl over shattered glass to take this country back from the “elites.” It’s Buchanan ’96 redux, with a less angry tone.

Palin would never have had a national profile because she didn’t really have the drive. She didn’t know or care much about the workings of the Beltway. She still doesn’t — but now she has access. Kristol and his ilk introduced the country girl to the city, thinking they could control her — and they couldn’t. Their Frankenstein has been turned loose, stomping all over the Establishment’s wishes. Uncontrollable, she’s playing her own rules now, just like she always has. Ron Paul would have been right months ago, in other words, but her elite backers have lost their leash. That’s enthusing what Palin called the “real America” — and terrifying the rest of us.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Okay, just had to post this one – because I don’t care if you love Sarah Palin or hate her, this thought from Ron Paul makes no sense whatsoever:

As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as “more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”

That’s funny – As a self-proclaimed Sarahbot, the main criticism I usually get is that she doesn’t appeal to those types of people. I thought we were all a bunch of white-trash, trailer park, SoCon hicks who scare the living daylights out of the establishment, country club Republicans.

The David Keene/ACU pay-for-play story deserves some discussion. Politico summarizes in one paragraph:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

Now ACU has put out responses to the effect that ACU’s position on the issue has not changed. ACU still sides with FedEx even if Keene personally does not. This is great, it’s also not really the issue.

It doesn’t look good that one thing the ACU offered FedEX was support in David Keene’s columns and then when FedEx failed to pay up, Keene signed a letter taking UPS position. However, that’s a secondary point on which I can give Keene and ACU the benefit of the doubt. The offer of Keene’s column was not made by Keene but Whitefield who may have not known Keene’s mind on the issue. It may have even been a modified form letter.

Which brings us to the principle problem. It’s not so much whether or not Keene punished FedEx for refusing to play ball. It’s that grassroots lobbying was offered as a paid service. The ACU may not have changed their actual position, but they’re only willing to do something for FedEx at a price of $2-$3 million. Their promise was to contact ordinary Americans and rally them to FedEx’s side.

The problem is that the whole action is underhanded. If you’re in the loop on receiving communications from the ACU, you have no idea that the information you receive is based on a big corporation paying up. The American Conservative Union paints itself as a voice of principled conservative, not a “for hire” corporate shill.

This story is another blow to the grassroots trust of the “conservative establishment” which seems to be operating far afield of a pure concern for conservative principles that motivates people at the grassroots level.

Podcast Show Notes

Why the hurry on health care? (Hat Tip: James Pethokoukis.)

RomneyCare ripping off Hospitals. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

RomneyCare being gamed. (Hat Tip: Red State.)

Why the Democrats big tax increase will not work. (Hat Tip: Townhall.)

House Obamacare bill to increase deficit $239 billion. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

White House foreclosure program fails. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

Democrats go thuggish on Arizona. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Millions being wasted on no-bid contracts.

On the bright side: stimulus helping charter schools. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)

David Keene puts conservatism up for sale.

You cannot reduce the number of abortions by funding them.

Unborn children remember.  (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)

Second Amendment update via Gun Watch.

The threat of climate change has to be hyped. (Hat Tip: James Pethokoukis.)

In Britain, efforts are under way to bar parents from taking their children out of sexual education classes.

Music by Exit 417 via Music Alley.

Click here to listen.

Private Health Care in Canada?

US Medical Care Saves Canuck Lives?

Sen. Tom Coburn on Socialized Medicine.

____________________________________________________

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

Yes Lindsey, elections have consequences, including those of U.S. Senators and not just Presidents. And shouldn’t the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments and the Oath to uphold it have consequences too?

[This is part three in DeVine Law series on Sotomayor nomination hearings. Parts one, two and preliminary columns are here.]

I speak, of course, of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the impending advise and consent vote on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court.

No senator better exposed the likelihood that President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the nation’s highest court would not abide by the required Oath to uphold the Constitution that he described as “fatally flawed.”

Latina wiser than white and male Latino firemen raising funds for 13th Amendment required tax-payer funded abortions

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.

Only a “yea” vote “let’s her off the hook”

I defended Senator Graham from charges that he “let her off the hook” on the above, and especially the “slavery” question, given that he didn’t produce a Perry Mason-like confession of some sort. But what I saw in the exchange was a very uncomfortable, yet effective Graham exposing a programmed liar denying knowledge of the obvious, over and over again.

Subsequent to that exchange, Byron York of the Washington Examiner uncovered documentation of then Lawyer Sotomayor’s intimate involvement in the case, which were admitted into the record by Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

Yet, incredibly, despite the strong record established by Senator Graham and his other GOP colleagues on the Committee, it appears that he (and at least three other already announced Republicans) will, at last truly let her off the hook by voting to confirm the nomination.

All causes are not created equal

In an interview on Fox News Channel after his final questioning of Judge Sotomayor, Graham was asked to compare the Democrats’ objections to Justice Samuel Alito for his brief college membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Graham rightly objected to the Democrats’ guilt by association attempts to tar Alito with statements by other alumni to which the nominee never expressed assent nor which were ever presented as group policy.

Yet, Graham takes the bait of the interviewer to make the following sweeping statement with respect to Sotomayor’s slavery definition (approx. minute 41:10:

“…But I’m not going to disqualify a lawyer for embracing causes I disagree with. I would have loved to be a lawyer on the other side of that case showing that it is a bad act to force taxpayers to pay for abortions…”

But Lindsey, you are “on the other side” now! And by “other side” I do not mean Republican vs. Democrat.

Your “cause” is the Constitution, including the Civil War Amendments written in the blood of your South Carolina ancestors, and the likelihood the nominee will uphold the Oath. She would have the power to “interpret” the word slavery in accordance with her “cause” that would besmirch and insult the deaths of American soldiers in The War Between the States, and most horribly those held in human bondage across the Fruited Plain.

This was not a case where Lawyer Sotomayor was hired by a group to defend them in a criminal court, nor even as a Plaintiff in a civil case. At least in the former case, one would have a defensible excuse absent otehr evidence of her fealty to causes anathema to the cause of Liberty.

But no, in this cause, she is the Plaintiff.

You go on to say on FNC that she her judicial record doesn’t reveal an activist judge (how could it unless she were a masochist given that she is bound by precedent) but that you were most “concerned” by her statements (see Wise Latina; judges making public policy; and basing decisions on European public opinion and foreign law).

You are rightly concerned with her public statements. They make the case against her confirmation as well. But in the matter of the PRLDF’s slavery re-definition case, you have the greater statement of her time and money and work to raise money to re-define the Constitution! Now that’s a statement!

But since she is a “lawyer embracing a cause you disagree with” you can’t disqualify her? Maybe Rush Limbaugh should replace your “Vice-President (for John McCain)” and Senator “Grahamnesty” nicknames in favor of “Non-Sequi-Sena-tur”.

Would no “cause” be vile enough for a lawyer to embrace to cause you not to embrace them? Does the term “advise and consent” mean so little to you?

Deference as unilateral disarmament

But Graham’s incoherence reaches new heights when he conflates rulings based on the “heart” with “ideology” and then broadly re-defines and demonizes judicial philosophy as ideology.

Graham argued that Obama had voted against Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito because they differed with him on ideology, and that going by that standard, he would not be inclined to support the presumably far more liberal Sotomayor.

“He used a standard, I think, that makes it nearly impossible for a person from the opposite party to vote for the nominee,” said Graham.

“When I look at her record, her ideology, I’m deeply troubled,” he added.

Ok, so he is deeply troubled by her ideology but objects to an Obama standard because it inhibits the appointment of nominees due to differing party ideologies.

In his FNC interview he declares that it would be “disastrous for the country” to apply Obama’s standard.

Lindsey, what has been disastrous for the country have been the appointment of justices that embrace an ideological judicial philosophy that the Democratic Party embraces that views the Constitution as an impediment to overcome through rhetorical flourishes as they carry out Obama-desired fundamental changes absent ratification by We the People.

In other words LG, not all ideologies are equal. As National Review exclaims in objecting to a Washington Post editorial calling for GOP unilateral disarmament; “It’s unreasonable for the Post to expect Senate Republicans to sign off on a nominee where there are legitimate questions for the sake of a one-sided comity.”

Ideology vs. Intellect, Charater and Temperament

Incredibly, Graham’s concern for an ideology that legalized the killing of millions of the unborn pales in comparison to his concern for the feelings of interns, pages, lawyers before the court and his fellow justices:

In his post-meeting news conference Graham also raised questions about Sotomayor’s temperament. He said that while she was friendly in the meeting, he could not simply ignore reports from other lawyers she’s dealt with that she has a fiery temper.

“I think she does have the intellectual capacity to do the job,” Graham said. “But there’s a character problem. There’s a temperament problem that they — during the time they’ve had to be a judge, that they were more of an advocate than an impartial decider of the law. And I’ve got to find out, in my own mind” about her temperament.

Of course she has the intellectual capacity. It has always been a red herring conceit of the elites to suggest that the Constitution is written in some code only Yale and Harvard graduates and Nicholas Cage can discern.

Then, he conflates “character” with “temperament” after glossing over the real character issue inherent in an ideology that allows one to view the supreme law of the land as a “living” document that they can re-write over the objections of super-majorities of We the People in Constitutional Conventions, Both Houses of Congress and/or State Legislatures.

The urgency for “Non-Sequi-Sena-tur” is whether a Justice might have a bad temper? Would that more Republican Senators had some righteous indignation that caused them to lose their tempers as The Constitution is shredded by liberal judges appointed by Democrats.

Nomination and the consequences of the next election

Finally, let us return to the Washington Post’s glee with Graham’s un-Hatching of the old strategy we hoped had been buried:

Most important, he acknowledged that elections do, indeed, have consequences. Mr. Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.

Senators don’t owe presidents favorable votes on their nominees. But they do owe the president, the nominee and the American people a vote based on an honest assessment of the nominee’s qualities and qualifications.

In my lifetime Republicans have never used Supreme Court nominations for political gain. Democrats nearly always do. The merits of the nominee’s qualifications oil down to whether she can be trusted to uphold, rather than re-write the Constitution, as the other Democrats on the Court routinely do, and which President Obama and his party advocate.

Its about ideology Senator Graham, not whether the lawyer for the Appellant in her first case is rudely dressed down.

Your fear of disaster should Republicans and Democrats never vote for nominees of the other side is misplaced. What matters is the Constitution. The worse result of the stalemate you fear is that vacancies on the court go unfilled. So what?

Wouldn’t it be great for the American people to finally take notice of a party that wishes to make law for life no matter what they believe? Wouldn’t it be grand if, finally, the liberals are called to account for their subterfuge on an issue so vital to the nation yet so elusive in holding to account?

The table is set for just such a public epiphany. The grossly racist statements of Sotomayor caused her approval rating to drop 30 points even before the hearings so that all Americans, including women and Hispanics, oppose her nomination.

Americans don’t like the race grievance spoils system that renders their hard work a nullity. Not only do we have Obama’s empathy statement and Soto’s racist statements, but we also have a real live case in which she applied her racist views against deserving of promotion firefighters because they weren’t black.

We can hang Sotomayor around the Democrats’ necks in the 2010 and 2012 election.

The hanging will be more powerful if more, rather than less understand that future elections have consequences as well, and that we can’t abide more Sotomayors that will re-define slavery to enslave us all with their vile ideology.

Pat Buchanan spells out 2010 strategy with justifications.

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.

A few random thoughts:

• We are all but assured that Judge Sotomayor, who believes race can trump law, will soon be on the Supreme Court.  Strangely enough, this may represent the Court moving to the right.  This isn’t the hill to die on, however.  She will be confirmed without the drama of Justice Alito’s hearings, which says something (though the average person doesn’t realize it).
• My understanding is that the Iranian people are still protesting, despite the fact that the media has decided it isn’t newsworthy anymore.  They deserve the support of the world community, and I’m afraid they’re not getting it.
• What’s going on in Honduras?  Hopefully, they haven’t supplanted the legitimate gov’t to reinstall Zelaya.  The rule of law should be upheld.
• Walter Cronkite passed away.  For those under 40 (such as myself), the significance of such probably doesn’t register.

Got to get back to the family thing.  Have at!