Rasmussen Pennsylvania Political Survey

Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary

• Arlen Specter 47% (51%)
• Joe Sestak 34% (32%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Arlen Specter 71% (72%) / 25% (26%) [+46%]
• Joe Sestak 54% (57%) / 23% (21%) [+31%]

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 29% (42%)
• Somewhat approve 22% (18%)
• Somewhat disapprove 12% (13%)
• Strongly disapprove 35% (26%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 21%
• Somewhat favor 21%
• Somewhat oppose 12%
• Strongly oppose 41%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters (including 423 Likely Democratic Primary Voters) was conducted August 11. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points; +/- 5 percentage points for the Democratic senatorial primary. Results from the poll conducted June 16 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Among voters who favor the congressional health care plan, Specter leads 55% to 26%. However, among those who oppose the plan, Sestak leads 61% to 25%.

Just 29% of likely Democratic Primary voters now have a very favorable opinion of the incumbent senator. That’s down six points since June. But only 14% have a very favorable opinion of Sestak, down four points from the earlier survey.

The number with a very unfavorable view: 14% for Specter and five percent (5%) for Sestak.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Democrats favor the plan, but 83% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 39% like the plan while 59% do not. Only 14% of unaffiliateds strongly favor the plan while 46% are strongly opposed.

Twenty minutes into my two-hour wait to get a seat at Senator Ben Cardin’s town hall event, I was keeping a “Nazi tally” to get a number on how many references to Adolf Hitler, Germany, or the Nazi Party I heard. Besides the usual suspects, the Lyndon LaRouche brigade was out in full force handing out fliers and pamphlets concerning how Obama was the new Hitler (although the real problem is the Jews, if you ask them, so I’m not sure why they don’t welcome that). It was a common theme, and not just amongst the anti-Semites: “This is exactly how Nazi Germany began!” was a standard echo in the lines.

After a couple of arguments with Christian fundamentalists who accused me of not really being on their side because I’m a godless libertarian-type, the lines funneled in. “Welcome to an exercise in democracy, son,” a guard told me. Indeed. By way of contrast, while standing in line to question Cardin, I spotted an eleven-year-old boy being told by an older woman that “this isn’t what democracy is about.”

She said that to the boy because the town halls are exactly what you’re seeing on television. The crowds are overwhelmingly conservative — and I mean Glenn Beck conservative, not David Frum conservative. I’m talking angry, ready-to-roll conservative, not rational, let’s-discuss-philosophy conservative. I can’t think of any more appropriate word than ‘redneck’ to describe most of the crowd. Literally every person who took more than ten seconds to preface his question was shouted down by “Ask your question!” by an array of overfed hicks. They were also prone to shout “You work for us!” and “You just don’t get it!” at Cardin, as if Cardin should be expected to represent the ideals of the 9/12 Project or something.

A reporter for the Hill interviewed me afterward, asking me about the tone of Hagerstonians. I apologized for the behavior, of course, but hastened to assure her that she should not neglect the rational, capitalist case against ‘universal health care.’ That same theme tied into the question I asked Cardin. “My question cuts to the philosophical root of the issue,” I said. “Strip away the histrionics of the crowd, the specific provisions of the individual bills, and what you’re left with is a question of its philosophical core. So I want to know: in your political philosophy, how do you determine what a right is? And more importantly, how do you determine what a non-right is?” The crowd clapped, though not as enthusiastically as they did for those filled with anger. Cardin’s response was typical pol mush about how he believes in corporate responsibility and good government. Okay, whatever. I tried to follow up, but the mic — understandably — had been turned off.

After the town hall ended, an obese women in a plain white t-shirt attracted the attention of about a dozen reporters. Practically in hysterics, she explained that her liver was thrashed and that under Obama’s plan,she’d be killed off as an unproductive member of society. The woman was bawling her eyes out, the reporters taking in every tear. Nobody wanted to talk about the issues. They wanted their narrative. And they got it.

Cardin himself is useless; if there’s a bigger nonentity in the Senate, I can’t think of him. Every last one of his answers were pathetically canned, although someone managed to squeeze out support for investigating tort reform from him (don’t hold your breath). But nobody left the town hall knowing anything more than they did when they arrived. On the other hand, though, nobody actually showed up to learn anything about the bill. I’m not sure who’s more responsible for the pointlessness of the event: the audience, or Ben Cardin.

All in all, I’d have to say that I learned something today: what we need is not health care reform. What we really need is education reform.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Gallup Political Survey

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

• Approve 43% (44%)
• Disapprove 49% (50%)

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

• Approve 48% (47%)
• Disapprove 49% (49%)

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

• Approve 53% (57%)
• Disapprove 40% (38%)

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

• Approve 53%
• Disapprove 30%

Survey of 1,010 adults was conducted August 6-9. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 17-19 are in parentheses.

Marist Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 55% (56%)
• Disapprove 35% (32%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (51%)
• Disapprove 37% (32%)

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

• Approve 52% (53%)
• Disapprove 41% (41%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (50%)
• Disapprove 45% (45%)

Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 74% (74%)
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 18% (18%)

Among Independents

• Economic conditions mostly inherited 76% (68%)
• Economic conditions mostly result of his own policies 14% (19%)

Survey of 845 registered voters was conducted August 3-6. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted June 1-3 are in parentheses.

There has been a lot of talk of health care death panels of late, with the left and right arguing over the exact details and purpose of the end of life government committee proposal in HR3200.  When applied at a macro level, the term ‘death panel’ is in fact entirely accurate in describing the bureaucratic structure of government health insurance. 

Both federal and provincial governments in Canada employ many death panels, which actually do lead to bureaucrats making decisions on behalf of patience and their physicians.  Through their process of deciding what pharmaceuticals, equipment and funding for services should be approved, these death panels actually do determine who lives and dies in Canada.   

The most terrifying example of a Canadian death panels, is the authorization process for pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices.  At the federal level, the Canadian Therapeutic Products Directorate is responsible for the first stage of this bureaucratic nightmare.  This directorate consists of twelve government bureau’s and agencies, and acts as the Canadian equivalent to the FDA, although much more bureaucratic, less effective and underfunded in comparison to their American counterpart.  In fact, the Canadian Therapeutic Products Directorate piggy-backs on the investments made by the FDA (US taxpayers) when clinical trials for new drugs and equipment are initiated.  This is one of their methods for compensating for a lack of government funding and oversight. 

Although credited with forcing large Pharma companies to sell drugs to Canadians at a lower cost then in the US (by eliminating competition), the median approval time for new drugs in Canada is 645 days vs 371 days in the United States.  This is an example of the trade-off President Obama is asking Americans to make with his health care reform legislation.  Universal coverage, mandates and government control, in exchange for delays in preventative and critical treatment, or; the deaths of a few to benefit the greater society.          

The next stage in the process of approving pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices in Canada, rests with the provincial governments.  In Canada’s largest province, Ontario, it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to seek listing on the Formulary/CDI by filing a complete submission to the ministry’s Drug Programs Branch for review by the ministry’s expert advisory committee, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee (death panel #2 in this process).  Once the submission for the new drug is approved by this panel, manufacturers must develop the sourcing protocol and market assessment, prior to the their application being reviewed by the provincial government’s Management Board of Cabinet, Legislation and Regulations Committee.

The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee is appointed by and reports directly to elected politicians (Minister of Health) in the Ontario government.  The committees (panel) main responsibility is to determining the value for money of drug products (pharmacoeconomic evaluations), which unlike the United States, does not rely on the free market and consumer demand when deciding what drugs and equipment are distributed to health care providers.  This second death panel is a model for President Obama’s End of life provision in the 1018 page health care reform legislation. Government appointed and controlled, this panel will determine treatment and funding for end of life care for our seniors.    

Each State Secretary of Health will provide oversight for the End of Life Provision, as the Ontario Minister of Health does for the public health budget and the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.  Your State Secretary will direct his/her panel to approve treatment based on budgetary requirements, not based on the critical needs of patients.  An untold number of people die each year in Ontario, because the death panel refuses to make life-saving drugs and equipment available to health practitioners.  I could find no better example, then this local news story of a cancer survivor who was saved by the big American Pharma companies, through a test trial of a cancer drug that is in legal circulation in the United States, but not approved in Ontario.  The government has determined that the cost of the drug was more important then saving people’s lives.

Do not believe that Canadians are giving up the fight for access to life saving treatment and drugs.  Since it is illegal to transport narcotics across the international border, Canadians have turned to the court system to fight the bureaucracy.  Court battles have raged across Canada for years, challenging the bureaucratic claim that cost, not saving lives was the critical element in determining access to life saving treatment and medication. 

Last year, hopes of reforming this process were dashed when health care reform crusader Jim Connors died of colorectal cancer.   A wealthy man who paid out of pocket for his own treatment, Mr Connors had been battling the government of Nova Scotia, over its refusal to provide insurance coverage for the cancer drug, Avastin.  Since private insurance is illegal in Canada and the single payer system refused to list the drug in its insurance program, citizens faced a choice of death or spending $35,000 per year on this medication.  What Mr Connors rightly pointed out, yet President Obama fails to understand, is that a public insurance program does not hurt the most wealthy, it actually threatens the health of the middle and working class.   

“In my view, this is the worst of two-tier health care. If you are financially well off and you can afford this drug you will probably live longer. If you don’t have the financial means, you will probably die sooner,”   

Americans are more than happy to import Canadian oil, beer, entertainment and automobiles, but what they should place a heavy tariff on, is the electric chair that government insurance death panels will most certainly bring to many American consumers. 

_________________________________________________________

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

Quinnipiac New Jersey Political Survey

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

• Approve 56% (61%)
• Disapprove 39% (33%)

Among Independents

• Approve 45% (54%)
• Disapprove 48% (38%)

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 51 percent of the vote among unaffiliated voters in New Jersey.

Among Whites

• Approve 45% (53%)
• Disapprove 49% (41%)

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

• Approve 52% (61%)
• Disapprove 42% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 42% (56%)
• Disapprove 51% (35%)

Among Whites

• Approve 44% (55%)
• Disapprove 51% (38%)

Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped the economy, hurt the economy, or haven’t made a difference?

• Helped 42%
• Hurt 24%
• No difference 29%

Among Independents

• Helped 37%
• Hurt 31%
• No difference 29%

Among Whites

• Helped 35%
• Hurt 30%
• No difference 32%

Looking forward, do you think President Obama’s policies will help the economy, will hurt the economy, or won’t make a difference?

• Will help 51%
• Will hurt 35%
• No difference 10%

Among Independents

• Will help 39%
• Will hurt 42%
• No difference 12%

Among Whites

• Will help 41%
• Will hurt 44%
• No difference 11%

Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or haven’t made a difference?

• Helped 16%
• Hurt 22%
• No difference 60%

Among Independents

• Helped 10%
• Hurt 26%
• No difference 62%

Among Whites

• Helped 13%
• Hurt 27%
• No difference 59%

Looking forward, do you think President Obama’s policies will help your personal financial situation, will hurt your personal financial situation, or won’t make a difference?

• Will help 35%
• Will hurt 35%
• No difference 27%

Among Independents

• Will help 24%
• Will hurt 45%
• No difference 29%

Among Whites

• Will help 25%
• Will hurt 45%
• No difference 27%

Survey of 1,301 registered voters was conducted August 5-9. The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 8 – 12 (May 12-18 on the economy question) are in parentheses.

Rasmussen America’s Biggest Enemies Survey

I’m going to read you a short list of countries. For each, please let me know if that country is an ally of the United States, an enemy of the United States or somewhere in between?

Ally / Enemy / In Between

• North Korea 4% / 75% / 15%
• Iran 5% / 70% / 20%
• Afghanistan 15% / 40% / 39%
• Iraq 17% / 41% / 37%
• Pakistan 12% / 28% / 53%
• Venezuela 20% / 34% / 34%
• Russia 17% / 27% / 50%
• China 19% / 26% / 51%
• Saudi Arabia 23% / 25% / 46%
• Vietnam 21% / 21% / 47%

Survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted August 6-7. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to a group of constituents at a town hall meeting about health care: 

“You Don’t Trust Me?”

“The charge of socialism is secondary to the basic message that Obama can’t be trusted, not because he is a politician, but because he’s black.“ 

That is how the Washington Post described the now infamous ‘Obama Joker‘ poster that has spread across the country.  Who knew that comparing Obama to a white comic book supervillain would be a clear sign of racism.  Funny that the Washington Post had no problem when Obama was compared to other white comic book characters, or religious icons, or depicted in other god-like images. 

In honor of the Washington Post’s stupidity, I give you a Max Twain remake:

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Upon reading through some of the comments on this post, I came across the fine detective work which was called to my attention by one of our own regular readers, Illinoisguy. You can see the website that divulges the amount of work done here. 

First off, I want to say that I am very impressed with the internet detective work that he put in to uncovering the person(s) behind the trueromney website (which I have not linked to on purpose).  The amount of information and definitive proof that he provides proves the identity of the culprit with no room for that person to wiggle his way out of.

It’s a shame that some who are connected with a potential campaign choose to delve into something of this nature this far out from the 2012 race.  It’s actually somewhat of a desperate move on their part because it means that they lack the confidence in the chances of their own candidate; so they feel the best way to pursue their own agendas is to tear others down, which is the nature of politics, but a little disheartening a full two years before the start of the primaries.

***
A comment from one of our readers:

LOL. What ever happened to Huckster’s “vertical politics??? Guess that only applies if your guy is winning. Hypocrites!

UPDATE: I was mistaken in my original opinion that Illinoisguy was the one who did the initial research that discovered the identity of the creator of the trueromney website.

Meanwhile, Romney just continues to go forward–ignoring the ankle-biters.

Those hucksarmy folk are the most pathetic, hypocritical, unchristian people you will ever have the dis-pleasure to come across. As usual, they simply devote their time and effort to trying to tear down someone else. What do you expect when their own guy operates his PAC to funnel money to his children. Losers.

However, Romney supporters shouldn’t try to pretend that this sort of thing is beneath their candidate (or his supporters) either, especially on a site as diverse as this one… because some of us have not forgotten 2007. 

Being one of the people who was personally involved in disclosing the identity of a person involved in a very similar situation during the last primaries, I felt the need to remind some of our readers that the Romney campaign was directly tied to the same sort of tactics in September of 2007 that they are now accusing Huckabee supporters of.

Have some of these supporters who are acting so angered that a prominent group supporting Governor Huckabee would delve into such a thing as creating a website that bashes a possible opponent forgotten about the case of Warren Tompkins and the PhonyFred debacle?

It’s pretty hard not to, considering that it was national news at the time.  Here is a Washington Post article from that time:

Anti-Thompson Site Connects to Romney Camp
A top adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney appears to be behind today’s launch of a new Web site attacking GOP presidential rival Fred Thompson.

The site, www.phoneyfred.org, paints an unflattering picture of Thompson, dubbing him: Fancy Fred, Five O’clock Fred, Flip-Flop Fred, McCain Fred, Moron Fred, Playboy Fred, Pro-Choice Fred, Son-of-a-Fred and Trial Lawyer Fred.

…

Nowhere on the site does it indicate who is responsible for it. But a series of inquiries leads directly to the website of Under the Power Lines, the political consulting firm of Warren Tompkins, Romney’s lead consultant in South Carolina.

The site www.politicalnetroots.com brings up the homepage for “Under the Power Lines,” which lists Tompkins as “Partner, Consultant,” along with Terry Sullivan and Welsley Donehue.

South Carolina politics is known to be rough-and-tumble. In 2000, it was in South Carolina that then-candidate John McCain ran into an organized effort to tar his character, including anonymous allegations that he had fathered a black child.

At the time, then-candidate George Bush was desperate to stop a surging McCain, who had just won a stunning upset in the New Hampshire primary. Tompkins was the chief strategist for Bush in South Carolina at the time, though Bush campaign officials have always denied that the campaign was responsible for the attacks.

A spokesman for Romney’s campaign said he would look into questions about the anti-Thompson site. “Our campaign is focused on the issues and ideas that are of paramount concern to voters,” said spokesman Kevin Madden. “The website we are focused on is MittRomney.com.”

Tompkins did not return calls or emails for comment.

So, while you have every right to trash the Huckabee supporters over this event, don’t act as though some of your more prominent supporters would never do such a thing.  Heck, Tompkins was an official for the campaign, and he never stepped down after this was uncovered. 

While you praise the fine work done by True Romney Expositor,  don’t go overboard in your condemnations of Huck supporters on this particular matter.

Note:  I’d almost forgotten that Romney’s state director (Terry Sullivan) of his South Carolina campaign was also involved…

The Web site, PhoneyFred.org, had attacked Mr. Thompson’s conservative credentials, opening with the line: “Phoney Fred. Acting like a conservative.” But Internet queries reveal connections between the site and Warren Tompkins, a South Carolina political consultant hired by Mr. Romney, and Terry Sullivan, Mr. Romney’s South Carolina state director.

_________________________________________________________

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

Populus Research New Hampshire 2012 Republican Primary

• Mitt Romney 50%
• Mike Huckabee 17%
• Sarah Palin 17%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%

Survey of 403 likely Republican primary voters was conducted August 10-11. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

I will guess that Democrat Congressmen who are on the fence about ObamaCare will be paying attention to Obama’s approvals during recess.  A lot can happen over the course of a month or two in American politics.

Today, though (more accurately, after a three-day rolling average of Rasmussen polling), unless I’m mistaken, Obama has for the first time hit 48-52% approve/disapprove.

______________________________________________________________

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.

“Patrick Henry once said that Liberty is never secure as long as government does business in secret.”

That quote is in capital letters and at the top of every Liberty Sentinel E-newsletter, published monthly by Richard Gannon, the Government Affairs director of the Kansas Press Association.  (If you want to subscribe to The Liberty Sentinel, go to this KPA page to contact Richard Gannon.)

Perhaps more than any other issue, a lack of transparency is a problem that is both a) bi-partisan and b) oddly polarizing, in that the public overwhelmingly wants it, but elected officials do not.

In Kansas — and probably most states — there are decent laws with regard to open meetings and open records.  But these laws are still inadequate, particularly in a computer age.  For example:

• For open records:
  • Local governments are allowed to charge burdensome per-page printing fees.
  • A city’s attorney, usually an employee, can comb through records (Emails, for example) to find “personnel exemptions.”  This can be abused easily, and nobody would ever know about it.
  • Even an individual elected city councilman can be prohibited from viewing records, without the will of the majority mandating the city manager to act.
• For open meetings:
  • It’s difficult to find local officials willing to enforce the law.
  • It’s difficult to find government attorneys willing to enforce the law.
  • If a district attorney rules incorrectly (whether intentionally or unintentionally), that often functions as the “final word” on the matter, and will impact all government bodies under the attorney’s jurisdiction.

I believe we can demand more from elected officials, and I’d like to share with you a project being undertaken by Kansans for Government Reform PAC, which I chair.  If readers have additional recommendations, I welcome them.

This pledge asks for two things from elected officials:

1. Develop online, easy-to-read, and free-to-the-public databases that list all — or at least virtually all — of the government entity’s expenditures.
2. Pledge to only go into detailed budget-related discussions — when they involve a majority of elected officials (whether at one time, or through serial meetings) — during open, public meetings.

There are at least two other benefits that I expect will come from this pledge:

1. To use Bill O’Reilly’s motto, it will tell voters which officials are “looking out for you”
2. It will provide encouragement for local officials who are in the minority opinion on their local government bodies, and who are on the fence about whether to report suspicious behavior.

Some people will argue that an online database is too large or expensive a project for a small government to develop.  My main reaction is: prove this to me; for a town of 50, why is a Google Excel-like online document too difficult?But in the unlikely circumstances that it is not feasible for a small government body to complete such a project, then this pledge provides two or three “outs:”

1. “This project will be completed at a reasonable cost.”  If that can’t be done, then one either should not sign it, or delay the site’s production.
2. I decided not to include a firm date for the project’s start or finish.  If a local official signs this, but the local government takes no action for over 12 months, then I am optimistic that this official will receive a sufficient level of pressure from his constituents to act.
3. It provides an optional area in which a person can explain his thoughts and objections.

Allow me to provide two situations that I’ve encountered in my area, relating to transparency.

1. Overland Park (where I live) is the second largest city in Kansas.  For the city officials, most elections are similar to 2009 April election:  the voter turnout is 9% and predominantly dominated by labor unions and Democrat-leaning voters.  The city only places online a very basic form of the budget.  At one point, a friend of mine requested the city’s budget.  He was told, “That will lead to the printing of 1200 pages, and at 25 cents a page, that will cost you $300.”  In 2009, my friend ran for city council.  During a debate with the incumbent (who won re-election), in a room of about 50 and with a Kansas City Star reporter in the audience, my friend brought up the high cost of budget transparency.  The incumbent downplayed the problem, stating, “I’ll make the budget available to any of you, free.”  Shortly after that, my friend received, in the mail, a printed version of the unhelpful, uninformative information that is online.  He called the city back, telling them that what he was provided wasn’t good enough.  Months later, he finally received the 300-page version, at no cost to him.  But, there were thousands of dollars listed under the category of “miscellaneous.”
2. At my request, the president of Johnson County Community College, the state’s largest college, pledged to put the overwhelming majority of college expenditures in an online format.  Knowing that this was not a winning issue for him to fight, he agreed to develop this online database without there even being a formal vote of the board.  Our budget is about $150 million a year.  He told me that most of the technology needed was already present, and that it would only cost about $25,000 in mostly labor-related hours to develop the final product.  Now, I have yet to see the final product, and I’d still like to see a formal vote that clearly spells out certain expectations, but I am pleased that I was able to convince this administrator to make the pledge that he did (a pledge that was then made known through multiple newspaper articles).

Below the fold, I’ve copied the local government pledge. (more…)

Maybe Obama should pay attention.

The money quote;

What is the lesson in all of this? Even with good intentions, the government generally cannot provide better health care services than the private sector. Beware of complex federal laws purporting to offer government health care. For those who want nationalized medicine, take heed of this lesson.

From Facebook.

Contrary to some assertions, Sarah Palin has a strong record supporting Alaskan seniors. For example, Governor Palin successfully obtained approval for a five year extension of a state program that provided monthly cash payments to low-income seniors.

On May 23, 2007, using a rarely invoked emergency regulation, Governor Palin ordered assistance benefits to continue for Alaska’s neediest seniors after the Alaska legislature failed to fund the SeniorCare Program. After her action, the legislature responded, and on July 28, 2007, Governor Palin signed Senate Bill 4 to continue support for low-income Alaskan seniors by adopting the Senior Benefits Program. “This program continues important assistance to Alaska seniors,” Governor Palin said. “I promised that seniors would not go hungry, and we worked with the Alaska Legislature to address this critical need.” It was estimated that 10,700 Alaskan seniors would be able to benefit under the program.

Also under Governor Palin’s tenure, on December 19, 2008, the state stepped in and took over the Mary Conrad Center, an Anchorage nursing home, when the state determined that there was “’immediate danger to the health, safety or welfare’ of its residents.”

So, with this clear record of support and care for Alaska’s seniors by Governor Palin, what is the current criticism about? According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, prior to Governor Palin’s election in November 2006, in April of 2006, in an effort to control rapidly increasing costs for home health care providers, known as the PCA program, Governor Frank Murkowski’s administration implemented a screening process for Alaska Medicaid eligible persons by using a Level of Care assessment (LOC). The LOC assessment was designed for persons who would otherwise require hospitalization or nursing home care and was intended to help weed out fraud and abuse.

By definition, many of these people were ill, elderly or disabled and thus in need of personal care attendants to assist them. Only registered nurse assessors were allowed to evaluate consumers to determine if they qualified for PCA care. The job of assessing consumers was contracted out, but the State of Alaska DHHS determined that the hired contractor had too much backlog. Notably, under federal Medicaid strictures, the State could not get another private business to bid on the contract. So the State was forced to take over the job in November 2007. However, the State DHHS was unable to eliminate the backlog using its own staff, and the backlog then grew. The Federal DHHS temporarily suspended new admissions to the PCA program pending audit compliance to handle the backlog of existing cases and come up with a plan to speed the assessment process. The suspension has been lifted as of August 12.

Further, Gov. Palin’s FY 2009 budget clearly showed her analysis of the issue as of December 2007, and described both the problem and the solution long before the federal government got involved. The backlog issue was discussed and a plan proposed for improvement.

The graph below shows that under Gov. Palin (2007 and 2008) the backlog problem was dramatically reduced, from 30.9% in 2005 to 4.5% in 2008. Looking at these data, one can conclude that Gov. Palin substantially reduced the outstanding percentage of Medicaid assessments by 83%.

% Not Reviewed

FY 2008 4.5%

FY 2007 4.5%

FY 2006 23.18%

FY 2005 30.9%

What is the lesson in all of this? Even with good intentions, the government generally cannot provide better health care services than the private sector. Beware of complex federal laws purporting to offer government health care. For those who want nationalized medicine, take heed of this lesson.

More information can be found here:
http://www.facebook.com/no te.php?note_id=11434557843 4

Much discussion recently has been devoted to Gov Palin’s remarks of “Death Panels” that will oversee healthcare and decide who lives and dies under government care.  Just logically thinking about it, she’s right.  If gov’t controls healthcare in this country (and that’s the end result of what’s being debated now, no matter the intentions and rhetoric being used to sell it as otherwise), they will HAVE to convene such panels to try and contain costs in a healthcare system that starts being used at three times or greater the current volume (if it’s “free,” people will use it to a much greater degree than they do now) with a reduction in the number of doctors (salaries will have to be curtailed to contain expenses, resulting in fewer new doctors willing to endure the rigors and debt of medical school)  and fewer innovations being produced (with less profit incentive, fewer people will put mopney in R&D, resulting in fewer innovative techniques, equipment, and medicines).  I know they have them in England, and I suspect they’re present in virtually any other gov’t healthcare plan out there (those of you who know better, please point out if I’m wrong on that).

Whether her comments are correct, however, isn’t really the point I’m worried about, however.  What I AM worried about is two-fold: 1) People will get so tired of hearing “doomsday” arguments (even if they happen to be true) that they’ll tune them out, and (2) this will end up leading us away from proposing solutions and explaining the flaws of the other side for the expediency of hyperbole and personal attacks.  An example of this is the whole global warming farce.  Yes, we all want a cleaner environment, since we all have to live in it.  Yes, we should rely less on fossil fuels, as they are noxious and increase our dependence on foreign countries that don’t like us.  These are excellent arguments to make, but they are bypassed for the “the world is going to burn!” line that isn’t proven (can you show me one of these computer models that has correctly predicted world temperatures over any five year span?  Why do these arguments sound exactly like the global cooling scam being foisted in the ’80′s?).  People are tiring of the armageddon pictures, and are moving away from it.  The exact same thing can happen in this healthcare debate.  Once we start using emotional arguments, we may box ourselves into undefendable territory, and lose arguments we should win on the merits.

Don’t get me wrong, evoking such images as “Death Panels” can have a strong impact on the current debate.  The idea is frightening, and would be very effective in the short-term.  However, we may defeat it this way now, only to allow it to resurface in (hopefully no sooner than) 15 years, when the next Dem administration tries again.  Let’s win on ideas, not rhetoric, and win a victory that’s going to stick.

Rasmussen America’s Closest Allies Survey

I’m going to read you a short list of countries. For each, please let me know if that country is an ally of the United States, an enemy of the United States or somewhere in between?

Ally / Enemy / In Between

• Canada 86% / 4% / 7%
• Great Britain 85% / 5% / 6%
• Israel 70% / 8% / 16%
• Germany 66% / 5% / 26%
• France 61% / 4% / 29%
• Japan 59% / 10% / 24%
• Mexico 54% / 11% / 29%

Survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted August 6-7. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Rasmussen Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 47% (44%)
• Creigh Deeds 38% (41%)

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 48%
• Creigh Deeds 26%

With Leaners

• Bob McDonnell 49%
• Creigh Deeds 41%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Mark Warner 63% (64%) / 31% (32%) [+32%]
• Bob McDonnell 53% (50%) / 30% (27%) [+23%]
• Tim Kaine 54% (48%) / 42% (44%) [+12%]
• Creigh Deeds 48% (49%) / 39% (35%) [+9%]

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 39% (37%)
• Somewhat approve 9% (14%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 41% (39%)

How would you rate the job Tim Kaine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 25% (25%)
• Somewhat approve 31% (30%)
• Somewhat disapprove 22% (23%)
• Strongly disapprove 21% (20%)

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Bob McDonnell 48% (45%)
• Creigh Deeds 30% (31%)

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Bob McDonnell 46% (47%)
• Creigh Deeds 24% (23%)

Which candidate is more likely to confront Virginia’s transportation problems?

• Bob McDonnell 36% (30%)
• Creigh Deeds 33% (34%)

Which candidate do you trust more on the issue of abortion?

• Bob McDonnell 39%
• Creigh Deeds 27%

In terms of how you will vote in the 2009 Governor Election, how important is the performance of President Obama?

• Very important 28%
• Somewhat important 16%
• Not very important 29%
• Not at all important 23%

Does Tim Kaine serving as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee have a positive impact on his ability to govern, a negative impact on his ability to govern or does it have no impact?

• Positive impact 21%
• Negative impact 40%
• No impact 33%

Survey of 500 voters was conducted August 10. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

As reported by Politico, Rick Santorum has placed himself among the people making visits to Iowa, possibly in preparation for a 2012 bid:

The Pennsylvanian, who lost his 2006 re-election bid, will visit Iowa on October 1st, appearing on a Des Moines radio talk show and speaking to a luncheon and workshop of Iowa’s Right to Life group before heading east to Dubuque, where he’ll headline a fundraiser for the conservative America’s Future Fund PAC and then speak about the future of the GOP to a public audience in the Mississippi River city.

“Your voice becomes more amplified when you go to a place like Iowa or New Hampshire,” Santorum explained in an interview Tuesday about the visit.

…And Santorum, an outspoken social conservative known by Republicans nationwide for his anti-abortion activism, could find support among the many conservative Christians who reliably participate in the GOP’s presidential caucuses.

Citing energy and health care, Santorum said: “One of the reasons I wanted to talk to the Right to Life folks is we can’t lose the moral component of those two bills as well as a lot of other things going on in Washington.”

But having been thumped by 18 percentage points in his bid for a third term and out of office since 2006, Santorum may have a difficult time appealing to a savvy Hawkeye state electorate that is likely to have a full complement of social conservatives to choose from.

“One of the things we’ve seen from the Iowa caucuses is candidates that appeal to the base do very well,” Santorum said when asked how his conservative profile would fit the state. “I think historically that’s always been sort of a key in Iowa. Whether I do or not, I don’t know—I mean, we’ll see.”

With the exception of geographical background, I can’t see how Santorum hopes to distinguish himself very much from the oft-mentioned social conservatives who figure to play prominent roles in Iowa – Huckabee, Palin and Pawlenty.

Upon reading Mark B. Lowe’s posted transcript of the Romney-Hewitt interview, I realized that the debate over Romneycare has nothing to do with comparisons to Obamacare, Massachusetts mandates or cost over-runs, but the federalist view Romney brings to the Obamacare debate;

We’re going to get rid of federalism when it comes to health care, and that would be a huge mistake.

The voters and politicians (nearly unanimously) in Massachusetts determined that Romneycare was their path to reforming the system, free from new Federal government mandates and a large public insurance program.  Although we would be tagged by the left as the party of ‘no’, our Republican leaders in Washington must oppose the expansion of medicare and medicaid, in any form.  No federal health care, education or corporate welfare programs, but instead allow each State to choose their own programs and funding mandates. 

If voters in Oregon chose a single-payer system, we should not interfere.  If voters in New York chose a free-market option, then allow them to make changes to tort laws and purchase insurance across State lines.  If voters in California decide to include medical marijuana as medicinal treatment for cancer and anxiety disorders, then order the FBI to leave the clinics alone. 

We can still win, while being the party of ‘no’, but with a disclaimer.

‘We believe in federalism and we believe in a decentralized health care reform option that allows States to select their own legislation, free from Federal government mandates and regulation’ .

Although I respect the bipartisan efforts of many in the GOP leadership, they should refrain from producing alternatives to HR 3200 and revert back to our parties pre-Bush approach to government bureaucracy.  This is what the heath care and tea party protesters have been communicating to their elected officials and it is the approach that our party has abandoned.   As DaveG, Alex and others have argued, that our party must focus on a pragmatic agenda, but that agenda must not include expanding the size and control of the federal government and in fact it must include the downloading of services and taxation rights to local governments.  Along with opposing the slave trade, this federalist belief was the entire basis of the foundation of the Republican party and historically when our leaders have embraced this approach, we’ve won elections.   

So, let us stop arguing over Romneycare and specific language used when attacking Obama’s constitutionally illegal health care reform legislation, and demand that our Republican leadership embrace traditional federalist values, that the majority of voters clearly support.

_________________________________________________________

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

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

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

• Approve 46% (49%)
• Disapprove 47% (44%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40% (44%)
• Disapprove 46% (44%)

How would you rate Barack Obama’s job performance on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest approval and 1 being the lowest?

• 1 27%
• 2 8%
• 3 5%
• 4 5%
• 5 9%
• 6 4%
• 7 8%
• 8 12%
• 9 22%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 39%
• Oppose 50%

Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?

• Yes 54%
• No 26%
• Not sure 20%

Among Republicans

• Yes 24%
• No 47%
• Not sure 29%

Among Independents

• Yes 63%
• No 16%
• Not sure 20%

Survey of 749 voters was conducted August 4-10. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% (D); 37% (R); 20%. Political views: 47% Moderate; 38% Conservative; 15% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12 are in parentheses.

No

Would that elected Republicans would raise their voices in other halls…

Tiring of the exaltation of procedure over substance in the health care debate by the Drive-by media

A bill that, among other things, would re-structure 20% of the American economy; end Medicare as we know it; pay doctors to initiate end of life discussions with patients over the age of 64; coerce employers to substitute private health insurance plans with a government-run plan; and set up a government panel with broad discretion to determine under what circumstances patients may receive what medical treatments, cleared its committee on its way to a floor vote in the House of Representatives right before the August recess when members of Congress routinely have Town Hall meetings in their respective districts.

Yet, despite the monumental life and death import of a bill concerning the number one priority of a President Barack Obama with huge majorities of his party controlling both houses of Congress, that party and the press would have us concern ourselves with the supposed ubiquitous breakdown of decorum by concerned citizens that have dared raise their voices in protest when confronted by elected officials that deny the existence of actual written words in the House bill.

Are Town Halls the new Science Class? Speaker Pelosi the new Royal?

Given the faux outrage at the supposed sanctity of meetings between exalted yea/nay voters on mostly simple questions, i.e. elected representatives and their employers, i.e. voters, one would think that the Town Hall had replaced Science Class as the venue for the Left’s Establishment of Religion, when the name of God, profanity and other blasphemies must not be uttered.

One can hardly blame many in the media from being shocked to discover that righteous indignation and passion are not unknown in non-radio host conservatives given John McCain & Co.’s polite disagreements with their “honorable friends” in the Democratic Party that accused President George W. Bush of lying us into war for six years; and have accused them of bigotry and not caring about the poor for sixty years.

Jesus, the money changers and “Get thee behind me Satan”!

If one doesn’t get passionate enough to raise one’s voice while one’s basic humane decency is questioned and as war enemies are emboldened to fight on, then why would one expect public outrage over just another government option?

After all, despite the near unanimous GOP votes against a written stimulus bill whose very language ensured that only government growth would be stimulated, no one’s voice was raised at the time. But isn’t that one of the problems?

Un-read stimulus didn’t stimulate

The hopeful American people have seen the surprises from a non-stimulus the Dems had no time to read as President Obama urged its passage so that unemployment wouldn’t reach 8%, with the biggest surprise being a stimulated 9.5% rate.

Fool me once shame on you. Now, its me, with “me” being the Gallup and other polls showing that once Lawyer Obama began his closing argument and put the “hope” in writing, he lost the jury.

So, like a good community organizer with no facts, he blows smoke. The smoke being a resort to generalities over substance; exaltation of the importance of Town Hall procedures; and a false slippery slope of anarchy around the corner due to a couple of Town Hall meetings in which loud, unruly voters disrupted rather than endured a polite indulgence of the usual smoke from the lips of Democrats that wanted the bill passed before they had to face their constituents.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me, comes to mind, as I have been made aware of but one actual act of violence with that being by Democrat liberal thugs that sent an anti-Obamacare black man to the hospital.

Healthy Congressional eardrums

No congressman has yet to lose their hearing due to the rude din of conservatives.

I cannot remember the last time a Democrat not named Bill Clinton actually responded to criticism of the substance of their proposals, and even in his case, it was to defend his proposals for welfare reform and NAFTA from attacks by the Left.

Congressmen are like barbers. Who do I let cut my hair, the barber that competently cuts my hair every 4 weeks, but from whom I have to endure 40 minutes of disagreeable patter; or the witty butcher?

I may not be a Werewolf in London, but my hair is perfect; Town Halls last minutes; but laws last years and cost millions of lives. The latter might be worth a shout.

DeVine Law

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

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

Mitt was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program yesterday. Here is the transcript. A few highlights:

* Well, I think he’s [Obama] going way beyond what the American people think is right, and way beyond what’s necessary. I think we all recognize that we have a problem, that people are worried that if they lose their job, they would lose their insurance. That’s a real problem, and having a lot of people without insurance is a problem. But we can get people insured, and we can take away the worry of people losing their coverage without having to have the government get into the insurance business, and ultimately move to a single-payer system. That is the wrong way to go, and I think America’s responding the way you’d expect, which is hey, we value our independence. We do not want government taking over health care.

*And now the big task, which is the other 90% of the job, is figuring out how to get health care costs from rising through the roof. And that’s, I think, a problem that everybody recognizes. We just can’t have costs going up and up and up. And I think it’s one of the criticisms most people have of the Obama plan, which is it does virtually nothing to stop the growth in health care costs. Nor did ours, by the way. We got everybody insured, but getting health costs reined in is the big challenged, and there are a number of ideas out there now that I think have a lot of merit. But Barack Obama’s plan is certainly not going to help.

* There’s no question there’s some aspects in the Massachusetts plan I’d like to see changed. I said it at the time. So yeah, I’m afraid that the Obama plan basically says hey everybody, all the states, you all step aside. We’re going to get rid of federalism when it comes to health care, and that would be a huge mistake.

* I’m sure a number of the criticisms that are spoken about our plan are fair. There are a number of adjustments that certainly need to be made from time to time, and we said that at the time we put the bill in place. There’s some things about it I don’t like that actually I vetoed at the time that the bill was coming through. My veto was overridden. That’s the way things work in the world of politics. So I don’t mind people pointing out places where they think we could make improvements.

* I’d like to let states have more flexibility, and use money we’re sending them in Medicaid, and then payments to care for the poor called dish payments. I’d like them to be able to use those funds as they see fit. Let’s learn from their experiments before we put in place a federal one size fits all plan. And you know, I continue to believe that as we deal with something as important as health care, that having a few Congressmen draft a bill that no one has a chance to read, including the Obama administration, and then saying this is now going to be the future for health care for all Americans, that’s just crazy.

* I must admit, that with all the years that I’ve watched politics in this country, there’s always been a very healthy debate. And sometimes, there is good information and bad information, but that’s the nature of a debate. People are going back and forth with their various viewpoints, and ultimately, we settle on what we think is the right thing. I think it’s in some respects a little amusing to watch the folks on the left so critical of demonstrations of political discussion. Demonstrations and energy and anger has always been sent from the left, and has been lauded by the media.

Lots of good stuff over there. As they say, “Read the whole thing”.

Last week, John Hughes died.  If you’re a child of the 80′s, or just (like me) a child who liked the 80′s, that came as pretty upsetting news.  Hughes was the director of such The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, and Sixteen Candles.  As a writer, he penned such classics as Vacation, Pretty in Pink, and (my favourite) Some Kind of Wonderful.  If he didn’t quite define a generation, but he kept them consistently in popcorn.

He was also, if we can believe National Review and Slate magazine, a conservative and a Republican.  Mark Hemmingway of National Review writes:

The two decades before Hughes emerged as a filmmaker were filled with representations of America as a bitterly divided and deeply unjust place. According to Ben Stein — the former Nixon speechwriter Hughes made famous for a new generation with his brief role in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off — Hughes even ended up a Republican.

An older Slate article, from 2006, titled The Political Conservatism of John Hughes, makes much the same case albeit with more psychoanalysis.  I’d never heard this about Hughes, but it doesn’t surprise me at all.  The themes that run through his work aren’t overtly political, but they’re more than a little cultural.  And they come out just a little incompatible with conventional liberalism.  Ferris Bueller may rebel against authority, but his high school girlfriend also thinks he’s going to marry her and, well, we think she’s probably right.  Even the title gives it away; Ferris Bueller’s DAY off.  Not life off.  It’s the brilliant but tame rebellion which comes before a respectable life and responsibility.  The Breakfast Club may emphasize harsh realities, but it also shows that we’re ultimately able to overcome our differences.  Class is a facade not a real barrier. This isn’t George Bush conservatism or even, probably, Ronald Reagan conservatism, but it’s a kind of conservatism nonetheless.

Where has it gone?  Decades ago, the Republican tent was smaller than it is now-arguably smaller even under Reagan, in terms of sheer numbers of self-identified Republicans- but it was filled with a cast of character’s with vibrant and diverse views who, despite their differences, you could recognize as an integral part of the movement.  The Slate article mentions P.J. O’Rourke Republicans, describing them as:

“Disco Hobbes” into sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll as much as guns, SDI, and the flat tax: Ted Nugent fused with Tom Wolfe, in other words.

Where are these guys?  Nowadays, even P.J. O’Rourke isn’t a P.J. O’Rourke Republican; he’s gotten older, more conventional and institutionalized; some of the sense of rebellion has left.  Or forget about P.J. O’Rourke.  What about James Ellroy?  James Ellroy, for those of you not obsessed with film and fiction, is the writer of the books that led to the film L.A. Confidential.  L.A. Confidential is a movie about drugs, sympathetic call girls, and crooked cops.  It is also, or so I thought, one of the most essentially conservative movies I’ve ever seen.  It turns out that Ellroy is a conservative- sort of.  He’s said:

I am conservative by temperament. I disapprove of criminal activity. I am very solidly and markedly on the side of authority. The truth is I would rather err on the side of too much authority than too little.

He’s also given interviews to National Review.  Where are the James Ellroy conservatives- respectful of authority, irreverent about cultural tradtionalism while remaining strongly moralistic?  Or how about the William Safire’s and Stanley Fish’s of the world?  Like the current NYT house conservatives, they were never traditionally conservative.  Unlike the current New York Times House conservatives, they were still essentially conservative, and their idiosyncracies were pretty explicable.  David Brooks’ National Greatness Conservatism (by way of Hamilton)- since at least 2005-  looks more like National Goodness Moderation.  He’s dull, stale and, when he does side with the right (Iraq), utterly conventional.

Even obvious fonts of political conservatism- National Review and the Weekly Standard for instance- have lost their zing.  National Review used to house Ayn Rand and Whittaker Chambers- political opposites or near to- simultaneously. And these two weren’t even political types first; they were folks who’d been doing something else, but eventually found that they had a conservative story to tell.  There’s was a conservatism that came from life lived.  Where are these people, on the political right?  Now it’s filled with careerist politicians and careerist commentators.  Even Charles Krauthammer, a former doctor- has become a sort of careerist whose views now nearly align with the typical establishment Republican.  He’s still fun to read and eminently sensible, but there’s a sense of something lost.

We’ve built a big-tent, but it has a small philosophy.  The traditional right, even now, is bigger than it was in the 70′s, but the political right is smaller.  Our James Buckley’s- idiosyncratic, anti-establishment, conservatives who could win in the north- have been replaced by Olympia Snowe’s; thoroughly conventional moderates with almost no interest in conservatism.  This new breed can end up on the right or the left, depending on the political winds, because at bottom they’re about tone, dialoguing, and deals; not ideals.

The Buckley’s, Rand’s, Chambers, Hughes’ and Ellroy’s could never end up on the left.  When the right floundered, they’d just go home and give up their experiment at trying to change the world.  Rand did it, effectively, when NR booted her; Chambers did it, retreating to his cabin in the woods.  And ultimately Hughes did it, spending the last 15 years of his life in essential retirement.  Maybe he couldn’t make sense of a new Hollywood which couldn’t accept even veiled, tame conservatism in its teen films.  Or maybe he couldn’t make sense of the right, which had lost the glamour and vibrancy of men like William Safire and Ronald Reagan, so he went back to his wife of 39 years and lived the conservative life, leaving the cultural landscape to the left.  Now that he’s really gone, we find we need someone who, like Ferris, knows that’s it’s Ok to live spontaneously, but not everyday; someone who understands that irreverence can go hand in hand with authority.

-

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

Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Reform Plan

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 26% (25%)
• Somewhat favor 16% (22%)
• Somewhat oppose 9% (8%)
• Strongly oppose 44% (41%)

How likely is it that the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats will become law this year?

• Very likely 18% (15%)
• Somewhat likely 33% (34%)
• Not very likely 29% (27%)
• Not at all likely 10% (12%)

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 26% (23%)
• Worse 51% (50%)
• Stay about the same 17% (23%)

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 51% (53%)
• Cost will go down 19% (23%)
• Stay the same 21% (18%)

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted August 9-10. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 26-27 are in parentheses.

Quinnipiac New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 51% (53%)
• Jon Corzine 42% (41%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 64% (64%)
• Jon Corzine 29% (28%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Chris Christie 42% (39%) / 26% (20%) [+16%]
• Jon Corzine 37% (34%) / 54% (58%) [-17%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Jon Corzine is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 36% (33%)
• Disapprove 58% (60%)

Among Independents

• Approve 26% (24%)
• Disapprove 70% (69%)

Regardless of how you intend to vote, which candidate for Governor, do you think would do a better job handling the state budget – Jon Corzine or Chris Christie?

• Chris Christie 47% (50%)
• Jon Corzine 41% (36%)

Regardless of how you intend to vote, which candidate for Governor, do you think would do a better job cleaning up corruption – Jon Corzine or Chris Christie?

• Chris Christie 54% (54%)
• Jon Corzine 31% (30%)

Do you think being a federal prosecutor has given Chris Christie enough experience to be governor of New Jersey?

• Yes 55% (57%)
• No 35% (30%)

Do you think Jon Corzine’s background as an investment banker has made him a better governor, a worse governor, or hasn’t it made a difference?

• Better governor 24% (20%)
• Worse governor 19% (19%)
• Hasn’t made difference 53% (58%)

Which party would you like to see control the New Jersey State Legislature after the elections in November – the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

• Republican Party 45% (43%)
• Democratic Party 43% (45%)

Among Independents

• Republican Party 49% (47%)
• Democratic Party 28% (30%)

Survey of 1,167 likely voters was conducted August 5-9. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 8 – 12 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

In a three-way matchup among likely voters, Christie leads Corzine 46 – 40 percent, with 7 percent for independent candidate Christopher Daggett, a little tighter than July 14.

A total of 93 percent of New Jersey voters say government corruption is a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” problem and 65 percent of voters say the recent wave of corruption arrests embarrasses them as New Jersey residents.

Voters say 50 – 15 percent that they associate the Democratic Party with corruption more than the Republican Party. Independent voters blame Democrats 56 – 9 percent. Even 28 percent of Democrats point the finger at their own party.

“Is corruption a big problem? Wow, is it! Almost everyone in New Jersey thinks so. And two thirds feel personally embarrassed to live in a state where politicians are pictured in handcuffs,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“More than half associate corruption with the Democratic party. Almost a third say both parties share the blame. Republicans pretty much get a pass.”

It’s just like Alex said…

Bob Tyrell of the American Spectator recently reported that MSNBC contacted him specifically seeking a guest who would defend the “birther” conspiracy theory — and refused to have him on when he informed the network that he would calmly explain why the theory was incorrect and that Obama was, yes, indeed born in the United States.

That a legitimate news channel would specifically seek to cloud the truth, to echo conspiracies, to legitimize nonsense at the expense of reality, is horrifying enough. But what happens when people buy into it?

Few prominent mainstream conservatives who identify with the “birthers.” The most serious conservatives that do are perennial candidate Alan Keyes — now a Constitution Party member — Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, who did not vote for John McCain, and Jerome Corsi — also a Constitution Party member. In other words: the most serious conservatives that do are not serious at all.

But regardless of what the Republican Party’s leaders are thinking, its base has become utterly unhinged. Only a quarter of North Carolina Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States, and the numbers aren’t much better in Virgina. The town hall meeting protests are not examples of ordinary Americans rising up against an oppressive government: they are embarrassing displays of lunatic paranoia designed on shutting down debate. It’s not that the other side has any serious points to make, but rather that a town hall meeting is, well, supposed to be a town hall meeting, not a mosh pit. Elsewhere, the Tea Parties are erratic and unfocused, a far cry from what poor Rick Santelli surely envisioned them being. Our supposedly capitalist leaders are talking of secession (Perry), total socialism (DeMint), and death panels (Palin).

Quite simply, these people don’t sense the sarcasm when Glenn Beck says that we’re getting closer to giant missile parades.

My e-mail inbox is bombarded daily with mail from websites like WorldNetDaily and the Patriot Depot flacking “Got a Birth Certificate?” bumper stickers, “A Question of Eligibility” DVDs, and “the latest proof” that Obama was born in Kenya and that his birth certificate was forged.

What on Earth is happening to mainstream political debate in this country? Cable news is virtually unwatchable, the influence of the dying newspaper industry is shrinking, and blogs are trafficked not for their reason, but for their passion. Cass Susstein may have been right when he predicted, nearly a decade ago, that our increasingly customized world would lead to a culture of narcissism.

There seems to be little reason to believe that a sensible, center-right candidate could not, channeling Nixon, echo the concerns and pragmatism of the Silent Majority. But if over half of the national party’s rank-and-file are convinced that our president is a Kenyan, I don’t envision him getting nominated.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

A favorite philosophical question often asked is, “Why does your average teacher earn a little more than one percent of what Alex Rodriguez does in a year?” There’s a simple market-based explanation for this. Alex Rodriguez can play the game of baseball like few other people and his services come at a premium in a free market.

However, Alex Rodriguez would earn far less if only the Major League Players were represented by the National Education Association and they applied the same principles of labor to the Major Leagues that they do to education.

Every baseball player would be paid based on a union scale of what a shortstop, third basemen, pitcher or second basemen was supposed to make based on their years of experience in the major leagues without regard to performance. If you proposed to give a player a bonus for making the all-star team or hitting fifty homers, you’d be denigrated for discouraging teamwork and not recognizing that because of their ballparks, players behind them in the batting order, and even factors such as height and natural hitting talent, not every player could achieve these goals, so the incentive would be unfair.

By this same standard, unions would protect players, managers, and even GMs from retribution for a team having a losing season. After all, there are a lot of factors that can’t be controlled by any single individual that can affect wins and losses.

In addition to this, we would have baseball tenure, which means that after a few years in the major leagues, you could not get rid of a player who couldn’t hit, couldn’t field, and showed no interest in making an effort at a job where there was no reward for excellence and no risk for failure.

We’d create a game full of .250 hitters because we would no longer reward excellence. Top players who could switch sports or play overseas would. Fans would refuse to tolerate it. They would turn away in disgust from a system that rewarded mediocrity.

If we wouldn’t take this from a major sport, why do we accept it from the people who are sent billions of dollars to educate America’s children?

Teachers should be paid like Alex Rodriguez. On the merit of their abilities. This must happen for America to have a Major League Education system.

H/T: Tommy Boy

____________________________________

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