Research 2000/Daily Kos Virginia Survey
If the 2009 election for Governor were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Creigh Deeds the Democrat and Bob McDonnell the Republican?
- Bob McDonnell 51% (45%)
- Creigh Deeds 43% (44%)
Among Independents
- Bob McDonnell 55% (47%)
- Creigh Deeds 40% (44%)
Among Men
- Bob McDonnell 57% (49%)
- Creigh Deeds 40% (40%)
Among Women
- Creigh Deeds 46% (48%)
- Bob McDonnell 45% (41%)
Among Whites
- Bob McDonnell 65% (59%)
- Creigh Deeds 33% (34%)
Northern Virginia
- Creigh Deeds 65% (64%)
- Bob McDonnell 27% (22%)
“Real” Virginia
- Bob McDonnell 60% (54%)
- Creigh Deeds 35% (36%)
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Bob McDonnell 57% (55%) / 38% (36%) [+19%]
- Barack Obama 51% (56%) / 44% (41%) [+7%]
- Creigh Deeds 46% (47%) / 40% (35%) [+6%]
Among Independents
- Bob McDonnell 56% (53%) / 37% (35%) [+19%]
- Barack Obama 49% (54%) / 44% (41%) [+5%]
- Creigh Deeds 45% (46%) / 42% (34%) [+3%]
Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted August 3-5. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (D); 33% (R); 28% (I). Results from the poll conducted June 15-17 are in parentheses.
Man, are we in trouble. The apologists for Radical Islam — or, just as bad, those ignorant of its nature — have come out in full force at the White House.
Let’s go through a couple of the problems at hand.
“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.
The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is “at war with al Qaeda.”
“We are at war with al Qaeda,” he said. “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”
Okay, so we’re at war with Islamic terrorists, right? I’m willing to accept this inasmuch as you cannot really fight terrorism itself, although you can certainly blunt its effects. al-Qaeda’s allies, of course, include countries as diverse as Iran, Sudan, and Syria, and, of course, its ideological allies in Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc.
But use a nice name:
Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
“Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself,” Mr. Brennan said.
Jihad means ‘struggle.’ Within the context of Islam, most Muslim theologians differentiate between the ‘greater jihad,’ which is indeed self-purification — the struggle to become a better Muslim. This is considered the more important form of jihad. However, the ‘lesser jihad’ is just as much a duty and is accepted, in all four mainstream Sunni schools of thought, as warfare against non-Muslims, typically in self-defense against an aggressor against Muslims. (One school, Shafi’i, supports offensive warfare.)
But the “lesser” jihad is the only one that is any concern to the West.
And the United States is indeed at war with a certain strain of Islam — pure, ultra-orthodox Islamic thought harkening back to the warfare of Muhammad. For practical reasons, to be sure, there are certain things our government officials can’t say about Islam — but what, then, to call our enemies? This isn’t a War on Terror, a War Against Jihadism — well, what is it, then? I assume that since we want to downplay the Islamic element, we can’t call it a War Against Radical Islam, a War Against Islamofascism, or anything like that.
But of course, this is an Islamic issue. As long as there is Islam, there will be jihad, and as long as there is jihad, there will be those who want to partake in offensive warfare, or — as bin Laden, a Wahhabist (Wahhabists consider themselves members of the Hanbali school of thought), explains it, mere defensive warfare. This jihad against America, he says, is a retaliation against American aggression against Islam — for sanctions against Iraq, for our (former) bases in Saudi Arabia, for our “meddling” in Egypt and making it more un-Islamic, for our “theft” of Arab oil, for our “oppression” of the Palestinians. This may be a holy war to him, but our officials haven’t chosen to integrate this into our national vocabulary.
Overseas Contingency Operation, it is!
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
The new unemployment rate is set to head to 9.6%, up from 9.5%.
The rolling average of new unemployment claims has also been declining for six weeks.
Interesting.
Will the economy be obviously recovering by 2010? You can bet that once there are good trends, Obama’s friends in the media will trumpet it from noon until night.
UPDATE: Commenter Tommy Boy says: not so fast, Alex. They might be higher.
In a 68-31 vote, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.
I’m a little irritated at senators like Mel Martinez and Lindsey Graham, who voted for her because “elections have consequences.” Guess what, Martinez? Your election had a consequence, too. An intellectually honest, originalist interpretation should be a qualification for sitting on the high court.
So, just wonderful.
By the way, the abstaining senator was Ted Kennedy, who expressed his support for Sotomayor.
Quinnipiac National Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
- Approve 50% (57%) [59%]
- Disapprove 42% (33%) [31%]
Among Independents
- Approve 45% (52%) [57%]
- Disapprove 45% (37%) [30%]
Among Men
- Approve 45% (54%) [54%]
- Disapprove 46% (38%) [36%]
Among Whites
- Approve 43% (51%) [52%]
- Disapprove 48% (39%) [37%]
Among those earning $50-100K
- Approve 43% (54%) [54%]
- Disapprove 50% (37%) [37%]
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?
- Approve 45% (52%)
- Disapprove 49% (42%)
Among Independents
- Approve 41% (47%)
- Disapprove 53% (46%)
Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped the economy, hurt the economy, or haven’t made a difference?
- Helped 37%
- Hurt 29%
- No difference 31%
Among Independents
- Helped 34%
- Hurt 31%
- No difference 31%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Helped 30%
- Hurt 34%
- No difference 32%
Among Whites
- Helped 31%
- Hurt 33%
- No difference 33%
Looking forward, do you think President Obama’s policies will help the economy, will hurt the economy, or won’t make a difference?
- Help 49%
- Hurt 33%
- No difference 14%
Among Independents
- Help 42%
- Hurt 36%
- No difference 17%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Help 39%
- Hurt 43%
- No difference 14%
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 13%
- Hurt 23%
- No difference 63%
Among Independents
- Helped 8%
- Hurt 25%
- No difference 65%
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?
- Help 33%
- Hurt 36%
- No difference 28%
Among Independents
- Help 28%
- Hurt 39%
- No difference 30%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Help 30%
- Hurt 44%
- No difference 24%
Among Whites
- Help 27%
- Hurt 41%
- No difference 29%
Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
- President Obama 47% (54%)
- Republicans in Congress 36% (32%)
Among Independents
- President Obama 42% (49%)
- Republicans in Congress 33% (32%)
Among those earning $50-100K
- President Obama 40% (51%)
- Republicans in Congress 43% (35%)
Among Men
- Approve 42% (52%)
- Disapprove 40% (35%)
Among Whites
- Approve 40% (48%)
- Disapprove 42% (37%)
I think they are astroturf …you be the judge.
They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to townhalls on healthcare.
I have watched seniors, war vets, families and disabled people at the town halls.
I generally refer to our seniors as, ‘the greatest generation’ and war vets (who suffer in our VA hospitals), as, ‘our most cherished citizens’.
The media will overlook these statements, but I would argue Pelosi’s comments represent the darkest aspect of American politics.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
I think Rush Limbaugh is on to something when he talks about the left fearing Sarah Palin. To be clear, I am largely neutral on the 2012 GOP Presidental nomination. I do consider Palin to be a viable candidate, should she choose to run. And I among those who think that a large factor in the left’s brutal attacks on Palin is that they legitimately fear her.
.jpg)
The left also fears Kris Kobach, the 2006-2008 Kansas GOP Chairman who is running for the open Kansas Secretary of State’s position.
Tonight, at 10:30 p.m. Central on Comedy Central, Kobach is a guest on The Colbert Report. Tomorrow, at 7:15 a.m. Central, Kobach will be a guest on The Fox News Channel’s Fox and Friends.
Kobach is a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He grew up in Topeka, KS, and he has degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and Yale. His background includes:
The New York Times recently ran a profile and a separate news article on Kobach. I’ll note the obvious: never does the old-guard media refer to a “liberal law professor” or a “fascist law professor,” but in the first sentences of both the Times profile and article, it is stated as fact that Kobach is a “conservative law professor.” The Times carries the left’s talking points: in court, Kobach’s opponents are “pro-immigrant,” and The Times considers credible those who state that Kobach somehow dislikes Hispanics.
I’ll be watching The Colbert Report tonight at 10:30, and I encourage you to do the same.
Go here to sign up for Emails from the Kobach campaign, and go here to join Kobach on Facebook.
______________________________________________________________
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.
A straw poll was taken by John J. Miller yesterday at the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) national conference going on right now. The attending students were asked which of the current 2012 candidates they preferred. They are young, smart, and enthusiastic about conservative values and principles.
Without looking, see if you can guess who came in first and second place. 
My apologies to those who have already seen this story:
Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
…A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
…Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever – not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother – to be offered through the insurance exchange.
…But Senate staffers said Capps’ compromise is unacceptable to Republican senators.
This could hurt the bill’s already suspect chances of passing, as I can’t see many, if any, Republicans voting in favor of a bill that contains a provision like this. Furthermore, this will probably make the Blue Dogs even more afraid of a backlash from their conservative constituents. Thoughts?
Sarah Huckabee has responded to the criticism of the last few weeks. This was posted at www.HuckPAC.com. Since I have been quick to point out a number of possible problems they might be having, it is only fair to publish this in its entirety, uncut and unedited.
Over the last few weeks it seems that we have had a lot of questions from people confused about what the purpose of Huck PAC is. I want to be very clear — the goal and purpose of Huck PAC is for one thing and one thing only, TO HELP GOOD CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES GET ELECTED TO OFFICE. Our goal is to do this by not only helping with a financial contribution but also by developing our grassroots organization into a well oiled machine that can have real impact in elections on the local, state, and federal level.
Most PAC’s exist merely as a way to build their own lists, funnel money to candidates, and cover expenses for the principal of the organization. We have never operated like everyone else and therefore didn’t create our PAC to either. The strength of every campaign my dad has ever run has been in the people at the grassroots level and we want to continue that in Huck PAC and WE ARE doing that. We aren’t ignorant in thinking that grassroots is the only thing that matters and that you can be successful without some financial backing as well, but we refuse to let our PAC be something it was not created to be. We will continue to raise money and be frugal with it. We have not, are not, and do not intend to operate in the red. Do we have payments to make, yes, but much like a mortgage they are scheduled payments that we have made every time when due. Our donors are generous with what they have and we hope the number of donors continues to increase, and our faithful continue to contribute to the cause as well.
We are on target for the goals we set this year in both fundraising and organization. None of us who are actually doing the work each day are unaware of ways we can and hope to improve, but we are often simply limited by the level of support that we receive not only financially, but prayerfully and in other ways. We will all continue to work as a team and always appreciate new ideas and suggestions on ways to make our team better and complete the job we set out to do.
We will continue to fight for the candidates that believe in strong families, smaller government, individual freedoms and the conservative cause. I hope you will join with us in battle.
Thoughts?
More and more, young men and women are not selecting elected public service as their career choice.
But I just met a young man, 31 years old, who is a two-term state legislator from Ohio. His name is Joshua Mandel, but everyone calls him Josh. Earlier, he had served on the city council of his suburban Cleveland community. Next year, he will probably be the Republican nominee for Ohio state treasurer and win that post. Barring the unforeseen, this is only the beginning of a remarkable political career.
Most Americans do not remember that Ohio has produced more presidents of the United States than any other state. It used to be called “the cradle of the presidency.” The last Ohioan to occupy the White House was Warren Harding. Before that, William Henry Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, and William Howard Taft hailed from the Buckeye State, and all of them, except for the first Harrison, were born there.
I do not know if Joshua Mandel will someday join that list, but I think it’s safe to say that state treasurer will not be his last political destination.
Mandel has already served two terms as president of the Ohio State University student government, two terms as city councilman, and two terms as a state legislator. In that same decade, he also attended and graduated from law school, got married, and served two tours as a combat intelligence U.S. marine in Iraq. He volunteered for the second tour, working in volatile and dangerous Anbar province. Mandel, like Tom Ridge before him, did not join the armed services as an officer after college. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, was first in his boot camp class, and later first in his class at Marine intelligence school. He holds the rank of staff sergeant. He was awarded two Marine Corps achievement medals during his combat tours.
As a campaigner, Mandel is already something of a legend. He was given little chance to win in any of his races, including the one at Ohio State. He won them all, primarily because he campaigned relentlessly and prodigiously, knocking on tens of thousands of doors and raising large amounts of campaign funds. His legislative district is mostly Democratic. Far left Congressman Dennis Kucinich represents half of Mandel’s district. But Republican Mandel won his most recent race with 71% of the votes. During his first term, Mandel volunteered for his second tour of duty in Iraq, Returning from that tour just in time to campaign for re-election, his Democratic opponent ran as ad saying that Mandel had been an “absentee” legislator. This was exactly the wrong thing to say about a man fighting for his country as a combat marine, particularly someone like Josh Mandel, who returned to win a landslide in a district that normally votes heavily Democratic.
Nor is Mandel bashful about his economic conservatism. While on the city council, he proposed a property tax decrease for suburban Lyndhurst. His colleagues on the council laughed out loud. They didn’t laugh, however, when 500 residents showed up at the next council meeting (usually 5-10 persons attend) and demanded the tax decrease. It passed, and was the first and only municipal property tax decrease anywhere in Ohio in memory. In the legislature, Mandel has taken the lead in several conservative tax and finance issues, including overhaul of workman’s compensation investment, and also serves on the public utilities committee as vice chairman, and on the criminal justice, judiciary and alternative energy committees. Mandel promises watchdog and conservative reform in the state treasurer’s office.
Watching Mandel perform as he tours the country to raise funds for his next race (his goal is to raise a million dollars one year before the treasurer’s race begins in earnest), there is no question that he is already something of a political presence. Bright, aggressive, quite articulate and seemingly fearless, he leaves his audiences with a sense they have met a future political superstar. He has a story to tell, and he knows how to tell it. including about two grandfathers who were the greatest influence on his life, one a Holocaust survivor from Poland, and the other a World War II veteran. Proudly Jewish, Mandel pointedly cites how the Italian Jewish side of his family were saved from the Nazis by the Catholic Church.
These are not good times for the Republican Party in Ohio and the nation. Only a few years ago, Republicans were in charge almost everywhere. Now they are in minorities, and struggling to redefine conservatism for the years ahead. Young talented persons in both parties seem more and more reluctant to enter public service with the brutal state of election campaigns, the preoccupation with fundraising, and the severe restriction on privacy and personal lives.
Josh Mandel is, for now, a contrarian phenomenon, already a model of political energy and conservative pragmatism, with accomplishments way ahead of his years, and a young man apparently going someplace, and soon.
-Mr. Casselman a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard, Politico, and The Washington Examiner. His work is syndicated through the Preludium News Service.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2009 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved. Please visit Barry’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
In a viral email, Obama’s team has requested that we “report” any disinformation we hear about healthcare. The email reads, in part:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. It’s your duty.
It is indeed and, as an honest patriot, I must comply. Here is the text of my “report”:
Comrades, I’ve been dismayed to find a piece of disinformation on the current health care bill. I debated mightily before sending you this email, but my duty to the motherland is clear. At a website dedicated to wrecking health care and preventing real reform, I found this statement:For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.
But, comrades, when I click on this link, I find that these “consumer protections” seem designed to drive insurance companies out of business. I think they may have trouble making a profit if they’re forced to do things like “cap out of pocket expenses” and provide “family coverage” for 26 year olds who, during the revolution, would have had sons of their own fighting on the front. Elsewhere ”the President” promotes a public plan, but I worry that with all these regulations on insurance companies, the public plan, which doesn’t have to make a profit, will supplant the insurance companies. How can I keep my insurance plan in these circumstances? This is all very worrying and must be brought to the attention of responsible authorities at once. If something is not done, I fear that this “President” fellow will crater a chance for real health-care reform which, I am reliably informed, must occur immediately.
Here is the web-address of this “disinformer”. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president_obama/
He can also be reached by post at:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Or, in person, at any DC area golf course on Sundays from the start of church hour til 4 pm.Or, by retina, on MSNBC or CNN during all other hours.
I trust you will take the necessary steps.
Sincerely,
A Humble Prole
Send your own reports, comrades. We must defend the motherland, at all costs.
PPP (D) Virginia Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?
- Approve 42% (48%)
- Disapprove 51% (46%)
Among Independents
- Approve 34% (38%)
- Disapprove 54% (52%)
Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 49 percent of the vote among independents in Virginia.
Among Men
- Approve 37% (42%)
- Disapprove 55% (52%)
Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 51 percent of the vote among men in Virginia.
Among Whites
- Approve 32% (39%)
- Disapprove 61% (53%)
Would Barack Obama coming to Virginia to campaign for Creigh Deeds make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it not make a difference?
- More likely 14%
- Less likely 37%
- No difference 49%
Among Independents
- More likely 9%
- Less likely 39%
- No difference 52%
Would Sarah Palin coming to Virginia to campaign for Bob McDonnell make you more or less likely to vote for him, or would it not make a difference?
- More likely 26%
- Less likely 35%
- No difference 39%
Among Independents
- More likely 23%
- Less likely 35%
- No difference 42%
Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?
- Yes 53%
- No 24%
- Not sure 24%
Among Independents
- Yes 54%
- No 19%
- Not sure 27%
Among Republicans
- Yes 32%
- No 41%
- Not sure 27%
From his Politico Op-Ed:
As a whole, Sotomayor’s record reflects a view that judges can and should inject personal experiences and biases into what should be the objective interpretation and apllication of the law. While her comments about the “better conclusions” a “wise Latina woman” would bring to the bench are universally known, I have more specific concerns about her case history and testimony regarding the Second Amendment at the state level, eminent domain takings and the so-called constitutional right to privacy that resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision. Together, these and other cases point to a nominee who would bring an activist approach to the highest court in the land.
—-
Some have said my opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation and that of Republican senators would incense Hispanic-American voters. Right on cue, many are now attempting to brand Republicans as anti-Hispanic. It should be clear, however, that our opposition to her judicial philosophy is in no way a wholesale opposition to Hispanics.
I believe the greatest disservice we could offer the Hispanic community and the nation as a whole is to avoid a serious, principled discussion about the role of the judiciary. I reject the notion that judges should be representative of their sex, race or class. For these reasons, the suggestion that senators who have fundamental concerns about Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy should not dare oppose her for fear of being branded anti-Hispanic is disappointing.
You can read the entire piece here.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Quinnipiac Survey on Health Care
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?
- Approve 39% (46%)
- Disapprove 52% (42%)
Among Independents
- Approve 34% (37%)
- Disapprove 60% (48%)
Among those earning $50-100K
- Approve 34% (43%)
- Disapprove 60% (47%)
Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
- President Obama 46% (53%)
- Republicans in Congress 37% (33%)
Among Independents
- President Obama 41% (46%)
- Republicans in Congress 36% (36%)
Among those earning $50-100K
- President Obama 40% (50%)
- Republicans in Congress 45% (37%)
Do you think President Obama’s health care plan would improve the quality of health care in the nation, hurt the quality of health care in the nation, or not make a difference?
- Improve the quality of health care in the nation 39%
- Hurt the quality of health care in the nation 41%
- Not make a difference 14%
Among Independents
- Improve the quality of health care in the nation 35%
- Hurt the quality of health care in the nation 44%
- Not make a difference 15%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Improve the quality of health care in the nation 32%
- Hurt the quality of health care in the nation 50%
- Not make a difference 13%
Do you think President Obama’s health care plan will improve the quality of health care you receive, hurt the quality of health care you receive, or not make a difference?
- Improve the quality of health care you receive 21%
- Hurt the quality of health care you receive 36%
- Not make a difference 39%
Among Independents
- Improve the quality of health care you receive 15%
- Hurt the quality of health care you receive 39%
- Not make a difference 42%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Improve the quality of health care you receive 12%
- Hurt the quality of health care you receive 44%
- Not make a difference 39%
Do you think President Obama’s health care plan would help the economy, hurt the economy, or not make a difference?
- Help the economy 34%
- Hurt the economy 44%
- Not make a difference 16%
Among Independents
- Help the economy 26%
- Hurt the economy 47%
- Not make a difference 20%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Help the economy 27%
- Hurt the economy 50%
- Not make a difference 18%
Do you agree or disagree with the following: Overhauling the nation’s health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it significantly increases the federal budget deficit.
- Agree 37%
- Disagree 57%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Agree 30%
- Disagree 66%
President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?
- Will keep promise 21%
- Will add to deficit 72%
Among Independents
- Will keep promise 17%
- Will add to deficit 77%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Will keep promise 16%
- Will add to deficit 78%
Which concerns you more – Congress does not pass legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system or the cost of overhauling the nation’s health care system will significantly increase the federal budget deficit?
- Congress doesn’t pass legislation 35%
- Cost will significantly increase deficit 55%
Do you agree or disagree with the following: Congress should approve a health care overhaul plan even if only Democrats support it.
- Agree 36%
- Disagree 59%
Among Independents
- Agree 33%
- Disagree 63%
Among those earning $50-100K
- Agree 27%
- Disagree 69%
The prevailing wisdom in foreign capitols and with the foreign affairs intelligentsia at our universities, is that the legacy of Dr. Condoleezza Rice will be one of failure and missed opportunity.
In looking back at the Rice doctrine (both as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State), one can conclude that Dr. Rice not only stabilized many young democracies, but also laid the groundwork for new freedom movements in many Muslim countries. Rice set out to prove that in fact Islam and freedom are not an adulterating theme.
Nurturing Young Democracies
With nearly a quarter billion citizens, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. Ethnically complex, uneducated, poor and rural, Indonesia is not short on excuses for turning back to rule by military junta. Dr. Rice began her work in the Bush administration, facing an Indonesia that was leaderless for the first time in 30 years, isolated from the international community over its oppression of the East Timorese and Acehnese and facing a rise in domestic Islamofascism.
Rice forcefully engaged Indonesians, by strengthening cultural, political and economic ties. A simple example of this engagement occurred half-way through President Bush’s second term, when Rice announced an $8.4 million grant to fund the ’Indonesian Sesame Street’ program at an Islamic school in Jakarta March 14, 2006. Despite protests from the left-wing media, Rice refused to publicly condemn Indonesia’s human rights abuses, understanding that United Nations and NGO’s had already allocated enormous sums of energy and money highlighting the abuses. Rice understood that the way to guide Jakarta towards freedom and peace was through quiet diplomacy and trade. Beginning in 2005, Rice fostered the United States-Indonesia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), which has resulted in a dramatic increase in trade between the two nations and has helped transform Indonesia into an industrialized economy and emerging market. In 2006, the United States lifted the military trade embargo against Indonesia, as a reward for their embrace of democracy.
Even with 80 million people living on a dollar or less per day and facing a lengthy war against the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia’s democratic future looks bright. Led by the efforts of Dr. Rice, Indonesia’s government was welcomed back to the international community and as a respected member of APEC, with annual growth rates approaching 7%.
Relatively few Muslims said that “democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work here.”
Fostering New Democracies
Until the arrival of Dr. Rice as America’s senior security advisor, the Muslim nations in the Middle East had little exposure to democratic elections and free speech. Most Middle Eastern and Muslim governments had either refused to allow elections to take place, offered potential voters little choice in candidates, or had pre-determined the results before ballots had been cast.
Rice had correctly determined that achieving victory in the war against Islamofacism would require more than victory on the battlefield. Under the Rice doctrine, Muslim nations that were key to peace and security would have to allow for free elections and move away from economic nationalism. Rice recognized that young Muslims, lacking a political voice and opportunity at prosperity had turned toward radical Jihad and Al Qaeda, as agents of change. In most Middle Eastern and Muslim nations, the under-35 group is the largest and most impoverished segment of society. Dr. Rice was determined to pressure Muslim dictators and theocracies to allow for traditional western-style democracy, in an effort to reverse popular opinion of the Islamofascist ideology.
Unemployment Rate, By Region: Yr 1 Bush Administration
Under the assertiveness and tutelage of Dr. Rice, the non-democratic status quo began to change. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq all introduced democratic elections, in varying different degrees and success.
The Legacy and Future
As with many of the doctrine’s espoused by former National Security Adviser’sand Secretaries of State, legacy effects impact future generations. Kissinger’s willingness to overthrow Soviet friendly democracies in Latin America produced both positive and negative results, many of which are still evoloving today. Many leftists fault Kissinger’s aggressiveness in combating communism as the seed that sprouted today’s socialist rebellions in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Dr. Rice’s legacy will be less controversial than many of her predecessors and more beneficial to the world’s Muslim population.
Illegal satellites, the Internet and improved telecommunications have all supported Dr. Rice’s democracy movement. Technology allowed Iran’s youth to witness free elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Pakistan, showing them that there is an alternative to the choices of radical and violent rebellion and the dictatorship and unemployment/underemployment they currently live in. Turkey continues to move towards a civilian controlled national assembly, cutting the strings of the military that for the entire history of modern Turkey had final say over the length of political careers and governments. Afghanistan, still embroiled in a civil war, will be engaging voters once again in the upcoming Presidential elections.
The emerging Democracies is the Muslim world are far from perfect, but until the arrival of Dr. Condi Rice, that term of reference could only be applied semi-occasionally, to one or two nations. The Obama administration may have decided to turn away from the Rice doctrine, but the roots have been laid and will not easily be dug up from the ground.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter certainly expected backlash from multiple corners upon jumping ship and joining the Democratic Party this past spring. What he probably did not bargain for, however, was being placed in a position in which he would have to vehemently defend President Obama’s health care plan to his constituents. Already stripped of his committee seniority, Specter was recently relegated to share a Philadelphia stage with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. So that’s two Democrats at a town hall in a city that voted for Obama at nearly a 5-1 margin. You would assume such an event would go over splendidly. In reality, the crowd reaction was comparable to what one would see if Sen. Russ Feingold were to pitch gun control in Wyoming. A pivotal moment came when Specter tried to explain the bill-making and voting process. He told the audience that legislation was compromised of various sections, some of which were read by staff members. “We have to make judgments very fast,” reasoned Specter.
Who said you had to make hasty decisions, Arlen? Amidst the rush to pander to both party leaders and special interests, representatives on Capitol Hill (on both sides of the aisle, mind you) have forgotten the American taxpayer. Whether it’s the insurance companies, the lobbying firms, the hospital industry or the White House, Congress has been quick to fulfill the needs of all that come knocking. The public, conversely, is left holding the bill. While I admit that health care reform is needed and that it entails numerous voices, President Obama and his Congressional allies have not proven that the federal government can manage the overhaul. One questioner at the Philadelphia town hall put it perfectly:
“I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can’t even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no” she said.
To be frank, our health care system is on a fatal course towards financial ruin and has the potential to severely damage the economy. Reform should focus on adjusting costs to reflect results, not simply the services provided. In addition, administrative expenditures must be cut by transferring medical records to electronic form. Finally, there has t0 be a fundamental push to highlight self-reliance, restraint and preventive health.
Yet, such measures will ultimately be ignored by a Congress set on producing a middling and uncontroversial bill—one that does not produce tangible solutions for our problems of cost, coverage and long-term viability. Growing opposition towards the boondoggle-in-waiting health care bill has nothing to do with right-wing fanatics or hypocritical fiscal conservatives as Paul Krugman, Robert Gibbs or Barack Obama may have you believe. It’s true that Republicans lost their way (and their power) in part because they ran the country deep into red territory. It’s also true that returning the nation to a solid footing does not gel with rushing legislation that will influence such a large segment of the economy.
In a surprising twist, Senator Specter’s struggles speak to the possibility that Pennsylvania voters may reject a legislator who stands by Obama. Only nine months after granting the president a solid electoral victory, the Keystone State could be a testament to a new political landscape: A growing portion of middle-class voters are frustrated over rising deficits, Congressional relations with special interests and have a general feeling that federal health care reform will not solve the system’s core problems. These people are not partisan hacks or devoted conservatives; some even voted for Obama. While they like and admire the president on a personal level, they are likely to become increasingly disappointed with his actions over the coming months as he pushes Congress to pass a Democrat-centered bill if Republicans refuse to cooperate.
With Congressman Joe Sestak officially in the race to challenge Specter for the Democratic nomination, Obama and his allies in both Congress and Pennsylvania have some tough choices to make. How will the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Governor Ed Rendell and Senator Bob Casey back Specter and diminish a formidable (and real) Democrat in Sestak? Rest assured, they’re already off to a fast start. Although I am not an avid supporter of former Congressman and Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, he has maintained a consistent profile and has a legitimate chance to capitalize on voters’ angst and win the seat. Toomey would be wise to continue to push fiscal issues and state-level reform in the face of an ever-growing federal government. No matter what, Pennsylvania’s Senate race will provide some fireworks.
Michael Stubel can be contacted at michael.stubel@gmail.com
First, someone over there forgot that PACs are required to let the FEC know when they are changing their filing frequency. All it takes is a simple letter that basically says, “Dear FEC. We are changing our filing frequency to semi-annually effective immediately. Have a nice day!” Nothing fancy. Legalese not required. Simple English will suffice. They failed to do it.
Then came the news in mid-July that they were letting full-time staff go. Two weeks later they filed their mid-2009 report on the last day allowed by law.
And what did their report reveal? Only that they were having money problems. First, they were losing money. They had $32,000 less at the end of June than they had at the beginning of January. Second, they couldn’t even take in half of what Sarah Palin brought in — and she only had five months to do it in, not a full six like HuckPAC had. And third, they only had enough money in the bank at the end of June to cover a single month’s worth of expenses.
Now comes a report that HuckPAC failed to file a simple form that Iowa requires when outside committees donate to Iowan candidates. The state is fining them $25 for the oversight. Sure, it’s only $25, but that is $25 they could have spent on something else. It’s not the amount that hurts. It’s the problems it reveals. It was a simple form. Somebody dropped the ball, and the PAC got burned for $25. One must wonder what other balls they are dropping?
I am amazed that a guy who was a Governor for a dozen years could run such a loose and careless ship. I have had doubts about Huckabee in the past, but never once had I thought of him as an incompetent administrator. Now I am starting to wonder.
However, it is early still. There is plenty of time to set things right. But Mike hadn’t better dawdle. If he intends on running in 2012, he will be going up against Mr. Competent himself, Mitt Romney. Under the circumstances, Huckabee can ill afford having his PAC appear to be run by these three gentlemen.
Occasionally I churn out one of these. I wrote this for the college syndicate service UWire.com, for which I’m a paid writer. Thought I’d share.
—The Minority Republican’s Manifesto
The Republican Party is not, in contemporary politics, typically identified as being the party of ‘diversity’ or ‘tolerance.’ But why is this? The contemporary wisdom says that it’s because they refuse to play the “outreach” game, or because they cater to discriminatory policies. The national orthodoxy says that any person who isn’t a white, Christian heterosexual who still chooses to belong to the GOP must be woefully confused.
This brief outline is a strike back at that sadly misguided thought.
1. We reject the notion that identities formed by accidents of birth matter more than ideas.
2. We reject the notion that one’s skin color, sexual orientation, or ethnic heritage should determine one’s personal philosophy.
3. We reject the notion that anything but reason should guide our political views — should darker skin lead to support of higher taxes? Should a same-sex attraction lead to support for abortion rights? Should a Jewish heritage lead to support for protectionism?
4. We reject the notion that government necessarily holds the answers to overcoming discrimination. Discrimination certianly exists and is quite often problematic, but unenlightened people are as sure to eternally exist as the sun is to set. We refuse to allow ignorant people to hold power over us.
5. We reject the notion that we are victims: we are, in stark contrast, self-empowered. We do not need the federal government to validate our existence, for we are made strong by our virtues and strength of mind.
6. We reject the notion that we should be defined by our minority status. We do not agree with the Republican Party on every issue — but what Republican does? Issues corresponding to a coincidental part of our identities may simply not matter. Why should a gay man necessarily care more about marriage than about the Iraq War? Why should a Hispanic man care more about immigration issues than about the federal deficit?
7. We reject the intimidation tactics of the identity elite: those whose careers thrive on keeping us feeling oppressed, victimized, and downtrodden. It may keep them in power, but it does nothing but harm to our communities.
8. We reject the notion that “diversity” necessarily lies in skin color, ethnic heritage, sexual orientation, or nationality. True diversity comes from a variety of opinions — from freethinking men and women who choose to use their minds and engage in a vigorous examination of life.
9. We reject the notion that the Democratic Party has ever been a party of tolerance. In the 1960′s, it was the party of Southern bigots who wanted us lynched, beaten, or assaulted. In the 2000′s, it patronizes us and seeks to instill us with a sense of victimhood. The GOP is not without its obvious shortcomings, but we can and do work to change the party from within.
10. Finally, we reject the notion that we are “self-hating,” deluded, or confused: these are labels attached to us by people who are afraid of an open debate. Open debate is the cornerstone of the classically liberal society, and we have engaged in it and have found our home in the Republican Party.
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
You know all we’ve heard about how the GOP hasn’t offered alternative solutions to proposals from Obama and the other Dems? Well, today, Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, took a sledgehammer to the “Party of No” meme with this op-ed in Politico. The article in its entirety:
Thursday marks the anniversary of the most significant piece of health care legislation in our nation’s history. It was on this day in 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law, ensuring government health care for seniors. Forty-four years later, Congress is debating another monumental act that may affect the health coverage of every American.
Contrary to what the president has tried to convince the American people of, while we oppose his misguided ideas, Republicans are committed to positive health reform. No one in Congress finds the status quo acceptable.
Having practiced medicine for more than two decades, I personally know that the status quo must not stand. Whether coming from the federal government or an insurance company, the third-party decision making that drives our health care delivery system is increasingly distancing patients from quality care.
Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare. Because of Washington’s one-size-fits-all approach, its flawed coverage rules and broken financing mechanisms, seniors are increasingly having care rationed while federal health spending spirals out of control.
And though newly eligible Medicare patients struggle even to find a doctor who can accept them, the president appears immovable in his belief that what is needed to fix health care is more government involvement. His proposal can only be described as a government takeover of health care.
From a government-run plan that will eviscerate private insurance to prescriptive coverage regulations that require all plans to meet a government definition of care to bureaucratic boards that will decide which treatments are appropriate and who is eligible, the proposal before the House would hand over to Washington nearly every decision that should be made by patients and their physicians.
Put simply, the president’s vision of reform would do irreparable harm to an American health care system that, for all its faults, provides the world’s greatest care.
To build support, the president continues to hang his hat on a false choice, asserting that Americans are doomed to either the status quo or a government takeover of health care. Yet there is a third way that puts patients in charge. We can achieve reform that lowers costs and ensures the highest quality of care without handing over personal medical decisions to unaccountable bureaucrats.
Thursday, the Republican Study Committee has introduced legislation to positively reform our health system. The Empower Patients First Act relies on the principle that, by increasing patients’ control over their health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible and responsive, while offering more choices and the highest-quality care.
The bill seeks to achieve universal coverage by ensuring there is no financial reason to go without health insurance. By offering responsible tax incentives, patients will be empowered to purchase the care that best fits their needs.
The legislation also moves ownership of health plans from a third party to patients. When insurers are forced to be responsive to individuals, we will see the industry move to a more patient-centered model we should all seek.
Further, the bill provides for robust pooling mechanisms so patients may unite with the purchasing power of millions. This will lower costs for Americans while ensuring those with pre-existing conditions have a market in which to purchase affordable care.
As cost continues to be a sticking point in reform, the Empower Patients First Act tackles other drivers of health costs by breaking down barriers that outlaw the purchase of health care across state lines and by providing meaningful liability reform. With the creation of new health courts that take into consideration the expert opinions of medical specialty societies — those who actually know what caring for patients is like — we will see a dramatic drop in the costly practice of defensive medicine.
Finally, with federal deficits spiraling out of control, our legislation is paid for. By requiring a 1 percent annual step-down in discretionary spending, plus other efficiencies, we tell Americans that providing access to quality, affordable health care should be a priority in our budget, not just one more thing added to the deficit.
While the president will no doubt continue to put up straw men whom he can finger as promoting the status quo, it is important to appreciate that real, positive reform will take place only if we can have an honest dialogue. The Republican Study Committee has offered a solution that American patients can support. We only hope the president will drop the false choices and pick up some of our common-sense ideas.
Of course, the media will probably ignore this and continue to allow Dems to brand the GOP as the “Party of No”.
I’ve pointed out several times that the way the Primary System is currently favors Mike Huckabee. The Republican Nominee has been since 1980, the Winner of Iowa or New Hampshire, and the winner of South Carolina. The power of momentum, combined with a desire to unite the party as quickly as possible to avoid a protracted nomination battle leads the party to unite as quickly as possible.
Many Romney supporters have hoped that Primary reform could help Romney, by displacing Iowa from the top spot:
Any serious player in the next cycle should, at this point be reaching out to these groups and attempting to bring them into the tent. Unfortunately, I see Huckabee trying to build his own tent. That leaves us little option but to try and figure out how to prevent him from spoiling.
Changing the primary rules comes first to mind, which is something that needs to happen anyway to prevent shenanigans from the opposition. I know the RNC has a working group on the primary rules going now. If I am a Romney or a Pawlenty, then I have people in that group that are thinking not just about the Democrats, but about the spoilers.
Lowell chimes in: John has hit on the key issue. As long as the GOP starts in Iowa, with its quirkiness, and follows that up with New Hampshire’s open primary and Democrat voters skewing the outcome, it will be difficult for an electable center-right conservative to develop the momentum he or she needs to win the nomination. In 2008 Iowa made Mike Huckabee and New Hampshire resurrected John McCain. Both candidacies were doomed. McCain was the third choice of the majority of Republicans. Surely we can do better than that.
So thus the purpose of primary reform seems to be to stop Mike Huckabee and save the GOP.
Except that’s nowhere in the context of any article on Primary Reform. In fact, if one looks at our current primary system, it was practically custom built for big money candidates. Back in 2000, George W. Bush’s 50 State campaign overcame John McCain with $80 million in fundraising. Bob Dole’s nationwide organization easily overcame Pat Buchanan’s insurgent campaign. The problem was that Mitt Romney’s investments didn’t pay off.
When we talk about Primary Reform, it should be realized right away what concerns Republican leaders isn’t. what concerns many people at the grassroots. What concerns Republican leaders is a process of compression and frontloading. This has multiple negative effects: 1) Campaigns require a lot of upfront fundraising scaring off me potential challengers, 2) voters don’t really have a chance to learn about the candidates and make an informed decisions, 3) many states have no real say in the process.
Conservatives are concerned about open v. closed primaries. Some people want to get rid of caucuses. And yes, still others would like to ensure their least favorite Presidential candidate doesn’t get the Republican nod in 2012. That’s great folks, but don’t expect the RNC to address any of this. The more they address, the harder this will be to get done, and people have been trying to get the primary process fixed since 1996, and they need a 2/3 vote to get this done. The articles on this talk only about the calendar.
Primary reform has three popular forms.
1) The Rotating Regional Primaries: This would split the country into four regions and allow regions to rotate which would go first. This was proposed by State Secretaries of State back in the 1990s. This plan as all other plans can be modified to include Iowa and New Hampshire at the front end. However, I don’t think rotating regional primaries will go anywhere, because it delivers a huge benefit to big states. If you’re a California, a New York, a Texas, or a Florida, you’re going to get far more candidate attention, money, etc. as the showcase prize. Imagine being stuck in a region in the East with New York, Pennsylvania, and California, or in the midwest with Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois. The RNC is the Republican Party’s version of the U.S. Senate with each state and territory getting three vote, so American Samoa has as much say as California does in this process. Also, a rotating regional primary would produce distortions. If the South goes first, you’ll most likely have a very different outcome then if the Northeast goes first.
2) The Delaware Plan: The Delaware system instead of dividing states by regions would divide them by population with the smallest population states voting first. As proposed in 2000, states would vote in this order beginning in March:
POD 1: American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, Wyoming, District of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Puerto Rico.
POD 2: Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, West Virginia, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Carolina.
POD 3: Kentucky, Colorado, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Missouri, Washington, Indiana, Massachusetts.
POD 4: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, California.
I’ve been a fan of this plan in the past, but I think it’ll have trouble in the RNC. Moderate sized states like Minnesota, Kentucky, and Virginia could not be happy with being forced to wait to vote until May and June. In addition, the Iowa Delegates at the RNC opposed in 2000 and unless an allowance was made. And Southerners couldn’t be happy with being locked out of the first week’s vote just because they lacked tiny states. This one seems unlikely to win RNC approval.
3) The Ohio Plan has perhaps the best potential to bring together a conensus. It was last year’ s choice that was unceremonious sacked by John McCain in order to avoid ticking off delegates from large states he didn’t end up coming close to winning and/or to save him from a 2012 Primary challenge. The way the Ohio Plan works is that Iowa and New Hampshire vote in the first week of February, followed by South Carolina and Nevada in the second or third week, giving each region of the country a chance to play a role in the process. Then every state with less than six electoral votes as well as every territory will vote no earlier than the third week in February and then all the other states will vote in a series of rotating pods that are not regionally based with no state voting later than April:
Rotating Pod X: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah and Washington
Rotating Pod Y: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia
Rotating Pod Z: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania
The plan’s a little confusing, but it’s less likely to annoy Southerners, big state voters, or small state voters. The problem here is that Saul Anuzis, who is on the Ad Hoc Commitee looking at this process was against the Ohio Plan last year for fear it would lead to a brokered convention.
How do the candidates far v. the current system?
Anyone not named Huckabee, Palin, or Romney: Any of these proposals would help candidates who are not on the radar. The up front money required to run a Presidential campaign will drop. The power of Iowa and New Hampshire to decide someone’s fate will decline. There will be other states that can give second chances. It becomes far more feasible to go to Iowa (or for that matter Guam) and become a surprise winner.
Mitt Romney Romney would probably be saved from a wave of Big Mo based on a Huckabee win in Iowa/South Carolina (unless they keep Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina first, choose rotating regional primaries and the South is the chosen first region.) However, Romney 2012 would have to be far different than Romney 2008. Romney raised a total of $107 million, however in 2007, the campaign had total operating expenditures of more than $86 million in 2007 before any primaries were held. If we assume that Romney came very close to his fundraising ceiling, it’s safe to say that he can’t spend like that in 2011, but that he’ll have to pace his spending. This could weaken the effective power of his financial edge.
Mike Huckabee Huckabee’s path becomes both easier and harder. As long as early primaries are kept alive in some form, he’ll have the chance to convert early primary victories into campaign cash, something that alluded him with the steamroller coming out of New Hampshire and the inability to win more states until Super Tuesday. On the other hand, the traditional road of Iowa-South Carolina 1-2 knockout punch.
Sarah Palin: Should Sarah Palin run, a longer nationwide tour will benefit her more than having to depend on Iowa and New Hampshire. She could definitely given some key momentum with the small state pods. Regional primaries are more iffy.
The Biggest Loser: The Ames Strawpoll. In a less frontloaded system, I don’t see people ending their campaigns in reaction to the results.
Race42012 is please to annouce the latest edition to our staff–George Gibbs. George is a second year student at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. George first became active in politics with the Rudy Giuliani Presidential primary campaign in late 2007 making phone calls and other get out to vote efforts. George continued his experience with the Republican Party working with the local county committee to elect state and local officials. George was also extremely active in the efforts to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008. George is currently studying Political Science and History at WCU and continues work with the Western Carolina College Republicans. George plans to attend law school and go into politics after receiving his bachelors at WCU.
Please join us in welcoming George to the R4’12 family!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I would like to take this opportunity to praise the American people that proudly are taking on their Senators and Congressmen (women). They are proudly going into the streets, into their school gymnasiums and typing away letters to tell their representatives no! No federal healthcare! No vote, no support and no exceptions. So the question remains what is all the fuss about? Why are people so upset about the idea of healthcare for all?
Well it all sounds great. Wouldn’t we all love to be able to pull out a card that has the graceful eagle and American flag on it and use that to pay for our insurance? It sounds like a great plan to “throw in a few extra dollars” and be able to have healthcare anywhere in the United States. Well it is not all that it seems. First lets clear up some facts about the situation. The Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have continually thrown out the number of 47-50 million Americans are living in 2009 without healthcare. Well this is sort of true, but Mr. President you need to recheck that math. In reality 10 million of these un-insured are illegal aliens, 15 million could apply for government run Medicaid, 15 million adults with children that could apply for Medicaid and 10 million adults that have opted not to invest in healthcare. So Mr. President, Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid, check your facts before you start throwing out numbers.
Not only are they misjudging and mis-informing Americans about the situation, we really do not know what they are going to pass. Politics need to be aside in this situation, the reality is whatever the Obama administration passes is going to affect each and every last American from birth to death. Public and government run programs have been implemented in other countries and have damaged the lives and well being of those citizens. These realities could come to an emergency room, hospitals and doctors offices near you.
These dangers are not “right-wing extremist” rhetoric. With a government run system dangers such as lack of doctors, poor quality and subsidizing of medical care is truth. In the summer of 2006 I visited Costa Rica, lodged in Central American socialist politics, the nation subscribes to socialize and government run healthcare. While visiting, our tour guide mentioned the medical opportunities of the American system versus the dangers of a medical system in Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, where every citizen is giving medical insurance, it could take up to three years to see a doctor. It could take up to four years to see a specialist. Toothache? Good luck waiting in line for a dentist for two years to drill that cavity.
Many would make the claim that Costa Rica is not a great example and subsidies of Health care and other medical work is isolated because of the condition of the country. Well, it’s not too much different in liberal beloved Europe. From regulations handed down from the National Health Service, patients with back pain have been denied cortisone shots. What is the solution from the almighty government bureaucracy? The NHS recommends that patients privately look into acupuncture or other pain relieving activities. Well that would run a Britain over 500 pounds! After paying out for this government run health program, they are expecting citizens to privately pay out to ease their pains.
In some cases, the subsidizing of health care has led to deaths and further medical damage. In a recent CBS news report British women made the charge that the British system killed her mother. At a hospital in Britain the 85-year-old woman went in for a simple hernia operation and eight weeks later died. Why? The hospital recorded over 400 deaths last year from staff neglect caused by a lack of personnel to man the positions at the hospital. The 85-year-old woman was dropped, but the family also reports a mix of improper equipment, severely outdated equipment and patients being given the wrong prescription drugs. The very disturbing story also reports that like many hospitals in England, the goal has become not to help patients, but meet government demands to care for people for money. This is a tragic story, and we cannot stand by and allow this same system to creep into the United States.
On a final note, the cost of this health care overhaul is unprecedented. Over the last seven months in office, President Obama has spent more then all of our Presidents from George Washington to George Bush. This program will further compile and expand our deficits to un-imaginable levels. A world of guaranteed medical assistance sounds great. Health care for all is an optimistic and wonderful dream, but has a dark reality. If the Obama has his way, our children, our grandchildren and their children will be stuck with the repercussions of nationalized health care. In understaffed and under equipped hospitals our next generation will be delivered amongst faulty equipment and under par staffers and from the second they breathe their first breath they will be in debt to their nation for the rest of their lives. We must stop this for not only our generation, but for the future generations. I encourage all of you to write your congressmen, call their office and stop this bill as I plan to do.
Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate, Pat Toomey, in a somewhat surprising move, penned the following op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, expressing support for the confirmation of Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
When John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans argued that they should be confirmed based on their impeccable qualifications and mainstream jurisprudence. Now, Democrats are in power, and the same standard should apply.
After listening to much of Sonia Sotomayor’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and carefully examining her 17-year record as a federal appellate judge, I have come to two conclusions. First, her record is somewhat left of center, and I would likely disagree with many of her rulings if she were a Supreme Court Justice. Second, she is an extremely capable and qualified jurist.
If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process.
In determining whether a nominee is within the judicial mainstream, we should ask how he or she views the Constitution and whether he or she will administer justice impartially. Too many American judges are making up their own versions of the law rather than faithfully interpreting legal texts. Lawmaking must be reserved for the elected, politically accountable legislative and executive branches.
In general, though, Sotomayor’s record does not show judicial activism. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service’s analysis noted that her opinions reveal “a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.” In Hankins v. Lyght, she even criticized her appeals court colleagues for violating “a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” by needlessly considering a constitutional issue. During her confirmation hearings, she stressed her belief that “the task of a judge is not to make law; it is to apply the law.”
Like many people, I was troubled by Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case and her now infamous statement about a “wise Latina.” I wondered whether they revealed a permanent bias and whether she is capable of approaching all cases impartially.
I found reassurance in her long judicial record, which shows no pattern of systematic bias. Of 96 race-related cases on which Sotomayor issued a decision, she found discrimination in only 10, and nine of those decisions were unanimous. Despite some objectionable comments in speeches, when it comes to deciding cases, Sotomayor’s record overwhelmingly shows impartiality on racial issues.
That does not mean I am sanguine about the prospect of a new lifetime member of the Supreme Court making decisions with which I disagree. But judges’ qualifications should matter more than ideology, as long as the ideology is within the mainstream.
Ideology is important when it comes to electing public officials. In a state such as Pennsylvania, where voters elect judges, ideology can play a legitimate role in judicial elections. But in our federal constitutional framework, judicial nominations are shielded from voters.
In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president. When a president of one party is elected, the proper role of the opposing party is not to go on politically charged ideological campaigns against judicial nominees. It should be limited to determining whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream.
As a former member of Congress, I observed the transformation of the confirmation process into the spectacle it has become in recent years. Judge Robert Bork’s personal movie-rental records were examined. Alito was asked about a college student organization he participated in decades earlier. This sordid kind of questioning serves only one purpose: assassinating a nominee’s character because of presumed ideological disagreements.
Throughout most of our history, Supreme Court confirmations were not like that. The change has harmed the country and undermined the public’s crucial faith in the independence and integrity in the judiciary.
This disturbing trend must stop. The Supreme Court must not become just another political body in which partisanship and ideology rule.
We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide “advice and consent,” not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.
PPP (D) Virginia 2009 Gubernatorial Survey
- Bob McDonnell (R) 51%
- Creigh Deeds (D) 37%
Among Independents
- Bob McDonnell (R) 52%
- Creigh Deeds (D) 33%
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Bob McDonnell 55% / 26% [+29%]
- Creigh Deeds 43% / 32% [+11%]
Surveyed 579 voters was conducted July 31 – August 3. The margin of error is +/-4.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 35% (R); 33% (I); 32% (D).
Rasmussen Hillary Clinton Survey
Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton?
- Very favorable 30%
- Somewhat favorable 23%
- Somewhat unfavorable 19%
- Very unfavorable 24%
How would you rate the job Hillary Clinton has been doing as Secretary of State?
- Strongly approve 31%
- Somewhat approve 28%
- Somewhat disapprove 20%
- Strongly disapprove 15%
How likely is it that Hillary Clinton will become the first woman president?
- Very likely 15%
- Somewhat likely 23%
- Not very likely 30%
- Not at all likely 22%
Suppose that in the Presidential election you had a choice between Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Hillary Clinton. If the election were held today, would you vote for Republican Sarah Palin or Democrat Hillary Clinton?
- Hillary Clinton 51%
- Sarah Palin 39%
How likely is it that Hillary Clinton will challenge President Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012?
- Very likely 18%
- Somewhat likely 26%
- Not very likely 30%
- Not at all likely 16%
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted July 30-31. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Inside the numbers:
In terms of personal favorable ratings, there is a huge gender gap. Sixty-one percent (61%) of women offer a favorable assessment of Clinton, but only 44% of men agree.
However, the gender gap disappears when it comes to her job performance. Sixty percent (60%) of women approve of the way she’s handled that role as do 57% of men.
Naturally, there is a partisan difference. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Democrats view Clinton favorably, but only 26% of Republicans concur. As for the job she’s doing, 89% of Democrats approve while 63% of Republicans disapprove.
Those not affiliated with either party offer mixed reviews. Roughly half of unaffiliateds view the former presidential candidate favorably and approve of the job she’s doing as Secretary of State.
Women overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Palin, 59% to 32%. Men favor the GOP ex-governor by eight points, 48% to 40%.
Palin gets 71% of the Republican vote, while Clinton captures 81% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party break down almost evenly between the two candidates, giving Clinton a slight 44% to 41% edge.
Fifty percent (50%) of women believe Clinton is likely to challenge Obama, compared to 37% of men. Among Democrats, 46% say Clinton is at least somewhat likely to challenge the sitting president, while 43% say she is not very or not at all likely to do so.
The door to the Senate is open for North Dakota Governor John Hoeven. Can he be convinced to walk through that door?
NRSC/Public Opinion Strategies (R) 2010 North Dakota Senate Poll
- John Hoeven 53%
- Byron Dorgan 36%
Favorable / Unfavorable
- John Hoeven (R): 86%-5% (+81)
- Sen. Byron Dorgan: 69%-24% (+45%)
400 likely voters with a 4.6% margin of error.
Monmouth University 2009 New Jersey Governor Poll
Among Likely Voters
- Chris Christie (R) 50% (45%)
- Jon Corzine (D) 36% (37%)
- Chris Daggett (I) 4% (4%)
Among Registered voters: Christie 43%, Corzine 39%, Daggett 4%
Favorable / Unfavorable (among likely voters)
- Chris Christie: 49% (50%) / 33% (26%) [+16]
- Jon Corzine: 37% (41%) / 53% (50%) [-16]
(Among likely voters) Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?
- Approve 35%
- Disapprove 58%
Today, we all need to get up and go to work, so that we can earn money to pay our taxes so that someone else can buy a new car.
