After a month of liberals cheering a ‘recovery’ because unemployment fell from 9.5% to 9.4%, a little reality has come crashing back down. Unemployment has risen to 9.7% and employers cut another 216,000 jobs.  Something tells me The One will leave this out of his little speech to Congress.

PS: Hope you all like the new banner!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

As summer turns to fall here in our nation’s capital, the bloom is off the rose for President Obama. The administration, only months removed from the heady days of spring—days marked by lofty rhetoric and endless possibility—is now at the mercy of an unpredictable Congressional majority.

Much ink has been spent in recent weeks over Washington’s great white elephant, health care reform. President Obama has made it known, implicitly and explicitly, that passing a bill is his top priority. What is often forgotten as a key to Obama’s struggles, however, is not as tangible as most political hurdles. The White House cannot control and solve all societal ills through federal action. In essence, from problems such as health care to energy and beyond, Obama must account for the chance that, maybe, just maybe, increased federal power may hinder progress.

President Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with a cadre of policy experts determined to reshape government and its relationship with the American people. The intellectual firepower is truly remarkable; its origins tracing back to the most hallowed halls of our Ivy League institutions. Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, among others, represent “the best and the brightest” class of political officials.

Furthermore, President Obama is said to possess unwavering cool and that his personal confidence was evident by the discipline of his presidential campaign. While I applaud the White House for filling its cabinet with the most capable public servants and relying on self-assurance in uncertain times, one must wonder if John Steinbeck’s timeless creed hangs over Barack Obama: “The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.”

Soon after the death of former Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara this past July, famed Washington Post columnist David Ignatius offered an assessment that is eerily relevant to the Obama conundrum. “Nobody gets to do over his mistakes, least of all Robert McNamara. But perhaps the memory of this brilliant and tragic man will keep us from being too certain of our own judgment — and encourage us to consider, even when we feel most confident, the possibility that we could be wrong.” The McNamara analogy is particularly poignant because the Defense Secretary came to President Kennedy’s cabinet after having displayed his statistical and managerial brilliance in the private sector. Sadly, McNamara’s affinity for succinct policy analysis did not translate to the jungles of Vietnam. In the end, it was his unwillingness or inability to admit mistakes and adapt to an ever-changing environment that led to his downfall.

American presidential history is littered with countless men, commendable and scholarly at their core, in search of answers to America’s troubles. There was Franklin Roosevelt and his revolutionary New Deal policies that were meant to reshape market regulation and create a social safety net. Later years saw the rise of John Kennedy’s New Frontier and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society platforms, both of which sought to eliminate poverty and counter racial injustice. Finally, presidents such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan took drastic measures to augment federal control over illicit drug policy, often at the detriment of an overcrowded prison system.

Each example is tied together on a fundamental level by the common trait of federal action. The mentality that spawns Wall Street bailouts and climate control bills is one in which any problem is tackled by grandiose solutions. Wherever there is a sign of distress, a Washington politician throws together a remedy with one constant in mind—big. Uncle Sam faithfully executes the “more is better” principle. No one stops to ask if more simply means more control and concentrated power.

No one can deny that our nation faces seemingly insurmountable challenges both at home and abroad. Health care costs endanger our financial well-being. America’s education system has fallen behind foreign competitors. Two wars continue to simmer half a world away. Understandably, President Obama has big plans to tackle these issues. We can only hope that he realizes that government cannot control the uncontrollable.

Michael Stubel can be contacted at michael.stubel@gmail.com

Many have begun to speculate on how bad Democratic Senate losses will be in the 2010 elections. I think this could very well be a nationalized election run on the failure of President Obama and the Democrats to turn around the national situation, the state of the nation’s economy, and the continuing rise of a very determined opposition to the President’s agenda.

I think whether most of these Senate seats will be in play hinges on the national political climate.  Predicting U.S. Senate results based on national trends is an imprecise science. For example, in 1982, Demcrats gained 25 House Seats, but Republicans actually picked up a U.S. Senate seat.

Senate seats tend not to swing as much with popular sentiment due to the stature of most U.S. Senators. However, in big years such as 1980, 1994, 2006, and 2008, longtime Senators can be swept away in a national wave.

How big 2010 will be for Republicans depends on the size of the Storm the Democrats face.  As this is Hurricane season, we’ll divide the possibilities up with Hurricane terms.

Before doing this, it should be noted that whether some seats will be in play depends on who the GOP can recruit. In Delaware, any Republican other than Rep. Mike Castle (R-De.) probably has no chance of winning the open U.S. Senate seat. And Republicans need a credible candidate for U.S. Senate in New York. Rick Lazio has been making noise about a run for Governor, but his chances depend on whether Rudy runs or not. If Rudy runs for Governor, Lazio could try another bid for the U.S. Senate seat, he lost ten years ago to Hillary Clinton, and would have a solid shot in a strong Republican year.

In North Dakota, a recent poll showed Governor John Hoeven cleaning Byron Dorgan’s clock in a hypothetical Senate match-up, but Dorgan enjoying a 69% favorable rating. If Hoeven or former Governor Ed Schafer could be pursuaded to run, Dorgan would be in trouble, but Republicans have had trouble attracting credible candidates. While North Dakota has voted Republican for president since 1964, and have controlled the Governor’s mansion for 17 years, but not a single Republican has been elected to either house since 1980, as voters seem content to give Democrats two seats. A top tier candidate like Hoeven could change it, but otherwise it would take a terrific storm to knock off Dorgan.

Category III storm:  In a Category III year, Democrats may be losing House seats, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll follow over to the Senate. In a Category III Year, Republicans are vulnerable to losing quite a few seats, particularly the open seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, Florida, and Ohio. (In a weaker, Category 2 storm, you’d also have to worry about Kentucky’s open Senate seat.) In addition, GOP incumbents Richard Burr (R-NC) and David Vitter (R-La.) will have to watch their backs. However, Democrats have many seats that with winds blowing the Republicans way, could be in danger. Senator Roland Burris (D-Ill.) seat is endangered in the Blago aftermath, regardless of the national situation. Newly christened incumbent Michael Bennett (D-Co.) will be in danger, along with five term Senate veterans Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Chris Dodd (D-Ct.) In a Category III storm, it’d be very possible for Democrats to lose 20+ Seats in the House and still end up gaining one seat in the Senate.

Category IV storm: In a Category IV storm, the winds blowing against the Democrats would be at such a level that the only open seat to worry about would be New Hampshire, and the only incumbent to be concerned with is Vitter. In addition, several other Democrats become believable targets such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Blache Lincoln (D-Ar.), and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA.)  This is where the 2010 election is trending right now, but where the nation is when we vote is key.

Category V storm: This is the dreaded tsunami wave that leads to stunning upsets. In such a year, other than Vitter, every Republican seat would be relatively safe, and some Democratic incumbents who are relatively safe could be blown away by the winds of “change.” Two examples of this are Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi.) and Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa.), Senators who should be safe bets for re-election under any circumstance other that a Tsunami. However, both are liberals that hale from purplish states, and neither win 60+% victories. Both were held to 55% against mediocre opponents.  In 1980, a Category V year if there ever was one, long-time Democratic incumbents in both Washington and Wisconsin were defeated. Which means that Senators Feingold and Murray can’t feel too comfortable right now.

Gamecock actually makes a fantastic point in his most recent article: why exactly are we shocked and outraged to find that an anti-American 9/11 Truther has made his way to the higher ranks of the Obama Administration? It’s not as if we didn’t know that Obama is an intellectual disciple of Saul Alinsky. It’s not as we didn’t know about his disdain for limited government or the vision of the Founders, or about his closet leftism.

I suppose, being conservative in temperament — that is, non-idealistic and essentially resigned to the flaws of political institutions — I was already prepared for something like this. Van Jones, in my mind, is just another bullet point on a long, long list of shady characters who Obama has gleefully associated himself with.

Obama’s got a cabinet-level adviser who thinks that George W. Bush knew about 9/11! Yawn. Been there, done that. Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright are kind of hard to top. Besides, we have more important issues to concern ourselves with — Obama’s hostility to individual freedom, Obama’s obvious loathing toward Israel — than whether some Green Jobs nitwit is convinced that George W. Bush wanted the Twin Towers to fall so that he and the wicked neocons could march us into war. Nuts like that are a dime a dozen on the left, unfortunately. (I wonder if Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann are going to blame their own over-the-top rhetoric for encouraging left-wing paranoia?)

What’s worth remembering is that nobody seemed to care about Jeremiah Wright. Obama gave that pretty little speech and everyone was happy. Will bringing up shady associations work this time? Probably not. I suppose there’s no harm in bringing it up, now that the blinders are off, but I’m not expecting much. I’m simply overjoyed that Obama’s inexperience has gotten the best of him and that he’s shot himself in the foot in the health care debate. He’s been brought down by the most ridiculous of factors: ranting paranoids, Sarah Palin’s Facebook, Congressmen from his own party, and, finally, his own ineptitude. I’d rather hit him where it hurts — the policy — rather than go after him on issues that don’t have a track record of working.

Obama indeed duped the American people about who he was in a time of vulnerability. I’m not against keeping the alarms sounded about these characters, but forgive me if I have a hard time getting passionate about it.

FDU PublicMind New Jersey Political Survey

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 56% (61%) [66%]
• Disapprove 36% (29%) [22%]

Among Independents

• Approve 40% (52%) [60%]
• Disapprove 48% (30%) [16%]

Do you think you (and your family living there) will be better or worse off with the health care reforms that President Obama is currently proposing?

• Yes, better 33% (35%)
• No, worse 46% (34%)

Among Independents

• Yes, better 22% (34%)
• No, worse 55% (38%)

Regardless of how it impacts you, do you think the country will be better or worse off with the health care reforms that President Obama is currently proposing?

• Yes, better 44%
• No, worse 42%

Among Independents

• Yes, better 32%
• No, worse 49%

Would you advise your member of Congress to vote for or against a health care reform bill when they return to Washington in September?

• For 37%
• Against 41%

Among Independents

• For 28%
• Against 48%

Note: The poll also included an objective political knowledge question, asking respondents to identify the position held by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Do you happen to know what position John Roberts holds in government? [Open-ended]

• Anything related to Chief Justice or Supreme Court 20%
• Incorrect/Don’t know/Refused to answer 80%

Survey of 715 likely voters was conducted August 24-30. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted June 22-29 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 30 – April 5 are in brackets.

Did Van Jones sit in Jeremiah Wright’s pews for twenty years?

I so tire of the mass glazed over eyes drive-by media amnesia concerning the radicalism of Democratic Party leaders, including the President of the United States, whenever slow news days allow a recent radical statement by a Democrat peon to become a cause celeb’, as if the peon is anything other than mainstream within the world’s oldest political party.

But what I tire of most is that our own conservatives in the GOP and the press enable the fiction that there is a substantial difference between the radical left and the leaders of the Dem Party, i.e. their honorable beltway pals.

So, the 20-year acolyte of a church that honored Louis Farrakhan appointed a 911-Truther to his administration? We elected as Appointer-in-Chief, the husband a woman that had never been proud of the greatest nation in the history of Earth until 2008.

The Green Jobs Czar wondered aloud if President George W. Bush was a co-conspirator in the mass murder of 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. And?

His party and Obama’s party cried Bushlied about the Iraq War from 2004 until…, well they never stopped.

That a majority of Americans elected this man doesn’t change the facts of his own KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION radical statements, associations and acts that far exceed those of Van Jones.

Moreover, since the election, has Van Jones insulted our closest ally by returning the bust of their greatest leader since King Arthur, which was given soon after 911 as a show of solidarity? Has the Czar in charge of commissioning chimney sweeps and horse dung sweepers in the brave new earth friendly world conducted foreign apology tours describing America as “derisive” for removing a mass murderer of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and liberating over 50 million adherents of Islam?

President Obama has more than kept up with the Joneses in the radical un-truther department.

Whether it was the “fatal flaws” in the Constitution that limited the power of government and merely articulated “negative” liberties or the desire to bankrupt the coal industry, Obama is second to none in his radical bone fides.

The Dreams of his Father was Marxism. The inspiration for The Audacity of Hope was a CIA-Aids Truther that saw 911 as chickens coming home to roost and Truman as a man that killed Japanese as an afterthought after stopping bucks.

It is one thing to have a crazy opinion about 911. It is quite another to act on one’s crazy opinions and ally oneself with an unrepentant terrorist? Did Van Jones have political fundraisers with Bill Ayers?

Contrary to beltway pundit-speak, Obama doesn’t crucify CIA terrorist-interrogator heroes and their lawyers to “appease” his left base. He IS HIS LEFT BASE.

The problem with the Obama Administration is not Van Jones nor those that vetted him.

The problem with this administration is its Chief Executive, and we can only thank God that he is as ignorant, arrogant and incompetent as he is, to have overreached so much, so fast, so that We the People have been aroused to defend our liberties.

The “problem” won’t be solved with the firing of Van Jones. The problem will only be solved with the firing of Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

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

Chicago Tribune/WGN Illinois Political Survey

Do you approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

• Approve 59%
• Disapprove 33%

Do you approve of how Barack Obama is handling healthcare?

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 43%

How much have Barack Obama’s economic policies helped employment and jobs?

• A lot/some 45%
• Little/none 49%

What effect will the healthcare reform plan have on you and your family’s healthcare?

• Change for the better 16%
• Change for the worse 35%
• Stay about the same 40%

Who do you side with on the healthcare reform debate?

• Obama and Democrats in Congress 48%
• Republicans in Congress 28%

Survey of 700 registered voters was conducted August 27-31. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

(more…)

I believe in positive political advertising. However, I also think that there are times when it is important to raise questions of character – especially if you are opposing someone who has problems so serious that they would affect governance. In fact, I wonder if we would be where we are today if McCain had been less hesitant to highlight Obama’s narcissism and shady connections (both of which have spawned numerous controversies since the election).

Hence, when I stumbled across Ignatieff.me today, I immediately thought that it was worth studying - as it could be a great template for a future effort against Obama.

So, what is Ignatieff.me? Well, it’s a new site being developed by the Conservative Party of Canada in the run-up to a likely election this fall – in which Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper will face of against Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. However,  the fun thing about Mr. Ignatieff is that he has many of the same liabilities as President Obama.

Specifically, Ignatieff is a “celebrity intellectual” (ex-Harvard professor) and an inexperienced candidate who relies on his charisma rather than policy – and he’s full of himself. Basically, he’s an old, Caucasian version of Obama – with the only real difference being that Ignatieff is much more narcissistic.

So, what do the Conservatives do, they launch a website that show Michael Ignatieff as the shallow celebrity that he is – by putting him on the cover of a fictional celebrity magazine called “Me!” (a play on the fact that Ignatieff once appeared on the cover of  the British “GQ”). It’s a light hearted monument to Ignatieff’s narcissism – heavy on direct quotes and light on unfounded smears. It’s also loaded with info so hard-hitting that the popular Ignatieff will be lucky if he has any reputation left after this fall’s campaign.

Now, Ignatieff is an easy target because he has done so many stupid things. He left Canada in the late 1960s to become a globe-trotting intellectual, returning only when he decided he wanted to be Prime Minister (he was recruited as a celebrity candidate for the Liberals in the 2006 election). Along the way,  he’s  described both the U.S. and Britain as his adopted country, and  even told the British press that the only thing he missed about Canada was Algonquin National Park. He has also literally described  himself  as “horribly arrogant”.

Obama would not be quite such an easy mark, but I do think he shares many of Ignatieff’s qualities. So, I would advise all of you to spend a few minutes poking around Ignatieff.me – and think of just how easy it would be to do the exact same thing with  “Barack.me”. And when you watch the opening video sequence, be sure to remember that this guy is running for Prime Minister of CANADA.

I might also add that people like Ignatieff are also sad reminders of why negative ads are sometimes neccessary for the public to make informed decisions.

Franklin & Marshall Pennsylvania 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 37% (33%)
• Joe Sestak 11% (13%)
• Some other candidate 6% (6%)
• Don’t know 46% (48%)

Senatorial Election

• Arlen Specter 37%
• Pat Toomey 29%
• Some other candidate 9%
• Don’t know 25%

• Pat Toomey 26%
• Joe Sestak 22%
• Some other candidate 6%
• Don’t know 46%

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Tom Corbett 15%
• Jim Gerlach 6%
• Some other candidate 6%
• Don’t know 73%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Bob Casey 41% (32%) / 18% (17%) [+23%]
• Tom Corbett 23% / 4% [+19%]
• Barack Obama 55% (57%) / 37% (27%) [+18%]
• Joe Sestak 13% / 4% [+9%]
• Pat Toomey 18% / 10% [+8%]
• Jim Gerlach 8% / 5% [+3%]
• Arlen Specter 35% (31%) / 42% (37%) [-7%]
• Ed Rendell 32% (42%) / 53% (40%) [-21%]

Note: Obama’s ‘favorability index’ has dropped from +18 in June to just +1 today.

How would you rate the way that Arlen Specter is handling his job as U.S. Senator?

• Excellent job 8% (10%)
• Good job 27% (24%)
• Only a fair job 35% (37%)
• Poor job 22% (18%)

Do you believe that Arlen Specter has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change?

• Deserves re-election 34% (28%)
• Time for a change 54% (57%)

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Excellent job 14% (20%)
• Good job 33% (35%)
• Only a fair job 29% (25%)
• Poor job 24% (19%)

How confident are you in President Obama’s ability to handle the country’s economic problems?

• Very confident 19% (26%)
• Somewhat confident 39% (40%)
• Not very confident 20% (14%)
• Not at all confident 21% (20%)

How confident are you in President Obama’s ability to reform the country’s healthcare system?

• Very confident 13%
• Somewhat confident 29%
• Not very confident 24%
• Not at all confident 33%

Do you think reforming the country’s healthcare system will help improve the country’s economic situation in the long run, or not?

• Yes 46%
• No 48%

How much do the people who are speaking out against healthcare reform at these town hall meetings represent your own feelings about healthcare reform?

• A great deal 29%
• A fair amount 28%
• Not much 17%
• Not at all 22%

Do you generally favor or oppose the healthcare proposals that have been discussed in Congress?

• Strongly favor 11%
• Somewhat favor 23%
• Somewhat oppose 21%
• Strongly oppose 30%

How would you rate the way that Ed Rendell is handling his job as Governor?

• Excellent job 6% (10%)
• Good job 23% (28%)
• Only a fair job 35% (34%)
• Poor job 33% (25%)

Do you think that abortion should be…

• Legal under any circumstances 21% (18%)
• Legal under certain circumstances 54% (58%)
• Illegal in all circumstances 23% (22%)

Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?

• The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word. 48% (56%)
• The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 32% (25%)
• The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men. 17% (17%)

Survey of 562 registered voters (including subsamples of 269 Democrats and 214 Republicans) was conducted August 25-31. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Party registration breakdown: 48% (52%) Democrat; 39% (36%) Republican; 10% (8%) Independent. Party ID breakdown: 34% (37%) Democrat; 28% (23%) Republican; 34% (35%) Independent. Political views: 43% (37%) Conservative; 36% (34%) Moderate; 16% (19%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted June 16-21 are in parentheses.

Communist, racist and incoherent mouth-piece…all words that can be used to describe Obama’s friend and Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones.

None of these traits and beliefs warrant a resignation, but after the discovery today, there is no doubt this man should not be developing domestic policy and advising our President. 

As reported by Dave Weigel, Van Jones is a 9-11 truther. 

Read this disgusting letter, sponsored by Van Jones and other anti-American radicals.

Analysis from Fox;

_________________________________________________________

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

We need innovation in healthcare and politicians have never invented or innovated a single thing in our history.

The government has had a large role in pushing healthcare towards the fee-for-service model. Medicare, Medicaid, and various other government run healthcare programs run on that model but not for long.

The deficit in Medicaid/Medicare obligations is growing and can’t be funded with just new taxes.

Obviously some type of reform of these entitlements will be necessary. Perhaps the government can lead in anew direction as its old model is failing.

The principles of the Mayo Clinic ought to be a good place to look at for reforming Medicaid/Medicare.

The Mayo Clinic provides high quality care at a lower cost than average healthcare providers.

They’ve adopted innovative solutions from the IT industry, medical research and even the airline industry (if we had the number of airplane accidents that we had medical accidents we’d not accept it) .

One of their practices is to pay doctors a salary and not pay them by what procedures they perform. This puts the focus on providing quality care and not just providing a lot of procedures. They’ve found that a system that focuses on results and not on procedures provides better outcomes.

Medicaid/Medicare could adopt that model by paying doctors a flat-rate for patients and only allowing doctors to collect small co-pays for each medical procedure.

Another problem with our system is that we don’t differentiate doctors/hospitals by cost or by quality.

In Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty has introduced some fantastic healthcare tools for the public. Citizens can look up how their doctor compares to others for treating diabetes, cancer and various other diseases.

I wish my state had this because I want my wife to go to the best eye doctor we can afford but I don’t want to just pay for reputation. I want to pay to get my wife better care.

We need to focus on giving the public informed choices and reforming an entitlement system that is about to collapse.

After we’ve reformed Medicaid/Medicare, employers may use the example of that success to pursue healthcare innovations of their own.

We don’t need a one-size fits all “solution” dictated by politicians in Washington. We need to open a period of innovation where we can explore what works best.

That can’t happen when Washington freezes the system in place and lays down piles of bureaucratic red tape.

Right now we need to be focused on not just defeating the Democrats dangerous and regressive one-size fits all approach. We also need to offer the public a smarter way that emphasizes innovation, informed choices, and quality.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Nevada Political Survey

If 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Harry Reid the Democrat and Danny Tarkanian the Republican?

• Danny Tarkanian 45%
• Harry Reid 40%

If 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Harry Reid the Democrat and Sue Lowden the Republican?

• Sue Lowden 44%
• Harry Reid 41%

Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?

• Favor 52%
• Oppose 40%

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?

• Yes 74%
• No 11%
• Not sure 15%

Among Republicans

• Yes 54%
• No 18%
• Not sure 28%

Among Independents

• Yes 78%
• No 10%
• Not sure 12%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Danny Tarkanian 47% / 28% (+19%)
• Sue Lowden 43% / 24% (+19%)
• Barack Obama 48% / 41% (+7%)
• Harry Reid 36% / 52% (-16%)
• John Ensign 28% / 53% (-25%)
• Jim Gibbons 17% / 61% (-44%)

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted August 31 – September 2. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% (D); 38% (R); 18% (I).

In the year 1951 Harry Truman had a problem. More and more the commander in Korea, Douglas MacArthur, was becoming a pain in the neck. He insisted that the war be taken to the Chinese in direct conflict with Truman’s aim of a limited conflict. He was openly contemptuous of Turman’s leadership. He sent a letter to the House Minority Leader outlining his disagreements with Truman’s policy. He went so far as to send an ultimatum to the Chinese Army which completely undercut Truman’s attempts at obtaining a cease-fire.

Finally Truman had enough. He fired him. Truman had every right to remove MacArthur from command and was fully justified in doing so. However, the American people looked upon MacArthur as a hero, and Truman’s actions ignited a firestorm. Even though a Senate committee tasked with looking into the dismissal would later fully vindicated Truman’s actions, the damage was done. Truman’s ability to get things done took a severe blow and never fully recovered. He would later lose the 1952 New Hampshire Primary and withdraw from the Presidential race.

All leaders have what could be called their official power and their unofficial power. Official power is the power which their position and office gives them. An example of this is the ability a President has to veto legislation from Congress, or to remove a misbehaving General as in the case of Truman and MacArthur. Official power also comes to a President by virtue of being the Leader of his Party.

Unofficial power is the ability of a leader to get things done without explicitly calling upon his official power. Often called “the Art of Persuasion”, it is the most potent of all leadership powers. With it, a leader can obtain nearly everything he wants. Without it, a leader is severely limited in his ability to get things done.

These two types of leadership powers give rise to an interesting paradox. If a leader depends upon his unofficial power, he may seldom if ever need to evoke his official power. Things just get done. However, the more a leader calls upon his official power in the pursuit of his goals, the less unofficial power he has. Let me repeat that. The more a leader calls upon his official power, the less unofficial power he has. If he is not careful, he will find that his ability to accomplish anything is severely limited. His ability to lead is greatly compromised.

Truman’s firing of MacArthur is a great example of this. Though Truman’s official power gave him every right to do so, his unofficial power took a major hit because of it.

What has this to do with the race for 2012? Barack Obama makes an interesting study. Obama started out with a great deal of unofficial power. Yet he almost immediately began to appeal to his official power a little too often. The pattern has continued, and his present predicament is a direct result of this.

His “stimulus” package was rammed through Congress not by consulting, persuasion, and compromise; but by virtue of his party’s overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress. This raw use of official power got him what he wanted, but it began almost immediately to erode his far more important unofficial power to get things done.

After the stimulus bill passed, Obama tried it again with the Cap-and-trade bill. He found his tactics didn’t work as well this time. He did manage to push it through the House, but it stalled in the Senate where it still languishes.

His use of official power to pass the stimulus eroded his unofficial power. Further use of his official power in the attempt to push through Cap and Trade only eroded his unofficial power still more. The problems his health care bill faces are the direct results of this.

His health bill is in serious trouble. There is civil war between the liberal and conservative members of his own party. Polls show his approval rating dropping like a stone. He is losing the American people. The Republicans smell blood. A President who started out seven short months ago able to do just about anything is finding his primary domestic initiative going nowhere.

So how does Obama respond? He calls yet another joint-session of Congress to address the issue one more time.

This is a dangerous tactic to try at this time. Calling the session is another evocation of his official power as President. And in this session, he is promising to take back the carte blanche he originally gave to Congress to come up with a health bill, and instead will give them what he wants to see passed — yet another appeal to his official power as President.

It is this sort of thing that got Obama into trouble in the first place. The further erosion of his unofficial power is almost inevitable. Expect his approval ratings to drop another five to ten points.

*Edited to correct a historical mistake caught by MWS*

Rasmussen Survey on Taxation and Government Spending

Suppose one candidate for office promised to oppose all tax increases and another said he would raise taxes only on the rich. For whom would you vote?

• Candidate who promised to oppose all tax increases 51% (45%) [40%]
• Candidate who would raise taxes only on the rich 38% (38%) [44%]

Generally speaking, do tax increases help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 19% (16%) [24%]
• Hurt 60% (54%) [47%]
• No impact 10% (14%) [16%]

Do tax cuts help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 55% (54%) [56%]
• Hurt 20% (19%) [16%]
• No impact 15% (16%) [18%]

Generally speaking, do increases in government spending help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 28% (30%) <35%>
• Hurt 50% (50%) <48%>
• No impact 10% (8%) <7%>

Do decreases in government spending help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 46% (46%) <45%>
• Hurt 24% (26%) <29%>
• No impact 15% (14%) <16%>

Under the Obama administration, will your own personal taxes go up, down or stay about the same?

• Up 47% {42%} [30%]
• Down 9% {6%} [18%]
• About the same 36% {40%} [38%]

Under the Obama administration, will government spending go up, down or stay about the same?

• Up 70% {70%} [67%]
• Down 8% {6%} [14%]
• About the same 18% {18%} [12%]

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted August 27-28. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 13-14 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 30-31 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted February 24-25 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 6-7 are in angle brackets.

Erick Erickson of Redstate comments:

In the cost/benefit analysis of a state wide gubernatorial campaign, this was decidedly more cost than benefit.

But good on the 7 people from Bell County. The turn out of .0024% of the county population has to be a new record of some sort.

P.S. Michael Williams for Senate.

Caution is advised.

I did not realize Joe was still a Republican?

From RCP.

_________________________________________________________

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

CNN reports that Tea Party organizers have taken a liking to the former governor:

As the Tea Party Express makes its way across the country, Sarah Palin has emerged as a favorite daughter of the movement, and organizers have invited her to join the tour — or at least come to the final stop in the nation’s capital.

The bus is scheduled to end its nationwide journey in Washington on Saturday, September 12.

“We’ve been in touch with her people, letting her know the response that we’ve gotten. She’s very suportive of the movement,” says Joe Wierzbicki, one of the organizers traveling on the Tea Party Express.

So far, no politician has emerged as a leader of the Tea Party movement – and the question of just who might eventually take up the mantle is a hot topic on the bus. Nobody may be better positioned than Palin — but organizers, some of the most motivated members of the conservative base, still say she’ll need to earn that title.

“Right now there’s a handful of people who strike a chord with the tea party base, and she is certainly one of those people,” says Wierzbicki. “Whether or not she emerges as one of those leaders, that’s between her and the American people.”

Sal Russo, another organizer of the Tea Party Express, launched his career in conservative politics working for Ronald Reagan’s California gubernatorial campaign in 1966.

Russo thinks Palin might emerge as a leader of the Tea Party movement – but she’ll have to earn that title first.

“I think it’s a possibility,” he says. “When the election was over in November, I think her support was a lot stronger than it is today. She’s got to kind of get her act together, and develop a presence with the public that inspires some confidence.

“She could be the kind of person that becomes the leader of the Tea Party movement, but she hasn’t done anything yet to assume that role.”

At tea party protests, Palin’s is the name heard most often amongst participants. In El Paso, Texas Wednesday, the crowd chanted “Sar-rah, Sar-rah.” One hot item: “Draft Sarah Palin 2012? t-shirts.

Tom and Susan Mendez came to the tea party in Albuquerque looking for a leader. They have two homes in foreclosure. Tom, a general contractor, is having trouble finding work.

“This movement needs direction,” he told CNN. He said he fears the concerns of the tea partiers may not be heard in Washington.

“They’re not getting the message from us, so they need to get the message from someone. Maybe Sarah Palin.”

If the organizers want to attract more negative attention from the mainstream media, they’ve stumbled upon a good way to do it. Still, if this union became official, things could get interesting; Palin + Tea Parties + talk radio and other prominent conservative commentators + other angry voters feeling disenfranchised could = a formidable equation.

PPP (D) Virginia Political Survey

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

• Approve 47% (42%) [48%]
• Disapprove 49% (51%) [46%]

Among Independents

• Approve 31% (34%) [38%]
• Disapprove 61% (54%) [52%]

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 49 percent of the vote among independents in Virginia.

Among Moderates

• Approve 57% (61%) [58%]
• Disapprove 38% (31%) [34%]

Among Men

• Approve 38% (37%) [42%]
• Disapprove 58% (55%) [52%]

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 51 percent of the vote among men in Virginia.

Among Women

• Approve 55% (45%) [54%]
• Disapprove 41% (49%) [40%]

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

• Support 38%
• Oppose 49%

Among Independents

• Support 24%
• Oppose 64%

Among Moderates

• Support 45%
• Oppose 39%

Among Men

• Support 28%
• Oppose 58%

Among Women

• Support 45%
• Oppose 41%

Among Whites

• Support 26%
• Oppose 60%

Among Blacks

• Support 79%
• Oppose 7%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of former Republican Senator George Allen?

• Favorable 50%
• Unfavorable 38%

Among Independents

• Favorable 59%
• Unfavorable 30%

If George Allen was to run for office again in the future would you definitely vote for him, consider voting for him, or definitely not vote for him?

• Definitely Vote for Him 31%
• Consider Voting for Him 31%
• Would Definitely Not Vote for Him 36%

Among Independents

• Definitely Vote for Him 25%
• Consider Voting for Him 44%
• Would Definitely Not Vote for Him 29%

(more…)

Pew Research Political Survey

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

• Approve 52% (54%)
• Disapprove 37% (34%)

If the elections for U.S. Congress were being held TODAY, would you vote for the Republican Party’s candidate or the Democratic Party’s candidate for Congress in your district?

• Democratic candidate 45%
• Republican candidate 44%

Among Men

• Republican candidate 50%
• Democratic candidate 39%

Among Women

• Democratic candidate 51%
• Republican candidate 40%

Among Independents

• Republican candidate 43%
• Democratic candidate 38%

Is your overall opinion of the Republican Party very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly Unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

• Very favorable 6% [7%]
• Mostly favorable 34% [33%]
• Mostly unfavorable 31% [34%]
• Very unfavorable 19% [17%]

Is your overall opinion of the Democratic Party very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly Unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

• Very favorable 11% [15%]
• Mostly favorable 37% [44%]
• Mostly unfavorable 24% [21%]
• Very unfavorable 19% [13%]

Is your overall opinion of Congress very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly Unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

• Very favorable 4% [10%]
• Mostly favorable 33% [40%]
• Mostly unfavorable 32% [28%]
• Very unfavorable 20% [15%]

Among Independents

• Favorable 31% [47%]
• Unfavorable 58% [46%]

As of right now, do you generally favor or generally oppose the health care proposals being discussed in Congress?

• Favor 39% (38%)
• Oppose 46% (44%)

Among Independents

• Favor 37%
• Oppose 48%

How much confidence do you have in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with health care reform?

• A great deal 26%
• A fair amount 30%
• Not too much 21%
• No confidence at all 22%

Among Independents

• A great deal/fair amount 54%
• Not too much/no confidence at all 43%

How much confidence do you have in Democratic leaders in Congress to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with health care reform?

• A great deal 12%
• A fair amount 33%
• Not too much 28%
• No confidence at all 24%

Among Independents

• A great deal/fair amount 39%
• Not too much/no confidence at all 57%

How much confidence do you have in Republican leaders in Congress to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with health care reform?

• A great deal 7%
• A fair amount 32%
• Not too much 36%
• No confidence at all 21%

Among Independents

• A great deal/fair amount 36%
• Not too much/no confidence at all 59%

Do you think you and your family would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don’t you think it would make much difference?

• Better off 27%
• Worse off 30%
• Not much different 36%

(more…)

Wonder if he’d ever hold a ceremony to honor the contributions of Christianity or humanism?

President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation’s culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country,” Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday’s daily fast.

The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called “a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress.”

They’re too long to catalogue? Really? Can someone please provide me with a list of what Islam has contributed to American civilization? I can think of one, perhaps, but I have to go back around eight hundred years — the preservation of the works of Aristotle by Muslim philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age, which was only golden because it adopted some of the standards and mores of the ancients.

Islam hasn’t been doing much for us lately, though, I have to say.

Worse yet, the president — like President Bush before him — lavished praise on racist Nation of Islam member Muhammad Ali:

Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.

“A few years ago,” Obama said, “he explained this view — and this is part of why he’s The Greatest — saying, ‘Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams — they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do — they all contain truths.”‘

Ignore the relativist mush about religion and focus on the fact that the most distinguished man he could think of was Muhammad Ali. The same Muhammad Ali who said that “the man’s the boss, and the woman stays in the background. She don’t want to call the shots.” The same Muhammad Ali who said that “shamelessly courted some of the most brutal dictators on the planet: Qaddafi, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Nkrumah, Mobutu, Marcos.” And worst of all, the same Muhammad Ali who helped to launch the career of Don King!

When not busy bashing Israel, he’s busy sucking up to anti-American racists and spending time and taxpayer money praising a religion that has nothing to do with America. What next, Mr. President? Where’s your friend Rashid Khalidi?

I consider Ronald Reagan to be the greatest President this country has had since Teddy Roosevelt. I am old enough to have had children in school during his administration. Yet in spite of my great love and respect for Mr. Reagan, if he had announced that he was going to address all the school children in their classrooms through a nationally televised speech, I am quite sure that it would have deeply troubled me.

Why? This is the sort of thing that despots and tin-pot dictators do, not the President of the United States. The despots are truly hung up in establishing and promoting their personality cult of “Dear Leader”. Their picture is everywhere. Their messages and sayings are widely quoted. The schoolchildren sing songs to their praise.

The office of President of the United States carries with it a great deal of power, prestige, and status. The President himself, however, is only a mere mortal to whom we the people have temporarily entrusted the office. A certain amount of humility is appropriate and expected.

When George Washington was made the first President, there was some concern as to what should be his formal manner of address. A joint Congressional committee on title recommended, “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties”. George Washington wisely shortened it to, “Mr. President”. It has been that way ever since.

Obama seems to be having difficulty learning this simple fact.

Remember Obama’s faux-Presidential Seal? Obama introduced it June 20, 2008 at a meeting of the Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum. It immediately attracted ridicule and derision from across the political spectrum. ABC News called it “the audacity of hype.” It attracted so many catcalls and raspberries that his campaign was forced to dump it within a week.

And who can forget those majestic Grecian columns used as a backdrop to his acceptance speech held in Denver’s vast Mile-High Stadium? The Republicans got at least two good weeks worth of snark out of those.

We are already seeing the comparisons of Obama’s projected school speech to Nazi Germany’s Hilter Youth. Accusations of indoctrination are flying. The Department of Education’s suggested lesson plans calling for students to write letters to themselves on how they can help the President don’t help. Surely somebody in his administration could have seen this sort of thing coming?

If Obama was truly only interested in encouraging kids to study hard and stay in school, there are better ways to get that message out. For instance, he could have invited reporters from Weekly Reader and other such media into the Oval Office to interview him. He could deliver the exact same message to them. They would, in turn, pass it on to their readers. The message would then be about the children’s achievement, not about him. However, considering Obama’s history of puffing himself up, I am beginning to suspect that deep down, the message really IS about him.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)

Now on his sixteenth minute, Levi Johnston has taken to personally attacking the parenting skills of his child’s grandmother. For a “f**kin’ redneck” boy whose personal hobbies include “shootin stuff” and “chillin,” Vanity Fair sure has taken kindly to him, though. Let’s examine his scandalous charges against the former governor of Alaska:

The Palin house was much different from what many people expect of a normal family, even before she was nominated for vice president. There wasn’t much parenting in that house. Sarah doesn’t cook, Todd doesn’t cook—the kids would do it all themselves: cook, clean, do the laundry, and get ready for school. Most of the time Bristol would help her youngest sister with her homework, and I’d barbecue chicken or steak on the grill.

Sound the Drudge siren!

What is this, some kind of negative character judgment upon someone who doesn’t cook? Is an older sister not supposed to help her younger sister with homework? Where is the scandal here? I’m not understanding this.

Do “normal families” have a mother that cooks? I certainly didn’t come from a “normal” family, then, and I would like to believe that I ended up alright. (Levi’s own hobbies seem to be rather, well, less than distinguished, one might add.)

Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.

The last part is key. We’re expected to believe that Sarah Palin really thought that she could hide the fact that her daughter had a huge bulge in her stomach. “I think” Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good. No, kid, you “thought” you could create some kind of media scandal by making up bull.

It isn’t uncommon for mothers to adopt the children of their unprepared teenage daughters. I happen to know of people whose mothers have asked their pregnant teenage daughters about it. They are not doing it out of malice or trickery, but out of care for the child, who would otherwise go into unready hands. And I think that we all know that Levi Johnston is an unready hand.

“Throughout the years I spent with them, when Sarah got home from her office — almost never later than 5 and sometimes as early as noon — she usually walked in the door, said hello, and then disappeared into her bedroom, where she would hang out. Sometimes, she’d take an hourlong bath. Other times she sat on the living-room couch in her two-piece pajama set from Walmart — she had all the colors — with her hair down, watching house shows and wedding shows on TV. She always wanted things and she always wanted other people to get them for her. If she wanted a movie, Bristol and I would go to the video store; if she wanted food, we’d get her something to eat, like a Crunchwrap Supreme from Taco Bell. She’d try to bribe everyone in the house, or give us guilt trips.”

Apparently Levi Johnston’s mother is not a middle-aged woman. The rest of us should find this portrait, um, somewhat familiar. And we love our moms just the same.

Sarah was sad for a while. She walked around the house pouting. I had assumed she was going to go back to her job as governor, but a week or two after she got back she started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make “triple the money.” It was, to her, “not as hard.” She would blatantly say, “I want to just take this money and quit being governor.” She started to say it frequently, but she didn’t know how to do it. When she came home from work, it seemed like she was more and more stressed out.

She was sad? More shock! More intrigue!

I don’t doubt that Sarah Palin would like to cash in on her experiences. I think we all would do the same, quite frankly. But we’ll see what she chooses to do.

But I think we know who’s trying to get something for nothing here, and it ain’t Sarah: it’s the kid who’s throwing his child and his child’s mother and grandmother under the bus to make a quick buck. Absolutely pathetic.

The L.A. Times reports that John Paul Stevens may soon retire:

Reporting from Washington – Justice John Paul Stevens, who will turn 90 early next year, has given a hint that this Supreme Court term will be his last, potentially clearing the way for a second appointee from President Obama next summer.

Stevens, like most of the justices, hires new law clerks a year in advance, and he confirmed that he has hired only one clerk for the fall of 2010, not the usual contingent of three or four. Retired justices have only one clerk.

Stevens has not said he will step down next year, and he could hire extra clerks in the months ahead. But his early hiring plans, which were first reported by the Associated Press, set off speculation that he has already decided to retire.

Earlier this year, the first clear hint of Justice David H. Souter’s retirement came in the news that he did not hire a full set of law clerks.

Stevens, a Chicago native and an appointee of President Gerald Ford, has been the leading voice of the court’s liberal wing for nearly two decades.

If Stevens were to retire, Obama would have a chance to select another justice with the confidence that Democrats have a solid majority in the Senate. In May, Obama interviewed federal Judge Diane Wood from Chicago, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before choosing federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Another possible candidate for a Supreme Court seat would be Cass Sunstein, who was chosen by Obama to head a regulatory affairs office in the White House.

Although a Stevens retirement would not significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Court, it would still grant Obama the opportunity to make two appointments within the first two years of his term and further reveal the President’s judicial philosophy (as if we don’t already know).

This is from CNN and it’s measuring “adults,” so apply your pro-Obama filters and assume it’s actually worse than this for the Democrats.  CNN poll, via Pollster.com:

Do you think Barack Obama does or does not want the federal government to eventually take over all aspects of the health care system in this country?

53% Does

42% Does not

______________________________________________________________

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 and a former state representative. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

Rasmussen Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 49% (47%) [44%]
• Creigh Deeds 39% (38%) [41%]

With Leaners

• Bob McDonnell 51% (49%)
• Creigh Deeds 42% (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mark Warner 62% (63%) [64%] / 30% (31%) [32%] {+32%}
• Bob McDonnell 55% (53%) [50%] / 28% (30%) [27%] {+27%}
• Tim Kaine 52% (54%) [48%] / 43% (42%) [44%] {+9%}
• Creigh Deeds 48% (48%) [49%] / 42% (39%) [35%] {+6%}

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

• Strongly approve 32% (39%) [37%]
• Somewhat approve 18% (9%) [14%]
• Somewhat disapprove 7% (10%) [9%]
• Strongly disapprove 42% (41%) [39%]

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

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

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Bob McDonnell 50% (48%) [45%]
• Creigh Deeds 35% (30%) [31%]

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Bob McDonnell 51% (46%) [47%]
• Creigh Deeds 29% (24%) [23%]

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

• Bob McDonnell 36% (36%) [30%]
• Creigh Deeds 35% (33%) [34%]

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

• Bob McDonnell 38% (39%)
• Creigh Deeds 37% (27%)

In terms of how you will vote this November, how important is the content of McDonnell’s thesis?

• Very important 17%
• Somewhat important 19%
• Not very important 25%
• Not at all important 24%

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

• Very important 36% (28%)
• Somewhat important 20% (16%)
• Not very important 22% (29%)
• Not at all important 15% (23%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 1. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 10 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Nearly half of all Democrats consider the thesis important while two-thirds of Republicans say they are not. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 32% say the writings are important including 18% who say they are Very Important.

McDonnell currently receives support from 91% of Republicans. That’s up from 85% a month ago. Deeds earns the vote from 84% of Democrats, up from 80%. Voters not affiliated with either major political party still favor McDonnell by a significant margin.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas has publicly come out against the public option in the heathcare bill:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said today she opposes a public health insurance option because it would be too expensive.

“For some in my caucus, when they talk about a public option they’re talking about another entitlement program, and we can’t afford that right now as a nation,” Lincoln said in a speech to the Elder Law Task Force at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

Lincoln has said previously she would support whatever health care plan worked, but she indicated Tuesday that a plan including an expensive, government-funded health insurance program would not get her vote.

“I’m not going to vote for a bill that’s not deficit-neutral, and I’m not going to vote for a bill that doesn’t do something about curbing the cost in the out years, because it would be pointless

… I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can’t afford that,” Lincoln told reporters before her speech

Lincoln joins Sen. Kent Conrad and Sen. Joe Lieberman in opposing the public option from within the Democratic caucus.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

The Washington Post, a former journalistic institution now in the employ of the Democratic National Committee, blatantly confessed it’s strategy of trying to ‘macaca’ Attorney General Bob McDonnell in an attempt to save the disastrous campaign of Democrat Creigh Deeds. In a piece this morning titled ‘The Macaca Thesis‘, Post writer Ruth Marcus makes clear the paper’s intent.  The Washington Post wrote over 100 articles with the word ‘macaca’ in it about former Sen. George Allen in the run up to the election in 2006, in one of the most obvious and ridiculous character assassinations ever employed in the history of modern media.  With President Barack Obama’s poll numbers in epic free fall, the Democrat majority’s continued mangling of the healthcare debate, and the collapsing campaign of Creigh Deeds, the Post has decided to once again attempt to drag a weak Democrat across the finish line in an effort to further their own radical leftist agenda.

We must fight back and destroy Creigh Deeds. McDonnell’s victory must be overwhelming and make clear once and for all that these media-driven smear campaigns will no longer be tolerated.  The Post took down Allen, but we  cannot let them win again. You can show your support for Bob McDonnell and help him fight this radical leftist crusade by donating here.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

_________________________________________________________

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

SurveyUSA New York Gubernatorial Survey (Eliot Spitzer Edition)

Who is better qualified to be governor of New York — David Paterson or Rudy Giuliani?

• Rudy Giuliani 61%
• David Paterson 27%

Who is better qualified to be governor of New York — Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson?

• Eliot Spitzer 41%
• David Paterson 24%

Who is better qualified to be governor of New York — Eliot Spitzer or Rudy Giuliani?

• Rudy Giuliani 59%
• Eliot Spitzer 25%

If Eliot Spitzer runs for public office again, which of the following best describes you: One: I would vote FOR Eliot Spitzer no matter what office he runs for and no matter who runs against him. Two: I would vote AGAINST Eliot Spitzer no matter what office he runs for and no matter who runs against him. Three: I need to know what office Spitzer is running for and who else is on the ballot before I know how I would vote.

• For Spitzer no matter what 15%
• Against Spitzer no matter what 39%
• Depends on office/ballot 47%

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means you have total respect for Eliot Spitzer and 1 means you have absolutely no respect for Eliot Spitzer, how much respect do you have for Eliot Spitzer?

• 1 33%
• 2 8%
• 3 6%
• 4 8%
• 5 20%
• 6 6%
• 7 7%
• 8 7%
• 9 1%
• 10 3%

Survey of 500 adults was conducted September 1. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.