Sometimes, a person is able to accomplish more in death than they were in life.  The courageous stand at the Alamo became a rallying cry that defeated the Mexican army.  Sometimes, the death of a strong advocate can end the cause.  When looking at Sen Kennedy, regardless of what you think of him as a man and as a politician, there is no denying he had a strong influence on the debate.  For good or ill, Sen Kennedy was a pivotal player with tremendous influence.  His death has the potential to either get a bill passed or sink the remaining hope.  History will look back and see the latter, not the former.

Why wouldn’t his passing have the opposite effect, rallying the troops and getting a bill signed?  There are several reasons why that won’t be the case this time:

• Senator Kennedy was a divisive national figure:  Sure, liberals and Democrats loved this man.  He was a stalwart champion for their causes, always there to take up a pet issue, and was willing to do anything and everything in his power to carry the issue.  However, his appeal to moderates (outside MA) was very limited, and conservatives routinely used him as a symbol of what’s wrong with DC.
• Senator Kennedy had already faded somewhat from the debate:  Because of his illness, Sen Kennedy was not seen as personally leading the charge on this bill.  Did he still wield considerable influence?  Absolutely, but everyone knew he didn’t have long to live, and were already moving past him.  Nobody talked of his speeches, his negotiations, or his portion of the various bills in the various committees.
• The government option for healthcare has not become more popular with Senator Kennedy’s passing:  The town hall anger has not gone away.  Democrats are desperate to pack the events in order to try and give the illusion that they are gaining support.  Nobody’s buying.
• Blue Dogs will not heel in memory of a Senator Kennedy:  Many people seem to think that Spkr Pelosi will be able to finally reign in the Blue Dogs with a rousing “Let’s pass this one for Kennedy!”  This will fail, and it will fail because no Blue Dog who wants even an ounce of a chance to retain their seat in the face of the building tsunami of 2010 will want nothing to do with the legacy of Sen Kennedy.  Above all, these politicians want to keep their seats, and to be seen bowing to the memory of a polarizing figure in opposition to the people’s will is political suicide.

For all of the above-mentioned points, attempts to use Sen Kennedy’s vestiges of Camelot to ride us into the promised land of Obamacare will fail.  He who was seen as a giant in life will be revealed as a passing reference in the current healthcare debate.

Cue the Drudge siren…

Obama will drop the public option from his requirements for health care reform upon his return from vacation.

This does not mean that we have won. But it does mean that a true victory (no increased government role in the private health insurance market) is possible. The next step is to ensure that the Co-Op compromise dies next, as it is just another boondoggle that will cost us trillions with poor results.

Onward and upward Conservatives! See what is possible when we get off our collective asses and fight?

CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey

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

• Approve 53% (56%) [64%]
• Disapprove 45% (40%) [34%]

Among Democrats

• Approve 90%
• Disapprove 8%

Among Independents

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 53%

Among Republicans

• Approve 15%
• Disapprove 85%

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

• Approve 49% [59%]
• Disapprove 51% [40%]

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

• Approve 44% [57%]
• Disapprove 53% [41%]

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

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 48%

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

• Approve 45% [62%]
• Disapprove 52% [37%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 36% [52%]
• Disapprove 63% [47%]

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

• Approve 66%
• Disapprove 26%

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

• Approve 54% [66%]
• Disapprove 42% [28%]

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

• Approve 52% [61%]
• Disapprove 45% [35%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 49% [67%]
• Disapprove 46% [29%]

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 42% (41%) {47%}
• Oppose 57% (54%) {51%}

Do you think the United States is winning or not winning the war in Afghanistan?

• Is winning 35% {31%}
• Is not winning 62% {64%}

Do you think the United States can or cannot win the war in Afghanistan?

• Can win 59% {62%}
• Cannot win 40% {35%}

From the news stories about Barack Obama that you have read or seen since he became president, do you think the news media have been too critical of Obama, not critical enough, or have they been fair in their treatment of Obama?

• Too critical 25% {18%}
• Not critical enough 36% {26%}
• Fair 37% {55%}

Survey of 1,010 adults was conducted August 28-31. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 12-15 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 18-19 are in curly brackets.

Inside the numbers:

The poll indicates that opposition to the war is coming mainly from Democrats and independents.

“Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war. Seven in 10 Republicans support what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Democrats mildly opposed the war in April while independents and Republicans favored it. But opposition has grown 18 points among Democrats and 10 points among independents.”

Some examples and thoughts about the health care debate that I hope you find helpful:

One: This afternoon, former US House Speaker Dennis Hastert addressed an audience in Overland Park, KS, on behalf of Congressman Todd Tiahrt.  Hastert mentioned that he had once asked Congressman John Shadegg to draft legislation that would lead to Americans being able to purchase health insurance across states.

If a person from Kansas could have the option of buying health insurance from any health insurance company in America (rather than only being able to choose from those companies approved by the Kansas Insurance Commissioner), the expectation is that consumer costs will be lower and the insurance companies’ product quality will be greater, as a result of there being a greater number of insurance companies that will compete for the right to sell their product to this Kansas customer.  Also, the expectation is that newer companies will form, and that a greater variety of insurance products will be able to be offered.  Speaker Hastert said he remembered two groups, in particular, opposed this competition-increasing legislation:

1. State insurance commissioners, who did not want to lose their fiefdoms.
2. Private health insurance companies, who enjoyed the ability to charge higher premiums than they otherwise would, if there was increased competition.
   1. I’ll note that, no, the “public option” will not result in increased competition.  When government sets the rules and when it gets money (tax money) regardless of performance, it is not a “competitor.”

Two: Before I could get to the Tiahrt/Hastert event, I found my car battery dead, probably as a result of me doing something forgetful, such as leaving the headlights on.  My main thought is:  when will a modern-day Edison create wireless electricity?  How cool would that be?  In lieu of wireless electriciy, I relied upon insurance.  I pay a few dollars extra a month for roadside assistance to my cell-phone provider, Verizon Wireless.  It may not be the best deal — Verizon puts in place a limit of 4 service calls per year, which I’m going to guess is not the situation with AAA-like companies — but it does the job.

Now, if I didn’t purchase this insurance, what would an automotive service call like this cost?  Probably $40-100.  I’ll admit to you that, for me, this insurance pays for itself:  it costs me about $50 a year through Verizon, and that pays for what would otherwise be larger dollar amounts in annual automotive service costs.  For Verizon (or whatever companies with which Verizon contracts) to make a profit, it means that, for every one client like myself, there are a few customers who under-use their insurance.  If I had not purchased this roadside assistance before today — and if I had today called Verizon wireless and said, “I have a $50 jump-start charge; could I instead pay you $4 and have you pay the $50?” — it wouldn’t make good-business sense for Verizon to agree.  But that’s what some people unfairly expect from health insurance companies:  to be able to, after-the-fact, pay a small amount of money for a large medical expense.

Three: I would like to discuss the government-run “public option” for medical care.  Some would like us to believe that the federal government is capable of both:

1. Providing medical services to Americans effectively and efficiently, and
2. Running its own government medical services in a manner that is NOT anti-competitive and will NOT ultimately destroy the private insurance market.

But we already have a perfect example of what occurs with a “public option.”  The answers to the two above questions are “no,” the government cannot provide services to everyone, and the government will almost eliminate the private market.  K-12 government-run education IS the “public option.”  And what have we seen with public education:

1. When the quality is adequate, education is provided at an inefficient high cost.
2. With inner-city schools, the quality is not only inadequate, but downright oppressive.  And still costly.
3. With no disrespect meant toward the good public teachers out there:  many of the best and brightest college students do not want to be teachers because they know that they will not be financially rewarded in an adequate manner.  I’m not just referring to those who wish to make an enormous salary; I’m referring merely to those who wish to be paid more, if and when they perform at a high level due to their talent.  Some will consider this “selfish,” but I disagree.  If you’re good at something, you should be financially rewarded for it.
4. Government is in denial about quality.  Look at the Kansas City, MO, School District, “Where Achievement is the Standard.” When any business — or government, in this case — gets financially rewarded for a consistently poor performance, there is no incentive to improve, and the worst in human nature takes over.  With the “public option” of education, the government’s number one priority is not education, but is self-preservation.  Not only is quality a problem with government-run programs, but even basic compassion can often become difficult to find.  Kansas is one of only about four states whose K-12 schools do not not consider dyslexia to be an official learning disorder — as it should be, special education students receive a far higher level of state funding.  When I was in the Kansas Legislature, we attempted to add dyslexia to legal definition of special education, but it failed.  Those in opposition:  the NEA, school districts, and NEA-endorsed legislators of both parties.  The “education experts” prevailed, and the students and parents lost.
5. People move to new cities and states to flee their “public option.”
6. When the “public option” is insufficient, and when parents are unable to move to a different city and school district, the parents usually cannot afford to choose the private option, because too much of their money goes to pay the taxes that pay for the ineffective “public option.”

From 2005 to 2009, I served as one of six county-wide elected board members (“trustees”) at Johnson County Community College.  The administration will tell you privately that the best-prepared students are those from home schools.  Now, I’m not saying home schooling is best for every K-12 student, but I bring this up in order to state that, in Kansas, non-government-certified teachers with perhaps $1000 in annual materials are providing a quality of education that is equal or better to our state-run schools, which receive an average of $11-13,000 annually per student in tax money.

Indeed, with education, government has now gone so far as to tell parents (whether implicitly or explicitly) that parents and students (consumers) are not CAPABLE of determining where to obtain educational services.  Of course, that’s nonsense.  In my second point above (roadside assistance), I discussed two things — cars and mobile phones — about which I ultimately know very little.  I don’t know how to fix cars, and I don’t understand digital technology.  But I absolutely believe I’m capable of determining for myself who should provide those services to me.  And while I may not choose the best mechanic or the best cell phone provider on the first try, out of self-interest I will quickly learn and make a better decision on the second try, and a better one yet on the third attempt.

Four:  In August, at KansasProgress.com we had a major service request with Google.  While they did not ever reply to Emails, they functionally replied by making the necessary code changes, and within one week.  I’m amazed that a global company can respond to a guy in Kansas within a week.  There’s no way government can do that.

______________________________________________________________

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.

It is largely assumed that the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat will pass on to either a member of his family (Vicki Kennedy, Joe Kennedy II) or any number of ambitious state Democrats (Edward Markey, Stephen Lynch, Martha Coakley, Michael Capuano). However, the Massachusetts GOP may just have one ace up their sleeves that could potentially snatch the legendary Democrat’s seat. How, you ask? Well with a Boston legend of our own: Curt Schilling. The politically active former pitcher has shown interest in the past at seeking statewide office, and with an open seat election that will likely see a crowded Democratic Primary field, Schilling could consolidate the GOP and his legion of Boston fans. Hey if he could help the cursed Red Sox win a World Series, taking Kennedy’s seat should be a walk in the park

.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Tommy asked me to post this:

SurveyUSA has just released their August tracking numbers, previous month in paranthesis:

Alabama: 40/58(42/56)
California: 62/33(66/30)
Iowa: 45/51(56/40)
Kansas: 45/51(41/53)
Kentucky: 36/61(41/55)
Minnesota: 53/44(51/46)
Missouri: 48/50(55/42)
New Mexico: 52/46(61/37)
New York: 58/38(63/34)
Oregon: 54/39(54/42)
Virginia: 42/54(44/49)
Washington: 51/46(56/41)
Wisconsin: 45/50(50/45)

Obama among Independents in the SUSA poll:

Alabama: 24/74
California: 52/46
Iowa: 49/49
Kansas: 41/50
Kentucky: 35/65
Minnesota: 47/50
Missouri: 32/63
New Mexico: 37/63
New York: 42/52
Virginia: 39/59
Washington: 29/70
Wisconsin: 35/61

Source: The Hedgehog Report here, and here

PPP (D) Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 49% (51%)
• Creigh Deeds 42% (37%)

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 60% (53%)
• Creigh Deeds 34% (36%)

Among Women

• Creigh Deeds 49% (38%)
• Bob McDonnell 40% (50%)

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 60% (52%)
• Creigh Deeds 29% (33%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Bob McDonnell 53% (55%) / 31% (26%) [+22%]
• Creigh Deeds 47% (43%) / 35% (32%) [+12%]

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 62% (52%) / 25% (26%) [+37%]
• Creigh Deeds 38% (44%) / 40% (31%) [-2%]

Survey of 596 voters was conducted August 28-31. The margin of error is +/-4.0 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% (32%) Democrat; 31% (35%) Republican; 31% (33%) Independent. Political views breakdown: 46% (41%) Moderate; 36% (45%) Conservative; 19% (14%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in parentheses.

As he typically does when he tackles foreign policy matters, George Will has stumbled into a minefield of shortsightedness, wrongheadedness, and general unwillingness to confront the nature of the new conflict America finds itself in. In his typically realist calculation, Will parades a slew of talking points typically heard from the likes of Hillary Clinton:

The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible…

[N]ation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country — “control” is an elastic concept — and “‘our’ Afghans may prove no more viable than were ‘our’ Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.”…

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan’s recent elections were called “crucial.” To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American “success,” whatever that might mean.

…

Adm. Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan’s “culture of poverty.” But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx…But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent re-establishment of al-Qaeda bases — evidently there are none now — must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

So in other words: The war is too long, it’s just like Vietnam, we don’t have an exit strategy, and choosing Afghanistan was totally arbitrary.

Why does this sound familiar?

The central fallacy surrounding realist analysis of contemporary warfare is that it tends to compare it to past ground wars, which focused on manpower, brute force, and, as a measure of efficiency, casualty rates and time spent. But this is simply not how we are going to fight a war intent on mitigating (or even, for all intents and purposes, eradicating) terrorism. Unfortunately — although hopefully not fatally — for these new endeavors, patience, rather than raw efficiency, will be the name of the game. We are, in large measure, learning as we go along; if we have been mired in Afghanistan for longer than we spent in Germany and Japan, it is because the nature of the enemy is radically different. We cannot defeat the Taliban by running roughshod over Afghanistan like we did to Germany. When engaging disparate non-state actors using unconventional tactics, our strategy will necessarily shift.

Fortunately, our most brilliant commanders on the ground know this and are doing what they can to correct the situation. The fatal flaw in the reasoning of the opponents of staying the course in Iraq in 2007 was a failure to adjust mindsets into this contemporary setting. Liberal internationalism has largely triumphed amongst nations with enough manpower to fight a “conventional” war against; America simply has no enemies in the foreseeable future that will be comparable to Nazi Germany. But the surge strategy in Iraq was not simply about troops (although that was certainly beneficial), but about methodology, winning over those once thought to be opponents and, quite simply, engaging “hearts and minds.” In the future, our warriors must be trained not only in the weapons of guns, but in the weapons of culture, rhetoric, and history. America must stay in Afghanistan because America must learn how to fight and win these new wars.

In the case of Afghanistan, one comparison to Vietnam may be apt in this scenario: we could have won if we’d stuck it out. Let’s not make that mistake again.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

FDU PublicMind New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Election

• Chris Christie 47% (45%)
• Jon Corzine 42% (39%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 52% (45%)
• Jon Corzine 25% (21%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 38% (34%) / 35% (25%) [+3%]
• Jon Corzine 37% (31%) / 54% (54%) [-17%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 34% (38%) / 28% (17%) [+6%]
• Jon Corzine 23% (17%) / 64% (64%) [-41%]

Which candidate for New Jersey governor is better described by…?

Honest, trustworthy

• Chris Christie 32% (33%)
• Jon Corzine 31% (24%)

Understands the concerns of the average person

• Chris Christie 43% (40%)
• Jon Corzine 30% (28%)

Has the background and experience to be a good governor

• Jon Corzine 45% (42%)
• Chris Christie 32% (29%)

Regardless of which candidate you want to win, if you had to guess, who would you say is going to win the election for governor in November?

• Jon Corzine 45% (46%)
• Chris Christie 41% (38%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45% (45%)
• Jon Corzine 36% (34%)

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Excellent 3% (2%)
• Good 22% (24%)
• Fair 40% (39%)
• Poor 33% (31%)

Among Independents

• Excellent 2% (2%)
• Good 13% (10%)
• Fair 41% (46%)
• Poor 43% (37%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Approve 37% (36%)
• Disapprove 52% (49%)

Among Independents

• Approve 23% (19%)
• Disapprove 64% (58%)

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.

Quinnipiac New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 47% (46%)
• Jon Corzine 37% (40%)
• Chris Daggett 9% (7%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 46% (55%)
• Jon Corzine 30% (25%)
• Chris Daggett 16% (13%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Chris Christie 41% (42%) / 30% (20%) [+11%]
• Chris Daggett 8% (4%) / 4% (3%) [+4%]
• Jon Corzine 34% (37%) / 57% (54%) [-23%]

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

• Approve 34% (36%)
• Disapprove 60% (58%)

Among Independents

• Approve 28% (26%)
• Disapprove 65% (70%)

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

• Approve 51% (56%) [60%]
• Disapprove 43% (39%) [34%]

Would you say that Jon Corzine has strong leadership qualities or not?

• Yes 48%
• No 47%

Would you say that Chris Christie has strong leadership qualities or not?

• Yes 52%
• No 25%

Would you say that Jon Corzine is honest and trustworthy or not?

• Yes 40%
• No 51%

Would you say that Chris Christie is honest and trustworthy or not?

• Yes 44%
• No 31%

Would you say that Jon Corzine cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?

• Yes 41%
• No 54%

Would you say that Chris Christie cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?

• Yes 47%
• No 34%

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

• Chris Christie 51% (47%)
• Jon Corzine 38% (41%)

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

• Chris Christie 55% (54%)
• Jon Corzine 29% (31%)

Have you seen the Corzine television ads criticizing Christie for giving contracts to people with ties to former President George W. Bush?

• Yes 77%
• No 22%

(If yes) Do you think this is a legitimate campaign issue or an unfair attack?

• Legitimate 36%
• Unfair attack 56%

(more…)

A political explosion ignited at the feet of Prime Minister Gordon Brown this past weekend. It was reported in the Sunday Times that leaked letters from Justice Secretary Jack Straw linked the release of the Libyan terrorist to a $900 million oil and gas exploration deal between the two nations. Megrahi was responsible for murdering 189 US citizens from the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.  As the day progressed, additional reports linked the release of the terrorist to the bailout of Scottish banks.

The official position from the Obama administration was that they opposed the release of Megrahi, but they have not commented on the developing scandal, yet.  Our President appears determined to continue his policy of quiet diplomacy, even if it means turning a blind eye to this treasonous act by his friend and ally, Gordon Brown.

Threatened with sanctions, a deteriorating reputation and a not welcome sign from the citizens of New Jersey for their leader, the Libyan government has gone on a public relations campaign. I believe they are the source behind many of the leaks to the UK media in an attempt to re-direct public anger towards Prime Minister Brown. 

Hours ago, the Libyan government released a video of Megrahi in a hospital bed, refusing to answer questions from a reporter, on whether his release was tied to a corporate trade agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.  This video appears to be staged, for two reasons. First, they do not have free media in Libya and when western reporters are allowed to speak with locals, it is done with minders circling and the environment staged.  Secondly, the cancer stricken terrorist was walking on his own just the other day and now appears to be unable to lift his head.

Further complicating matters for the British government was the admission on the flight carrying Megrahi from Scotland to Libyan, by Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, that the prisoner release was discussed during every oil and gas exploration negotiation, including during the final negotiations that took place earlier this month in Greece.   

I could comment on whether this scandal will be the final nail in the coffin of the Brown government or if this will damage US and British relations, but I will not bother.  What I will highlight is the hypocrisy in the British government.  The best young men and woman Britain has to offer are sacrificing in southern Afghanistan, many losing their lives in the struggle against a terrorist enemy that threatens democracy.  Unfortunately for these young men and woman, their political leaders find no issue in discussing the release of a convicted terrorist during trade negotiations on behalf of the oil conglomerate, BP.

Since the release of Megrahi, several members of the Royal Regiment of Scotland have been killed in action in southern Afghanistan.  I cannot help but wonder what emotions their mothers and fathers experienced, as they watched young Libyans wave Scottish flags when welcoming back the convicted terrorist?  I also wonder what the Pan Am 103 families, spread across 21 different nations (including two dozen Scottish victims), feel about the decision of the British and Scottish governments to release this terrorist in exchange for oil and profit? 

 In 2003, hundreds of thousands of  leftists in the United States and United Kingdom entered the streets of every big city to protest the Iraq war.  President Obama and many MP’s in Gordon Brown’s government helped organize these protests.  They accused neoconservatives of sacrificing truth and humanity for access to Iraqi oil.  To this day, this remains the primary accusation against those who supported the Iraq liberation effort.

Now, these same protesters, MP’s and President Obama face the true reality of the oil exploration business.  If President Bush truly cared about acquiring the rights to Iraqi oil to boost the profits of Halliburton, he would have done what Gordon Brown has done and set aside his morality and made a deal directly with Saddam Hussein.    

Now that the left finally has evidence of a government choosing profit over justice, will they once again return to the streets of London and New York in protest?  I patiently await their call to action. 

_________________________________________________________

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