PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48% [47%] (48%)
• Mike Huckabee 41% [44%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 48% [47%] (49%)
• Mitt Romney 39% [40%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 53% [52%] (51%)
• Sarah Palin 38% [38%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 50%
• Jeb Bush 37%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 46% [41%] (42%)
• Mitt Romney 35% [41%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 46% [42%] (44%)
• Mike Huckabee 33% [41%] (43%)

• Barack Obama 52% [50%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 35% [34%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 51%
• Jeb Bush 32%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 44% of the Independent vote (29% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Independent vote.

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 77% [80%] (76%)
• Barack Obama 13% [11%] (12%)

• Mitt Romney 72% [74%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 14% [11%] (18%)

• Jeb Bush 70%
• Barack Obama 16%

• Sarah Palin 70% [74%] (79%)
• Barack Obama 18% [15%] (14%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 90% of the Republican vote (32% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 93% of the Republican vote.

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 58% [56%] (58%)
• Mike Huckabee 31% [32%] (32%)

• Barack Obama 57% [57%] (56%)
• Mitt Romney 30% [30%] (32%)

• Barack Obama 63%
• Jeb Bush 23%

• Barack Obama 68% [63%] (62%)
• Sarah Palin 23% [25%] (31%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 39% of the Moderate vote (44% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the Moderate vote.

Among Men

• Mike Huckabee 47% [49%] (49%)
• Barack Obama 44% [43%] (43%)

• Mitt Romney 46% [44%] (46%)
• Barack Obama 44% [44%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Jeb Bush 42%

• Barack Obama 50% [48%] (47%)
• Sarah Palin 41% [41%] (47%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 48% of the Male vote (47% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 55% of the Male vote.

Among Women

• Barack Obama 50% [50%] (53%)
• Mike Huckabee 36% [39%] (36%)

• Barack Obama 52% [50%] (51%)
• Mitt Romney 34% [36%] (35%)

• Barack Obama 55% [56%] (54%)
• Sarah Palin 36% [35%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 52%
• Jeb Bush 34%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 43% of the Female vote (53% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Female vote.

Among Voters Age 18-29

• Barack Obama 53% [51%] (54%)
• Mike Huckabee 35% [40%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 58% [58%] (57%)
• Mitt Romney 33% [28%] (37%)

• Barack Obama 59%
• Jeb Bush 29%

• Barack Obama 67% [60%] (60%)
• Sarah Palin 27% [28%] (40%)

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 32% of the 18-29 vote (18% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the 18-29 vote.

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 38% [45%] (42%) / 36% [28%] (33%) {+2%}
• Mitt Romney 33% [37%] (37%) / 38% [34%] (37%) {-5%}
• Sarah Palin 37% [40%] (47%) / 55% [49%] (45%) {-18%}
• Jeb Bush 22% / 45% {-23%}

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 38% [40%] (45%) / 33% [31%] (28%) {+5%}
• Mike Huckabee 32% [48%] (44%) / 38% [24%] (30%) {-6%}
• Jeb Bush 19% / 42% {-23%}
• Sarah Palin 33% [37%] (45%) / 59% [49%] (43%) {-26%}

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 70% [66%] (66%) / 12% [13%] (19%) {+58%}
• Sarah Palin 69% [72%] (76%) / 22% [16%] (19%) {+47%}
• Mitt Romney 50% [52%] (54%) / 21% [18%] (25%) {+29%}
• Jeb Bush 43% / 17% {+26%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 69% [68%] (73%) / 22% [20%] (18%) {+47%}
• Mike Huckabee 59% [61%] (65%) / 15% [13%] (16%) {+44%}
• Mitt Romney 46% [49%] (53%) / 20% [22%] (20%) {+26%}
• Jeb Bush 40% / 17% {+23%}

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 32% [34%] (33%) / 41% [36%] (39%) {-9%}
• Mike Huckabee 29% [40%] (34%) / 43% [30%] (36%) {-14%}
• Jeb Bush 13% / 56% {-43%}
• Sarah Palin 20% [29%] (33%) / 71% [58%] (58%) {-51%}

Among Voters Age 18-29

• Mitt Romney 36% [32%] (33%) / 39% [34%] (39%) {-3%}
• Mike Huckabee 26% [45%] (34%) / 50% [19%] (36%) {-24%}
• Jeb Bush 18% / 52% {-34%}
• Sarah Palin 30% [30%] (33%) / 67% [53%] (58%) {-37%}

Survey of 621 voters was conducted September 18-21 . The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% [41%] Democrat; 35% [35%] Republican; 25% [24%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Nineteen percent (19%) of moderate Republicans said they voted for Barack Obama against John McCain last fall.

When we asked them to look toward 2012, 34% said they’d vote for Obama against Sarah Palin, 31% against Jeb Bush, 21% against Mike Huckabee, and 20% against Mitt Romney.

Hat-tip: Linkiest.

A rapidly increasing number of Americans from all walks of life are beginning to harbor deep-seated fears about Obama “Regulatory Czar” nominee Cass Sunstein. They fear he would use his radical position on animal rights to devastate the agricultural industry – and the elderly community as well.

Those fears are both widespread — and justified.

For instance, in a paper entitled “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” Sunstein observes that, “that there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.” The paper also asserts that “there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of animals.”

In the same paper, Sunstein suggests that the government should endorse the actions of persons attempting to act on behalf of animals, “to bring private suits to ensure that anti-cruelty and related laws are actually enforced. If a farm is treating horses cruelly … a suit could be brought, on behalf of those animals ….”

In short, Cass Sunstein is all set to unleash greedy trial lawyers on every farmer in America. Failed presidential candidate (and successful procreator) John Edwards must be jumping for joy.

Finally, in his animal rights opus, Sunstein opines that ” meat-eating would be acceptable if decent treatment is given to the animals used for food.” And who would determine what that “decent treatment” would be? Why, the very same man who believes in inflicting “extensive regulation” on every farmer in American trying to ply his daily trade. Cass Sunstein by name, radical regulator by trade, scourge of the agriculture industry by any measure imaginable.

Not that Mr. Sunstein confines his far-out views to four-legged animals alone. He also has some bizarre rules and regulations in store for those of us who are of the two-legged variety as well. And as you might have guessed , they dovetail perfectly with the “toss-the-seniors-overboard” philosophy of his benefactor, Barack Obama.

For his part, Sunstein couches his “death-care rationing” in such cold economical terms that one can almost hear the chi-chinging of the cash register in the background.

To Sunstein, you see, offing the elderly is all a matter of Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Sunstein has proposed that, wherever the effectiveness of a policy is examined using a Cost/Benefit Analysis, government agencies should adopt a standard that takes into account a person’s age. This standard, the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY) he readily admits “would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children.”

He defends this much as Ezekiel Emanuel defends his complete lives rationing system for health care by saying that every old person was young once and every young person will hopefully be old someday. This observation is supposed to somehow erase the ethical complaint of age discrimination – and ease the minds of senior citizens about to be ushered into the Obama Administration’s Soylent Green send-off rooms.

For Sunstein, “A program that saves younger people is better … than an otherwise identical program that saves older people.” By saving 25 younger people you might save 500 as opposed to only 50 VSLY by saving 25 elderly persons, he posits. So he suggests that, “in producing regulatory impact analyses, agencies should … [use] life-years as well as lives … in deciding what to do.”

And that, in short, means that if the U.S. Senate confirms Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar next week (as Harry Reid now intends), you can kiss granny goodbye.

But, not to worry. What the younguns lack in love and affection from the grandparents, great aunts and uncles Sunstein has dispatched, they can make-up for out on the farm. There, Ferdinand, Miss Piggy, and Chicken Little will be happy to moo, oint, and cackle till the sacred cows come home – all under the protective gaze of a delusional Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar from Hell.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Victor Morawski is a professor at Coppin University and a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.

How did the most notoriously anti-Sarah Palin front-page poster on this website, the guy who lost his transportation at the Republican National Convention due to his attacks upon the former governor, come to kinda, sorta, maybe…like her?

I have not forgotten the fact that her tenure as mayor of Wasilla was rocky, and I have not forgotten the fact that she was utterly lost when asked about the Bush Doctrine (regardless of what you think it is, it isn’t “…his worldview?”). She’s still got to prove herself to me in more than a couple of ways, but the little crease in the door that I’ve left ajar to her has been moved slightly forward by a few small breezes.

Before I move onto my particulars, a couple of disclaimers: it doesn’t bother me that she reads from prepared texts. All politicians read speeches prepared for them by others. The importance of the politician is that she believes what she’s saying. And no, the woman is not “dumb.” But even if she were dumb, it’s not like the “intelligent” crowd has been doing much good for us lately. Better an intellectually above-average woman like Palin than an “intellectual” like Obama, who, in the words of Ben Franklin, knows how to say the word “horse” in nine languages but tries to ride a cow to the market. Finally, I remain ambivalent about her resignation. It simply doesn’t mean anything much to me either way.

Now, onward.

It’s awfully hard for me to keep attacking a politician who condemns protectionism, quests for utopia, and China’s human rights record (a third rail amongst some in the foreign policy establishment); advocates a troop increase in Afghanistan, and professes that Americans want individual freedom rather than contrived solutions that run contrary to the nature of human reality. Shout-outs to the economic policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan don’t hurt, either.

She’s obviously taking the neoconservatives on board. A brief perusal of her Hong Kong speech — now available to read on her Facebook — shows that she is prepared to take a Giuliani-style approach to foreign policy and economic affairs. Free trade, tax cuts, American energy, stronger ties with India, and a foreign policy based upon sound morals and American exceptionalism. If that’s what she’s aiming at, then sign me up.

Palin had to lose to become who she is today. We are quite possibly entering a post-social conservatism era. In the age of Obama, individual freedom and size-of-government issues have once again taken precedence. Issues like homosexuality, religion in the public square, and abortion — which Palin falls down with the Religious Right on, but, like Ronald Reagan, has never really pushed for in any meaningful respect — simply have fallen by the wayside as more and more Americans wake up to its government’s crushing debt and unsustainable entitlement programs. As DaveG has noted, as issues change, so do coalitions. It is unsurprising that before the financial crisis and socialized medicine came back to the forefront, I would oppose Sarah Palin. And perhaps it is also unsurprising that in 2009, when the paradigm has shifted, I would begin to support her.

Some may suggest that I am falling prey to the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ — that is, that I’m using a lower standard for Palin and am more impressed by her than I would be if someone like Mitt Romney made the same remarks. Perhaps, emotionally, there is an element of this at work. But whatever my qualms with her — and they are many — I’m awfully more willing to overlook them than I was a few months ago.

I think that she can successfully revive her image. Who would have believed, in 2007, that by Summer 2008 Hillary Clinton would no longer be a polarizing figure and would morph into a working-class icon? Two knockout interviews, a blowout book tour for a best-selling manifesto, and more op-eds and Facebook notes that rally the classical liberal sentiment in Americans, and I’ll be ready to raise my hand for Sarah. And I suspect many other skeptics will be, too. If she keeps things up, she’ll have successfully swayed one of her harshest critics.

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

(Hat Tip: Viral Video.)

President Obama believes that it is productive for the United States to expend diplomatic energy and monies to negotiate with terrorist States.

This video is probably excellent insight on the diplomatic dialogue. 

_________________________________________________________

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

I’ve brought this up before but what the heck is the matter with the GOP?  We’re stuck with this guy in NJ:

But, we somehow ended up with Marco Rubio vs. Charlie Crist, two stupendous politicians, facing off in Florida.  Oh, and bonus, Bill McCollum is going to be Governor for some reason, while one of those two goes home.  Brilliant recruiting national Republicans.  You folks are just cleaning up.  Anyway, here’s another pitch from Rubio right before the the 3rd quarter fundraising period ends.  This guy is Reaganesque and, whatever Crist’s talents, this is another tally against an overwhelmingly bankrupt Republican establishment.

Donate.  He’s the only politician, other than McCain on the eve of Palin’s selection, I’ve ever given to.  Surely you can spare a few bucks.

-

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

CBS News reports that Rep. Pelosi may attempt to bring a “more liberal” form to the House’s final health care bill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is planning to include in the bill a tax on wealthy Americans, as well as a more robust government-run health insurance plan (or “public option”), abandoning the compromises leaders in a key committee worked out with the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, according to Roll Call.

The original tri-committee health care bill introduced in the House would have raised taxes by 5.4 percent on taxpayers making more than $1 million a year, but some Democrats have opposed the measure.

The original House bill also included a public option that moderates in the House Energy and Commerce Committee made less robust. The Blue Dogs in the committee worked out a deal with committee leaders to make a public option negotiate payment rates with medical providers — instead of dictating them. This is intended to put a public option on a “level playing field” with private insurers. Pelosi, however, reportedly plans to peg public option payment rates to Medicare payment rates.

She risks killing the bill by seeking these changes, unless she and the rest of the Democratic leadership can round up Blue Dogs worried about re-election. By the way, what happened to her claims of bipartisanship and the President’s calls for compromise?

FiveThirtyEight.com published two interesting articles today. The first, written by Nate Silver himself, deals with the impressive favorability ratings Glenn Beck managed in the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll:

Buried in the cross-tabs of the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is a question that takes a temperature reading of Glenn Beck. Beck actually makes out pretty well. While just 24 percent of Americans have a favorable view of him (13 percent strongly so), only 19 percent have an unfavorable one (14 percent strongly). That leaves 57 percent who either don’t know Beck or are indifferent toward him.

This compares quite favorably to, for example, Rush Limbaugh, who was the subject of a similar question in the NBC/WSJ poll in June. Limbaugh was regarded favorably by 23 percent of Americans, but unfavorably by 50 percent — including 37 percent who held a strongly negative view. This is not a new problem for Limbaugh, incidentally, who has been roughly this unpopular since at least 1995.

The difference between Beck and Limbaugh is that Beck is much more of an anti-establishment figure. I have posited before that running perpendicular to the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum is an establishment/anti-establishment spectrum; Beck is conservative but anti-establishment. And that may be working out pretty well for him, since the country seems to be becoming more anti-establishment too.

Silver then goes to define and peg Beck as a PoMoCon – post-modern conservative. This is an interesting read worth your time.

The second FiveThirtyEight piece, penned by Andrew Gelman, sets forth a positive prediction regarding next year’s Congressional midterms:

The current state of the generic polls gives the Democrats .412/(.412+.377) = 52% of the two-party vote. Going to the graph, we see, first, that 52% for the Democrats is near historic lows (comparable to 1946, 1994, and 1998) and that the expected Democratic vote–given that their party holds the White House–is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.

Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes.

It’s still early–and there’s a lot of scatter in those scatterplots–but if the generic polls remain this close, the Republican Party looks to be in good shape in the 2010.

P.S. Is there any hope for the Democrats? Sure. Beyond the general uncertainty in prediction, there is the general unpopularity of Republicans; also, it will be year 2 of the presidential term, not year 6 which is historically the really bad year for the incumbent party. Still and all, the numbers now definitely do not look good for the Democrats.

Good news, especially when coming from a liberal source!

Also today, Chris Cillizza called attention to a different part of the aforementioned NBC/WSJ poll (the one covering Glenn Beck):

That’s the percentage [49%] of people who say the government is doing “too many things better left to businesses and individuals” in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the first time that number has surpassed those saying the government “should do more to solve problems” in their data since December 1997.

While the number saying government outstrips the number saying it should do more (45 percent) only narrowly, the trend line on the question in the NBC/WSJ poll is interesting.

As recently as February, a clear majority — 51 percent — said government should be doing more while 40 percent said it was doing too much. Roughly two years ago, a whopping 55 percent said government should do more as compared to 37 percent who said it should do less.

You have to go back more than a decade to the early days of Bill Clinton’s second term — and roughly a year removed from his declaration that the “era of big government is over” — to find a majority (51 percent) saying that the government is doing too much.

…Watch the next few NBC/WSJ polls to see where public opinion heads on the question. If the trend line continues downward, it could well provide fuel for Republican arguments about the need for more divided government in the 2010 midterms.

In addition to illustrating the fickle nature of the American public, this poll suggests that 2010 and 2012 could become a happy time for conservative candidates.

I’d like to conclude by offering some personal thoughts on Gov. Palin’s speech today:

While I still hold mixed feelings about the Governor (love her potential to become a Reaganesque strong leader, advocate of Conservatism and effective communicator, but question her relative inexperience and, sometimes, her record), I have to say her speech really impressed me. As many have noted, she appears to have begun positioning herself not as a Christian Right warrior (the image she – in my opinion – undeservedly attracted during her time as VP nominee) but as a classical liberal. A few particular things she said today lead me to this postulation. First, from the New York Times (yes, that New York Times):

A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.

“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.”

Mrs. Palin said she was speaking as “someone from Main Street U.S.A.,” and she touched on her concerns about oversized federal bailouts and the unsustainable American government deficit. She did not repeat her attack from last month that the Obama administration’s health care proposals would create a “death panel” that would allow federal bureaucrats to decide who is “worthy of health care.”

Cameron Sinclair, another speaker at the event, said Mrs. Palin emphasized the need for a grassroots rebirth of the Republican Party driven by party leaders outside Washington.

…Melvin Goodé, a regional marketing consultant, thought Mrs. Palin chose Hong Kong because, he said, it was “a place where things happen and where freedom can be expanded upon.”

“It’s not Beijing or Shanghai,” said Mr. Goodé . “She also mentioned Tibet, Burma and North Korea in the same breath as places where China should be more sensitive and careful about how people are treated. She said it on a human-rights level.”

Mr. Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.

“And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that,” he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as “our president,” with the emphasis on “our.”

Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.

“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”

And second, from the Wall Street Journal:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fired a shot at the Federal Reserve in her coming-out speech in Hong Kong today, blaming the central bank for the current crisis and disagreeing with the idea that the Fed should have a greater role in preventing the next crisis. It was an echo of fellow Republican and Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has led the charge in Congress to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve with an eye to eventually eliminating it.

“How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform?” she said. “The words ‘fox’ and ‘henhouse’ come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.”

More generally, Mrs. Palin took the tack that the financial crisis occurred because government got in the way of free enterprise.

“Lack of government wasn’t the problem, government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to,” she said. “The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks. So many to be blamed on so many different levels, but the fact remains that these people were responding to a market solution created by government policies that ran contrary to common sense,” she said

I happen to believe this Sarah Palin could, if she decides to run in 2012, win over Independents – especially those of the Tea Party variety – and capitalize on the feelings of disenfranchisement and angst brewing among much of the American public. And, as someone fond of Austrian economics, I relish her criticism of the Fed. Forgive me for shooting for the stars, but on a grander scale, with more performances like this (in addition to more thoughtful op-eds) and a realization of the oft-speculated Palin-Rudy alliance (and perhaps ticket), the Governor could very well build a coalition composed of Conservatives of all three stool legs, libertarians (many of whom feel frustrated with Pres. Obama spurning their anti-war leanings) and conservative-leaning Independents. Is it just me, or does that sound extremely similar to the Reagan coalition? Here’s to hoping for more of this Sarah Palin!

Rasmussen Iowa Political Survey

2010 Iowa Senate Race

• Charles Grassley 56%
• Bob Krause 30%

Note: Grassley leads Krause by 36 points among men but by only 17 among women voters.

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Charles Grassley 68% / 30% (+38%)
• Bob Krause 33% / 30% (+3%)

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

• Strongly approve 30%
• Somewhat approve 18%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 40%

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 54% of the vote in Iowa.

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

• Strongly favor 20%
• Somewhat favor 21%
• Somewhat oppose 9%
• Strongly oppose 43%

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

• Better 21%
• Worse 53%
• Staying the same 17%

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

• Cost of health care will go up 51%
• Cost will go down 18%
• Stay the same 21%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 69%
• Reduce the deficit 7%
• No impact on the deficit 16%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 59%
• Somewhat likely 18%
• Not very likely 19%
• Not at all likely 2%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 55%
• Federal government will not do enough 31%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 0%
• Good 9%
• Fair 50%
• Poor 40%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 35%
• Worse 37%
• Staying the same 20%

How would you rate the job Chet Culver has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14%
• Somewhat approve 29%
• Somewhat disapprove 25%
• Strongly disapprove 28%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted September 22. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

The greenroom’s Karl speculates that Republicans are likely to quickly turn their fire against the “individual mandate” proposal in Obamacare.  He writes:

Sen. Chuck Grassley had already shifted his position to oppose forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Now it seems that Sen. GOP Whip Jon Kyl is calling the individual mandate a “stunning assault on liberty,” which suggests it may become a party positionl.

He points to a new Zogby poll which shows that 68% of voters in competitive senate races oppose the individual mandate.  So far, I think Romney has been extraordinarily lucky in this health care debate.  He’s disappeared enough to avoid too much association with Romneycare, but not so much that he seems to be hiding.  In fact, I  think he’s played his hand perfectly and has probably gone a long way to dispelling concerns about his “opportunism”.  He hasn’t seemed especially opportunistic this summer.  But, it’s hard to imagine anything worse for Romney, this far out, than a GOP which has decided to make the individual mandate provision the focus of their ire.  He can claim, somewhat credibly, that the Democrats have mismanaged portions of Masscare and so therefore he’s not to blame for its failings.  He can’t blame the individual mandate, however, on Democrats.  He supported it, though he did oppose the employer mandate.  If the GOP, reading the polls, starts to unite against the individual mandate, he’ll be forced into an uncomfortable debate where he’s squarely against the Republican majority. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

I should probably begin with some obligatory kind words, given your stature as an ex-president, but since I am not John McCain, I will forgo the over-congenial claptrap and cut to the chase: I am sick of you and other liberals who, every time you need a shot of self-superiority, snidely write off the south as racist. I am referring, of course, to your recent comments, including, “I live in the south and the racist inclination still exists.”

I am a white, southern conservative and I resent the fact that I must defend myself and my beliefs from charges of racism, this time because liberals need to detract attention from their faltering poll numbers. Even if you could prove our assessments of the Obama Administration wrong, you cannot make a rational case that they are borne of racism. No region of the country is immune to racial animosity and you know that. Ignorance is correctable and forgivable. Malice, that’s another matter.

Unlike you, average southerners, while Americans first, take enormous pride in our region, which is racially and ethnically diverse. I don’t want to say that some of my best friends are black — that’s a cliche written by white liberals who live in gated communities and send their children to private schools — but southerners of all races and backgrounds are not only holding their own economically and socially with the rest of the country, we are often setting the pace. We do not disparage the achievements of black Americans, we celebrate individual initiative and hard work because they reveal what is possible in America. Those who survived Jim Crow-era discrimination to succeed, such as Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, are not a threat to white southerners. In fact, we find their stories present a refreshing alternative to the tripe spewed by media hounds such as Al Sharpton.

It is everyday people, Mr. President, who have made great strides in race relations in the past 50 years. While federal protection and national leadership have been invaluable in securing civil rights, your remarks coarsen our national discourse and only serve to divide. Next step, of course, is to conquer, as liberals don’t invest their faith in average Americans of any color, only in their bloated, elitist hierarchies. If you want to pinpoint what is wrong in this country, how about that hub of corruption, crime and high dropout rates known as metropolitan Washington, DC or that economic dust bowl that is Detroit. Both great examples of liberal leadership.

And is it that that conservatives in the south and elsewhere oppose. We see cherished institutions such as capitalism and individual initiative under assault. Liberals, as usual, don’t see initiative, individual or otherwise, but group identity. They don’t recognize likely success stories, they seek out potential victims and prey on their dependence.

It is truly a shame that you appear less congenial to the political opposition in your own country than to the PLO and Hamas and other sworn enemies of America and our allies. Apparently, the title of deep, enlightened thinker is worth selling out your country and homeland. Your pious pronouncements are nothing new, Mr. President, and, except for occasional controversies such as this one, you no longer hold the power to provoke outrage. Your ramblings induce either yawns or the chortles directed at lunatic ravings heard on street corners.

We in the south, without your help, are painfully aware of our history of segregation and racism, and many of us try hard in our day-to-day lives to prove that we have moved beyond that. How ’bout a little help here? No region, no institution is perfect, as people are not perfect. We try, nonetheless. If you are so intent on assigning blame, then why not look in the mirror and apologize for your abysmal term as president? Best regards, Mr. Carter, and if our racist tendencies become unbearable, just heed the words of that witticism we use on disgruntled Yankee transplants: Delta is ready when you are.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Bozeman is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.

Bill Pascoe, over at CQ Politics, believes that Creigh Deeds committed political suicide with his Washington Post OP-ED today:

Virginia’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, must be color blind — he apparently cannot tell the difference between lavender and royal blue.

I just read his suicidal op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post, in which, Walter Mondale-like, he acknowledges his desire to raise taxes. That kind of bold play may once have worked in deep blue states where liberal electorates prefer their liberal candidates to campaign on who’s going to raise taxes higher … but in a reddish-bluish-lavender state in play?

Not so much.

But Deeds, clearly, believes it is blue — as blue as, say, Minnesota, which performed during the same 1960-2004 stretch as a mirror image of Virginia, casting its electoral votes for the Democratic nominee for President 11 times out of 12.

Of course, it will be at least a few days before we know if this will impact an ever tightening race. However, it seems reasonable that in these days of financial stress and hardship, that Deed’s acknowledgment of his willingness to take more money away from hard-working Virginia families will not sit well well by voters.

I would like to extend our best wishes for a happy birthday to two members of the R4’12 family: Adam Brickley and Richard Murray!

Many happy returns you guys!

PPP (D) National Political Survey

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

• Approve 52% {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 44% {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 52% {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 40% {42%} (42%)

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

• Support 45% {40%}
• Oppose 46% {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 46% {35%}
• Oppose 44% {49%}

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

• Yes 59% {62%}
• No 23% {25%}
• Not sure 18% {14%}

Among Republicans

• Yes 37% {36%}
• No 42% {44%}
• Not sure 22% {20%}

Among Independents

• Yes 61% {64%}
• No 14% {18%}
• Not sure 25% {18%}

Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?

• Yes 14%
• No 78%
• Not sure 8%

Among Democrats

• Yes 25%
• No 63%
• Not sure 12%

Among Independents

• Yes 9%
• No 83%
• Not sure 8%

(more…)

Let’s save America instead

In short, Rush was right, for if conservatives and Republicans are to conserve enough of the City on a Hill to keep it Shining, President Barack Obama and liberal mainstream of the Democratic party must fail in their efforts to enact their dreams of fundamental change into law.

Presidencies come and go. The Flag must always be defended and preserved by We the People.

Yet, too many of our conservative beltway pundits feel the need, much too often, to offer advice to ObamaDems on how they could succeed in implementing their goals by going it slow or some such other obfuscating strategy. They seem to offer this insidious advice either out of a confusion between the success of Americas and that of the “presidency”; or due to pure intellectual pride.

I was reminded of some recent conservative offers of such bilge when I ran across a New Republic column entitled: Job One: The only way Obama can pull his presidency back from the brink.

I was not taken aback to read such advice from a senior editor of the one of the preeminent liberal political publications in America. They believe that a sussessful Obama Presidency equals a successful America since they share his policy goals and world view.

But what is quite ironic about John Judis’ Job One column is that he fears the passage of a major health care reform bill will destroy Obama’s presidency and ultimately backfire on ObamaDems and end up wiping out the party and their legislative achievements.

Why ironic?

Because some of conservative pundit superstars have given Obama advice akin to Judis that would have ObamaDems treat the American people like lobsters calmly awaiting their deaths in lukewarm water. Consider:

Rich Lowry of National Review:

The Obama team is fiddling with his health-care talking points. But the verbiage is beside the point. What Obama needs is a little modesty. It’s easy to imagine an alternative history of a more cautious Obama administration that wouldn’t have stoked a voter backlash in all of six months.

No, Rich heir to Buckley’s perch, what Obama needs is to have his world view and proven failed policies utterly rejected. We don’t need any alternative histories where the liberal big government stew grows larger and hotter my small degrees over time.

We should thank God for the overreach that caused the LobsterAmericans to leap from the socialist pot of boiling water.

We don’t want “modest” liberals that are competent in advancing the big government ball.

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal:

A final factor contributed to the mess of the health-care debate, and that the White House might ponder it. Looking back, what a lucky man President Clinton was to have—to help bring about after his own health-care fiasco—a Congress controlled by the opposite party. What a great and historic team Mr. Clinton and Newt Gingrich were, a popular Democratic president and a determined GOP leader with a solid majority. Welfare reform, a balanced budget, and a sense the public could have that not much crazy would happen and some serious progress might be made. If Mr. Clinton pressed too hard, Mr. Gingrich would push back. If Mr. Gingrich pressed too hard Mr. Clinton pushed back. Two gifted, often perplexing and always controversial Boomers who didn’t even like each other, and yet you look back now and realize: Good things happened there.

Right now Mr. Obama’s gift is his curse, a Congress dominated by his party. While the country worries about the economy and two wars, the Democrats of Congress are preoccupied with the idea that this is their moment, now is their time, health care now, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” the only blazingly memorable phrase to be uttered in the new era.

No, former Reagan speechwriter (and exhibit A for how much more important is the employer than the employee in that occupation), it is a gift to America that we have the clarity necessary for the re-education of America in the failures and foibles of modern day liberalism that only one-party domination can afford.

Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Obama is a first-class power-craved Marxist ideologue who wants to fundamentally change America. Bill Clinton’s vision of America, while liberal in many ways, included self-empowered entrepreneurs that didn’t have to crawl to Washington for a piece of Obama’s action lest pitchforks be unleashed to squash them.

And finally, Charles Krauthammer:

Obamacare Version 1.0 is dead. The 1,000-page monstrosity that emerged in various editions from Congress was done in by widespread national revulsion not just at its expense and intrusiveness but at the mendacity with which it is being sold. You don’t need a Ph.D. to see that the promise to expand coverage and reduce costs is a crude deception, or that cutting $500 billion from Medicare without affecting care is a fiction.

But there is an exit strategy. And a politically clever one, if the Democrats are smart enough to seize it.

I am not going to repeat the insidiously wicked advice that the man I dubbed “The Master” when I discovered his great wisdom and intellect many years ago. His “politically clever” advice reminds of Screwtape’s whisperings to Wormwood in trying to advance the scope of Hades.

Hypothetically, would I like for Obama’s presidency to be a “success”?

Yes, if by success we had a Clinton-Gingrich-like gridlock that basically kept the federal government from growing except for occasional midnight basketball. That scenario might even be better than the alternative we endured with a Republican George “compassionate conservative (redundancy)” Bush with small majorities in both Houses of Congress where Democrat filibuster threats kept tax cuts non-permanent.

There is also an argument to be made (and I made it soon after the Inauguration) that America needs for the world to perceive a strong Presidency for the sake of deterrence. But that argument is now out the window after numerous apology tours and abandonment of freedom-loving allies in Honduras, Iran, Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Obama is determined to exude weakness and roll back the cause of Liberty.

I seriously wonder if We the People need to form an “American Underground” to aid and abet freedom fighters abroad?

It even appears that Obama is trying to lose the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rush Limbaugh was right to wish that Obama fails, i.e. fails to enacy his policy preferences.

Does anyone now doubt that America would be better off had Obama failed to pass the non-stimulus aka Government Growthulus, Omnibus spending, and currency-destroying budget blueprint with a first year deficit of $1.8 trillion (Bush and the GOP’s worse was just over $400 Billion) bills?

I think not.

Has anyone else noticed that the stock market began to rally just as loud voices emanated from Town Halls portending rough sledding for ObamaCare enactment and after Blue Dog senators buried the Cap & Trade energy tax in committee?

So, Charles, Rich and Peggy, get over yourselves and focus your brilliant minds on advice for the GOP to save America not just from ObamaDem expansion of the Welfare State, but also on ways to cut it back.

“Presidencies” are but a procedure engaged in producing the substance of what we call America and when we have liberals in charge of making a Bill into a Law, we must pray for incompetence and failure on their part.

Substance people. The presidency is not a television show. Let’s focus on the need for filling peoples’ wallets at home and the need for a strong defense abroad.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Rasmussen Missouri Political Survey

2010 Missouri Senate Race

• Roy Blunt 46%
• Robin Carnahan 46%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Roy Blunt 57% / 33% (+24%)
• Robin Carnahan 52% / 42% (+10%)

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

• Strongly approve 30%
• Somewhat approve 14%
• Somewhat disapprove 12%
• Strongly disapprove 44%

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

• Strongly favor 24%
• Somewhat favor 14%
• Somewhat oppose 11%
• Strongly oppose 48%

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

• Better 27%
• Worse 51%
• Staying the same 14%

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

• Cost of health care will go up 57%
• Cost will go down 15%
• Stay the same 18%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 72%
• Reduce the deficit 6%
• No impact on the deficit 18%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 64%
• Somewhat likely 15%
• Not very likely 14%
• Not at all likely 3%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 55%
• Federal government will not do enough 32%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 0%
• Good 9%
• Fair 43%
• Poor 47%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 32%
• Worse 44%
• Staying the same 19%

How would you rate the job Jay Nixon has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 17%
• Somewhat approve 41%
• Somewhat disapprove 24%
• Strongly disapprove 14%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted September 21. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Blunt leads by 17 points among men, but Carnahan has a 13-point lead among female voters.

Carnahan captures 84% of the state’s Democratic vote, while Blunt nets 85% of the GOP vote. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Blunt by eight points.

Courtesy of Andrew Breitbart:

Some of those who attended praised her forthright views on government social and economic intervention and others walked out early in disgust.

“She was brilliant,” said a European delegate, on condition of anonymity.

“She said America was spending a lot of money and it was a temporary solution. Normal people are having to pay more and more but things don’t get better. The rich will leave the country and the poor will get poorer.”

Two US delegates left early, with one saying “it was awful, we couldn’t stand it any longer”. He declined to be identified.

… In the CLSA speech, which lasted about 75 minutes, Palin also tackled the recent US trade spat with China, a country she said the United States should have the best possible relationship with.

According to delegates, she said US President Barack Obama’s administration worsened an already difficult situation when earlier this month he slapped duties on Chinese tire imports blamed for costing American jobs.

… Although she touched on the threat posed to the United States by terrorism and talked about links with traditional US allies in Asia such as Japan, Australia and South Korea, one Asian delegate complained she devoted too much time to her home state of Alaska.

“It was almost more of a speech promoting investment in Alaska,” he said, declining to be named.

“As fund managers we want to hear about the United States as a whole, not just about Alaska. And she criticised Obama a lot but offered no solutions.”

Another said he was disappointed that she took only pre-arranged questions.

Polarized opinion regarding Palin’s speech? Who could have expected that? Regardless, I agree with Alex’s view that Palin will continue to position herself as citizen-in-chief. That could strike a chord with angry voters feeling disenfranchised and ignored.

In the past three months, in addition to the murder of Jim Pouillon, there have been two cases of assault with a deadly weapon and now we get this story out of Arizona:

Flagstaff, AZ (LifeNews.com) — Pro-life advocates are upset by an attack on a pro-life man in Arizona who was holding a pro-life sign that apparently upset two pro-abortion women. The attack came eight days after pro-life advocate James Pouillon was shot repeatedly and killed in Michigan by a man who didn’t like him protesting abortion at a high school.

In the new case, 69-year-old Johnny Wallace was attacked by two women as he held two pro-life signs condemning the racist undertones of abortion and Planned Parenthood.

Wallace was alone in front of City Hall on the busiest street in town at the time of the attack. He was known to take up position at the spot most every day to make sure members of the community were reminded of the problems associated with abortion.

His two signs read “Abortion kills more black Americans in four days than the Klan killed in 150 years,” and “Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood.”

Wallace was approached from behind by two women, both 48, who began by yelling profanities at him. One then attempted to take way and destroy his sign. After Wallace was wrestled to the ground, the other woman joined the attack.

Paramedics were called and Wallace was treated for minor injuries. He suffered an elbow injury that has required additional treatment, according to officials with the pro-life group Operation Rescue.

Both women were cited and released on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage.

Note that Wallace’s signs were not “graphic.” (That was part of the “blame the victim” thread that went through Jim Pouillon story.)  Of course, they were somewhat inflammatory, but since when is the fact that you were offended by someone’s sign a justification for putting the beat down on them?

I also note that at least three of these four attacks were on elderly men. I guess these thugs are pretty brave for going after the most dangerous “right wing terrorists” they can find.

That the media continues to ignore this shows the incredible malpractice of the Government-run media.

“I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” — Jim DeMint

The above quote defines one of the major movements within the Republican Party, particularly crucial as the party redefines itself (I know, I’m only the one millionth person to say it.) Some people think the mindset is great- no worries about Senators Specter and Snowe sticking it to the party, or the eight Republicans who gave cap-and-trade its passage in the House. On the one hand, my idealogically conservative side agrees. On the other, of course, is the fact that thirty principled conservatives can a) disagree on where to be conservative (i.e., taking a stand on social vs. fiscal vs. military issues and legislation), and b) not pass much, if anything, or find themselves able to slow too much bad legislation down.

Beyond the Republican Party, however, conservatives are also pulling a DeMint, in a most important arena: television. In particular, by congregating on Fox News and NOT on other television stations. This became very clear when, on September 10, it came out that John Stossel was leaving ABC for Fox. Following in the footsteps of Chris Wallace, Michael Clemente, Brit Hume- three former ABC guys- Karl Rove, Dana Perino, Glenn Beck and other influential conservative names, Stossel is making a smart decision for himself. After 28 years surrounded by the liberal media “elite”, he can finally take his libertarian views where they will be appreciated. Again, a great decision for Stossel- and a bad one for a conservative recovery in America.

According to Nielsen, Stossel was getting over six million viewers as the host of 20/20 in the last quarter of last year. This is nearly twice the viewership of Bill O’Reilly, long-time king of cable news, who averages around 3.4 million viewers per night. However, while O’Reilly is primarily “speaking to the choir,” Stossel is speaking to a much wider audience. Whether they want to or not, non-conservatives are getting the viewpoint of a libertarian every time they turn on 20/20 for news, analysis, fluff shows and whatever else its viewers look for. With O’Reilly, you are mostly getting O’Reilly, and that’s the primary reason one goes to Fox News at 8 p.m.

Similarly, Glenn Beck has jumped to Fox over the last year, and he has become a powerhouse in the ratings world. Whereas at CNN he was averaging far fewer than one million viewers per night, he recently surpassed O’Reilly in the 25-54 year old demographic, a tremendous accomplishment, and has kept his numbers high for months, even passing over three million viewers recently. While Beck’s recent career move is somewhat the opposite of Stossel’s- at least, regarding ratings and the range of influence- it still concentrates Beck’s tremendous (if controversial and sometimes over-the-top) talent to Fox News viewers, as opposed to CNN viewers, who are generally less conservative. Again, Beck is speaking only to the choir, where at CNN he would likely get more non-conservative viewers simply by association.

Fox News has gone over the top since the moment the 2008 presidential election results were in. I began watching “Fox & Friends” during my internship at The Heritage Foundation last fall, and enjoyed their coverage of news and events…until November 5. Too, while I watch little TV in general, I check Foxnews.com several times a day, and have found their already-slanted (if accurate) news to be increasingly more slanted and sensational. Clearly, however, given their skyrocketing ratings, what they are doing is working. Like a bastion in a losing war, conservatives are flocking to Fox, and I cannot blame them, given the liberal biases in most mainstream news sources.

The problem comes when, five years from now, all the conservatives are at Fox (except for Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs, who may very well be retired, and Joe Scarborough, who seems to enjoy being on MSNBC). While conservatives will be having the time of their lives watching Stossel, Cavuto, O’Reilly, Hannity and the rest, the liberals on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and the entire rest of television news will be unchallenged in their biases and viewpoints. There will be no John Stossel to call out liberals on ABC, or Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck to challenge CNN from the ranks. These voices will all be at Fox. With as tough a time as we have keeping our message on track and in the ears of Americans, is this really the best way for conservatives to get their message out? I think not.

The Internet gives conservatives the opportunity to get their voices out- there is no question about that. However, that makes it very simple for ideological viewers to go only where they want to get their slant on news, opinion, etc. HotAir.com, Townhall.com, MichelleMalkin.com, NewMajority.com and even smaller sites such as thelobbyist.net provide a great service to conservatives and America- but with millions watching television and getting just the liberal viewpoint if conservative media personalities continue to flock to Fox, the next few years of elections will be very tough on conservatives.

As RJ Caster put it at thelobbyist.net, “Conservative is a state of mind, being a Republican is a vehicle.” The Republican Party is finding out which would-be leader of the party is correct about where it needs to go- David Frum, Jim DeMint, Michael Steele, among others, are fighting for the honor- but as a separate entity conservatives need to decide what tactic(s) will best serve them, their philosophies and their goals. Thirty conservative senators and a conservative news station making a killing in the ratings is a wonderful thing- but not at the expense of the country. Fixated as we seem to be on our dominance in a small part of the world of television, conservatives are keeping a great eye on the ever-present jab…and missing the overhand right coming in for the knockout.

Back in 2004, in a blatantly political maneuver, the MA legislature voted to strip the Governorship of its ability to appoint an interim Senator if a vacancy arose.  Their dreams of a Pres Kerry fell through, however, so nothing came of this action.  Fast forward 5 years, and their meddling in election law comes back to haunt them upon the death of Sen Kennedy.

We all knew Sen Kennedy was terminally ill, and the smart political thing to do would have either been for Sen Kennedy to not run for re-election in 2006 (he chose to run, however, and that’s it) or move to change the law before he died in office, so it wouldn’t look quite so partisan, and you would have ample time to deal with legal arguments that may arise from such a reversal.  In typical political fashion, however, they opted to do nothing, allowing a crisis (in their minds) to develop when it could easily be forseen and was totally avoidable.

Now firmly in “crisis mode,” the Democrats are trying to use their supermajority status to force a correction of their partisanship (the MA House is currently 143-16 D to R and the MA Senate is currently 35-5).  By votes of 97-58 and 24-16, the MA House and Senate, respectively, approved a bill doing just that.  The bill still has to be reconciled and repassed before it gets to Gov Patrick, but the votes are there for a simple majority vote.

That’s where this all gets interesting.  For the legislation to be enacted sooner than 90 days, a 2/3 majority is needed in both chambers.  In the House and Senate, that means 107 and 27 votes, respectively, which they are just short of.  The Dems believe they can pull some political maneuvers to bypass this.  A pretty good summary of the opposition and legal challenges to this bill are presented here.

Earlier, I predicted a narrow defeat of this bill or, if passed, legal challenges would extend to the date of the special election anyway.  I’m not sure if the MA SC is as bad as the NJ SC (remember that they decided to completely ignore the law to allow Sen Lautenberg to replace Sen Torricelli on the ballot in 2002), so I could be overestimating their ability to adhere to the letter of the law, but I see this going to court.  Look to see if an injunction to prevent Gov Patrick from appointing an interim Senator is filed.  If so, I expect my prediction will come true.  If not, expect a kangaroo court that rubber stamps based on political lines.

As a side note to all who think Gov Romney should have done more as Gov to enact or prevent, well, ANYTHING, let me direct you to the numbers I mentioned above.  HOUSE: 143-16 DEM; SENATE: 35-5 DEM.  That Gov Romney had ANY influence at all only shows a certain level of political adeptness.

Drip, drip, drip…

Former U.S. vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, criticized for her lack of foreign policy experience, emerged in Asia on Wednesday to give a speech that could boost her credentials for a possible bid for the presidency in 2012.

In her first trip to the region, the former Alaska governor addressed an annual conference of global investers in Hong Kong and was to discuss everything from governance to economics and U.S and Asian affairs, according to the event’s organizer.

Palin started off her speech — which was closed to reporters — with a light talk about the links between her state and the southern Chinese territory, then touched later on economic issues.

One attendee said she criticized the U.S. Federal Reserve’s massive intervention in the economy over the last year, arguing its actions only exacerbated the crisis. She also praised the conservative economic policies of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher[.]

Earlier, she talked of Alaska’s salmon exports and complimented Hong Kong as a “beautiful city,” according to a second attendee. Both people spoke on condition of anonymity.

Former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan have spoken in the past at the conference, hosted by brokerage and investment group CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.

“She was chosen because she’s a woman of news value and presents an opinion that we feel would be of value to our fund managers,” said CLSA spokeswoman Simone Wheeler.

The rest of the article is just a hit job.

But my, my. Sarah versus the Fed?

Also…psst…guess who was advising her?

More: Cameron Sinclair confirms what I’ve been saying about Palin: that she’s heading for a citizen-in-chief angle. Also, she endorsed an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan (yay) and criticized China’s human rights record (double-yay). — H/T commenter Tommy Boy.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 48% {46%} (50%) [52%]
• Jon Corzine 41% {38%} (42%) [39%]
• Chris Daggett 6% {6%} (2%) [4%]
• Not sure 5% {10%} (7%) [5%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Christie 48% {42%} (48%) [49%] / 46% {52%} (51%) [42%] {+2%}
• Chris Daggett 28% {29%} / 27% {26%} {+1%}
• Jon Corzine 39% {45%} (36%) [37%] / 60% {54%} (61%) [62%] {-21%}

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% {13%} (14%) [11%]
• Somewhat approve 24% {27%} (21%) [26%]
• Somewhat disapprove 16% {21%} (24%) [19%]
• Strongly disapprove 45% {36%} (41%) [44%]

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

• Strongly approve 39% {34%} (35%) [36%]
• Somewhat approve 14% {19%} (20%) [20%]
• Somewhat disapprove 9% {16%} (9%) [8%]
• Strongly disapprove 38% {29%} (35%) [35%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 47% {46%} (48%) [45%]
• Jon Corzine 33% {31%} (28%) [35%]

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 46% {46%} (49%) [53%]
• Jon Corzine 29% {27%} (23%) [21%]

Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?

• Chris Christie 48% {44%} (47%) [50%]
• Jon Corzine 28% {32%} (25%) [28%]

When it comes to how you will vote in the 2009 Election for Governor, which issue is most important….government ethics and corruption, taxes, state services, education or jobs?

• Taxes 40%
• Government ethics and corruption 23%
• Jobs 13%
• Education 12%
• State services 7%

Has Jon Corzine’s campaign been generally positive, generally negative, or somewhere in between?

• Generally positive 15%
• Generally negative 41%
• Somewhere in between 41%

Has Chris Christie’s campaign been generally positive, generally negative, or somewhere in between?

• Generally positive 18%
• Generally negative 35%
• Somewhere in between 45%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 21. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 4 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Eight percent (8%) of Democrats now plan to vote for Daggett, along with five percent (5%) of unaffiliated voters and two percent (2%) of Republicans.

Six percent (6%) of New Jersey voters say this year’s gubernatorial campaign has been less negative than most while 24% say it’s been more negative. The overwhelming majority (68%) say it’s about the same as usual.

Last week, Ed Morrissey asked whether Obama was in the process of re-creating the Reagan Coalition. The response to that query, in my view, is an emphatic no. Unless Obama somehow succeeds in raising tax rates to 70 percent, and/or Lenin rises from the grave and brings back the USSR, then the Reagan Coalition will not be getting back together, because the Reagan Coalition formed at a specific time in history to tackle a specific set of problems, and that set of problems is quite distinct from the set of problems that is facing our country today. Conservatives tend to see the next Reagan Revolution around every corner, just as every Democratic president gets a cover story in Newsweek or equivalent about the “New New Deal” that he is about to enact, with the sound of thunderous applause from the public, of course. But there are very few New Deals, and very few Reagan Revolutions, and even when they do happen, the revolutionaries only get about half of what they want, and half of what is enacted is usually repealed by the next couple of administrations.

The reason New Deals and Reagan Revolutions are so rare is that things have to get really, really bad for the public to allow such dramatic change to be legislated on them from the top-down. The Founders, in their wisdom, knew that every generation would have its big idea men who would be certain that if they could simply have the latitude to make the world anew, we’d all be better off. And because the Founders knew that 90 percent of those big ideas would create hell on earth, they made it almost impossible for government to do anything big in this country, leaving most of the big idea men shaking their fists at Washington, ever convinced that if they could just have their revolution, utopia would be ushered in at last. So the New Deals, or left-wing revolutions in this country, really only have a decent shot of taking place when the private sector screws things up so badly that the people call on government to step in to prevent a tragedy of the commons. And Reagan Revolutions, or right-wing upheavels, only occur when government gets so big and bulky that it’s suffocating freedom and growth and the only way to stop it is by taking a hatchet to it. But again, either revolution requires 30 percent unemployment or 70 percent tax rates, not 10 percent unemployment and 35 percent tax rates. The Great Recession is not the Great Depression, which is why the MSM was wrong about Obama being the next FDR. Similarly, Iran is not the USSR at the height of the Cold War, nor will every domestic problem be solved by more tax cuts, which is why I’m not expecting a Reagan Revolution in 2012.

That was a very long-winded but necessary answer to Ed’s question. But I think what Ed is seeing is not the re-creation of the Reagan Coalition, but the re-creation of the Bush Coalition. One of the most striking aspects of Obama’s presidency is that all of his big proposals pretty much meet the same opposition in the Senate, which consists of all 40 Republicans, and about 10 or so Democrats, most of whom are considered moderate or conservative Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad. In other words, one gets the impression there are about 50 senators supporting Obama’s agenda so far, and 50 senators who are opposed to it. And the sorts of senators who are opposed to what Obama really wants (not to be confused with what Baucus and friends are forcing down his throat) are also the sorts of senators who supported George W. Bush’s big proposals. The Bush tax cut in 2001 passed because it garnered the support of pretty much all Senate Republicans as well as moderate and conservative Democrats like, well, Max Baucus. Back then, the breakdown of the Senate was more favorable to Republicans, but ultimately, if you drew an ideological line between the senators who currently support and oppose Obama’s agenda, and you drew an ideological line between the senators in 2001 who supported and opposed Bush’s initial agenda, that line pretty much ends up at exactly the same place on the political spectrum. In other words, the folks who supported what Bush wanted in 2001 oppose what Obama wants in 2009.

This makes sense because Obama is essentially doing exactly what everyone who voted against Gore and Kerry ultimately feared they would do. He’s trying to get the government involved in the health financing business, which will lower the quality of health care and make our long-term fiscal outlook even more dire than it is now. He’s pursuing cap and trade, which is essentially supporting a middle class tax increase and choosing environmental protections over economic growth. He is adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. He is spending tons of money under the guise of a stimulus package. He is opposing free trade and harming America’s alliances with like-minded nations and has returned to the Madeline Albright policy of fighting small wars for humanitarian reasons with rules of engagement that ensure they can never be won. In other words, he’s the President Gore we never had, and all the people who voted against Gore because they didn’t like the sound of Gore’s policies are remembering why. And they’re calling and writing their elected officials, and so the Baucuses and the Nelsons and the Landrieus, and pretty much every Republican senator except for the gentleladies from Maine every now and then, are joining together in opposition to Obama’s policies as faithful representatives of the 50 percent of the nation that didn’t want these policies 9 years ago and that doesn’t want them now.

Now, the re-creation of the Bush Coalition doesn’t mean the development of a Movement Conservative Majority in the nation that is just itching to take back the country to abolish Social Security and the income tax. To the contrary, the re-creation of the Bush Coalition is just that: it’s the re-assembling of all the forces that elected George W. Bush in 2000. There are so-cons and libertarians, anti-government types and good-government types, NeoCons and Buchananites, tax cutters and deficit hawks. And that means that the best way to keep these folks together in 2012 is via the nomination of a candidate who can put the Bush 2000 agenda back on the table, made relevant to 2012 of course, and who can credibly promise to execute that agenda competently and effectively this time around, instead of incompetently and ineffectively. In other words, the GOP nominee in 2012 needs to run the “Bush 2000: We’ll Get It Right This Time” campaign.

While Bush framed his governing philosophy as “compassionate conservatism,” it was really a sort of hybrid of good-government Republicanism and mainstream conservativism. Bush 2000 promised to tend to the big, domestic areas in which Americans want a safety net, such as retirement security, education, and health care, but to do it in a way that was market-friendly, that involved competition and utilized the private sector whenever possible, and that expanded opportunities and choices for individuals. This sort of government reform, combined with a pro-business, pro-growth agenda, was to create sustainable economic growth, reduce government debt, and would be done against the backdrop of a foreign policy that focused on global economic relationships and alliances with like-minded nations. The social issues prong of Bush 2000 tended to the GOP’s sacred cows on abortion and the judiciary but beyond that didn’t attempt to lead a culture war and focused on small-bore, as Matthew Miller might say, policies like faith-based initiatives, which make evangelicals feel all fuzzy while not turning off anyone else. This was the essence of Bush 2000: good government conservatism for a global, modern world.

But Bushism was derailed almost from the start. The 2000 election ensured that Bush came into office with no political capital. Democrats smelled blood given the president’s inability to win the popular vote and the narrative from the MSM was that Bush would be a one-term president and Democrats should just stop him from doing anything until his term was done. Then 9/11 happened and the GWOT consumed Bush’s presidency. Instead of entitlements getting reformed, they grew. Instead of debt getting smaller, it got bigger. Instead of the economy growing, the economy shrank. Instead of an internationalism based on trade and sleepy alliances, we entered into nation-building projects that made Madeline Albright seem like Pat Buchanan. Instead of feel-good social issue initiatives, a culture war ignited. And instead of all of this making government work more like a business, government became so incompetent and corrupt that Tammany Hall would have blushed.

As such, in 2006 and 2008, the Bush Coalition was shattered, all the pieces blamed one another for the failure of its policies, and pundits like me suggested that the 2008 GOP nominee be the farthest thing from GWB possible. That was because no matter what the GOP did, some Bush 2000/04 voters were going to stay home, or vote for a Democrat that sounded halfway reasonable, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. And so the effort to replace those voters began, with some looking to Rudy, hoping he could bring in a few voters who only stay away from the GOP because of social issues, and others looking to Huck, hoping he could bring in voters who would vote Republican if it weren’t for economics, and still others looking to McCain, hoping he could bring in his McCain Democrats from 2000, and still others hoping a woman on the ticket would bring in disgruntled Hillary voters. It was ultimately a battle that could not be won though, because there were just too many people too mad at the GOP.

But now that Obama is governing, and now that the 50 percent of the nation that voted against Gore and Kerry are remembering why they did so, what the GOP needs is not someone who can form a new coalition, but someone who all of the factions of the Bush Coalition can support, and who can reorganize the coalition around the principles that it was originally organized around, only this time demonstrating the will and ability to actually accomplish its stated objectives, not screw up every single one of them. In this sense, it is Romney who makes the most sense as GOP nominee because, as I derisively said during the race for 2008, Romney is essentially Bush 3.0, with all the bugs worked out. But while that was the last thing we needed in 2008, it’s exactly what we need in 2012, because now that the Bush Coalition is coming back together, it needs someone who can present its foundational principles to the nation once again, and who can convince the nation that the failures of the Bush people were the failures of the Bush people, not of the fundamental premises of Bush 2000. And given Romney’s speech to the Values Voters, which was essentially the Bush 2000 message, only presented by a more articulate, cerebral spokesman with a killer resume as a Mr. Fix-It, I am more inclined than ever to think that Romney is the guy who can convince every single Bush voter from 2000 and 2004 that re-electing Obama by going to the ballot box for him or by staying home is the wrong choice to make in 2012.

I read and listened to Romney’s speech several times. It’s essentially the Bush 2000 message. It’s 60 percent economics, 30 percent foreign policy, and 10 percent social issues. The social issues platform is big-tent stuff: pro-life, with some feel-good language about two-parent families. The foreign policy is very much early Bush — military strength is important, alliances are paramount, there are bad guys in the world but the tenor of the speech didn’t suggest any plans to launch multiple wars on Inauguration Day. The economics portion was very good. Obama’s policies aren’t yielding economic growth and are yielding more debt. Republicans want to enact policies that will grow the economy and lead to less debt. Education is important. We need to reform health care, but not by making the government a health insurer. Entitlements are referenced as a major cause of our fiscal mess, but you don’t get the sense that granny is about to be thrown out on the street. China is brought up in the context of global economics, not as that evil Communist country that is so evil and so Communist that we have to stop trading with it (wink, wink, Buchananites). Ultimately, Romney really is running as Bush 2000 with all the kinks worked out: his platform is all about economic growth, a reduction in debt, good government on the domestic front, economic internatonalism, pro-business policies, a strong, sober foreign policy, and an understated social conservatism. That’s exactly what is needed to reunite the Bush Coalition, even though four years of President Obama will probably do most of the work ahead of time.

I’m not saying that the other candidates can’t do this but I think Romney is in the best position to do it for a variety of reasons, such as his economic/business creds and his role as establishment candidate who will get lots of regular Republicans to vote for him simply because it’s his “turn.” That insulates him from having to “prove himself” to the base, as does his 2008 run to the right, which in some ways “cancelled out” his Massachusetts runs to the middle and has left the residual notion in the national political psyche that Romney is actually some sort of center-right Republican, which is exactly where he needs to be. Pawlenty is suffering from the need to prove himself right now, as evidenced by his speech, where he had to talk lots and lots about social issues in order to convince the values voters that he’s “one of them,” and in so doing didn’t get much time to talk about Sam’s Club economics, which is the thing that makes him interesting. But Pawlenty has to do what he’s doing because of his position in the GOP hierarchy. I’m not saying that Pawlenty can’t lead the Bush Coalition because I think he could if party bosses could simply get together and make him the nominee. But the hoops he’s going to have to jump through to win the nomination on his first run in a Republican presidential contest will be daunting and he’ll be required to zig-zag so many ways that it will be difficult for him to claim the nomination with any coherent governing philosophy intact.

NBC/Wall Street Journal Political Survey

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 51% {51%} (53%)
• Disapprove 41% {40%} (40%)

Among Independents

• Approve 41% (49%)
• Disapprove 46% (38%)

Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy?

• Approve 50% (49%)
• Disapprove 42% (44%)

Do you think that the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier this year is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 34% (34%) [37%]
• Bad idea 45% (43%) [39%]

Do you think that the economic stimulus legislation is beginning to help improve the economy, will help improve the economy in the future, or will it not help improve the economy?

• Beginning to help improve the economy 20% (16%)
• Will help improve the economy 27% (32%)
• Will not help improve the economy 38% (38%)

Do you think that without the economic stimulus legislation that the U.S. economy would have gone into a greater economic downturn than it did, or not?

• Yes, would have gone into a greater economic downturn 46%
• No, would not have gone into a greater economic downturn 43%

Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the issue of health care reform?

• Approve 45% {41%} (41%)
• Disapprove 46% {47%} (46%)

From what you have heard about Barack Obama’s health care plan, do you think his plan is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 39% {36%} (36%) [33%]
• Bad idea 41% {42%} (42%) [32%]

And from what you have heard about Barack Obama’s health care plan, do you believe it will result in the quality of your health care getting better, worse, or staying about the same as now?

• Quality will get better 19% {24%} (21%)
• Quality will get worse 36% {40%} (39%)
• Quality will stay the same 34% {27%} (29%)

Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?

• Approve 21% {21%}
• Disapprove 65% {62%}

Do you think it would be better to pass Barack Obama’s health care plan and make its changes to the health care system or to not pass this plan and keep the current health care system?

• Better to pass this plan, make these changes 45%
• Better to not pass this plan, keep current system 39%

Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?

• Favor 46% {43%} (46%)
• Oppose 48% {47%} (44%)

Thinking about efforts to reform the health care system, which would concern you more?

• Not doing enough to make the health care system better than it is now by lowering costs and covering the uninsured. 44% {41%}
• Going too far and making the health care system worse than it is now in terms of quality of care and choice of doctor. 48% {54%}

Congress is considering many different items as part of health care reform legislation. I am going to read you some of the items they are considering that may or may not end up in the final legislation. For each one, please tell me whether you feel this absolutely must be included as part of health care legislation, you would prefer it be included, you would prefer it NOT be included, or you feel it absolutely must NOT be included.

Requiring that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions

• Absolutely must be included 63%
• Would prefer it be included 26%
• Would prefer it not be included 5%
• Absolutely must not be included 4%

Creating a law that limits the amount of money someone can collect if they win a lawsuit after being injured by bad medical care

• Absolutely must be included 36%
• Would prefer it be included 29%
• Would prefer it not be included 14%
• Absolutely must not be included 14%

Creating a law that requires everyone to have health insurance coverage. Those people with low and moderate incomes would receive government assistance. Those people who can afford it would have to buy their own health insurance or pay a penalty or fine if they do not

• Absolutely must be included 18%
• Would prefer it be included 20%
• Would prefer it not be included 23%
• Absolutely must not be included 34%

(more…)

Paterson is being stabbed in the back by Obama, Rudy is out-polling Gillibrand and Pataki is acting VERY political.

I have not seen Pataki this engaged since…

Watch the last 30 seconds.

He should have been asked if he was running for President.

_________________________________________________________

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

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 66% {65%} (69%)
• David Paterson 20% {23%} (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 52% {56%} (57%) [59%]
• David Paterson 35% {33%} (27%) [31%]

• David Paterson 39% {38%}
• Rick Lazio 35% {37%}

• Andrew Cuomo 52% {53%} (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 39% {40%} (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 64% {66%}
• Rick Lazio 18% {16%}

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 46%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 38%

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 48%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 36%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 66% {70%} (71%) [66%] / 21% {14%} (17%) [20%] {+45%}
• Rudy Giuliani 56% {57%} (62%) [61%] / 38% {35%} (33%) [35%] {+18%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 29% {29%} / 24% {20%} {+5%}
• Rick Lazio 22% {21%} / 25% {22%} {-3%}
• David Paterson 29% {32%} (31%) [27%] / 59% {55%} (57%) [60%] {-30%}

How would you rate the job that David Paterson is doing as Governor?

• Excellent 2% {3%} (2%) [2%]
• Good 16% {20%} (18%) [16%]
• Fair 41% {38%} (39%) [43%]
• Poor 39% {38%} (39%) [38%]

If David Paterson runs for Governor in 2010, would you vote to elect him or would you prefer someone else?

• Elect Paterson 14% {15%} (15%)
• Prefer someone else 71% {68%} (70%)

(Among registered Democrats) Would you prefer to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo run for re-election as Attorney General next year or would you prefer to see him run for Governor instead?

• Re-election as Attorney General 33% {30%} (28%)
• Run for Governor 49% {53%} (56%)

(Among registered Republicans) Would you like Rudy Giuliani to run for Governor of New York in 2010, or United State Senator from New York in 2010, or would you prefer that he not run for either of those two offices?

• Run for Governor 41%
• Run for Senator 35%
• Not run for either 19%

Survey of 792 registered voters was conducted August 17-20. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted August 17-20 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 15-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 18-21 are in square brackets.

(more…)

I continue to be one of those onlookers who believes there is no chance we will see Mayor Rudy Giuliani run for President in 2012, but there seems to be an increasing amount of chatter from inside the beltway about a second Presidential run, except with a twist.

I am ever skeptical of the Axelrod spin, but the rumor moving around Washington is that the White House views Rudy a serious threat to the re-election chances of President Obama and in fact believes that a Gubernatorial victory in 2010 would be the perfect launching pad for Rudy’s run for the White House.  This is explained as the reason for the pressure on Governor Paterson to step down and allow State AG Andrew Cuomo to run for Governor.   

Why am I skeptical?  Back in May, Max Twain exposed the Plouffe/Axelrod spin mastery.

President Obama’s appointment of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. is being treated by the Beltway media as part of the Great Purge, the self-immolation of the GOP that is driving moderates to greener pastures in the Democratic Party.  In reality, this is all a con, masterfully executed by Obama’s Chicago-style politics.  Clearly, David Plouffe’s planted comments about being scared of Jon Huntsman were crafted with the full knowledge that Huntsman was going to be chosen as Ambassador to China. From observing this Obama team over the last few years, you understand that such a statement would not have been put out there unless there was a direct and distinct purpose, in this case to push the image of the GOP moving further right. By claiming to fear Huntsman as a GOP savior, and then installing him as Ambassador, it helps shape this false image. With the media all too willing to aid the Obama cause, the stories begin to be churned out about a moderate driven away by the evil minions of the far right. 

Since there is little chance that Rudy joins the Obama administration, this only leaves two possibilities;

1) Rudy is running for Governor and this is a method of pressuring Paterson to not seek re-election, as his hold on office is a net negative for the Democratic party and a sure loss in 2010.

2) Rudy is running for Senator (2010) and President (2012) and the Obama administration has internal polling that shows some blue States swinging to the GOP if Rudy is on the head the ticket.

Either way, these rumors are making for some interesting speculation.  This would certainly be a more risky and high profile direction for Rudy to take to launch a 2012 campaign.  Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Palin are all traveling the country, free from any re-election campaign.  Of course, one cannot underestimate the tens of millions of dollars of free publicity Rudy would receive from the large New York media outlets who would cover his campaign and election night victory). 

My hunch…if Rudy is not running for Governor, he is considering a run for President or a run for Senate (2010) and President.  Like Jindal, I cannot see Rudy immediately announce a 2012 candidacy after his swearing in as Governor.

The next 6 months should be interesting.

—-

Update: I believe Rudy has already made his decision on a run for Governor or Senator.  His Presidential decision may depend on what political partnership he strikes with this former Governor.

_________________________________________________________

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

Mitt Romney had a big weekend, a lengthy weekend at that. Between Thursday and today he has done no less than five fundraisers, one of which was for his PAC, gave two high profile speeches, had three media appearances, and did at least one interview. He was even spotted by an excited Twitterer running laps around the Reflecting Pond Sunday morning. Besides the jogging, Romney’s spent much of his time this weekend discussing National Defense, and due diligence requires this to be topic be covered.

Alex, ever the Romney critic, has already posted regarding a “rather noticeable gaffe”. I beg to differ Alex. Romney is not questioning the quality of our intelligence, but whether the intelligence we have in regards to Iran is complete and clear. Nothing “weird” about it. Your gaffe claim is more likely a misinterpretation of Romney’s true meaning. Sure the issue also has to do with Russia also. He made that clear during his VVS speech:

They say this is a token of goodwill for Russia to get them to support sanctions on Iran. But the first rule of negotiation is this: only give something away when you get something.

…

My first impression when hearing Romney speech to the Values Voter Summit is that he spent more time than usual discussing foreign matters. It was indeed more Defcon than Socon. Not surprising because he is apparently not allowed to talk about such issues or forever be labeled a panderer. After taking a glance at it his speech again I’m seeing that he spent nearly half of his speech addressing foreign policy in one way or another, though his more meaty remarks were reserved for his speech to the Foriegn Policy Initiative Luncheon. His speech, or “conversation” at the FPI differed also in that he used no teleprompter or notes.

Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine (and a former contributor to this site) gives a thorough review of the Romney’s appearance at FPI. She notes:

[Romney] appeared more relaxed and fluent than he had on the campaign trail. Without a fixed script (or any notes), he was able to demonstrate some impressive grasp of details while setting forth his big-picture critique of the Obama foreign policy. He gave credit to the president for his willingness to stick to a winning strategy in Iraq and for not “yanking all the troops out,” as he had promised during the campaign. But that is where his praise ended.

…

It was in many ways a surprising outing for Romney, demonstrating more depth and verve than many in the room could recall from the campaign. Whether that message resonates outside the room, with the larger conservative community and with elected leaders, remains to be seen. But certainly we will hear more from him in the future.

Rubin echoes what others have also said recently. Basically, that they hadn’t heard or seen this side Romney before. He is, and has been, underestimated on his “grasp of details” concerning national defense. Unlike the like social (abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research) and economic issues that were on front and center during his tenure as Massachusetts Governor, there was only one instance that gave us a peek into what a President Romney might be like when faced with foreign issues: Romney Denounces Khatami’s Visit to Harvard, Declines to provide escort, or offer state support for trip.

At FPI, Romney also rapped President Obama on being soft about defending American values around the world, his misguided decisions on Honduras, Iran, Europe, and Israel, his efforts to win the global popularity contest, and his indecisive actions on Afghanistan. Not to be left out is praise that Romney gave President Obama on continuing with a winning strategy in Iraq, notably in contrast to his campaign promises to “yank all the troops out”.

If Romney is the work-a-holic that I know him to be, you can bet that he is furiously studying up on foreign policy with advisers and by reading anything and everything on the subject. With McCain and Giuliani out of the pool of potential 2012 candidate there is huge opening for someone to pick up the Defcon Mantra and shore up that leg of the 3-legged stool, and Mitt has his eye on it.

Case in point, the title of his book to be published in March: No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. An obvious dig at Obama and his habitual apologizing for us terrible Americans while abroad. You can bet there will be much in the book in regards to foreign policy. And a book is the perfect way to let the public at large get some insight into what he knows and understands on the subject. Heads will start turning. All except for Alex’s of, course.

Ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski was probably pretty nervous, as most girls that age are when faced with the prospect of starting at a new school. While she joined thousands of school-age children in having to make that adjustment, the reason young Miss Kurowski needed to make the change is rather unique.

In July, a New Hampshire District Court judge ordered that Amanda be sent to public school because her mother was homeschooling Amanda with a too “rigidly” religious focus. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler made the decision at the behest of Amanda’s father, Martin Kurowski, who argued that being taught in such a manner was preventing Amanda from receiving other, more secular viewpoints.

Yet while Amanda Kurowski was being homeschooled in basic subjects along with Bible study, she was also attending supplemental public school classes in art, Spanish, theater, and physical education, and active in extracurricular sports. Certainly she was not being completely sheltered from the outside world, and Judge Sadler agreed that Amanda’s schooling has “more than kept up with the academic requirements” of the public school Sadler compelled Amanda to attend.

While the tug-of-war over custody and affection between father Martin Kurowski and mother Brenda Voydatch has consumed most of Amanda’s young life – the couple divorced in 1999 – this spat is noteworthy because of its religious aspect. Amanda, like her mother, is a devout Christian whose homeschooling has helped shape her religious beliefs.

The ruling by Judge Sadler fails to account for a number of factors, though, and sets a poor precedent for future jurisprudence. It’s clear that Amanda was not living in a bubble because she was interacting with other children in both academic and athletic settings, nor was there any apparent physical or mental abuse in the case. Essentially the decision came down to the personal preference of both Judge Sadler and a court-appointed guardian for Amanda, who both believed that strong religious beliefs were not correct for a ten-year-old child to have. To them, it seemed better for Amanda Kurowski to worship at the altar of Hannah Montana and be exposed to the coarseness of public school culture several hours a day – conveniently they found an ally in Amanda’s father.

Over the last couple decades more and more parents have decided to take refuge from failing public schools by homeschooling their children, and often they turn out to be our best and brightest. In many states teachers’ unions have pushed back by making it more difficult to educate children outside the realm of organized schools, whether public or parochial, while federal law has shaped a curriculum which rewards teaching to a test rather than students learning how to think for themselves.

Judge Sadler’s ruling, which wasn’t based on rectifying any educational harm but simply showed a desire to instill a “tolerance for different points of view”, was an unnecessary incursion into the affairs of one family. In that bid for “tolerance”, Judge Sadler clearly failed in not attempting to mediate the middle ground of an appropriate parochial school where Amanda could continue her education in a setting with other children but reflective of her and her mother’s faith.

Brenda Voydatch attempted to raise her daughter with values of God and not necessarily of men, but political correctness prevailed in Judge Sadler’s court. In a culture which defines deviancy down, hopefully Amanda’s exposure to public school will be mercifully brief and her parents will find a more suitable learning environment for her.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

So report’s the Washington Post:

In the latest sign that he is preparing to run for president in 2012, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) is starting a political action committee that will allow him to donate to state and federal candidates and travel the country in support of his party.

The “Freedom First” PAC is slated to hold its first official event in November, according to a save-the-date e-mail being circulated among Republican activists. The event, which includes a reception and a dinner, is scheduled for Nov. 4 at the Minneapolis Hilton. To serve as a “chair” for the fundraiser, an individual must collect $100,000 for the event while “co-chairs” are required to bring in $50,000. Individual tickets cost $5,000.

“When the Governor said he wouldn’t seek re-election, he said in addition to finishing his term strong, he would help other Republicans candidates, and obviously a PAC is one key way to do that,” said Alex Conant, an unofficial adviser to Pawlenty.

Yowza.  If Pawlenty ends up with just two “chairs” and two “co-chairs” he’ll have matched Huckabee’s haul, for the first 6 months of 2009, in one night.  That seems awfully ambitious for a guy who’s never raised more than 4.5 million for a campaign in his life.  We’ll see how it pans out.