Rasmussen North Carolina Political Survey

2010 North Carolina Senate Race

• Richard Burr 48%
• Elaine Marshall 38%

• Richard Burr 48%
• Bob Etheridge 34%

• Richard Burr 48%
• Kenneth Lewis 32%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Richard Burr 58% / 26% (+32%)
• Elaine Marshall 37% / 34% (+3%)
• Bob Etheridge 37% / 35% (+2%)
• Kenneth Lewis 33% / 33% (0%)

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

• Strongly approve 36%
• Somewhat approve 11%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 43%

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 30%
• Somewhat favor 14%
• Somewhat oppose 7%
• Strongly oppose 46%

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%
• Stay about 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 47%
• Cost will go down 19%
• Stay the same 25%

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 64%
• Reduce the deficit 11%
• No impact on the deficit 17%

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 63%
• Somewhat likely 12%
• Not very likely 17%
• 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 54%
• Federal government will not do enough 34%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days?

• Excellent 2%
• Good 5%
• Fair 41%
• Poor 50%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 28%
• Worse 43%
• Staying the same 23%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 15. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Burr captures 85% or more of the state GOP vote in all three of the match-ups. Marshall performs best among Democrats, capturing 74% of the vote. Among unaffiliated voters, Burr leads Marshall by 28 points and tops the other two candidates by even more.

Race42012 is pleased to announce the addition to our staff of one of the most successful and visionary online activists on the right side of the aisle, Huck’s Army Director, David Schmidt.

David is a human rights activist who specializes in grassroots organizing with an emphasis on web technology and reaching today’s youth. He is passionate about exposing corruption and advancing protection and respect for all human being. His ardent support for universal life rights and desire to educate through new media about injustice brought him to Live Action. In addition to studying speech and debate in high school, he produced a full-length feature film that won film festival acceptance.

In 2006, David graduated from The Master’s College with a degree in business administration with an emphasis in accounting. During his final year of studies he served as the Student Body President where he focused on increasing communication with the student body and on developing future student leaders. After college David worked in investment banking where he became the youngest registered securities principal at a firm that specialized in non-profit corporate financing.

Previous political experience includes acting as campaign manager for the Student Body President that followed David, and leading the independent HucksArmy.com grassroots movement supporting Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential run as the co-national campaign manager where he helped build and train a national network of over 20,000 people. He also served as the field director for the successful campaign to elect Ashley Swearengin the Mayor of Fresno, California.

David also owns his own consulting business where he advises organizations in the areas of podcasting, video-to-web, technology infrastructure, online outreach, internet activism, social networking, youth messaging, and grassroots organizing.

In his free time, he enjoys skiing, travel, tennis, and life with his family and friends.

David is attending this weekend’s Value Voters Summit and plans on brings us reports from the event.

Please join us in welcoming David to the Race42012 family.

While historians continue to be divided among the factual and the apocryphal, at the conclusion of the American Revolution, so the legend goes, George Washington was confronted by a movement within the Continental Army to declare him king. According to the story, a major proponent of the plan was Col. Lewis Nicola, a Frenchman who had fought under Washington alongside the colonists. The proposal was supported by a group of influential Army officers who evidently had little understanding of the man who had just led them to victory.

When Nicola put forth the idea for Washington’s consideration, he received an immediate response laced with scorn and revulsion: “Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country, concern for yourself or for posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind and never communicate, as from yourself or any one else, a sentiment of like nature.”

Thus did the nation’s most revered Founding Father set the country on a democratic course that would explicitly reject the cult of personality. The ensuing centuries would produce dozens of American statesmen and scoundrels with unique qualities and defects that would capture the country’s attention and occasionally even its collective imagination, from presidents like Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK and Reagan, to demagogues like Huey Long and Joseph McCarthy. But unlike Argentina’s enthrallment with Juan and Eva Peron as well as numerous other examples in South America, Europe and the Far East, America has never succumbed to the cult of personality by surrendering its liberties to any movement based on a pledge of unquestioned devotion and loyalty to the will of a single individual.

Perhaps for the first time in our history since Washington, the nation’s present leader has come to power through the cult of personality, except this time he appears to welcome and encourage the movement surrounding him rather than reject it, as Washington did, in the interests of democracy. Barack Obama ran a campaign largely based on personal charisma as well as the promise of “change.” As with most personality cults, he found a receptive audience among a restive electorate generally dissatisfied, if not disgusted, with the outgoing administration on many counts, including already out-of-control government spending and two wars that appeared to be going nowhere. The economy had already begun to crumble under the weight of a growing financial crisis. These were nearly perfect conditions for candidate Obama to seemingly parachute into the fray out of nowhere, armed with a studied “cool” demeanor, a genuine gift for eloquence, and a powerful ally in the news media that followed him with an unprecedented fawning obsequiousness that gave him a free pass on crucial issues such as legislative experience, personal judgment, and character.

Thus it is actually less remarkable than it seems that a very junior and untested politician, distinguished by nothing other than the most liberal voting record in the Senate during his very brief tenure, managed to get elected, tripping up a battle-hardened, doggedly determined Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and rocketing past a passé and enervated John McCain in the general election. It was a campaign run with a paucity of substance, relying instead on vague slogans and promises, fueled largely by the candidate’s personal charm and verbal genius. A news media awash in moral rectitude over the county’s ability to depart from its racist history and elect its first black president sealed the deal.

Encouraged by a huge victory based on an attractive but empty message, it should be no surprise that Mr. Obama, in his first six months, has embarked on a course apparently unencumbered by political comity, legal niceties, or fundamental fairness. That accounts for a number of unprecedented administration moves including ramming through vast expenditures of money for “stimulus” and bank bailouts; sinking tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into failing car companies largely as a political payback to unions; waving aside traditional bankruptcy principles and contract law, thereby impoverishing secured bondholders, again for the purpose of delivering to the unions; attempting to rush through a thousand-page healthcare “reform” monstrosity that runs contrary to the wishes of millions of Americans who do not want the government meddling in their personal health choices; endorsing the demonization of citizens who appear at public meetings to exercise their right to disagree with the mammoth expansion of government influence; enabling a thoroughly politicized Department of Justice to conduct a witch hunt among public servants who acted to protect the country during a time of maximum distress and vulnerability, thereby exposing America to future terrorists attacks and bloodshed; and conducting a foreign policy based on apologizing for American’s supposed transgressions while “reaching out” to dictators, despots, and murderers in a blatant effort to appease them.

Having pulled off much of this extra-legal program nearly unimpeded, and thus convinced of the force of his personality and will, the president has proceeded to surround himself with a shadow government largely outside the purview of Congress or the public at large. This shadow government consists of literally several dozen appropriately-dubbed czars and czarinas who allegedly perform “duties” already amply covered by the various cabinet-level departments of government. They consist of a widely varied assortment, from bona fide experienced officials like Dennis Ross, a long-time Mideast diplomat, to numerous blatant political contribution paybacks, as well as ultra left-wing venom-spewers like “green jobs” czar Van Jones, a dedicated and openly-avowed racial instigator and socialist. It is, indeed, an eclectic collection, immune from congressional vetting and confirmation, and largely out of the public’s sight.

In other countries and cultures, “strongmen” surround themselves with such individuals. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez come to mind, both of whom are high on the list of Obama’s “reach out and express contrition” list. And one should not forget the ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, on whose behalf the Obama administration is pressuring the legal institutions of Honduras, which have acted according to that country’s constitution and the wishes of its people, to welcome this power-hungry despot back with open arms.

The conventional wisdom, even among a media throng that remains large supportive of the president and his now patently socialist agenda, is that the administration’s radical legislative initiative might unravel as the result of the significant public turbulence over the healthcare bill and its “public option.” That view is somewhat simplistic and omits an important component of the present American public/Obama administration dynamic. Healthcare, of course, is a critically substantive issue in which the vast majority of Americans have an acute interest. Substance, of course, was never the strong suit of the Obama operation, either in its candidacy phase or in its present administrative form. That the public should become disenchanted with genuine policy positions, then, whether they involve healthcare, the economy, taxes, deficit spending, or the general role of government, is hardly shocking. It may simply be a case of voters beginning to discover that the governing agenda of the candidate they elected does not align with their own interests and values.

The far more telling event that perhaps represents a growing rift between the president and his fellow citizens occurred just this week, and it was an episode that had nothing to do with legislative initiatives or public policies to which voters might object. Instead, it was an effort by the president that seemed to strike a nerve among a populace imbued with a historical rejection of the cult of personality. Thus, what has normally been an almost controversy-free tradition of a president addressing school children on their fall return has turned into the latest White House misadventure. Parents have raised objections all over the country, and many, if not most, local school boards are making attendance optional. The strongest objections, of course, are in largely Republican strongholds, where many districts have decided to not air his message at all. But an ambivalent, if not unreceptive response, is taking place nationally.

It is testimony to the growing general distrust of the president—on a personal rather than political basis—that many parents have viewed his speech as an effort to indoctrinate children with his radical thinking. The president did not help his case by suggesting to teachers that they formulate lesson plans in which students would be assigned to write letters to themselves on what they can do to “help the president.” This only added fuel to the fire of parents’ suspicions that the speech was nothing more than a thinly-veiled effort to gently nudge children into the cult of Obama. One parent on a nationally-televised news program asked why she should give access to her school-aged child to “someone I don’t trust.”

Putting aside all of the partisan conflicts and controversy over a host of legislative issues, the American public—on its own and away from Congress—is beginning to display a decided distrust of a politician who based his candidacy—and now his presidency—on a personality cult.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Steven Cohen is a guest Liberty Features Syndicate Writer.

President Jimmy Carter is perhaps the single worst President of the 20th Century, a fact that has not dawned on him yet.  He is at it again, this time accusing anyone opposed to Pres Obama’s radical agenda (regardless of whether you think Pres Obama himself is a radical, his agenda has been massive and fast-paced; this is the very definition of “radical” that I use) as racist.  Here is a man who sat impotent to Iran for well over a year, allowing and enabling one of the most sickening (and unnecessary) displays of weakness to the Middle East.  Here is the man whose continued efforts to strengthen the resolve of our enemies is noted by none other than mass murderer Usama Bin Laden (he used Pres Carter’s criticisms of Israel’s Gaza invasion as a rallying cry).

Plain and simple, Pres Carter should go back to his good works of helping people build their dreams.  He should stop acting like he is still President (thank God he isn’t!) and quit making bad situations worse.  He is every bit the useful idiot for other nations’ dictators, and quite frankly, even Democrats should be tired of his crap.  Pres Carter, there’s a reason voters gave you a pink slip in ’80, and you obviously haven’t learned anything since then.  Go away.

Interesting press coming from Matt Latimer’s new book:  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.) Latimer was writing a free speech for President Bush to give at CPAC. The President had a problem:

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

Before, I go on, it must be said that there are two sides to the Bush Presidency. The first was the resilient, Churchillian response to the worldwide terror. That’s not only defensible, but laudable.

However, there’s a second part of Bush’s presidency that we have to address. Tony Blair also showed a brave worldwide terror, however many of the problems Britain and Labour faces are the result of the poorly executed domestic policies of Blair, so it is with George W. Bush.

President Bush did redefine the Republican Party. Prior to his nomination, it was a behemoth, holding more than 30 governships, 55 Senate Seats, and a House Majority. When he left, the Republican Party was staring down at a 40 seat House Minority, and a 58-40 (soon to be 59-41 deficit in the U.S. Senate.) The man he went to Pennsylvania to save from the wrath of party regulars in 2004 turned it into a 60-40 majority.

As Bush told Michael Brown, heck of a job.

Bush redefined the party from the party of small government, fiscal restraint, and local control to the party of Medicare Part D, bailouts to Auto Companies and Financial Institutions, and high deficits. What was it President Bush said?

Oh yeah, he abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.  The President’s actions weren’t out of ignorance or lack of care, but were a deliberate attempt to redefine the Republican Party into big government conservatism. The result, however leaves conservatives looking at the wreckage feeling like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes:

In fact, what this anecdote indicates is that Bush ticking off conservatives was the act of a political conquerer. Just like Obama, he WON. Of course, the facts aren’t on President Bush’s side. Alan Keyes beat Gary Bauer, so that’s a low benchmark. In fact, this defeated conservative movement picked Bush up and carried him to the finish line in South Carolina to stop John McCain’s assault on the first Amendment known as McCain-Feingold (which Bush went ahead and signed anyway.)

However, the Bush-redefined GOP is a mess, and is very much reminiscent of the Pre-Reagan GOP that got its rear end kicked around by Democrats for 70 years.

The most remarkable polling data came out recently from Rasmussen. And despite all the talk about wanting to move beyond Reagan by the party establishment, the most positive label with the American people is “like Ronald Reagan.”

Get back to that type of conservatism, and we have a chance.

However, after this whole affair, I think conservatives will learn a lesson. We won’t believe the next multi-millionaire scion of a political dynasty who never identified as a conservative until he decided he wanted to be President, and who tries to build his street cred by surrounding himself with full of themselves beltway insiders who have long since grown more concerned with their own power and influence than the movement they claim to lead.

photo credit: NewsHour

Or will we?

America elected a Black man to hold the nukes, case closed on race.

America loathed the policies of White Democrat President Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic Party majorities in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican.

They rejected the policies of White Democrat Walter Mondale and re-elected the Conservative Republican by an even larger landslide.

America loathed the policies of White Democrat Michael Dukakis and elected a more conservative Republican by a large margin.

That so-called Conservative Republican President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge and was rejected in favor of a White Democrat Bill Clinton promising to cut middle-class taxes, albeit, and significantly, by a less than 50% popular majority.

Two years later, after the White Democrat President broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military and tried to impose socialized health care on America, Americans turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years.

The White Democrat President was re-elected after following the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, free trade and supply side tax cuts.

The White Incumbent Democrat ran to the left of the successful Presidency and lost the electoral vote to the marginal Conservative Republican favoring tax cuts.

The marginal conservative Republican President that enacted tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession and kept us safe after 911 was re-elected over a White liberal Democrat.

The Great Recession hits White and Black.

An American electorate more than 78% White elects a Liberal Black Democrat Barack Obama, that promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250K, along with a filibuster proof Congress.

The Liberal Black Democrat President and the Democratic Party Congress repeat the mistakes of Carter’s four years and Clinton’s first two years by advocating liberal policies.

The Liberal President and Congress fall in the polls.

The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of Americans are not racist. Those same Americans do care a whole lot about their wallets, liberty and national security.

Hence the above history.

Period. Not pictured are Mondale and Dukakis, nor any of the liberal Democratic Party congressional leaders, most of whom were or are White.

What the rejected have in common is not skin pigmentation. Rather it is failed modern day liberalism policies.

Period.

And any suggestion to the contrary is a damn lie; slander against White people; and even greater slander against America.

And those that suggest same reveal their inability to intellectually defend ObamaDem policies and so, their desperation.

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.

Erick Erickson at Red State lays out the case for why Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT.) needs to be replaced:

Meet Bob Bennett. He is a Republican United States Senator. He is up for re-election next year.

Bob Bennett is about to screw America.

Bob Bennett is a fiscally irresponsible Senator who prides himself on being a Senator’s Senator. He was the only Republican who stood up and clapped when Barack Obama attacked Sarah Palin in his Joint Session of Congress speech last week.

And Bob Bennett wants to cut a deal on healthcare. Why? Because that’s what Senators do. The compromise. And if you are a Republican Senator, you capitulate.

Bob Bennett is working with Ron Wyden on Oregon on a healthcare alternative. They’ve proposed this plan for a while. The plan is terrible. As the Heritage Foundation correctly notes:

despite many attractive tax reform aspects, a troubling feature of the bill is that it would replace the current health system with one that is heavily regulated by the federal government: Individuals would have access only to plans permitted by the government and would be required to purchase such a plan.

Likewise, the Wyden-Bennett plan supports abortion funding, imposes federal mandates on citizens to have insurance, increases federal regulation, and cripples the several states.

This is Bob Bennett’s pet snake. He wants to rap it around the American public and constrict us while championing his having done something.

And today, Barack Obama called Bob Bennett and Ron Wyden to the White House to chat. One guess what that’s about.

Bob Bennett is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just so he can feel good about his legislative record.

Nice case, but then the question becomes, “Who do you replace him with?” I wish this were Brewster’s Millions, the Richard Pryor version, where “None of the Above” won the election but that ain’t so. You’ve got to replace Bennett with something, or more to the point, someone.

The good news is that conservatives do have something they can do.  I was in Utah, this past weekend and I got to hear someone who might be able to fit the bill in this era of political discontent, Cherily Eagar, who showed up at the 9/12 party and delivered a very good speech that connected with her audience. Eagar’s conservative credentials are impeccable, with her work in the conservative movement going back to the Stop ERA days.

Can she tap into the current political discontent and turn it to her advantage? Eager has already been compared to Sarah Palin and that’s not an insult down in Utah. National conservatives who are tired of Bob Bennett’s antics should take a hard look at Eagar.

I am encouraged by the legislation released by Sen. Max Baucus today (D-Sanity), who seems to be one of the few members of his party to actually “get” what needs to be done with regard to the American health care system in the 21st Century. Baucus’ legislation, of course, needs improvement, and that improvement won’t happen without the participation of the Center-Right, which has lots of good ideas on health care but is keeping quiet for political reasons. Grassley, Enzi, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and lots of other Republicans have basically outlined what we need to do on health care, which is to transform the American health financing system, a.k.a., health insurance, from an employer-based industry into a consumer-based industry. In order to do so, some elements of Baucus’ bill are necessary, but so are cost-controlling measures and other conservative ideas that are absent due to Baucus’ desire to woo liberals to the legislation, which is what happens when the GOP closes ranks and refuses to play ball. I understand the political temptation to do so, but the good of the nation comes before politics, and the nation desperately needs to change the way health policy is governed in order to catch up with the economic dynamism of the modern era.

BaucusCare is basically a just-left-of-center bill that contains the following general provisions: an individual mandate, guaranteed issue, subsidies to help lower-income folks purchase insurance, and the creation of co-ops to presumably compete with private insurers, paid for primarily by taxing employer-based insurance. This is a good start, and recognizes the reality that the Tea Party Right is in denial about, but that the Center-Right, the Grassley/Romney set, has long understood, which is that you simply cannot have universal coverage without both a mandate on individuals to buy insurance and a mandate on insurers to cover whoever wants to buy a plan, without pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime caps, etc. The reason is that without the individual mandate, folks would just wait until they got sick before they bought insurance, and the insurance companies would proceed to go broke. Similarly, without the mandates on insurers to cover everyone, many folks would continue to be uninsurable, and wouldn’t be able to buy a plan, mandate or otherwise. The only way to achieve universal coverage absent these mandates is through a financing system that removes private insurers from the equation, such as a government-run financing system. Because we’ve all seen what happens to health care in countries that have government-run financing of health care, it makes far more sense to enact the mandates on individuals and private insurers that would essentially lead to universal coverage without any additional government involvement in the health care industry or any cost to the state.

But of course you can’t expect folks to purchase policies that they can’t afford, and that means that any comprehensive health care reform legislation must include cost-controlling measures as well as some sort of subsidy for the working poor who don’t qualify for Medicaid but who can’t reasonably be expected to choose a health plan over rent or food. A refundable tax credit that is phased out as income goes up and that is paid for by removing the tax advantage provided to employer-based health plans makes the most sense, and the bill does get that right. Does this idea sound familar? It should. It was an element of the health plan proposed by John McCain during the 2008 election. In fact, BaucusCare is basically McCainCare and RomneyCare put together, with co-ops added in for the Left.

The co-ops are the sole cost-controlling measure in the bill, and will supposedly keep insurers from raising rates by providing them with a non-profit competitor. But why are they even necessary? Health insurance is a highly profitable industry. So profitable that it doesn’t make sense for there to be so few private insurers on the market. I’ll bet there’s some regulation somewhere that makes it really, really hard for new insurance companies to get off the ground. Change that regulation and make it easier for a dozen new health insurers pop up and you have cost control through competition that doesn’t cost the government a dime.

Finally, the elephant in the room in this bill is the lack of tort reform. The liability insurance that medical professionals must carry along with the needless tests and procedures that they perform to avoid lawsuits all raise costs in our health care system. How about simply capping awards for pain and suffering? No one is saying that someone injured by the health care system shouldn’t be able to get every single dime he or she requires to be made right again, and every penny in lost income from time off of work, etc. But the fattest awards are in the pain and suffering arena. If someone is egregiously injured by a doctor, and they’ve already gotten a jury award to cover all the real costs incurred, is a pain and suffering award of two million dollars really such an injustice? Do juries have to raise health care costs for everyone by awarding plaintiffs with five million dollars or ten million dollars? A cap would bring down costs for all of us, and one should be enacted.

Take BaucusCare, remove the co-ops, add incentives for new insurance companies to enter the market, and add in tort reform, and you basically have a solid package that would solve the majority of our current health care financing problems at a very low price tag to the state, and one that doesn’t threaten the quality of our health care or get the state involved in medical decision-making. But aside from the Grassleys and Enzis, who would support such legislation and probably will if Mitt Romney is president four years from now, there are two groups that refuse to support the proposal that I’ve outlined. The first group is the Tea Party/Glenn Beck Right, which sees any health care legislation as a liberty v. tyranny issue. The second group is the Left, which, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, is bound and determined to enact a 1970s solution to health care in the 21st Century. Both groups are wrong. What the Tea Partiers need to realize is that government regulation of health care is not like, say, government regulation of the Internet. Health care reform doesn’t mean government begins regulating what is currently a wonderful free-market mess. The health care industry is already an extremely highly regulated industry. It’s just regulated in a way that makes sense for the world of thirty years ago. What reformers want to do is change the way the government regulates the health care industry, so that instead of being regulated in a dumb way, it’s regulated in a smart way. That’s not liberty and tyranny. That just makes sense.

Meanwhile, the Left is convinced that with enough tariffs, public health plans, and government takeovers of entire industries, we can go back to the New Deal Utopia of the mid-20th Century. But that’s just silly. Haven’t Democrats learned by now that the world is flat, that we’re living in a global economy, and that the solution to our economic woes lies in laying the ground work for future growth, which means incentivizing economic dynamism? And that’s what the health care legislation that I propose would help do. Why should our tax policies favor employer-based insurance over individual health insurance? This may have made sense in the world of 1979, when most people stayed at a single job for most of their career and paid into the same health plan for multiple decades, but it makes no sense in the world of 2009, where if the American economy is to survive, economic dynamism and entrepreneurship have to be encouraged. Despite what President Obama thinks, General Motors isn’t coming back. The next General Motors will be the one created by the millions of Americans who are going out on their own and laying the groundwork for future companies that will be the major employers of tomorrow. But those millions of Americans have heart conditions and kids with asthma and are disincentivized from being entrepreneurial in a world where there is no health financing system available to them if they go out on their own. Employer-based insurance worked for them because employers were able to pool risk among employees. If everyone is required to purchase insurance, and if insurers are required to cover everyone, risk is once again pooled, only this time among consumers instead of employees. Don’t worry about insurance companies: the young, healthy people are essentially paying for the less healthy, middle-aged people, but the young people are also paying for themselves, because eventually they’ll be middle-aged, things will start to break, their kids will develop asthma, and they’ll be glad they were forced to buy a plan at age 25 instead of assuming that they were from Planet Krypton and that nothing bad could ever happen to them.

In sum, if Republicans were willing to play ball with Democrats like Baucus, we might actually get a sensible health care reform bill signed into law. But Republicans are betting that Democrats won’t be able to pass anything without their help, and are content to wait for President Romney (or whoever) to enact health care reform in order to go for the low hanging fruit that is 2010. This is a gamble. If Democrats regroup, not only could President Obama get his legislative victory, he might actually sign into law a far more liberal bill than the one introduced today — one that brings more government into the operating room and brings our nation closer to the precipice of fiscal calamity.

From the Minnesota Pioneer Press:

Pawlenty on Wednesday ordered a review and suspension of public contracts with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. The potential 2012 presidential candidate says no state money would go to ACORN unless legally obligated.

…Republican congressional leaders also launched a campaign to choke off any federal dollars from going to the scandal-plagued anti-poverty group.

T-Paw just keeps on making the right moves to help himself stand out from the crowd. And, if my opinion matters, he keeps on doing things to impress me. The cited article proceeds to detail how Congressional Republicans have begun trying to make ACORN a “national issue”, in an effort to further weaken Pres. Obama. It seems that we may very well have a winner on our hands here.

Those were the words of Benjamin Franklin upon being asked what kind of government the new nation had after the vote was taken to approve the Constitution. Yet, there is very little mention in the mainstream media these days about our republic. Schools for decades have taught that the USA is a democracy so maybe the media and so many of the adults who believe the same thing can be forgiven. However, it is imperative that Americans, as a nation know the difference between a democracy and a republic if we wish to keep our republic.

In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority can vote each other out of house, home and freedom. The majority can vote in sharia law if they want. In a democracy, individuals have very little recourse if they want to go against the will of the majority. That’s one of the reasons our founding fathers declined to make this nation into a democracy. In the words of James Madison, “Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

How many times have Americans been bombarded by the notion of spreading freedom and democracy to other nations? In reality, we can only spread one, because freedom is incompatible with democracy. You can have one or the other, but not both. If we could spread the American form of government abroad, that would be spreading freedom, but democracy?, no.

So what is a republic? If democracy is so unstable and violent, what is a republic and why is it more desirable than a democracy? The Oxford American dictionary defines a republic as ” A country in which the supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president.” That may sound the same as a democracy, but it is not.

In the case of America, it means that the people have approved a Constitution to define the powers of the government. This is one of the reasons why many Americans are upset about the president’s speech to our children. The president is elected to serve America, not to turn our youngest Americans into government servants. In the debate to approve the Constitution in Pennsylvania, one of the delegates, Mr. Wilson stated that the supreme power of the uniquely American form of government resides in the people.

“The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.

The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”

In a republic, we each have a personal responsibility to oversee and correct the government when it infringes on individual rights. In America, we are to do that by electing people of good character to office – regardless of their party affiliation. And “We the People” retain the right to change those legislators and even the Constitution itself. The supreme power of our government resides with the people, but not in such a way that the majority can run roughshod over the rights of the individual. That is the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. The question before Americans now is still “Can we keep it?”

___________________________________________________________________________________________

-Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.

Rasmussen 2010 New Hampshire Senate Survey

• Kelly Ayotte (R) 46%
• Paul Hodes (D) 38%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Kelly Ayotte 58% / 21% (+37%)
• Paul Hodes 46% / 38% (+8%)

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

• Strongly approve 38%
• Somewhat approve 12%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 41%

How would you rate the job John Lynch has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 22%
• Somewhat approve 42%
• Somewhat disapprove 21%
• Strongly disapprove 13%

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in New Hampshire was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, September 14, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Voters in New Hampshire are closely divided over the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats: 47% favor it, while 50% are opposed. But the antis feel more strongly, with 42% strongly opposed versus 30% who are strongly in favor of the legislation.

Hat-tip: Sean M.

This was the cry of the American colonies in 1765 when the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. This was the first British attempt at direct taxation designed to raise revenue rather then regulate trade. The American response was an almost complete boycott of British made goods until the Stamp Act was repealed.

Almost 250 years later, is the situation faced by a significant segment of the population much different from that of the Colonists in 1765?

The Constitution gave Congress the power to collect taxes, however for much of our country’s history, excise taxes and customs duties paid for the entire cost of government. Today, the situation is far different.

Despite what some groups would like you to believe, the Federal tax burden is not spread uniformly throughout society. Affluent households pay far more than their share of the cost of government. In 2005, the top 5% of taxpayers earned 36% of the total income but paid 60% of the total taxes paid to the federal government. In 1980, before Republican led tax cuts, the top 5% of earners paid 37% of all taxes. Amazingly, cuts in the top tax rates caused the rich to pay more taxes not less. That is not what those groups would have you believe.

When the tax contribution of the middle class is included, the results are even more skewed. Families with incomes above $45,000 represent the upper half of all family incomes. These families, by definition, constitute only 50% of taxpayers but pay 97% of the total tax burden in the United States.

While a representative democracy enables each eligible voter to cast a ballot, keep in mind that only 50% of the eligible voters paid for 97% of the cost of government. Surely, these facts make a strong case that “taxation without representation” exists in 2009 just as it did in 1765.

Taxpayers can not lawfully boycott their taxation obligations as the Colonists did, however they can make it clear to their legislators on a frequent basis who really pays for the cost of government. When legislators ignore the requests of the taxpaying public as Congress and the Obama administration have done since January 20th, taxpayers need to voice their demands more strenuously as was done on April 15th, during the August recess and again on September 12th.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Nace is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

PPP (D) New Jersey Political Survey

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

• Approve 45% (53%)
• Disapprove 48% (39%)

Among Independents

• Approve 36% (48%)
• Disapprove 56% (42%)

Among Moderates

• Approve 46% (60%)
• Disapprove 44% (31%)

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

• Support 39%
• Oppose 50%

Among Independents

• Support 26%
• Oppose 64%

Among Moderates

• Support 39%
• Oppose 49%

Do you think that Barack Obama’s speech to the schoolchildren of America earlier this week was appropriate?

• Yes 63%
• No 24%

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

• Yes 64%
• No 21%
• Not sure 16%

Do you think Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ?

• Yes 8%
• No 79%
• Not sure 13%

Do you think that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

• Yes 19%
• No 69%
• Not sure 11%

Do you think the federal government should be eliminated?

• Yes 6%
• No 83%

Do you think that public education should be eliminated?

• Yes 5%
• No 90%

Do you approve or disapprove of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez’s job performance?

• Approve 27% (29%)
• Disapprove 40% (40%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg’s job performance?

• Approve 38% (40%)
• Disapprove 44% (41%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 11-14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (D); 33% (R); 28% (I). Political views: 52% Moderate; 29% Conservative; 19% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted July 24-27 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

A majority of conservatives (56%) and Republicans (52%) say that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, or say they’re not sure whether he was or not.

Over one-third (35%) of conservatives say that President Obama is the Anti-Christ, or say they’re not sure whether he is or not.

A majority of Democrats (51%) and liberals (57%) say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or say they’re not sure whether he did or not.

I am not a follower of World Wrestling Entertainment, but I appreciate the marketing genius behind this product.  In fact, the most professional wrestling I have watched in the last 25 years was in the oscar nominated Mickey Rourke film, ‘The Wrestler“.

Now, one of the entertainment industries most wealthy and successful executives has resigned her position as CEO of WWE, to challenge Senator Dodd.  Aside from the funding advantage Ms. McMahon will have, I envision many similarities with the 2003 California recall vote, where Governor Schwarzenegger appealed to young men, who are inconsistent voters.

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., the sports entertainment company behind shows such as “Friday Night SmackDown,” said Wednesday that Linda McMahon has resigned as its CEO to seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd.

McMahon’s husband, WWE Chairman Vince McMahon, will assume her duties as chief executive, the company said in a statement.

Linda McMahon, 60, formally announced her candidacy Wednesday morning. She said Washington is “out of control” and Dodd has “lost his way and our trust.”

McMahon is up against three other Republicans — former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, state Sen. Sam Caligiuri and former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley.

Dodd plans to run for a sixth term next year.

Linda and Vince McMahon, a professional wrestler, announcer and promoter, co-founded WWE. Linda McMahon has served as CEO since May 1997 and was the company’s president from May 1993 through June 2000. Vince McMahon has been chairman since 1980.

The Stamford, Conn.-based company produces live and televised wresting events and licenses and sells video games, toys and other retail products. The company’s sales totaled $526.5 million in 2008.

_________________________________________________________

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

The National Journal reports today that Paul Ryan has finally explained why he’s declined to enter the open gubernatorial race.  They write:

Asked 9/14 why he’s not interested in the GOV race, he said, “I just don’t want to walk away from this federal fight.”He’s not kidding. In fact, when GOPers and Dems were squabbling over the budget in March and April and he was the point man for the House GOP, Ryan, the Budget Cmte’s ranking GOPer, joked at the unveiling of the GOP’s alternative budget, “This is kind of weird, but I’ve been reading federal budgets since I was 22 years old. (Laughs.) I know that’s kind of sick. (Laughs.) I’ve never seen anything like this. We have a real tough fiscal situation on our hands.”..

Ryan explained that “a lot of the guys in Madison” are laser-focused on running for GOV, but that he didn’t come up through the standard route in his state’s political system. He was a staffer on the Hill in the ’90s and developed a keener interest in federal issues as a result. He went on to say that “maybe when I’m older” he’d change his mind and want to be gov., but he would be more interested in running for SEN down the line…

Of course, at an event before the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce, he explained that in order to keep the health insurance he has in Congress, he’d have to work there for 20 years. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, he then said, “I won’t be there 20 years.” But he’s already been here for 10.

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but it looks fairly suggestive.  He wants to stay engaged in the “federal” fight; he’s interested in running for the Senate someday; he doesn’t plan to stay in the House for 10 more years, even though he’s only 39 and is on the path to become Speaker someday.  And then there’s this Five Thirty Eight report from August, on the new Democratic centrists.  Nate Silver reported that Feingold had voted liberally in crucial votes 88% of the time lifetime.  This year, Feingold’s down to voting liberally just over 58% of the time, the single biggest rightward shift in the Senate.  That puts him in line with Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

How do we explain this?  Feingold’s always been an independent guy, so we can’t discount some sort of principled shift, but there’s a more interesting and perhaps more plausible explanation: Feingold is expecting a credible challenge in 2010.  Wisconsin has gotten bluer in recent years, but it’s no Massachusetts.  In 1992 he won by 6 points; in 1998, a mid-term election where his team was the “in-party”, he won by just 3%.  In 2004 he defeated a fairly weak and underfunded GOP’er by 11 points (Feingold spent more than twice as much as Tim Michels).  2010 will be much worse for the Democratic Party than 1998 (which resulted in no net loss in the Senate) and while it won’t be worse than 2004, in net terms (Democrats are unlikely to lose 4 seats) it could conceivably be worse in relative terms.

So while Feingold looks comfortable right now, all bets are off if the GOP can produce a strong challenger.  That brings us to Paul Ryan.  Ryan represents a relatively Republican district.  For Wisconsin anyway.  It has a CPVI of +2 R; i.e, it’s 2 points more Republican than the rest of the country.  That makes it more or less a swing district nationally and, indeed, in 2008 it swung.  Obama carried the 1st congressional district by 4 points after Bush won it by 8 in 2004.  How did Ryan do in this district?  Well, he won by 29% in 2008 and this was his third worst margin of victory since entering the House.

As I reported back in March, Ryan’s 2008 result was the 5th best among GOP’ers in districts Obama won.  Add to this his committee assignment’s (he’s the ranking member on the budget committee and highly placed on the coveted Ways and Means), and we’re looking at an extremely formiddable potential candidate.  Feingold’s shift, Ryan’s comments and electoral strength all lead me to believe Paul Ryan is considering a Senate run, and that Feingold is positioning himself for a competitive race.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Marist New York 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 83% (77%)
• Rick Lazio 13% (16%)

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 70% (69%)
• David Paterson 23% (24%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 60% (54%)
• David Paterson 34% (37%)

• Andrew Cuomo 53% (51%)
• Rudy Giuliani 43% (43%)

• David Paterson 43% (41%)
• Rick Lazio 43% (40%)

• Andrew Cuomo 71% (68%)
• Rick Lazio 21% (22%)

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 66% (59%)
• David Paterson 27% (30%)

• Andrew Cuomo 51% (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 46% (44%)

• Rick Lazio 46% (40%)
• David Paterson 38% (39%)

• Andrew Cuomo 70% (67%)
• Rick Lazio 20% (21%)

Would you rate the job Governor David Paterson is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 2% (3%)
• Good 18% (18%)
• Fair 42% (39%)
• Poor 34% (37%)

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the economic crisis?

• Approve 30% (31%)
• Disapprove 66% (61%)

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the state’s budget?

• Approve 27%
• Disapprove 68%

Do you want David Paterson to run for governor in 2010, or not?

• Yes 27%
• No 70%

Among Democrats

• Yes 32%
• No 65%

Among Whites

• Yes 23%
• No 75%

Among Non-Whites

• Yes 45%
• No 49%

Do you want Andrew Cuomo to run for governor in 2010, or not?

• Yes 67%
• No 27%

Among Democrats

• Yes 77%
• No 18%

Among Independents

• Yes 66%
• No 28%

Do you want Rudy Giuliani to run for governor in 2010, or not?

• Yes 58%
• No 39%

Among Republicans

• Yes 81%
• No 16%

Among Independents

• Yes 59%
• No 38%

Do you want Rick Lazio to run for governor in 2010, or not?

• Yes 30%
• No 55%

Among Republicans

• Yes 43%
• No 43%

Among Independents

• Yes 30%
• No 56%

Would you rate the job New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 22% (21%)
• Good 47% (46%)
• Fair 21% (22%)
• Poor 5% (5%)

Survey of 805 registered voters was conducted September 8-10. The margin of error is ± 3.5 percentage points; for the subsamples of 354 Democrats and 225 Republicans, ±5.5% and ±6.5%, respectively. Results from the poll conducted June 23-25 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen 2010 Colorado Senatorial Survey

• Jane Norton (R) 45%
• Michael Bennet (D) 36%

• Jane Norton (R) 42%
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 34%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Jane Norton (R) 47% / 30% {+17%}
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 37% / 41% {-4%}
• Michael Bennet (D) 36% (41%) / 49% (34%) {-13%}

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

• Strongly approve 35% (35%)
• Somewhat approve 13% (16%)
• Somewhat disapprove 8% (7%)
• Strongly disapprove 43% (41%)

How would you rate the job Bill Ritter has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 11% (15%)
• Somewhat approve 29% (34%)
• Somewhat disapprove 25% (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 32% (29%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 15. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 9 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Norton carries 76% of the GOP vote in a match-up with Bennet, while the incumbent earns 81% Democratic support. Voters not affiliated with either party favor Norton 52% to 21%.

In a race against Romanoff, Norton picks up 71% of Republicans, while he has 82% backing from Democratic voters. Unaffiliateds go for Norton by a 47% to 16% margin, but nearly one-out-of-four voters (24%) are undecided.

From CBS News:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

…Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

As the article explains, these new figures could further endanger the bill’s chances of passing. I concur, and like we’ve seen with Obamacare, I think that the more the public learns about cap-and-tax, the more they will dislike it, especially if Republicans keep comparing the energy price increases to a tax hike. Add to that the possibility of the Bush Tax Cuts expiring in 2011, and Republicans have a lot of tax ammo to use leading up to the Congressional midterms next year.

So, totally random interlude.  I was doing some research on the GRE, since I’m planning to take it soon, and I typed “how hard…” into google, and the first suggestion was…”How hard is it to get pregnant?”  Umm…what?  I find it disturbing and bizarre that this is apparently the most searched for “how hard…” term.  Is it just teenagers wondering whether or not they want to…umm, without protection or something?  Infertile couples?  Any thoughts?

Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Reform Plan (Post-Obama Bounce Edition)

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 23% (28%) [23%]
• Somewhat favor 19% (23%) [20%]
• Somewhat oppose 11% (8%) [10%]
• Strongly oppose 44% (38%) [43%]

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

• Very likely 18% (19%) [17%]
• Somewhat likely 33% (36%) [32%]
• Not very likely 27% (24%) [32%]
• Not at all likely 12% (9%) [9%]

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

• Better 24% (34%) [23%]
• Worse 50% (46%) [50%]
• Stay about the same 19% (15%) [21%]

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 53% (42%) [52%]
• Cost will go down 17% (28%) [17%]
• Stay the same 22% (21%) [21%]

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted September 14-15. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 12-13 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats now support the plan while 80% of Republicans are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 67% are opposed.

Yo Obama, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be president, but Ronald Reagan had one of the best presidencies of all time!

Yo Muhammad, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you have your religion, but Jesus had one of the best prophecies of all time!

Yo Joe Wilson, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you call the president a liar, but Harry Reid was one of the best president-accusers of all time!

Yo Swine Flu, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you infect people, but the Bird Flu was one of the best flus of all time!

Yo Ann Coulter, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be a thin conservative woman, but Sarah Palin is one of the hottest thin conservative women of all time!

Yo Joe Biden, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be unintentionally funny, but Joe the Plumber was one of the most unintentionally funny Joes of all time!

Yo Moammar Quadafi, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be a crazy dictator, but Idi Amin was one of the craziest dictators of all time!

Yo Pat Buchanan, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be a Nazi sympathizer, but George Soros was one of the best Nazi sympathizers of all time! Okay, okay, that’s not fair, he was fourteen.

Yo ACORN, I’m really happy for you and I’ll let you be prostitute-lovers, but Eliot Spitzer was one of the best prostitute-lovers of all time!

I would just like to say that I have hated Kanye West for three years, and I am so glad that the rest of the world has finally come around to see, in the words of the president, what a jackass he is.

I give it twenty-four hours before some black studies professor says that we’re just trying to lynch a black man for publicly raping a white woman.

The House Democrats voted a resolution of disapproval against Congressman Joe Wilson (R-Sc.) for shouting, “You lie,” in response to President Obama lying during his special “Oh My Gosh, This Health Care thing is Blowing Up In My Face” address to Congress.

It’s helpful to think what hasn’t been condemned. No resolution of disapproval was passed condemning William “Cold Cash” Jefferson for his bribery. No condemnation has been forthcoming over Charlie Rangel’s abuse of rent control, tax evasion, or abuse of House Parking Garage privileges. There has been no condemnation of any member tied to the PMA lobbying group that is under FBI investigation. One of that group’s clients issued 34,000 defective combat helmets to the Army, by the way.

But the House has had no words of condemnation for any of these actions, nor for any massive wastes of government money that the House Majority has approved, but they do have time to condemn Joe Wilson for a statement that he already apologized to the President over.

Are we doomed for 2010? Perhaps for 2012, too? I got to tell you, I read Matt C’s post, I have to disagree.

Matt C writes:

We oversold the dismal state of that economy. It’s what I’ve warned against for months now, and sat by and watched the GOP and conservatives do it anyway. We’ve trotted out all the Democrats’ favorite lines – the worst economy since the Great Depression; comparisons with other failed economic policies of the past; etc. (proving that once again, all politicians are cut from the same mold and care more about party advancement than advancement of country).

The economy is bad. But it was never going to be as bad as the GOP was selling it. By making the economy seem worse than it was, all we’ve done is make Obama seem like a hero that he isn’t for “rescuing” it. In 2010 when the economic recovery is in full swing, people will credit Obama, the bailout, cash for clunkers, the stimulus, and a myriad of other ridiculous economic policies for that recovery – instead of crediting the inherent resiliency of capitalism. And it will be because of how we sold it to the American people.

There’s one question that’s immediately begged here. What should Republicans have been saying, if not blaming the President’s policies?  If not pointing out the President promised unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% if the Stimulus was passed and now it’s heading up to 10%. What type of response should have Republicans said? Nothing. Or perhaps, they should have blamed themselves? Yeah, I’d love to see that ad.

Secondly, assuming the economy comes back in 2010, there’s a big problem with the assumption that Republicans stand to be big losers in 2010 over overplaying the economy. The economy often begins its comeback long before its felt by voters.  From a standpoint of pure economics, the economy began to go into recover in 1992. Voters didn’t punish Bill Clinton for overplaying the economy and declare Bush I a genius because of GDP growth.  And also voters didn’t reward Bill Clinton as a genius because the recovery was even further along in 1994.

You can also look back to 1982.  Obviously, the economic troubles of 1982 were not the fault of Ronald Reagan from a political standpoint, that didn’t stop Republicans from losing 27 house seats in the 1982 midterms.

The economic recovery is felt by working and middle class voters when things like unemployment begin to correct themselves. Let’s say that an economic recovery begins late this year. Voters probably won’t feel like the economy’s getting better until unemployment begins to drop, and I wouldn’t bet on that happening for 2011.

And there’s no reason to expect any type of strong recovery.  Obama is increasing the deficit and starting in 2011, he’ll be raising taxes on (at the very least) the most productive workers in the economy, with deficits spiraling out of control.

It is true that by 2012, the economy is doing well (even temporarily) and there are no other problems in the nation, Republicans won’t win, regardless of how they play it because when things are going well, voters don’t change horses in the White House unless they’re given a reason.

However, right now , The Democrats are in serious trouble and that’s unlikely to change through at least 2011. Republicans should press their advantage. Timidity is not a winning strategy.

CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey

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

• Approve 58% (53%) [56%]
• Disapprove 40% (45%) [40%]

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

• Approve 54% (49%)
• Disapprove 45% (51%)

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

• Approve 51% (44%)
• Disapprove 47% (53%)

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

• Approve 58% (54%)
• Disapprove 38% (42%)

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

• Favor 39% (42%) [41%]
• Oppose 58% (57%) [54%]

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

• Approve 52% (45%)
• Disapprove 43% (52%)

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

• Approve 46% (36%)
• Disapprove 51% (63%)

From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care?

• Favor 51% (48%) [50%]
• Oppose 46% (51%) [45%]

From what you know of the health care reforms which the Administration is working on, do you think the amount you pay for medical care would increase, decrease, or remain the same?

• Increase 47% (55%)
• Decrease 16% (19%)
• Remain the same 35% (24%)

From what you know of those health care reforms, do you think you and your family would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same?

• Better off 21% (21%)
• Worse off 35% (38%)
• About the same 43% (40%)

From what you know of those health care reforms, do you think senior citizens who are currently on Medicare would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same?

• Better off 24% (26%)
• Worse off 37% (43%)
• About the same 36% (30%)

How likely is it that Obama and Congress will be able to make substantial progress toward passing health care reform by the end of 2009?

• Very likely 13%
• Somewhat likely 37%
• Somewhat unlikely 26%
• Very unlikely 22%

In reacting to President Obama’s health care proposals, do you think the Republicans are generally offering constructive criticism, or are they being obstructionist for mostly political reasons?

• Constructive 35%
• Obstructionist 61%

Based on what you have read or heard about Obama’s health care plan, please tell me whether you think each of the following would or would not happen if that plan became law.

If Obama’s plan became law, do you think senior citizens or seriously-ill patients would die because government panels would prevent them from getting the medical treatment they needed?

• Would happen 41%
• Would not happen 57%

If Obama’s plan became law, do you think the federal government would or would not eventually take over all aspects of the country’s health care system?

• Would happen 55%
• Would not happen 42%

If Obama’s plan became law, do you think that the federal government would or would not provide insurance to illegal immigrants?

• Would happen 47%
• Would not happen 49%

If Obama’s plan became law, do you think the federal budget deficit would or would not increase?

• Would happen 74%
• Would not happen 24%

During that address, a Republican member of the U.S. House shouted that Obama had lied while Obama was speaking. Do you think that was appropriate behavior or inappropriate behavior?

• Appropriate 15%
• Inappropriate 85%

Based on what you have read or heard about that address, do you think Obama lied while he was speaking to Congress on Wednesday night, or don’t you think so?

• Obama lied 32%
• Don’t think so 60%

Survey of 1,012 adults was conducted September 11-13. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in brackets.

Now boys and girls, I want to tell you a wonderful fairy tale about a talismanic land where only happy endings are allowed. And all you have to do is surrender your “liberty and freedom for all.”

You all know that Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel was aboard the Clinton Express when it tried to take us to the magical world of universal health care in the early 90s. Sadly, that train broke down on the way and never arrived at Utopia.

But, not to worry, because now Zeke has boarded another train, the ObamaCare Special. And, it is leaving the station for the same destination.

Now, you’re probably wondering what you will find in Zeke’s Utopia. How will your needs be met? And what will this live-long life of lollipop and roses cost? Well, again, not to worry. You seek Zeke has already written a wonderful travel guide about his magical land of health care reform. Its title is “A Comprehensive Cure: Universal Health Care Vouchers.” And it reads a lot like “Alice in Wonderland.”

Zeke’s Utopia is an enchanted place where everyone receives a standard package of wonderful health care services, “regardless of age, income, employment, health, or marital status.” And all you need to pay for any of this is your complimentary “Health Care Voucher.” Once in Utopia, you can take your ticket to any private health plan provider or insurer, and you are guaranteed a basic benefit package.

How’s that for happily ever aftering?

Now, I know you’ve heard lots of scary stories about those nasty private health insurance companies turning folks away for preexisting conditions or other enrollment requirements. But Zeke would fix it so that in Utopia, they wouldn’t be able to do this anymore. In fact he would severely restrict and control which companies can accept his special vouchers so that only one in ten would be left when he is finished. And those will either do as there told, or – zip! – it’s down the rabbit hole for them.

You may be wondering, how can Zeke afford to buy everyone a “free” ticket? Where will he get the money? Well, in Utopia, everyone will help him get the money – including you – by paying a national sales tax [called a VAT] of ten to twelve cents on the dollar for everything they buy. So, the money you save on “free” health care, you’ll be able to turn over to Big Government.

And that money will also enable Zeke to set up a National Health Board and regional health boards to “define and regularly adjust the standard health benefits to reflect…fiscal realities.” If less comes in from the VAT, fewer health benefits will be guaranteed in Utopia. And Big Government will make the “tough administrative choices to be made.” This is what’s known in Utopia as “rationing.” And it could cost you your life. But, that’s a small matter.

Here is the best part about Zeke’s plans for your life in Utopia. The 10 to 12 cents Zeke and his pals take out of every dollar you have (after Big Government has already taken the 50 cents it currently takes) will also enable Zeke and his pals to set up an “Institute for Technology Outcomes Assessment.”

You see, Zeke has figured out that the problem with medical care today is that there is just too much spending that does not produce enough good results. So, in Utopia, Zeke’s new government Institute would compare the “costs of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, and other interventions” with their relative effectiveness in saving the lives of “participating citizens” to see which benefits will be provided to whom.

Only those “drugs, devices, diagnostic tests,” and such, that produce enough good results — that is, save the lives Zeke and his pals decide are worth saving: the young and productive, in their eyes – will considered effective and receive Utopia’s Big Government funding.

For example, let’s think about grandma for a second. And let’s say she was lying in the hospital unconscious on a respirator to help her breath. Now some selfish people (the kind Zeke definitely does not want in Utopia) would let her stay there for months at great expense to Big Government, hoping (and maybe even praying) for a miracle or an advance in medical technology that would bring her back to health.

But, not Zeke. Being of superior intellect and knowing how to properly evaluate who should live and who should die, Zeke and his Big Government pals would pull that plug so fast granny would have a tag on her toe before you could say “Sanctity of life.” And in Zeke’s Utopia, the word of the government is the unquestioned law of the land. So, there could be no legal challenge to the Institute’s decisions.

So, there you have it: a Utopian world where everyone is healthy, happy, and in the prime of life. Because, in Utopia, you see, Zeke and his pals will kill off everyone else.

All aboard!!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

This video from Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government has to be seen to be believed:

Hats off to James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles for their work on this story.

Rasmussen Nevada Political Survey

2010 Nevada Senate Race

• Sue Lowden 50%
• Harry Reid 40%

• Danny Tarkanian 50%
• Harry Reid 43%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Danny Tarkanian 57% / 30% (+27%)
• Sue Lowden 48% / 27% (+21%)
• Harry Reid 45% / 54% (-9%)

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

• Strongly approve 37%
• Somewhat approve 9%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 45%

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 29%
• Somewhat favor 16%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 46%

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

• Better 30%
• Worse 51%
• Stay about the same 13%

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 49%
• Cost will go down 25%
• Stay the same 19%

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 65%
• Reduce the deficit 8%
• No impact on the deficit 24%

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 55%
• Somewhat likely 19%
• Not very likely 21%
• 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 47%
• Federal government will not do enough 43%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days?

• Excellent 0%
• Good 4%
• Fair 35%
• Poor 58%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 32%
• Worse 39%
• Staying the same 22%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Ace of Spades has an interesting post attacking Howard Kurtz’s conclusion that right-wing opposition to Obamacare just might be… racist.  Kurtz wonders why this rage seems, well, deeper than previous conservative rages.  Ace responds:

How’s this for a deeper rage: It was obvious Obama was a man of the left who always intended to take the country in an unprecedented veer to the left, but for two years he ran as a “moderate” and the supposedly nonpartisan media covered for his constant transparent lies.

Maybe that accounts for the “deeper rage.”

Right.  Or, to go back to something I wrote last November:

When the right-wing elites/media simply cannot get favorable information to voters who aren’t already within the “conservative cocoon”, because the mainstream media simply won’t report it, the most rational response is to whip those within your fold into raving, foaming, paranoid, fits, by ignoring bad news, indulging in conspiracies, etc. This is, in part, the revelation I had at the Palin rally I attended. When you have a press that acts as a campaign organ for the Democratic Party, there’s simply no incentive for me to, as Alex says, “acknowledge legitimate criticisms”. I’m going to hunker down, do what I can to encourage those in my circle to ignore essentially everything but Fox News, and become rather anti-facts, empiricism, etc. I think this is just, short term, the most rational response for a blogger, an everyday citizen, or low-level media personality.

If conservatives seem unusually upset at Obamacare, it’s not because they’re racist.  It’s because when they tried to warn people that Obama was just this sort of guy, the first time, they were shot down as racists.  And when they compile evidence that not only is Obama just this sort of guy, but that he’s actually worse and wants more and is simply lying to the American people about it, that evidence goes nowhere.

Exhibit A comes from a tip in another Ace post.  We learn, through Politico, that Obama came out in favor of single payer in 2003.  They have discovered a video where he said as much; 15 months after someone posted it on youtube.  The story then goes on to recount other key Democrats who have been nuanced on what Obamacare means for America.  This, we’re assured is simply a case of ‘mixed messages”.  It’s right there in the headline: Mixed Messages Bolster GOP’s case.  Crossed wires.  Two ships passing in the dark.  If only Obama could convince us of the unmixed message – the fruit on the bottom yogurt before it gets all stirred up and filled with game-playing- and his benevolent intentions, all this hate would end.

Of course, we had to wait 15 months to even get mixed messages.  We found out that Sarah Palin had once sounded a different tone on the Bridge to Nowhere about 15 minutes after she uttered her famous convention line.  But, that was different.  It was nuance a lie that affected no one.  This is a lie nuance that leads to a government takeover of 1/6th of the US economy.  Beneath their contempt.  Republicans aren’t angry, the media assures us, because, after a 5 month debate on what the President wants for health care, less than 1/10th of the public is aware that the President once said he wanted a government take-over of health care.  Or because he’s promising to produce a trillion dollars in magic savings, without getting rid of anything, and the press is nodding judiciously.  Or because he’s proposing something which is entirely at odds with the conservative philosophy;  no, they’re angry because the man has nappy hair.  Because his knees get ashy.  Because they wish all the black folk stayed like that friendly ole’ Gone With the Wind lady.  And somehow, Obamacare is an outlet for all that idtastic frustration  and hatred.  Or, to quote the venerable Kurtz:

I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about “the Constitution” and “taking our country back.”

Do you see?  Yes, I’m sure you do.  What I want to know is why I’m angry, and whether I better lop off my nappy hair and cover up my ashy knees and simper while simultaneously idtastically yelling at myself to simper.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Like it or not we live in a global economy. If the Obama administration enacts policies that make it too expensive to manufacture products in the United States, those products will be made in other countries and shipped here.

Numerous studies have documented how the grossly misnamed Affordable Energy Act of 2009, also known as Cap and Trade or more accurately Cap and Tax, will raise the cost of energy for every American. If the cost of all energy rises dramatically, will industrial production stay in this country or will it move to China or India that is not constrained by the cost of energy regulations? China and India already enjoy a significant cost advantage over American producers in many fields; this will just exacerbate that advantage.

While the US taxpayers are paying to support the preservation of United Auto Workers jobs, with outlandish pay and benefit costs, at GM and Chrysler, the same administration is willing to drive industrial production overseas. Perhaps this is why the administration is also supporting Card Check legislation that will allow easy unionization of millions of workers in the service industries. It knows that its other policies will destroy millions of well paying industrial jobs in this country. Based upon the Spanish government’s experiences with subsidizing alternative energy sources through higher conventional energy prices, Cap and Tax will destroy 2 million jobs per year in this country.

For such a damaging plan to be seriously considered there must be a group that benefits from its passage. Just as Joseph Kennedy benefited handsomely from FDR’s programs in the 1930′s, it turns out that some of main benefactors of this program are also politically very well connected.

In 2004, Al Gore, former Vice President and author of Inconvenient Truth, started Generational Investment Management (GIM) to provide funding to businesses associated with alternative energy. GIM also happens to own 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will issue the carbon credits that Cap and Tax legislation is based upon.

In 2007, Al Gore became a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiman, Perkins, Claufield and Byers (KPCB). This firm is heavily invested in renewable energy and electrical grid improvements. The market for their products is almost completely dependent on government programs in the form of subsidies, tax breaks or regulation. Al Gore’s contribution to KPCB is to promote government intervention into the energy markets.

It is not surprising that venture capital firms and investment firms that will have a stake in the trading of carbon credits, have made extensive campaign contributions to those legislators proposing Cap and Trade legislation. Clearly, the American public looses in the form of higher energy costs and lost jobs however, a few politically well connected individuals will have much to gain as the result of further government regulation of energy consumption.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Nace is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

PPP (D) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 44%
• Jon Corzine 35%
• Chris Daggett 13%
• Undecided 7%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 29%
• Chris Daggett 16%
• Undecided 6%

(Asked only of Daggett voters) Is your second choice for governor Chris Christie or Jon Corzine?

• Chris Christie 48%
• Jon Corzine 32%
• Don’t know 20%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 77%
• Jon Corzine 3%
• Don’t know 21%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 21% / 16% {+5%}
• Chris Christie 45% (42%) [43%] / 41% (32%) [33%] {+4%}
• Jon Corzine 32% (33%) [36%] / 60% (56%) [56%] {-28%}

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 49% (47%) [46%] / 32% (26%) [28%] {+21%}
• Chris Daggett 30% / 13% {+17%}
• Jon Corzine 22% (29%) [24%] / 74% (61%) [70%] {-52%}

Are you solidly committed to your current choice for governor, or is there a chance you could vote for another candidate?

• Solidly committed 78%
• Could change mind 22%

Among Democrats

• Solidly committed 79%
• Could change mind 21%

Among Republicans

• Solidly committed 89%
• Could change mind 11%

Among Independents

• Solidly committed 62%
• Could change mind 38%

Survey of 500 voters was conducted September 11-14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (D); 33% (R); 28% (I). Political views: 52% Moderate; 29% Conservative; 19% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted July 24-27 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 27-29 are in brackets.