Steven Rattner, the head of Team Auto for President Obama, explains how the restructuring of GMC & Chrysler happened.

My initial take: Rattner maintains an aloof, self-absorbed tone throughout the narrative. He gives some lip service to allowing the auto companies to enter bankruptcy, but seems to ignore it as soon as it occurs to him. Too, he spends time analyzing political concerns he seems unqualified to talk about, in addition to voicing business concerns regarding restructuring,  and takes too little time explaining what went on in the meetings he had with President Obama. He spends a lot of time expressing shock at the wretched business structure of Chrysler and GMC (no surprise there), and seems intent on clarifying that a government takeover of the auto industry is not REALLY a takeover.

Overall, this piece is not as interesting as I had hoped. Rattner clearly is concerned about ramifications and details of how to restructure GMC and Chrysler, and spends an appropriate amount of time explaining who he chose to assist him and why- no criticism there. It would have been nice, however, to see more of the gritty, “down-in-the-dirt” debates had within Team Auto, and less of the aloof, “I know better than they do” attitude towards the auto executives, average Americans and automaker shareholders. Lastly, more detail on why Rattner left employment by the government would have been very elucidating.

This is a long narrative, but worth the read- if for no other reason than there are tens of billions of our tax money at risk with GMC and Chrysler.

The polling news just gets worse and worse for Harry Reid:

Progressive Change Campaign Committee (D) / Research 2000

• Danny Tarkanian (R) 46%
• Harry Reid (D) 41%

• Sue Lowden (R) 47%
• Harry Reid (D) 42%

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Harry Reid: 35%/54% (-19)

Do you think Harry Reid is a strong leader or a weak leader?

• 24% Strong
• 52% Weak

Generally speaking do you think Harry Reid is effective or ineffective in the Senate?

• 23% Effective
• 54% Ineffective

As you may know, Harry Reid is up for re-election in 2010. Do you think he should be the Democratic nominee again or is it time for someone new to represent Democrats?

• 26% He should be the nominee
• 39% Time for someone new

Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

• 54% Favor
• 39% Oppose

Dave Camp (R-MI), the Ranking Member on the House Ways and Means Committee, has published an early tally of jobs created by the Dems’ stimulus package, compared to the predicted jobs the bill would create through December 2010:

In all fairness, we still have over a year until we reach the self-imposed job creation deadline (through December 2010). Democrats would probably argue that most of the stimulus spending has not yet occurred. While that holds true, it raises the question of why they so quickly rushed through the bill. If we have not yet seen the job creation intended by the package, and the economy has not completely collapsed, we obviously didn’t have such a dire need for the bill.

So Jim Geraghty has noticed a new Chris Christie web video.  He mentions it, without a whole lot of comment, but I think it deserves some.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible ad?  Web ads, the same as real ads, need to work as both video AND audio.  This sucker doesn’t come close.  I clicked on the ad, and then, as I often do, distractedly opened another window.  So I just heard a minute and thirty seconds of Barack Obama exhorting the value of bringing Americans together.  I couldn’t figure it, so I actually LOOKED at the ad.  Or tried to anyway.  It didn’t much help.  The images aren’t stark enough, the music is soporific, and the pro-Christie stuff doesn’t show up until 1:10.  I think it’s entirely possible, maybe even likely, that most people just clicking on the link could view the whole video without having the slightest idea it was a Chris Christie ad.  If you’re going to do the “rhetoric vs reality” style ad, you need to A.)  Make it bouncy so people pay attention, and B.)  Make the contrast with text, audio, and images.  Sure, it’s just a web ad, but it’s a bad signal for the closing argument of an already lackluster campaign.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog

EPIC-MRA Michigan Political Survey

2010 Gubernatorial Election

• Mike Cox (R) 45%
• John Cherry (D) 30%

• Mike Bouchard (R) 39%
• John Cherry (D) 31%

• Pete Hoekstra (R) 40%
• John Cherry (D) 33%

Job Approval

Barack Obama

• Approve 48% (48%) [57%]
• Disapprove 51% (48%) [42%]

Jennifer Granholm

• Approve 33% (32%)
• Disapprove 66% (68%)

Survey of 600 registered voters was conducted October 11-15. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted in September are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted in June are in brackets.

PPP (D) National Political Survey

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

• Approve 51% [52%] {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 43% [44%] {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 46% [52%] {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 44% [40%] {42%} (42%)

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

• Support 42% [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 45% [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 40% [46%] {35%}
• Oppose 47% [44%] {49%}

Do you think that Barack Obama loves America?

• Yes 59%
• No 26%
• Not sure 14%

Among Democrats

• Yes 87%
• No 9%
• Not sure 4%

Among Republicans

• Yes 27%
• No 48%
• Not sure 25%

Among Independents

• Yes 57%
• No 25%
• Not sure 18%

Survey of 766 registered voters was conducted October 16-19. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% [40%] {41%} Democrat; 33% [35%] {35%} Republican; 26% [25%] {24%} Independent. Political views: 45% [44%] {48%} Moderate; 39% [37%] {36%} Conservative; 17% [19%] {16%} Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Florida 2010 GOP Senatorial Primary

• Charlie Crist 49% (53%)
• Marco Rubio 35% (31%)
• Some other candidate 4% (5%)
• Not sure 12% (11%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charlie Crist 67% (75%) / 32% (23%) {+35%}
• Marco Rubio 55% (53%) / 22% (19%) {+33%}

How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14%
• Somewhat approve 43%
• Somewhat disapprove 26%
• Strongly disapprove 16%

Survey of 466 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted October 20. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 17 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Crist still holds a double-digit lead over Rubio among both male and female primary voters. Rubio leads among voters ages 50 to 64 but trails in all other age groups.

PPP (D) Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 52% {48%} [49%] (51%)
• Creigh Deeds 40% {43%} [42%] (37%)

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 54% {56%} [60%] (53%)
• Creigh Deeds 38% {37%} [34%] (36%)

Among Women

• Bob McDonnell 51% {41%} [40%] (50%)
• Creigh Deeds 42% {49%} [49%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 60% {53%} [60%] (52%)
• Creigh Deeds 31% {37%} [29%] (33%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob McDonnell 56% {47%} [53%] (55%) / 35% {42%} [31%] (26%) {+21%}
• Creigh Deeds 41% {43%} [47%] (43%) / 48% {42%} [35%] (32%) {-7%}

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 60% {49%} [62%] (52%) / 32% {39%} [25%] (26%) {+28%}
• Creigh Deeds 36% {38%} [38%] (44%) / 52% {44%} [40%] (31%) {-16%}

How excited are you about casting your vote for Governor this fall?

Among Republicans

• Very excited 55%
• Somewhat excited 24%
• Not very excited 16%

Among Democrats

• Very excited 37%
• Somewhat excited 31%
• Not very excited 30%

Do you plan to vote Democratic or Republican for the House of Delegates this year?

• Republican 46%
• Democrat 36%

Among Independents

• Republican 37%
• Democrat 24%

Do you think that Creigh Deeds is a liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 46%
• Moderate 48%
• Conservative 6%

Do you think that Bob McDonnell is a liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 6%
• Moderate 24%
• Conservative 70%

Do you think that Mark Warner is a liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 33%
• Moderate 62%
• Conservative 5%

Do you think that the Deeds campaign has focused too much on Bob McDonnell’s college thesis?

• Yes 54%
• No 28%

Survey of 666 voters was conducted October 16-19 . The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 33% {37%} [38%] (32%) Democrat; 36% {29%} [31%] (35%) Republican; 31% {34%} [31%] (33%) Independent. Political views breakdown: 44% {44%} [46%] (41%) Moderate; 41% {39%} [36%] (45%) Conservative; 16% {17%} [19%] (14%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 25-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in parentheses.

Quinnipiac Florida 2010 Election Survey

(If registered Republican) If the 2010 Republican primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist, for whom would you vote?

• Charlie Crist 50% [55%] (54%)
• Marco Rubio 35% [26%] (23%)

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Kendrick Meek the Democrat and Charlie Crist the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Charlie Crist 51%
• Kendrick Meek 31%

Among Independents

• Charlie Crist 58%
• Kendrick Meek 22%

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Kendrick Meek the Democrat and Marco Rubio the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Kendrick Meek 36%
• Marco Rubio 33%

Among Independents

• Marco Rubio 31%
• Kendrick Meek 27%

If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Alex Sink the Democrat and Bill McCollum the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Bill McCollum 36% [38%] (34%)
• Alex Sink 32% [34%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Bill McCollum 33%
• Alex Sink 23%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charlie Crist 58% [60%] (60%) / 30% [27%] (28%) {+28%}
• Bill McCollum 34% [42%] (40%) / 14% [13%] (13%) {+20%}
• Alex Sink 23% [23%] (25%) / 8% [8%] (7%) {+15%}
• Marco Rubio 24% [15%] (14%) / 11% [9%] (11%) {+13%}
• Kendrick Meek 20% [14%] (12%) / 8% [5%] (7%) {+12%}

Among Republicans

• Charlie Crist 63% [68%] (70%) / 30% [23%] (21%) {+33%}
• Marco Rubio 44% [24%] (24%) / 3% [6%] (8%) {+41%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Charlie Crist is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 59% [60%] (62%)
• Disapprove 31% [30%] (28%)

Among Republicans

• Approve 62% [66%] (68%)
• Disapprove 30% [28%] (21%)

Among Independents

• Approve 65% [63%] (61%)
• Disapprove 17% [27%] (31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill McCollum is handling his job as Florida’s Attorney General?

• Approve 53% [53%]
• Disapprove 19% [16%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Alex Sink is handling her job as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer?

• Approve 38% [37%]
• Disapprove 23% [21%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Nelson is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 45% [47%] (49%)
• Disapprove 31% [28%] (22%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Charlie Crist’s selection of George LeMieux to replace Mel Martinez in the United States Senate?

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 32%

Among Republicans

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 28%

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

• Approve 48% [47%] (58%)
• Disapprove 46% [48%] (35%)

From October 12 – 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,078 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. The survey includes 396 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 12-17 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 2-7 are in parentheses.

SurveyUSA Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 59% [54%] {55%} (54%) [55%]
• Creigh Deeds 40% [43%] {41%} (42%) [40%]

Among Democrats

• Creigh Deeds 87% [88%] {85%} (80%) [86%]
• Bob McDonnell 12% [11%] {13%} (19%) [11%]

Among Moderates

• Creigh Deeds 55% [56%] {55%} (51%) [52%]
• Bob McDonnell 44% [41%] {41%} (42%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 71% [54%] {59%} (52%) [60%]
• Creigh Deeds 27% [39%] {35%} (41%) [35%]

Among Republicans

• Bob McDonnell 92% [89%] {89%} (88%) [88%]
• Creigh Deeds 7% [9%] {10%} (7%) [7%]

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 64% [62%] {57%} (56%) [61%]
• Creigh Deeds 35% [36%] {40%} (39%) [36%]

Among Women

• Bob McDonnell 53% [47%] {53%} (52%) [49%]
• Creigh Deeds 45% [49%] {43%} (45%) [44%]

Survey of 595 likely voters was conducted October 17-19. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 33% [37%] {37%} (36%) [38%] Republican; 32% [32%] {32%} (33%) [32%] Democrat; 33% [30%] {29%} (29%) [29%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted October 2-4 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 26-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 4 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 27-28 are in square brackets.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 41% (45%) [47%] <48%> {46%} (50%) [52%]
• Jon Corzine 39% (41%) [44%] <41%> {38%} (42%) [39%]
• Chris Daggett 11% (9%) [6%] <6%> {6%} (2%) [4%]
• Not sure 8% (5%) [3%] <5%> {10%} (7%) [5%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 44% (45%) [44%] <28%> {29%} / 32% (27%) [27%] <27%> {26%} {+12%}
• Chris Christie 47% (46%) [46%] <48%> {42%} (48%) [49%] / 47% (51%) [50%] <46%> {52%} (51%) [42%] {0%}
• Jon Corzine 41% (43%) [45%] <39%> {45%} (36%) [37%] / 57% (55%) [52%] <60%> {54%} (61%) [62%] {-16%}

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

• Strongly approve 11% (15%) [15%] <14%> {13%} (14%) [11%]
• Somewhat approve 30% (25%) [28%] <24%> {27%} (21%) [26%]
• Somewhat disapprove 16% (18%) [14%] <16%> {21%} (24%) [19%]
• Strongly disapprove 42% (41%) [41%] <45%> {36%} (41%) [44%]

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

• Strongly approve 34% (38%) [37%] <39%> {34%} (35%) [36%]
• Somewhat approve 19% (19%) [20%] <14%> {19%} (20%) [20%]
• Somewhat disapprove 11% (10%) [10%] <9%> {16%} (9%) [8%]
• Strongly disapprove 35% (33%) [32%] <38%> {29%} (35%) [35%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 39% (39%) [49%] <47%> {46%} (48%) [45%]
• Jon Corzine 28% (30%) [36%] <33%> {31%} (28%) [35%]
• Chris Daggett 16% (17%)

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 42% (38%) [48%] <46%> {46%} (49%) [53%]
• Jon Corzine 23% (25%) [28%] <29%> {27%} (23%) [21%]
• Chris Daggett 16% (16%)

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

• Chris Christie 42% (40%) [49%] <48%> {44%} (47%) [50%]
• Jon Corzine 26% (28%) [33%] <28%> {32%} (25%) [28%]
• Chris Daggett 17% (17%)

Survey of 750 likely voters was conducted October 19. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 14 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 21 are in angle brackets. 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:

Currently, 16% of voters cite Daggett as their first preference. That’s unchanged from a week ago. However, a larger share of Daggett’s voters appear to be sticking with him than before.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of those who initially express support for Daggett say they will stick with him. Twenty-four percent (24%) of those voters say they’ll end up voting for Christie, and 14% say they’ll move in Corzine’s direction.

Among those who are undecided, 13% lean towards Daggett, seven percent (7%) towards Christie, and three percent (3%) lean in the incumbent’s direction. Many of the rest may simply stay home.

As for those who are certain they will vote and certain of how they will vote, Christie’s edge is the smallest it has ever been at just two percentage points.

The Democrats clearly have an edge in New Jersey when it comes to turnout, but the wavering Daggett supporters and undecided voters are more likely to head in the Republican direction than to the Democratic incumbent.

The press has chosen to exercise their First Amendment freedom via cowardice and Drive-by hits against conservatives to protect their liberal, Democratic Party ideological allies. Big Business, including the NFL, and too many Republicans have also chosen the easy, cowardly path for too long as well, lest they become the focus of the PC-police.

The result of the above is a morally obtuse culture mostly devoid of men with chests, in which those that dare challenge the racial/social orthodoxy have their characters assassinated at the first sign of chest puffing.

Rush Limbaugh has a chest and Courage is the most important virtue

The latest victim of the leftist racists and the cowards is Rush Limbaugh, who dared to dream of being a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams. False quotes were disseminated by the Drive-bys with CNN and others to justify their character assassination but, make no mistake, the real animus against Rush were accurate, non-racist quotes that didn’t comport with the Left’s transmogrified definition of “racist” that dare to treat blacks as the equals of whites, i.e. fair game for fair criticism, parody and satire.

The cowards in this case were NFL owners, their league’s commissioner, and, especially, Dave Checketts, the majority partner in the group seeking an NFL franchise, who had sought out Rush’s participation in the first place knowing that a controversy was likely to arise but who had assured Limbaugh that he would stick with the effort despite same.

Checketts is a man without a chest and it appears that had he shown even the slightest staying power, given the defenses of Rush from many prominent black men, including liberals like Juan Williams (man with a chest), it is very likely that the controversy would have faded.

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

It doesn’t take much to win over a majority of We the People, as Rush’s history and that of precursor’s to past conservative Republican victories (but I repeat myself as there are hardly any non-conservative GOP victories).

The Silent Majority carried Nixon to victory, and re-election in a landslide, when he dared to challenge liberal orthodoxy and take courageous actions to push back the communists in Vietnam.

Ford, Bush41, the late-90s GOP and the mid-2000s GOP lost when they moved to the center.

Reagan had the courage to identify evil empires, tax collectors for the welfare state and welfare queens on the way to landslides; Gingrich attacked corrupt Democrats to take over the Peoples’ House for the GOP the first time in forty years; and Bush43 overcame the Bushlied Era to re-election while killing terrorists by the thousands after tax rate cuts.

Rush, attacked as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe since going national in 1988 played a major role in the Gingrich Revolution and Bush43′s re-election, all the while increasing his record-breaking radio audience every year despite health setbacks and ubiquitous attacks.

Conservatives win when then show courage against the Left in the media and against the Democratic Party. They lose (see McCain) when they surrender to their dishonorable friends on the left. A large percentage of Democrats will vote for Republicans with chests puffed against liberal democrats.

Has the Democratic Party no shame?

The two parties are not interchangeable, even on issues that the GOP has failed on. ObamaDems first budget deficit of $1.8 TRILLION is three times as large as Bush43′s worst of $400 Billion. (Moreover, Bush43′s worst deficits were passed by Democratic majority congresses – including then Senator Obama – after they re-took control in 2006).

The shamelessness of the Democratic Party has no equal, whether it pertains to their embrace of murderous Mao supporters and/or 911-truthers in the Obama administration; race-baiting poverty-pimps that pretend 21st Century America is barely removed from the Jim Crow South; pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan just to win an election and discredit the Iraw War most all of them voted for; re-defining coup d’etats so they can back despots in Honduras, Cuba and Venezuela; or lionizing Bill Clinton as some sort of moral giant, never once asking him any tough questions about his moral failures.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin and “courage”

One of the main themes of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s classic, which echoes Burke and MLK, is that the “good” plantation owners enabled the longevity of the evil institution of slavery as the best example of how evil triumphs not primarily due to the acts of evil men, but rather due to the inaction of good, yet cowardly men.

Otherwise, how could the concept of courage that required courage in 1860 to speak out against slavery some how, in 2009, require that one have courage to speak out against false race-baiters or to make obvious criticisms of wicked, criminal behavior?

The NFL says that Rush’s statements are too “divisive”, including ones that merely cited obvious media bias that a black quarterback do well and that thuggish behavior hurts the image of the league. Yet, wouldn’t it have been good for the league has Falcon’s owner Arthur Blank made some “divisive” statements to Michael Vick years ago objecting to his posse of lowlifes accompanying him to his late arrivals at training camp and on game days?

Blank was afraid to criticize a black man for behavior that would have gotten a white man suspended.

We saw in the Limbaugh affair an exercise of arbitrary power akin to what we fear from a too powerful government. Our culture is sick, and the only way in an be cured is through courage.

Courage is the indispensable virtue required to stop America from Slouching inexorable towards Gomorrah. Absent courage, the majority of We the People will continue to settle for filing mere Minority Reports.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More DeVine examinations on race.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

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

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 70% [66%] {65%} (69%)
• David Paterson 20% [20%] {23%} (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

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

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

• Andrew Cuomo 50% [52%] {53%} (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 43% [39%] {40%} (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 66% [64%] {66%}
• Rick Lazio 21% [18%] {16%}

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 53% [46%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 36% [38%]

• George Pataki 46% {42%} [43%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 41% {39%} [43%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 67% [66%] {70%} (71%) [66%] / 20% [21%] {14%} (17%) [20%] {+47%}
• Barack Obama 65% [65%] {70%} [72%] / 31% [31%] {23%} [23%] {+34%}
• Rudy Giuliani 60% [56%] {57%} (62%) [61%] / 35% [38%] {35%} (33%) [35%] {+25%}
• George Pataki 53% {53%} [53%] / 34% {35%} [36%] {+19%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 28% [29%] {29%} / 26% [24%] {20%} {+2%}
• Rick Lazio 23% [22%] {21%} / 27% [25%] {22%} {-4%}
• David Paterson 27% [29%] {32%} (31%) [27%] / 61% [59%] {55%} (57%) [60%] {-34%}

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

• Excellent 1% [2%] {3%} (2%) [2%]
• Good 18% [16%] {20%} (18%) [16%]
• Fair 43% [41%] {38%} (39%) [43%]
• Poor 36% [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 15% [14%] {15%} (15%)
• Prefer someone else 72% [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 36% [33%] {30%} (28%)
• Run for Governor 56% [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 46% [41%]
• Run for Senator 34% [35%]
• Not run for either 14% [19%]

Do you support or oppose the President’s approach to reforming health care in the U.S. or do you need more information in order to say?

• Support 36% [36%]
• Oppose 27% [21%]
• Need more information 37% [43%]

Survey of 624 registered voters was conducted October 14-18. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted September 13-17 are in square brackets. 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.

If Scozzafava isn’t tough enough to handle a couple of questions from a Weekly Standard reporter at a fundraising dinner, how will she fare in standing up to Congressional Democrats?

Tonight, Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for the November 3 special election in the 23rd congressional district, spoke to about 100 Republicans at the Lewis County GOP dinner at the Elks Lodge 1605. After a dinner of turkey, mashed potatoes, and stuffing, Scozzafava fended off criticism that she wasn’t as conservative as third-party candidate Doug Hoffman and urged her supporters to vote for her in order to keep her Democratic opponent Bill Owens from serving as a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s agenda in Washington. It was a fairly typical evening–until the speech ended and someone with Scozzafava’s campaign called the police. On me.

Earlier today Lindsay Beyerstein reported that Scozzafava responded to an AFL-CIO questionnaire by saying she would support card-check legislation that eliminates the secret ballot requirement for organizing unions. As Beyerstein notes, this contradict statements made by a Scozzafava spokesman in September.

So after the dinner, I asked Assemblywoman Scozzafava if she supports card check. “Yes, yes I do,” she replied.

At that point someone from her campaign placed himself between Scozzafava and me and told me I should direct all my inquires to the campaign’s spokesman. I nonetheless asked Scozzafava if her signing of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to vote to raise taxes means she would oppose any health care bill that raises taxes. “What kind of taxes?” she replied. Then another couple of gentlemen interposed themselves between Scozzafava and me as Scozzafava headed for the door.

I spotted Scozzafava later as she was walking to the parking lot, and asked her: ” Assemblywoman, do you believe that the health-care bill should exclude coverage for abortion?” She didn’t reply. I asked her twice more. Silence.

After she got into her car, I went to my car and fired up my laptop to report the evening’s events.

Minutes later a police car drove into the parking lot with its lights flashing. Officer Grolman informed me that she was called because “there was a little bit of an uncomfortable situation” and then took down my name, date of birth, and address.

“Maybe we do things a little differently here, but you know, persistence in that area, you scared the candidate a little bit,” Officer Grolman told me.

“[Scozzafava] got startled, that’s all,” Officer Grolman added. “It’s not like you’re in any trouble.”

So a vote for Scozzafava is, for sure, a vote for Card Check and (perhaps) a vote for a tax hike and tax payer funded abortions as well.

A tent which is big enough to include someone who supports Card Check, Cap and Trade (among other numerous apostasies) is a bit too roomy for the label of “conservative” to retain any meaning.

Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 39% [43%] {47%} (50%) [45%]
• Jon Corzine 39% [40%] {39%} (36%) [37%]
• Chris Daggett 14% [8%] {5%} (4%) [4%]

Among Democrats

• Jon Corzine 76% [71%] {77%} (73%) [67%]
• Chris Christie 8% [12%] {8%} (14%) [17%]
• Chris Daggett 11% [7%] {7%} (2%) [4%]

Among Republicans

• Chris Christie 81% [81%] {82%} (81%) [78%]
• Chris Daggett 8% [4%] {4%} (4%) [4%]
• Jon Corzine 6% [11%] {8%} (9%) [10%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45% [49%] {53%} (56%) [47%]
• Chris Daggett 22% [13%] {6%} (11%) [8%]
• Jon Corzine 21% [28%] {30%} (24%) [26%]

Among Men

• Chris Christie 40%
• Jon Corzine 34%
• Chris Daggett 18%

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 43%
• Chris Christie 39%
• Chris Daggett 11%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 28% [17%] {11%} (11%) / 15% [8%] {6%} (9%) {+13%}
• Chris Christie: 40% [41%] {48%} (49%) [50%] / 41% [39%] {30%} (33%) [26%] {-1%}
• Jon Corzine: 37% [40%] {37%} (37%) [41%] / 51% [49%] {53%} (53%) [50%] {-14%}

Among Daggett Supporters

• Chris Christie 21% / 62% {-41%}
• Jon Corzine 14% / 72% {-58%}

Among Undecided Voters

• Chris Christie 27% / 25% {+2%}
• Jon Corzine 18% / 45% {-27%}

In your opinion, what are the most important one or two issues that the candidates for governor should talk about? [Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted]

• Property taxes 54% [48%]
• Health care/prescription drug costs 22% [16%]
• Jobs 17% [22%]
• The economy/downturn in general 16% [14%]
• Other tax, general taxes 14% [13%]
• State Budget/Govt spending 13% [12%]
• Education/schools 11% [16%]
• Corruption/government ethics 7% [8%]
• Income tax 5% [4%]

Regardless of who you may support for governor… Who would do a better job on ___________________ ?

Property taxes

• Chris Christie 36% [46%] {49%} (50%)
• Jon Corzine 30% [31%] {25%} (28%)
• Chris Daggett 16%

The economy and jobs

• Chris Christie 35% [41%] {46%} (47%)
• Jon Corzine 34% [39%] {35%} (33%)
• Chris Daggett 13%

State budget

• Jon Corzine 35% [38%] {32%} (30%)
• Chris Christie 34% [45%] {48%} (50%)
• Chris Daggett 13%

Education

• Jon Corzine 41%
• Chris Christie 29%
• Chris Daggett 11%

Reducing Corruption

• Chris Christie 39%
• Jon Corzine 26%
• Chris Daggett 14%

(more…)

Rasmussen Illinois 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Mark Kirk 41% (41%)
• Alexi Giannoulias 41% (38%)
• Other 4% (4%)
• Not sure 13% (17%)

• Mark Kirk 43% (47%)
• Cheryle Jackson 39% (30%)
• Other 4% (6%)
• Not sure 13% (17%)

• Mark Kirk 43%
• David Hoffman 33%
• Other 8%
• Not sure 16%

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

• Strongly approve 41% (37%)
• Somewhat approve 15% (19%)
• Somewhat disapprove 11% (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% (34%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted October 14. The margin of error is +/- percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 11 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Women in Illinois prefer the Democrat by a 43% to 38% margin, while men choose Kirk 45% to 39%.

Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Kirk by more than two-to-one – 52% to 23%.

Once again, unaffiliated voters in Illinois pick Kirk over Jackson by a substantial 52% to 19% margin.

Eighteen percent (18%) of Illinois voters have a very favorable opinion of Kirk, while eight percent (8%) regard him very unfavorably. Giannoulias is viewed very favorably by 17% and very unfavorably by 14%. These numbers are up slightly for both candidates from August. Roughly one-out-of-five voters don’t know enough about either man to venture even a soft opinion about him.

Jackson is regarded very favorably by 14% and very unfavorably by 16%, virtually unchanged from August. In her case, 30% have no opinion. As for Hoffman, his very favorables total five percent (5%) while his very unfavorables are 10%. Nearly half of Illinois voters (48%) have no opinion of him.

The Hill reports the unwelcome news for Madam Speaker:

A poll released this weekend shows that only 34% of Californians approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) job performance, down 14 points from March.

The study, conducted by the Field Research Institute, also showed that 44 percent of respondents disapproved of her job performance while 22 percent held no opinion. In the organization’s last poll in March, 48 percent of respondents approved of Pelosi’s job performance while 35 percent disapproved.

Democrats approved of Pelosi’s performance as leader by a count of 51-23, with 26 percent expressing no opinion. Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved of her performance; 7 percent approved, 79 percent disapproved, and 14 percent said they held no opinion.

39 percent of “non-partisans” approved of her while 37 percent disapproved with 24 percent responding that they had no opinion.

Pelosi’s job approval has previously sunk to similar lows in October and December 2007 during President George W. Bush’s second term.

While Pelosi does not represent the first House Speaker to suffer dismal approval numbers (Newt fell to very low levels during his tenure), the fact that this poll came from her home state hurts. Perhaps the left-leaning people of California have grown frustrated with the Congress’s inability to advance much of the President’s agenda. Pelosi still managed to eke out positive net approval among Independents, but the massive disapproval from Republicans seemingly dragged down the overall numbers.

Governor Romney addressed the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 2009 summit in San Diego this morning. Here is a link to their website to learn more of what they are about.

Short take on Romney’s speech from Chris Cillizza’s The Fix:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) condemned the Obama Administration’s approach toward Iran, a republic he described as “unalloyed evil” and controlled by “ruthless and fanatical” leaders in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee today in San Diego.

“Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons,” said Romney. “It will not.” Later in the address, he punctuated that sentiment by noting: “Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence.”

Mitt Romney remarks as prepared for the AIPAC 2009 national summit in San Diego:

(more…)

Chris Christie’s what’s spoiling this race, not Chris Daggett. If Christie loses his bid for the governorship in two weeks, we can say with certainty that calls for the head of Daggett will abound. Mine will not be one of them. My call will be for the head of Chris Christie.

Oh, Mr. Christie, how could you possibly have put this race in peril? A center-right Republican in a red year running against an incredibly unpopular, terrifically corrupt incumbent simply has no excuse. The people of New Jersey were begging for a defined alternative to the Corzine administration, and you will have let them down because you wanted to pull a Hillary Clinton and lay low, hoping nothing would disturb what was rightfully yours.

But ah, Mr. Christie, what have we learned from Not-President Clinton’s bid? Did you think that you were entitled to the governorship? Did you think that Chris Daggett did not have every right in the world to mount a campaign — a campaign, that, I must note, would have gotten nowhere in a hurry if you had actually bothered to assure the people of New Jersey of your plans for governance? The polls consistently show that the voters believe that you have been too opaque concerning your budgetary plans. Your unfavorability rating now matches Corzine’s in percentage, if not in intensity. You purposely ran a campaign filled with vague platitudes, hoping to coast by and watch Corzine drown in his own waste. But surprise, surprise: people actually wanted a substantive alternative to the ruling regime — and an anti-establishment third party independent came along and offered it. Listen, now: do you think it is an accident that the majority of Daggett voters name you as their second choice? That the governor is still stuck at forty percent in the polls? Please. But as we know, people will vote for bad ideas over no ideas at all. But you thought that you could sneak under the radar until the general election. Have we learned nothing from history?

You really could have been a real alternative to Corzine. But now it is too late, and you must lay in the bed you made. And will the voters still love you when they wake up in it the morning of November 3rd? If not, don’t blame Chris Daggett, Mr. Christie. Blame what you will have to face in the mirror when you wake up on November 4th.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

It is probably beyond obscure for me to bring up an example from not only Canadian politics, but Canadian politics at the provincial level. However, as I have probably said before and will definitely say again, I think the Canadians are about ten years ahead of us in terms of political messaging. So, please bear with my excessively detailed history - there is an application to the U.S. at the end of this.

Since the total collapse of the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party in 1993, the Canadians have had to rebuild their conservative movement from scratch – and when you come from that far behind, you have to innovate.

Nationally, the Canadian revolution is won. The right-wing Reform Party (left as the biggest conservative force standing in 1993) morphed into the “Canadian Alliance“, which then gobbled up the PC Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada – which has given us a conservative hero in Prime Minister Harper. 

However, at the provincial level, the revolution never happened. In fact, numerous provinces are still governed by the PC Party, which ceased to exist nationally in 2003. Nowhere is this pathetic anachronism more evident than in Alberta. That province birthed the Reform Party and forms the heartland of Harper’s Conservatives, yet the provincial government is still run by a moderate PC administration…but that could be about to change thanks to a new party aiming to swing the province rightward.

Meet the Wildrose Alliance.

The WA was formed last year through the merger of two fringe conservative parties (the Alberta Alliance and the Wildrose Party), and I had personally given them up for dead after they lost their only seat in the provincial legislature (originally held by the Alberta Alliance). However – with more moderate Premier (Governor) Ed Stelmach not doing too well lately, the Wildrose Alliance is suddenly riding a rocket. Surging in the polls, they won back a seat in a special election to a vacancy in the legislature, and this weekend they installed a new party leader.

Which brings us to Danielle Smith, elected Saturday as the leader of a Wildrose Alliance that is more popular than ever. A former columnist,  talk show host, and provincial representative for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business – Smith has both charisma and serious policy credentials. In other words – she’s a serious political force to lead what has suddenly become a serious political party. As I see it, former Allaince leader Paul  Hinman was obviously the type of guy who could lead a fledgling movement – like former Reform Party leader Preston Manning. But Manning never became Prime Minister – that was Stephen Harper’s job - and Danielle Smith is Harper to Hinman’s Manning. Polls show her party winning four or five seats if the election was held now – but the election is likely not coming until 2012.

She has time to work, and the charisma to continue the momentum. Plus she has serious drive – making no bones about the fact that her goal is not to be leader of a third party, but to form a Wildrose Alliance government in Alberta.

Now – why am I bringing this to a U.S. site? Well, we seem to have a lot of debates here about independence versus party loyalty. Some of us love insurgent candidates, primary challengers, and other change agents who we think strengthen the Republicans. Others of us condemn the insurgents, saying that we only win if we maintain party unity at the expense of innovation and principle.

What I think the Canadian examples teach us is that creative insurgency is not only good – but often the only way to save a flagging party. In Canada, whole new parties have sprung up to reinvigorate the right. Nationally, the Reform not only eclipsed the PC Party, but swallowed it whole. Now, on the provincial level, the Wildrose Alliance is also benefitting from the decline of a stale PC Party, and I think that we could one day see Danielle Smith, who reminds one more of a TV pundit than than the traditional Canadian politico, as Premier of Alberta.

We here in America are lucky. The Republicans have been knocked down, but they are still very viable.  They can be reinvigorated from the inside. However, if we continue down the road of lock-step establishmentarianism and ever-increasing moderation for the sake of victory, we become the Canadian PC Party circa 1993.

Let me remind you what happened that year - a spent, washed-up PC Party entered the election with 169 seats in parliament, and by the end of the night they had been reduced to 2. That is not a typo – 2 seats. That is what awaits us if we follow David Frum, Steve Schmidt, and their various compatriots off the cliff.  We can keep our Danielle Smiths (Sarah Palin) in and Stephen Harpers in the party, or we will find ourselves running against them in ten or twenty years – and likely eating their dust in the polls.

Granted, third parties aren’t half as easy in the U.S. as they are in Canada (and they’re not easy there), and lucklily revolutions take place inside parties here. Let’s just hope we can right this ship without sinking it in the process.  

Oh…and just in case you want to see Ms. Smith…

… and yes I disagree with her on healthcare – but we’d all be singing her tune if we already had a universal system.

Paul Krugman is surprisingly right on with a large part of his most recent column. Specifically: “The motivation for the AHIP report seems to have been the decision by the Finance Committee to weaken the penalties for individuals who don’t sign up for insurance, even as it retains regulations requiring that insurers offer the same policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. The industry worries that some people will game the system, remaining uninsured as long as they’re healthy, then signing up when they get sick.

This is, believe it or not, a valid concern. Many health-care economists believe that a strong individual mandate, requiring that almost everyone sign up, will be needed to make health reform work. And the Finance Committee probably did weaken the mandate too much. But AHIP, apparently unable to help itself, didn’t stop there. Instead, the report threw every anti-reform argument the authors could think of at the wall, hoping that something would stick…But the insurers wanted it all…by overreaching, they may have ensured that they won’t get it.”

Generally, I don’t take too seriously what Krugman writes. However, in this piece, he is absolutely correct regarding AHIP’s overreach on its report last week. The report SHOULD have concentrated specifically on the weakened mandate, the violation of the Democrat/insurance industry deal and the higher costs therein for the insurance industry (and, thus, consumers) should it keep its end of the bargain without Democratic support- but AHIP left itself vulnerable to criticism by spreading itself too thin. Too, the report was released on Tuesday, October 13, the same day as the Senate Finance Committee vote on Chairman Baucus’ mark. Released on that date with a concise, pointed argument against the weakened mandate, the report is a dagger in the side of health reform. Released on Tuesday with a flailing, “hope-something-sticks” attack…it’s a public relations boon to health reform proponents, and the public option in particular, as John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute points out.

Oh, and George Will’s newest column rocks.

David Frum has an interesting piece comparing New York 23 and the New Jersey Gubernatorial campaign.  He writes: 

My good friend Jim Geraghty observes at National Review: “I realize this statement will break the heart of supporters of Chris Daggett, the independent running for governor in New Jersey, but he’s acting as incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine’s bodyguard.”

Here at NewMajority, John Vecchione likewise derides Daggett as a spoiler.

From an electoral point, Geraghty and Vecchione are exactly correct. But isn’t the same thing true of Doug Hoffman? Yet the electoral arithmetic that seems all-important in New Jersey matters not a bit in NY-23, where national conservative leaders have queued to endorse Hoffman over Scozzafava.

Agreed: Hoffman seems a much more attractive candidate than Scozzafava, and would probably make a much better member of Congress.

But I interviewed Daggett this past weekend, and I can attest – this independent too is a much more attractive candidate than his official Republican rival…

Like most New Jersey Republicans, [Daggett] is unexcited by social issues, accepting the status quo on abortion, guns, and gay rights. (On that last, he says he’ll leave the issue to the legislature. If they pass same-sex marriage, he’ll sign it.) And make no mistake: Daggett has been a Republican almost all his life. A protégé of former Governor Thomas Kean, he was appointed as state Environmental Protection Agency administrator by Ronald Reagan.

Daggett would make a very good governor. The rules of American politics seem likely to deny him his chance. But here’s the question for a national conservative audience:

If you are reconciled to losing NY-23 in order to send a warning to the GOP not to ignore Hoffman voters, what if anything do you have to say to Daggett voters? While Hoffman voters form the party’s base nationwide, Daggett voters are the swing voters the GOP must win to regain its competitiveness in the northeast. Without Hoffman voters, the Republican party would not exist. Without Daggett voters, the Republican party cannot win a national majority.

Frum then goes on to note  a Democracy Corps study suggesting a cultural divide;  that the most staunchly conservative voters have an Beckian insular mindset at odds with the swing-voter now flocking to Daggett.  I think Frum is, for once, right to point to the inconsistency of conservatives in chastising Daggett while promoting Hoffman.  In both situations, so-called Republicans are helping a liberal Democrat win the seat.  There’s no getting around that. 

But, again, Frum has an odd handle on causes.   I find it, frankly, incredible that he is trying to pin Daggett’s success on his lack ”excitement  about social issues”.  With the exception of Corzine’s egregious suggestion that Christie’s health care plan would stop mammogram screenings, Corzine hasn’t gotten an inch of mileage out of cultural attacks.  And surely Frum’s fiscal conservative ideal would have faced a similar charge. 

Now, of course, he’s careful to note that by “cultural divide” he’s not primarily talking about actual social issues.  He’s done this, I suspect, because he realizes that Christie hasn’t talked about social issues and that social conservatives find him unconvincing and insincere.  Indeed, Frum doesn’t seem to have any particularly clear idea why this cultural divide applies to the Christie/Daggett/Corzine race.  We’re left to think that, in some vague way, Chris Christie gives off Beckian vibes. 

This is nonsense.  Christie has faltered because he’s decided to run as Thomas Dewey circa 48′.  He’s been big on lofty talk, heavily reliant on his reputation, and content to avoid specifics in an, apparent, attempt to overcome a presumed liberal consensus.  You can pin the rejection of this sort of politics to a socially indifferent, good-government electorate if you like: but not, I think, very persuasively.  

It’s worth noting, though, the apparently unironic gall of the moderate set of the party.  In the primary they urged us to think strategically by selecting the socially temperate, good government Christie, over the socially conservative, wonky Steve Lonegan.  Now, in the general election, Christie is bleeding Republicans and independents because of the vacuity of his campaign, and the cultural conservatives are still to blame.  Sometimes cultural conservatism stops a candidate from winning the center, but there’s no evidence of that here. 

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog

Published minutes ago on the Governor’s Facebook page and entitled “Good Intentions Aren’t Enough with Health Care Reform”:

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our employment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists…” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

I’m anxious to see the media coverage of this piece. Although Palin voiced some of the same complaints others have made about the Baucus Bill, they will have more influence coming from her. Regardless, the fact that she has highlighted some of the drawbacks of the bill, which has received rather positive coverage as a middle-of-the-road compromise by the mainstream media, should help increase public opposition.

Update: In a positive sign, the Politico seems to have received Palin’s note well, with an article called “Palin Offers Calm Critique of Baucus Bill”. The article opens with the following:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin penned a tough but wonky critique Saturday night of the health care bill approved this week by the Senate Finance Committee.

In a more than 1,000-word essay posted on her Facebook page shortly before midnight, Palin knocked the bill sponsored by Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for not setting up proper cost offsets, but offered none of the more incinedary, “death-panel” type claims that have marked her previous comments.

That kind of coverage should help to improve Independents’ perception of the Governor.

Many may have already read it, but Friday, Sarah authored an energy-focused op-ed for National Review:

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

The Governor makes a great point about the level of environmental restrictions on energy production here vs. those in Russia and the Middle East. Say what you will about Sarah, but she knows energy. She needs to continue producing similarly thoughtful and informative op-eds and speeches if she hopes to win over Independents. With this piece and her Hong Kong speech, she seems to be on the right track.

First, here’s the link to Doug Hoffman’s Congressional Campaign site.

I live in a Bush-voting congressional district that is held by a liberal Democratic congressman.  We’ll have a strong Republican candidate, but we’ll need every extra dollar to promote the candidate.  And I’m watching Michael Steele’s RNC and Pete Session’s NRCC as they’re on track to spend $1 million unnecessarily promoting a far-left Republican for the November 3, 2009, special election in the New York 23rd Congressional District.

Yesterday, I complimented Mike Pence and Michael Steele for staying neutral on of this race.  But The Hill reports:

The RNC will give $85,000 to the coordinated campaign efforts, the maximum allowed by federal law. And the RNC will give the New York state Republican Party what a source described as a six-figure transfer in order to run more advertising on behalf of Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R).

The Hill adds:

The NRCC has poured $567,000 into the race so far, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

It’s possible that Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman could win this election.  The RNC and the NRCC is supporting Republican Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who:

• Supports card-check.
• Voted for $180 million New York state bailout-type legislation called the “Foreclosure Prevention Act.”
• May or may not support cap-and-trade.
• May or may not later change her party registration in 2010 to run as an Independent.
• Supports Obama’s failed “stimulus,” which was opposed by 100% of US House Republicans.
• ACORN supports.
• The Daily Kos supports.
• The AFL-CIO supports.
• The SEIU supports.
• Planned Parenthood not only supports, but also awarded a “Maggie Award,” named after the eugenics-supporting founder Margaret Sanger.
• NARAL supports.

Related news:

1. The Hill:  “DSCC beats GOP for third consecutive fundraising quarter.”
2. Jay Cost in March 2009:  “Should Republicans Be Worried about Michael Steele?”
3. Jay Cost on October 14, 2009 (before the publicity of the RNC’s decision to spend money in NY-23):  “Republicans Should Be Concerned About What’s Happening to the RNC.”

My pre-reply to commenters who will state, “It doesn’t make sense for Republicans NOT to support Republicans.  That’s the point of a political party.”  No, that doesn’t necessarily make sense. The point of an organization is to exist and succeed long-term, rather than to merely succeed in the short-term and fail in the long-term.  I’ll say the same thing about Chambers of Commerce when they actively oppose school choice, when school choice costs less and provides a better quality of education:  when a group’s short-term actions cause long-term damage to the organization, no, it doesn’t make sense.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP and a former state representative. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.

This is an issue about which you may want to contact your representatives in Congress ASAP.

Obama will soon sign a document in Copenhagen that will subordinate the United States to a global authority. At Bethel University in St. Paul, Lord Monckton, former science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ‘gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change’, according to this report, which goes on to say that Monckton raised ‘the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention’.

That issue is nothing less than the establishment of world government.

Quotations from Lord Monckton’s address:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. …

So, at last, the communists … are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it….

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed … and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. …

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty …

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

I’m going to piggyback on Aron’s thread here, because I couldn’t help but notice the desperation response in the comments in response to the suggestion that Mike Huckabee is the frontrunner for 2012:

Numbers aren’t everything

They seem to be when a poll shows Romney leading. When it comes to campaigns we talk about little more than numbers. When those numbers come in on a PAC fundraising report, numbers are everything. However, a poll shows Romney trailing and “numbers aren’t everything.”  But, let’s continue on:

Numbers aren’t everything, and even in terms of numbers you’re only talking a 5-point differential, despite Fox’s best efforts to make it larger. What will prove decisive in the end will be electability, organization, and resources. Advantage: Mitt.

Resources=money=numbers, which isn’t everything.

However, examining the three “Advantage: Mitt” areas, we’re left with something to be desired.

As to electability, for six solid unbroken months, Huckabee comes closer to beating Obama in the Public Policy Polling trial heats. While one must take these type of polls with a grain of salt, when looking at real world polls, there’s no significant edge for Romney, and even a slight edge for Huckabee.

Against trial heat after trial heat that fails to show a Romney edge against Obama, Romney supporters offer as evidence, their own unbiased evaluations of the American electorate.

As for organization, he had the best organization in the country in 2008. He had the support of the political establishment and folks like David Keene and Jay Sekulow, and the biggest number of endorsements from Republican members of Congress. It bought him wins in Caucus States that other campaigns ignored in order to win big prizes, as well as winning a state he saved from the depths of PR humiliation, the one he governed, and the one where his father governed.

As for money, he outspent Huckabee 8:1 and they ended up essentially tied. I’d be surprised if Romney ends up outspending Huckabee more than 3:1.

A five point edge, two years before the first state votes doesn’t mean a whole lot in that generic sense.  But, we’ve seen Huckabee and we’ve seen Romney before. Huckabee went from an asterisk in the polls to in the thick of it. Romney had a chance, he had the organization, he had Bob Jones III in South Carolina. He blew a big lead in Iowa. he finished 4th after pouring millions into South Carolina. As former Governor of Massachusetts, he lost New Hampshire.

I appreciate Romney’s skills in the world of business and in rescuing the Olympics, and in having a good family,  but does Romney have what it takes to win against Huckabee? No, he’s not a good politician. He won’t capture McCain’s Independent to come out and vote for him. Whatever he really is, he comes off as a phony. 

I hear people talk about America’s need to have a businessman in office. Yet, America has never realized that need. Not when Wendell Wilkie ran, not when Steve Forbes ran, not when Ross Perot ran, or when Morry Taylor ran.

This is even more true today than it has been in years past with the poor reputation of Corporate America.

What we see right now are the battlefield generals putting their troops in place, and preparing for battle. On one side, we have Mitt Romney, who like General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga frittered away advantage after advantage. Romney-er-Burgoyne has surrounded himself when the same ineffective and incompetent folks who helped him to defeat last time. On the other hand, you have Huckabee who like a Washington or Stonewall Jackson has shown an ability to succeed with limited resources and to take tactical advantages. The forces are evenly matched on the battlefield or even slightly in Washington-Jackson-Huckabee’s favor. Who do you expect to win?

Numbers aren’t everything, particularly right now. However, when Romney supporters are remidning us of that, it shows how fragile the whole Romney campaign is. Romney needs a wide advantage on the field of battle, because even a mediocre general can win. If Romney begins with a strong enough advantage, a 20 point lead, for instance, then he can simply avoid losing too much support as Huckabee will be playing catch-up. However, Romney starting out even makes him play a game, he has no ability to win.  

Romney’s best chance to win is for Huckabee to not run, because in a Huckabee-Romney race,  the actual intangibles of a political campaign favor Huckabee.

And the hopes of a Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty surging and chipping away at Huckabee is thin gruel at best. The Rasmussen survey showed a 5 point lead for Huckabee with Palin and Pawlenty in, and a 5 point lead with Palin and Pawlenty out, meaning that these candidates votes split about even from Huckabee and Romney. In addition, the survey showed Romney with far fewer people who had a “Very Favorable” opinion of him than Huckabee (42-34%), suggesting that Romney’s support is softer and therefore more likely to give up voters to a Pawlenty or Palin.

There’s one mystery to this poll is the high unfavorables for Tim Pawlenty and low poll numbers. The reason Pawlenty has such high unfavorable and the most people not wanting him to be a nominee is that most Republicans across the nation have no idea who in blazes Tim Pawlenty is. Republicans are conservative by nature, and the idea of nominating someone you’ve never heard of, and don’t know who they are is absolutely a non-starter.

Pawlenty’s never having run before is a handicap that will be hard to overcome. How hard remains to be seen. Despite the “Next in Line” formula being garbage, the fact is that unlike Democrats, Republicans are not in the habit of handing their nomination to those who haven’t run for national office or had a national reputation.

On the bright side, New Hampshire could put him on the map as a national figure to be reckoned with provided he stays in the race that long.

Rasmussen 2012 GOP Primary

Suppose the Republican nomination came down to a choice between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, for whom would you vote?

• Mike Huckabee 44%
• Mitt Romney 39%

Suppose the Republican nomination came down to a choice between Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, for whom would you vote?

• Mitt Romney 52%
• Sarah Palin 37%

Suppose the Republican nomination came down to a choice between Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, for whom would you vote?

• Mike Huckabee 55%
• Sarah Palin 35%

I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

Mitt Romney

• Very favorable 34%
• Somewhat favorable 44%
• Somewhat unfavorable 8%
• Very unfavorable 4%

Sarah Palin

• Very favorable 42%
• Somewhat favorable 33%
• Somewhat unfavorable 13%
• Very unfavorable 9%

Mike Huckabee

• Very favorable 46%
• Somewhat favorable 32%
• Somewhat unfavorable 12%
• Very unfavorable 3%

Newt Gingrich

• Very favorable 34%
• Somewhat favorable 35%
• Somewhat unfavorable 14%
• Very unfavorable 8%

Tim Pawlenty

• Very favorable 10%
• Somewhat favorable 35%
• Somewhat unfavorable 21%
• Very unfavorable 7%

Michael Steele

• Very favorable 11%
• Somewhat favorable 28%
• Somewhat unfavorable 18%
• Very unfavorable 9%

Survey of 750 likely 2012 GOP voters was conducted October 15. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

A couple of thoughts on that Rasmussen poll that was released the other day showing Huckabee edging Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, with Palin a distant third. First, I think that it’s clear that either Huck or Mitt will be the nominee, absent a leap into the race by some yet unidentified superstar who would clear the field and take the nod. Of the current pack, Huck and Mitt have the lowest negatives among Republicans, and they are both able to claim they came in second last time. I think this is good for the country as the 2012 election will be about economics and both Romney and Huckabee have demonstrated that they have the capacity to contrast Obama’s communitarian solutions with center-right consumerist solutions to middle class woes.

Secondly, Palin and Huck do appear to be fighting for the same voters, at least in part. About half of GOP primary voters are divided between Palin and Huck, with a quarter coming out of the gate backing Romney. As Palin falls, Huck gains, meaning that Romney should be hoping that both Palin and Huck get into the race and run strong campaigns in order to yield a three-way national tie that will inevitably give Romney a strong plurality victory in the more secular, more affluent, delegate-rich blue states even if Huck and Palin split the red states.

Third, Romney appears to be winning the McCain Coalition from 2008: the middle class, secular Republicans, Catholics, and a hearty dose of mainline Protestants for good measure. Romney’s likely winning the Gingrich-style techno-Republican set — educated folks with white collar careers who want government to be streamlined, reorganized, and who want consumer-based, market-based solutions to public problems. Huck is winning working class Republicans and religious Republicans, though there isn’t a huge degree of difference between the economic solutions being put forth by Huck and Romney (both talk about consumer-based health reform, etc.). So what we’re really seeing is a cultural divide within the Republican electorate over these two candidates, not a policy divide.

Finally, Pawlenty, Palin, and Newt all seem unlikely to win the nod due to opposition from fellow Republicans, for different reasons, of course. Newt is likely seen as unelectable, hence the opposition to his nomination, and Palin may be seen similarly, or she may be seen as unprepared for high office, or too divisive, or some combination of all of that. Pawlenty seems to get less popular with Republicans as time goes on. The fact that opposition to his nomination went from 15 percent of Republicans in the previous poll to 28 percent this time around shows that T-Paw is rubbing Republicans the wrong way for some reason or other, probably because the last thing GOP voters want to hear right now is that the Republican Party has to change, even though it does. As such, I suspect any reformist candidate is not going to get the nod this time around, Pawlenty included.

Incidentally, Palin polls extremely well with Republicans under 40, but abysmally with Republicans over 40. I’m not sure what that means. Are the young people who are presently self-identifying as Republicans simply more revolutionary than their older counterparts, meaning that the GOP in 20 years will be one big Tea Party? Or is this simply an issue of people being more ideological and philosophical in their youth, and more pragmatic and skeptical as they reach middle age and gain some life experience?

Couple of random thoughts to get you started:

• It’s absolutely unreal that 95% of blacks vote for Democrats, especially since they’ve only made their misery as a group grow.  The GOP needs to deal with it, and ignoring the problem hasn’t helped for 40 years.
• US Atty Christie appears to be losing ground to Gov Corzine.  It was always a longshot race, based on how NJ votes, but it isn’t impossible to come back.  A win would be fabulous, a loss disappointing.
• Based on the commentary here recently, the GOP STILL has not learned that personally attacking our own is a recipe for disaster.  Are we going to be spoiled children, calling names back and forth and taking our ball and going home if we don’t get our way?  We collectively need to get past the 2008 primaries and focus on winning 2010 and 2012.

Gotta run, but I hope that’s enough to get people started!

UPDATE:  How could I forget?  Sec Clinton is more popular than Pres Obama!  It’s amazing how people can rehab their image over time.  People actually think she’s more of a moderate than him!