InsiderAdvantage Florida Political Survey

What is your opinion of the job performance of Governor Charlie Crist?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 41%

There are several versions of a new national healthcare bill being considered by the Congress. In general, what is your opinion of the passage of a national healthcare bill by Congress?

• Favor passage 49%
• Oppose 47%

What is your opinion of a fee to be charged by the government on any individual who does not obtain healthcare insurance?

• Favor 24%
• Oppose 66%

What is your opinion of a national tax on financial transactions, such as the sale of stock by individuals and other entities?

• Favor 23%
• Oppose 63%

Recently, it was announced that President Barack Obama is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. What is your opinion of President Obama’s selection as winner of the Nobel Prize for 2009?

• The president should be awarded the Nobel Prize 33%
• The president should not be awarded the Nobel Prize 47%

Survey of 523 registered voters was conducted October 13. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Today, the Cato Institute’s Richard Rahn wrote an excellent op-ed for the Washington Times, in which he evaluates the “worst recession since the Great Depression” meme and compares the situations inherited and actions by Presidents Reagan and Obama. I urge everyone to give it a read, but here are the highlights:

Even though the president, many members of Congress and many journalists keep saying we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, it is an assertion that is premature, to say the least.

At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

…The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century.

…President Obama has taken the polar opposite approach to President Reagan’s to reignite the economic-growth engine. Reagan pushed for cuts in marginal tax rates to encourage people to work, save and invest in an effort to spur the supply side of the economy as well as the demand side. Mr. Obama has chosen only to greatly increase government spending in an attempt to increase demand while, at the same time, many of his new labor, environmental, energy and other regulations are impeding the supply side of the economy.

Mr. Obama had the advantage of both houses of Congress being controlled by his party, so he was able to get his stimulus package passed within a few weeks of taking office. Reagan was handicapped by having the opposition party in control of the House of Representatives, whose members both delayed (until August 1981) and reduced his tax-reduction stimulus package.

In fact, the Reagan tax cuts were not fully phased in until 1983, more than two years after he assumed office. Reagan, hobbled by an opposition Congress, was not able to get the spending-growth restraint he wanted, so substantial budget deficits occurred early in his administration, at one point reaching 6 percent of GDP. In retrospect, the Reagan deficits look small compared to the deficit of 13.5 percent of GDP this year and the Obama administration and Congressional Budget Office projections of huge deficits in the years to come.

Once Reagan’s tax cuts were largely phased in, the economy took off – it grew by 7.6 percent in 1984 alone. We are in the midst of a most interesting experiment. The administration and the CBO forecast moderate and uninterrupted economic growth between the end of this year and 2019. If they are correct, 1980-82 – not the current recession – will remain the longest sustained period without economic growth since World War II. If they are wrong, they indeed will have the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and no one to blame but themselves.

The Obama administration will undoubtedly continue to ascribe blame for the recession to the Bush administration for as long as possible. In 2012, we need a Republican candidate who will challenge Obama on his dubious economic claims and champion sound, free-market prescriptions for the economy’s ails.

We can only hope that should that nominee emerge victoriously from the general election, they encounter a Congress more amendable to their proposals. We must also hope that Republicans in Congress resist the allure of power and maintain their new-found opposition to federal spending.

There are now more U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than there ever were during the Bush administration. From The Washington Post:

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq “surge” that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

So I wonder if liberal Democrats feel betrayed by their President? Did they really care about these issues or is war criticism just a Democrat tactic to win elections?
HT: Cranach

Rasmussen Pennsylvania 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Pat Toomey 45% (48%) [39%]
• Arlen Specter 40% (36%) [50%]

• Joe Sestak 38% (35%) [41%]
• Pat Toomey 37% (43%) [35%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Pat Toomey 52% (54%) [50%] / 27% (26%) [35%] {+25%}
• Joe Sestak 37% / 34% {+3%}
• Arlen Specter 46% (43%) [53%] / 52% (54%) [43%] {-6%}

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

• Strongly favor 32% (29%) [42%]
• Somewhat favor 19% (22%) [18%]
• Somewhat oppose 10% (12%) [13%]
• Strongly oppose 38% (35%) [26%]

How would you rate the job Ed Rendell has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 9%
• Somewhat approve 28%
• Somewhat disapprove 24%
• Strongly disapprove 37%

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

• Favor 43%
• Oppose 43%

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

• Favor 23%
• Oppose 63%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 13. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 11 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 16 are in brackets.

As it turns out, there is a GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2009 who thinks Gov. Palin is an asset. Not in Virginia, not New Jersey – but let’s not forget that the Northern Mariana Islands are also electing a Governor this year. And guess who’s picture is front and center on the website of GOP nominee Heinz Sablan Hofschneider? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, or Newt Gingrich. I might also add that two of the last three governors in the Northern Marianas were Republicans (and the current Governor is an ex-Republican who started his own third party), so Hofschneider is a serious candidate.

Now, maybe I’m going out on a limb here – but I think that Sarah’s best move is to catch the next flight to the islands and campaign at a Hofschneider rally. No – it’s not Virginia, but let’s remember that Palin’s camp said she would “move mountains” if Bob McDonnell wanted her help. Personally, I think that the Northern Mariana’s are no different, and Palin should “move mountains” for Heinz Hofschneider – not just becasue he has the courage to support her but because it would be a brilliant PR move.

Think about what would happen if Palin announced a last minute campaign stop in Saipan to push Hofschneider, and his running mate Arnold Palacios, over the top. First off, it would casue a media circus as the major networks descended on the tiny island capital. If it were close enough to the election, a Palin visit would likely elevate the Northern Marianas election to equal or greater importance (in the media’s eyes) than the races in New Jersey and Virginia, upstaging victories by supposedly anti-Palin Republicans.

Second, it would be the biggest news event in the history of the Northern Marianas, and hence would generate a wave of support among the locals. In this case, when I say that half the island would show up to see Sarah Palin, I literally mean that half of the population of Saipan Island would probably be in attendance. It may be a small island, but there are 62,000 people on that small island, and Palin rallies have been known to draw 20,000 people. Given the historical significance of the event, I would not be at all surprised if Saipan gave Sarah her biggest crowd ever.

Third, considering that mainland heavyweights never show up in the Northern Marianas, Palin would probably do more good for Heinz Hofschneider than she could ever dream of doing for Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell. Heinz would likely win in a rout after attracting Sarah’s attention, and she could legitimately take credit for single-handedly installing him in the Governor’s office. And before you tell me that the Marianas are small potatoes, I would point out their Governor gets the same membership in the National Governor’s Association (an in theory the Republican Governors Association) as any other Governor.

So, while the idea may be a little off-the-wall, I see no reason why Gov. Palin can’t make an appearance in the Northern Marianas, and every reason why she should. Furthermore, if Sarah says that she will “move mountains” for any gubernatorial candidate who wants her to – than I think she has an obligation to move those mountains for the one 2009 gubernatorial candidate who wants those mountains moved.

See you in Saipan, Sarah!

In 1993, well-respected columnist William Raspberry wrote an editorial criticizing Rush Limbaugh as a bigot. A number of his readers challenged him to back up his claims. Just give one or two bigoted Rush quotes, one of them asked.  It embarrassed Mr. Raspberry, an honest man if there ever was one, to admit he couldn’t.

So William Raspberry began studying. He listened to a couple of Rush’s radio shows. He also did some heavy browsing in Rush’s new (in 1993) book.

The result was this famous editorial that came out two weeks later.  It seems that Mr. Raspberry had relied upon the opinions of friends and associates who all accepted it as an article of faith that Rush Limbaugh was a bigot.  After his research, William Raspberry had to admit that neither Rush nor his audience merited the epithet.  And so he apologized as publicly and as sincerely as he could.

This apology had an immediate affect.   People admire integrity.   Mr. Raspberry proved he had it.  He was a liberal writer, and he remained a liberal writer, but more conservatives began reading his column.  Why? Because he was an “honest” liberal.  His new readers didn’t necessarily agree with what he had to say, but they trusted him as a man of integrity.

In light of the current controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh and the NFL, this sixteen year old editorial needs to be dusted off and re-read.

The Fort Meyers, FL, News-Press reports that a new poll pegs Charlie Crist’s approval rating at a number much lower than the Governor has become accustomed to seeing:

The survey of 523 registered voters by InsiderAdvantage indicated that Crist still has positive numbers across Florida — 48 percent approval, compared to 41 percent disapproval of his overall job performance. But his ratings have been running in the 60 to 70 percent range.

Matt Towery, head of the Atlanta consulting firm of InsiderAdvantage, said he “was somewhat taken aback” by the numbers.

“It has been conventional wisdom based on prior polling that Gov. Crist was somehow immune to the more tepid approval ratings we have seen for other incumbents in large states facing significant challenges,” he said.

But Towery said the poll numbers of some issues like health-care reform, taxes and whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize were consistent with expectations, so “it became clear that this survey is on to something.”

The poll did not compare Crist and former House Speaker Marco Rubio, his opponent in the Republican race for the U.S. Senate. Among Republicans in the poll, Towery said, Crist’s job-approval rating was 55 percent — compared to 38 percent disapproval.

While we should wait to see if additional polls show the same sizable drop for Good Time Charlie, this could signify the beginning of rough times for the Governor. This is a good day for the Marco Rubio team.

Update: An internal poll conducted by the Kendrick Meek campaign gives Crist a 47% approval rating, one point lower than the InsiderAdvantage survey. Stay tuned.

After what feels like ages, I’ve finished my audiobook of William Manchester’s The Glory and the Dream.  Manchester, for those of you living under a history rock, is the author of a terrific two part biography of Winston Churchill.  The Glory and the Dream details a subject closer to Manchester’s experience; the social history of America from 1932 to 1972.  So here’s a review.

At 1400 pages, including notes, this book contains a simply gargantuan amount of information.  Too much, almost.  And while the audio-book, significant glitches aside, was wonderfully read, I sort of wish I’d bought a hard copy.  I won’t remember even a tenth of the information he sought to convey and there’s no easy way to rewind.  Still, Manchester has a unique knack of leaving us with vivid impressions.  Twice now, I’ve read his descriptions of the bonus marchers (in this, and in American Caesar) and each time I felt something new.  It’s these years- those immediately preceding the war- that Manchester knows best and they leave the greatest impression.  His depiction of depression era life, the fragility of it contrasted with the sturdiness and determination of its people, is breathtaking.  I feel like I know its children and, when they went off to and returned from war, to a country prosperous and whole, I felt I knew their pride.  In terms of creating a vivid sense of a snapshot in time, Manchester is virtually flawless through the 50′s.

The first 2/3′s of The Glory and the Dream are unsurpassed for vision.  And yet…he doesn’t seem as comfortable in the 60′s or, rather, he seems too comfortable.  The big moments don’t seem quite as big, and the small moments- the little narrative vignettes he inserts- seem less emblematic of an era.  He sometimes loses the thread.  Structurally, this is problematic.  The great strength of the Glory and the Dream is in the method of telling.  Rather than proceeding on a straight chronology, Manchester chooses to give a broad survey of political events, and then loop back to zoom in on particular cultural phenomenons.  Davy Crocket, Norma Jean Baker, and hula hoops make appearances.  Because of this method, we build our own narrative about the culture without having it drummed into us.  Through most of the 60′s and 70′s, when these vignettes make an appearance, they’re either exclusively political, or they don’t seem to produce any consistent narrative.  Maybe this is what he was driving at, as a way to highlight the muddle of the age.  But, intentional or not, I don’t have any clear sense of how the mass of ordinary Americans behaved during those turbulent times.

And here’s where Manchester’s politics intrude a bit.  It’s strange to note that the biographer of two great conservative heroes, Winston Churchill and Douglas MacArthur, was a New Deal era Democrat pretty much all his life.  Sometimes this doesn’t matter.  The story of the early civil rights movement sparkles and I can’t help but believe that Manchester’s obvious leanings give the tale some of its sheen.  He’s less persuasive on the development of black militants and upper-class, young hippies.   Now, Manchester’s too honest of a historian to leave out the ugly moments, but his focus and occasional commentary is sometimes incredible.  Cops are properly castigated for their occasional abuses, but their sometimes foes are usually let off scotch free.  They’re expressing a fundamental “right to protest”, or they’re reacting somewhat reasonably to centuries of abuse.  Whatever the legitimate grievances- and they were many- of blacks and youth in the late 60s, surely their actual actions deserve a sharper microscope than that.

We’re treated to, probably in a 50 page span, a noncommittal description of two random youths copulating in a field without exchanging a word, and then a glorious appraisal of success of the sex education movement.  Manchester says, tellingly, “finally sanity prevailed”.  It never occurs to him that there might some connection between the two incidents.  So, he’s altogether too inclined to trust liberal ideals.  When Barry Goldwater comes around, all Manchester can manage, in praise, is something like “he was right about farm subsidies”.  Some of this is not his fault.  Conservatism, as a force, was still 5-6 years off when this volume hit stores.  Most of its criticisms of the New Deal and the Great Society had yet to bear fruit.  Indeed, one of the remarkable bits about this volume is its failure to anticipate some later developments.  Ronald Reagan is mentioned just 3 times, and his Time for Choosing speech is ignored entirely.  But, this seems like a somewhat understandable oversight  compared to the evaluation of the Cold War.  After recounting the Brezhnev summit in 72′ Manchester says, flatly, “The Cold War was over”.  Well….

Still, despite these flaws, this remains the single best broadly focused history book I’ve read.  Even at its worst, Manchester’s writing scales small mountains.  And he’s preternaturally optimistic and, as far as he can see it, fair.  It’s no small thing for a book published in 1974 to treat Richard Nixon with relative equanimity.  We aren’t given a rousing psychological analysis designed to prove that, really, he’d been rotten from the start.  Instead, we can rejoice in his successes and mourn and scorn his downfall.  Properly Shakespearean.  Where the book goes wrong, it does so honestly and without malice.  As it should be.  If you have 20-50 hours to spare, give it a read.

-

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

That realization by this former Democrat in the early 90′s changed my life

Raised by parents that were instrumental in integrating the races in my South Carolina hometown in the 60s and 70s, I was receptive in my youth to the Democratic Party’s rhetoric of racial inclusion. I practiced affirmative action in my law firm in the 80s and became a party official; but almost from the beginning of my political activism there was some unease with my liberal associations.

Fellow democrats giggled about an empire Reagan correctly denounced as evil; ignored the success of tax cuts; and hired mostly white paralegals. As a very young county party chairman I was appalled at hostility to people of faith by my party elders, as well as the unfair demonization of Republicans as racist and uncaring for the poor.

I admit at this time that I suffered from extreme, classic Democratic Party class envy and that later on, my reluctance to change parties while still in my hometown was due partly to this and cowardice, but I couldn’t deny that among the legal community and members of my church, it was invariably mostly the Republicans that actually hired blacks.

Then I heard the Wonder of Rush, and Mike Gallagher on 950 WORD-AM. I had already been softened up by the hypocrisy of fellow democrats, but it was a joyous revelation to hear conservative republicans denounce outright racists live on Talk Radio, as Gallagher did almost on a daily basis.

Rush didn’t seem to get many calls from racists, and so didn’t have such opportunities, and most of my democrat friends denounced Rush as a bigot. At this time in the early 90s, I disagreed with Rush on most issues, but simply could not turn the radio away from his show for more than 15 seconds after a fit of anger.

There was something about Rush’s attitude that fascinated me, and it took two incidents that occurred within a single week to open my eyes to a truth that would change my life.

I was a prolific criminal defense trial lawyer and so had a lot of contact with police officers. One day, while at the City Police Department, I made an offhand comment to a black female sergeant that assumed she was a Democrat. I was an official on the county party at the time. The Seargeant rebuked me with a kind of righteous indignation that had never been directed at me by anyone I didn’t call Daddy.

Later that week, I attended an event promoting the Rush Limbaugh Show, with Mike Gallagher hosting a special appearance by Bo Snerdly, Rush Limbaugh’s longtime business partner, silent sidekick on the air, and call screener.

The moment I saw Snerdly, I understood what it was about Rush that so appealed to me. I was already kind of alone among my democrat friends in defending Rush against charges of racism, and wondered why he didn’t defend himself more, and then I saw Snerdly and immediately understood this man called Rush, because I saw something in him that saw in my father and, dare I say, in me.

I never had known that Snerdly was black. Rush never mentioned that fact despite all the libel and slander against him and despite the fact that he regularly spoke back and forth with Snerdly (not heard) about such charges on the air.

Rush was secure in the truth, and looking back on the EIB experience, I realized that what so appealed to me about Rush was that he treated all people the same, no matter the race. Race was irrelevant.

Rush was the embodiment of the character content, color-blind dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. that became my dream in my youth.

So it is with great sadness that I see a man whose complete absence of racism made me receptive to his conservative message, is now vilified by the ignorant and the vile, as the antithesis.

It is with great sadness that I see otherwise brilliant journalists like Jason Whitlock rely upon unreliable sources for despicable false quotes rather than fact-check, or, pray tell, actually call Rush before going to press.

But I also know that it is not the recently released false quotes that are at the heart of the faux uproar attending a possible purchase of the St. Louis Rams. The fake quotes were first posted on line in 2005. Rush has been vilified since 1988 for accurate quotes, either taken out of context, or completely misunderstood. But the main reason for the uproar is that liberals see conservatism itself as racist or, rather, a threat to their own racism cloaked as compassion.

So, it is with even more sadness that I see ignorance and/or political correctness enforced like Stalism (without the mass murder) among some NFL owners. One nugget from the Colt’s Irsay is a smoking gun to break through the ignorance, and that is his suggestion that Tony Dungy be asked his opinion of Rush.

Dungy appeared twice on Rush’s show last year!

I am thrilled that Rush is fighting back this time, and am already happy that ESPN’s Michael Wilbon has retracted his objections and Colin Cowherd has defended Rush, as have others.

I am saddened that so many are still so fearful of the PC police that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious meaning of the english language when evaluating Rush’s ESPN description of journalist apologists for McNabb; and that the Today Show left his explanations of the Magic Negro parody and the drive-by ignorance of the school children singing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama, umm, umm, umm.

President Obama’s surrender in the Gates-Harvard affair had given me hope that more white Americans were throwing off the false white guilt post-Obama Inauguration, and joing Rush in the post-racial world he has lived in for most if not all of his life.

I just thank God that heard the voice that embodied MLK’s dream and joined that world with Rush and Martin.

God bless you brother Rush. My prayers are always with you.

More DeVine examinations on race.

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.

Susquehanna Pennsylvania 2010 Political Survey

If the Democratic primary election for United States Senate were being held today, would you vote for Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, or someone else?

• Arlen Specter 44%
• Joe Sestak 16%
• None/other 18%
• Undecided 22%

If the general election for United States Senate were being held today, would you vote for Pat Toomey, the Republican, or Arlen Specter, the Democrat?

• Arlen Specter 43% (46%) [42%]
• Pat Toomey 41% (37%) [36%]
• None/other 4% (4%)
• Undecided 12% (13%)

If the Republican primary election for governor were being held today and the candidates were Tom Corbett and Jim Gerlach, for whom would you vote?

• Tom Corbett 36%
• Jim Gerlach 13%
• Undecided 50%

What is the single most important problem facing Pennsylvania today? That is, the one you would like to see resolved by your state elected officials.

• State budget crisis 28%
• Economy/jobs/unemployment 25%
• Taxes 11%
• Healthcare/prescription drugs 8%
• Politicians/government 8%
• Education/schools 5%

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

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Governor Ed Rendell is doing?

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 53%

Do you think Arlen Specter has done his job as United States Senator well enough to deserve reelection, or do you think it’s time to give a new person a chance?

• Deserves reelection 31%
• Time to give new person a chance 59%

Survey of 700 registered voters was conducted October 7-12. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points; +/- 5.71 percentage points among registered Republicans; +/- 5.15 percentage points among registered Democrats. Party registration breakdown: 52% (52%) Democrat; 42% (40%) Republican; 5% (8%) Independent/Other. Results from the poll conducted May 26-30 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted April 30 – May 2 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Among Republicans, 16% say Specter deserves reelection compared to 75% who want a new person. Among Democrats, 44% would reelect him compared to 45% who want a new person.

Toomey has a slightly stronger base within his own party, since he leads 71/16 among Republicans compared to Specter’s 64/17 margin among Democrats. Toomey also leads 43/36 with self-described “swing” voters, or those who say they usually split their tickets.

Quinnipiac New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 41% {43%} [47%] (46%)
• Jon Corzine 40% {39%} [37%] (40%)
• Chris Daggett 14% {12%} [9%] (7%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 41% {45%} [46%] (55%)
• Jon Corzine 32% {32%} [30%] (25%)
• Chris Daggett 20% {16%} [16%] (13%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

Among Christie Supporters

• Mind made up 80%
• Might change 20%

Among Corzine Supporters

• Mind made up 75%
• Might change 24%

Among Daggett Supporters

• Mind made up 39%
• Might change 59%

Among ‘Certain’ Voters

• Chris Christie 33%
• Jon Corzine 30%
• Chris Daggett 5%

(Among Daggett supporters) Who is your second choice for governor?

• Chris Christie 40%
• Jon Corzine 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 19% {11%} [8%] (4%) / 7% {3%} [4%] (3%) {+12%}
• Chris Christie 38% {38%} [41%] (42%) / 40% {38%} [30%] (20%) {-2%}
• Jon Corzine 40% {34%} [34%] (37%) / 53% {56%} [57%] (54%) {-13%}

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

• Approve 39% {36%} [34%] (36%)
• Disapprove 56% {58%} [60%] (58%)

Among Independents

• Approve 34% {31%} [28%] (26%)
• Disapprove 62% {63%} [65%] (70%)

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

• Yes 42% {37%} [44%]
• No 40% {36%} [31%]

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

• Yes 45% {44%} [40%]
• No 48% {45%} [51%]

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

• Yes 29%
• No 8%

If Jon Corzine is reelected governor, do you think property taxes will go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Go up 62% {61%}
• Go down 5% {3%}
• Stay about the same 30% {32%}

If Chris Christie is elected governor, do you think property taxes will go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Go up 35% {34%}
• Go down 16% {9%}
• Stay about the same 40% {46%}

If Chris Daggett is elected governor, do you think property taxes will go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Go up 22%
• Go down 11%
• Stay about the same 32%

Chris Christie says Jon Corzine has failed to make enough budget cuts. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 59%
• Disagree 35%

Among Independents

• Agree 68%
• Disagree 27%

Jon Corzine says Chris Christie is too vague on his budget plans. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 59%
• Disagree 25%

Among Independents

• Agree 62%
• Disagree 24%

Some people say that Christopher Daggett has no chance of winning the election for governor because he is a third-party candidate. Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree 77%
• Disagree 19%

Among Independents

• Agree 75%
• Disagree 21%

Jon Corzine has accused Chris Christie of wanting to drop mandated coverage for breast cancer exams. Do you think this is a legitimate campaign issue or an unfair attack?

• Legitimate issue 34%
• Unfair attack 60%

Among Independents

• Legitimate issue 28%
• Unfair attack 64%

Among Women

• Legitimate issue 35%
• Unfair attack 59%

Survey of 1,264 likely voters was conducted October 7-12. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 23-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-30 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 5-9 are in parentheses.

My latest piece for the American University Eagle about campus leftists. I’m not going to lie: I think that this is one of the most cutting and mordant pieces I’ve written in months.

I would like to dedicate this column to Community Action and Social Justice, Students for Justice In Palestine, and everyone who has ever taken a Gender Studies class. Without you all, I would have little to assure me of my personal sanity.

Is America plagued by an epidemic of hatred? Keep your ear to the ground on college campuses and you might hear the rumbling of angry movements struggling against this epidemic.

Such hatred apparently manifests itself in myriad -isms: racism, sexism, classism, and so forth. The movement against it — Social Justice — abhors such hatred: California’s anti-gay marriage law is reworked into ‘Proposition H8′ and opposition to liberalizing immigration laws is skewered as unvarnished racism against Hispanics. Hidden behind a wall of obscurantism is the key premise: that there are simply no legitimate conservative arguments to engage with. Opposition to amnesty or same-sex marriage can only be explained by madness, irrationality, or pure vitriol stemming from completely illegitimate beliefs.

This rendering of disagreements into moral crusades is even more bizarre when one considers the endless apologies that emerge from the right: one can’t listen to a speech on immigration by Tom Tancredo without hearing a dozen proclamations that he wants even more Hispanics in the United States if the process is legal and involves assimilation. If men of his ilk were truly agents of blind, irrational hatred, one would expect such hatred to manifest itself from time to time in his rhetoric. Did Stalin pay even a token compliment to the bourgeoisie? And yet, when Youth for Western Civilization brought Tancredo to campus, AU Students for Choice (huh?) organized hundreds of silent protesters to make a display against the supposed racism of the former Congressman.

As with all religious crusaders, though, the mission of the Social Justice advocates is not about the opponent, but about them. Agents of social change with an actual interest in changing hearts and minds engage not in finger-pointing and rigid ideological posturing, but in honest discussion and educational outreach. It is telling that Malcolm X was not the savior of the black cause in the 1960′s, but a footnote in history to the conciliatory outreach of Martin Luther King, Jr. In the same vein, the heirs of the tactics of the former — self-proclaimed “queers,” “Chicanos,” and “radical feminists” — are political street performers, not agents of positive change. At American University, they are identified by their claims to stand for the cause of “social justice” against “hatred.” But they further no cause except their own self-perception as an “involved” individual. They belong to an “I’m OK, You’re OK” self-validation club, not a social movement. To echo Barney Frank, they put pressure on nothing but the grass.

Campus supporters of Israel have been trying for ages to arrange a public debate between supporters and opponents of the state. Unfortunately, this seems to be verging on the impossible. De-legitimize the opponent entirely, and you’ve de-legitimized his argument — and thus, there is no need to combat it with facts or logic. After all, who needs to bother with debating an imperialist or a racist? And — here’s that vanity we just discussed — the person who calls out the agent of hate automatically assumes a morally righteous position. Ignore the other side. Dismiss it as imperialist, racist, homophobic, sexist — just make it illegitimate; make it go away. That’s what passes for winning an argument. And thus, the challenge to one’s own belief system is narrowly averted. Moral heroism is thereby attained, the dragon is slain, and the shadowboxer, assured of his vigilance, goes to sleep for the night, moving himself from one world of dreams into another.

A local Buffalo, NY, news outlet reports that former Gov. George Pataki will travel to Iowa next month to fundraise for Republicans in the state (h/t commenter Kevin):

The former New York governor will be the headline speaker at a funraising event on November 10th, according to Brian Kennedy, finance director for the Scott County Republican Party.

The visit could boost speculation that Pataki is planning to run for the Republican’s Party nomination in the 2012 election. Other potential GOP canadiates,such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, will be at an event in Des Moines three days prior.

Pataki spent time in Iowa during the 2008 presdential election, however, he did not seek the nomination.

As the story implies, this could end up as much ado about nothing, or it could signal that Pataki has bigger plans for 2012.

Today, the New York Post published an insightful explanation of the U.S. Dollar’s freefall in recent months:

Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen — not the greenbacks — a nearly complete reversal of the dollar’s onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar’s share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent — compared with two-thirds a decade ago.

Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks — the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.

Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the greenback on the operating table.

After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy — ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.

… Economists believe the market rebellion against the dollar will spread until Bernanke starts raising interest rates from around zero to the high single digits, and pulls back the flood of currency spewed from US printing presses.

“That’s a cure, but it’s also going to stifle any US economic growth,” said [Peter] Schiff. “The economy is addicted to the cheap interest and liquidity.”

The massive amount of responsibility and influence Bernanke has accumulated, along with the impossible balancing act he faces and growing public suspicion of the Federal Reserve could lead to a stunning fall from grace for the Fed Chairman, should a Fed audit or deeper economic troubles reach fruition. On another note, how about the quotes from Peter Schiff? I’d sure love to see him make a fool of Sen. Dodd in a debate.

In another episode of the double standard protecting overly aggressive liberals from media scorn, Chris Matthews dished out a massive low blow to Rush Limbaugh on today’s episode of Hardball:

You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?

Of course, if Rush had even brought up (without romanticizing) an attempted murder of Matthews, the media would have had a field day. This truly represents a new low for Matthews.

Finally, the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has penned a revealing op-ed about the true costs of the Baucus Bill. I encourage everyone to read it, but here are some excerpts:

The widely reported numbers are wrong: This bill would increase the deficit and cost more than $2 trillion over 10 years.

…First off, Baucus relies on some cuts that we know won’t actually get made.

Long ago, Congress enacted a series of annual cuts to Medicare physician payments that were supposed to begin in 2003. Starting that very year, however, Congress has repeatedly blocked those cuts.

Yet Baucus — contrary to all experience — assumes Congress will let those cuts take place starting in 2012. That implausible assumption creates some $234 billion in “savings” that will never materialize. Factor them out, and the supposed $81 billion in deficit reduction becomes $153 billion in fresh deficit spending.

…What of that $829 billion cost figure? It’s only CBO’s estimate of new federal spending on expanded insurance coverage. On his blog, ex-CBO Director Donald Marron suggests that the bill’s other new spending on health-related items boosts the total to $904 billion.

Plus, Baucus mandates new state spending on Medicaid — $33 billion, the CBO estimates. New total: $937 billion.

But Baucus’ most audacious gimmick is to push half the cost off the federal budget and onto the private sector — while persuading the CBO to ignore those costs.

The Baucus bill, like every other bill Congress has produced and the overhaul recently enacted in Massachusetts, would expand coverage by forcing Americans to buy insurance. Maybe you don’t want to call it a tax, but it’s still plainly a cost.

How large a cost? The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that new federal and state spending accounts for just 40 percent of the Bay State’s reforms’ cost — and the private-sector mandates for 60 percent.

Apply that ratio to the Baucus bill, and its actual cost exceeds $2 trillion.

In 1994, the CBO effectively killed the Clinton health plan by counting its private-sector mandates as part of the cost. This time around, congressional leaders wrote their bills so that CBO wouldn’t count them. But it’s just a gimmick — the mandates are still part of this bill’s cost.

I apologize to Romney supporters for Cannon’s knock on MASScare, but his analysis nonetheless shines light on the unsettling claims made by Democrats and the CBO. We Conservatives must NOT let up on health care.

I don’t bring up religion often. It’s not something I mix heavily into my politics, I come from a different spiritual place than most - and frankly, while I am both religious and conservative, I have never felt comfortable alongside the Dobsons and Falwells of the so-called ”religious right”. That said, every now and then something gets under my skin and it has to come out.

That happened this morning when I read that Shlomo Molla, a member of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) for the Kadima Party, decided to steal $10,000 worth of donations made by Ameican Messianic Jews (people who practice Judaism but see Jesus as the messiah) which were meant to aid Ethopian Jews in Israel.

I write on politics, so I realize that $10,000 is petty larceny when it comes to corruption. but it’s how he tried to justify to his staff that sticks in my craw:

“He [Molla] kept saying that it was not important, that the money only came from Jews for Jesus and not from ‘real’ Jews, said the source. “He tried to make them sound ugly so that no one would care about what happened to the money, but I do not think their beliefs are important, they had good intentions and they wanted to help Israel.”

Thank G-d for whoever this source is, because they show me that there is light even in the darkest places, and for the record many Messianics (including myself) refuse to associate with the non-Messianic organization Jews for Jesus. However, the larger point is that this Molla character legitimately thought he could convince people that Messianic Jews deserve to be stolen from and that no-one would care that he took our money. Granted, he’s not exactly an authority on ethics (and probably will find himself in jail cell very soon), but this isn’t the first time stuff like this has happened to us.

Last time, Israeli Messianic teenager Ami Ortiz was almost killed when Jewish anti-Messianic extremists sent him a pipe bomb as a Purim present. Even before the Ortiz bombing, Messianics in Israel had grown accustomed to ultra-Orthodox protesters picketing their homes and distributing their photos around towns as if they were “wanted” posters.

This madness has got to stop. Most Israelis, and most practicing Jews, condemn horrible these acts against our people – but the time has come to stop simply condemning and start standing up against the hateful people who perpetrate this garbage. It is not enough to simply say, “oh,that’s horrible” every time an a hateful anti-Messianic bigot does something so horrible that it makes the Jerusalem Post (which seems to happen at least once a year). Instead, we need to get to a point where my people can work and live in Israel (or other Jewish communities) without fear of being attacked or shunned. 

Practitioners of Messianic Judaism are peaceful and we threaten no one. Furthermore, we donate boatloads of money to Israeli and Jewish causes without expecting anything in return – not even respect or acceptance – and no pipe bomber or embezzling politician will ever stop us from helping our Jewish brothers. Yes, many of our people are anxious to share their faith,  but most of us just want to be left alone to practice our faith in peace – and to feel safe when we are in the land that is as holy to us as it is to any other sect of Judaism.

We stand ready to join hands with mainline Jews – with no precondition. You don’t have to agree with us, you don’t have to like what we believe, but please let’s move forward as friends rather than estranged relatives.

And if it makes you feel better – trust me, we don’t want to turn Jews into Christians. What use is that from our perspective? After all, we believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the living embodiment of the written Torah (See – Yochanan [John] 1:1). Yes, we disagree with mainline Jews who do not accept our “living Torah”, but we also disagree with most Christians, who no longer follow the written Torah. Hence, from our point of view, there is no good in shifting a person mainline Judaism to Christianity – that merely moves them from one fallacy to another, and removes Jewish identity (which we treasure) in the process. Would we like it if all Jews believed as we do - yes, and some of us are zealous enough to preach to our neighbors on occasion - but that doesn’t make us Christian missionaries (far from it). And yes, there is “Jews for Jesus”, but that is a evangelical organization, not a Messianic one – there’s a big difference.

So – there you have it. I have written a religious post and grabbed a political ”third rail” that I usually stay away from. Feel free to call me a wierdo – but I personally am glad that we had this conversation and I thank G-d that Shlomo Molla gave me the opportunity to talk about it.

Shalom Aleichem.

GrassrootsPA/Dane & Associates Pennsylvania 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Arlen Specter 46%
• Pat Toomey 43%
• Undecided 11%

• Joe Sestak 43%
• Pat Toomey 38%
• Undecided 19%

Survey of 416 likely voters was conducted October 7. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

The money quote, “We’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die.”

Also, promising more expense to the young, in exchange for a shorter lifespan because there won’t be much profit in improving medical technology. For obvious reasons, we never end up facing the honest Democrat in debate, and instead get the charlatan who tells us, “Yes, we can.”

Hat Tip: Don Surber

Rasmussen Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 50% (51%) [48%] {51%} (49%)
• Creigh Deeds 43% (42%) [46%] {42%} (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob McDonnell 59% (44%) [54%] {55%} (53%) / 34% (37%) [32%] {28%} (30%) {+25%}
• Creigh Deeds 47% (46%) [50%] {48%} (48%) / 47% (45%) [42%] {42%} (39%) {+0%}

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

• Very important 29% (32%) [30%] {17%}
• Somewhat important 26% (19%) [22%] {19%}
• Not very important 21% (21%) [17%] {25%}
• Not at all important 18% (19%) [21%] {24%}

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Bob McDonnell 52% (51%) [50%] {50%} (48%)
• Creigh Deeds 35% (36%) [36%] {35%} (30%)

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Bob McDonnell 52% (46%) [49%] {51%} (46%)
• Creigh Deeds 27% (30%) [31%] {29%} (24%)

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

• Bob McDonnell 43% (45%) [38%] {36%} (36%)
• Creigh Deeds 37% (32%) [36%] {35%} (33%)

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

• Strongly approve 37% (40%) [41%] {32%} (39%)
• Somewhat approve 16% (12%) [8%] {18%} (9%)
• Somewhat disapprove 9% (9%) [9%] {7%} (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 38% (39%) [41%] {42%} (41%)

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

• Strongly approve 23% (31%) [27%] {20%} (25%)
• Somewhat approve 31% (28%) [25%] {31%} (31%)
• Somewhat disapprove 19% (22%) [21%] {25%} (22%)
• Strongly disapprove 24% (18%) [25%] {21%} (21%)

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

• Very important 36%
• Somewhat important 19%
• Not very important 25%
• Not at all important 17%

If President Obama comes to Virginia to campaign for Creigh Deeds, does that make you more likely or less likely to vote for Deeds?

• More likely 23%
• Less likely 43%
• It would have no impact 32%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted October 12. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 29 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 16 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 1 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 10 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

McDonnell, a former state attorney general, leads Deeds, a state senator, by 15 points among men but runs even among women voters. Both candidates are heavily supported by voters in their own parties, but the GOP candidate has a two-to-one lead among voters not affiliated with either party.

ABC:  “Senate Finance Committee Approves Sen. Baucus’ Health Care Bill.”  Sen. Olympia Snowe votes in favor.

Washington Post on Baucus’ bill:  “New Bill Would Raise Rates, Says Insurance Group.”  Financial Times article on the same topic.

The Hill on Sen. Joe Lieberman.  I’ll note that I was unaware until reading this article that Lieberman states opposition to the government-run “public option.”

“Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers. “I’m afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country,” Lieberman said. Lieberman is also on the record as opposing a health bill containing a public (or “government-run”) option, which serves as the centerpiece of the other Senate bill with which the Finance proposal will be merged.”

Jay Cost:

“The media will score this a win, even though everybody expected it would pass. Plus, I’m not sure why George Stephanopoulos would have pegged the odds of Snowe voting yea at less than 50%. I did not have a doubt in my mind that she would support it.”

“The challenge that the Democrats faced in the summer remains: can they find a compromise that (a) wins 218 votes in the House; (b) wins 60 votes in the Senate; (c) is not some Frankensteinian monster that scares off the broad middle, which Mickey Kaus has cleverly taken to calling the congressional “id.” I didn’t have an answer to that question in August, and the Baucus vote does not help me answer it today. I will say that the Democrats seem highly intent on passing a bill, and leaders are clearly trying to develop a sense of momentum.”

“In fact, the Baucus vote indicates the Democrats’ smart strategy of circling the wagons and keeping their disagreements in private (for now).”

“We certainly are not going to be able to count on reliable updates about the legislative process until final bills are produced, seeing as how the bill drafting is now almost entirely on one side of the aisle and entirely behind the closed doors of leadership offices. It’s up to Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate – working in their own offices with fellow Democrats – to find the compromise position that has so far eluded them. I expect reports to be very, very bullish about things, regardless of whether or not they are making real progress. Maybe they will find that common ground; maybe they won’t. We’ll just have to wait and see.”

Senator Mitch McConnell’s statement:  “The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate. But what we do know is that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover. We know it will slash a half-trillion dollars from seniors’ Medicare, add new taxes and raise premiums. That’s not reform.”

The Politico, before the committee vote, looking at the implications of Sen. Olympia Snowe’s vote:

“–SNOWE VOTES “YES”: Clearly the outcome Baucus is rooting for, as he made a lot of concessions to bring her onboard. The bipartisan nod Snowe brings to the bill strengthens Baucus’ hand as he, Reid and Dodd merge the Health and Finance committee bills. Snowe’s buy-in makes it easier for Baucus and Reid to sell reform to moderate Democrats – think Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bayh – who are arguably more conservative than Snowe. And it positions Snowe to grab a bigger seat at the decision-making table as Reid crafts a bill to send to the Senate floor. Not to mention, the headlines all laud Baucus for landing a Republican vote and give Democrats the big mo. Look for Republicans to push back hard against any narrative that suggests one GOP vote makes the bill bi-partisan.”

“–CAVEATS – Snowe has left herself enough room that no matter how she votes today she’ll be able to change it later. A no today can become a yes tomorrow as Snowe continues using her leverage to shape the bill. Conversely, a yes today can switch overnight if she feels leadership stepped all over her concerns while shaping the legislation. As Democrats’ last best hope at winning a GOP vote, Snowe will continue to hold a good deal of sway.”

Henry J. Aaron and Isabel V. Sawhill from the Brookings Instutute:  Federal tax increases are simply sensible.

Gideon Rachman in The Financial Times (premium content) says Obama needs to remember his Chicago political roots:

“Just five years ago, Barack Obama was still a local politician in Illinois, preparing for a run for the US Senate. His office wall in Chicago at the time was decorated with the famous picture of Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston, after knocking him out in a heavyweight title fight. Ali famously boasted that he could “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” But now that Mr Obama is president, he seems to float like a butterfly – and sting like one as well.”

I have no idea who Neal Gabler is, but I’ve heard the name somewhere and I’m thinking that university professors and the MSM would encourage me to find him to be significant.  In this Boston Globe column, Gabler says the theme of “American exceptionalism” is crap.  (Update: ah, yes, Gabler was the bearded fellow on Fox News Watch, the four-person program with Cal Thomas).

Matt Latimer in The Politico:  “With polls now showing the Democrats faltering, the GOP has a chance to reintroduce itself to voters. But first, conservatives must wrest it away from the groupthink, the consultant-itis and the overly serious harrumphing that led the party to the incoherent mess it’s currently in.”

______________________________________________________________

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.

PPP (D) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 40% {44%}
• Jon Corzine 39% {35%}
• Chris Daggett 13% {13%}
• Undecided 8% {7%}

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 42% {48%}
• Jon Corzine 28% {29%}
• Chris Daggett 19% {16%}
• Undecided 11% {6%}

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

Among Christie Supporters

• Solidly committed 91%
• Could change mind 9%

Among Corzine Supporters

• Solidly committed 88%
• Could change mind 12%

Among Daggett Supporters

• Solidly committed 44%
• Could change mind 56%

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

• Chris Christie 48% {48%}
• Jon Corzine 34% {32%}
• Don’t know 18% {20%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 30% {21%} / 24% {16%} {+6%}
• Chris Christie 42% {45%} (42%) [43%] / 44% {41%} (32%) [33%] {-2%}
• Jon Corzine 37% {32%} (33%) [36%] / 55% {60%} (56%) [56%] {-18%}

Among Independents

• Chris Daggett 33% {30%} / 18% {13%} {+15%}
• Chris Christie 46% {49%} (47%) [46%] / 36% {32%} (26%) [28%] {+10%}
• Jon Corzine 28% {22%} (29%) [24%] / 64% {74%} (61%) [70%] {-36%}

Do you plan to vote Democratic or Republican for the New Jersey General Assembly this year?

• Republican 41%
• Democrat 35%

Among Daggett Supporters

• Republican 44%
• Democrat 20%

Do you think that Chris Christie is a liberal, moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 6%
• Moderate 43%
• Conservative 51%

Do you think that Jon Corzine is a liberal, moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 59%
• Moderate 36%
• Conservative 5%

Do you think that Christie Whitman is a liberal, moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 12%
• Moderate 50%
• Conservative 38%

Do you think that Jon Corzine’s campaign is trying to make an issue out of Chris Christie’s weight?

• Yes 35%
• No 47%

Do you think that Chris Christie’s weight is a legitimate issue in the campaign?

• Yes 11%
• No 81%

Does Chris Christie’s weight make you more or less likely to vote for him, or does it not make a difference?

• More likely 4%
• Less likely 19%
• No difference 78%

Survey of 571 voters was conducted October 9-12. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% {39%} Democrat; 31% {33%} Republican; 30% {28%} Independent. Political views: 51% {52%} Moderate; 28% {29%} Conservative; 21% {19%} Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 11-14 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 24-27 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 27-29 are in square brackets.

‘Comes the hour, comes the man.’ But does he? And who is he?

The Democrats are doing so much harm to the country, both domestically and internationally, and arousing such intense opposition among voters, that a Republican revival looks highly probable. What’s missing is the leader – not ‘a’ leader, but ‘the’ leader.

If we knew him we would be able to say what makes him the right man. (Or the right woman. I’m only saying ‘man’ for convenience.) But as he’s not standing unmistakable before our eyes, we can at least try to describe what sort of person he should ideally be: what experience he should have had; what beliefs he should hold; what qualities and abilities he should have acquired or been endowed with by nature.

Completely irrelevant are his (her) ethnic derivation, racial descent, color, or class.

First, he must be proud of his country. He should know its history. He should want above all to preserve what it has always stood for: liberty. He should believe that American power is a force for good in the world and be determined to maintain it.

Next, he should have been a leader in some walk of life, and have proved himself to be trustworthy and competent at directing others.

He must of course be a person of honor, decency, civility, and probity. He should deeply desire to be just, but hold the law and the Constitution in higher esteem than his own inclinations.

He should be a good judge of character, know how to weigh advice, but be intelligently decisive and firm in implementing what he decides.

He should be able to talk to the nation plainly, to say what he means and mean what he says.

He should broadly share the values, understand and respect the aspirations of his fellow Americans.

He must be a zealot for national prosperity, keen to let the free market work as the unique bread machine that it is, by keeping taxes low, government curbed, and private property safe.

Finally, he should be the sort of commonsensical soul who takes himself with a pinch of suspicion.

Is he out there somewhere? Can anyone put a name to him?

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

By the power of Mittens, I summon a 100-comment thread!

—

Mitt Romney has now decided to back Pat Toomey, the true conservative.

From Mitt, per Toomey’s e-mail:

It’s pretty clear that one-party rule in Washington is taking this great country down the path of expensive and extreme policies that hurt our economy and endanger American jobs. We need balance in the Senate; I’m confident that Pat is the man for the job.

…

I’m also encouraged by the beliefs in limited-government, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility that Pat and I share. We believe that Washington’s out-of-control spending and sky-rocketing debt is unsustainable. In order to restore prosperity and create new jobs, it’s incumbent upon us to fight for fiscally responsible policies that rein in spending and protect taxpayers.

Say what you will about the man, but Mike Huckabee has actually gone out on a limb to endorse Marco Rubio against establishment favorite. Sarah Palin has thrown her weight behind Rick Perry in his battle against Kay Bailey Hutchison. But Mitt Romney is the establishment, and doesn’t want to risk offending its sensibilities. If Mitt cares about limited government, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility, let’s see him head down to Florida to campaign for Marco Rubio.

Arnold wants you to know:

California voters have never thought less of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature, according to a Field Poll to be released today.

Despite that, a strong majority of poll respondents favor the governor’s move to call a special session of the Legislature to deal with California’s water crisis and tax reform issues.

“It’s really a cry of desperation,” said Barbara O’Connor, a political science professor at Sacramento State University. “It’s ironic. Voters don’t like them, they don’t trust them, but they want them to come back to Sacramento and solve their problems.”

Only 27 percent of poll respondents approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance. That’s the lowest approval rating for any California governor in 50 years – except for the 22 percent approval rating the Field Poll delivered in 2003 to then-Gov. Gray Davis, the man Schwarzenegger replaced six years ago in a statewide recall election.

-

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

Over the last ten days or so, Oklahoma has been at the center of an abortion debate. The state passed a law requiring every woman who has an abortion to fill out a 34-question questionnaire with questions such as the individual’s race, age and other potentially incriminating information. It has since been challenged in court. See the law and the questionnaire here.

Daily Kos has multiple entries about this law and the potential repurcussions, particularly this one which analyzes whether the law is constitutional and if it breaks HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Huffington Post has also reported on the law, as have Slate.com and Jezebel.com. These sites, as well as other liberal sites, have demonized the supporters of the law.

This situation is very precarious for pro-life supporters. Liberal voices make an excellent argument regarding how the law breaks the Oklahoma Constitution, and they accurately compare it to a situation earlier this year where “[t]he court in that case ruled that the statute [requiring strict ultrasound regulations] included too many disparate topics and therefore violated the state constitution.” Too, they state a major weakness in its intended effect to record how many abortions, who has them, etc. because if a woman visits multiple doctors regarding the abortion her information may be recorded more than once.

From what I’ve seen, the arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law probably hold water, given how a law stating a woman who wanted an abortion would have to be told about the fetus, and shown the ultrasound, was overturned in August. The overturned bill did other things as well, but it was the ultrasound part that got the most attention. “Even if you don’t look at the picture, you have to listen to the description,” said Anita Fream, the head of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “It almost reaches the stage of seeming cruel to me.” (Fream seems to miss the fact that killing a helpless human being is also kind of, you know, cruel.) This law, which I would think it almost common-sense in order to provide woman the opportunity to understand what they are ending (a human life), broke an Oklahoma law because it “violated a clause in the State Constitution requiring that bills deal with only one subject,” according to the New York Times. (Good news: one proponent of the ultrasound bill says the bill will be broken down into five parts and reintroduced.)

Again, this bill appears to violate the Oklahoma Constitution and, while intended to reduce abortions, would do so through shaming by posting answers to the questionnaire publicly online. I am one of the few people in America who is against all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother, but I do not believe shaming women who are having legal- morally abhorrent, but legal- abortions is the way to go. Were we in Somalia, or another country where the rule of law held no value, or a country like China where pro-life laws would have absolutely no chance of passing, I could see using very extreme language and actions to effect pro-life change. However, we live in a democratic republic, where we have a stable government with the ability to vote for direct change on local, regional, state and national issues, including abortion. Shaming women through public admission of committing abortions is not the proper way to create change. It is, however, a great way to make the pro-life movement look very bad and start witch hunts and harassment in small towns, where the information on the questionnaire would easily allow for identities to be found out.

My recommendation for Oklahoma Republicans: Create a new bill to show women the ultrasounds; enforce the current parental consent law within the state, which has a stipulation for extraordinary circumstances while encouraging teenage girls (and guys) to abstain from sex through community and charity organizations, parental involvement, etc. as well as whatever sexual education classes are taught in the state; and work to change the state Constitution to ban abortions in AT LEAST all cases but rape, incest and life of the mother.

My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media, focusing on Glenn Beck. Here’s an excerpt:

The debate over Glenn Beck is fascinating, but both sides have missed the real truth. Glenn Beck’s current position of prominence is a problem, but not for the reason that his opponents imagine.

The debate has come down to a question of whether Beck is good for conservatism. Dan Riehl argues Beck is made prominent by the media because he hurts conservatism. Bernard Chapin provides the counterpunch that Beck is under attack by the media because he’s good for conservatism and revitalizes it.

The problem is that few people are as strategic as Chapin or Riehl suggests. Certainly, Fred Phelps and his ghoulish family are given prominent media play to tar actual conservative Christians, and the media never mentions Phelps’ support for Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 1988. Similarly, I’ve seen people I know to be reasonable, decent folks turned into monsters by the media in order to marginalize them.

However, this can’t be said of all media action. Would anyone say conservatives are attacking Keith Olbermann to make him prominent to give us election wins? Your average voter could care less about the latest outrageous statement by the Sportscenter alumnus. Conservatives attack Olbermann because they don’t like him. If there’s some grand strategy behind it, it’s not working. Nor would anyone say that Sean Hannity has James Carville or Bob Beckel on his show in order to make Democrats look like buffoons. Well, they wouldn’t say it about Carville, anyway.

The news media is about passion, energy, and novelty. “George Will writes bland intellectual column” isn’t news. “Glenn Beck throws down the gauntlet to the Obama administration on national television while wearing lederhosen.” Now, that’s news.

It’s silly to charge Glenn Beck with being bad for conservatism and bad for the Republican Party. Do Beck bashers imagine that people are going to say, “The economy may be awful and I may agree more with the Republicans, but I can’t stand that Glenn

Rasmussen Survey on Afghanistan

Should all U.S. Troops be brought home from Afghanistan immediately? If not, should a firm timetable be established to bring all U.S. troops home from Afghanistan within a year?

• Bring home immediately 22% (20%)
• Firm timetable to bring home in one year 12% (17%)
• No firm timetable 52% (52%)

Is it possible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan?

• Yes 45%
• No 29%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 13% [14%]
• Good 25% [27%]
• Fair 26% [30%]
• Poor 33% [24%]

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 8-9. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 2-3 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 15-16 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of men say America can win the war in Afghanistan. Women are evenly divided.

Sixty percent (60%) of Republicans say a U.S. victory is possible, a view shared by just 35% of Democrats and 41% of voters not affiliated with either party.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Democrats now say all troops in Afghanistan should be brought home immediately, up eight points from early September. This compares with just nine percent (9%) of Republicans and 17% of unaffiliateds.

Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters see no need for setting a timetable for withdrawal, but just 32% of Democrats agree. That’s up from 27% in the earlier survey.

The October 6th city elections in Albuquerque passed largely unnoticed by the rest of the country. After all, it may be the biggest city in New Mexico, but with less than 600,000 people it’s certainly no NYC.

However, those who actually live in Albuquerque witnessed a rather amazing development. Three-term Democratic mayor Martin Chavez was denied a fourth mandate, and for the first time since the mid 1980s, a Republican is running City Hall.

The beneficiary of Chavez’s implosion is Richard “RJ” Berry who vowed to end Albuquerque’s “sanctuary city” and proudly flaunted his A rating from the NRA. Now, it’s probably worth noting that Berry benefited from the independent candidacy of a former Democratic state senator, who sucked up 20% of the vote. However, he still picked up 43% of the vote, well ahead of Chavez’ 35% and comfortably over the 40% threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

What makes this important for those of us watching the national scene is that, with the Dems in control of the governorship, both Senate seats, and all three congressional seats – Mayor RJ is suddenly the senior elected Republican in the Land of Enchantment.  

Now, it will obviously be a while before we hear from Berry at the statewide level. However, if he governs effectively, he will be aggressively recruited. He won’t be ready to take on Sen. Bingaman in 2012 – but freshman Sen. Tom Udall will be up in 2014, as will the governor’s office (depending on who wins in 2010). So, this guy definitely needs to be on our radar.

,

Rasmussen Survey on Global Warming and Energy

How serious a problem is Global Warming?

• Very serious 38%
• Somewhat serious 22%
• Not very serious 23%
• Not at all serious 13%

Is Global Warming caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends?

• Human activity 38%
• Long term planetary trends 46%
• Some other reason 3%

Does Barack Obama believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends?

• Human activity 54%
• Long term planetary trends 17%
• Some other reason 7%

Is there a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection?

• Yes 38%
• No 36%

Which is more important, finding new sources of energy or reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume?

• Finding new sources of energy 55%
• Reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume 37%

Should more nuclear power plants be built in the United States?

• Yes 54%
• No 26%

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling energy issues such as offshore drilling and research for alternative energy sources as President?

• Excellent 23%
• Good 21%
• Fair 19%
• Poor 35%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 8-9. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

While 51% of Democrats say human activity is the primary cause of global warming, 59% of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters point the finger at long-term planetary trends.

When English philosopher John Locke, who greatly influenced America’s Founding Fathers, claimed that mixing our labor with what was formerly common property gave us the right to now call that property our own, he both reaffirmed the Protestant work ethic and provided a philosophical defense of private property rights.

Writing of the rights affirmed by the English [“Glorious”] Revolution of 1688, Locke focused on three: “life, liberty, and the right to own private property.” Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence famously broadened the scope of the third to the more comprehensive “pursuit of happiness.”

For Locke, it was to secure and protect private property rights that governments were formed. Even the rights to life and liberty, for him, sprang from the property rights that we have to our own body and our own person.

That we have these rights not from government but from our Creator was obvious to Locke and the Founding Fathers. As such they were inalienable [“unalienable” was a printer’s typo]. While an alien is separated from his or her homeland, these rights could not be separated from us, not even by government.

When Barack Obama claimed that it was effectively his goal and that of his administration to fundamentally remake America, he did so from the standpoint of Progressivism, a loosely constructed conglomerate of political philosophies which share in common a rejection of the view of our nation’s founding documents as given above.

Influenced by the German philosopher Hegel’s view that the entirety of human history is in a constant state of flux and development, Progressivism views them not as incorporating timeless and invariable truths concerning fundamental human rights and government’s role in protecting them, but as anachronistic documents, culturally bound to their own time and circumstances, inadequate for contemporary challenges.

President Wilson, a Progressive pioneer, suggested applying a Darwinian metaphor to the Constitution: Like an evolving species it needs to adapt to its environment to meet contemporary needs. It is a living, not a static, document.

According to Ronald J. Restritto in an article entitled “The Birth of the Administrative State,” it was President Woodrow Wilson who first suggested a way to free American government from the checks and balances placed on it in the Constitution and pave the way for Progressive reforms: vest more and more real power in the hands of unelected administrators.

He seems to have genuinely held what strikes many as an incredibly naïve belief, namely that administrators who were experts in their own fields, would somehow be above politics and so interested in devoting themselves to serving the needs of the citizenry that checks and balances on their actions would be unnecessary.

Whether Barack Obama accepts Wilson’s view, he seems to have learned its lesson well. In appointing one unelected Czar after another to positions of overriding authority in his administration, he has engineered countless end runs around Constitutional safeguards.

While Locke believed that governments should be instituted for the protection of individual rights and liberties, Progressivism has from its inception loathed individualism and its political expression in our founding documents. In “The Meaning of ‘Progressive’ Politics” Barry Loberfeld quotes Herbert Croly, a Progressive writer, as saying that, “The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled … by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial.”

Reading this, one is reminded of Barack Obama’s response to a question from an NBC News reporter on why he thought his proposal for a government takeover of the health care system had aroused such widespread antipathy. As Obama put it: “It’s an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, What’s the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another? … This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions.”

No wonder the great concern of center right Constitutional Originalists is that the Obama Administration, with its unchecked Czars, unwavering Congressional support for a large and invasive government – and admitted quest to “balance freedom” — seems to think that it can advance Progressive reforms in far more than merely incremental ways. And if it does, it may finally be able to tip the balance that remakes America into a Socialist state once and for all.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Victor Morawski, a professor at Coppin State University, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Columbus discovered us, and thank God for it

Happy Columbus Day!

And yes, there are good reasons to be happy. For the chain of events that resulted in the creation and evolution of the greatest nation the world has even known includes the discoveries of Christopher Columbus in 1492 as essential and as Exhibit A for proof of the reasons we became the Shining City on a Hill.

I was motivated to write this blog when I read a column by Uruguayan writer for Progressive Media Project, Eduardo Galeano:

Who were the savages?

Perhaps the most revealing episode in the history of the Americas occurred in 1563 in Chile. Indians besieged the fortress of Arauco, depriving the Spanish of food and water, yet Captain Bernal refused to surrender.

From the stockade he screamed out, “There will be more and more of us!”

“With what women will you make them?” the Indian chief asked.

“With yours. We will make them bear children who will be your masters.”

The invaders called the original Americans idolaters and savages because the indigenous people believed that nature is sacred and that we are the brothers and sisters of all those with feet, paws, wings, or roots.

Today, with nature defiled and war and brutality rampant, who is the true idolater, the true savage?

Do you see that word “Today” at the beginning of the last paragraph?

Does this not crystallize the Left’s ignorance or willful denial of history and hatred of The United States and Western Civilization quite well.

Mr. Galeano, do you not know that both the “gentle” people you describe on Hispaniola and all other peoples that have ever walked the Earth have continually engaged in war and brutality since Eve bit the apple, or, if it helps, since an ape became man?

And do you suggest that the West engage in massive de-population to the level of The Americas of the 15th Century?

You scoff at what Columbus imagined about the New World and where he thought he was, yet romanticize the ignorance of the people Columbus discovered.

The big picture you don’t see is that Columbus discovered America as the first step in ending the ignorance.

Neither the people Columbus encountered nor the civilization Columbus represented was innocent and both engaged in savagery.

But shouldn’t the civilization of Columbus be proud that we found them rather than indulge in some romantic notion that had Europeans not crossed the Great Pond, the peoples of the Americas would have re-created Eden, or, if it helps, created a utopian Marxist state?

Centuries before Columbus’s 1492 voyage, Europe was like Hispaniola in that year. And just like the Apaches and the Comanches, they killed each other in wars of conquest.

The fact of the matter is that Native American tribes tried to win their wars against colonists. They lost.

Deal with it.

And keep on enjoying the posh life we all have, due, in no small part to the courage of people like Columbus who weren’t content to sit in Ivory Towers and criticize the ignorance of others.

Columbus took action to reduce the ignorance. And you and I are the better for it.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[See also an excellent series of columns on Columbus by Sean O’Donnell of Examiner.com

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.