_____________________________________________

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

Further review of the Democratic losses last week along with recent polls showing Republicans beating Democrats in the generic congressional ballot demonstrates the impact of only ten months of Democratic governance on Independents. In Virginia, New Jersey, and now nationally, we’re seeing the exact same dynamic: Republicans are supporting Republicans, Democrats are voting Democrat, and Independents, after having installed a Democratic government just one year ago, are moving heavily towards the GOP. Note that this coalition — let’s call it the McDonnell/Christie Coalition — is quite distinct from the last Republican majoritarian coalition that brought the GOP to power in 2004. In ’04, the GOP won because voters on either side of the political fifty yard line ran to their respective end zones, and the voters on the Right were just a tad more fired up than voters on the Left. This year, the American middle is still in the middle, but centrists and Independents are voting Republican by a lopsided margin, just as they voted Democrat by a significant margin in 2008.

The movement towards Republicans on the part of swing voters shouldn’t be surprising, as pretty much the entire Democratic agenda thus far has amounted to a (largely failed) attempt to enact a huge burden on the very middle class, middle of the road, Middle American voters who brought Democrats to power in the first place. By ignoring the unintended consequences of their policies and by misreading their mandate, Obama and congressional Democrats are on the verge of losing the republic that Americans handed them just one year ago.

Last year, I wrote extensively about the plight of the average middle class American, and of the manner in which regular Americans are beginning to feel that the American Dream is being extinguished. Once upon a time, working hard and playing by the rules was all that was necessary to achieve a comfortable and rewarding life in a nation which values opportunity and meritocracy, and which promises equality under the law for all, regardless of national origin, religion, and so forth. But as the cost of housing, education, and health care rose, and as wages, benefits, and job growth shrank, and as the growth of government at home and its actions abroad sent the American people a bill which could only be paid for via fiscal collapse or massive future tax increases, Americans began to wonder whether the nation’s best days were behind her and whether the American Dream was, in fact, dead. Democrats ran as champions of the middle class and unsurprisingly won massive majorities.

But less than year into their reign, the heroes of the middle class have been revealed as enemies of the middle class, as Democrats have spent 2009 pursuing policies that essentially constitute what is probably the largest middle class tax increase in American history. They are, in no particular order:

The Stimulus: The president and congressional Democrats promised that adding a trillion dollars to the national debt was necessary to stimulate the economy and prevent a depression. Instead, unemployment has continued to increase, and most of the stimulus has yet to even be enacted, as the package was largely a Trojan Horse filled with funding for every Democratic domestic program under the sun. Because the national debt will eventually have to be paid off, this means that the president and Congress gave American taxpayers a trillion dollar bill during the worst recession since the Great Depression, one that will ultimately lead to a massive tax increase on the middle class, and one that did nothing to actually restore the economy and create jobs.

The Bailouts: The Obama Administration and congressional Democrats seemed to have no qualms about using the tax dollars of the American people to bail out the nation’s robber barons who had reached the precipice due to practices such as imprudent and predatory lending and slapping interest rates on lines of credit that would once have been considered usury. The average American, who most certainly did not find himself bailed out of his mortgage or his car payments or his student loans, could do nothing but sit back and watch as his tax dollars were used to bail out the very folks who were simultaneously raising his interest rates on all of those things. Instead of letting poor business decisions be punished by the marketplace, which would disincentivize similar practices in the future, the Obama Administration ensured that no lessons were learned, no robber baron or archaic motor company was allowed to fail, and no American taxpayer would be able to avoid the bill.

Cap and Trade: The Administration itself has privately concluded that this legislation would essentially amount to a 15 percent tax increase. What could go wrong?

Health Care: While small-bore reforms are definitely needed to lower the cost of health care and help more Americans get insured, the health care reforms proposed by Democrats all have one thing in common, and that’s an increased financial burden on the middle class. Even without the creation of a new middle class entitlement in the public option, guaranteed issue, which is a feature of all the Democratic plans, has increased health insurance premiums in every state in which it’s been implemented. This means that the average middle class American will see his or her health insurance premiums go up if ObamaCare becomes law. Under ObamaCare, subsidies are phased out well before they impact most middle class Americans. The poor will have government assistance to help them pay their premiums, and the jet set can simply take more money out of their trust funds. But the middle class will bear the brunt of ObamaCare, being handed higher premiums with few new benefits in return.

Afghanistan: With the nation nearing fiscal collapse, the last thing that Americans want to do is continue to pour blood and treasure into a tribal nation stuck in the 10th Century due to the notion that it’s somehow our moral imperative to do so, or that the sword can be used to modernize such a society. Neither is true. If it’s our job to save the world, then why not all of Sub-Saharan Africa? Why are we not attempting to send troops to every banana republic in Latin America? We don’t because we can’t. In the real world, resources are finite. Americans realize that it’s time to conserve ours, which is why large majorities of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan and oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan. Every penny that is added to the national debt because of Afghanistan will come directly out of the pockets of the middle class in the form of some future tax increase.

In sum, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are running up a massive bill and sending it to the same middle class that elected Democrats to save it from its economic woes. Apparently, Democrats thought that the middle class was electing them out of some masochistic desire to be further squeezed in order to solve all of the world’s problems, from global warming to the societal travails of distant lands. Democrats are about to find out what Republicans found out last year: at the ballot box, there’s nothing more powerful than an army of disgruntled white collar professionals who make $50,000 a year. In the Nixon era, these folks were called Cloth Coat Republicans. Now they’re Cloth Coat Independents. And they’re the most potent political force in America today.

Back and forth he goes:

Crist enraged conservatives in February when he stood with President Obama at a pro-stimulus rally in Fort Myers. But Crist recently told CNN “I didn’t endorse it. I didn’t even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians.”

Today, after an appearance at a joint meeting of the state Board of Education and the Board of Governors for the state’s higher education system, Crist was asked about his position on the stimulus.

“I support it. I think it was important to take it. All of my fellow governors did so,” Crist told reporters at The Scripps Research Institute.

“….We would have had to let go 20,000 school teachers if we didn’t have that. My belief always has been that Florida deserves her fair share. And it’s helping our economy. Without those additional funds we would have a much more difficult time maintaining not only our economy but job growth and job retention.”

Asked if he would have voted for stimulus bill if he were a Senator, Crist replied: “I would have voted for a different form. But I think it’s pretty clear I supported the concept.”

Look up the word “endorse” on Dictionary.com, and you find “support” as one of the definitions. While Gov. Crist has many strengths as an elected official and candidate, we can safely exclude strength of conviction and consistency from them.

A little teaser from Oprah.

H/T: RCP

—–

Update: Oprah videolog (‘we talked about everything’)

_____________________________________________

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

In the wake of the Fort Hood Massacre and the “11th hour” state of the American economy and Liberty at home and abroad generally, one column honoring veterans on the occasion of the November 11th national holiday was not enough.

In our three previous columns concerning the treasonous murders (now at 14 counting the unborn child of one of the victims) perpetrated by Major Malik Ali Hasan, we primarily addressed the deadly political correctness (cowardly lying) that causes Democrats in Congress to fear asking Census form completers if they are U.S. citizens and allows known, overt, enemies of the USA to serve in its armed forces.

We suggested that November 11, 2009 mark the day We the People declare war against the PC-Police. Since yesterday, we also have considered other matters related to honoring vets, especially including:

• The contrast between the Obama Administration’s dismissal of suspicions against Hasan last spring with then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s post-911 round-up of Muslim/Arab country visa-overstays
• Obama’s treatment of the military as dependent children victims rather than congratulating their great Victory in Iraq
• Obama’s (and Hillary’s) refusal to honor the veterans that won the Cold War and made the de-construction of the Berlin Wall possible twenty years ago last Monday, including the absence of any utterance acknowledging the role of President Ronald Reagan
• The refusal of the ObamaDems to do anything for the general welfare of returning vets other than stimulate government growthulus to remove quality health care alternatives to the sorry state of VA hospitals.

President George W. Bush: “John, don’t let this happen again.”

Attorney General Ashcroft heeded his Commander-in-Chief’s words and America’s homeland was kept safe for over eight years. The Bush Administration suffered the slings and arrows of many democrats and the Drive-by media for “profiling” more than 900 illegal aliens that had overstayed their visas.

The same liberals and media that accuse conservatives of wanting to round-up the one-tenth of the population of Mexico that lives in the Lower Forty-Eight during the immigration reform debate years after 911, apparently preferred a round-up of tens of millions rather than any discriminating judgment of likely threats in the hundreds, the day after 911.

I have no doubt that the homeland security measures; enhanced interrogations of captured terrorists; removal of the Taliban and al Qaida’s safe haven nation-state in Afghanistan; and taking the fight to the enemy generally, and terrorist state supporter/war ceasefire abrogator in Iraq, all were critical elements in keeping us safe under Bush.

But I doubt that any act is more responsible for planned preventing follow-up attacks soon after 911 than Bush/Ashcroft’s defiance of the PC-police in getting the 900 off the Fruited Plain forthwith.

Victory in Iraq/Iraq as Connecticut

Iraq is poised to have elections again…..ho hum? Yes, isn’t it wonderful that this isn’t news! Neither are city council elections in Bridgeport.

We have won a great victory for democratic republicanism in the Middle East. The sectarian parties decrease, while the secular parties increase. President Bush’s vision of an alternative to Islamist extremism and/or totalitarian despotism has been made real by the armed forces of the United States and the lovers of freedom in the lands of Babylon.

Yet, our President speaks only of ending a war, not victory. He used to speak of “taking care of the troops” as if their reason for existence is to take care of us. He wants to bring them home to take care of them? Yet, when they get home, his FBI investigates a jihadist threat in their midst and lets the threat remain. He not only doesn’t take care of them, as promised. He is a danger to them, even in forts in the Lone Star State.

We must honor our vets and commons sense by killing the PC-police under all 50 stars and even the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.

Merkel’s back-handed compliment to Gorby/Reagan’s War

President Obama was the only Western leader that refused German leader Angela Merkel’s invitation to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the bringing down of the Berlin Wall. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added insult to injury by failing to mention Ronald Reagan’s role in the events that led to removal of that communist stain on the landscape of Europe.

I was pleasantly surprised with Merkel’s “thanks” to the former Soviet jail-keeper of millions, Mikhail Gorbachev, though, when she said:

“You made this possible — you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect.”

 Sounds like a slap in the face to me, when you would expect a leader to “not let” (see KILL instead) people bring down a wall imprisoning millions of innocent people. She thanks Gorby for not slaughtering innocent people. Heck, where’s Hasan’s congratulations for such courage? He was peaceful that day as well, but like Gorby (whose hands were already bloodied in Afghanistan, Hasan would get red stains later, but I digress.

The real courageous people responsible for the bringing down (I do not say the mere ”fall” of the wall, as that word fits into the fake history of the left that it was “inevitable” that the wall would come down of its own weight) the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain across all of Europe were the veterans of the armed forces of the United States that liberated Western Europe in WWII (under FDR) and later South Korea; fought in Vietnam; and other wise put their lives on the line under the direction of containment policy Presidents Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and even Carter (more later) and under the direction of the only leader on Earth that sought to defeat the USSR (and did), Ronald Reagan.

The truth would set even Obama free, if he would only acknowledge it, and begin the healing of this land, and I would suggest he start with Peter Schweitzer’s “Reagan’s War”. That book recounts Reagan’s lifelong war against communism’s slavery of half the globe beginning with his heroic placement of his life on the line in 1940s-50s Hollywood against an attempted takeover of the unions by communists.

There were commie union organizer bullets with Reagan’s name on it. He broke the picket line anyway; much as he defied violent hippies at Berkeley in the 1960s; weathered Hinckley’s shots in the early 1980s and the violent nuclear freeze proponents and intermediate range missiles in Europe in the mid-80s.

Schweitzer documents Reagan’s “we win, you lose” plan formulated in the 1950′s and its precise implementation over the objections of nearly everyone in the 1980s; Lech Walesa and Polish Square re-namings in the 1990s along with various East German congratulations for bringing the wall down.

The book cites Kremlin diaries and tapes that credit Reagan’s military build-up; public calling out of the Soviet Empire as evil; and especially his refusal to drop Star Wars at Reykjavik as being responsible for the end of the USSR.

Contrary to leftist Democratic Party fiction, the fall of communism was not inevitable. The USSR was stronger in 1981 when  Reagan took office than at any time in their history, save for before and immediately after WWII. The cuts in defense under LBJ, Nixon and Carter left Gorby with superiority in land-based missiles and troops on the move on three continents.

Reagan turned all that back by rejecting the mere containment/military equivalence policies he always saw as immorally sentencing two billion people to perpetual slavery for  a policy of military superiority; confrontation and economic competition. He devised the plan in the 50s, implemented it in the 80s and saw it come to fruition in the 90s.

Obama could honor the vets that achieved the above and include his liberal hero Jimmy Carter, whose greatest act as President was to arm the Afghan resistance that led to the only Russian military defeat in history. I do find Schweitzer’s conclusion that Carter’s motivation was more personal than strategic, having kissed Brezhnev and trusted him, much as he had Iran’s Ayatollah. It is this personal way that too many democrats look at the world that makes them so feckless, weak and dangerous in foreign affairs. Not holding breath on this one, but maybe the economic facts of life could change the other major trait, which is that:

Dems don’t double dip care about jobs

Months ago President Obama floated a trial balloon that would have increased medical costs for veterans, while paying the bills for illegals. The balloon busted before even Fox News could bang the drum to try and get the see and hear no evil drive-by media monkeys and dems and indies still in denial to see the product of Rev Wright and Bill Ayers.

I think most Americans see Obama more for what he is now after Gates-gate and his Fort Hood 911. They were already starting to see the ObamaDems for what they are with the rush to pass a stimulus that only saved and created government jobs We the People have to fund thru taxes or inflation.

Does Obama care if former and retiring vets have jobs? What about their children and grandchildren? What about the 20% of We the People that are under- or unemployed? No signs yet, as documented by The Detroit News:

Americans are angry with Washington as much for what it isn’t doing as what it is. What it isn’t doing the most is paying attention to the still-raging economic disaster.

Last week’s job numbers show unemployment nationally bumping past 10 percent and surpassing 15 percent in Michigan. Unemployment keeps climbing, even though President Barack Obama and Congress nine months ago committed $787 billion to creating jobs.

Since then, neither the White House nor Congress has spent a minute honestly analyzing whether the stimulus program is accomplishing its goal, and if not, what other approaches might work.  Instead, the administration is spinning dismal economic reports into positive news, allowing both it and Congress to ignore the economy while they pursue their ideological ends.

But while the economy tops every list of public concerns, job creation is not the hot topic in Washington. In fact, Democratic leaders, obsessed with reworking America, have proved more than willing to sacrifice precious jobs during the worst economic climate in a half-century.

It ought to infuriate anyone who’s lost a job, can’t find a job, is worried about his job or lives in a community ravaged by a lack of jobs that Congress devotes nearly all of its energy to arguing about health care. The promise of health care reform was not what got Democrats elected. Voters tossed Republicans on their fannies for ruining the economy, not because they didn’t enact wildly expensive social programs.

Read it all via link above…

Americans are angry and scared of the faltering economy that seems destined for a double dip and a President that assumes all whites are racist and no Muslims are terrorists, despite obvious evidence to the contrary over the past 40 years, and specifically over the past 4 months and 4 days.

We know what creates job. We saw Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Clinton-Gingrich and Bush43 do it. Cut taxes and regulations and let Americans bail themselves out.

If Obama doesn’t start honoring veterans, as well as America generally, he will receive a dishonorable discharge after only 4 years.

Wouldn’t it be nice if on Thanksgiving Day would could thank God Obama finally got his mind right? Yes, but not holding breath and still counting pennies for a turkey wing.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

I nearly wet myself this morning reading a blog entry from Erick Erickson, pulling the race card on Florida Republicans.

Well, we knew Crist was desperate, but pulling the race card seems really low even for him, given all the videos circulating out there about Crist’s personal life. Good grief.

—-

The video shows Marco Rubio speaking in Spanish, then has a clip of Barack Obama referring to Marco Rubio as a Cuban, then says no way “WE” can trust Rubio.

Really? Because he’s Cuban? Really?

That’s pathetic.

This is the typical race-bating tactic that has been used by the Obama administration and his supporters.  Link to a site, that linked from another site, that falsely claimed that team Crist was behind this video, and then add a few of your own comments, pushing the race card angle.  Do not worry about fact checking, or including a link that supports the racist claims or the accusation that the Crist campaign was behind the video. 

This method of race-bating has been used by progressive blogs, community activists, BET news, MSNBC and other liberal interests to promote the Obama agenda.  Although it is arguable if this method of dirty campaigning has been successful in promoting a socialist agenda, I have been proud that most of us in the mainstream of the rightosphere have kept away from this type of trickery, Erickson excluded.  

This is what Erickson is not telling you in his post;

1. Crist is married to a Hispanic-Jew, who has a skin tone that is darker than Marco Rubio’s.
2. Crist has NEVER sponsored any racist literature in his political career and in fact is one of the movements most successful leaders in reaching out to minority voters, African Americans included.
3. One of the Crist supporters that is being accused of sponsoring the video (Carlos Curbelo), is a Cuban-America.

Erickson has a history of using race-bating to score political points, mostly against liberal African Americans.  Upon the announcement of President Obama wining the Nobel peace prize, Erickson said this;

Twitter: Obama won because the Nobel Committee had ‘affirmative action quotas.’

Erickson himself has also played the victim card, lashing out against those who he described as ‘race pimping’ corporate America and conservative personalities.  This is where I agree with Erickson, but he cannot play the role of the P.C. shepherd and the boy who cried wolf, at the same time.  If he continues to do so, he will be wedged within the creditability gap with the looney lefty.         

Polls indicate that voters remain hesitant on supporting Republican candidates, as they are patiently waiting for the movement to once again become the ‘adult’ party.  Pushing away Hispanic-American voters with childish acts of online smudgery brings zero value to our cause.          

_____________________________________________

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

Rasmussen Survey on Barack Obama

How do you rate the way Barack Obama is handling economic issues as President?

• Excellent 20% (18%) [30%]
• Good 19% (22%) [20%]
• Fair 15% (20%) [16%]
• Poor 45% (40%) [30%]

How do you rate the way Barack Obama is addressing national security issues as President?

• Excellent 23% (20%) [31%]
• Good 19% (23%) [21%]
• Fair 16% (20%) [21%]
• Poor 39% (36%) [24%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 9-10. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 6-7 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted February 18-19 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of men say the president is doing a poor job on the economy, compared to 39% of women.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats say the president’s handling of the economy is good or excellent. Only 10% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either party agree.

Fifty-five percent (55%) rated the president’s national security performance as good or excellent the week he took office.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of GOP voters and 50% of unaffiliateds think the president is doing a poor job handling national security, a view shared by just seven percent (7%) of Democrats.

Quinnipiac Ohio Political Survey

2010 Ohio Senate Race

Republican Primary

• Rob Portman 26% {27%} [33%] (29%)
• Tom Ganley 7% {9%} [10%] (8%)

Democratic Primary

• Lee Fisher 24% {26%} [24%] (20%)
• Jennifer Brunner 22% {17%} [21%] (16%)

General Election

• Rob Portman 39% {31%} [33%] (31%)
• Lee Fisher 36% {42%} [37%] (42%)

• Rob Portman 38% {34%} [34%] (32%)
• Jennifer Brunner 34% {39%} [35%] (40%)

• Lee Fisher 38% {41%} [36%]
• Tom Ganley 34% {29%} [30%]

• Jennifer Brunner 35% {39%} [35%]
• Tom Ganley 32% {31%} [31%]

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

• Approve 45% {53%} [49%] (62%)
• Disapprove 50% {42%} [44%] (31%)

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

• Approve 42% {48%} [46%] (57%)
• Disapprove 53% {46%} [48%] (36%)

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

• Approve 36% {44%}
• Disapprove 57% {45%}

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

• Support 36% {44%}
• Oppose 55% {44%}

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 40% {49%}
• Republicans in Congress 40% {28%}

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

• Support 53% {57%}
• Oppose 40% {35%}

Do you agree or disagree with the following: Congress should approve a health care overhaul plan even if only Democrats support it.

• Agree 35%
• Disagree 61%

Do you think Republicans in Congress are playing a constructive role in improving a health care reform bill or do you think they just want President Obama to fail?

• Playing constructive role 38% {33%}
• Want Obama to fail 45% {50%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Portman 22% {20%} [21%] (22%) / 7% {7%} [6%] (9%) {+15%}
• Lee Fisher 25% {33%} [29%] (37%) / 15% {13%} [17%] (13%) {+10%}
• Jennifer Brunner 20% {27%} [27%] (31%) / 18% {14%} [16%] (12%) {+2%}
• Tom Ganley 12% {15%} [12%] (6%) / 5% {5%} [4%] (4%) {+8%}

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Doing the right thing 48%
• Shouldn’t be involved 43%

General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has asked President Obama to send 40,000 additional combat troops. Should Obama send the troops or not?

• Yes 51%
• No 40%

Do you think President Obama should replace McChrystal or not?

• Yes 11%
• No 65%

How much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan – less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, five to ten years, or as long as it takes?

• Less than 1 year 33%
• 1 to 2 years 22%
• 2 to 5 years 9%
• 5 to 10 years 1%
• As long as it takes 30%

Do you think the United States is heading for the same kind of involvement in Afghanistan as it had in the Vietnam War, or do you think the United States will avoid that kind of involvement this time?

• Yes/Same as Vietnam 35%
• No/Will avoid that 50%

Survey of 1,123 voters was conducted November 5-9. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 10-13 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 25 – July 1 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 28 – May 4 are in parentheses.

Quinnipiac Connecticut Political Survey

2010 Connecticut Senate Race

Republican Primary

• Rob Simmons 28% {43%}
• Linda McMahon 17%
• Tom Foley 9% {5%}
• Peter Schiff 5% {2%}
• Sam Caligiuri 4% {4%}

General Election

• Rob Simmons 49% {44%} (48%) [45%]
• Chris Dodd 38% {39%} (39%) [39%]

• Tom Foley 47% {38%} (42%)
• Chris Dodd 40% {40%} (42%)

• Linda McMahon 43%
• Chris Dodd 41%

• Chris Dodd 42% {40%} (42%) [41%]
• Sam Caligiuri 42% {36%} (40%) [39%]

• Chris Dodd 42% {42%} (43%)
• Peter Schiff 41% {36%} (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Simmons 40% {41%} (39%) [34%] / 10% {11%} (12%) [12%] {+30%}
• Tom Foley 20% {12%} (17%) / 6% {6%} (5%) {+14%}
• Democratic Party 47% / 39% {+8%}
• Linda McMahon 20% / 13% {+7%}
• Sam Caligiuri 10% {11%} (12%) [9%] /3% {5%} (4%) [3%] {+7%}
• Peter Schiff 7% {6%} (7%) / 4% {2%} (3%) {+3%}
• Chris Dodd 42% {40%} (40%) [37%] / 49% {48%} (50%) [51%] {-7%}
• Republican Party 35% / 48% {-13%}

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

• Approve 40% {43%} (42%) [38%]
• Disapprove 54% {49%} (52%) [53%]

Looking ahead to the 2010 election for United States Senator, do you feel that Chris Dodd deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?

• Yes/Deserves 39%
• No/Does not 53%

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

• Yes 39% {40%} (35%) [35%]
• No 52% {51%} (55%) [49%]

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

• Yes 61% {59%} (62%) [56%]
• No 35% {35%} (32%) [35%]

Would you say that Chris Dodd shares your views on issues that you care about or not?

• Yes 43% {42%} (45%) [37%]
• No 48% {48%} (49%) [48%]

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

• Approve 49% {48%} (46%) [46%]
• Disapprove 44% {45%} (46%) [44%]

Looking ahead to the 2012 election for United States Senator, do you feel that Joe Lieberman deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?

• Yes/Deserves 46% {51%} (56%)
• No/Does not 45% {40%} (31%)

Would you say that Joe Lieberman is honest and trustworthy or not?

• Yes 60% (58%)
• No 34% (35%)

Would you say that Joe Lieberman has strong leadership qualities or not?

• Yes 60% (58%)
• No 36% (38%)

Would you say that Joe Lieberman shares your views on issues that you care about or not?

• Yes 46% (45%)
• No 46% (47%)

In general, do you think Joe Lieberman’s views on issues are closer to – the Republican Pary or the Democratic Party?

• Republican Party 51%
• Democratic Party 25%

As you may know, Senator Lieberman opposes giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans. Does this make you more likely to vote for Senator Lieberman, less likely, or doesn’t it make a difference?

• More likely 23%
• Less likely 33%
• Doesn’t make a difference 41%

If Senator Lieberman joins Republicans in a filibuster to prevent a vote on the Democrat’s health care reform plan, do you think Senate Democrats should punish Lieberman by taking away his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or not?

• Yes 29%
• No 64%

If Joe Lieberman runs for reelection in 2012, do you think he should run as a Republican or as a Democrat or as an Independent?

• Independent 55%
• Republican 20%
• Democrat 12%

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

• Approve 58% {57%} (63%) [71%]
• Disapprove 35% {36%} (32%) [22%]

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

• Approve 52% (57%)
• Disapprove 43% (38%)

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

• Approve 45% {47%}
• Disapprove 48% {45%}

Among Independents

• Approve 36% {43%}
• Disapprove 55% {49%}

(more…)

Marco Rubio’s website received about twice as many unique visitors as Charlie Crist’s website did during the month of October.

Almost 2,000 people have become fans of Marco Rubio on Facebook over the last month. This boost has propelled Marco ahead of Charlie Crist in total Facebook fan support for the first time ever.

It’s true. Conservatives are committing themselves to a profitable and margins-only future on television. There are millions of Fox fans- and many millions more who aren’t. By bringing all conservatives to Fox they will leave the other stations free to bring liberals on and influence millions of moderate and undecided voters and activists. This could be very bad for the conservative movement.

From the AP:

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company’s portion of the tax.

…Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, declined comment and said the majority leader has made no final decisions and is awaiting detailed information from the Congressional Budget Office about the cost and coverage implications of the proposals he has drafted.

Reid sent his proposals to the CBO more than two weeks ago and recently took the first step on the Senate floor to begin a debate on health care as early as next week.

…On one contentious issue, he has already said his measure will include an option for consumers to purchase health care from the government as a way to create competition with private companies. States could drop out of the system.

So, in a time of economic peril and uncertainty, Sen. Reid wants to consider a decidedly un-stimulative tax increase? He sure seems eager to do his part to contribute to the forthcoming Obama Recession.

Bonus: A study conducted by the Boston Globe shows that government statistics overstate the number of jobs saved or created by the so-called stimulus. Here’s to hoping more stories like these appear in the future.

The Los Angeles Times relays an inside peek at Going Rogue. My favorite bit:

As a delightful insider’s joke on the inbred Washington political establishment, the book has no index. So they can’t find mention of themselves while browsing in the store. Buy it or lump it.

Love it!

Mark Halperin has a full list of random crap:

…[H]ere’s what you can expect from “Going Rogue”:

* just five chapters—but they are very, very long.

* some score settling with McCain aides she believes ill-served her (names will be named).

* a hearty bashing of the national media.

* an account of how her upbringing shaped her maverick sensibilities.

* a testimonial to the importance of faith in her life.

* a warm and personal tone, written in Palin’s own voice, despite the involvement of a collaborator.

…

* Don’t look for hefty policy prescriptions.

The H-bomb drops in six days. Excited?

Have the Club for Growth and the Daily Kos My DD completely lost any sense of logic? (Don’t answer that.)

Comparisons have been abounding recently from both the left and the right about how Charlie Crist should feel troubled after the Dede Scozzafava episode in NY-23.

Newsflash, brainiacs: Charlie Crist is not the f’ing nominee!

I know, I know: it’s hard for some people to understand that King Charlie the First isn’t entitled to the nomination. But there is a primary, unlike in the special election process. The “tea party crowd” is as entitled to their votes as the “cool-headed moderates” are.

So shut up.

Marco Rubio on Sarah Palin and why he would welcome her endorsement:

I can’t think of anything her and I disagree with off the top of my head.

Hmm…does this mean no Huckabee 2012 endorsement?

The night the House bill passed, I was interacting on Twitter with ObamaCare supporters. I told some of them about provisions in the bill such as this one involving jail time and they called my comments right-wing lies and spin. Now I have this little video to share with them:

Here’s a snippet from an editorial which appeared in the Jacksonville Observer entitled, “Governor Romney, Welcome Back!” regarding Mitt’s visit there last Monday:

Romney’s speech was principled, impassioned and conservative to the core. He spoke about the dire effects of big government spending and taxpayer funded bailouts crippling an already frail economy, versus limited government which spurs economic growth and empowers Americans to pursue greater opportunities.

In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s national G.O.P. revolt in Virginia and New Jersey, Romney released this statement: “The American people have sent a very strong message to the liberals in Washington, D.C.; that big government is not the answer and that conservatism is alive and well.”

Romney, as many recall, beat his closest opponent, Senator John McCain, by a 3-1 margin in Duval and the surrounding counties.

I guess they hadn’t heard it was “The End of the Line for Romney.”

Kasich’s prospects are brightening in Ohio:

Quinnipiac University 2010 Ohio Governor’s Poll

• Ted Strickland (D) 40% (46%)
• John Kasich (R) 40% (36%)
• Don’t Know 18 (15%)

11/5-9/09 among 1,123 registered voters with 2.9% margin of error.

I remain in a state of hypovolemic shock over the love affair between the conservative pundocracy and the image portrayed by the Rubio Senate campaign.  What is becoming obvious, is that fact and reality is absent from the conservative movements quest to discover a generation-x Ronald Reagan.

Florida has never appeared to me to be a State that embraces populist candidates, but instead usually elects candidates that run on pragmatic platforms. The most recent examples in Florida state wide elections are; President Obama, Governor Crist, Governor J. Bush and Senator Nelson.  This would explain why most of Florida’s mainstream conservative leaders are supporting Crist, not Rubio.    

But, if the tendencies of Florida’s voters are to migrate to pragmatists, why are mainstream conservatives outside of Florida advocating for the Rubio campaign?

Rubio, a staunch advocate of eliminating the teachings of Charles Darwin from Florida’s public schools, pushed legislation in 2007 that would have stripped the power of developing science curriculum from parents and local school officials, only to hand them over to unionized teachers.  This would have resulted in teacher union bosses having a veto over Florida public school science curriculum.  Rubio’s agenda is in sharp contrast to the mainstream conservative policy position of working around union bosses, by legislating and empowering school board administrators to offer both evolution and creationism in science classrooms.  

Rubio endorsed Governor Huckabee and agreed to chair his Florida campaign days before the 2007 Iowa caucus.  This endorsement was made public during the height of Governor Huckabee’s verbal war against neoconservatives (“bunker mentality”) and pro-growth Republicans (“club for greed”).

Rubio received criticism from the Cuban-American community for chairing Huckabee’s Florida campaign, because for nearly ten years Governor Huckabee aligned himself with the far left wing of the Democratic party on advocating for the normalization of trade relations with Cuba, regardless of the Castro regimes record on human rights and their support for terrorist organizations.  

Facing criticism, Rubio reiterated his support of the embargo, to the Cuban-American community.  It was almost as if Rubio was hinting at one policy position to those who only speak English and another to those who’s primarily or only spoken language is Spanish.

Rubio’s populist leanings have not only been limited to education and foreign policy, but have also focused on economic policy.  Rubio has never been a strong proponent of reducing the overall tax burden on families, but instead has promoted tax-shifting as a way to spur economic growth.  He has advocated policies similar to those of California, where tax revenue is mostly generated from sales taxes.  As we have recently learned from the California economic disaster, solely relying on consumption taxes instead of property and income taxes, can lead to bankruptcy for States that are manufacturing and agriculture based, during economic recessions.  

Even more frightening is the method Rubio uses to sell his tax schemes to Floridians.  His rhetoric is part limousine liberal, part Hugo Chavez.

“I was raised on other people’s leftover money. That’s how I look at it, ok. They spent their money they spent it in the places where my parents worked. And I’m telling you that this property tax cut will create $6 billion in disposable income. And what that means in real terms is that people who now mow their own lawns will hire someone to do it. And that helps the working class. People who now maintain their own pools, will hire someone to do it. People who now go do their own nails once a month will go do it once a week. And that helps the working class. Disposable income is what the working class lives off of. The working class are not doctors; they’re not lawyers; they’re not law professors; they’re not businesses; they’re not any of the CEOs of companies. They depend on other people’s leftover money. That’s what the working class lives off of.”

Rubio said nothing about how the people who live off of ‘other people’s leftover money‘ will feel about paying $6 billion more in sales taxes, just for the opportunity to cut the grass of the collective society.

_____________________________________________

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

Today’s national holiday honoring America’s military vets began as a celebration of the Armistice-signing end of The Great War on the “the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month” in 1918. Less than two years earlier, President Woodrow Wilson sent America’s finest “over there” to save Western Civilization from freedom’s enemies.

But when even our armed forces are so paralyzed by a leftist-inspired “politically correct” American culture that they can’t remove an obvious threat to their own troops, own their own base, and in Texas for God’s sake, I wonder if Liberty itself is in its 11th hour.

We now know that those with the power to remove Major Nidal Hasan for access to our troops were aware of his seditious statements and behavior, including and not limited to: showing a Power Point call for jihad to other medical professionals in the Army; numerous expressions of opposition to America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and sympathy for the call for Muslims to unite against us; his collaboration with an an Imam that inspired three of the 911-hijackers; and numerous e-mail contacts with a known recruiter for al Qaida.

American security agencies investigated the killer of 13 and wounder of more than 50 at Fort Hood and did nothing. It appears that some of the investigations may have been conducted and concluded before the Empathizer-with-Islamists-in-Chief was inaugurated last January. We know that many of Hasan’s threatening actions took place as long ago as 2007, so this PC problem is endemic in the culture and so not necessarily correctable by the presence or absence of a war hawk in the White House.

How many pro-jihad sermons could Hasan have preached to shocked doctors and RNs before his commanding officers would discharge him from his duty to protect Americans from the Islamist terrorists to whom he adheres. Do we simply allow traitors to operate openly rather than risk being called a racist? How many must die for this idiocy.

The term political correctness was first coined by the founder of the evil empire, whose defeat we celebrated two days ago on the 20th anniversary of the Destruction (It didn’t merely “fall” of its own weight) of the Berlin Wall. Vladimir Lenin considered controlling the language to be a necessary predicate to enslaving the masses with Marxism. Lenin also considered lying to be a valid tactic to further the communist faith.

A better term for PC, as Dennis Prager stated on his radio show this week, is: lying cowards.

Lying cowards cry racism and bigotry when it does not exist.

Moreover, the lying cowards in the Drive-by media and on the left want to divert attention from the religious and treasonous aspect of the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 911 (more killed and wounded at the hands of Hasan than via Anthrax or the D.C sniper, who was executed yesterday in Virginia). They want to characterize the killing as “insane” or an “act of passion”, as if that excuses or diminishes the venality of the killings or has any relevance to the failures of our military and national security leaders to take actions to remove his threat from his fellow troops.

What matters is that otherwise intelligent people acted like fools, ignoring the obvious with glazed-over eyes looks and fearing the lying cowards that could call them a bigot more than they feared the likelihood that an obvious enemy of the nation they serve would one day levy war against them.

Which do they fear more today? How many innocent civilians and/or veterans in forts, trade centers or pentagons must die before enough Americans muster the courage to declare war on the PC lying cowards that turn our mental judgments to mush.

Or, has affluence and sloth produced a people too weak to wake up before we go the way of Rome?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

The Democrats continue to bleed support among Independents:

PRINCETON, NJ — Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup’s generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

As was the case in last Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, independents are helping the Republicans’ cause. In the latest poll, independent registered voters favor the Republican candidate by 52% to 30%. Both parties maintain similar loyalty from their bases, with 91% of Democratic registered voters preferring the Democratic candidate and 93% of Republican voters preferring the Republican.

Over the course of the year, independents’ preference for the Republican candidate in their districts has grown, from a 1-point advantage in July to the current 22-point gap.

Roughly a year before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans seem well-positioned to win back some of their congressional losses in 2006 and 2008. Independents are increasingly coming to prefer the Republican candidate for Congress, and now favor the GOP by 22 points. Political conditions could still shift between now and Election Day to create a more favorable environment for Democratic candidates, but a Republican lead on the generic ballot among registered voters has been a sign of a strong Republican showing at the polls in the coming election.

So the folks at Therealmarcorubio.com, who’ve already been tied to Charlie Crist, have come out with a charming video attacking Rubio.

Holy Heck on a stick.  Do you get that?  So we have Rubio speaking Spanish, for half the commercial, reportedly supporting a felon with an uber-Hispanic name, and we have that other swarthy character- Obama- backing him up and praising him as a Cuban…and then “No Way.  We can’t Trust Marco Rubio”.  Note the “we”.  Not you.  We.  We.  We non-swarthy, non-Spanish speaking, non-Cuban American types.  I’m sick to my stomach.

-

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

Much has been made of the rift within the GOP that was exposed by NY-23, and for good reason.  Both Conservatives and GOP leaders made a mistake in trying to force a candidate who was unacceptable to the other on each other, resulting in a split that cost us this seat.  Doug H was just an inappropriate candidate for that district (didn’t even live there); and Dede S, despite party backing and around $1 million in cash, couldn’t shake the image of supporting card check and the stimulus (because she supported both).  To top it all off, Dede S, in a fit, endorsed the Dem to stick it to the party who gave her the campaign cash and had nominated pushed her on the party base.

Why did this happen?  I understand why the party chose Dede S.  Without a self-funding candidate, she had name ID and broad (but apparently shallow) support.  The feeling must have been she’d have the easiest and cheapest time holding the seat, and she’d be malleable enough that the leadership could have gotten her to vote their way on a variety of issues (including card check and healthcare).  She appealed to Dems in the district as well, so she should be able to siphon off votes from the Dem.  Since Conservates just HAD to know it would be better to have a Rep than a Dem, they’d vote for her.  Simple plan, virtual lock on the seat, right?

Well, we all know how it turned out.  Most Conservatives saw her record and endorsements, and (justifiably) were outraged.  It really wasn’t one or two issues, but a totality of her record that was in question.  Party leaders tried to calm Conservatives with “Trust us, she’ll tow the line on the important stuff.”  It just didn’t happen, and things didn’t get better when she said to a reporter she was in favor of card check, then fled and called the cops on the reporter.  Fundamentally, the trust just wasn’t there, and no real effort was made to GAIN that trust.

Conservatives used to trust the GOP.  In `94, the GOP House nominees made a promise known as the Contract With America, a series of ideas that energized the Conservative base of the GOP and helped propel the GOP into possession of the House and Senate.  For six years, the GOP continued to build trust through opposition to Pres Clinton resulting in dropping deficits and slower growth of government.  Just elect a GOP President, we were told, and we can continue, no, expand the reform agenda and start cutting gov’t back.  Pres Bush isn’t like his father, he’s a Conservative.  Trust us.

It worked, and Conservatives worked to put Pres Bush in the White House, despite reservations.  Tax cuts were cheered, but other things came as well (Medicare Part D, for starters).  9/11 happened, and Conservatives put aside all else in ’02 to support the fight against foreign threats.  The memories of 9/11 were still too fresh in ’04 for Dems to capitalize, so Conservatives again supported the GOP.  By 2006, however, having witnessed 6 years of betrayal on several Conservative issues (how many vetoes did Pres Bush issue for runaway spending, again?), they sat on their hands, and 2008 was no different.

Since the results of NY-23 came in, I’ve heard some claim that it wasn’t fiscal issues that upset Conservatives, because they didn’t complain about Pres Bush’s atrocious record on the issue during his terms.  Oh, contraire (and if you think this is an isolated incident, there’s many more).  Conservative discontent with the GOP has been rising since the ascendancy of Pres Bush to the White House, with blips for tax cuts and 9/11.  During that time, the GOP paid lip service to fiscal issues, with Pres Bush even claiming that he was reducing spending in gov’t (which he qualified as non-defense, non-education, non-anything-he-was-expanding-greatly-at-the-time).  He also mentioned reform of the earmark process during the ’08 campaign, but it really was too little, too late.  Pres Bush lost the trust of Conservatives, and the GOP would pay the price for it.

Now, things appear to be on the way back.  The GOP had some impressive victories recently.  Momentum appears to be on their side.  The question is, has the GOP learned the lesson of fiscal responsibility, or will they simply bank on an anti-Dem mood sweeping the nation to get back in power?  One path will lead to short-term victory, with a repeat of ’06 looming once they get the White House.  The other path will lead to a governing majority for a decade.  A responsible agenda on the top two or three issues that’s endorsed by every GOP candidate will lead to the latter.  Pushing to win more seats without a governing philosophy will give us the former.

As I listened to Rep. Barney Frank argue with the reporter that he had never smoked ganja, I remembered this picture that I had come across several months back, of Rep. Frank.

It is possible that Rep. Frank may have once rolled his own cigarettes, but I highly doubt he is the type to do so.  This is one very large spliff.

…and Barney, no one is going to believe your line about not being “outdoorsy”, as in North America cannabis plants are usually grown indoors or in people’s backyards and if I remember correctly, it is not an indigenous plant in Maine’s White Mountain National Forest.

_____________________________________________

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

Per the umpteenth political obituary written for Mitt Romney below, does this remind anybody besides me of this famous sketch?

In an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, President Obama defended his support for national RomneyCare (buy health care or else) by noting the following:

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”

The ads write themselves. Here’s a USA Today article from 2005:

You have to buy car insurance if you own a car. You have to buy home insurance to get a mortgage. Why don’t you have to buy health insurance?

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney re-ignited that debate last month when he announced a plan to expand health coverage to all the state’s residents, with a caveat that those who don’t buy coverage could face a penalty.

“We can’t have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, ‘I don’t have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay,’ ” says Romney, a Republican who says he might run for president in 2008.

Yikes. Here’s NPR on Romney’s plan:

No other state has ever told its citizens they have to have health coverage, just as they must carry car insurance if they drive.

And then, there’s Ramesh Ponnuru’s thoughts, on National Review:

Gov. Romney defends that mandate in two ways: first by analogy to auto insurance, which all car owners are obligated to purchase, and second by arguing that people who lack insurance impose costs on everyone else, which is hardly libertarian.

But as Michael Tanner points out in a new paper on individual health-insurance mandates for the Cato Institute, the car-insurance mandate has not resulted in universal coverage. In the 47 states with that mandate, 14.5 percent of drivers remain uninsured. Nor have health-insurance mandates led to universal coverage.

If I know about all of this, so does HuckPAC, Freedom First PAC, and, well, uh, maybe not SarahPAC…

So, question: Does the fact that Romney Care — which Romney touted as a “fabulous” plan to be looked at by other states (“I like mandates!”) — mean that his 2012 chances are dashed?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

_____________________________________________

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

I apologize for posting a video of the hate-monger, Bill Maher, but I wanted to commend Carly Fiorina for defending people of all faiths.

I’m not sure what to make of Michael Steele nodding his head in agreement and refusing to challenge  Maher’s religious bigotry.

_____________________________________________

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

The Constitution guarantees states a “republican” form of government. Republics make law via legislatures, not by judicial fiat or the mob rule of pure democracy.

Conservatives like me, applauded California’s referenda reversing its Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage creation.

We admonished same-sex marriage supporters to exercise their free speech rights in the arena of ideas. They did so in Maine, successfully lobbying the Pine Tree State into enacting a same-sex marriage law, only to be rebuffed by a public referenda law that strips the constitutional republican bark off Maine’s pine tree.

This conservative supports traditional marriage as the exclusive version, but I also love the rule of law and the finality necessary for it to be respected. Maine’s referenda as veto invites legislatures to abdicate their accountability and prevents legal finality, much like Roe v. Wade’s judicial fiat.

-This column originally appeared as part of a “Pro & Con” feature on page A11 of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday, November 8, 2009. If a link becomes available, it will provided here.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

PPP (D) Survey on Olympia Snowe

Do you approve or disapprove of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s job performance?

• Approve 51% (56%)
• Disapprove 36% (31%)

Among Democrats

• Approve 60% (70%)
• Disapprove 29% (17%)

Among Republicans

• Approve 40% (45%)
• Disapprove 46% (45%)

Among Independents

• Approve 51% (51%)
• Disapprove 33% (33%)

Among Liberals

• Approve 53% (67%)
• Disapprove 34% (18%)

Among Moderates

• Approve 64% (67%)
• Disapprove 23% (20%)

Among Conservatives

• Approve 33% (34%)
• Disapprove 52% (53%)

Among Men

• Approve 48% (51%)
• Disapprove 41% (38%)

Among Women

• Approve 53% (61%)
• Disapprove 31% (24%)

If the 2012 Republican primary for Senate was between Olympia Snowe and a more conservative challenger, who would you vote for?

• Olympia Snowe 31%
• Conservative challenger 59%

Among Democrats

• Olympia Snowe 47%
• Conservative challenger 37%

Among Republicans

• Olympia Snowe 32%
• Conservative challenger 59%

Among Independents

• Olympia Snowe 27%
• Conservative challenger 62%

Among Liberals

• Olympia Snowe 66%
• Conservative challenger 26%

Among Moderates

• Olympia Snowe 57%
• Conservative challenger 29%

Among Conservatives

• Olympia Snowe 18%
• Conservative challenger 75%

Survey of 1,133 likely voters was conducted October 31 – November 1. The margin of error is +/-2.9 percentage points. 415 likely Republican primary voters were interviewed with a margin of error of +/-4.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% Democrat; 33% Republican; 29% Independent. Political views: 41% Moderate; 36% Conservative; 23% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses.