In our most recent survey Linda has a positive image of 52%, while her negative rating remains in single digits. Overall 82% of primary voters are aware of her and she is viewed favorably throughout the state and among all demographic groups with extremely low negatives among all audiences. Even in Rob Simmons’ home base of Eastern Connecticut, Linda has a very healthy 4:1 favorable/unfavorable ratio.

——-

Linda McMahon Image – December 2009

Aware: 82%

Favorable: 52%

Unfavorable: 7%

——-

December 2009

Linda McMahon 37%
Rob Simmons 35%
Peter Schiff 4%
Undecided 25%

This memo contains the results of a telephone survey conducted among Republican Primary voters in Connecticut. A total of 400 interviews were conducted December 15-16, 2009, by Moore Information, Inc. The sampling error associated with this survey is plus or minus 5% at the 95% confidence level.

H/T: The Hill

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Build-A-Bear Workshop, those cute mall toystores where kids can build their own teddy bears, has gone off the deep end on global warming.

Take a look at this video (the crapola starts at 1:22), aimed at small children, with elves and polar bears telling Santa that Christmas may have to be canceled because the North Pole is about to melt.

No, not Christmas 2055, the one coming later this week — that’s how bad the problem has gotten. Help! Help! The sky is falling!

I don’t normally have a problem with a company having a political viewpoint (e.g., Ben & Jerry’s), as long as they’re willing to take the fallout. But when they aim their political messages at small children, they have passed over into propaganda and brainwashing. And they cross another line when they frighten the kids with a message that says there will be no Christmas.

My kids are far past their teddy bear years, but if/when they produce some grandkids for me, I’ll know where not to shop.

HT: BigGovernment.com

As widely reported, President Obama’s Rasmussen Approval Index (percentage that strongly approves minus percentage that strongly disapproves) has reached a new low: -21. Also, a record number of respondents now disapprove of the President: 56%.

While Obama’s Gallup approval has somehow managed to hover around 50%, trouble still abounds ahead. With voters losing trust and approval with him on nearly every issue, the President’s still-impressive personal favorability ratings will not buoy him forever.

Add to this the fact that the economic picture remains murky at best. As noted by James Pethokoukis, the Commerce Department revised third-quarter GDP growth estimates farther downward:

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 0.7 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “second” estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8 percent.

Pethokoukis also provided some commentary:

And, of course, the original estimate [of third quarter GDP growth] was 3.5 percent. Now a few thoughts;

1) After such a nasty recession, the US economy should grow in the 6-8 percent range. The first seven quarters after the 1981-82 recession saw 7 percent average GDP growth.

2) If that doesn’t happen soon, another sign that this recovery/expansion will different. And by different, I mean weaker than is typical.

3) And a weaker recovery, means weaker job growth. To drop unemployment by a full percentage point next year, it will take 4 percent GDP growth generating 250k a month.

4) High unemployment and weaker growth means a higher level of danger for Democrat incumbents in the 2010 midterms. My working model translates 3 percent growth into typical losses of 25 seats in the House, 2 in the Senate. If growth comes in at closer to 2 percent, that is when you get the 1994-esque scenario with 40+ losses and 5+ Senate seats.

As long as Americans feel that the jobs picture has not improved, the economy will remain the most important issue in voters’ minds. And that spells trouble for Obama and his fellow Democrats; as time progresses, they assume even greater ownership of the economy. They’ll have trouble convincing the electorate that their $787 billion “stimulus” provided an adequate return on investment (in fact, they’ve taken to calling their new $200 billion stimulus package a “jobs bill”, due to the political unpopularity of the aforementioned bill).

As I’ve argued in the past, the lack of private investment in the economy all but eliminates the possibility of a strong recovery filled with job creation. So, the Dems will basically have to continue priming the pump with massive federal spending, which will lead to additional gigantic deficits (another thing the voters don’t like) and inflation, or let the economy fall back into stagnation or negative growth. For politicians, people who relish making tough decisions, this seems like a walk in the park.

I think Rubio needs to force the party switch issue. I talked about this with Alex, awhile ago, but I’m convinced that if Rubio, in response to some question, said something like “you know, I think Charlie Crist is wrong for Florida, but if he’s the Republican nominee I’ll support him. Because he comes closer to supporting those values I cherish than Kendrick Meek does”.  This accomplishes two things.  1.)  Rubio, in a very high profile way, casts himself as a reasonable fellow.  Assuming the CW about Crist is right- that he’s all but done in a Republican Primary- Rubio will need to make that move soon enough anyway.  2.)  Crist would then be asked the same question and will have to declare himself. What’s he going to do if he loses the primary?

I think, frankly, Rubio has very little to lose by such a gambit. Get Crist on the record. If he says that, yes, he’d support Rubio, he’s now made another statement that makes him a tough sell to Democratic primary voters, if he makes the switch.  Even a weak Democrat like Kendrick Meek could make hay of the fact that his principle primary rival JUST said he preferred a supposed “radical conservative” to a Democrat .  And Charlie won’t get away with demurring.  If he demurres, his already meagre support among conservative Floridians will evaporate.  But, neither can he switch on the spot either.  You can’t switch parties when someone asks you a question.  It’s politically impossible.

By the time Crist gets around to the actual switch, Rubio will be firmly in the center rhetorically. He’s already there, basically. He rarely uses the word conservative, he refuses to accept the “I’m the real Republican line” when others try to bring it up, and he speaks about the challenges to America and Florida, not the challenges to the conservative movement.   And Crist will, all the while, have to move left to fend off Meek and co.  Which will collapse his support with the center.  Draw him out Marco.  Only you can do it.

-

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

Back in July, the Diaz-Balart brothers announced their support for Charlie Crist in the US Senate race.  They said, at the time:

“With his commitment to a strong national defense, a world-class education system, and ensuring that all Floridians have access to health care, it is clear that Charlie Crist will be a strong advocate for Florida in Washington D.C.” said Congressman Mario-Diaz Balart. “He is exactly the leader that we need and I look forward to supporting and campaigning with him.”

Now, they’ve taken the extraordinary step of withdrawing their endorsements.

“We take our endorsements seriously, but the governor knows why we withdrew and he left us with no alternative,” Lincoln Diaz-Balart said.

What could he be alluding to here?  Something Crist has done?  Or will do?  An exceedingly strange comment and another in a line of bad bits of news for Governor Crist.

-

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

No less than a few minutes had passed after word got out that Democrat Rep. Parker Griffith would be switching to the GOP before Erick Erickson of RedState.com had called on him to be defeated in a primary.  This is quite simply the stupidest reaction anyone could ever have to this news.  Griffith represents a district that has been held by the Democrats for 140 years.  So rather than embrace the fact that Griffith is more than we should normally hope for in this particular district, Erickson has decided to target him, a move that will easily hand the seat right back to Nancy Pelosi.  I can’t stress this enough: this is a district that hasn’t had a GOP representative since 1869! Rather than embrace other Blue Dogs and try to use this moment to drive a permanent wedge in the Democrat caucus, Erick would prefer to widen the wedge in our own party.  Democrats like Griffith were once a strong part of the Reagan Coalition, and rather than try to build a similar coalition for the future, the confused Mr. Erickson would rather continue burning the village to the ground. Attacking the Parker Griffith’s and the Kelly Ayotte’s and the Carly Fiorina’s of the world is idiotic considering the states and districts they are running in. We should expect a stronger conservative than Charlie Crist in Florida, but to ask for one to the right of Fiorina in Califorinia, Ayotte in New Hampshire, or Griffith in Alabama-5th is a pipe dream.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

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

• Approve 38% {38%} (41%) [41%] {39%} (46%)
• Disapprove 56% {56%} (53%) [51%] {52%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 32% {32%} (35%) [36%] {34%} (37%)
• Disapprove 61% {61%} (59%) [56%] {60%} (48%)

From what you’ve heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress?

• Mostly approve 36% {38%}
• Mostly disapprove 53% {52%}

Among Independents

• Mostly approve 30% {32%}
• Mostly disapprove 58% {57%}

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

• President Obama 45% {44%} (45%) [47%] {46%} (53%)
• Republicans in Congress 40% {37%} (36%) [31%] {37%} (33%)

Among Independents

• President Obama 39% {37%} (40%) [41%] {41%} (46%)
• Republicans in Congress 39% {37%} (37%) [30%] {36%} (36%)

Which comes closer to describing your own views – the president and Congress need to take on health care reform now, and I support the proposals currently being considered, the president and Congress need to take on health care reform now, but I don’t support the proposals being considered or I don’t think the president and Congress should take on health care reform right now?

• Take on health care reform now/Support proposals 31%
• Take on health care reform now/Don’t support proposals 28%
• Don’t take on health care reform right now 36%

Among Independents

• Take on health care reform now/Support proposals 26%
• Take on health care reform now/Don’t support proposals 31%
• Don’t take on health care reform right now 38%

President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?

• Will keep promise 18% {19%} (19%) [19%] {21%}
• Will add to deficit 73% {74%} (72%) [71%] {72%}

Among Independents

• Will keep promise 13% {11%} (14%) [18%] {17%}
• Will add to deficit 80% {82%} (79%) [75%] {77%}

Do you agree or disagree with the following – overhauling the nation’s health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it significantly increases the federal budget deficit.

• Agree 37%
• Disagree 56%

Among Independents

• Agree 34%
• Disagree 60%

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

• Approve 44% {41%} (43%) [47%] {45%} (52%)
• Disapprove 51% {54%} (52%) [46%] {49%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 38% {33%} (38%) [40%] {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 55% {60%} (58%) [51%] {53%} (46%)

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

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 56%

Among Independents

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 62%

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

• President Obama 45% {47%} (54%)
• Republicans in Congress 36% {36%} (32%)

Among Independents

• President Obama 39% {42%} (49%)
• Republicans in Congress 33% {33%} (32%)

Do you think President Obama’s policies have helped your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or haven’t made a difference?

• Helped 15% {13%}
• Hurt 26% {23%}
• No difference 58% {63%}

Among Independents

• Helped 12% {8%}
• Hurt 30% {25%}
• No difference 58% {65%}

Do you think President Obama’s policies will help your personal financial situation, hurt your personal financial situation, or haven’t made a difference?

• Help 31% {33%}
• Hurt 37% {36%}
• No difference 30% {28%}

Among Independents

• Help 30% {28%}
• Hurt 40% {39%}
• No difference 28% {30%}

Do you think that the 200 billion dollars left over from the bank bailout should be used for a stimulus package to create jobs or should it go to reduce the federal budget deficit?

• Stimulus package to create jobs 52%
• Reduce federal budget deficit 42%

Among Independents

• Stimulus package to create jobs 47%
• Reduce federal budget deficit 48%

Survey of 1,616 registered voters was conducted December 15-20. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 1-6 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 9-16 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 29 – October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 3 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 23 – 29 are in parentheses.

Politico is reporting that first-term Congressman Parker Griffith (D-Alabama) will announce today that he is leaving the Democratic Party and joining the GOP.

Griffith has been in Congress for just under  a year – so congratulations to Speaker Pelosi for setting a new speed record for driving star recruits out of the party.

I’m sure I will have my disagreements with our newest GOP congressman – as I do with most of his former Blue Dog colleagues – but all I have to say today is “Welcome aboard, Mr. Griffith, glad to have you.”

Since they’re voting on Christmas Eve…

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through D.C.
Not a creature was stirring — except for sixty.
The health care bill made them wish they weren’t alive,
And they wanted Obama Claus soon to arrive.

The Dems were all anxious, they wanted to leave
For they know, in a year, six or seven will grieve.
The entire debate blew up in the Dems’ faces
And made their polls sink in all of the big races!

They don’t want to remember this nightmare existed,
Nor employ on constituents logic so twisted.
Harry Reid hid the bill, but I think this is it –
I will spell it all out with my rhyme and my wit:

There is no “public option,” progressives are crying
And distorting the CBO, Barry is lying
Mary Landrieu was bought off, but nobody cares
And Ben Nelson is pro-life — really, he swears

Medicare’s still insolvent, but we’re gonna slash it –
(But those evil Repukes are the ones who will smash it!)
The majority will says the bill is a clunker –
(But we’ve got cash for that, and the DNC bunker)

Pre-existing conditions? Irrelevant, now –
It’ll reduce our costs, though we can’t tell you how.
Tort reform was avoided with diligent care,
And we left state monopolies all standing there.

Now Obama Claus comes and he asks them to vote –
58, 59 — ah, at last he can gloat! –
For the ayes have it, sir, and the bill has been passed!
We have the damned health care reform here at last!

“Now Nelson! Now, Lincoln! Now, Pryor and Joe!
On, Evan! On, Landrieu! On, Baucus and Snowe!
To the top of the deficit, ceiling of debt!
We’re going to bankrupt the U.S.A. yet!”

I woke up the next morning and saw on TV
I got health care handouts — coming straight from D.C.!
Obama, I thought — you did all this for me?
“Think it costs lots right now? Just you wait ’til it’s free!”

On Sunday, Huckabee teamed up with Americans for Prosperity and over 2,000 Nebraskans to tell Senator Nelson that voting for ObamaCare is a bad idea. Huckabee gave one of the most passionate speeches and did it all without a teleprompter.

Part 1: Part 2: Part 3:

I thought this speech was one of the best this year although I am admittedly a bit biased – I like Huckabee. I am glad that he took a strong stand at this critical time and gave voice to the majority of Americans concerned about this legislation.  Your thoughts on the speech?

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards recently authored a revealing missive on the Bush administration’s miserable record on federal spending. The main point emanates from three charts created by Edwards:

The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents.

…President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bail0uts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).

Figure 2 shows total federal spending without interest payments. Presidents have the least discretionary control over interest. The biggest spenders by this measure were again LBJ and Bush II. Note that Bush’s record by this measure is worse than in Figure 1. That is because Bush lucked out with relatively low interest rates on the federal debt and relatively low amounts of federal debt because of four years of surpluses under President Clinton.

For Figure 3, I took out both interest payments and defense spending from the totals. So spending includes domestic discretionary spending and so-called entitlement spending–in other words, mainly spending on the growing federal welfare state.

…The 1980 election of Ronald Reagan represented a revolt against the rapidly expanding welfare state. His record shown in Figure 3 of just 1 percent real spending growth over eight years was impressive, at least relative to the other presidents of the last half century.

So, there you have it. Despite his fiscal conservative rhetoric, President Bush damaged himself, the Republican Party brand and the nation as a whole with his inability to reign in the growth of government. The fact that Republicans controlled Congress for the first six years of the Bush administration enlarges the magnitude of the President’s budgetary failings.

If Republicans do once again take control of both the legislative and executive branches, they desperately need to avoid sacrificing principle for politics, as Bush and the 107th-109th Congresses did. We cannot blame voters for throwing the GOP out on its collective rear end in 2006 and 2008 and losing trust with the party on spending; actions simply did not match words. This cannot happen again.

I applaud the party for apparently rediscovering its fiscal conservative roots, most clearly illustrated by House Republicans’ unanimous vote against the stimulus. I only hope that recent indiscretions (ruling out reductions in defense spending, defending Medicare and accepting the Democrats’ premise of universal health care as ideal, for example) from many Republicans do not betray a less-than-resolute embrace of principal over political incentives.

I’m far from an expert on health policy. Like many Americans, I’ve spent the past year studying the contours of our nation’s health care system in order to attempt to reach an informed and rational conclusion on the various proposals being put forth. In so doing, I’ve reached two broad conclusions about health care in America: 1) the current system is unsustainable unless something is done to bring down the cost of care and 2) the legislation that President Obama will sign into law will almost certainly ensure that our nation reaches its health care breaking point much faster than it otherwise would. That’s because ObamaCare focuses on ensuring universal access to health care without doing anything to reduce costs, and as anyone who has taken a basic economic class knows, an increase in demand for a good or service absent any change in supply means an increase in price. ObamaCare’s almost certain passage essentially changes the conversation about health care into this country from one about access to one about cost. And, interestingly, that conversation is one that favors conservatives. As such, the president may be about to sign away his second term.

No one is claiming that the current health care system wasn’t chalked full of archaic regulations and perverse incentives. And those were things that conservatives favored changing just as much, if not more so, than leftists. Republican thinkers and politicians advanced a variety of ideas to increase access to health care in a manner that would be less costly and less intrusive than those proposals put forth by Democrats. Allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, incentivizing preventative care, and creating new ways to pool risk, such as association health plans and high-risk pools, were all ideas put forth by various prominent Republicans. And Sen. McCain’s plan, as articulated during the 2008 presidential campaign, would have given every American the means to purchase at least a basic health care plan on the individual market through the provision of refundable tax credits, paid for by ending the tax deduction for employer-based care. Together, these ideas would have expanded health care coverage to a near-universal level without expanding government, adding to the deficit, or yielding the myriad of unintended consequences that sweeping changes always produce. And the plans put forth by Republicans would have lowered the cost of care in the long-term instead of increasing it.

ObamaCare, meanwhile, is essentially an attempt to nationalize the financing of health care while still leaving that financing mechanism in the hands of private insurance companies. No matter what the final bill looks like, it will almost certainly contain the provision known as guaranteed issue, meaning that insurance companies will be required to sell policies at the same rate to all purchasers. A few states have this now, and those states just happen to have the highest premiums in the nation, largely because insurance companies are forced to offset the money they lose on insuring the old and sick by raising premiums on everyone else. So ultimately, not only will ObamaCare turn insurance companies into public utilities and destroy the health insurance market, it will dramatically raise the cost of care for the typical middle class American.

The silver lining is that, as in Massachusetts, where a comparable plan was implemented, ObamaCare will probably result in 90-plus-percent of Americans being insured, meaning that the national conversation will turn away from universal coverage, which Republicans can never win, because even when they put forth good ideas, swing voters simply don’t believe the GOP will implement those ideas. So essentially we’ll have a health care system on this country that everyone theoretically has access to, because everyone will either have private insurance or be covered by Medicare or Medicaid, but that no one practically has access to, because private insurance premiums will go through the roof and because federal entitlements will continue to pay less for medical services, and thus be accepted by fewer medical professionals. That will transform the health care conversation in this country into one about cost: the cost of care, the cost of the entitlements, and the fact that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. And that will create a massive political market for a small government party to re-emerge to make the hard choices necessary to bring us back from the precipice. If ObamaCare passes, the nation and the Republican Party will almost certainly swing hard right on fiscal issues.

Hopefully, this is the last we here of Rudy Giuliani. I truly hope this is not about another run for president and instead about enjoying private life.  If he wanted to run for president, winning this senate seat would have been the appropriate path. It would’ve only been the remaining 2 years of Clinton’s term, and he could have turned right around and ran in 2012.  I’ve wasted too much time defending the former Mayor, but with him passing up two potentially huge pick-ups for our party, I can do nothing but hope for his long, healthy, and permanent retirement.  Time to dust off Al D’Amato.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Aron Goldman posted an interesting poll today regarding the re-election prospects of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota).

Dorgan, widely seen as entrenched and unbeatable, crushes perennial candidate Duane Sand by a margin of 52%-37%. However, Dorgan goes down in flames when pitted against popular Gov. John Hoeven – losing in a 58%-36% rout. This should be great news, but there’s one catch – Hoeven hasn’t decided whether to run. He’s served three terms, and is one of the nation’s most popular governors. He saw some minor vice-presidential banter in 2008, and frankly he’s likely to get even more in 2012 (he pairs well with both Romney and Palin, in my opinion). Heck, I frankly think he could surprise a lot of people if he just decided to go for the big job himself. Why in the world would he want to trade all that to become a freshman senator – especially as he is viewed as something of a moderate and might draw fire from the right wing of the party? I wouldn’t do it if I were him.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t run – I’d like to see it, and he should definitely get first dibs on the nomination if he wants it. That said, I am increasingly disturbed by the absence of a “Plan B” for this race. Dorgan is a moderate Democrat from a relatively conservative state, and could potentially be a top target were he not sitting on a gargantuan pile of cash. In fact, if one looks at the poll numbers and assumes that a generic, well-funded Republican would run somewhere between Hoeven and Sand – the result becomes a toss-up. The only problem is that we do not seem to have a solid bench of potential candidates in North Dakota, and hence we may well lose a race that we should be able to win. Hence, I have two suggestions for the North Dakota GOP – as their seats could eventually be the keys to a GOP takeover of the Senate.

First, start preparing now to run a solid campaign against Dorgan by lining up a Plan B candidate other than Duane Sand. It doesn’t have to be someone with deep pockets or massive name recognition, just somebody you can sell as a plausible senator and raise a lot of money for. If things keep going the way they are in the health care debate – then Dorgan may have to blow a lot of his cash defending himself. This may be your best chance in years to take this seat, Hoeven or no Hoeven - so you need a candidate. I spent time today glancing over the website at the Noth Dakota state legislature, and you have lots of good people – PLEASE recruit one of them as a backup.

Second, and more importantly, learn from this experience and immediately begin grooming an alternate challenger to take down Kent Conrad in 2012. Hoeven may well get in this time, and if even he doesn’t, he can’t be the only option in 2012. Either way, Conrad is a bigger fish than Dorgan, and he could be in bad shape by the next election. Speaking from a national perspective, we NEED somebody else who can take him out. And after having given myself a crash-course on North Dakota today, I think I might have an idea.

Meet State Representative Stacey Dahl (R-Grand Forks). Apparently the wiz-kid of the State House, Rep. Dahl is already wrapping up her third term at the tender age of 27. First elected in 2004, she served her first two terms while simultaneously earning her law degree at the University of North Dakota. She also found time to be a state co-chair for John McCain during the presidential primaries. I can’t vouch for her speaking skills (no video), but her issue positions seem sound – and  anyone who can do that much at that age has some serious fire in the belly. She’s actually too young to take on Dorgan this year, but she’ll be just over the Senate’s age threshold when Conrad comes up. So – if I may be so bold as to offer some extremely premature advice to the ND GOP – I think now is the time to start prepping the young hotshot for a showdown with Senator Conrad. If you start laying the groundwork now, the youthful Dahl could be a formidable candidate against the crusty chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Even if my initial impression of Stacey Dahl is incorrect, we still need to make a priority of locating and nurturing young stars in North Dakota. There is no such thing as a small state when it comes to the U.S. Senate – everybody gets the same share – and hence it is absolutely inexcusable to ingnore North Dakota. We can win there, we should win there, and the only reason we’re not winning there is a lack of developed talent.

Here we go again?

GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona says the United States must try sanctions to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon before considering other options like a military attack.

However, McCain wondered whether other countries like Israel are willing to have the patience to see if sanctions will sway the Middle Eastern country.

The United States and other countries worry that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapon. Iran says its work is peaceful and designed to generate electricity, but it has defied international demands to prove it is not trying to build an atomic bomb.

The Obama administration is now beginning a push to get international support for additional penalties against Iran.

McCain said “sanctions have to be tried before we explore the last option.”

Okay, I hate to spoil the ending, but: this is not going to work. Sanctions never work. They especially won’t work on Iran, because the regime long ago stopped relying on economic and political means to ensure its legitimacy and stability. It operates strictly on fear and repression. Moreover, it loves to juxtapose itself against the West: it’s not as if they care about being isolated from the rest of the ‘international community.’ So I’m not sure what these sanctions are supposed to accomplish.

Sanctions usually are said to have worked twice: in the cases of Chile and South Africa, but in both cases, the leaders there wanted the support of the West and were greatly terrified by the prospect of isolation. This is a little different from what Ali Khamenei cares about.

Unless the goal of McCain and Obama is to increase the suffering of the Iranian people, he’ll back off from these sanctions. They won’t work.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

How many times do we have to hear the lie that this health care bill is going to cut the deficit by over $100 billion?

Here’s a lying assessment from Reuters:

The Congressional Budget Office also said the bill as revised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would have coverage costs of $871 billion over 10 years.

Both figures meet President Barack Obama’s goal of cutting the deficit and having a total cost of about $900 billion over 10 years. The rosy report card could help the proposal gain support.

No, no, no. This suffers from the same problem that the Baucus bill’s assessment does. The CBO is required to measure the ten years from the first day the bill passes. But the new requirements don’t kick in until the year 2014!

TPM’s John Marshall admits as much:

My impression is that some of the delays are there because it makes the budgetary accounting work better in terms of deficit neutrality. And I know the Dems would likely lose critical support without being able to show that the overall bill actually lowers the deficit.

Heritage reports:

The CLASS Act is intended to pay for itself with collected premiums. The premiums would produce positive revenues for the government for the first 10 years, appearing to reduce the federal deficit during this time. However, as the CBO points out, while “the program’s cash flows would show net receipts for a number of years, [this would be] followed by net outlays in subsequent decades.” Thus, the CLASS Act appears self-sufficient for the first 10 years but starts running a deficit soon thereafter.

Why do the Democrats like to lie to America?

(Oh, and, psst — don’t forget that this doesn’t take illegal immigrants into account. Don’t forget that Obama wants amnesty!)

I’m sitting here watching the Neil Cavuto program and Cecil Wilson, the president-elect of the American Medical Association, is explaining his organization’s endorsement of the Senate health care bill by extolling the virtues of “expanding insurance coverage.” Congressman Alan Grayson’s “Names of the Dead” website proclaims that tens of thousands of Americans die annually “simply” because they have no health insurance (this is the “holocaust” he refers to). It’s a familiar canard by now.

It truly recalls H.L. Mencken’s maxim that for every problem, there’s a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.

The issue is a red herring. Insuring a person alone will not ensure that his physician is competent, that he is receiving quality care, that he is able to receive care in a timely manner, that the cost of his coverage remains low, or that the market will be allowed to work to enhance medicinal technologies to assist him in getting better. These are complicated issues with no simple answers (indeed, there are only trade-offs). Everyone has health insurance in Cuba.

All too often, rather than work to make life better for all of us, people in power work to secure the purity of their ideology and their own sense of compassion. Look at how compassionate Alan Grayson is — he wants everyone to have coverage! Don’t question him, you heartless bastard. If only these people had health insurance, they’d still be alive. Alan Grayson wants you to live, and Republicans want you to die. Now, are you pro-life or pro-death?

Really, now? This emotionally-charged tactic is to shift discussion from whether insurance  — rather than costs or efficiency — is the issue, to how to cover everyone. Conservatives can combat this tactic by questioning the premise: what is the real issue at hand? The real issue is individual rights. We can start with the ideas that Republicans — the so-called “party of no” — have been going for: knocking down the artificial monopolies that insurance companies have within state lines. Real, meaningful tort reform. Portable health insurance (whose bright idea was it to attach health care to one’s job?). Tax breaks for small businesses and individuals toward buying coverage. These are pro-individual, pro-liberty ideas that hit on the real issues: quality of care and market efficiency. Expanded coverage is a cherry on top. (Oh, and it doesn’t cost a trillion dollars.)

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Godwin’s Law states that as the length of an argument continues (usually on the Internet, because such arguments are usually more frivolous, but what could possibly be more frivolous than Congress?), the probability of the invocation of Nazi analogy approaches 1.

Sheldon Whitehouse, a winner is you! Congratulations for finally getting your name in the news for something. Saying that “Aryans, birthers, and militia groups” oppose the health care bill. Look:

And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.

Of note, Whitehouse said the words “Barack Obama” very exotically, as if to underscore the fact that his name is (snicker) foreign. He says it not “Barack Obama” but “Bayrlohck Obama.” HINT HINT.

Here’s a video of Senator Whitehouse, upon Senator DeMint telling him he’d vote against the bill:

To be fair, Neo-Nazi groups probably do oppose the bill. So do Communists (and I’m not just talking about Howard Dean!).

Okay, let’s see if I have this right. Proposition 1: All people who oppose the bill have the characteristics of others who oppose the bill (this must be his point; otherwise, why would he mention it?). Proposition 2: All Nazis, all militias, and all Communists oppose the bill. Ergo: Everyone who opposes this bill is a white-power Communist militia member who believes that Barack Obama is a crypto-Commie Kenyan. Are you listening, David Frum?

Good God. Between Whitehouse and Al Franken pissing on Joe Lieberman, these progressives are really losing it. If the state of the country gets any more dire, we’ll be in for truly some wonderful entertainment!

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

The Blade says:

“I’m discouraged, dispirited, and disappointed. Discouraged that such a backwards, anti-taxpayer disaster of a bill is this close to passage.

Dispirited at a gross process of vote-buying and special deals that borders on corrupt. And severely disappointed that any of our delegation would vote for such an anti-Indiana measure.

“Let’s nurture the hope that somehow the public will be heard before our nation makes such a terrible mistake.”

Sure sounds like a presidential candidate.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Rasmussen Survey on Health Care

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

• Strongly favor 19%
• Somewhat favor 22%
• Somewhat oppose 10%
• Strongly oppose 45%

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

• Better 22%
• Worse 53%
• Stay the same 18%

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

• Up 58%
• Down 16%
• Stay the same 17%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 18-19. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Health Care

As you may know, the U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that bill, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?

• Favor 42% (36%)
• Oppose 56% (61%)

Thinking about the health care and health insurance that is available to you and your immediate family, do you think the proposals in the Senate bill would change things for the better, change things for the worse, or not make any real changes at all?

• Change things for the better 22%
• Change things for the worse 37%
• No change 39%

Thinking about the health care and health insurance that is available to most Americans, do you think the proposals in the Senate bill would change things for the better, change things for the worse, or not make any real changes at all?

• Change things for the better 34%
• Change things for the worse 38%
• No change 26%

Survey of 1,160 adults was conducted December 16-20. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 2-3 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Illinois Gubernatorial Survey

• Jim Ryan (R) 46%
• Pat Quinn (D) 39%
• Some other candidate 9%
• Not sure 6%

• Dan Hynes (D) 42%
• Jim Ryan (R) 40%
• Some other candidate 7%
• Not sure 11%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Jim Ryan 53% / 34% {+19%}

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted December 20. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

It’s important to note that at this stage, the close contest between Quinn and Hynes may be depressing the Democratic vote in match-ups with the Republicans. Once the party selects a gubernatorial candidate in its February 2 primary, supporters of the losing candidate can be expected to begin moving into the winner’s column.

Ryan carries male voters over both Quinn and Hynes. He has a nine-point advantage among female voters against Quinn but loses women by 10 points to Hynes.

Voters not affiliated with either party strongly prefer the Republican over either of the Democrats.

Rasmussen North Dakota Senatorial Survey

• John Hoeven (R) 58%
• Byron Dorgan (D) 36%

• Byron Dorgan (D) 52%
• Duane Sand (R) 37%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John Hoeven 82% / 15% {+67%}
• Byron Dorgan 61% / 36% {+25%}
• Duane Sand 54% / 32% {+22%}

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

• Strongly approve 55%
• Somewhat approve 32%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 3%

What is better for North Dakota…if John Hoeven remains as Governor or if John Hoeven represents North Dakota in the Senate?

• Hoeven remains as governor 37%
• Hoeven represents North Dakota in the Senate 42%

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

• Strongly approve 18%
• Somewhat approve 23%
• Somewhat disapprove 17%
• Strongly disapprove 41%

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

• Strongly favor 14%
• Somewhat favor 16%
• Somewhat oppose 14%
• Strongly oppose 50%

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

• Excellent 8%
• Good 25%
• Fair 34%
• Poor 31%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 51%
• Oppose 28%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?

• Favor 41%
• Oppose 45%

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

Inside the numbers:

Hoeven, who has been governor since December 2000, carries the male vote by nearly two-to-one and wins female voters by 15 points. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Hoeven by a 63% to 28% margin.

Dorgan and Sand divide male voters, while women prefer Dorgan in that contest by 24 points. The Democrat, who has been in the Senate for 18 years, wins unaffiliateds 48% to 35%.

Sand benefits from the health care concerns but not nearly as much as Hoeven. While 86% of those who strongly favor the health care plan support Dorgan in his match-up with Sand, 66% of those who strongly oppose the plan back the Republican.

Officially, the Senate has not passed health care reform. Unofficially, the fight is over for this round. Senate Democrats overcame a filibuster by a party-line vote of 60-40, including the two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats.

As I said, it’s not officially over; the above vote merely provided official “cloture.” However, it is merely window dressing to get the bill passed by Christmas Eve, which seems very likely now.

The Heritage Foundation outlines what this bill will do to America’s budget, the unborn and taxes. In short, it’s a bad bill, which we already knew. However, there is still hope. The Senate and House bills must be compromised in conference- where the two chambers make two bills into one- and then voted on again in each chamber separately. The two biggest issues, as far as I see, that could shut down this reform effort are abortion and the public option. The House bill includes the latter, the Senate one does not. The Senate bill, however, allows public funds to be used for abortion and the House one does not. I hope Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) holds strong on his abortion language and kills the bill. A pro-life amendment would help the health care bill that finally passes (if one does) not fund the murder of the unborn.

Fox News has a very revealing analysis about where various monies went to various senators in order to bribe them votes for the cloture vote. As Fox notes in the article, uncertain votes were brought in line as a direct result of how the Senate leadership decided to use our money.

This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

St. Cloud State Minnesota Political Survey

How would you rate the overall performance of Tim Pawlenty as Governor?

• Excellent 9.8%
• Pretty good 38.7%
• Only fair 31.4%
• Poor 17.4%

How would you rate the overall performance of Barack Obama as President?

• Excellent 15.1%
• Pretty good 35.2%
• Only fair 22.0%
• Poor 25.4%

If the 2012 presidential election was held today with Barack Obama being the Democratic Candidate and Tim Pawlenty being the Republican Candidate, would you vote for Obama or Pawlenty?

• Barack Obama 49.0%
• Tim Pawlenty 39.7%

Men

• Tim Pawlenty 49%
• Barack Obama 40%

Women

• Barack Obama 59%
• Tim Pawlenty 31%

Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. I’d like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you do not feel too favorable toward the person. If you do not feel particularly warm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50-degree mark.

Feeling Thermometer (Mean temperature)

• Barack Obama 58
• Amy Klobuchar 56
• Tim Pawlenty 53
• Al Franken 43
• Keith Olbermann 42
• Glenn Beck 41
• Sarah Palin 38
• Rush Limbaugh 31

Men

• Tim Pawlenty 57
• Barack Obama 51
• Amy Klobuchar 49
• Glenn Beck 45
• Sarah Palin 41
• Al Franken 39
• Keith Olbermann 39
• Rush Limbaugh 35

Women

• Barack Obama 65
• Amy Klobuchar 62
• Tim Pawlenty 48
• Al Franken 48
• Keith Olbermann 47
• Glenn Beck 36
• Sarah Palin 35
• Rush Limbaugh 27

Republicans

• Tim Pawlenty 76
• Glenn Beck 62
• Sarah Palin 58
• Rush Limbaugh 53
• Amy Klobuchar 41
• Barack Obama 34
• Keith Olbermann 31
• Al Franken 23

Independents

• Tim Pawlenty 61
• Amy Klobuchar 48
• Barack Obama 46
• Glenn Beck 44
• Sarah Palin 42
• Al Franken 41
• Keith Olbermann 37
• Rush Limbaugh 36

Moderates

• Barack Obama 63
• Amy Klobuchar 59
• Tim Pawlenty 53
• Keith Olbermann 45
• Al Franken 45
• Sarah Palin 36
• Glenn Beck 33
• Rush Limbaugh 26

Next, let’s turn to some questions concerning abortion. Would you please tell me which one of these statements represents what Minnesota law should do:

1. never allow a woman to have an abortion;
2. permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger;
3. allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established;
4. allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice?

• Allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice 45.9%
• Permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger 30.4%
• Allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established 12.6%
• Never allow a woman to have an abortion 8.7%

Men

• Allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice 40%
• Permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger 34%
• Allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established 13%
• Never allow a woman to have an abortion 10%

Women

• Allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice 51%
• Permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger 27%
• Allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established 12%
• Never allow a woman to have an abortion 8%

Democrats/Dem-leaning Independents

• Allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice 64%
• Permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger 21%
• Allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established 11%
• Never allow a woman to have an abortion 3%

Republicans/GOP-leaning Independents

• Allow a woman to have an abortion as a matter of personal choice 21%
• Permit abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger 46%
• Allow a woman to have a legal abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established 13%
• Never allow a woman to have an abortion 17%

(more…)

If you have expressed concerns that Rep. Alan Grayson may not be in possession of his entire mental faculty, you are not alone…

In fact, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando took such offense at a parody Web site aimed at unseating him that the freshman Democrat asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the Lake County activist who started it.

In his four-page complaint, Grayson accuses Republican Angie Langley of lying to federal elections officials. In particular, he writes, the Clermont resident lives outside his district but still uses the term “my” in her Web site, mycongressmanisnuts.com. The name mocks a Web site started by Grayson, congressmanwithguts.com.

“Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to try to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don’t support me,” writes Grayson. “[She] has chosen a name for her committee that is utterly tasteless and juvenile.”

Grayson’s office confirmed he wrote the letter — including the request that Langley be fined and “imprisoned for five years” — and released a statement from Grayson saying, “Everyone has to obey the law, even rude, right-wing cranks.”

http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/

H/T: Jon Henke

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

So I saw Avatar tonight.  For the most part, I liked it.  And, like AoS’s Gabriel Malor, I don’t think much of the “Avatar is a metaphor for America’s Middle Eastern Wars” line.  There’s some of that, but generic anti-colonialism is much more present as a theme.  Which is fortunate, because a few more “unobtainium” type contrivances, and this solid flick would have been a disaster.  By keeping the colonialism relatively generic, and building an alien scenario around it, the film actually manages to transcend the cliche.  In that respect anyway.  The most dominant theme, period, is a rich vein of environmentalism.  Even colonialism takes a back seat.  Beware, the remainder of this will contain some very minor spoilers. I’ll try to limit myself, but I can’t do full justice to the point I’m trying to make, without revealing a little of the plot.

Anyway, in Avatar, environmentalism is a religion.  The first half of the film is dedicated to showing us the lush landscape, the teeming wildlife, and the general symbiosis of everything.  Gabriel notes that the plot has been done before, but there really is no plot in the first half.  At all.  Ostensibly, we’re supposed to feel the main character’s struggle as he tries to reconcile his human obligations with his new communion with the natives.  Ostensibly.  But, mostly Cameron loses track of this in favor of creating a mystical connection between us and Pandora.  And to some degree he succeeds.  Gorgeous visuals and tastefully done 3D effects help, but so does a modestly innovative fantasy universe.

But, it is almost impossible to miss how obviously this environmental movement resembles a religion.  The filmmakers and characters seem to understand this.  The planet has a “spiritual force” called “Eywa” (Gaia anyone?) which, after you pray to it, allow allows you to hear your ancestors.  At one point, as a character dies she says, while looking to the sky “I can see her”.  Another time, Eywa actually gets into the fight herself.   There’s talk of rebirth and, eventually, an actual rebirth.  Both the good guys and the bad guys seem to see Eywa as a deity.  Though the good guys never explicitly acknowledge this, the theme is nearly overwhelming.

But, just when you’ve digested this and assimilated it, they pull the rug out from under you.   There’s this big argument between Sigourney Weaver’s scientist character and one of the evil capitalist industrialists, over the importance of Eywa.  She says something like, “This isn’t just some Voodoo mysticism.  I’m talking about something that’s a biological fact of the planet….it’s a network.  More complex than the human brain”.  So you see, it’s not a religion.  It has all the trappings of religion: the prayer, the ritual, the reverence for certain symbols and ideas, the strangely mystical experience, the miracles and rebirth…and yet, it’s not a religion.  Because, “it’s a biological fact of the planet”.

This is the central problem with the environmental movement.  They spend 80% of their time making big emotional mystical pleas about Gaia-  they show you pictures of green landscape which will soon be brush, furry baby creatures who will soon be drowning, icebergs melting or rising up or just wrecking vegetation and animals and people with a kind of hectic abandon.   They give you rituals-  “march, politick, vote”- penance- “give up your Hummer and your fossil fuels”; then when you say that, no, you’d rather not follow their religion, that you find its dogmas unpersuasive, its penance straight-jacketing, they hit you with the whammy- “oh no, you misunderstood.  This isn’t a religion.  None of that voodoo mysticism.  It’s just fact, thank you.  It’s biology.  And mathematics.  And extrapolating non-linear equations into the far-flung future”.

It’s a religion that doesn’t want to admit it’s a religion.  And the proof, beyond their almost comical contortions to justify these doctrines, is in this: when was the last time you heard someone try to sell you some mystical pap about gravity?  When a space shuttle departs, does your buddy wax rhapsodic about polar bears?  Is your Kindle a source for penance or obeisance?  To anyone?  At any time?  Science simply doesn’t work like this.  That’s both a good and a bad thing.  I happen to be a Christian, so religion doesn’t frighten me.  When I say environmentalism is a religion I’m not flinging an insult.  I just think it ought to be judged on those terms and defended on those terms, because it’s scarcely being treated, by most of its adherents, in any other fashion.

Nobody in the world would take action which ruined the economy based on a prediction about some economic or technical disaster 50 years into the future.  Not with the kind of models we currently have.  Not without mysticism.  Not without polar bears.  Not without Gaia and Eywa and rebirth and miracles and all the rest.  And if they had all the rest, we ought to be willing and able to say “no, I don’t buy your dogma.  It’s not persuasive, I won’t do it, this isn’t the inquisition”.

-

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

The vote is scheduled for 7:00PM EST, December 24th.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli