Quinnipiac National Political Survey
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 34% [36%] {38%}
- Mostly disapprove 54% [53%] {52%}
Among Independents
- Mostly approve 26% [30%] {32%}
- Mostly disapprove 59% [58%] {57%}
Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?
- President Obama 42% [45%] {44%} (45%)
- Republicans in Congress 41% [40%] {37%} (36%)
Among Independents
- Republicans in Congress 39% [39%] {37%} (37%)
- President Obama 37% [39%] {37%} (40%)
Generally speaking, do you think the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in Congress go too far, not far enough, or are they about right?
- Too far 44%
- Not far enough 29%
- About right 17%
Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?
- Legal in all cases 18%
- Legal in most cases 34%
- Illegal in most cases 24%
- Illegal in all cases 18%
Do you support or oppose allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill?
- Support 27% [23%]
- Oppose 67% [72%]
When it comes to dealing with people suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, which would you prefer: trying them in open criminal court with a jury and a civilian judge or trying them in a closed military court with a military judge?
- Military Court 59%
- Criminal court 34%
Among Democrats
- Criminal court 50%
- Military Court 42%
Among Republicans
- Military Court 76%
- Criminal court 20%
Among Independents
- Military Court 62%
- Criminal court 31%
Should President Obama close the Guantanamo Bay prison?
- Yes 28%
- No 60%
Among Democrats
- Yes 51%
- No 35%
Among Republicans
- Yes 12%
- No 81%
Among Independents
- Yes 24%
- No 64%
Among Whites
- Yes 25%
- No 65%
Among Blacks
- Yes 46%
- No 39%
What concerns you more about the government’s anti-terrorism policies – that they have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties or that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country?
- Gone too far 25%
- Not gone far enough 63%
In order to prevent terrorism at places like airports and subways, should authorities be able to single out people who look like they might be of Middle Eastern origin to search or question?
- Yes 52%
- No 44%
Among Democrats
- Yes 39%
- No 57%
Among Republicans
- Yes 67%
- No 31%
Among Independents
- Yes 53%
- No 43%
Among Men
- Yes 57%
- No 40%
Among Women
- Yes 48%
- No 47%
Among Whites
- Yes 58%
- No 33%
Among Blacks
- Yes 33%
- No 66%
As you may know, the Transportation Security Administration recently announced a new policy to require extra screening of all air travelers who are citizens of 14 designated countries, 13 of which are largely Muslim. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?
- Good idea 79%
- Bad idea 16%
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 59% [51%] {57%} (48%)
- Should not be involved 35% [41%] {35%} (41%)
Among Democrats
- Doing the right thing 49% [39%] {47%} (31%)
- Should not be involved 43% [52%] {46%} (58%)
Among Republicans
- Doing the right thing 74% [68%] {71%} (68%)
- Should not be involved 20% [27%] {21%} (22%)
Among Independents
- Doing the right thing 58% [51%] {58%} (51%)
- Should not be involved 37% [40%] {34%} (39%)
Among Men
- Doing the right thing 67% [62%] {66%} (52%)
- Should not be involved 29% [33%] {29%} (39%)
Among Women
- Doing the right thing 52% [41%] {49%} (44%)
- Should not be involved 40% [48%] {41%} (43%)
Among Whites
- Doing the right thing 63% [57%] {62%} (53%)
- Should not be involved 31% [36%] {31%} (35%)
Among Blacks
- Doing the right thing 42% [34%] {42%} (25%)
- Should not be involved 56% [55%] {50%} (67%)
Survey of 1,767 registered voters was conducted January 5-11, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 1-6 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 9-16 are in parentheses.
Research 2000/BMG Massachusetts Senatorial Survey
If the 2010 special election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Martha Coakley, the Democrat, Scott Brown, the Republican, or Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate?
- Martha Coakley 49%
- Scott Brown 41%
- Joseph Kennedy 5%
Among Independents
- Scott Brown 49%
- Martha Coakley 36%
- Joseph Kennedy 11%
Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted January 12-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 40% Democrat; 18% Republican; 42% Independent.
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?
- Approve 50% {50%} (46%) [50%]
- Disapprove 42% {44%} (46%) [41%]
Another way to think about performance is to give grades like students get in school, A, B, C, D and F. Next week President Obama will have been in office for one year — what grade would you give him?
- A: 11%
- B: 36%
- C: 25%
- D: 15%
- F: 12%
As of now, do you think Barack Obama is meeting, exceeding or falling below expectations?
- Meeting expectations 36% [40%]
- Exceeding expectations 6% [8%]
- Falling below expectations 50% [47%]
Is President Obama a stronger leader than you expected, a weaker leader, or about what you expected?
- Stronger leader than expected 14% (17%)
- Weaker leader than expected 20% (23%)
- Same as expected 62% (57%)
If John McCain had become president, do you think he would be doing a better job, a worse job, or about the same kind of job as President Obama?
- Better 26%
- Worse 40%
- Same as 27%
If Hillary Clinton had become president, do you think she would be doing a better job, a worse job, or about the same kind of job as President Obama?
- Better 25%
- Worse 21%
- Same as 48%
Do you think the Obama administration has made the economy better or worse?
- Better 40%
- Worse 36%
Who do you think is more responsible for the current state of the economy — President Obama, former President Bush or Congress?
- Obama 6%
- Bush 36%
- Congress 30%
Do you think Americans are starting to rely too much on the government and not enough on themselves?
- Yes 73%
- No 24%
Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted January 12-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat ; 34% Republican; 20% Independent. Results from the poll conducted December 8-9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 17-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 27-28 are in square brackets.
CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Health Care Reform
As you may know, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed bills that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about those bills, do you generally favor them or generally oppose them?
- Generally favor 40%
- Generally oppose 57%
Would you feel enthusiastic, pleased, displeased, or angry if Congress passes a health care bill?
- Enthusiastic 14%
- Pleased 33%
- Displeased 23%
- Angry 28%
Survey of 1,021 adults, including 955 registered voters, was conducted January 8-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Quinnipiac Connecticut Senatorial Survey
Republican Primary
- Rob Simmons 37% [28%] {43%}
- Linda McMahon 27% [17%]
- Peter Schiff 4% [5%] {2%}
General Election
- Richard Blumenthal 62%
- Rob Simmons 27%
- Richard Blumenthal 64%
- Linda McMahon 23%
- Richard Blumenthal 66%
- Peter Schiff 19%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Richard Blumenthal 74% / 13% {+61%}
- Rob Simmons 36% [40%] {41%} / 18% [10%] {11%} {+18%}
- Linda McMahon 24% [20%] / 21% [13%] {+3%}
- Peter Schiff 8% [7%] {6%} / 5% [4%] {2%} {+3%}
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Convention;
Vice Presidential Nominee;
Sarah Palin;
Tim Pawlenty;
Newt Gingrich;
John Thune;
Mitt Romney;
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
The Telegraph (UK) has been running a series this week on the 100 most influential conservatives (and liberals). Thus far, they have listed numbers 21 through 100.
Has Rudy Giuliani dropped in your estimation from #1 in 2007 (the last such listing) to #59 today? Clearly he’s not as important as he once was, but has he dropped that much? Do Arnold Schwarzenegger and Joe Lieberman even belong on a list of conservatives?
Lots of questions, lots to generate arguments, but that’s what makes lists fun.
I’m glad to see that Jeff Flake, the guy I’ve selected to be the VP candidate in 2012 (on Mitch Daniels’ ticket), made the list at #61 (Daniels is #39).
The only pure blogger on the list thus far is Erick Erickson at #65, though Michelle Malkin is #42.
None of the big three are on here of course, because they’ll be on tomorrow’s list, the Top 20. That will really get the juices flowing, when we see how they rank.
Here’s what The Telegraph says about their criteria:
The key to inclusion was the term “influence” – which people most affect American politics both in terms of ideas and the enactment of policy.
We have chosen government officials, elected politicians,, pollsters, campaign operatives, members of think tanks, academics, journalists, bloggers, big-money donors and celebrities.
Inclusion does not imply our approval – and the views of many on the lists will be anathema to large numbers of our readers.
We have leant towards those likely to be most influential in the future rather than those whose careers and impact lie in the past. But historic contribution has in some cases edged out potential that might not be fulfilled.
The mere holding of a high office did not guarantee inclusion, though it was often an important factor.
Telegraph journalists did not easily agree among ourselves as to who to include and in what order. During the long process of selection, we changed our minds often.
We are sure that most readers will dispute a number of those who appear on our lists and many will be eager to put forward substitutes.
The list is on the next page (the number after names is where they ranked on the 2007 list).
From Schilling’s 38 Pitches blog:
If she hasn’t done it yet, Martha Coakley may have just killed her campaign.
She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park.
The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.
~snip~
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’
There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.
The fact is that Coakley’s campaign is in total disarray at this point and the gap between her and Scott Brown is closing. Are the four days left until election day enough for Brown to close that gap? At the rate that Coakley’s campaign is producing unforced errors, it should be more than enough time.
PPP (D) Nevada Senatorial Survey
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Sue Lowden, who would you vote for?
- Sue Lowden 51%
- Harry Reid 41%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Danny Tarkanian, who would you vote for?
- Danny Tarkanian 50%
- Harry Reid 42%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Shelley Berkley and Republican Sue Lowden, who would you vote for?
- Sue Lowden 46%
- Shelley Berkley 38%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Shelley Berkley and Republican Danny Tarkanian, who would you vote for?
- Danny Tarkanian 47%
- Shelley Berkley 39%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Oscar Goodman and Republican Sue Lowden, who would you vote for?
- Oscar Goodman 42%
- Sue Lowden 40%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Oscar Goodman and Republican Danny Tarkanian, who would you vote for?
- Oscar Goodman 41%
- Danny Tarkanian 41%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Ross Miller and Republican Sue Lowden, who would you vote for?
- Sue Lowden 44%
- Ross Miller 34%
If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Democrat Ross Miller and Republican Danny Tarkanian, who would you vote for?
- Danny Tarkanian 45%
- Ross Miller 34%
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Harry Reid’s job performance?
- Approve 36%
- Disapprove 58%
Do you think that Harry Reid should step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader?
- Yes 42%
- No 49%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Oscar Goodman 43% / 21% {+22%}
- Danny Tarkanian 33% / 24% {+9%}
- Sue Lowden 29% / 22% {+7%}
- Ross Miller 18% / 16% {+2%}
- Shelley Berkley 27% / 27% {0%}
Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?
- Approve 44%
- Disapprove 52%
Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?
- Approve 36%
- Disapprove 54%
Survey of 763 Nevada voters was conducted January 11-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% Democrat; 35% Republican; Independent 22%. Political ideology: 45% Moderate; 38% Conservative; 17% Liberal.
A majority of adults would now vote against the reelection of Barack Obama:
AllState/National Journal Heartland Monitor US National Survey
Obama Job Approval
- 47% Approve
- 45% Disapprove
State of the Country
- 34% Right Direction
- 55% Wrong Track
And, if the election for President in 2012 were held today, would you …?
- 39% Definitely/Probably vote to re-elect Obama
- 50% Definitely/Probably vote for someone else
And, in general, who do you trust more to develop solutions to the country’s economic challenges… President Obama OR Republicans in Congress?
- 55% Obama
- 26% Republicans in Congress
Had John McCain won the presidency, do you think the policies that he would have pursued over the last 12 months would have left the country in…
- 36% About the same shape as it is now under Obama
- 32% Worse shape than it is now under Obama
- 24% Better shape than it is now under Obama
And, on the topic of health care, as you understand it, do you support or oppose the current legislation to reform health care in the U.S. currently being considered by Congress and the Senate? Do you support/oppose strongly or somewhat?
- 45% Support
- 46% Oppose
AllState/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey conducted between 1/3-7/10 among 1,200 adults with 2.8% margin of error.
Here’s Captain Ed’s take:
These results are doubly bad. Obviously, having half the country say they’d vote for a generic opponent isn’t good, but the sample type is the most Democrat-friendly a pollster can use. “Adults” generate more left-leaning results than registered voters, and especially with likely voters. If Obama can’t do better than 39% among adults, he is in deep trouble — and so are Democrats running in this year’s midterms.
Rasmussen 2010 Ohio Senate Poll
- Rob Portman (R) 44% [38%] (41%)
- Lee Fisher (D) 37% [36%] (40%)
- Other 4% [8%] (6%)
- Not Sure 14% [18%] (14%)
- Rob Portman (R) 43% [40%] (40%)
- Jennifer Brunner (D) 40% [33%] (38%)
- Other 5% [7%] (5%)
- Not Sure 13% [20%] (18%)
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Rob Portman 49% [48%] (45%) / 25% [21%] (23%) {+24%}
- Lee Fisher 41% [36%] (42%) / 39% [35%] (34%) {+2%}
- Jennifer Brunner 37% [34%] (37%) / 39% [36%] (36%) {-2%}
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?
- Strongly approve 29% [31%] (33%)
- Somewhat approve 17% [15%] (15%)
- Somewhat disapprove13% [12%] (10%)
- Strongly disapprove 41% [41%] (40%)
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 18% [28%] (27%)
- Somewhat favor 21% [13%] (17%)
- Somewhat oppose 7% [10%] (7%)
- Strongly oppose 49% [43%] (45%)
Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?
- Excellent 9% [11%]
- Good 31% [25%]
- Fair 26% [30%]
- Poor 32% [32%]
How would you rate the job Ted Strickland has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 15% [11%] (15%)
- Somewhat approve 28% [37%] (32%)
- Somewhat disapprove 28% [26%] (24%)
- Strongly disapprove 26% [24%] (26%)
This national telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 12, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results from the poll conducted December 7, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 23, 2009 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
While the candidates are vying to fill the seat being vacated by retiring GOP Senator George Voinovich, both Fisher and Brunner for now appear to be hurt by the strong sentiments against the national health care plan being pushed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
In Ohio, just 39% favor the plan while 56% oppose it. Those numbers include 18% who Strongly Favor it versus 49% who Strongly Oppose. These findings are virtually identical to voters’ views on the health care plan nationally.
Portman carries more than 70% of the vote of the much larger group who strongly oppose the plan against either Democrat. Brunner and Fisher both carry an even higher percentage of those who strongly favor the health care initiative.
Male voters prefer Portman over either Democrat. Women voters are evenly divided in both match-ups.
The Doomsday Clock is being moved.
The minute hand of the famous Doomsday Clock will be moved at 3pm this afternoon, for the first time in two years.
The timepiece in New York conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction, which is represented by midnight.
It was created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947, two years after the U.S dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. It was originally set at seven minutes to midnight.
The clock has been altered 18 times since then by the Bulletin’s scientific board.
This now includes Professor Stephen Hawking and 18 other Nobel laureates.
The latest recorded time was two minutes to midnight in 1953 as the Cold War heated up between the U.S and Soviet Union.
In 2007 it was wound on to five minutes to midnight, to reflect the failure to solve problems posed by nuclear weapons.
How can we go from 11:58 PM to 11:55 PM, anyway? Does this mean that we’ve finally broken through in our quest to travel through time? Why do these scientists think that we’re 99% of the way to cataclysmic destruction — that is, can’t it be 3:30? How do they debate this?: “I think 11:57 seems more appropriate.” “Certainly not; it is clear that 11:58 is the true time.” Is that it?
Who cares?
“I think I’m probably on a list of seven or eight possible candidates at this stage,” Gingrich said. “We have a lot of people around the country who would like to have somebody who represents a commitment to replace the current failed programs and to develop a set of solutions that are practical and workable.”
Gingrich listed several current and former goverors who he thinks might enter the race. They include former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He said he will discuss his possible candidacy with his wife early next year before making a decision about whether to run.
After any natural disaster occurs, there is inevitably a massive outpouring of charity efforts. And rightly so. But the contrarian in me can’t help but feel like it’s a little phony. The entire thing is riddled with overtones of a mass social movement, as if we wouldn’t necessarily be donating if we didn’t know our friends would all be talking about the disaster the next day. That gives us an opportunity to slip in the mention of our own little contribution to the relief effort — and wouldn’t it be a shame if we were forced to admit that we didn’t contribute?
It is probable that Americans will raise hundreds of millions — billions? — of dollars toward the relief effort. That is just and honorable. But it wouldn’t hurt to see this kind of money go toward everyday causes that you don’t get to mention to your friends about the next day.
Many may have already seen this, but it appears that the gloves continue to come off in Massachusetts:
Massachusetts’s top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul even if the Republican who has vowed to kill it wins Democrat Edward M. Kennedy’s former seat.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin, citing state law, says city and town clerks must wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before they certify the results of the Jan. 19 election. They then have five more days to file the returns with his office.
Galvin bypassed the provision in 2007 so his fellow Democrats could gain a House vote they needed to override a veto of then-Republican President George W. Bush, but the secretary says U.S. Senate rules would preclude a similar rush today.
… Massachusetts Democrats already changed state law last fall so the governor could appoint a fellow Democrat to fill the seat after Kennedy died in August.
Now that interim replacement, Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., says he will vote for the bill if given the chance, even if Republican Scott Brown beats Democrat Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s special election to fill the seat permanently. Brown, a state senator, has pledged to vote against the bill; Coakley, the state attorney general, supports it.
Hopefully, Massachusetts voters will catch wind of this news, as it would reinforce Brown’s message of bringing an independent voice that fights for the people’s best interests to the Senate.
James Pethokoukis reports that President Obama may change course and angle to maintain the rates instituted by the Bush tax cuts:
That’s the DC buzz, that the WH will use bank tax to de facto pay for a 1-2 year extension of ALL the Bush tax cuts, including capital gains. The assumption was that the wealthier folks would be left out. But this would give Ds a tax cut to vote. With unemployment high and maybe going higher, Ds are scrambling for ideas.
A broader debate on this issue could create a fissure in the Democratic Party, with liberals advocating for a rollback of the rates on upper income earners and moderate members leaning toward opposing the increase, for fear of negative economic effects.
Lastly, Daniel Ikenson of the Cato Institute has offered some insightful commentary on the Commerce Department’s most recent trade deficit numbers:
The U.S. trade deficit jumped to its highest level in 10 months, according to data released by the U.S. Commerce Department this morning. What to make of this?
Every month the Commerce Department publishes data on the value of U.S. exports and imports. And every month, the media do an absolute hatchet job explaining the meaning of those data. As I’ve been arguing for a long time, careless reporting and inaccurate media analyses of imports, exports, the trade balance (exports minus imports), the “Trade Account” and the slightly broader measure of international trade activity called the “Current Account” help explain the growing aversion of Americans to trade and trade agreements during the past decade.
…But the fact is that imports are very much pro-cyclical. They increase as the economy grows and decrease when it contracts. One of the more obvious reasons for this is that as personal consumption increases (decreases), consumer demand for imports increases (decreases). But another critical, but less discussed, reason is that U.S. producers rely heavily on imported raw materials, components, and capital equipment. As businesses starts to ramp up output, demand for imported intermediate goods rises. Purchases of intermediate goods have accounted for over half of all U.S. import value in recent years, which would suggest that the rising trade deficit has more to do with business being poised for expansion than with consumers itching to go to the mall.
Yet, media and politicians often characterize imports as a sign of profligacy. They argue that balanced trade or a trade surplus should be an objective of economic policy, and that policies designed to slow import growth can accomplish more balanced trade. But imports and exports are also very much positively correlated. They rise and fall together. Imports are contained in domestic output, and a good chunk of domestic output is exported. Buy more from abroad, and foreigners can afford to buy more from us. Sell more abroad and we can afford to buy more from foreigners. Stymie imports and you get stymied exports.
As a side note, Ikenson declined to mention that oil constitutes a large portion of U.S. imports, further suggesting that railing against the concept and nominal value of the trade deficit misses the mark.
I created a Facebook group called “A Million Dollars for Haiti” today. Please join the group by clicking here. In short, I am asking all people who receive an invitation to the group to donate $1 to any of the organizations listed here (or any other group, of course, including those listed on the Facebook group page) and to invite all of their friends to join the group as well, and donate $1. I have over 500 Facebook friends, and if even only 50% pass it along, it will grow exponentially and I do believe one million dollars can and will easily be donated to help the Haitian people. I am donating $100 to the Red Cross to kick off the effort.
By Friday afternoon my friend Nick Brown, the editor and founder of www.thelobbyist.net, will have a number of organizations listed on the main page of the site that people can donate to. For now, please click on the link above to see a compilation of sites and organizations to donate to.
A friend asked my why I am being so active in this particular effort. There are many, including the following:
1. According to CNN, the Haitian people are the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. This disaster is just going to crush them in so many ways, it’s saddening and heart-wrenching to even think about it.
2. At least 100,000 people have died, perhaps several times that many. That is at least 33 9/11s.
3. Pat Robertson said the Haitian people made a pact with the Devil. That is a load of *garbage*. The Haitian people have been manipulated, murdered, thrown into poverty and just decimated, through no fault of their own, by their leaders. How could they have made a pact with anyone, never mind the Devil? Our help is desperately needed.
4. Related to #3, the Haitian people did nothing to deserve this disaster. Earthquakes are uncontrolled disasters. It’s not like they attacked another country and brought a disaster upon themselves, or destroyed the environment and caused a reaction. They simply were hit by a horrific natural disaster. To brush this off as God’s revenge against His people is unconscionable, and very possibly evil.
Please donate to any organizations you feel are trustworthy, and please join the Facebook group and ask your friends to join. I do believe many people will donate, but they may not be thinking about it right now. Too, a lot of people may not know just how bad the situation in Haiti is. Your sending a Facebook invitation to them may make them aware, and give them the opportunity to help their fellow man.
Thank you, everyone. God Bless.
Update: Go here for numerousdirect links to Haiti-assistance organizations.
Here is the raw video of the incident:
Related articles:
The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner with healthcare – they’re almost certainly going to suffer electorally in November whichever way the healthcare saga plays out.
I hope just about everyone here is in agreement that the country is better off if the bill fails. But this is a political blog, so let’s discuss the political consequences: Which outcome hurts the Democrats/helps the Republicans more – the passage of the bill (we’ll assume something between the House and Senate versions, but probably closer to the Senate), or its defeat?
I’m slightly inclined to think the worst hit for the Democrats would come from not passing the bill, but I’m not at all certain. Let’s consider the possibilities, as I see them.
The bill passes
Liberals are mostly happy, though a significant portion is upset because it’s far short of what they envisioned on election night 2008. The outcome will not affect their votes, but it might dampen the activists’ enthusiasm a bit, causing some harm to grass-roots organizing and giving.
Moderates and conservatives, who according to the polls are strongly opposed to the bill, are outraged. They (especially the conservatives) will be highly motivated to give, work, and turn out in November. The one positive note for Democrats is that the conservatives will also be highly motivated to turn out in primaries, which may lead to weaker Republicans winning a few primaries.
The bill doesn’t pass
Liberals are outraged. They were promised a healthcare revolution and didn’t even get what they think of as a modest compromise. They see a wait of another fifteen years (per David Gergen, and I think he may be right – Dem politicians likely will consider the issue toxic for some time to come). If they can’t pass it with the Messiah in the White House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a big margin in the House, when can they pass it? Their enthusiasm will hit rock bottom and many will sit on their hands in the fall.
The extreme left will also, as extremists generally do, blame the failure on the fact that politicians compromised – “It would have passed if we had stood firm for the public option!” – and try to punish the impure.
Conservatives will not be mollified in the least, and will probably be energized by the victory.
Moderates will be disappointed that the modest reforms that they thought they were voting for in 2008 didn’t come to pass, and will blame both parties. But I think the Dems will get most of the blame, because moderates will take the opposite tack from the extreme left – “We could have had a decent reform bill if the left hadn’t tried to go too far!”
Regardless of ideology, everybody will look at failure as a demonstration of the Democrats’ incompetence. They will look at the things noted above – control of the White House with (a year ago) an extremely popular leader, and heavy control of both houses – and conclude that these folks are buffoons if they can’t pass their signature bill. The effect of this will be particularly strong since it will merge with a growing narrative of incompetence in the Administration.
Conclusion
Overall, as noted above, I think the Democrats would be worse off if healthcare doesn’t pass. But I’m prepared to change my mind, and no doubt I’ve left out something very important from the effects outlined above. I’m looking forward to seeing opinions – supportive or contrary.
From my Inbox;
Coakley said she is not “privy” to the facts surrounding the incident involving reporter John McCormack last night….“I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts. I’m sure it will come out, but I’m not aware of that.”
“I do know that the Scott Brown stalkers who have followed me around and the people at that press conference … were incredibly aggressive about trying to get in my face,” Coakley said. “I didn’t see what happened so I can’t say.”
Really, Martha?
From left to ground; A.G. Coakley, Coakley’s D.C. Pondscum, reporter John McCormack.
Read the entire article from the Boston Herald.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Brian Darling from The Heritage Foundation on the filibuster, liberals and the filibuster’s constitutionality:
Left wingers (including but not limited to the New York Times, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Washington Monthly and Ezra Klein) are trying to eliminate dissent in Congress by engaging in a coordinated attack on the idea of the Senate filibuster. Clearly, the left hates extended debate and they are advocating that Vice President Joe Biden eliminate the filibuster by decree as President of the United States Senate. They have no shame.
If you hate big government, you should love the Senate filibuster. The filibuster serves the good government purposes of slowing legislation. This allows citizens to understand and participate in the legislative process, provides scrutiny for complicated legislation and slows the
process to confirm nominees. The left absolutely hates the filibuster, because the filibuster prevents liberal Democrats from steamrolling moderate Democrats and Republicans when trying to pass legislation or confirming extremist judges with minimal debate. A veteran Senate staffer tells Big Government that “the filibuster is a tool to slow down and make people really consider things. For those that believe in freedom and limited government the less the Congress does the better.” Of course the left’s goal is to exterminate the filibuster from the Senate rules by setting the table for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to argue that a filibuster is unconstitutional, then for Vice President Biden to order that the rule be ignored.
The filibuster should not be considered a bad word in the American lexicon. According to the U.S. Senate website “using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster — from a Dutch word meaning ‘pirate’ — became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.” The traditional filibuster, as portrayed in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, was when one Senator would take to the Senate floor to talk until they could not talk anymore for the purposes of slowing or blocking a vote on legislation or a nominee. Prominent politicians who have participated in filibusters include liberals President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Allies of these elite politicians are working hard to demonize the filibuster in an effort to grease the skids for a far left wing big government agenda.
The Senate rules were changed over the years to modify the traditional filibuster from a 2/3rds requirement to a 3.5ths requirement to shut off debate. The current rule, as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is as follows:
Senate Rule XXII, however, known as the “cloture rule,” enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Sixteen Senators initiate this process by presenting a motion to end the debate. The Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the second day after the motion is made. Then it usually requires the votes of at least three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to invoke cloture. Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.
Currently it takes 60 Senators to shut off debate. The Democrat Caucus, consisting of 58 registered Democrats, Independent Democrat Joe Liberman of Connecticut and Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, currently has the votes to shut off debate whenever they can convince members of their own team to end debate. Evidently that power is not enough for the elites, they want to empower the Majority Leader to end debate and expedite legislation with minimal friction.
Charlotte Davis, a co-worker of mine at The Heritage Foundation, and a veteran Senate staffer has a great defense of the filibuster at The Foundry. Thomas Geoghehan of the New York Times argued that the filibuster is somehow unconstitutional. “But the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill.” Davis responds “the most rudimentary reading of the Constitution suggests that the Founders wanted the passage of legislation to be exceedingly difficult in order to prevent a slim majority from ruling the country with impunity.” Davis is spot on and Geoghehan’s analysis crumbles under scrutiny.
Goeghehan correctly states that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” That is where the logic of Goeghehan ends.
Goeghehan incorrectly states that “but there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don’t even have to start; they just say they will, and that’s enough.” That is simply not true. A Senator has to show up or have another Senator object to any agreement to limit debate. If some Senator puts a “hold” on legislation, they must follow through with this threat to commence a filibuster or the leadership can move forward through unanimous consent agreement. Under the rules, a Senator has to show up to object to any agreement or the threat to filibuster is empty. Strike one New York Times.
Goeghehan continues that as a result of the prolific use of filibusters
the supermajority vote no longer deserves any protection under Article I, Section 5 — if it ever did at all. It is instead a revision of Article I itself: not used to cut off debate, but to decide in effect whether to enact a law. The filibuster votes, which once occurred perhaps seven or eight times a whole Congressional session, now happen more than 100 times a term. But this routine use of supermajority voting is, at worst, unconstitutional and, at best, at odds with the founders’ intent.
So, because Republicans use the filibuster too much, the clear wording of the constitution should be tossed aside. The Founding Father’s intent is in the clear words of the Constitution that state “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” The Senate has passed Rule 22 that governs the ending of debate, therefore Goeghehan is engaging judicial activist thought if he wants Senators and the Vice President to toss aside the words of the Constitution and the Senate rules. Liberals have divined that our Founding Fathers would not like the current filibuster rule, yet that should not lead anybody to the conclusion that the filibuster is unconstitutional.
To support Goeghehan’s activist interpretation of the Constitution, he states, “first, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments.” Goeghehan must not know that there are numerous Senate rules that are not memorialized in the Constitution, yet they fall under the authority that “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” There are points of order in the Congressional budget process have been in law since at least 1985 that govern congressional consideration of budget and fiscal policy. According to the CRS
In the Senate, most points of order under the Budget Act may be waived by a vote of at least three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there are no vacancies) (see Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Beginning with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, this super-majority threshold was applied to several additional points of order on a temporary basis. These points of order are identified in Section 904(c)(2), and the three-fifths requirement is currently scheduled to expire September 30, 2017.
Does Goeghehan find the many budget points of order a violation of the constitution? I think not.
Rule V of the Senate states that “no motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.” This rule means that if you don’t have 67 Senators to support your effort, you can’t suspend the rules and offer an out of order amendment to a bill. Is this supermajority unconstitutional? In the House, they have something called the “Suspension Calendar” where you need a 2/3rds vote to pass legislation. Is the existence of this procedure in the House unconstitutional? No. There are special rules in the House and Senate and they have been specifically authorized by the clear words in the Constitution.
Goeghehan’s second argument is that somehow requirements of supermajorities, including the ”procedural filibuster effectively disenfranchises the vice president, eliminating as it does one of the office’s only two constitutional functions.” The Constitution in Article 1, Section 3 states that “the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” The constitution states that the only time the VP is allowed to vote is in the case of tied votes. I guess one could argue that the Founding Fathers disenfranchised the VP when they specifically stated that the VP “shall have no vote.” This argument by Goeghehan is not worthy of further discussion. Strike two – looking.
The final argument is that ”Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum. “ Now because Article I, discusses the requirement of a quorum in a manner “to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote,” therefore “it would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. “ So, even though the Constitution states that “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings,” Senate Rule 22 violates the spirit of this provision because of the provision relating to quorums. This is an activist reading of the Constitution that should not pass the laugh test.
One fact that Goeghehan conveniently kicks to the curb is that filibusters can be overcome with a majority willing to be patient and force multiple cloture votes. According to the Senate web site, back when a 2/3rds vote was necessary to invoke cloture, “cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964.” The filibuster was broken by a patient majority willing to let the opposition debate until they ran out of steam. Strike 3 – you are out.
What is it that the left wants? Goeghehan has some suggestions.
- If the House passed a resolution condemning the use of the procedural filibuster, it might begin to strip the supermajority of its spurious legitimacy. It’s the House that has been the great victim of the filibuster, and at least with such a resolution that chamber could express the grievance of the people as a whole against this usurpation by a minority in the Senate;
- The president of the Senate, the vice president himself, could issue an opinion from the chair that the filibuster is unconstitutional; and,
- And we needn’t rule out the possibility of a Supreme Court case. Surely, the court would not allow the Senate to ignore either the obvious intent of the Constitution.
Get ready America for a left that is willing to use all means necessary to crush dissent and stifle the rights of the minority. Some conservatives mistakenly embraced this argument during the Bush Administration for the purposes of eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees. They were wrong then and the left wingers who want to seize power are wrong now. The left knows that they are living on borrowed time, so don’t put it past them to have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Vice President Joe Biden pull the trigger to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate for the purposes of expediting the Obama agenda to grow government. Conservatives should embrace the filibuster as their friend in the fight against an ever growing federal government.
Rasmussen New Hampshire Senatorial Survey
- Kelly Ayotte (R) 49% (46%)
- Paul Hodes (D) 40% (38%)
- Paul Hodes (D) 45%
- Ovide Lamontagne (R) 38%
- Paul Hodes (D) 43%
- Bill Binnie (R) 37%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Kelly Ayotte 60% (58%) / 21% (21%) {+39%}
- Paul Hodes 49% (46%) / 43% (38%) {+6%}
- Bill Binnie 34% / 29% {+5%}
- Ovide Lamontagne 38% / 35% {+3%}
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?
- Strongly approve 31% (38%)
- Somewhat approve 21% (12%)
- Somewhat disapprove 9% (9%)
- Strongly disapprove 38% (41%)
How would you rate the job John Lynch has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 23% (22%)
- Somewhat approve 35% (42%)
- Somewhat disapprove 19% (21%)
- Strongly disapprove 19% (13%)
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 22%
- Somewhat favor 24%
- Somewhat oppose 8%
- Strongly oppose 44%
Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?
- Excellent 12%
- Good 28%
- Fair 34%
- Poor 24%
Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 14, 2009 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Ayotte captures 89% of those who Strongly Oppose the health care plan, while Hodes has 86% of the votes of the smaller group that Strongly Favors it.
As is well-known by now, thousands of Haitians have died in a massive earthquake. There’s not much to say other than God help the people over there. See this link for President Obama’s statements on the disaster and a phone number for Americans who have family members in Haiti to check on them.
Also, see USA Today’s comprehensive list of organizations that are helping in Haiti. Also, see here for a site dedicated to the assistance of the Haitian people, and here for MSNBC’s list of assisting organizations. Donations, I’m certain, would be gratefully accepted.
Rasmussen 2010 Nevada Senate Poll
- Sue Lowden (R) 48% [49%] (50%)
- Harry Reid (D) 36% [43%] (40%)
- Danny Tarkanian (R) 50% [49%] (50%)
- Harry Reid (D) 36% [43%] (43%)
- Sharron Angle (R) 44% [47%]
- Harry Reid (D) 40% [43%]
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Danny Tarkanian: 49% [49%] (57%) / 28% [30%] (30%) {+21%}
- Sue Lowden: 47% [46%] (48%)/ 28% [32%] (27%) {+19%}
- Sharron Angle: 39% [40%] / 33% [37%] {+6%}
- Harry Reid: 41% [40%] (45%) / 55% [57%] (54%) {-14%}
Job Approval / Disapproval
- Pres. Obama: 49% [46%] (46%) /50% [55%] (53%)
- Gov. Gibbons: 35% [35%] /63% [61%]
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 21% [23%] (29%)
- Somewhat favor 18% [21%] (16%)
- Somewhat oppose 9% [5%] (6%)
- Strongly oppose 45% [49%] (46%)
Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?
- Excellent 18% [10%]
- Good 22% [25%]
- Fair 31% [28%]
- Poor 29% [36%]
Nevada State Survey of 500 Likely Voters. Conducted January 11, 2010. Results from the poll conducted December 9 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14 are in parentheses.
Quinnipiac National Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
- Approve 45% [46%] {46%} (48%) [50%] {50%} (57%) [59%]
- Disapprove 45% [43%] {44%} (42%) [41%] {42%} (33%) [31%]
Among Independents
- Approve 42% [41%] {37%} (43%) [45%] {45%} (52%) [57%]
- Disapprove 48% [46%] {51%} (46%) [44%] {45%} (37%) [30%]
Do you think Barack Obama’s first year as President has been mainly a success or mainly a failure?
- Success 45%
- Failure 45%
Among Independents
- Success 40%
- Failure 47%
Do you think Barack Obama has been a better President than George W. Bush, worse, or about the same as President Bush?
- Better 43%
- Worse 30%
- About the same 23%
Among Independents
- Better 40%
- Worse 26%
- About the same 29%
Who do you blame more for the current condition of the U.S. economy – Former President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama?
- Bush 55%
- Obama 20%
Among Independents
- Bush 55%
- Obama 15%
Do you think that the policies of President Barack Obama make the United States a safer place than the policies of former President George W. Bush, less safe, or about as safe as the policies of former President Bush?
- Safer 24%
- Less safe 35%
- About the same 38%
Among Independents
- Safer 19%
- Less safe 34%
- About the same 46%
Some people say President Obama isn’t tough enough in standing up to the rest of the world for U.S. interests. Do you agree or disagree?
- Agree 50%
- Disagree 46%
Among Independents
- Agree 50%
- Disagree 47%
Some people say President Obama’s way of handling foreign policy has improved America’s image around the world. Do you agree or disagree?
- Agree 53%
- Disagree 43%
Among Independents
- Agree 52%
- Disagree 43%
In the Presidential election of 2008, if John McCain had become President instead of Barack Obama, do you think that, in general, the nation would be better off than it is today or worse off than it is today?
- Better 35%
- Worse 37%
- About the same 17%
Among Independents
- Better 33%
- Worse 36%
- About the same 17%
How would you describe your feelings toward President Obama: admire, satisfied, dissatisfied, or angry?
- Admire 19%
- Satisfied 34%
- Dissatisfied 30%
- Angry 15%
Among Independents
- Admire 15%
- Satisfied 34%
- Dissatisfied 33%
- Angry 15%
Would you say that Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy or not?
- Yes 56%
- No 37%
Among Independents
- Yes 52%
- No 40%
Would you say that Barack Obama has strong leadership qualities or not?
- Yes 66%
- No 32%
Among Independents
- Yes 64%
- No 33%
Would you say that Barack Obama shares your views on issues that you care about or not?
- Yes 46%
- No 50%
Among Independents
- Yes 41%
- No 54%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?
- Approve 32%
- Disapprove 59%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?
- Approve 32%
- Disapprove 58%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – the economy?
- Approve 41% [44%] {41%} (43%) [47%] {45%} (52%)
- Disapprove 54% [51%] {54%} (52%) [46%] {49%} (42%)
Among Independents
- Approve 34% [38%] {33%} (38%) [40%] {41%} (47%)
- Disapprove 61% [55%] {60%} (58%) [51%] {53%} (46%)
Some people say that President Obama is being fiscally irresponsible by spending too much government money. Others say President Obama is being fiscally responsible by only spending money where it is needed. Which comes closer to your view?
- Irresponsible 53%
- Responsible 43%
Among Independents
- Irresponsible 58%
- Responsible 37%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – foreign policy?
- Approve 45% [46%] {46%} (49%) [49%] {52%}
- Disapprove 46% [44%] {45%} (42%) [37%] {38%}
Among Independents
- Approve 43% [43%] {42%} (45%) [46%] {49%} (54%)
- Disapprove 50% [48%] {51%} (49%) [42%] {41%} (37%)
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – health care?
- Approve 35% [38%] {38%} (41%) [41%] {39%} (46%)
- Disapprove 58% [56%] {56%} (53%) [51%] {52%} (42%)
Among Independents
- Approve 31% [32%] {32%} (35%) [36%] {34%} (37%)
- Disapprove 63% [61%] {61%} (59%) [56%] {60%} (48%)
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – the situation in Afghanistan?
- Approve 45% [47%] {45%} (38%) [42%]
- Disapprove 45% [43%] {45%} (49%) [40%]
Among Independents
- Approve 42% [44%] {43%} (30%) [41%]
- Disapprove 48% [45%] {47%} (57%) [43%]
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – creating jobs?
- Approve 34% [37%]
- Disapprove 59% [56%]
Among Independents
- Approve 26% [28%]
- Disapprove 66% [62%]
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – terrorism?
- Approve 48%
- Disapprove 44%
Among Independents
- Approve 47%
- Disapprove 45%
From January 5 – 11, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,767 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 15-20 are in square brackets. 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. Results from the poll conducted May 26 – June 1 are in square brackets. .
“With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it is not the Democrats’ seat, it is the people of Massachusetts’ seat.”
We, with our children, own a small business that could add a job or two to the economy tomorrow, but we wait apprehensively, not knowing how pending congressional legislation will affect our ability to create or keep jobs. Proposed health care “reform” promises everyone increased taxation, fees, and regulations while, daily, growing less care oriented, more expensive, and more corrupt. Cap and Trade will raise all energy bills astronomically and increase cost of living via increased cost of goods and services. We believe the common sense candidacy of Scott Brown for US Senate to be the only viable approach to these issues.
In addition, we support Brown’s stand for legal immigration. We are privileged to know several young legal aliens who work hard at their jobs and their fluency, yet despite their very different first language and alphabet, do not expect tests or documents to be translated for them. They invest enormous effort and expense in renewing visas each year, or continually return to Immigration Services to document Green Card validity. Still, government insults them by suggesting licenses, free tuition, even amnesty for illegals.
Further, in light of recent terrorist attacks or attempts and the expansion of sophisticated al Qaeda training in Yemen, the advantage of Brown’s National Guard experience seems obvious. He is educated about, and takes seriously the widespread, well-organized threats facing us.
Massachusetts has an unprecedented opportunity to wrench the guts out of a deaf US Congress that thinks “we the people” don’t have enough brains to vote for a man who has consistently listened to his constituency; worked for them; supported job creation; and voted against higher taxes, lower standard of living, and irresponsible government spending. Please visit brownforussenate.com and join us on Jan. 19, when we vote for Scott Brown and real change.
Beth Peluso, Dedham
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
When Good Men Do Nothing.
Your efforts today may greatly decrease the likelihood that ObamaCare will become law. I do not consider it to be too late to make a positive difference on behalf of freedom.
The following five national/international businesses are influential in local politics all around America, and, unacceptably, they refuse to oppose this anti-liberty legislation: the Nazarene Church (Mid-America Nazarene University), Garmin International, Sprint, Zurich North America, and Midland Loan Services (PNC Real Estate).
Each of those five businesses has a leading employee on the board of one of two large local chambers of commerce in Kansas — the Olathe Chamber and the Overland Park Chamber — and neither chamber is willing to take a position on ObamaCare. The US Chamber and the Kansas Chamber (state-wide) both oppose the Democratic legislation.
Any one or two of those corporations — again, the Nazarene Church (Mid-America Nazarene University), Garmin International, Sprint, Zurich North America, and Midland Loan Services (PNC Real Estate) – could force a vote on the matter, but they are intentionally doing nothing. One wonders in how many other cities this is also the case, particularly in areas that are represented by vulnerable Democratic congressmen and congresswomen.
At this moment, these major corporations could be providing needed support on behalf of the small businesses who are fighting against ObamaCare. Instead, they are intentionally choosing to remain on the sidelines, where it appears safe.
The thing is, nobody ”doesn’t have an opinion” on this damaging, far-reaching legislation. These companies have an opinion, but they refuse to make their opinion known. They are more interested in “playing it safe” in the short-term and in being liked by the local liberal elite class, than in representing the interests of Americans during a time when their leadership is needed in order to stop this anti-business legislation.
Kansas’ Third Congressional District has been held for a decade by liberal “Blue Dog” Democrat Dennis Moore. Instrumental in electing and re-electing Dennis Moore have been liberal leaders within the Olathe the Overland Park Chambers. While their current inaction is not surprising, it is nonetheless unacceptable.
The Olathe Chamber’s current chairman is Kevin Gilmore, a vice president at Mid-America Nazarene. In 2008, Gilmore joined Senator Sam Brownback in going against Kansans for Life and endorsed an unknown District Attorney candidate, who within six months of being a first-time elected official proved to be corrupt. Oddly, the Olathe Chamber is honored by the US Chamber as being ranked among the top 1% of all local chambers of commerce. Laurie Minard of Garmin International sits on the chamber’s executive board. It’s chair-elect is an executive at Bank of Blue Valley, which was Kansas City’s first bailout recipient, and whose CEO is Bob Regnier, a local support of the ACLU-like “Mainstream Coalition.”
The Overland Park Chamber’s leadership includes:
I encourage you to contact these business groups, and ask them why they support ObamaCare, through their intentional inaction. Tell them to start supporting the interests of their customers and of all businesses, small and large.
At this moment, the language of the legislation is being drafted behind closed doors by very liberal Democrats, whose values do not represent mainstream America. To get majority votes on the final legislation, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will need every possibly vote of less-liberal congressional Democrats, many of whom are vulnerable as they run for re-election in 2010. We know that Pelosi is on record as stating that it’s OK with her that House Democrats will lose seats, but we also know that, individually, Democratic congressmen don’t share her “take it for the team” mentality.
There is no evidence to suggest that ObamaCare will improve our nation or provide a net improvement to health care. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda will damage health care, will hurt the economy, and will intentionally and unnecessarily lead to a government-run monopoly.
On top of that, there are the various offensive elements of the legislation, such as the mandated abortion funding in the Senate bill, and the exclusive exemption for the Amish, and possibly Christian Scientists.
This is not health “reform.” Some headlines read “health overhaul,” and that is closer to the truth.
This legislation can still be defeated, but freedom-loving Americans must continue to work diligently.
______________________________________________________________
Connect with Hodge on Facebook, his Web site, Twitter, and KansasProgress.com. From 2005-’09, Hodge represented 300,000 voters and 50,000 students at Johnson County Community College. He served in the Kansas House from 2006-’08. His record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Here are the clips:
How did she do?
—————————————————————————————
David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter
After a slight drop-off the last few weeks thanks to holiday specials and college football, Governor Huckabee ended another weekend with a commanding victory in the cable news ratings race. Not only did he receive the most viewers in all of his time-slots (including reruns), he beat out every other cable news show over the entire weekend.
Source: Media Bistro
Source: Media Bistro
Also, Huckabee welcomed Palin to FoxNews, telling Politico:
“It’s good to have her join us, and I feel sure she will enjoy a great working atmosphere and a wonderful team of people”
