CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Barack Obama

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

• Approve 51% {54%} <48%> (55%) [54%] {55%} <58%> (53%) [56%]
• Disapprove 48% {44%} <50%> (42%) [45%] {43%} <40%> (45%) [40%]

Note: 26% Strongly approve; 36% Strongly disapprove.

Do you consider the first year of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?

• Success 47% [51%]
• Failure 48% [37%]

Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with Barack Obama on the issues that matter most to you.

• Agree 49% {48%}
• Disagree 50% {51%}

In general, would you say that President Obama’s views and proposed programs for the country are too liberal, not liberal enough, or just about right for the country?

• Too liberal 46% [42%] [40%]
• Not liberal enough 10% [14%] [8%]
• Just about right 42% [44%] [50%]

Please tell me whether you agree or disagree that Barack Obama has the personality and leadership qualities a President should have.

• Agree 64% {66%}
• Disagree 35% {33%}

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

Health care policy

• Approve 40% [42%] <51%> (44%)
• Disapprove 59% [57%] <47%> (53%)

The economy

• Approve 44% [46%] <54%> (49%)
• Disapprove 54% [54%] <45%> (51%)

Taxes

• Approve 44% [49%] <52%> (45%)
• Disapprove 53% [50%] <43%> (52%)

The federal budget deficit

• Approve 36% [39%] <46%> (36%)
• Disapprove 62% [60%] <51%> (63%)

Unemployment

• Approve 45% [47%]
• Disapprove 54% [52%]

Foreign affairs

• Approve 51% [51%] <58%> (54%)
• Disapprove 46% [47%] <38%> (42%)

The situation in Iraq

• Approve 53% [44%]
• Disapprove 43% [53%]

The situation in Afghanistan

• Approve 51% [42%] (49%)
• Disapprove 47% [56%] (46%)

Terrorism

• Approve 50% (52%)
• Disapprove 49% (45%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

• Approve 27% {29%}
• Disapprove 72% {69%}

Survey of 1,021 adults, including 955 registered voters, was conducted January 8-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 16-20, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 2-3 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 30 – November 1 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-18 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 11-13 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in square brackets.

Okay, that was fun. Beyond fun, while I don’t take straw polls very seriously, I do think there may be a few things we can learn from the earlier exercise.

One is that some people do take this stuff seriously. Why? What do they think they or their candidates gain from stuffing the ballot box in a meaningless survey? Not a new thought, but one I return to every time I see something like this play out.

Two is that there are three (or perhaps two and a half) candidates who have organized web cadres – Palin, Romney, and to a lesser extent Gary Johnson. While Palin’s was much the most efficient, still this is interesting to see and probably good for all three of them.

Three is that Johnson’s support is nothing like Ron Paul’s. Commenter Gary Johnson 2012 seemed to have it nailed when he wrote:

Johnson clearly has a good chunk of the Ron Paul netroots behind him, but there’s a lot of Paul purists who aren’t supporting Johnson this time around, because of Johnson’s moderated stances on the issues. I think Johnson will more than make up for any loss of the Ron Paul voters by picking up more war-weary and socially moderate mainstream/conventional Republican voters, but I don’t think Johnson will have the same Internet force that Paul commanded.

This is probably both good and bad for Johnson – the behavior of the Paulistas alienated a great many people last time, but they were also the driving force behind his surprising run.

Four is the under-performer – why did Huckabee do so badly? Are his web supporters disorganized? Most likely, this particular poll slipped by under their radar, but perhaps this is a sign that Huckabee isn’t putting any effort into web organizing because he isn’t running. Who knows?

Five is the rest, about whom there’s little to say.

Anyway, let’s move on to another round of meaninglessness. This time we’ll do it Illinoisguy’s way. We want you to list your three favorite candidates, in order (no ties, you have to choose). Then list the three candidates you think most likely to get the nomination.

Here are my choices, as an example:

Preferred

1. Daniels
2. Pawlenty
3. Palin

Likely

1. Palin
2. Huckabee
3. Romney

In actuality, Palin is tied with Romney for my third choice, but I flipped a coin and picked Palin. The same with the ‘likely’ choices – I really don’t think there’s any meaningful difference among the Big Three.

Please refrain from joke candidates, like Daffy Duck, Barack Obama, and Rick Santorum. Well, okay, we’ll count votes for Daffy, but I draw the line there.

Okay, go for it. Let’s all have fun.

Democratic pollster, Public Policy Polling, is once again inviting everyone to help determine who will be the fourth Republican to join Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin in their upcoming 2012 presidential survey.

The six candidates being considered:

• Rudy Giuliani
• Dick Cheney
• David Petraeus
• Mitch Daniels
• Rick Perry
• Glenn Beck

Click here to peruse PPP’s previous presidential polls pairing prospective GOPers against President Obama.

From RJ Caster at THE LOBBYIST:

RealClearPolitcs has posted a video of Senatorial hopeful, Martha Coakley, making the most asinine statement of the new year. Apparently, she is under the opinion that we have accomplished all that we could have hoped to in Afghanistan:

“If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

The fact that this woman stands any chance of winning a Senatorial seat is a sad testament to the state of Massachusetts. Bear in mind, however, that the fact that Mr. Scott Brown is making it more of a race is a sign of hope for the state as well. To make such blatantly false allegations contrary to sworn testimony of our commanders in the field for the mere hopes of scoring political points is beyond sophistry, and one would not be far if if inclined to consider her actions maleficent. Let’s listen to the people who know better than this nugatory wannabe-Senator.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: I would like to provide an overview of the strategic thinking and context behind [President Obama's] decisions, in particular the nexus among al Qaeda, the Taliban, Pakistan and Afghanistan…Put simply, the Taliban and al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each benefiting from the success and mythology of the other..Al Qaeda leaders in particular have stated this explicitly and repeatedly…

…The lesson of the Afghan Taliban’s revival for al Qaeda is that time and will are on their side…Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of al Qaeda…The president’s new strategic concept aims to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and reduce its strength, while providing the time and space necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance to stabilize their own country.

Or how about this…

ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: To say there is no serious threat of Afghanistan falling once again into the Taliban’s hands ignores the audacity of even the insurgency’s most public statements…we see every day of collusion between these factions on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border…through brutal intimidation, the Taliban has established shadow governments across the country, coercing the reluctant support of many locals and challenging the authority of elected leaders and state institutions. Indeed, we believe the insurgency has achieved a dominant influence in 11 of the 34 provinces.

Testimony from a December 3, 2009 House Armed Services Committee hearing. Thank you to a co-worker for grabbing this up and sharing it!

An account of events from: http://flemingandhayes.com

One of the union workers actually turned around and said “I’m paid to be here, but I’m voting for Scott Brown. I just need the money, but don’t tell anyone.”

Like we said, the debate was a slam-dunk. Once it was over, Scott Brown stopped by to thank us for the support.

H/T: Malkin

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

Scott Brown for Senate has released a video today showing Heisman trophy winner Doug Flutie and comedian Steve Sweeney endorsing Scott Brown:

Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/178795233167

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

I wanted to direct all of you to a new venture that I am participating in – as I think it has the potential to be a very important international news source in the next few years. The South Sudan News Agency (SSNA) is primarily the brainchild of Duop Chak Wuol – a  friend of mine from college and a South Sudanese activist. Meeting Duop has been one of the great pleasures of my life, and as a result I have become deeply concerned with the struggle for freedom in his home nation. So, when he asked if I wanted to make occasional contributions to this fantastic new website, I couldn’t turn him down.

SSNA officially launched today and aims to be a comprehensive news resource about South Sudan written by and for South Sudanese citizens and members of the South Sudanese diaspora. The stories posted there could be of  great importance as the South moves toward full independence from Sudan in a 2011 referendum. 

My personal hope is that this referendum will eventually end decades of civil war and oppression of the black and mostly Christian South Sudanese at the hands of the Islamist, Arab-dominated government of dictator Omar al-Bashir. However, most sane people realize that Bashir is a butcher and not likely to let the south go without a fight. Furthermore, war-torn South Sudan has recently been overshadowed by the more recent genocide in the neighboring Darfur region and needs to be getting more attention to ensure that the world is watching Bashir in the run-up to independence.

As of today’s launch, I have two columns up at SSNA. The first (and in my mind most important) details my reasons for becoming involved with South Sudanese issues and the personal story of how I came  to know my friend Duop. The second is a blistering rebuke of Bashir’s egomania.

I hope that you find the site interesting and that you will read my sporadic contributions. Also, if you want to show your support on Twitter, I would ask that you add one of our new “South Sudan” Twibbons to your profile.

Today, Governor Huckabee released the following statement on his Huck PAC website:

I am pleased to endorse my good friend John Hoeven for the United States Senate from North Dakota. John is presently the Governor of North Dakota, having been first elected in 2000, and re-elected in 2004 and 2008. We need John’s strong conservative voice on the national scene at this critical time in our nation’s history. That is why I am pleased that John has decided to run for the United States Senate. Our national debt continues to skyrocket and we are facing a government takeover of our health care system.

I know that John will be an effective conservative fighting against the liberal attempts to increase the size of government, take more control of our everyday lives, and their out of control spending. I have long admired John as Governor of North Dakota.

John is a native of North Dakota and was a businessman in the state before being elected Governor. John is widely believed to be one of the most popular Governors in the country and with good reason. He has focused on government fiscal responsibility, and for that reason North Dakota is one of the few states in sound financial condition.

The conservative principles that define John are strong and undisputed. He is Pro-life and supports traditional marriage, believing that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. He also is a strong supporter of second amendment rights. John believes that health care should remain a private matter, between the patient and their doctor, and that the federal government has no business taking over the nation’s health care system.

I am proud to endorse John for the United States Senate from North Dakota, and urge each of you to help this strong conservative win election and start the work of getting our country back on track.

John Hoeven for U.S. Senate on Facebook

————————————————————————-

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

Rasmussen Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Martha Coakley (D) 49% (50%)
• Scott Brown (R) 47% (41%)
• Joe Kennedy (I) 3% (1%)
• Not sure 2% (7%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott Brown 59% (58%) / 33% (25%) {+26%}
• Martha Coakley 58% (60%) / 40% (35%) {+18%}

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

• Strongly approve 37% (35%) [39%] {40%}
• Somewhat approve 20% (22%) [20%] {23%}
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (12%) [11%] {12%}
• Strongly disapprove 31% (30%) [30%] {24%}

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 30% (27%) [33%]
• Somewhat favor 22% (26%) [20%]
• Somewhat oppose 9% (9%) [9%]
• Strongly oppose 37% (36%) [36%]

How would you rate the job Deval Patrick has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 16% (9%) [7%] {11%}
• Somewhat approve 24% (32%) [32%] {31%}
• Somewhat disapprove 21% (17%) [26%] {25%}
• Strongly disapprove 38% (40%) [34%] {32%}

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 65%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 21%

Earlier this year, Congress and the president enacted a $787 billion economic stimulus plan. So far, has the economic stimulus plan helped the economy, hurt the economy or had no impact on the economy?

• Helped 41%
• Hurt 23%
• No impact 29%

What would create more jobs—spending all of the stimulus money that has been authorized or cancelling the rest of the stimulus spending?

• Spending all of the stimulus money that has been authorized 44%
• Cancelling the rest of the stimulus spending 37%

Generally speaking, do tax increases help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 23%
• Hurt 56%
• No impact 12%

Generally speaking, do increases in government spending help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 38%
• Hurt 44%
• No impact 10%

Who is most likely to win the upcoming special election for Senate….Scott Brown, Martha Coakley or Joe Kennedy?

• Martha Coakley 59%
• Scott Brown 33%
• Joe Kennedy 3%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters in Massachusetts was conducted January 11, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 4, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 20 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 24 are in curly brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Brown is ahead by two percentage points among those who are absolutely certain they will vote. A week ago, he trailed by two among those certain to vote.

Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%.

Because one of my primary goals in life is to please Illinoisguy, here is a poll on presidential preferences. No doubt someone will complain that I left somebody off the list, but I tried to limit it to at least semi-serious possibilities (I had to stretch that to the limit to include Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum, but I know each has their adherents here).

Sorry, MWS, I left Buchanan off because it’s limited to Republicans (and because of the semi-serious restriction).

You can only vote for one (sorry, it’s a free service — you get what you pay for), and you can only vote once unless you switch to a different IP, which somebody will no doubt do.

PPP (D) Massachusetts Gubernatorial Survey

If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Deval Patrick, Republican Charlie Baker, and independent Tim Cahill who would you vote for?

• Deval Patrick 29%
• Charlie Baker 27%
• Tim Cahill 21%

If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Deval Patrick, Republican Christy Mihos, and independent Tim Cahill who would you vote for?

• Deval Patrick 28%
• Tim Cahill 25%
• Christy Mihos 21%

If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Bill Galvin, Republican Charlie Baker, and independent Tim Cahill who would you vote for?

• Charlie Baker 26%
• Bill Galvin 26%
• Tim Cahill 18%

If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Bill Galvin, Republican Christy Mihos, and independent Tim Cahill who would you vote for?

• Bill Galvin 26%
• Tim Cahill 22%
• Christy Mihos 20%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Deval Patrick’s job performance?

• Approve 22%
• Disapprove 59%

Among Independents

• Approve 12%
• Disapprove 71%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill Galvin 36% / 18% {+18%}
• Charlie Baker 17% / 13% {+4%}
• Tim Cahill 24% / 22% {+2%}
• Christy Mihos 20% / 35% {-15%}

Survey of 744 likely voters was conducted January 7-9, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 17% Republican; 39% Independent.

The National Republican Cogressional Committee’s ”Young Guns” programs announced today that is is upgrading Jim Renacci (who I profiled yesterday) from “on the radar” to “contender”.  ”Contender” is the final step before being officially labelled an NRCC Young Gun candidate. 

Three other candidates were also added as “on the radar”. One is Mike Grimm. I was  already looking closely at Grimm in his race to take back New York City’s only GOP-leaning Congressional District (NY-13) from Democrat Rep. Michael McMahon – so this upgrade will now make him one of my top surprise candidates to watch. It might be worth noting that Grimm’s primary opponent, Michael Allegretti, was already listed.

Also making the list are GOP candidates John Loughlin (RI-1, against Rep. Patrick Kennedy) and Dan Debicella(CT-4, against Rep. Jim Himes).

Apologies to those of you who got an error message when you tried to view Martha Coakley’s vicious attack ad against Scott Brown. I had to replace the video after the Coakley campaign yanked the video off YouTube and reuploaded an alternate version. Click here to find out why they had to do that (and read the fine print VERY carefully).

So – who are the  ”Massachusettes”?  Are they a new girl group hitting the radio charts in Boston?

REALLY? I would never have guessed!

I’m sorry, but this has to be one of the single cheesiest and most poorly written attack ads I’ve ever seen. Maybe I overestimate people, but I would hope that voters realize that Coakley is insulting their intelligence by thinking that she can win their votes simply by stating that her opponent is not a Democrat (even in Massachusetts).

Here’s the Brown campaign’s response.

Well played, Mr. Brown.

Read the article below and let me know what you think in the comments section or here:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.

The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.

The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.

These were much larger than a $15 billion profit registered from the Capital Purchase Program for banks and $4.4 billion in profits from other bank investments, asset guarantee and lending programs.

A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers. But the department was not yet ready to update its estimate of the final taxpayer costs for the bailouts.

The official said the Treasury would update its cost estimates on a quarterly basis as the bailout program shifts its focus toward small business lending and housing relief in its final 10 months of operation.

The Treasury in November said TARP’s ultimate cost estimate had been reduced to about $141 billion from $341 billion earlier in the year. Further reductions in the final cost estimate could aid the Obama administration as it faces pressure to produce a new budget that starts to show deficit reductions.

(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Unfortunately, this story was not the lead anywhere today, though Fox did have  a related one on their top three stories. Drudge’s lead story today is about Scott Brown, the candidate for former Senator Kennedy’s seat (okay, that one’s fairly important). Yesterday, he had an accusation that Senator Reid (D-NV) had a facelift or something. Drudge did have this story, but buried several stories down. Meanwhile, cable news is failing as badly as usual to provide important news. Fox has the “tell-all” story about Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) as their lead story, and CNN has David Frum’s newest column as theirs. MSNBC actually has the most important lead story of the three, with an article about the death of an Iranian opposition leader. ABC is also not doing their job, with a massive lead story about President Obama allegedly playing favorites regarding the race card. 

Once again, I’ll ask Americans to look at the important news. Who really cares if Sarah Palin is on Fox? Is anyone surprised? Reid has said two racial statements in recent weeks. Why are we letting our elected officials waste our taxpayer money over his comments? (Note- every time they go after or defend Reid instead of doing their job they are wasting taxpayer money.) We are losing billions of dollars to corrupt government, business and other officials and executives…and we care about something stupid Reid said or the common-sense career move of Sarah Palin? Give me a break. Let’s worry about the troops dying overseas, our sovereignty, the education of our youth and the other critical issues facing this country. Our mainstream/professional media certainly won’t do it, obviously, but in the age of the Internet and other technologies, we the people have no excuse.

Now that I’m pro-life, I’m picking up on a few things I didn’t before. Aside from being the two issues that best-inflame Evangelical Christians — about whom I don’t care one whit when evaluating arguments — there is no coherent link between abortion and same-sex marriage.

The implicit premise involved in the phrase is that it’s obvious that anyone on the liberal side of one issue is going to be on the liberal side of another. But how could abortion possibly be good for gay people? Any culture that accepts abortion-on-demand is going to see a holocaust of the gay unborn when the biological root of homosexuality is understood. We hear constantly from pro-choice activists that it is appropriate to kill a retarded fetus because it will have a horrid quality of life. But the cut-off point for “quality of life” is necessarily arbitrary in a culture that accepts abortion-on-demand. I recall coming out to my mother as a teenager and having her worry about exactly that: she wasn’t upset that I was gay, she told me; but she was sad because my life would be more difficult. Is it really such a stretch to say that, if and when the root of homosexuality is identifiable in the womb, we could see a massive number of gay babies aborted for “quality-of-life” reasons (or worse)?

I want to get married, celebrate life, and affirm my love — and I get to see that quest linked with abortion. “Abortion and gay marriage.” Will someone abort this insulting and incoherent phrase?

Miep Gies – the last surviving member of the group of the group that hid Anne Frank from the Nazis – has died in the Netherlands at the age of 100.

It was Gies who personally collected Frank’s papers (hoping to one day return them), returned them to Anne’s father Otto Frank after the war, and aided in their compilation and publication as “The Diary of Anne Frank”.

While Miep Gies personally downplayed her own role in the story – I think she deserves credit along with all of the other heroes who aided Jews during the Holocaust. Furthermore, Gies deserves an extra measure of gratitude for saving the precious papers and compiling them into the single most prominent autobiographical account of the Holocaust.

“May HE who makes peace in HIS heights make peace upon you and upon all Israel – and we say ‘amen.’”  – Traditional Jewish Mourner’s Kaddish

Marco Rubio has defeated Charlie Crist in the REC straw poll held tonight in Pinellas county by a margin of 106 to 54.

The St. Petersburg Times via the TampaBay.com blog quotes one voter saying:

“I volunteered for Charlie for nine years. I love Charlie as a person. If he was here, I would give him a big hug. He actually called me about this (straw poll) yesterday,’’ said Wilna Varney of Largo, who voted for Rubio. “But I’m a more conservative person and I’m going to support the more conservative candidate.”

Statement from Marco Rubio:

Miami, FL – U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding tonight’s Pinellas County Republican Executive Committee straw poll victory (106-54):

“I continue to be humbled by the outpouring of support for our campaign. Tonight, Pinellas County Republicans joined a growing chorus of Floridians voicing their support for our vision built on the timeless conservative principles of limited government, traditional values, free enterprise and individual freedom.

“Like Republicans all over this state who have stepped forward to stand with us, Pinellas Republicans understand that the way to rebuild a united, strong and expanding Republican Party is to stay true to the mainstream values all Republicans and most Americans share. Tonight’s vote reaffirms what I believe to my core: principled conservatism doesn’t just win elections, it provides a proven and successful path for governing and policy-making.”

Questions:

Is this a knockout blow for Charlie Crist?

What significance do you place on the fact the Charlie Crist can’t win a straw poll in his home county?

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy and reachable at david.schmidt@evercor.com, or on Facebook and Twitter

Allahpundit is repeating the claim that if ObamaCare goes down, it will be Obama’s Waterloo. He includes this video as an illustration of his claim:

I still say the defeat of ObamaCare will not resemble Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo as much as his 1812 Moscow defeat. Here is my post on the subject from last July. Everything I said back then still applies. If ObamaCare goes down, he will not be powerless as Napoleon was a month after Waterloo. Instead, he will be able to regroup and still take the fight to his opponents as Napoleon did after Moscow. We will still have a long, hard struggle ahead of us, but Obama will be greatly weakened. ObamaCare would then mark the highwater mark of his Presidency, just as Moscow marked Napoleon’s highwater mark.

So in the same spirit that Allahpundit evokes, I offer this video as more representative of the situation if ObamaCare goes down to defeat:

It is twice as long as the first, but it typifies the struggle against Obama’s left-wing agenda far better IMO. At first we hear the initial triumph of the French National Anthem (the Stimulus Bill), then things die down a bit. We hear the happy interlude for the French when everything seems to be going their way. Nothing can go wrong. (The budget-busting budget bill they passed.) They are invincible. The happiness dies down as the all-out assault against Moscow begins. After much struggle and mayhem, the French forces lose, and they just fade away. We then hear the church bells ring out the victory over the forces of tyranny, and we soon hear famous the cannon fire of celebration.

Here’s hoping that ObamaCare suffers the same fate as the Napoleonic Forces before Moscow in 1812.

CBS News Political Survey

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

• Approve 46% {50%} [53%] (56%)
• Disapprove 41% {39%} [36%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 42% {43%} [45%] (52%)
• Disapprove 40% {41%} [40%] (35%)

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

• Approve 36% {42%} [44%] (47%)
• Disapprove 54% {50%} [48%] (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 35% {39%} [38%] (44%)
• Disapprove 53% {53%} [50%] (43%)

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

• Approve 41% {47%} [49%] (54%)
• Disapprove 47% {43%} [43%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 38% {40%} [40%] (47%)
• Disapprove 46% {47%} [48%] (41%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 46% {48%} [38%] (42%)
• Disapprove 38% {38%} [43%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% {45%} [30%] (44%)
• Disapprove 36% {41%} [49%] (36%)

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

• Approve 52% {57%}
• Disapprove 35% {24%}

Do you approve or disapprove of how the Obama Administration has responded to the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you think it would be justified or not justified for people of certain racial or ethnic groups to be subject to additional security checks at airport checkpoints?

• Justified 51%
• Not justified 38%

As you may know, for the past eight years the United States has been holding a number of suspected terrorists at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the U.S. should continue to operate the prison, or do you think the U.S. should close the prison and transfer the prisoners somewhere else?

• Continue to operate the prison 55%
• Close the prison/transfer prisoners elsewhere 32%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling health care?

• Approve 29% [30%]
• Disapprove 57% [59%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling health care?

• Approve 24% [23%]
• Disapprove 61% [62%]

Survey of 1,216 adults was conducted January 6-10, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 4-8 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-16 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 5-8 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 19-23 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in curly brackets. Party ID breakdown: 30% {36%} [37%] (33%) Democrat; 25% {27%} [24%] (22%) Republican; 45% {37%} [39%] (45%) Independent.

I Googled this to find a source with which I was familiar, in order to make sure this wasn’t satire.

The Watertown Daily Times:

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a “religious conscience” exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

CQ Politics:

The emerging bills in both the House and Senate include language patterned on an existing “religious conscience” exemption to laws requiring workers to pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare. What’s not clear is whether the exemption, originally designed to apply only to the Old Order Amish, might be used by members of other religious groups — or those who just say they are — in order to evade the insurance mandate…

In Massachusetts, where the Christian Science church is headquartered, the mandatory state health program offers a religious conscience exclusion, and about 9,700 people applied for it in 2007, the most recent year with complete data…

The tax exemption dates to 1965, when Congress included it in the revised Social Security Act (which also created Medicare) to settle a decade-long dispute with the Amish, who believe in a deep division between church and state.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes KansasProgress.com, based in Greater Kansas City. From 2005-2009, Hodge was a trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC), representing 300,000 voters and 40,000 students. He was a state representative from 2006-2008 and was elected in 2008 as a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party. Hodge’s record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Connect with Hodge on Facebook, at Hodge’s Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.

Today is Money Bomb Day for Scott Brown.

Winning Ted Kennedy’s old seat would be earth-shattering, but even if we put a scare into the Democrats, it will send a very pointed message to Washington.

Please donate what you can.

***Update***
They made their original $500,000 goal easily. They are now shooting for $750,000.

*** Second Update***
They easily surpassed their second goal. They are now aiming for a cool $1,000,000. As of 8:10 PM ET, they are at $878,541.84.

Four hours to go.

*** Third Update***
As of 9:45PM ET, they have raised $1,012,059.94. That’s about $130,000 in an hour and a half or about $1400 a minute.

Not bad for a Senate race for which the Republicans aren’t supposed to have a prayer.

What does this mean for 2012?

Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

The network confirmed that Ms. Palin will appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multi-year deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Ms. Palin will not have her own regular program, one person familiar with the deal said, though she will host an occasional series that will run on the network from time to time. This person would not elaborate, but the network does have a precedent for such a series. Oliver L. North is the host of an occasionally running documentary series on the military called “War Stories.”

Many suspected that when Ms. Palin retired as the governor of Alaska last summer she was doing so to pursue some sort of career in television. The Fox News deal, however, would not seem to be all encompassing, and would appear to give her room for other pursuits, as well.

The deal could be formally announced as early as this afternoon. Robert Barnett, Ms. Palin’s attorney, did not respond to a call for comment.

I haven’t yet posted an “open thread,” and this quote is more entertaining when left all by itself, without further commentary.  So here’s your lunch-time (well, Central time) open thread.

And here’s CBS Chicago on the former governor from Obama’s home state.

From THE LOBBYIST:

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

Barry Casselman discusses how the Democrats could lose as many as 12 Senate seats and 55+ House races in his latest column at the Prairie Editor Blog.

I want Reid to resign … so we can hold the Nevada Senate seat. (Markos Moulitsas)

*snort!*

Sorry, Marky.

Nevada ain’t Connecticut. True, we are a little more blue than we used to be thanks to all the liberals fleeing the wreckage they caused in California, but here in the Silver State, you can’t just unplug one Democrat and plug in another. The only thing Reid has going for him is his tenure and now position as Majority Leader. Take that away, and you’ve got nuttin’.

We are one of the worst hit states by the recession. Our rate of foreclosures leads the nation. Unemployment here in Reno is in the teens only because people are fleeing the area looking for work. And you think that any ol’ Democrat can just waltz in and save Reid’s seat?

You wouldn’t happen to be interested in some nice ocean-front property, would you? There’s some great foreclosure ones available right here in Reno. They’re going for a fraction of their 2006 value. Better hurry. This life-time opportunity will be gone in a flash.

If you follow Twitter – you know that blogger and AOL columnist  Matt Lewis is one of the kings of conservative tweeting - having amassed over 10,000 followers. This morning – he sent out this:

@mattklewis: You know Marco Rubio, Doug Hoffman, and Scott Brown. Now meet Adam Andrzejewski http://bit.ly/900dUE

Pretty strong language. If you click the link – you find this entry posted on Lewis’ personal blog:

The Case for Adam Andrzejewski for IL Gov.

Adam Andrzejewski is a young self-made man and a political outsider.  He’s also running against several establishment-types for Illinois governor.

His election could be important.  As Adam Brickley recently blogged, “the current post-Blago climate offers us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to seize control and start dismantling the infamous Chicago political machine.”

Brickley, it should be noted, was my intern at Townhall.com.  He’s also the founder of the Draft Palin website/movement.  And recently, he has taken up the Andrzejewski cause.  But — so far — conservatives (who have recently rallied around conservative outsiders like Doug Hoffman in NY-23, Marco Rubioin Florida, and Scott Brownin Massachusetts) have been slow to jump on the Andrzejewski bandwagon.  What is more, he has been overshadowed by the high-profile U.S. Senate campaign of moderate Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

… And the primary is on February 2 …

One can’t help but be impressed with Andrzejewski’s bio (he and his brothers started a small phone book business that made millions, and then started a charity called ForTheGoodOfIllinois).

But one of the many challenges Andrzejewski must confront is that Illinois has been seen as such a corrupt state for so long that electing a reform-minded conservative statewide seems unrealistic.

… It’s a catch-22.

Still, others are skeptical of the notion that one good governor could turn the corrupt Illinois state government around, or even make a difference.  In terms of governing, it’s important to note Andrzejewski has built his entire campaign on the promise of enacting two executive orders — which don’t need Democratic support in legislature.  First, he plans to order all state spending be posted online in real time. Second, he promises to order a forensic audit of state government — and to rescind all waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption that is discovered.

Yet another challenge he must overcome is that many in Illinois have given up on finding an honest leader.  After all, the so-called “anti-corruption reformers” (like Blagojevich) always turn out to be wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Why should anyone expect this to be different?  (In this instance, Andrzejewski has real anti-corruption policy credentials — and a reform track record via is charity, ForTheGoodOfIllinois).

Can he win?  An internal pollshows this relatively unknown candidate losing to primary opponent Jim Ryan by a margin of 30-11 percent until voters are presented with both candidates’ bios.  Once that happens, Andrzejewski surges, winning 40 – 15 percent.

Only time will tell if the rising conservative tide raging across the nation will be enough to sweep this young conservative into office.  Clearly, he has a lot to overcome. And with the election right around the corner — February 2nd — time is of the essence…

This could be a big boost for the Andrzejewski campaign, as it’s never a bad thing to have the national punditry declare you next Marco Rubio or Scott Brown. However – Lewis could be especially big in this case considering that Andrzejewski relies heavily on his top-quality social media efforts to spread the word (I’ll be blogging on those myself a little later).

For those of us not involved in abortion-related activism, the issue is usually one that is incredibly complex, emotionally wrenching, and requires a lot of difficult moral reflection. As an atheist, I do not believe in a soul, so for me, the issue always has been one of rights — when do the rights of the embryo, the fetus, the potential baby — become inviolable?

I have always hung my hat on the potentiality vs. actuality argument furthered by Leonard Peikoff. A fetus is a potential human being just as an adult is a potential corpse. But we do not grant a man the same rights as a corpse, and we should not grant a fetus the same rights as an autonomous human being. The argument I had with pro-lifers went something like this: If autonomy is the standard of rights, then why does a newborn infant have the right to life? Well, he is physically autonomous; no longer a part of the mother’s body. He was brought into the world against his own will, and the mother made an implicit agreement to provide for his well-being upon having him. But not when having sex? She did not agree to carry him to term upon having sex? No, because at that point, he would still be part of her body and the mother would make further decisions from there. Even though he has a separate strand of DNA, a distinct life apart from the mother’s body, it’s still okay for the mother to terminate the life? Yes, because he is still physically dependent; he is part of the mother’s to do what she pleases with until it becomes autonomous.

And on went the argument. What I increasingly found myself unable to account for was why physical autonomy was the basis of rights. And if actuality and not potentiality, too, forms the basis of rights, then what’s the moral issue with simply pulling the plug on a man in a coma? I kept having to ask and re-ask: What really is the basis of rights? But the real tipping point for me was, upon arguing with someone about animal rights, finding myself unable to rationally explain why a profoundly retarded person has any more rights than a dog. And I recoiled with horror when I discovered that Peter Singer, the evil animal liberationist/utilitarian philosopher, was openly spouting the same lines as the basis of rights — self-awareness, autonomy, rationality — and following it to its logical conclusion: we can legally put dogs to death. Why? Because they are not self-aware, they are not rational, they are dependents, they cannot reason. But everything mentioned applies to the profoundly retarded, as well as much of the elderly. That’s the road to involuntary euthanasia. And that’s most definitely a culture of death. With much discomfort, I was forced to admit that these concessions threw most of my reasoning for my pro-choice position out the window. But still that trump card remained — physical autonomy.

I no longer think that’s strong enough. It’s too tenuous and I cannot establish rationally why that should make a difference, given that children, the elderly, and the retarded can not in any meaningful sense be called autonomous. And besides: dogs are physically autonomous. If autonomy is the basis of rights, what then am I to say? Well, dogs are not self-aware, or rational, and have no potential to be. But there we go again, back into the same circle! So I’m throwing out the bathwater for the unborn baby. I have come to believe that respect for man’s fundamental difference from the rest of the world’s species is what really counts. Respect for the dignity and beauty of man’s life need not be rooted in religion. Indeed, to throw it to faith concedes — scarily — that there is no rational reason to believe that man is set apart in this world.

Aron Goldman’s challenge always comes to mind, though: if you’re serious about this pro-life business, you’re willing to prosecute the mother and the doctor for murder, right? My answer is: perhaps. But abortions need not be equated with the viciousness of the murder of a Scott Peterson or a Charles Manson. Courts would and should take into account the moral complexities, the motives, the national debate, and the difficulties at hand in each individual case. Moreover, I do still believe that, although all humans fall under the umbrella of that same essential dignity, there are still differences between us. In the cliched lifeboat scenario, I would still sooner throw an infant or an eighty-year-old overboard than a twenty-year-old college student. This is why I believe in an exception for risks to the mother’s health. And it is why I believe in first-trimester rape exceptions, as well. It is a question of prudence; a question of carefully balancing human dignities. It is immensely complex because we are fundamentally not dealing with products of volition, of responsibility; the fetus/unborn baby is not the result of a chain of choices and respect.

So I now consider myself moderately pro-life rather than moderately pro-choice. But don’t expect to see me waving signs next week at the March for Life. I want about as much to do with pro-life activists as I had to do with pro-choice activists: that is — almost nothing at all. Just as pro-choice organizations made me deeply uncomfortable, so too do pro-life ones. Throughout the entire abortion debate, the level of rational discourse, respect for the opponent’s views, and overall temperament is simply basement-level. I never joined a pro-choice organization because I disagreed with their judicial philosophies, their feminist tendencies, and their anti-West posturing. But the pro-life community is utterly drenched in religiosity. As an atheist, there is no way I want to be in the same league as Steve Deace and Mike Huckabee. As a gay man, there is no way I want to join ranks with Dinesh D’Souza, who says that gay people are naturally pro-choice because they believe in the ‘debasement of sexuality’s godly purpose of pro-creation.’ Too many pro-choicers are wrongheaded in their opposition to the greatness of the West; too many pro-lifers are wrongheaded in their strident religiosity. To concede that faith, rather than reason, is the only way to support  man’s essential dignity is the most disturbing concession imaginable.

I can hear some of you now, though: Well, if you think that’s a problem, then that’s why we need you. We need people like you because you’re the best at persuading; because you lower their defenses and break down the stereotypes. But where would I go? And where would I begin? Rational voices are drowned out by the fanatics.

I have four main lessons for all pro-lifers who actually want to convert others rather than merely secure the purity of their own ideology: first of all, ditch the religiosity. Anyone who would have accepted that argument has already done so. Second, ditch the ‘baby-killer’ rhetoric and bring it to the fundamental question of who has human rights and how they are acquired. Third, start being practical: the policies of the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani eliminated far more abortions than the pro-life Mike Huckabee. Words count for squat in the policy sector. The legal battle has largely been won by the pro-choicers. If pro-lifers are to find new life, the fight must be brought to the cultural and economic level. And finally: be patient. My conversion, incomplete, partial, and just beginning as it is, was not a Road-to-Damascus style one. It’s been bubbling under for months, even as I’ve argued with several others from a pro-choice perspective. If you want to convert fence-sitters, you’ll need to have a patient, philosophical discourse. It is possible to convert someone. But you have to know how to do it.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com, and feel free to point him in the direction of non-crazy, non-religious pro-life organizations in the comments section or by e-mail.

We cyber-pundits rightly spend a lot of time dwelling on big-ticket races. Right now, conservatives are throwing everything they have into Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election. Before that, we were fixated on the election in NY-23 (regardless of who we backed) and next we are likely to turn to Charles Djou in the special election in Hawaii’s 1st District – before moving on to the big-name Senate races in the fall. That said, our biggest victories in the next few years are not going to come in those glitzy races. Instead the new Republican majority is likely to  be built on the backs of new Republican congressmen who manage to upend the lesser known members of the Democratic caucus. These men and women are going to be the real heroes, and I think we ought to get to know a few of them.

Which brings me to Jim Renacci - the likely Republican nominee against rookie Rep. John Boccieri in Ohio’s 16th District. It’s a pretty good opportunity considering that the GOP held the seat for 58 years before Boccieri’s 2008 victory – and the fact that that McCain won there despite Boccieri’s accedence. However, Boccieri is small potatoes nationally and the lack of a GOP primary means that there’s not much to fuss about.

That’s sad, because Renacci himself is well worth noticing - as he could be a future conservative all-star in the House. He has decades of business experience, founded a very successful management business, and has been a sucessful sports entrepreneur as as a part owner of the Arena Football League’s Columbus Destroyers. More importantly for me, he has spent the last four years as the successful mayor of Wadsworth, Ohio (pop. 18,437 at last census). 

For those of you unfamiliar with my support of a former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska – former small-town mayors excite me as national candidates. The reason is that municipalities have to deal with all of the garbage deemed too trivial for state and federal governments, they’re the closest to the people, and they are under far more pressure to provide efficient services. Every pothole needs to be filled, every drainage ditch needs to be maintained. and if every i isn’t dotted and every t crossed - the mayor has to deal with it. So, as a foreign-policy focused guy myself, I have great admiration for anyone who can spend years mucking around the minutiae of local govenrnance.

Jim Renacci not only mucked around in the minutiae, he apparently thrived in it – cutting two million dollars in expenses, balancing the 80 million dollar budget, and not raising taxes a penny to compensate. That, my friends, is solid conservative governance – and that’s why we need more people like Mayor Renacci in Washington. 

Renacci is a real American who knows how to run a business and wants government run the same way – and like a lot of people lately, he’s now noticed that the high-rolling world of national politics is lacks the typed common sense required in small-town city halls.

OH-16 isn’t on many radars just yet, and Rep. Boccieri isn’t exactly Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid. However, if we really want to move forward as a party in 2010, we need to get to know the everyday heroes running for their local House seats. Mayor Renacci is one of those people – and while his race may not be quite as “sexy” - he deserves every bit as much credit as somebody like Scott Brown.

So, here’s to Jim Renacci – and all of the other foot soldiers in the 2010 GOP revolution.