H/T to my mother and uncle for making me aware of this:

The U.N.’s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were “poorly substantiated” adding that “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.”

Despite the admission, the IPCC reiterated its concern about the dangers melting glaciers present in a region that is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s population.

“Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes)…”

“The chair, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of the IPCC,” the statement continued, “regrets the poor application of IPCC procedures…”

The apology follows a growing storm of controversy which initially forced the IPCC to concede that data relating to the Himalayan glacier melt included in the 2007 report was not backed up by sufficient scientific data.

Speaking at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi Wednesday, the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri admitted errors had been made but said it was not an excuse to question the legitimacy of all global warming science.

“Theoretically, let’s say we slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this earth,” he said, according to Agence France-Presse.

The controversy centers on a paragraph in Chapter 10 of the 2007 report which states: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035. ”

But is has recently emerged that the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers, which was based on information from a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, was in turn gleaned from an article that appeared in the popular UK science journal, The New Scientist in June 1999.

In the article, “Flooded Out,” Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain speculates that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming.

A glacier expert interviewed by CNN explained that the data published was flawed.

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service said: “There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements.”

Zemp says that the figures quoted in the report are not possible because 500,000 square kilometers is estimated to be the total surface area of all mountain glaciers worldwide.

“The other thing is that the report says the glaciers are receding faster than anywhere else in the world. We simply do not have the glacier change measurements. The Himalayas are among those regions with the fewest available data,” Zemp said.

In defense of the IPCC, Zemp says “you can take any report and find a mistake in it but it’s up to the next IPCC report to correct it.”

Zemp also believes that the errors shouldn’t shake people’s belief in climate science.

“Glaciers are the best proof that climate change is happening. This is happening on a global scale. They can translate very small changes in the climate into a visible signal,” he said.

1. Last year’s estimate was 200,000 participants. I’ve never seen 200,000 people before, but there were a lot of people. It was great to see.

2. I marched for about 25 minutes, and wandered the various crowds for about an hour. I noticed the pro-lifers were boisterous but respectful (by and large), whereas the two dozen or so pro-choicers were disrespectful to the pro-lifers they were standing by. The group of pro-lifers near the pro-choicers was told to ignore the disrespect directed their way, and to continue to act in a proper manner.

3. Some pro-lifers, unfortunately, were not productive. One group held a series of signs that read, “God Is Punishing America For Abortion.” Abortion is certainly murder- but why would God punish His children for abortion? That doesn’t track, since He gave us Jesus Christ, who died for our sins.

4. I would guess that three-quarters of the participants were of high school age. While this is hopeful for a future generation made up of pro-life Americans, it also concerns me, since I have to wonder how many of the young people actually have thought about what they believe and aren’t just regurgitating what they were raised to believe.

6. A group had massive signs on one of the main roads showing aborted children at various stages of life. While effective for “shock value,” does it really help the cause? We have to convince people abortion is wrong, not make our movement offensive to those we would gather to the cause.

8. Many people were praying, asking for prayer for the unborn and holding up various religious symbols. Prayer is the most powerful thing a Christian can do to help a person, and so this is a great thing. However, I must ask a question: to those Americans who are not of a pro-life faith, or who lack faith completely, and who could be persuaded to be pro-life, will using theological arguments work? I do not think so. The pro-life movement needs to continue using science to convince the rest of the country to join us. (Of course, we should also continue to let our lives speak to our faith in God and His plan for humanity, and our own faith in humanity’s innate goodness. But as we are not a theocracy, we must have secular and scientific reasoning to create policy.)

9. Keep up the good fight. Americans are increasingly pro-life, and events like this remind us of that.

10. Convince our pro-life politicians to put their feet where their mouths are. According to the marcher I stole that paraphrased cliche from, the politicians were willing to speak…but none were willing to march. I saw not a single major national politician leading the march.

11. I asked one the pro-choicers what they wanted “freedom” (one of the many ridiculous things they were chanting) from. One responded “Oppression!” Of course, these were Planned Parenthood-sponsored protesters, so we’ll have to ignore their ignorance. There were other gruesomely offensive signs held up by the pro-choice crowd, but you get the idea.

At the risk of being too negative in my thought process above, this is my immediate reaction to the 2010 March For Life. Thank God we have so many people willing to march like this every year.

Field Research California Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Primary

• Meg Whitman 45% [22%] (21%)
• Steve Poizner 17% [9%] (7%)

General Election

• Jerry Brown 46% [50%]
• Meg Whitman 36% [29%]

• Jerry Brown 48% [50%]
• Steve Poizner 31% [25%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Jerry Brown 44% [44%] / 32% [29%] {+12%}
• Meg Whitman 25% [18%] / 20% [14%] {+5%}
• Steve Poizner 16% [22%] / 20% [17%] {-4%}

Among Republicans

• Meg Whitman 34% [29%] / 8% [10%] {+26%}
• Steve Poizner 18% [24%] / 19% [16%] {-1%}

Survey of 958 likely voters, including 202 likely voters in the GOP primary, was conducted January 5-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points for the general election; +/- 7.1 percentage points for the GOP primary. Results from the poll conducted September 18 – October 5 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted in March are in parentheses.

On January 23, 2009, only three days after President Barack Obama had assumed office, he held a joint meeting with Congressional leaders of both parties concerning the upcoming stimulus package. The Republicans laid out a number of their concerns for the newly inaugurated President. To which the new President had a two word reply, “I won”.

When I first heard of that story, my mind was instantly taken back to an incident that occurred in a 1981 cabinet meeting, just a few short weeks into the administration of Ronald Reagan. The subject was the Law of the Sea treaty, a bit of horrendous international law that had been in the works for years. The time had come to move to the final stage of ratifying it. The Secretary of State, Alexander Haig told President Reagan we needed to ratify that treaty because it had been negotiated in good faith by previous administrations beginning with Nixon in 1973. Reagan looked puzzled for a second, and then replied, “Al, I thought we won the election.” Sec. Haig was silent for a moment, then gathered up his papers and said (if I recall correctly), “Yes, Mr. President, we won”. That was the end of the discussion.

Since the time of Obama’s, “I won”, I have often meditated on those two scenes. They are similar, and yet somehow they were different. What made them different? Is it just because I liked one of them, and disliked the other? They both point to a fundamental truth — elections have consequences. To the winner goes the spoils, the saying goes. Both Reagan and Obama had just won a decisive election. They both deserved the spoils. Yet the incidents still seemed different. So what made them different? I think I am now beginning to understand.

First the settings were different. Reagan was holding a cabinet meeting. The attendees included the leaders of his administration. It was strictly an Executive branch affair. Everyone at the table was a Reagan supporter.

Obama’s setting was different. This was a joint leadership meeting with the co-equal branch of our government, the Legislative. Not only were his supporters there, but also the leaders of the opposition.

Second, the motivation was different. Reagan was asserting his control over his subordinates and laying out administrative policy. Obama was asserting his supremacy over the opposition leaders in the co-equal Legislative branch.

And finally, the wording was different. Reagan said “We won”. He recognized and was acknowledging that millions of people had had a hand in the victory. His authority came from those millions of people. He ran against the Law of the Sea treaty. Those millions of people supported dumping it. “They” had won, not just “he”.

Obama said, “I won”. He was taking full credit for all the hard work others had given to secure that victory.

And it was more than that, something even more subtle. If it had been only a meeting with just the Republican opposition, Obama might have been able to get away with his, “I won”, but such was not the case. The Congressional Democrat leadership was also in that room. The leaders of the co-equal branch of government. They and their colleagues had also won a decisive victory the previous November. It was their victory that was making it possible for Obama to pass his agenda. Obama could have easily included them by saying, “We won”. Yet he choose to exclude them with his, “I won”. I wonder what thoughts went through Pelosi’s, Reid’s, and their lieutenants’ minds when they heard him say that.

And that, I believe is the core difference between the two scenes. Reagan’s comment was assertive, inclusive, and provided firm direction to his subordinates. Obama’s comment was assertive, exclusive, and rubbed his opposition’s noses in their defeat. It was about him. The team-playing executive versus the narcissist bully.

I guess those two scenes were not that similar after all.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mike Huckabee 45% {45%} [44%] (43%) {41%} [44%] (42%) {43%} [39%] (42%)
• Barack Obama 44% {46%} [49%] (47%) {48%} [47%] (48%) {50%} [52%] (49%)

• Barack Obama 44% {47%} [48%] (48%) {48%} [47%] (49%) {48%} [53%] (50%)
• Mitt Romney 42% {42%} [43%] (40%) {39%} [40%] (40%) {40%} [35%] (39%)

• Barack Obama 49% {50%} [51%] (52%) {53%} [52%] (51%) {52%} [56%] (53%)
• Sarah Palin 41% {44%} [43%] (40%) {38%} [38%] (43%) {40%} [37%] (41%)

• Barack Obama 44%
• David Petraeus 34%

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 44% {37%} [42%] (40%) {35%} [41%] (43%){42%} [30%] (35%)
• Barack Obama 37% {47%} [44%] (41%) {46%} [41%] (42%) {35%} [55%] (52%)

• Mike Huckabee 44% {41%} [42%] (40%) {33%} [41%] (43%) {46%} [35%] (37%)
• Barack Obama 38% {49%} [49%] (43%) {46%} [42%] (44%) {40%} [55%] (53%)

• Barack Obama 42% {50%} [51%] (47%) {52%} [50%] (47%) {46%} [52%] (51%)
• Sarah Palin 41% {41%} [42%] (35%) {35%} [34%] (41%) {41%} [37%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 37%
• David Petraeus 33%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 44% of the Independent vote (29% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Independent vote.

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 82% {83%} [87%] (79%) {77%} [80%] (76%) {79%} [74%] (77%)
• Barack Obama 10% {7%} [5%] (10%) {13%} [11%] (12%) {17%} [15%] (13%)

• Mitt Romney 77% {78%} [83%] (77%) {72%} [74%] (71%) {74%} [66%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 9% {8%} [6%] (10%) {14%} [11%] (18%) {19%} [18%] (16%)

• Sarah Palin 77% {80%} [84%] (77%) {70%} [74%] (79%) {72%} [65%] (71%)
• Barack Obama 14% {12%} [7%] (15%) {18%} [15%] (14%) {18%} [27%] (21%)

• David Petraeus 67%
• Barack Obama 8%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 90% of the Republican vote (32% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 93% of the Republican vote.

Among Democrats

• Barack Obama 82% {80%} [86%] (82%) {78%} [81%] (77%) {79%} [81%] (77%)
• Mitt Romney 7% {14%} [11%] (12%) {14%} [11%] (13%) {13%} [11%] (14%)

• Barack Obama 82% {77%} [84%] (79%) {78%} [80%] (81%) {81%} [81%] (77%)
• Mike Huckabee 10% {16%} [11%] (15%) {15%} [15%] (13%) {12%} [12%] (17%)

• Barack Obama 88% {82%} [89%] (86%) {83%} [84%] (83%) {82%} [83%] (81%)
• Sarah Palin 8% {15%} [10%] (12%) {13%} [10%] (15%) {15%} [14%] (15%)

• Barack Obama 85%
• David Petraeus 4%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 10% of the Democratic vote (39% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 11% of the Democratic vote.

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 58% {65%} [59%] (60%) {57%} [57%] (56%) {57%} [64%] (63%)
• Mitt Romney 26% {24%} [31%] (28%) {30%} [30%] (32%) {28%} [24%] (26%)

• Barack Obama 61% {63%} [62%] (61%) {58%} [56%] (58%) {64%} [66%] (65%)
• Mike Huckabee 28% {29%} [30%] (29%) {31%} [32%] (32%) {28%} [25%] (26%)

• Barack Obama 66% {69%} [65%] (66%) {68%} [63%] (62%) {68%} [71%] (65%)
• Sarah Palin 24% {24%} [28%] (25%) {23%} [25%] (31%) {25%} [22%] (30%)

• Barack Obama 61%
• David Petraeus 19%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 39% of the Moderate vote (44% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 45% of the Moderate vote.

Among Men

• Mike Huckabee 47% {52%} [44%] (47%) {47%} [49%] (49%) {48%} [41%] (47%)
• Barack Obama 44% {42%} [49%] (43%) {44%} [43%] (43%) {45%} [50%] (46%)

• Mitt Romney 45% {49%} [42%] (46%) {46%} [44%] (46%){44%} [38%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 44% {42%} [48%] (46%) {44%} [44%] (46%) {46%} [49%] (49%)

• Barack Obama 50% {45%} [52%] (50%) {50%} [48%] (47%) {48%} [53%] (49%)
• Sarah Palin 42% {48%} [42%] (42%) {41%} [41%] (47%) {44%} [41%] (47%)

• Barack Obama 45%
• David Petraeus 37%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 48% of the Male vote (47% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 55% of the Male vote.

Among Women

• Barack Obama 43% {50%} [47%] (50%) {52%} [50%] (51%) {50%} [56%] (52%)
• Mitt Romney 39% {35%} [44%] (36%) {34%} [36%] (35%) {37%} [31%] (34%)

• Barack Obama 44% {50%} [49%] (51%) {50%} [50%] (53%) {54%} [54%] (52%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% {40%} [45%] (39%) {36%} [39%] (36%) {37%} [36%] (37%)

• Barack Obama 48% {53%} [51%] (54%) {55%} [56%] (54%) {55%} [58%] (56%)
• Sarah Palin 41% {41%} [45%] (37%) {36%} [35%] (40%) {36%} [34%] (36%)

• Barack Obama 44%
• David Petraeus 32%

Note: In 2008, John McCain received 43% of the Female vote (53% of the electorate). In 2004, George W. Bush received 48% of the Female vote.

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 35% {35%} [36%] (33%) {38%} [45%] (42%) {43%} [44%] (42%) / 29% {35%}[37%](29%){36%}[28%] (33%){34%}[32%](34%) {+6%}
• Mitt Romney 36% {32%} [30%] (34%) {33%} [37%] (37%) {41%} [40%] (40%) / 32% {36%} [39%] (34%) {38%} [34%] (37%){36%} [36%] (35%) {+4%}
• Sarah Palin 42% {41%} [40%] (36%) {37%} [40%] (47%) {43%} [42%] (42%) / 51% {50%} [49%] (51%) {55%} [49%] (45%) {49%} [50%] (49%) {-9%}
• David Petraeus 25% / 12% {+13%}

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 41% {28%} [31%] (38%) {38%} [40%] (45%) {40%} [37%] (36%) / 32% {39%} [37%] (28%) {33%} [31%] (28%){33%}[42%](39%) {+9%}
• Mike Huckabee 38% {34%} [32%] (34%) {32%} [48%] (44%) {46%} [44%] (37%) / 30% {41%} [41%] (27%) {38%} [24%](30%){31%}[36%](36%) {+8%}
• Sarah Palin 42% {39%} [36%] (34%) {33%} [37%] (45%) {44%} [34%] (38%) / 51% {54%} [49%] (48%) {59%} [49%] (43%) {42%}[58%] (51%) {-9%}
• David Petraeus 32% / 13% {+19%}

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 71% {73%} [75%] (72%) {69%} [72%] (76%) {75%} [76%] (76%) / 19% {18%} [15%] (18%) {22%} [16%] (19%) {20%} [15%](18%) {+52%}
• Mike Huckabee 56% {57%} [65%] (56%) {70%} [66%] (66%) {70%} [64%] (67%) / 17% {14%}[11%](13%){12%}[13%](19%){17%}[20%] (18%) {+39%}
• Mitt Romney 56% {51%} [48%] (54%) {50%} [52%] (54%) {63%} [67%] (60%) / 17% {15%} [19%] (20%) {21%} [18%](25%){21%} [17%](21%) {+39%}
• David Petraeus 28% / 7% {+21%}

Among Democrats

• Mike Huckabee 11% {17%} [13%] (14%) {13%} [26%] (22%) {21%} [27%](25%) / 40% {48%}[56%](42%){55%}[43%](46%){50%}[40%] (45%) {-29%}
• Mitt Romney 12% {18%} [14%] (15%) {15%} [23%] (20%) {24%} [20%] (27%) / 47% {53%}[56%](48%) {55%}[49%](52%){49%} [49%] (45%) {-35%}
• Sarah Palin 14% {14%} [13%] (9%) {12%} [15%] (25%) {18%} [17%] (18%) / 80% {76%} [78%] (79%) {80%} [75%] (67%) {76%} [74%] (73%) {-66%}
• David Petraeus 17% / 16% {+1%}

Among Conservatives

• Sarah Palin 69% {73%} [80%] (65%) {69%} [68%] (73%) {72%} [73%] (67%) / 19% {16%} [12%](19%){22%}[20%](18%) {21%}[17%](20%) {+50%}
• Mike Huckabee 57% {59%}[66%](53%){59%}[61%](65%){68%}[60%](56%) / 12% {14%} [8%] (12%) {15%} [13%] (16%) {17%} [19%] (18%) {+45%}
• Mitt Romney 52% {50%} [46%] (49%) {46%} [49%] (53%) {58%} [59%] (54%) / 15% {16%} [22%](16%){20%}[22%](20%){22%}[18%](19%) {+37%}
• David Petraeus 29% / 8% {+21%}

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 30% {23%} [26%] (29%) {32%} [34%] (33%) {35%} [35%] (34%) / 38% {44%} [37%](37%){41%}[36%](39%){40%}[42%](44%) {-8%}
• Mike Huckabee 21% {22%} [25%] (24%) {29%} [40%] (34%){33%}[40%](36%) / 37% {43%}[45%](34%){43%}[30%](36%){38%}[36%](41%) {-16%}
• Sarah Palin 26% {23%} [23%] (22%) {20%} [29%] (33%) {33%} [29%] (28%) / 68% {70%} [62%] (66%){71%}[58%](58%){58%}[64%](67%) {-42%}
• David Petraeus 24% / 14% {+10%}

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 42% {37%} [32%] (39%) {34%} [42%] (42%) {44%} [45%] (45%) / 35% {37%} [41%] (35%) {43%} [37%](38%){38%}[34%](39%) {+7%}
• Mike Huckabee 35% {40%} [34%] (34%) {41%} [47%] (48%) {47%} [45%] (47%) / 33% {38%}[45%](35%){40%}[28%](32%){39%}[33%](36%){+2%}
• Sarah Palin 41% {45%} [37%] (40%) {39%} [43%] (50%) {47%} [48%] (46%) / 50% {50%} [51%] (47%) {54%} [46%] (43%) {45%} [46%](49%) {-9%}
• David Petraeus 34% / 19% {+15%}

Among Women

• Mike Huckabee 34% {32%} [37%] (32%) {35%} [43%] (38%) {40%} [43%] (37%) / 27% {32%} [29%] (23%) {33%}[28%](34%){30%}[32%](32%){+7%}
• Mitt Romney 31% {27%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [33%] (34%) {39%} [36%] (36%) / 30% {35%} [35%] (32%) {33%} [32%](36%){34%} [38%] (32%) {+1%}
• Sarah Palin 43% {37%} [42%] (32%) {36%} [37%] (45%) {40%} [36%] (39%) / 51% {51%} [48%] (54%) {55%} [51%] (46%) {53%} [53%] (49%) {-8%}
• David Petraeus 18% / 7% {+11%}

Survey of 1,151 registered voters was conducted January 18-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% [39%] Democrat; 35% [34%] Republican; 29% [27%] Independent. Political views: 47% [41%] Moderate; 39% [41%] Conservative; 14% [18%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted December 4-7,2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16,2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 14-18, 2009 are in square brackets; from April 17-19, 2009, in parentheses.

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 44% {48%} (47%) [45%] {45%} (46%) [49%]
• Disapprove 50% {47%} (47%) [49%] {51%} (47%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Approve 33% {46%} (41%) [41%] {39%} (40%) [44%]
• Disapprove 61% {50%} (57%) [51%] {56%} (46%) [44%]

Among Men

• Approve 41% {41%} (45%) [39%] {40%} (43%) [46%]
• Disapprove 54% {55%} (50%) [57%] {56%} (53%) [49%]

Among Women

• Approve 47% {55%} (49%) [51%] {49%} (49%) [52%]
• Disapprove 47% {39%} (43%) [42%] {46%} (42%) [39%]

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

• Support 38% {41%}
• Oppose 53% {50%}

Among Independents

• Support 30% {37%}
• Oppose 63% {51%}

Among Men

• Support 37% {34%}
• Oppose 56% {57%}

Among Women

• Support 39% {47%}
• Oppose 51% {43%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Democratic Senator Kay Hagan’s job performance?

• Approve 29%
• Disapprove 42%

If there was an election for Congress today, would you vote Democratic or Republican?

• Republican 45%
• Democratic 43%

Who did you vote for President in 2008?

• John McCain 49%
• Barack Obama 46%

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 50 percent of the vote in North Carolina.

Survey of 678 voters was conducted January 15-18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 48% {47%} Democrat; 35% {34%} Republican; 17% {20%} Independent. Political views: 43% {45%} Conservative; 38% {37%} Moderate; 18% {19%} Liberal. Results from the poll conducted December 11-13, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 9-11, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 2-4, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 2-8, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 4-10, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12, 2009 are in square brackets.

This is what I said last September in a post entitled “Leadership and Power”:

All leaders have what could be called their official power and their unofficial power. Official power is the power which their position and office gives them. An example of this is the ability a President has to veto legislation from Congress, or to remove a misbehaving General as in the case of Truman and MacArthur. Official power also comes to a President by virtue of being the Leader of his Party.

Unofficial power is the ability of a leader to get things done without explicitly calling upon his official power. Often called “the Art of Persuasion”, it is the most potent of all leadership powers. With it, a leader can obtain nearly everything he wants. Without it, a leader is severely limited in his ability to get things done.

These two types of leadership powers give rise to an interesting paradox. If a leader depends upon his unofficial power, he may seldom if ever need to evoke his official power. Things just get done. However, the more a leader calls upon his official power in the pursuit of his goals, the less unofficial power he has. Let me repeat that. The more a leader calls upon his official power, the less unofficial power he has. If he is not careful, he will find that his ability to accomplish anything is severely limited. His ability to lead is greatly compromised.

What we see now in Washington is a classic example of this happening. The election of Scott Brown represents a loss of less than 0.2% of the Democrats’ official power, yet they are now stymied. They are unable to get things done even with their still remaining overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress and holding the White House. Why? Their unofficial power is spent.

Where did it go? Throughout the ObamaCare debate — not to mention the Stimulus and the Cap and Trade debates — the Democrat leadership in the House, Senate, and White House continually used their official power to ramrod their agenda through. And as I predicted back in September they have lived to regret it.

It is a wonder to behold what the election of one Republican in Massachusetts has done to the Democrats in Washington. Even now, three solid days after the election, they and their party are wondering around in a daze. ObamaCare — into which they poured so much energy, time, money, and political capital — is dead in the water, and the sharks are circling. All momentum is lost. And the immediate cause of this? The turnover of one seat in 535.

I submit that if they had tried to work with the Republicans instead of dictate to them, if they had been less intense on ramming this package through, if they had appealed less to their “official power” in other words and more to their “unofficial power”, the swing of a single seat would not have been such a cataclysmic event. Now it is too late.

Yes Mr. President, you won. Perhaps now, a year later, you’ve learned that there is a whole lot more to governing than just winning an election.

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission was about more than campaign finance.

While some nervous folks will panic and warn that Corporations are going to take over and that the floodgates will be opened…I have news for you. They were never closed.

Corporations and Unions have had their influence in the political process for decades. All campaign finance regulations have required corporations and unions to do is to play a lot of games, but they’ve nothing to limit the money in politics.

What the ruling really suggests is that the Robert’s Court is not going to use Stare Decisis as an excuse for the maintenance of bad constitutional law. The court overturned a century of legislative and statuatory precedents and returned us to the original constitution.

As it operates on Constitutional law, blind adherence to precedent that is blatantly contrary to the Constitution allows the constitution to be reconstructed into an abomination in contravention of what was intended, and thus our entire system of government is threatened.

The Court’s ruling is heartening because it suggests that the Roberts court will be minded to correct the errors of courts that have violated the Constitution. Get a good President who’ll appoint Roberts and Alito-style judges to give the court a 5th strong conservative and Roe v. Wade could be no more.

This is truly “Must See TV”

(Hat Tip: Daily Paul.)

Specter tells Bachmann, a 2012 dark horse, to “act like a lady” (audio in link):

The deeply odd couple of Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) appeared together on…1210 AM’s Dom Giordano Show [but not archived on the station's site]. [It] began when Specter challenged Bachmann to articulate what, exactly, she stands for, according to a readout on the clash published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s lively Early Returns blog.

Bachmann first laid out her agenda — cutting taxes and killing President Obama’s health reform bill — at considerable length.

When Specter tried to counter, Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party movement, kept on talking, which didn’t sit well with the one-time Philadelphia DA, who is a stickler for politeness and protocol.

“I’m going to treat you like a lady,” Mr. Specter shot back. “Now act like one.”

Ms. Bachmann replied, “I am a lady.”

Things went on along this line for a while — with Specter later asking Bachmann to “act like a lady,” according to the PPG’s Daniel Malloy.

Bachmann is hardly a beloved figure in Democratic circles. But how many liberal women, whom Specter badly needs to defeat front-running Pat Toomey, would appreciate being told to “act like a lady” by a male debate partner?

There’s gonna be a what?!

Bachmann shot back later (audio in link):

I was patronized and basically told to sit down and shut up.

She predicts that this will be Specter’s death knell.

Perhaps wishful thinking on the cause, but Specter’s looking deader every day — and I don’t mean his appearance.

Bob McDonnell, the just-sworn-in governor of Virginia, will try to not pull a Bobby Jindal:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will deliver the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address next Wednesday.

Republican leaders in Congress announced the decision on Thursday in a statement, saying that McDonnell “understands that the American people are more interested in shrinking unemployment than expanding government.”

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called McDonnell “an impressive public servant and an excellent choice to offer Republican solutions for our country.” McDonnell was inaugurated this past week. He won the Democratic-held governorship last fall, one of two major GOP victories. Republicans also unseated a Democrat in New Jersey.

Some pictures are worth a thousand words.

This may be the first time I’ve ever seen such a powerful man look so intimidated by a junior colleague. Looking forward to next week’s introduction speech.

Americans United for Life Action has put together a Virtual March for Life for those who can’t attend the March for Life in Washington, DC. Over 50,000 have signed up to participate over the last few days and the number continues to swell:

Notable leaders can be seen on this page. The list includes:

• Andrew Breitbart Breitbart.com / BigGovernment.com
• Rep. Eric Cantor Member of Congress, VA-07
• Rep. John Carter Member of Congress, TX-31
• Sen. Jim DeMint United States Senator, SC
• Rep. Trent Franks Member of Congress, AZ-02
• Governor Mike Huckabee Former Governor of Arkansas
• Joe The Plumber Commentator & Correspondent
• Rep. Jim Jordan Member of Congress, OH-04
• Lars Larson Nationally syndicated radio talk show host
• Rep. Robert E. Latta Member of Congress, OH-05
• Sen. John McCain United States Senator, AZ
• Governor Sarah Palin Former Governor of Alaska
• Father Frank Pavone Priests for Life
• Rep. Mike Pence Member of Congress, IN-06
• Tony Perkins Family Research Council
• Gov. Rick Perry Governor of Texas
• Rep. Tom Price Member of Congress, GA-06
• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers Member of Congress, WA-05
• Marco Rubio U.S. Senate Candidate, FL
• Rep. John Shimkus Member of Congress, IL-20
• Jill Stanek Journalist and Nurse
• Michael Steele Chairman, Republican National Committee
• Charmaine Yoest President & CEO, Americans United for Life

“It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.”

Thus begins Air America’s announcement of them ceasing operations immediately. They go on to say that in spite of winning Congress and the White House, “…our company cannot escape the laws of economics. ”

Scott Brown’s remarkable win in Massachusetts last Tuesday goes hand in hand with this. The public, disgusted with the Republicans in Washington DC “going native”, threw the bums out in 2006 and 2008. The Democrats, instead of consolidating their ascension with good solid bi-partisan legislation and governance, badly misread their mandate from the voters and immediately began pushing hard for their long dreamed-of liberal goals.

It was a colossal overreach. Like Air America, they tried to sell a product few people wanted to buy. And like Air America, they are finding themselves facing bankruptcy.

Think about this for a second. The Democrats have an over-powering majority in the House. They controlled the Senate with a 60-40 margin. Their President came into office one short year ago to the highest approval rating seen in ages. The country was at their feet. The MSM was completely on their side. The world was their oyster. Yet the loss of a single seat in the Senate a year later has caused their entire legislative agenda to come crashing down like a poorly built house of cards. They cannot escape the electoral laws of economics.

Will last Tuesday’s loss cause the Democrats to finally start listening to their customers, or will they continue to offer product few voters want at a price they are willing to pay? Will they then be forced to cease governing operations a year from now when a new GOP controlled Senate and/or House are sworn into office?

Stay tuned.

In a statement posted on the Huck PAC website, Mike Huckabee says:

Huck PAC and I are pleased to endorse Jon Bruning for Attorney General of Nebraska.  Jon was elected the youngest Attorney General in Nebraska’s history in 2002, and ran unopposed for re-election in 2006.  It is easy to see why Jon Bruning is so popular with the people of Nebraska.

Jon began his political career as a state senator in Nebraska and worked hard to provide income tax cuts and property tax relief to reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.  He also began what was to become his signature issue by initiating a “tough on crime” platform  offering legislation to increase penalties for violent criminals.  Jon has earned a reputation as “The People’s Lawyer” for his even-handed application of the law as Nebraska’s Attorney General.

Jon Bruning has made the prosecution of violent criminals, sex offenders and drug manufacturers the focus of his “tough on crime” approach.  Since Jon became Attorney General, Nebraska has seen an 86 percent decrease in the number of meth labs.

I urge you to support Jon Bruning in his campaign for re-election as Attorney General of Nebraska.  This strong Conservative deserves the support of all of us.

To learn more about Jon Bruning, please visit his web site here

To contribute to Jon’s campaign, please click here.

If you are interested in helping Huck PAC and me support strong Conservative candidates, please sign up here.

Huckabee will also be investing time in this race as the Jon Bruning for AG website states:

Please join Governor Mike Huckabee at an event for my campaign
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 Contact Jen Fulcher for more information 402-740-1150

PPP (D) National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 46% [49%] {49%} (51%) [52%] {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 47% [47%] {46%} (43%) [44%] {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 43% [46%] {47%} (46%) [52%] {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 45% [47%] {46%} (44%) [40%] {42%} (42%)

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

• Support 40% [39%] {40%} (42%) [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 49% [52%] {52%} (45%) [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 40% [39%] {36%} (40%) [46%] {35%}
• Oppose 47% [52%] {58%} (47%) [44%] {49%}

Has Barack Obama lived up to your expectations as President so far?

• Yes 41%
• No 49%

Among Independents

• Yes 36%
• No 53%

Are you happy or unhappy with the current direction of the Democratic Party?

• Happy 30%
• Unhappy 51%

Among Independents

• Happy 18%
• Unhappy 55%

Are you happy or unhappy with the current direction of the Republican Party?

• Happy 19%
• Unhappy 56%

Among Independents

• Happy 18%
• Unhappy 58%

Who did you vote for President in 2008?

• Barack Obama 47% [47%] {47%}
• John McCain 46% [45%] {45%}

Survey of 1,151 registered voters was conducted January 18-19. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% [39%] Democrat; 35% [34%] Republican; 29% [27%] Independent. Political views: 47% [41%] Moderate; 39% [41%] Conservative; 14% [18%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted December 4-7, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16, 2009 are in parentheses.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 35%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Sarah Palin 31%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Newt Gingrich 29%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Candidate from Tea Party Movement 23%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 43%
• Mitt Romney 28%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Sarah Palin 24%

• Barack Obama 53%
• Newt Gingrich 23%

• Barack Obama 43%
• Candidate from Tea Party Movement 26%

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, would you definitely vote to re-elect Barack Obama, probably vote to re-elect Obama, probably vote for someone else, or definitely vote for someone else?

• Definitely vote to re-elect Obama 23% (26%)
• Probably vote to re-elect Obama 20% (17%)
• Probably vote for someone else 11% (14%)
• Definitely vote for someone else 36% (34%)

Among Independents

• Definitely vote to re-elect Obama 14% (20%)
• Probably vote to re-elect Obama 18% (15%)
• Probably vote for someone else 13% (18%)
• Definitely vote for someone else 31% (30%)

Among Obama Voters

• Definitely vote to re-elect Obama 43% (53%)
• Probably vote to re-elect Obama 35% (28%)
• Probably vote for someone else 6% (7%)
• Definitely vote for someone else 3% (3%)

Who do you want to win this year’s congressional elections — the Democrats or the Republicans?

• Democrats 38%
• Republicans 37%

Do you think it would be good or bad for the country if all the current members of Congress were voted out of office — including your own representative — and all new people were elected this November to get a fresh start?

• Good 43%
• Bad 44%

Among Independents

• Good 50%
• Bad 35%

Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted January 12-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 13-14, 2009 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 34% Republican; 20% Independent.

Lech Walesa is coming to Illinois! The anti-communist crusader, former Polish President, and Nobel Peace Prize winner will be keynoting an event for gubernatorial candidate (and Polish-American) Adam Andrzejewski.

Via a press release from the Andrzejewski campaign:

Elmhurst, IL –January 21, 2010. The former President of Poland, Mr. Lech Walesa, will be the keynote speaker at a fundraising luncheon for Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski (an-gee-EFF-ski) at the Union League Club of Chicago on Friday, January 29, 2010 at 12:00 PM Central.  Mr. Walesa is expected to speak about post-Communist Poland as well as comment on Mr. Andrzejewski’s campaign for Governor of Illinois.

Between November 30, 2009 and December 3, 2009, Mr. Andrzejewski traveled to Poland for a four day mission trip to discover how the State of Illinois can improve its economic and cultural relationship with the Republic of Poland in order to promote job growth, economic vitality, and increased international trade between the two.

In addition to serving as the elected President of the Republic of Poland from 1990 to 1995, Mr. Walesa is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (1983) after being imprisoned by Communist authorities for his opposition to General Wojciech Jaruzelski, the leader of Poland’s military government.

Lech Walesa, along with Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II was one of the biggest forces in bringing down communism – and his name carries extra weight in Illinois. There are more than one million Polish-Americans in Chicago alone, making them the largest Caucasian ethnic group in the city. Mobilizing Chicagoan Polonia (which is politically under-represented) could indeed be a key to an Andrzejewski victory – and if any living individual can mobilize Polonia it is Lech Walesa.

Field California Senatorial Survey

GOP Primary

• Tom Campbell 30%
• Carly Fiorina 25%
• Chuck DeVore 6%

General Election

• Barbara Boxer 48%
• Tom Campbell 38%

• Barbara Boxer 50% (49%) [55%]
• Carly Fiorina 35% (35%) [25%]

• Barbara Boxer 51% (50%)
• Chuck DeVore 34% (33%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Barbara Boxer 48% / 39% {+9%}
• Tom Campbell 22% / 14% {+8%}
• Carly Fiorina 16% / 18% {-2%}
• Chuck DeVore 6% / 9% {-3%}

Survey of 958 likely voters, including 202 likely voters in the GOP primary, was conducted January 5-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points for the general election; +/- 7.1 percentage points for the GOP primary. Results from the poll conducted in October 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted in March 2009 are in square brackets.

Rasmussen New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rick Lazio 45% {41%} [38%]
• David Paterson 38% {37%} [38%]

• Andrew Cuomo 54% {57%} [65%]
• Rick Lazio 35% {29%} [26%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 62% {56%} [68%] (64%) / 29% {34%} [25%] (32%) {+33%}
• Rick Lazio 45% {36%} [33%] / 34% {44%} [49%] {+11%}
• David Paterson 44% {36%} [38%] (38%) / 53% {59%} [57%] (60%) {-9%}

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted January 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 22, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 14, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Against Paterson, Lazio carries voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties by 23 points. Unaffiliateds break even when Cuomo is the Democratic candidate.

Rasmussen Pennsylvania Senatorial Survey

• Pat Toomey (R) 49% [46%] {45%} (48%)
• Arlen Specter (D) 40% [42%] {40%} (36%)

• Pat Toomey (R) 43% [44%] {37%} (43%)
• Joe Sestak (D) 35% [38%] {38%} (35%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Pat Toomey 57% [51%] {52%} (54%) / 27% [29%] {27%} (26%) {+30%}
• Joe Sestak 37% [36%] {37%} / 37% [38%] {34%} {0%}
• Arlen Specter 43% [44%] {46%} (43%) / 54% [50%] {52%} (54%) {-11%}

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

• Strongly favor 28% [27%] {32%} (29%)
• Somewhat favor 18% [23%] {19%} (22%)
• Somewhat oppose 14% [10%] {10%} (12%)
• Strongly oppose 39% [38%] {38%} (35%)

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% [23%]
• Somewhat favor 19% [21%]
• Somewhat oppose 10% [12%]
• Strongly oppose 47% [41%]

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

• Strongly approve 14% [11%] {9%}
• Somewhat approve 29% [28%] {28%}
• Somewhat disapprove 27% [21%] {24%}
• Strongly disapprove 29% [38%] {37%}

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 68%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 20%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 8%
• Good 26%
• Fair 29%
• Poor 33%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted January 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 8, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 13, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11, 2009 are in parentheses.

My friend Rachel wrote the following on The Heritage Foundation’s blog. She is a researcher for them.

Does marriage provide health benefits? According to the research, it does, but not according to many in Congress. Under the Senate-passed health care bill, couples who choose to wed, or to remain wedded, will face financial penalties cohabiting couples will be spared, even if a married couple makes the exact same combined income as a cohabiting couple.

Robert Rector explains that the “anti-marriage discrimination” found in the Senate bill is due to married couples’ income being counted jointly, reducing the amount of subsidies they can receive for health care. For example, assuming that neither Ben nor Beth, age 20, receives employer health insurance, and each makes $20,000 for a combined income of $40,000, Ben and Beth will receive the same total subsidy that an individual making $40,000 would receive. On the other hand, if Ben and Beth choose to cohabit instead, their incomes would be counted separately and each would receive the subsidy that a person making only $20,000 a year would receive. The difference in this case amounts to $4,317 a year.

While marriage penalties exist for younger couples like Ben and Beth, the penalties are even greater for husbands and wives in their later, empty-nester years, especially those who are middle-class. For some couples, this penalty could exceed $10,000 per year. However, even lower-income couples would be hit. For example, a 60-year-old couple with a joint income of $30,000 (each making $15,000), would receive $4,000 less per year than their cohabiting counterparts.

One Democratic Senate Finance Committee aide said, “The Finance Committee, along with other committees in the Senate, took pains to craft the most equitable overall structure possible, and that’s what we have here,” despite acknowledging the marriage penalty. Essentially, the Senate has decided that singles and cohabiters should receive preferential treatment over married couples. Considering the benefits to adults, children, and society that marriage generally brings, the government would be both wise and frugal to promote this institution, instead of discourage it. However, this would be only the newest government program to penalize people for tying the knot. Welfare programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid, include marriage disincentives as well.

While the Senate version of the health care bill will not punish all married couples, those without employer-sponsored health insurance—exactly the people a government health care plan is targeting—and those without children, such as young couples and empty-nesters, will more than likely be negatively affected. In some cases, the penalty will be quite significant. Someone should remind Congress that a bill meant to promote the health of the nation should not include harming the societal institution most likely to promote good health.

Meet Kirk Dillard – the new GOP frontrunner in Illinois’ GOP gubernatorial primary.

DOES ANYONE SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!!!!

Seriously, not even Scozzafava or Specter cut campaign ads for Obama Granted, this was in the primary – he endorsed McCain in the general election – but this still makes him one of the most disturbing candidates I’ve seen in a long time (at least on our side of the aisle). Furthermore – his sudden surge to the front of the gubernatorial pack shows just how bad the field is as the frontrunners can’t seem to contain this guy. Early favorite Jim Ryan can’t hold him off, nor can cash-soaked ex-party chair Andy McKenna.

At this point – the only way to stop this guy from taking the GOP nomination is to coalesce around a exciting, charismatic candidate who actually has the platform and the energy to smack down Kirk Dillard. I speak – of course – of Adam Andrzejewski.

Barry Casselman has the run-down.

Could you use a laugh? I heard this on the radio coming into work this morning. It’s a parody of the old 1959 Coasters’ song Charlie Brown. You know, the one where each verse ends with the bass asking, “Why is everybody always pickin’ on me?” It’s a hoot.

Enjoy.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

From WaPo:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the Senate will have to amend its version of a health-care reform bill before her chamber can pass it.

“I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. “I don’t see the votes for it at this time.”

Pelosi has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But moderates in her caucus have raised doubts about forging ahead without bipartisan support — a challenge as the midterm election approaches — while liberals rejected the Senate bill as not going far enough.

Read the rest here.

Ed Morrissey reports and comments on the Supreme Court’s declaring McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. In short, freedom reigns and Congressional overreach is unconstitutional. He also has the official opinion and thoughts on the matter from CATO and Cal Thomas.

Morrissey makes the same point so many conservatives already know- that transparency is the key to reform:

Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, specifically defined in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. Otherwise, work for transparency, something that would increase freedom of speech for the average person.

Remember Tiger Woods and his many sordid affairs? The media ate that up. It only took two weeks for our media sources to have “investigated,” found him guilty and hung him out to dry. Meanwhile, it has taken months for the media to “officially” report that former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards had a child out of wedlock, denied it…and did both while a major candidate in the 2008 race. Too, remember that it was the National Enquirer that broke the Edwards story wide open. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER. Not The New York Times, which had this profile about Cindy McCain in 2008, or the Washington Post, which had a front-page story about Governor McDonnell’s thesis from two decades or even Drudge, which only last week had a picture of Senate Majority Reid (D-NV) and a story about his alleged facelift as the leading story.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- our professional media has failed us. However, in the age of the Internet, we have zero excuses. Let’s hold the professional media responsible by using the free market choices we have via the Internet, TV, newspapers, radio and magazines to show them Michael Jackson, facelifts, the Balloon Boy and other non-stories won’t cut it anymore.

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

Ohio Right to Life/Wenzel Strategies 2010 Ohio Governor and US Senate Poll

Governor

• John Kasich 42.5%
• Ted Strickland 32.6%
• Another candidate 7.8%
• Unsure 17.2%

U.S. Senate

• Rob Portman 36.9%
• Lee Fisher 30.7%
• Another candidate 8.8%
• Unsure 23.7%

• Rob Portman 40.4%
• Jennifer Brunner 34.5%
• Another candidate 6.4%
• Unsure 18.8%

The survey was conducted January 8-12, 2010, and included 1001 Ohio registered voters contacted by phone. The poll carries a 95% confidence interval and a margin of error of +/- 3.07 percentage points.

Hat-tip: Ohio Joe

At the request of John Guardiano, who says that I absolutely must give Twitter a second chance, I’m, well, giving Twitter a second chance.

So subscribe to my Twitter at www.twitter.com/alexknepper and keep me motivated. Thanks.

Every time I insert the link, it redirects it to “race42008.com/twitter.com/alexknepper,” so just copy-paste the link. Thanks.