The media is quick to judge politicians when their most serious of personal sins are revealed to the public.  I am generally not so quick to dismiss the prospects of a political leader who admits to a  sexual indiscretion, as I am not convinced it has much of a bearing on their ability to lead (as long as the other party was willing and of age).

In the case of John Edwards, I will not hesitate to hold back such criticism, for one important reason;

With his admission this morning, it is clear that Senator Edwards did not use birth control, or at least any type of contraceptive that prevents the spreading of STD’s.

You may ask, why is this important?

I am presuming Senator Edwards was still sexually active with his wife (they were conceiving children at a late age) at the same time he was engaged in sexual relations with other women.  Senator Edwards wife, battling cancer and living with an immune system under attack, was put at great risk due to her husbands unwillingness to use a condom.

It was the personal choice of Senator Edwards to disregard his own health, but to recklessly endanger his ill wife is evidence that he lacks the judgment and character to be a senior elected official.

_____________________________________________

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

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Rasmussen 2010 Missouri Senate Poll

• Roy Blunt (R) 49% [44%] (46%)
• Robin Carnahan (D) 43% [46%] (46%)
• Some Other Candidate 3%
• Not Sure 5%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Roy Blunt 56% [50%] (57%) / 34% [43%] (33%) {+22%}
• Robin Carnahan 49% [51%] (52%) / 46% [43%] (42%) {+8%}

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

• Strongly approve 27% [29%] (30%)
• Somewhat approve 14% [18%] (14%)
• Somewhat disapprove 12% [10%] (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 46% [43%] (44%)

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 20% [25%] (24%)
• Somewhat favor 17% [15%] (14%)
• Somewhat oppose 12% [10%] (11%)
• Strongly oppose 50% [47%] (48%)

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 70%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 17%

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

• Excellent 15%
• Good 24%
• Fair 27%
• Poor 32%

How would you rate the job Jay Nixon has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 17% [16%]
• Somewhat approve 44% [47%]
• Somewhat disapprove 23% [20%]
• Strongly disapprove 11% [13%]

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Missouri was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 19, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.Results from the poll conducted December 15, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 21, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

As it has for other Democrats throughout the nation, the health care issue appears to be creating challenges for Carnahan. Just 37% of Missouri voters favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, but 62% oppose it.

As in most other states, stronger feelings are on the side of the opponents. In Missouri, 20% Strongly Favor the plan versus 50% who Strongly Oppose it. Carnahan captures 90% of the vote among those who Strongly Favor the plan, but 84% of the larger group that Strongly Opposes it are voting for Blunt.

Political analyst Larry Sabato now rates the Missouri Senate race as a toss-up but, given the current political climate, says Blunt would be the winner if the election were held today. Sabato projects that if the election were held today, the Democratic majority in the Senate would be down to 52 seats.

I am of the opinion that ideas very similar to the following need to be among the high-priority reforms within the Republican agenda.  Let’s start planning for these, today.

1.  Constitutional amendment requiring a 60% super-majority in order to spend money we don’t have, and increasing the debt ceiling.  A balanced budget amendment.

2.  Constitutional amendment requiring a 60% super-majority in order to increase any current tax that exists.  A few related points:

A.  While I do not oppose the fair tax (national sales tax, in place of the income tax), if I were a legislator I would oppose spending political capital implementing the fair tax if it did not contain this super-majority provision.

B.  If there are the votes for a flat income tax, I would fully support it.  This option might receive more votes; and it would, over time, functionally lead to a flat-ish tax.  Republicans would gradually lower the tax rate through votes with a simple majority, and Democrats would rarely achieve an above-60% vote to increase a tax.

3.  A 10-year gradual phase-out of the U.S. Department of Education.  Ronald Reagan ran on ending the department in 1980.  Newt ran with it in 1994.  Conservatives and liberals agree: mandates from the federal government are unproductive, at minimum.

4.  Bring back the DC School Voucher program, and apply it to everyone in DC.  Congress can legally intervene in DC, so I don’t see a reason why not to give people a choice for a better education, particularly when it costs less than the government-run “public option.”  I’ll note that some people prefer tax credits over a voucher; that’s fine by me.

5.  Earmarks (after fold, there’s a 20-year graph of data on earmarks):  over five years, bring the total number earmarks down to 1990 levels.  In 2009, there were over 11,900 earmarks, the second-highest total in American history (the highest was 2005).  In 1996, there were 958 earmarks.  In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill because it had 152 earmarks; the Congress then over-rode his veto, and I’d enjoy watching them try that, today.

6.  I won’t call this “necessary,” but I think it should be seriously considered: expanding the size of the U.S. House.  Money is not “the” problem in politics.  Money is necessary in order to communicate a message to a large number of people.  But if congressional districts were smaller in size, then it would take a lot less campaign money in order to run a competitive campaign.  Imagine if it were feasible for every congressional district to be walked 3-4 times by every campaign; I believe this would be a very healthy thing for our nation.  I’ll also note: a) For political campaigns, I do believe that limits on personal contributions should be eliminated; and b) I don’t support constitutional term limits on the Congress, though I’ll tell you that didn’t formerly support a TABOR-like (taxpayer’s bill of rights) amendment a few years back, and now I do.

(more…)

In which Don Obama of Chi-Cago thwacks a businessman, together with other droll happenings

This second part of the histories of the famous and magnificient Don Obama of Chi-Cago relates his adventures after ascending to his kingdom and winning glory throughout the world.  Sadly, the first part of the histories has been lost in our language and is currently being translated from the Danish, a language in which it has never been out of print.  Thus, we have no reliable text on the Incident of the Bitter Clingers, a courageous moment in the complete histories when Don Obama tells off dangerous small town villains in a San Franscisco fundraiser.  We are told that Don Obama was prepared to rout them, but that they were not knightly folk so his faithful vice Sancho Biden took up the lance in his stead.  And alas, we have but fragments describing the Incident of the Stupid Police Officer, in which Don Obama sallied forth to the defense of angry man being unjustly harrassed by a police officer for trying to break into his own home.  These are weighty losses indeed.  Still, this second volume gives a full picture of the most unlikely President errant there ever was.

After various sundry adventures- rescuing CEO’s and saving the unemployment rate from a precipitous fall- Don Obama intended to set out for another bit of glory.  His party was dead set against this, worried that his adventuring was taking a toll on his constitution and their polling numbers, so they tried to confine him to bed.  Aware of their opposition, Don Obama nodded sagely and was all compliance but a plan was being hatched.  Don Obama resolved to sneak out in the dead of night on his faithful steed Pelosi after many talks with Sancho Biden who, after finding so many accolodades on their last journey, was eager for another and the kingdom he’d been promised.  In no time at all, they made their way into the countryside of the DC Suburbs.  Having travelled hither and yon for many hours, Sancho Biden was tired and hoped for enlightenment about the purpose of their adventure.

“Master, you have taken me through a great many trilling moments,” Biden began.

“I think you mean thrilling” Don Obama gently chided.

“No doubt, but trilling and thrilling are one.  At least when I say them they are, for is not a bird beauteous most especially when it lifts off the ground and lets off pretty tweets?” Biden insisted.

“Surely.  Continue good vice”.  Don Obama allowed.

“Well, as I said, you have taken me through a great many thrilling trilling moments, and I have seen much wealth and glory since I humbly entered into your service.  My wife has given me leave to go adventuring because of these benefits and though I still don’t have the kingdom you promised, I am without question nearer to getting it.  But, if I am to be traipsing through the countryside, I should like to know where we are going and how it should lead to the glory we so richly deserve.  Will you make me privy to your plans?” Biden pleaded.

“Gladly, Biden.  It was no secret and you had only to ask to receive a full accounting.  Remember, I am easily the most accomplished president errant since Presidents Kramer and Douglas who drolly foiled a kickback scheme with naught but the aid of a gallant gay secret service agent and the power in their mighty forearms.  I cannot also be attentive to all vicely ways.  We are off to the great commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The people there are beset by a giant who, if I don’t mistake the rumors, intends to kill the sick and cause a great many helpless damsels to faint.  I must slay him, per the code of president errantry, and add another great deed to history’s ledger”. Don Obama explained.  Satisfied with his master’s valor and the rightness of this plan, Biden bid them set out once more.  But, soon enough, the trusty steed Pelosi gave out with exhaustion, the distance being too great, so they all of them took the train.  They shared a compartment with a businessman who was much amazed at the sight before his eyes.  Verily, he did not expect to witness a man of a brilliant cocoa complexion and a first-rate temperament, sitting atop the back of a steed which looked very much like a woman and which had a teleprompter strapped to its legs.  Bewildered, he questioned Sancho Biden about this strange occurrence.

“What the hell is that guy up to?” The businessman asked.  Don Obama, normally content to let his vice answer such questions, saw that the business man was of knightly caliber and stepped behind his teleprompter to deliver the response himself.

“I sir, am the famous Don Obama of Chi-Cago: scourge of entrenched interests; purveyor of hope; slayer of villains and fiends; president errant and gentleman, and I am up to nothing less than the wholesale remaking of the American economy, as demanded by my lady Socialismo del Sweden, whose heavenly beauty enraptures the stars and causes them to do mad capers in the sky” Don Obama curteously replied.
Utterly stunned now, the man latched onto the only part of the speech he’d understood.

“Capers?  You’re saying the stars jump?  How come we don’t see them?  I don’t think there is any such person as lady Socialismo del Sweden” the man replied.

Enraged, Don Obama defended both the capers and his lady.  “You cannot see the capers because they only happen when we’re blinking, for stars are modest and want to save their revelry for private moments.  And lady Sweden not exist?  Why she is my muse, the axis upon which my earth spins; if she but calls I am ready, nay happy, to sally forth on whatever adventure she commands!”  And with that, Don Obama solidly thwacked the man on the head whereupon he collapsed in a heap.  Outside the compartment, a construction worker heard this conversation in amazement and, thinking to have a bit of fun, entered the compartment and dropped to his knees.

“Good President,” the construction worker pleaded. “I am in desperate need of more debt and a penalty for not purchasing insurance.  I understand that it is your custom, as a President errant, to engage in quests that test your mettle and right injustices.  Can you not find a way to meet my needs, consistent with the code of chivalry and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?”

Pleased by this speech, Don Obama looked kindly on the construction worker.  “Truly, I’m touched by your plight, peasant though you are.  We are heading to right both such wrongs, simultaneously, in the passage of a glorious health care bill.  If you will but leave us to contemplate our journey, this will be done soon enough”.  The construction worker bowed, exited the room, and then told the story to his friends to much merriment.

“I am awestruck by this glorious victory; but Don Obama, I fear that when this businessman wakes up he will bring the authorities, and our quest to defeat the sick murdering giant will be torted,” Biden exclaimed after the construction worker was gone.

“Thwarted you mean, surely,” chortled Don Obama. “And while I am sure I could fend off any number of authorities with my terrible fury, and would be right in doing so, perhaps you are correct: this train grows wearisome”.

“Thwarted or torted, it makes no matter.  I will be glad to see us go before this man seeks redress”.  Sancho Biden proclaimed.

“Onward then, to New York,” shouted Don Obama, and he spurred Pelosi out of the train compartment, and to the door as the train pulled into New York.

Stay tuned for further droll adventures of Don Obama, his sturdy steed Pelosi, and his faithful vice Sancho Biden

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Oblisk18@yahoo.com

Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen divulges on their blog:

We’re going to have our monthly 2012 poll out Friday but here are some observations on the Republican possibles:

-There continues to be no evidence of any backlash for Mike Huckabee in the wake of the Washington cop killings. His favorability is at 35/29, which is a seven point net improvement from 36/37 in mid-November. He continues to poll the best of the leading GOP candidates being mentioned for 2012.

-As much as the political climate has turned in a Republican direction over the last year voters don’t really like Sarah Palin any more than they did ten months ago. In March of 2009 her favorability was at 39/50. Now it’s 42/51. Yesterday’s election could be seen as an indication that Republicans do better when they nominate un-Palinlike candidates. We’ll see if they get the memo.

It’s been just over 24 hours since the people of Massachusetts chose liberty over tyranny by ending the Democrats’ filibuster-proof control of Washington and pundits are already busily misinterpreting the results. Here’s David Frum asking the wrong question:

The real question at the heart of this most bizarre special election is whether Senator-elect Scott Brown is just an outlier who captured the popular zeitgeist of a restless, dissatisfied Massachusetts electorate, or something more – a harbinger of a competitive, yet moderate Republican Party in a state where liberal Democrats overwhelmingly dominate the machinery of government.

The answer is neither. Scott Brown won an election that had become a referendum on Obamanomics and ObamaCare, and did so running in favor of low taxes, fiscal restraint, and economic freedom. He also happens to be pro-choice (as one would expect of a politician who actually hopes to win elections in a state like Massachusetts), culturally modern and personally liberated (Cosmo, anyone?), and raised two daughters who are independent, career-oriented women who actually lead normal lives involving things like dating and relationships, as their father informed the nation in his humorous attempt to get his daughters hitched during his acceptance speech.

As such, Scott Brown did not just win simply because he wasn’t a Democrat (I doubt Mike Huckabee would’ve won the seat), nor does he represent the validation of Frum’s call to moderation, given that he isn’t a moderate. Brown’s fiscally conservative, socially libertarian mix is actually more similar to Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, Bill Weld, and any number of Republican officeholders who come and go in Granite State politics.

What’s interesting is to compare the reception that Brown received from the folks on the ground — the Tea Partiers, the grassroots Right, and the disaffected independents — versus the welcome he’s getting from certain elements of the GOP establishment. Already two talking heads are on record being wary of Brown, with rabble-rouser Glenn Beck terrified of Brown’s seeming libertine nature and Randall Terry seemingly preferring a 60th vote for ObamaCare to a pro-choice Republican senator from an uber-pro-choice state. Contrast their insulated Beltway views with those of the actual Tea Partiers who donated to, campaigned for, and voted for Scott Brown, and who erupted during his victory speech last night, all despite his pro-choice-ness, his propensity for posing nude, and his recognition that his daughters are adults with the professional goals and personal lives that are normal and natural for adults to want and to have.

I’m not arguing that the Tea Partiers are, say, largely pro-choice. My guess is that the majority are pro-life. But that issue is not their focus. Instead, all the energy on the Right, all of the new voters making their way into the GOP tent, and all of the folks donating and manning the phone banks and standing out in the snow for hours holding campaign signs are motivated by the desire for freedom, liberty, and small government. That’s because Obama’s vision for the nation is a collectivist, big-government one, and so it would make sense that the opposition party would center around ideals that reflect the starkest contrast to Obama’s world view. And, interestingly, a freedom-based GOP seems to be doing quite well in a region in which the Republican Party had been pronounced dead — the Northeast — winning both the New Jersey governorship and now a Bay State Senate seat in the year since Obama took office. That’s change we can believe in.

But the Republican resurgence already appears to be making some on the Right uncomfortable, probably because they feel that their preferred form of Republicanism isn’t going to capture the soul of the party. It’s becoming clear that Bush’s long sought after Christian Democrat version of the GOP died along with the Bush presidency. That probably doesn’t make so-cons like Randall Terry very happy. And Frum’s vision of an all-Susan-Collins, all-the-time Republican Party doesn’t appear to be going anywhere either. All of which explains why a senator-elect who hasn’t even been sworn in yet is striking fear into the hearts of not just every Democrat and leftist in the country, but is also making some in the GOP political and media establishment who think they own the Republican Party a tad uncomfortable. The thought of a live-free-or-die Republican Party taking the reins of the country is the worst nightmare of Democrats everywhere — and apparently of some Republicans as well.

Wilson Research/TBQ Arkansas Political Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Blanche Lincoln?

• Strongly Favorable 15% (20%)
• Somewhat Favorable 19% (22%)
• Somewhat Unfavorable 11% (16%)
• Strongly Unfavorable 46% (30%)

Thinking about the job that Blanche Lincoln is doing as U.S. Senator, would you say you approve or disapprove?

• Strongly Approve 15% (22%)
• Somewhat Approve 23% (23%)
• Slightly Disapprove 7% (15%)
• Strongly Disapprove 49% (30%)

Among Independents

• Approve 24%
• Disapprove 69%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Mike Beebe?

• Favorable 76% (71%)
• Unfavorable 14% (15%)

Thinking about the job that Mike Beebe is doing as Governor, would you say you approve or disapprove?

• Approve 82% (79%)
• Disapprove 9% (13%)

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 36% (40%)
• Unfavorable 59% (56%)

Thinking about the job that Barack Obama is doing as President, would you say you approve or disapprove?

• Approve 37% (39%)
• Disapprove 61% (59%)

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 13-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/-4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 12-15, 2009 are in parentheses.

Before we conservatives could finish celebrating the most historic Senate victory of our lifetimes,  we had to listen to Glenn Beck rip into the Senator-elect for his 1982 Cosmopolitan photo shoot and for his teasing ‘available’ comments about his daughters in his victory speech.  As soon as I heard Scott Brown playfully tease his beloved daughters, I knew the left would try to twist it into an attack, a fear quickly confirmed on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow.  I expected that, but I never dreamed that after one of the greatest conservative nights in history that a so-called conservative would join in on these ridiculous attacks, as Glenn Beck did today….twice.

This, in my opinion, is the last straw for this no-talent scrub, this drunken idiot, this smearing hack.  Conservatives defended Beck at every turn, during each of his many missteps. It’s a shame he couldn’t offer that same support to Scott Brown.

‘The Great One’ Mark Levin put the blubbering Beck in his place today:

You know, the really ignorant thing about criticizing Brown is that in kidding around with his girls, it actually shows he is a good family man. Ask any guy who is a father of girls: doing something deliberately to provoke the “oh daddy!” squirm of embarrassment from the teenage daughters is something only a father with a good, comfortable relationship does (and he never misses a chance to do so).

If smearing Brown was a joke, I don’t think it was very funny. It’s very weird.

Exactly. Senator Brown’s joke shows just how good of a father he really is and how close his relationship with his family is.  Not only does he seem to be a great family man, but he has also proven to be a great politician, and that is what I think is truly worrying Glenn Beck.  Beck sees 2010 as his year to shine, and how dare Scott Brown take away any of his spotlight.  Brown shows how our party can be both conservative and a big tent, instead of Beck’s twisted third party vision.  Beck sees the Tea Party growing beyond his ability to shape and control, and that is what is driving his moronic attacks on the new Massachusetts Senator, who just so happens to be a 30 year veteran of the Army National Guard, service Beck would know nothing about.

But since Glenn wants to talk about fathers and daughters and stand on his soap box and preach, then I’m afraid it’s time to knock him off that box.  Beck is the LAST person who should be giving any father anywhere grief on how they treat their children. Perhaps he is jealous of Brown’s relationship with his daughters, because while Beck’s daughters Hannah and Mary (who has cerebral palsy) were growing up he was far too drunk and drug addicted to joke with them the way Scott is able to do with his children.  A drug addict and an alcoholic first, a father second was the story of Glenn Beck’s life; it’s who he was as his daughters grew up and it’s who he was when his first wife left him.  However, despite his pathetic weakness for alcohol and drugs, conservatives everywhere forgave him and accepted him after he turned his life around.  You would think a man who was so embraced and forgiven would be able to forgive someone else for a change, at the very least for a photo shoot from 28 years ago that was used to pay for college.  Sarah Palin participated in a beauty pageant to pay for school; Scott Brown posed in a magazine for the same reason.  Life’s tough and sometimes you do what you have to do to make ends meet, rather then giving up and surrendering to your addictions like a coward.

So I and conservatives everywhere call on Glenn Beck to apologize to Senator-elect Scott Brown and his family.  We expect this kind of behavior from Olbermann, but we expect better from you.  Shape up or ship out.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Field California Survey on Barack Obama

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

• Approve 56% (60%) [65%]
• Disapprove 34% (31%) [21%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in handling the nation’s economy?

• Approve 44% (60%) [61%]
• Disapprove 50% (35%) [31%]

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

• Approve 39%
• Disapprove 53%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in the war against terrorism?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 41%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in handling the war in Afghanistan?

• Approve 47% (48%)
• Disapprove 35% (31%)

Survey of 1,232 registered voters was conducted January 5-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted in October 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted in March 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Obama’s initial job approval rating of 65% shortly after taking office last March was about average when compared to those received by other past presidents in California. Ronald Reagan at 74% and Jimmy Carter at 68% both started off at a higher level, while George W. Bush (42%), Bill Clinton (50%) and George H.W. Bush (61%) began their tenures with lower ratings.

Since then, however, Obama’s job approval in the state has fallen to a lower level than all but one of these presidents. The only recent president who obtained a lower job approval than Obama’s current 56% job approval after one year in office was a 54% approval rating received by Carter. The job ratings of the other Presidents after serving for one year were all higher – G.W. Bush (72%), G. H.W. Bush (71%), Reagan (62%) and Clinton (57%).

Central Valley voters hold the least positive view of the President’s performance, with nearly as many voters disapproving (44%) as approving (46%). In all other regions of the state approval of Obama ranges from 50% in Southern California outside of Los Angeles County to 65% in the San Francisco Bay area.

Fifty-eight percent of women voters and 53% of men approve of the job the President is doing.

Approval of Obama among African-Americans is 89% and 67% among Latinos. Among both Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans the approval level of the President is 62%. Just about half of white non-Hispanics (48%) and Vietnamese-American voters (53%) approve of the job Obama is doing overall.

Rasmussen New York Senatorial Survey

• Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 39%
• John Doe (R) 34%
• Harold Ford Jr. (I) 10%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kirsten Gillibrand 47% {40%} [39%] / 38% {37%} [42%]{+9%}
• Harold Ford Jr. 35% / 31% {+4%}

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

• Strongly approve 34% {40%} [48%] (39%)
• Somewhat approve 22% {18%} [13%] (24%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {10%} [11%] (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% {31%} [27%] (27%)

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 26% [34%]
• Somewhat favor 22% [24%]
• Somewhat oppose 11% [6%]
• Strongly oppose 38% [32%]

How would you rate the job David Paterson has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 10% {10%} [14%] (5%)
• Somewhat approve 33% {28%} [25%] (27%)
• Somewhat disapprove 30% {29%} [27%] (31%)
• Strongly disapprove 26% {30%} [33%] (36%)

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 67%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 21%

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

• Excellent 12%
• Good 28%
• Fair 23%
• Poor 35%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted January 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 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.

Rasmussen Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 53% (48%) {46%} [47%]
• Joe Sestak 32% (35%) {42%} [34%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Arlen Specter 67% (66%) {68%} [71%] / 31% (25%) {30%} [25%] {+36%}
• Joe Sestak 54% (48%) {45%} [54%] / 24% (22%) {25%} [23%] {+30%}

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

• Strongly approve 49%
• Somewhat approve 28%
• Somewhat disapprove 11%
• Strongly disapprove 12%

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 90% of the Democratic vote in Pennsylvania.

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

• Strongly approve 22%
• Somewhat approve 39%
• Somewhat disapprove 25%
• Strongly disapprove 13%

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

• Strongly favor 38%
• Somewhat favor 30%
• Somewhat oppose 9%
• Strongly oppose 19%

Survey of 421 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted January 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 8, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 13, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 11, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

While Sestak opted to challenge Specter from the political left, arguing that he was the “real” Democrat in the race, 70% of those who Strongly Favor the health care plan support Specter, while 56% who Strongly Oppose it support his opponent.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of liberal Democratic voters and 50% of party moderates prefer Specter, while conservatives are almost evenly divided.

There has been an interesting trend in the approval process for commercial arms exports from the United States.  Increasingly, the U.S. government has been rejecting arms exports to our most loyal of allies, while encouraging exports to non-aligned nations and to the Arab States that surround our closest middle eastern ally, Israel.

The DCSA’s published list (Defense Security Cooperation Agency) of commercial arms sales notifications, reads like a who’s-who list of aspiring regional Arab powers, most of whom are lead by absolute monarchs and military dictatorships.  Approximately four out of five arms sale notifications published since the inauguration of President Obama are for these Arab nations.  Included in this list is the most advance missile technology, fighter jets, transport aircraft and radar systems.

Although not all of these pending arms export sales are finalized (some are based on RFP’s/competition programs with European competitors, such as the Brazilian F/A-18 notification), the absence of many high-tech military sales to traditional American allies should be worrisome to those who rate national security and developing a highly skilled workforce, as priority interests for the United States government.

Case in point is the Obama administrations refusal to allow for the export of the F/A-22 Raptor to Japan.  Facing a nuclear armed North Korea and a growing military threat from the communist Chinese (the Chinese are building under license the most advance Russian fighter), the Japanese are in the process of selecting a 5th generation fighter-jet to protect its security and economic interests in East Asia.  At the same time the Obama administration has refused to allow for the export of this $125 million warplane, they have also ended the domestic production program for this aircraft.

The refusal of the Obama administration to export this world class fighter to Japan, Israel and Australia, and the decision to end production for domestic use will result in the loss of thousands of high-paid manufacturing jobs in 30+ States.  Most of these jobs are expected to flow to defense contractors in Europe.  Defense analysts are predicting that the Japanese will purchase the worlds second most capable fighter, the European produced, Typhoon.

The argument made by the Obama administration for not exporting this aircraft, is to maintain the secrecy of the  software in the aircraft, even though the U.S. has been granting production licenses of our most advanced military systems to Japan for the last four decades.

A similar policy appears to be taking place with another close ally in the region, Taiwan.  The U.S. has been Taiwan’s number one source for military hardware, but in recent years the U.S. government has refused to sell the Taiwanese the most advance military weaponry, which it requires as a deterrence to the increasingly aggressive communist Chinese.  Beginning late in the Bush administration and continued under President Obama, the U.S. has been willing to capitulate to pressure from the communist Chinese, when U.S. arms exporters achieve supply contracts with the government in Taipei.  Symbolically, the U.S. continues to sell Taiwan used equipment, but in many cases without the technology upgrades required to maintain a 21st century arms forces.

The tone deaf attitude being presented to many of our traditional allies over the export of commercial arms, is signaling a shift in U.S. foreign policy.  Most military analysts understand that the days of selling arms to every nation willing to write a cheque in U.S. dollars are long behind us, but specific arms sales rejected by the U.S. government are leading many to speculate on the motives behind the decisions?

What are the factors influencing our policy, and what diplomatic profit does the current administration hope to achieve by capitulating to non-aligned nations, by turning our back on our closest friends and contracting our domestic arms industry?

I doubt the policy is influenced by economics.  Chinese trade relations are critical to the U.S. economy, but the communist Chinese require free trade more than the United States does.  In addition, President Obama has shown a willingness to impose trade restrictions and tariffs on China, even though it will harm the global economy in the long run.  One can only conclude that our willingness to sell arms to Arab tyrants, but not to countries such as Taiwan, Japan and Israel, is part of a the larger Obama objective of improving the U.S. image in the developing world.

The current administrations process for determining which nations receive which armaments is clearly an extension of the Obama doctrine’s goal of creating a sesame street attitude in the global community towards the United States.  To the world, President Obama is selling only what he deems as the successful attributes of America and Americans;  A welcoming, peaceful, forgiving, mutli-racial, non-threatening community of 300 million people, leaving out the United States’ willingness to sacrifice for the freedom and economic prosperity of others.

The path taken by the current administration to achieve the objectives of the Obama doctrine has produced the Obama middle east apology tour, a cold shoulder approach to relations with Israel, the policy of extending Miranda rights to foreign nationals (terrorists) and a willingness to view the Chinese government as an overbearing lending institution instead of a geopolitical competitor.

Current opinion polls provide Obama with relatively positive numbers for his handling of foreign policy, at least at a high level.  Internationally, he remains popular with the citizenry of most of our allies, but his willingness to alter the big brother relationship the U.S. has traditionally played with its economic and military partners may be at risk with this radical shift in policy.

The advantage our President has of  ‘not being Bush‘ can only carry the goodwill just so far.  Refusing to protect our closest allies by preventing them from continuing to purchase the most advanced military technology available in the market, will lead to strained relations at the diplomatic level.  How soon this resentment will trickle down to the hearts and minds of the Japanese, Taiwanese and others, is left to be determined.

Keep in mind, it takes a generation to convince a foreign national to trust and love America.  To turn them away, it only take one poorly perceived policy position.

_____________________________________________

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

Commercial Arms

A number of liberals have, in an apparent attempt to comfort themselves, pitched the idea that Scott Brown will be more liberal than Olympia Snowe.  The proof?  His Massachusetts voting record.  Nate Silver highlights a University of Chicago prof Boris Shor analysis:

So how do we compare Brown to other state legislators, or more generally to other politicians across the country? My research, along with Princeton’s Nolan McCarty, allows us to make precisely these comparisons…

I can estimate Brown’s ideological score very precisely. It turns out that his score is –0.17, compared with her score of 0.02. Liberals have lower scores; conservatives higher ones.Brown’s score puts him at the 34th percentile of his party in Massachusetts over the 1995-2006 time period. In other words, two thirds of other Massachusetts Republican state legislators were more conservative than he was. This is evidence for my claim that he’s a liberal even in his own party. What’s remarkable about this is the fact that Massachusetts Republicans are the most, or nearly the most, liberal Republicans in the entire country!

Later, Shor points to a spreadsheet that assigns an ideological score to all 100 senators including Brown.  He finds that Ben Nelson scores a .138 (positive numbers are conservative), Brown scores .299, Snowe scores .300, and Collins scores .305.  In other words, Brown will end up notably more conservative then the most conservative Democrat, but still fractionally more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

Is this right?  Almost certainly not.  First of all, analysis which attempts to project ideology by, in part, comparing fellow Massachusetts Republicans, is bound to be frought.  Why?  Well, there are only 21 of them for starters.  But, more importantly, this sort of comparison fails to take into account the different pressures legislators come under.  For instance, what does Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Senate district look like compared to the other Republican representatives?  Is it more liberal?  More conservative?

Just eyeballing the county data, I see that Scott Brown is one of just 2 (out of 5) Republicans in the Massachusetts Senate who represents part of a county that Mitt Romney lost in 2002.  So it’s fair to assume that Brown represents a relatively, compared to the average Republican, liberal Massachusetts district.  And of course, senators are always more  moderate than house members.  There are a few house districts in Massachusetts which are reddish- not just red for the state, but actually reddish in a normal election year.  Unsurprisingly, the 16 Republican House members tend to be in those districts.  So it’s no great surprise that a lot of these folks have more conservative records than Brown- they have more leeway to vote conservatively.

But, frankly I think this is small potatoes compared to the biggest pressure Scott Brown will be facing- the influence of a conservative national party.  As Shor notes, the Massachusetts GOP is incredibly liberal.  Because of this, the Massachusetts Rep leadership doesn’t easily demand, or receive, party discipline.  Massachusetts Republicans have, on their lonesome, no capacity to stop Democratic legislation.  As a result, the votes of individual Republicans are guided largely by their conscience and their electoral circumstances- i.e, they’ll cast a liberal vote to get re-elected.  This tends to happen in states with one party dominance and contributes to the general ideological drift of the out party.

In Washington, Scott Brown will be in a meaningfully different situation.  He’ll be facing serious cross-pressures.  He’ll still be forced to be consider the wishes of his liberal electorate, and of course he’ll still consult his conscience, but he’ll also have a third pressure- the national GOP, national conservatives, etc, who are counting on him to cast decisive votes which, for the first time in his career, can actually affect the course of legislation.  I believe Scott Brown when he declares his independence from any establishment- as much as I believe any politician.  But political laws of gravity are what they are.  Arlen Specter is no longer a 60% Republican; he’s a 97% Democrat.  Harold Ford Jr., once a member of the moderate Tennessee Democratic Party and a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer”, has now found his “progressive” voice on the national stage.

And remember, he’ll also be facing pressure from Scott Brown.  If before he could justify casting liberal votes because “it was going to pass anyway”, now he’ll forever be the pivotal vote.  All of this is bound to make Scott Brown more conservative than his Massachusetts voting record would suggest.  He won’t soon be racing Jim Demint to the top of the conservative hill, but I’d wager he’ll be somewhere past the base of it.  If Shor compiles another such list at the end of 2010, I suspect that Brown will look a lot more like Murkowski than Snowe.

-

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

From THE LOBBYIST:

I was at my internship with Laura Ingraham earlier today, and as part of the job I had to look up information regarding the falling house of cards that is the Democratic Party and its domestic initiatives. Below is what I found:

1. President Obama’s Transportation Security Administration nominee has resigned after Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other Republicans held up his nomination due to his lying to Congress.

2. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is calling for health care voting to halt until newly-elected Senator Brown (R-MA) is seated.

3. White House officials and House Democrats see things differently on health care and the ramifications of the Brown election.

4. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) may very well have Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as a challenger this year, despite his calling out the left today.

5. White House advisor David Axelrod and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs don’t get it.

Below is what I have found since:

6. Suddenly, deadlines aren’t so important to President Obama.

7. Moderate Scott Brown (R-MA) and conservative Jim DeMint (R-SC) are on the same page, it appears. Kind of makes Democrats look like the ones who are purging their own ranks.

8. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is kinda-sorta-not-really calling for health care reform to start over.

Update:

9. Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) has been rumored to be prepared to resign from Congress if the health care debate keeps going, and is being courted by a large insurance organization.

10. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is being hammered by the liberal members of her caucus.

None of this is to take away from the fact that Republicans still have work to do in creating a big tent- though Ed Morrissey continues to do great work regarding that goal- and that the Tea Partiers and many other Americans are as angry at the Republican Party as they are at the Democratic Party. While I think the Republicans will win several Senate seats, and 20-30 House seats, I also think the divisions between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans, and between social conservatives and fiscal/economic conservatives, will hand several House races and at least one or two Senate seats to the Democrats in 2010. Of course, if President Obama keeps using his waning political capital to help Democrats in tough elections, perhaps Republicans will be fortunate enough to have another two years to get their own house in order.

I just read this over at Evangelicals for Mitt:

First, before I say anything else, the credit for last night’s victory goes primarily to Scott Brown and the people of Massachusetts. It was one of those rare marriages of man and moment. Well done, Senator Brown.

But as with any major political campaign, there’s credit (or in the case of a loss, blame) to go around, and it was deeply heartening for me to see the role Governor Romney and his key advisors played in the race.

…

I particularly love the way Mitt helped. It was textbook Mitt. He was for Scott Brown before being for Scott Brown was cool, setting him up with the absolute basics of a campaign: office space, fundraising, fundraising lists, and — critically — the right people to help run the campaign. The core members of Mitt’s 2008 campaign team migrated over to Scott Brown and helped plan and execute one of the most astute, dynamic campaign strategies I’ve ever seen.

All of this was done without Mitt taking center stage, without him attempting to capture the limelight, or to divert attention away from the winning candidate. I love the venture capitalist analogy Nancy draws below . . . he did exactly what venture capitalists do. He invested early in the right person.

So now, when members of “the movement” ask me for evidence that Mitt is “one of us,” I’ll just say, “Scott Brown.” Playing a vital role in the most important conservative insurgency in almost two decades is a nice new addition to Governor Romney’s already-impressive political resume.

The Washington Examiner hammers environmentalists today for ignoring the evidence regarding drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural gas deposit and instead acting on ideology.

Officials with Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources were quite surprised last week when natural gas drillers bid twice as much as expected — $128.5 million, or more than $4,000 per acre — for leases on state-owned land. With those leases, the drillers hope to tap into one of America’s greatest natural resources, the Marcellus Shale natural gas deposit that stretches from New York through Pennsylvania and into West Virginia.

As the world’s largest known natural gas reserve, the Marcellus Shale deposit is estimated to hold as much as 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The U.S. currently uses about 23 trillion cubic feet of odorless, colorless natural gas annually to produce a quarter of the nation’s total energy needs. Development of just the Pennsylvania portion of the Marcellus Shale deposit would generate up to $13.5 billion in new tax revenues, while generating almost 175,000 new jobs, according to a study by the Penn State University Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering.

Key to unlocking energy resources like the Marcellus Shale deposit is a process known as hydraulic fracturing. Drillers inject fluid — 99.5 percent of which is water — into wells to create horizontal fractures, which enable recovery of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil that would otherwise be inaccessible. Hydraulic fracturing has been widely used for 60 years, especially in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

But now, as energy companies greatly expand the use of hydraulic fracturing in other areas of the nation, environmental extremists see an opportunity to mount a new national scare campaign. They claim hydraulic fracturing pollutes drinking water with dangerous chemicals and must therefore be regulated — i.e., stopped — by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But studies by multiple reputable organizations, including the EPA in 2004, concluded that hydraulic fracturing poses no danger to drinking water after being used more than 1.1 million times in the U.S.

Even so, in a House energy and commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday morning, Chairman Edward Markey, D-Mass., is expected to focus attention on hydraulic fracturing and the proposed acquisition by Exxon Mobil Corp. of natural gas industry leader XTO Energy Inc. With ExxonMobil’s financial resources behind it, XTO is expected to drill many more wells using hydraulic fracturing.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, said last week that he sees no reason not to use hydraulic fracturing, but environmental zealots hope to persuade Congress to kill ExxonMobil’s XTO acquisition and direct the EPA to take over regulation of the process from state governments. If Congress does either, it will be yet another triumph of environmental hysteria overruling science and common sense at the expense of energy users and consumers.

I wrote on Exxon Mobil’s efforts towards a low-carbon future last month, and of course The Heritage Foundation, The CATO Institute, Charles Krauthammer and others have had great points supporting drilling over the years. It’s too bad that Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) and other environmentalists don’t understand-or don’t care about- jobs, energy independence or helping oppressed people. Fortunately, conservatives know we can do them all while conserving the environment for future generations..

I am reminded of the words of the song Nat King Cole used to sing:

The party’s over
It’s time to call it a day
They’ve burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It’s time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid

The party’s over
The candles flicker and dim
You danced and dreamed through the night
It seemed to be right just being with him
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party’s over
It’s all over, my friend

Those are my thoughts when I read such things as this:

There is no way for Democrats to spin an upside to losing their 60th vote in the Senate.

Without it, the health care bill that passed one month ago with 60 votes would go down today. Same goes for any other bill Republicans decide to torpedo with unity, obstruction or whatever one wants to call zero votes.

There are ways Democrats can jam through the current health care bill with procedural tricks or legislative creativity. But what seemed a certainty a week ago feels unlikely today. Don’t take the word of Republicans or even reporters on this one. Listen to what Democrats are saying as they appraised the results overnight.

Any Democrat with even the faintest fear of a tough race in 2010 is rattled. It was easy for some to rationalize the defeats in New Jersey and Virginia last year — and even the flood of polls showing bad news since then.

They are in denial no more: If Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere. That is the mind-set that will shape the next nine months for Democrats. It will affect who runs for reelection, who bolts on big votes, who gives money and who speaks out against Obama. All of this will make governing harder.

The focus has been on the special election for the past week. But Democratic insiders were equally concerned about other signs of trouble that got insufficient notice: Polls show Democrats could lose the New York Senate seat, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s favorable ratings plummeted in Nebraska, new polls showed Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) trailing badly in his swing district, and Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) is in a statistical tie and in more trouble than previously expected.

To top that off, Obama, who just yesterday was sounding defiant and combative, is now sounding strangely conciliatory.

President Obama warned Democrats in Congress today not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

This is a prize passage:

“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” he said.

The President said there are “core elements” to the health care legislation that both Republican and Democrats agree on and they must come together to work for comprehensive reform.

Okay, so NOW he is interested in working with the Republicans on a bi-partisan reform package. Nothing like taking a full year of arrogantly brushing them aside, and wasting half a year of valuable legislative time and countless amounts of political capital on a package that now appears to be flat-lining. NOW he is interested in what they have to say.

So how’s those Chicago style politics workin’ out for ya, Barry ol’ buddy?

I was expecting this eventually – but not quite so soon! That said, Scott Brown’s unexpected and meteoric rise to national prominence is not unlike that of another State Senator who came from nowhere to seize the spotlight – I speak, of course, of Barack H. Obama. Obama was a “future presidential contender” the minute he stepped offstage at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and Scott Brown became one the second he finished his victory speech.

Now, under current conditions, I don’t think Brown would even consider it – especially with his mentor Mitt Romney in the field. However, Barack Obama thought running for president was a pretty silly idea in 2005 – but by 2007 things had changed.

If this sort of talk continues through the election cycle (a big “if”), a Brown run in 2012 theoretically becomes more plausible. I personally wouldn’t support him in a primary over some of the other candidates, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think he could pull it off.

 The irony is that, should Brown become seen as a viable presidential contender, Mitt Romney may have just created a Frankenstein Monster that could dent his own 2012 ambitions.

Thanks, Obambi:

Hong Kong remains the world’s freest place to do business while the United States has lost its claim to an unrestricted economy, according to an annual report published Wednesday.

Hong Kong, a former British colony which was returned to China in 1997, edged out rival Singapore to claim top spot for the sixteenth consecutive year in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom.

Australia and New Zealand grabbed third and fourth spot respectively.

The report is compiled by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, and The Wall Street Journal.

Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile rounded out the top ten list, which is based on criteria including economic openness, trade, the efficiency of domestic regulators, and the rule of law.

But Canada pushed the US from the top seven economies deemed to have an entirely free economy due to “notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights,” the report said.

Let’s get with it, America. We’re being defeated by Canada.

• Olbermann Renews ‘Teabagging’ Attack on Scott Brown, Cuts His Victory Speech
• ‘Hardball’ & Dumbed-Down US Politics
• Battle at Hub of national media storm
• State-Run Media Mourns End of Camelot (Again) in Massachusetts
• Mom from Maine Offers Moral Support

Scott Brown coverage last night was sickening:

Of the big three cable news networks, only one really carried Scott Brown’s speech live: Fox News Channel. CNN was preoccupied with Anderson Cooper in Haiti. Apparently the 24-hour news cycle just doesn’t have enough space for a 10-minute speech by someone who just turned the tide of, not only the U.S. Senate and the health care debate, but possibly of national politics.

Meanwhile, MSNBC did something far worse. It allowed its main extremist pundit, its answer to Glen Beck, to lead its live news coverage. When Scott Brown made a comment in his speech about how the networks may not even be covering him, I switched over to see Keith Olbermann ranting in a split screen, audio on Olbermann, of course. From what I see today on YouTube, he smeared Brown all night, sorta correcting the record in one rant, dismissing the responses to lies he had told earlier and coming back with more name-calling.

Say what you will about Fox News, but I don’t think they would let Glen Beck anchor a live news event.

_____________________________________________

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

How the tables have turned. Just five years ago, when chatter about a “permanent Republican majority” was still on the lips of hopeful pundits, Ann Coulter was hailing the prospect of abolishing the filibuster as the common-sense “constitutional option” — and Bill Frist nearly exercised it in the name of passing a few judges. The evil Gang of 14, filled with evil RINOs — John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham — did something very evil and preserved established historical rule. Most pundits identifying themselves with “the base” lambasted this decision, but prudent commentators praised them: we might be in the minority again soon, and this is a power we might want.

Well, we are in the minority again, and it is a power we want. If we’d exercised that option back then — just a few years back, with the very same members of the Senate we’re counting on now — what could we say? “Do as I say, not as I do”? “The filibuster for me, but not for thee”?

Thank God for RINOs like McCain, Snowe, and Graham. We owe them a lot of thanks right now for their foresight.

Rasmussen New York Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Kirsten Gillibrand 48%
• Harold Ford Jr. 23%
• Some other candidate 10%
• Not sure 18%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kirsten Gillibrand 59% / 27% {+32%}
• Harold Ford Jr. 36% / 30% {+6%}

Survey of 370 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted January 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Just eight percent (8%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Gillibrand, while 13% have a Very Unfavorable view.

Eleven percent (11%) offer a Very Favorable assessment of Ford, and nine percent (9%) give him Very Unfavorable reviews.

The Republicans have not found a challenger yet for Gillibrand, and some have suggested that Ford ultimately may run as an independent candidate.

One Ford adviser told the New York Post, “If Coakley loses or wins by less than five [in the Massachusetts Senate race], it increases the likelihood that he gets in.”

Maybe more like $567,438, adjusted for inflation…

We all agree now that Obama and the Democratic Congress own the economy now. But what if we start to make a substantial recovery before November 2012? And what if the media decides to give the president credit for it? We might be engaged in an inverse game of hot potato here. It’s awfully hard to make the case to voters that things are getting better in spite of government policies. To avoid the fate of another Obama term, we’d need either an ambitious, articulate leader with a clear vision — one who can overcome the confidence Obama would be regaining — or an amazing policy agenda a la Contract With America that can unify all planks of the party and convince independents and moderates that substantial change to a broken system can really happen. I see neither of those things actually happening.

Alternately, what if we get ushered into both chambers of Congress in 2010? Do we then own the economy, since that would be our mandate? Would we get credit for a recovery, even if nothing  capitalistic even passes?

In sum: If the economy starts to make a substantial recovery in the run-up to November 2012, will Obama get credit? If so, can we overcome that? How?

Hotline On Call is reporting:

In the wake of winning MA, GOPers are looking to put 1 more state in play if they can convince House GOP Conference chair Mike Pence to run against Sen. Evan Bayh (R-IN).

HotAir has a post up titled: Bayh warns that “far Left” has seized the Democratic Party. Is this a preemptive move by Bayh to be seen as not connected with the big government Democrats?

Thoughts:

1. Would this take Pence out of 2012 Presidential consideration? It is hard to run campaign after campaign. This may raise his VP stock of he wins.
2. I think that this would raise his post-2012 possibilities assuming he runs and wins. Still that is so far out to speculate about.
3. It is clear that the GOP are trying to expand their number of 2010 Senate targets.

Any list of Republicans who in spite of provocation selflessly kept out of the Massachusetts campaign for the good of the team would be incomplete without Sarah Palin’s name. The first thing the super-duper Democratic advisor who flew in from Washington did was try to tie Sarah’s name to Scott Brown’s. He was likely thinking of last October when Sarah offered to help out McDonnell in Virginia, and McDonnell declined. She immediately complained in public about being froze out. That caused McDonnell to spend valuable time and resources recovering.

Well, to Sarah’s credit, she didn’t bite this time. She was a team player all the way. As a result, the Democrat gambit failed making them look ridiculous, driving one more nail into Coakley’s coffin.

So Kudos to you, Sarah. Ya did great!

“Things will get worse gradually, unless they get worse quickly.” —Alan J. Auerbach, Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley

My first days as an intern on Capitol Hill were marked by the unheralded tasks familiar to any newcomer to the House of Representatives: sorting mail, distributing faxes to aides, and answering phone calls from district constituents. As expected, many of the conversations are dominated by the everyday concerns of middle-class citizens struggling through an economic downturn. What surprised me, however, was the volume of appeals insisting on more Medicare protection, expanded health care coverage, or increased security to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

For their parts, politicians on both sides of the aisle seem intent on drafting and defending plans for more stimulus funds, more bailouts, and the preservation of Bush-era tax cuts. Indeed, the post-health care legislative agenda seems destined for tense standoffs on immigration reform, financial regulation, and climate change. What, then, shall we make of this growing desire for more lavish government expenditures even while many condemn higher taxes? The harsh reality tells us that people need to pay more attention to the most extravagant number in Washington these days—the national debt.

Prior to slipping into recession in late 2007, a law limited the amount the government may borrow to $12.1 trillion. This cap, of course, has been raised over the last two years to prevent further ruin. Heck, what’s a few more trillion dollars? The debt accumulates as the government finances annual budget deficits; it is likely these deficits receive more coverage because they are simply more manageable to comprehend. The 2009 federal deficit reached a record $1.42 trillion, a reflection of two recessions, two wars, and the imprudent fiscal policies of the past two presidents.

Dig deeper, though, and the weight of the national debt hits you like an oncoming locomotive. The debt is a more accurate and honest figure in evaluating the country’s revenue, expenditures, and mounting dues to foreign creditors. Now over $12.3 trillion, it is projected to rise to $15 trillion—100% of the nation’s GDP!—by the end of 2010. Offering perspective for such staggering numbers can be difficult, but each citizen would owe roughly $40,000 when the debt is averaged against the population.

Despite the appeal of deficit spending in stimulating a sluggish economy, long-term debt hampers growth. Creditors will grow worried about how our government intends to repay what it owes. These concerns will push interest rates higher because creditors will demand more money for their risk. Complicating an already grim situation is the fact that China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are among our leading foreign lenders. Like it or not, large sums of American tax dollars will one day find their way to these bastions of capitalism, democracy, and human rights.

No amount of spending cuts or tax increases will provide an immediate solution. As Baby Boomers begin to retire en masse, policymakers must address the fundamental structure of the health care system, Social Security, and Medicare. Nothing short of a radical reassessment of the social contract and the proper role of government will close the gap.

Here’s a round-up of all the fun things to celebrate:

1. This was Ted Kennedy’s seat for four decades, and was previously held by JFK! If someone had told you a year ago that we would win the seat held by the Kennedys, you’d have laughed him out of the room. We just penetrated the heart of liberalism. This is the region that recently gave us Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Jack Reed. And now we get a solid, center-right Republican in that seat.

2. This stunning upset would be akin to a liberal Democrat winning a senate seat in Utah.Imagine Russ Feingold winning Orrin Hatch’s seat and imagine how that would feel to you.

3. Massachusetts has been the butt of conservative jokes for God-knows-how-long. Now it just delivered the mortal blow to Obamacare — Massachusetts! That same Massachusetts that gave us John Kerry in 2004, the Kennedy clan, voted for Obama by massive margins? — That Massachusetts!

4. Scott Brown won by a fairly comfortable margin. Five percent is nothing to scoff at. George W. Bush won re-election by three percent. Obama won his mandate with a seven percent margin. This race did not come down to the wire.

5. Imagine Keith Olbermann crying right now: That racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary, violence-against-women-supporting tea-bagging moron…

6. Scott Brown campaigned on a promise to kill the health care bill and rein in spending and taxes — and he still won. No Democrat can possibly make the excuse that this was about Democratic anger over Obama’s agenda not being enacted. This was an earthquake showing that Democrats simply don’t care about Obama’s agenda. Too many of them would rather see a check on his power.

7. Imagine Martha Coakley right now. She thought it was hers. She was entitled. It was going to be a cakewalk. She was going to be the next senator-for-life from Massachusetts. What a great wake-up call to all of these entitled self-styled aristocrats!

8. Speaking of what’s going through their heads: imagine Reid right now. Imagine Obama. Imagine Pelosi. Will they really have gone through all of this mess — town halls, “You Lie,” tea parties, the primetime speech before Congress, the 9/12 March, the Baucus bill, “death panels,” compromise with Snowe, fighting Lieberman, sunken approval ratings — for literally nothing? In practice, will they really have done nothing but shot themselves in the foot?

9. This will be a rallying cry for the right across the nation — and any remaining candidates who are sitting on the fence. Expect to see more Democrat retirements and more Republican announcements. Will Pete King change his mind about challenging Gillibrand?

10. Finally, a sober note: divided government, in recent history, has actually been good for Democrats. After 1994, people were quick to spell defeat for Clinton, but it actually disciplined him. The GOP Congress got a lot of good things accomplished, but Clinton got much of the credit for welfare reform, the balanced budget, etc. I know, I know — we can get a lot done if we don’t care about who gets the credit. But the credit matters, for future elections. We ought to be very careful about how we proceed.

Former Gov. Sarah Palin will announce today that she’s hitting the campaign trail for Republicans — including her former running mate John McCain.

Palin, who did not campaign in last year’s governor’s races or in yesterday’s Senate race in Massachusetts, has committed to contests in three states, including two Republican primaries, an aide said.

She’ll campaign in Texas for Gov. Rick Perry, who faces a primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; she’ll appear in Arizona for Senator John McCain, who faces a challenge from the right; and she’ll appear in Minnesota for Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a conservative firebrand who has emerged as a national figure.

In a statement set to appear on her Facebook page, Palin promises to campaign “FOR the people and AGAINST politics as usual.”

No surprises. If the right-wing base voters of Arizona had any sense, they wouldn’t need Palin to come fire them up. But it’ll be interesting to see a McCain-Palin reunion.

Also: Perry, Palin, and Bachmann –  there’s a Tea Party line-up for you!