Asia:
Antarctica:
Latin America:
Australasia:
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at kristofer.lorelli@rightOsphere.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
California gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner had what can only be described as a political nervous breakdown earlier today at a press conference held at his campaign headquarters. Poizner launched wild accusations of threats and intimidation at his primary rival, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, all based on an email sent to members of Poizner’s staff by Whitman campaign strategist Mike Murphy. Now after hearing these alarming comments by Mr. Poizner I assumed that the email must be filled with outrageous threats, threats so ghastly that my jaw would drop. Then I read it.
Hi —-,
Is there anything we can do to get SP to reconsider this race? PPIC will be out with a 41 to 11 primary poll tomorrow.
I hate the idea of us each spending $20 million beating on the other in primary, only to have a damaged nominee. And we can spend $40M+ tearing up Steve if we must; bad for him, bad for us, and a crazy wast to tear up a guy with great future statewide potential — really the only guy on the CA GOP bench for the future.
We could unite entire party behind Steve right now to build a serious race aganst Diane F in 2012. Could be a strong GOP year and DiFi will be 78 or 79 years old.
Thought I’d try one more time before it’s 1914.
Hope you are well.
Best, Murphy
Mr. Poizner’s insanity-laden response, involving the FBI and the AG’s office, can be seen here. I can now say that Mr. Poizner not only misled the press about the email, but he very well might have lost his grip on reality in the process. The email contains no threats, just typical inside-baseball politics. The whole sum of the email was that the Whitman campaign is prepared to bury Mr. Poizner in a negative campaign blitz, but chose to offer him the opportunity to put party over personal gain. If he chose to do so, then the Whitman campaign could potentially aide Mr. Poizner in his future political ventures. Rather then simply accept or decline this most basic political tactic, Mr. Poizner chose instead to go nuclear, accusing the Whitman camp of everything short of the Tate-LaBianca killings. In doing so Mr. Poizner did more then destroy what little chance he had at being elected Governor of California, but also has ruined whatever future political career he might have had. Mike Murphy was right, Mr. Poizner would have been a probable candidate for the 2012 Senate race, but now after this disastrous meltdown, Mr. Poizner probably couldn’t get elected dog catcher. Mr. Poizner’s new goal seems to be to a scorched earth campaign to tarnish Meg Whitman and help send 71 year-old Jerry Brown back to Sacramento. After this shameful display it is imperative that conservatives and moderates alike ban together and offer overwhelming support to Meg Whitman, with the hope that her defeat of Mr. Poizner will be so big and so devastating that it will help discourage future potential destructive candidates from repeating these mistakes.
You can contribute to the Whitman campaign here.
______________________________________________________________________________
-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.
Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates (R) 2010 Florida Senate Poll
Republican Primary
- Marco Rubio 44%
- Charlie Crist 30%
General Election
- Marco Rubio (R) 42%
- Kendrick Meek (D) 30%
- Charlie Crist (R) 47%
- Kendrick Meek (D) 29%
- Marco Rubio (R) 31%
- Charlie Crist (I) 26%
- Kendrick Meek (D) 24%
Margin of error is 5.6%
Crist should consider running as an independent. And start chipping away at Rubio.
But even as an indy, Crist has troubles in a three way race that ropes in Miami Rep. Kendrick Meek as the Dem. Rubio would pull 31 percent of the vote, Crist 26 and Meek 24 percent.
Fabrizio says in his analysis: “Among those GOP voters who have an opinion (positive or negative) of BOTH Crist and Rubio, Crist trails Rubio by a 50 point margin. While these results are somewhat exaggerated, it spells big trouble for Crist because Crist is known to 100% of GOP voters whereas Rubio is known to about 60%. Based on this data, if Rubio’s image growth is left unchecked, it is likely that Crist will fall even further behind in the ballot.”
UPDATE: Finally have the audio from both Rush and Beck today.
UPDATE: Andrzejewski reacts – “Holy makerel!”
–
Haven’t heard the audio yet but have confirmed with multiple sources. Twitter user “johnchagen” had the honor of getting out the first tweet:
johnchagen: 10 mega ton nuke just hit Rush Limbaugh called Adam Andrzejewski the Scott Brown of Illinois
Rasmussen Florida GOP Senatorial Primary
- Marco Rubio 49% {43%} [35%] (31%)
- Charlie Crist 37% {43%} [49%] (53%)
- Some other candidate 3% {5%} [4%] (5%)
- Not sure 11% {9%} [12%] (11%)
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Marco Rubio 67% {64%} [55%] (53%) / 14% {15%} [22%] (19%) {+53%}
- Charlie Crist 62% {61%} [67%] (75%) / 37% {38%} [32%] (23%) {+25%}
How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 11% {11%} [14%]
- Somewhat approve 45% {45%} [43%]
- Somewhat disapprove 27% {28%} [26%]
- Strongly disapprove 16% {15%} [16%]
Survey of 449 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted January 27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 14, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 20, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17, 2009 are in parentheses.
Big 2010 and 2012 news, Gov. Sarah Palin has endorsed Dr. Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky.
David Adams, Rand Paul’s campaign manager has confirmed this morning that SarahPAC has sent them financial support and authorized the release of that information as an endorsement of Rand Paul for the GOP candidate to replace retiring baseball hall of fame pitcher and two term incumbent Jim Bunning.
Palin is clearly staking her claim to the leadership of the Libertarian/Tea Party wing of the GOP, reaffirming her position after some minimal backlash over her support of John McCain’s reelection and her joining Fox News. Should Paul go on to win this senate seat he could prove to be an incredible ally for Palin, potentially aligning Palin’s social conservatives with Paul’s libertarians. Such a union could prove an unstoppable combo should she decide to run for the GOP nomination in 2012.
______________________________________________________________________________
-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.
Rasmussen Survey on Terror Trials
Should the trials of suspected terrorists linked to 9/11 be held at Guantanamo Bay?
- Yes 44%
- No 33%
Should the trials of suspected terrorists linked to 9/11 be held in the continental United States?
- Yes 49%
- No 37%
While they are being tried, should suspected terrorists be given all the rights of U.S. citizens?
- Yes 16%
- No 74%
A proposal has been made that would require all Guantanamo Bay prisoners to be tried in a military tribunal. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?
- Favor 67%
- Oppose 15%
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 30-31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Inside the numbers:
Fifty-four percent (54%) of male voters say the terrorist trials should be held at Guantanamo Bay, but women voters are evenly divided on the question. Men also believe much more strongly than women that the Guantanamo prisoners should face a military tribunal. Both groups agree by sizable majorities, though, that the terrorists suspects should not be given the legal rights of U.S. citizens.
Two-thirds (66%) of Republicans and a plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either major party support holding the terrorist trials in Cuba. Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats disagree, and 68% of the president’s party say the trials of suspects linked to 9/11 should be held in the continental United States.
Ed Morrissey doesn’t miss a beat:
This story just keeps getting better:
The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
Neither the article nor the dissertation was subject to peer review. Moreover, the Sunday Telegraph notes that the latest IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed reports from the World Wildlife Fund.
Then again, the ClimateGate scandal has raised questions about the the quality and process of peer review in the field of climate change, so maybe it is more honest for the IPCC to rely on a magazine article. It is arguably more honest than covering up the inconvenient truth that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was based on nothing but speculation.
These lapses should be a source of embarrassment to those involved, but apparently are not to the UK’s weather service:
The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: “The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.” (Emphasis added.)
It is impossible for the IPCC to continue drawing only from peer-reviewed studies, because they clearly are not doing that now.
Rasmussen Florida Senatorial Survey
- Charlie Crist 48% (42%) [46%] {48%} (46%)
- Kendrick Meek 33% (36%) [34%] {29%} (28%)
- Some other candidate 10% (11%) [9%] {10%} (12%)
- Not sure 9% (11%) [11%] {13%} (14%)
- Marco Rubio 49% (49%) [46%] {43%}
- Kendrick Meek 32% (35%) [31%] {30%}
- Some other candidate 6% (4%) [8%] {8%}
- Not sure 13% (12%) [15%] {19%}
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Marco Rubio 51% (51%) {41%} / 31% (29%) {31%} {+20%}
- Charlie Crist 58% (59%) {64%} (57%) / 40% (38%) {35%} (36%) {+18%}
- Kendrick Meek 38% (41%) {37%} (37%) / 36% (33%) {34%} (36%){+2%}
How would you rate the job Charlie Crist has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 10% (9%) [13%] {17%} (15%)
- Somewhat approve 41% (43%) [36%] {42%} (45%)
- Somewhat disapprove 30% (25%) [29%] {21%} (20%)
- Strongly disapprove 17% (20%) [20%] {19%} (16%)
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?
- Strongly approve 25% (29%) [29%] {27%} (32%)
- Somewhat approve 17% (15%) [13%] {15%} (14%)
- Somewhat disapprove 11% (9%) [11%] {10%} (12%)
- Strongly disapprove 47% (46%) [47%] {47%} (38%)
How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?
- Excellent 10%
- Good 23%
- Fair 23%
- Poor 43%
Which is a better way to create new jobs – cutting taxes or increasing government spending?
- Cutting taxes 58%
- Increasing government spending 12%
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 27, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 14, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 19, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 22, 2009 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Both Crist and Rubio lead Meek by two-to-one among male voters but have a more modest edge among female voters. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer either of the Republicans to Meek by roughly 20 points.
Some of you may have seen this yesterday via Founding Bloggers or BigGovernment – but wanted to put it up here as well. Best interview to come out of Lech Walesa’s visit – and also some great footage of Lech’s speeches.
From the Arlington Catholic Herald: the pro-women, pro-child, compassionate, fact-based case for pro-life and against pro-abortion/pro-choice.
Thirty-eight years in the greatest human rights struggle on earth—the right to life movement—and what I still don’t get is this:
How can so many seemingly smart, sane, compassionate and accomplished people—especially in politics—support, promote and if President Obama has his way in the pending health care legislation, lavishly fund with public dollars, the violent death of unborn children and the wounding of their moms by abortion.
Is it really so hard to understand that abortion is violence against children, a pernicious form of child abuse falsely and aggressively marketed as choice, a human right, or health care? How long will we permit the pro-choice cover-up and bogus safety claims to misinform, especially in light of the reams of evidence documenting serious injury to women who abort?
Abortion, safe? What nonsense.
Women have been profoundly ill served by the all-too-familiar pattern of denial and deception employed so skillfully by the abortion industry. Women deserve better. They, at the very least, deserve the truth.
Years ago, a friend of mine—Dr. Jean Garton—wrote a book and included how her young child unexpectedly walked into the room as she was preparing a lecture on abortion.
Her three-year-old child took one gasping look at the badly bruised and battered body of the aborted baby on the screen and shouted: “Mommy, who broke the baby?”
That young child saw the brutality of abortion with unclouded comprehension.
That child was unencumbered and unaffected by the deceptively clever and preposterously misleading propaganda dished by the multi-billion dollar pro-choice industry.
That child saw, and knew immediately that babies are smashed and broken to bits by abortion. And with alarm, wanted to know, who did it.
Last fall, like that young child, Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director in Texas—with eight years at the facility—watched ultrasound imaging of an abortion in progress of a three month old unborn child.
Like the victimized baby on the ultrasound monitor being dismembered in real time, Ms. Johnson was crushed by what she saw.
Self described as “extremely pro-choice” but now pro-life, she said she watched an unborn child “crumple” before her very eyes as the infant was dismembered and vacuumed to death by a hideous suction device 20-30 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner.
“I could see the baby try to move away,” Johnson said in a startling moment of truth and clarity. “I just thought, what am I doing … never again.”
Tragically, never again comes too late for the approximately 52 million babies slaughtered in Planned Parenthood clinics and abortion mills throughout America since the infamous holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.
But it doesn’t come too late for the millions of other children who face extermination today, tomorrow and the next day if we at long last awake from our slumber and combat the cruelty and injustice of abortion.
But there’s even more to the pro-choice cover-up than dead kids.
Abortion hurts women, physically, psychologically, and the data strongly suggests that it even mal-affects children subsequently born to women who abort.
Last year the Times of London reported that “senior obstetricians and psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.” They found that women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or never been pregnant.
In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that 78.6 percent of the 15-18 year old girls who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression compared to 31 percent of their peers. And that 27 percent of the 21-25 year old women who had abortions had suicidal idealization compared to 8 percent of those who did not have an abortion.
A total of at least 102 studies comport with those numbing findings of psychological harm to women who abort.
And now even Time magazine among others have finally reported on another suppressed fact—abortion adversely affects the health of subsequent children born to women who abort.
A total of 113 studies demonstrated an association between abortion and preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. Studies have indicated that the risks of preterm birth goes up 36 percent after one abortion, and a staggering 93 percent after two or more abortions. Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 36 percent after one abortion and 72 percent after two or more. Prematurity and low birth weight are leading causes of disabilities in children.
All of this begs a serious question. Why then is the Obama administration expanding this vicious assault on women and children—often by massively subsidizing pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to do the dirty work—in the United States, Africa, Latin America, everywhere.
Maybe some politicians aren’t so smart, sane, or compassionate after all.
New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith delivered this speech Jan. 21 on the House floor.
Email
Print