CNN/Opinion Research Survey on Health Care Reform

What do you think Congress should do on health care — pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country’s health care system?

• Pass similar bill 25% [30%]
• Start work on new bill 48% [48%]
• Stop working on health care 25% [21%]

Now here are a few provisions that the U.S. House and Senate might consider. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose each one.

Requiring all Americans who do not have health insurance to get it

• Favor 45% (49%)
• Oppose 53% (49%)

Requiring all large and mid-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees

• Favor 72% (73%)
• Oppose 27% (25%)

Preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill

• Favor 62% (60%)
• Oppose 38% (39%)

Preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions

• Favor 58% (60%)
• Oppose 42% (40%)

Limiting the amount of money that patients can get if they win a medical malpractice lawsuit

• Favor 66%
• Oppose 33%

Creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private companies

• Favor 51%
• Oppose 48%

In your view, is Barack Obama doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans in Congress, or not?

• Yes, doing enough 47%
• No, not enough 52%

In your view, are the Republicans in Congress doing enough to cooperate with the Barack Obama, or not?

• Yes, doing enough 31%
• No, not enough 67%

Do you think the Democratic party or the Republican party is more responsible for the lack of cooperation between the two parties in Washington?

• Republican Party 37%
• Democratic Party 35%
• Both (vol.) 25%

Many people say that bipartisan cooperation will only occur if one party takes the first step by giving up some of the proposals it supports. Which party do you think should take the first step toward developing bipartisan solutions to the country’s problems — the Democratic party or the
Republican party?

• Democratic Party 54%
• Republican Party 42%

If the two parties can develop bipartisan solutions to the country’s problems, which party do you think should give up more of the proposals it supports — the Democratic party or the Republican party?

• Democratic Party 51%
• Republican Party 43%

Survey of 1,023 adults, including 954 registered voters, was conducted February 12-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-24, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

The survey indicates nearly half of all Democrats say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with nearly 4 in 10 Democrats saying Congress should start from scratch and just 1 in 10 saying lawmakers should stop all work on health care.

A majority of Republicans questioned, 54 percent, want Congress to start from scratch, with just under 4 in 10 saying lawmakers should halt work on health care reform and just 6 percent saying Congress should pass into law the current legislation.

Fifty-two percent of Independents want Congress to start work on a new bill, with 27 percent saying lawmakers should stop all work, and 18 percent saying that the current legislation should be passed into law.

**PROGRAMMING NOTE**

Click here to watch C-SPAN 3′s live coverage of today’s health care summit.

Last year, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart tore into CNN for “fact-checking” Saturday Night Live. As part of the segment, he commented a number of times on how hosts regularly say “That’s all the time we have,” despite a show that is four hours long and a news cycle that is 24 hours. It was quite an entertaining, and hard-hitting, segment.

I was reminded of this today, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs spoke on Morning Joe about the health care summit today. As expected, Gibbs threw out the same old garbage about everyone working together, being adult men and women sitting in the same room, etc. etc. He hammered insurance companies for jacking up rates, most noticeably Anthem in California (though he neglected to specify the company by name- a broad brush against an unnamed enemy always obfuscates best, I suppose). Not to be outdone, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinsk, as well as Andrea Mitchell and another guest whose name escapes me immediately jumped on the bandwagon, talking about how Republicans are playing politics, hoping to portray Democrats as playing politics, etc. NBC News’ political correspondent, on the show for a few minutes before Gibbs, also played the pro-Democrat card, saying that by having a Truth Squad outside the summit in addition to the summit attendees, House Republicans were showing a lack of trust of their own members.

This was incredibly frustrating to watch, and I’m certain my fellow gym attendees were not pleased at my constant yelling at the television. I know MSNBC is in the tank for Democrats, but could they at least be accurate? Could they at least admit the truth about the summit, that Democrats and President Obama do not expect anything to come out of it, except of course a public relations boost?

Two reasons in particular this was so frustrating:

1. According to Fox News’ Major Garrett (emphasis mine),

To shake things up, Obama decided to write a new script – starting with a televised summit and six-hours of health care wonkery. The gimmick is simple: the only elixir for a country soured on secrecy and Democrat-on-Democrat policy wrangling is an all-the-way live, bi-partisan health care talk-a-thon.

The summit, as White House advisers readily admit, is not about cobbling together a bi-partisan deal to break the health care logjam. The point is to show voters that Obama will sit with Republicans for six hours and see if, in spokesman Robert Gibbs’ words, engage in a “robust debate” with “open minds.”

“We’re always better when we’re on offense,” a senior official told Fox. “The summit is us on offense. At the end it will be painfully clear to American that Republicans have absolutely no intention of cooperating on health care.”

Now, I have been arguing that Republicans should go to the summit, fully prepared with policy arguments and specific issues with Democratic proposals. However, talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, among other national conservatives, have opposed Republican attendance. As Ingraham put it yesterday (paraphrased, of course), the American people have shown they don’t like the Democratic proposals, including the president’s. By going to the summit, Republicans are like a football team that says, “Nah, ref, we don’t want the field goal that won us the game. Can we put time back on the clock and try an end run?”

I think Ingraham’s analogy is excellent, and the moment Garrett’s report came out yesterday morning, Republicans should have ditched the summit. Why go when a) you have already won, b) when the host of the summit has admitted to not wanting to deal with you, c) the White House is clearly intending to use its proposal to ram reconciliation down the throats of an American public that opposes Obama’s will, and d) the Congressional Budget Office can’t even score Obama’s proposal?

But I digress. Nobody on MSNBC pressed Gibbs about the above points, nor did they bring them up in the minutes I was watching before Gibbs came on. Come on, guys and gals- the public deserves better. Even if you don’t like the truth, it still must come out. At the very least, ask Gibbs why he keeps saying “the American people want XYZ” when they clearly don’t- and, of course, why Gibbs is touting the president’s proposal, which in the Beltway world is an unworkable proposal because the CBO cannot score it.

2. Gibbs talked about insurance company rates being too high, and that while Republicans want a redo of health care reform, “health insurance companies” aren’t going to have a restart. They’ll keep their rates high, according to Gibbs.

Essentially, Gibbs was talking about the proposed rate czar in Obama’s proposal. Since none of the people on Morning Joe seem to know anything about the free market, they were unable to point out the it is government intervention that keeps insurance rates high- among other things, the monopoly exemption that the White House FINALLY supports ditching and the regulations that allow mini-oligopolies in each state, what with the inability to get insurance across state lines. Also, of course, the fact that Medicare underpays, thus shifting costs onto the private market, and since the costs are higher the insurance rates are going to be higher. Work on those three areas, as well as lowering overall private costs through tort reform and Dartmouth Atlas-style payment reform, and you will not only have lower insurance rates, you will demolish big insurance companies, two things Gibbs and Obama allegedly support.

I know I shouldn’t waste time grouching about MSNBC shows- it’s too much like Media Matters, hackishly throwing a tantrum over every little thing. In this case, however, health care reform is so important to the country- both in the bad ways Democrats are pushing it, and the good ways conservatives hopefully will push it once they and Republicans are back in the majority- that I decided to let loose. Maybe I’ll get a Maddow-like headline on The Corner or Hot Air: “Siggins Eviscerates, Excoriates and Slams Morning Joe.” (Hey, if Kristofer Lorelli can dream, so can I.)

Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has recently filed their February FEC form. They are on a monthly reporting cycle.  Huckabee, Palin, and Pawlenty are not.

They report some good news and some bad news. The good news is they took in $103K more this January than January ’09. They nearly doubled contributions from $131K in January ’09 to $234K in January ’10.

The bad news is their expenses for the month went from $212K January ’09 to $363K January ’10 — a $151K increase over a year ago.

In other words, while they took in more money than last January, they also spent more money this January than last January, and the increase in spending was larger than the increase in contributions.

****Updated**** Link to report added.

Gallup Survey on Middle East Sympathies

Survey of 1,025 adults was conducted February 1-3, 2010. The margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

Congressman J.D. Hayworth was restrained in tonight’s interview when talking about Senator McCain, I’ll be a little less so.

The book of Genesis tells the story of Esau, who sold his sacred birthright for pottage. Like Esau, McCain has a birthright of honor which is he selling, but for the far less filling prize of another term in the U.S. Senate.

Remember the John McCain of 2008 who condemned state Republican Parties that talked about the truly radical roots of Barack Obama. How he insisted on taking the high road against Obama and ignored legitimate issues such as his failure with the Annenberg Foundation and his wilingness to spend 20 years sitting in a racist church? He needed to take the high road and ignore dozens of legitimate issues.

Yet, that was 2008 against a Liberal Democrat. Perhaps, it tells you everything you need to know about the values of John McCain that he said Barack Obama would be a good president but run a personal slash and burn campaign against J.D. Hayworth in a campaign that is trying to deceieve the people of Arizona.

The latest campaign ad accuses Hayworth of being consumed with the Birther conspiracy theory and says there is no difference between Hayworth and the lead birthers. The lies are absurd. Philip Berg has spent thousands of hours on the “birther” conspiracy as has Orly Taitz have spent years of their lives on this thing. J.D. Hayworth, as a talk show host had a job to talk about topics that excited people, so the “birther” story came up from time to time. Not only that, talk show hosts have the job of starting conversation. 

Even with that said, the clip used from Hayworth on his show is relatively mild. Hayworth simply says that questions will continue to be asked unless Obama produces his long form.

According to Senator McCain that’s NO DIFFERENT than saying that Barack Obama isn’t a citizen because both of his parents must be citizens or that Barack Obama was adopted in Indonesia.

To say that one equals the other is beyond dishonest.  It is desperate. McCain is flailing, hoping to personally ruin J.D. Hayworth and avoid the fate of his compatriot in arms, Charlie Crist, who has been overwhelmed by grassroots disgust.  John McCain’s favorability numbers are at a 16 year low. He can’t run a campaign based on the issues because he knows that he’ll lose on the issues. He doesn’t want to talk about them, so instead he’s hired libelmongers to run his campaign.

He doesn’t want to talk about the issues and the votes he’s cast that have led to higher gas prices for Arizonans. He doesn’t want to talk about how he has chosen to please politically correct activists and La Raza rather than protecting the lives and property of Arizonans who have been besieged by a mass infusion of illegal immigration.  He certianly wants to change the topic from his admission that he got misled on TARP to trying to personally destroy his opponent, a man who in 2000 travelled to South Carolina to help John McCain’s presidential campaign.

John McCain has been an honorable man, but like Esau he’s selling his birthright for pottage. It looks to me that he’s become a desperate, grasping old man, clinging on to power, willing to do or saying anything to keep it.  And perhaps that’s all Arizonans need to know to send McCain packing.

My 25 minute interview with J.D. Hayworth focused on important questions in his race for the U.S. Senate. We also discussed the “birther” allegation early in the interview and discsussed illegal immigration, auditing the Fed, and what vote Congressman Hayworth would rather have back.

We also discussed the Jack Abramoff matter and he provided me some of his perspective and urged listeners who wanted to know the truth to check out this website.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Mac is not taking anything for granted and is fully exposing the insanity that is J.D. Hayworth.  The more you learn about Hayworth, the more you realize he’s no Marco Rubio, and that this race is not an equivalent to the Florida Senate race.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Many observers are justly alarmed by one of the biggest pending thank-you gifts from the Obama administration to Big Labor—the proposed Employee “Free Choice” Act (EFCA). Already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (HR 800), the measure would radically change how unions organize employees. Under federal law since 1935, employees have voted by secret ballot on whether to accept a union as their bargaining agent.

But union bosses are now in a panic because not enough workers have been voting the “right” way. Private-sector union membership has plunged from 30 percent in 1958 to just 7.2 percent in 2009. And for the future? A poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp. last year found that, by a margin of 82 to 13 percent, non-union workers did not want their jobs unionized.

But under EFCA, once a bare majority of employees in the target “bargaining unit” signs authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board will install the union as bargaining agent for all employees in the group. Never mind that the Supreme Court has declared such cards “inherently unreliable” — no more secret ballot.

When confronted by union organizers, workers would have to vote publically for or against the union by either signing a card or not.  And most employees know that if they don’t sign and the union is installed, they will, as “scabs,” be marked men and women on the union-dominated shop floor.

Though there have been outcries against this attack on individual voting rights, another feature of EFCA that could do real damage to the economy has been less publicized. A brave worker can still say no to signing a union card, but if EFCA becomes law, firms whose employees become unionized must roll over to union demands in first contract negotiations.

EFCA would force the parties to submit to federal mediation if they cannot reach agreement in 90 days. If that fails, government appointed arbitrators would dictate the new labor contract.

Knowing that the purpose of EFCA is to reward unions for supporting the political party to which they have been joined at the hip pocket for 80 years, these arbitrators will not be confused about their marching orders: give the unions what they want.

Such fiats will be binding for two years. There is no appeal. It matters not that arbitrators might lack knowledge of business operations, of the employer’s competitive position, or of the long term implications of their orders, e.g., cancelled expansion plans.

Like EFCA, current law forces employers to deal with union quasi-monopolies, but unions still must either temper their demands or put them to the test of the market when an employer digs in. Can employees strike and find in the market the wages and benefits they seek, leaving the struck firm unable to find qualified replacements at its current pay rates?

Under EFCA, this check on excessive union demands disappears. Through its arbitration panels, the Obama administration would effectively write labor contracts to fulfill the wishes of its union friends, and union monopoly would no longer be “quasi.” It would be complete.

If passed, EFCA will thus be one more step toward nationalization of the U.S. economy, and the tab will be paid in higher consumer prices, higher unemployment, curtailed business investment, or all three.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-David Nye, professor of Management at Athens State University in Alabama, is a guest Liberty Features Syndicated writer and can be reached at davidnye@yahoo.com.

PPP (D) New Mexico Gubernatorial Survey

• Diane Denish (D) 45%
• Pete Domenici Jr. (R) 40%

• Diane Denish (D) 47%
• Janice Arnold-Jones (R) 33%

• Diane Denish (D) 46%
• Susana Martinez (R) 32%

• Diane Denish (D) 46%
• Doug Turner (R) 32%

• Diane Denish (D) 48%
• Allen Weh (R) 30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Diane Denish 41% / 34% {+7%}
• Susana Martinez 17% / 21% {-4%}
• Doug Turner 12% / 19% {-7%}
• Pete Domenici Jr. 27% / 35% {-8%}
• Allen Weh 12% / 20% {-8%}
• Janice Arnold-Jones 8% / 21% {-13%}

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

• Approve 45%
• Disapprove 48%

Note: In 2008, Barack Obama received 57% of the vote in New Mexico.

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

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 49%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Bill Richardson’s job performance?

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 63%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Jeff Bingaman’s job performance?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 36%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Tom Udall’s job performance?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 36%

Who did you vote for President last year?

• Barack Obama 52%
• John McCain 43%

Survey of 990 voters was conducted February 18-20, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 53% Democrat; 32% Republican; 15% Independent/Other. Poltical ideology: 40% Moderate; 37% Conservative; 23% Liberal.

The new Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, has just announced his endorsement of John McCain:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said Tuesday he is “proud” to support McCain, calling him “a leader of character, courage and principle.”

“Over the last year, the American people have taken a firm stand for smaller government and new pro-growth policies to create the jobs we so desperately need,” McDonnell said in a statement. “These are the principles that Senator McCain fights for every day, and we need him now more than ever in the United States Senate.”

The article goes on to say:

McCain has already collected endorsements from other GOP stars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

It looks like McCain is starting to rack up the endorsements. Has any nationally prominent Republican endorsed Hayworth — other than talk show hosts, I mean?

For those who don’t follow British politics, Nigel Farage is a member of the European Union Parliament and former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) – and he’s all over the news today for a tirade against EU President Herman van Rompuy.

Now, Farage has a valid question when it comes to Van Rompuy, the relatively unknown Belgian Prime Minister who recently became the EU’s first president when the office was created by the Lisbon Treaty. However, I think this speech (while entertaining) does more to make Farage look like a buffoon  than it does to damage Van Rompuy – especially considering that he said all of this to Van Rompuy’s face. But either way, I think this may be a “Dean scream”  soundbite that we keep hearing for a while – both from Farage’s friends and enemies.

Will replace that video with the full speech  if it becomes available.

Franklin & Marshall Pennsylvania Senatorial Survey

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 33% (30%) {30%} [37%] (33%)
• Joe Sestak 16% (13%) {18%} [11%] (13%)
• Some other candidate 7% (7%) {5%} [6%] (6%)
• Don’t know 44% (50%) {47%} [46%] (48%)

Senatorial Election

Among Registered Voters

• Arlen Specter (D) 33% (30%) {33%} [37%]
• Pat Toomey (R) 29% (30%) {31%} [29%]
• Some other candidate 9% (5%) {6%} [9%]
• Don’t know 29% (35%) {30%} [25%]

• Pat Toomey (R) 25% (28%) {28%} [26%]
• Joe Sestak (D) 22% (16%) {20%} [22%]
• Some other candidate 6% (5%) {4%} [6%]
• Don’t know 47% (51%) {48%} [46%]

Among Likely Voters

• Pat Toomey (R) 44% (45%)
• Arlen Specter (D) 34% (31%)
• Some other candidate 6% (4%)
• Don’t know 16% (20%)

• Pat Toomey (R) 38% (41%)
• Joe Sestak (D) 20% (19%)
• Some other candidate 3% (3%)
• Don’t know 39% (37%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob Casey 33% (32%) {32%} [41%] (32%) / 18% (20%) {21%} [18%] (17%) {+15%}
• Barack Obama 49% (44%) {45%} [55%] (57%) / 39% (44%) {39%} [37%] (27%) {+10%}
• Pat Toomey 16% (15%) {16%} [18%] / 7% (7%) {10%} [10%] {+9%}
• Joe Sestak 10% (8%) {11%} [13%] / 3% (6%) {5%} [4%] {+7%}
• Ed Rendell 41% (42%) {37%} [32%] (42%) / 44% (45%) {47%} [53%] (40%) {-3%}
• Arlen Specter 32% (35%) {28%} [35%] (31%) / 45% (43%) {46%} [42%] (37%) {-13%}

How would you rate the way that Arlen Specter is handling his job as U.S. Senator?

• Excellent job 5% (5%) {4%} [8%] (10%)
• Good job 25% (29%) {25%} [27%] (24%)
• Only a fair job 35% (31%) {36%} [35%] (37%)
• Poor job 27% (27%) {28%} [22%] (18%)

Do you believe that Arlen Specter has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change?

• Deserves re-election 25% (29%) {23%} [34%] (28%)
• Time for a change 63% (60%) {66%} [54%] (57%)

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Excellent job 12% (11%) {17%} [14%] (20%)
• Good job 29% (27%) {23%} [33%] (35%)
• Only a fair job 32% (32%) {31%} [29%] (25%)
• Poor job 27% (29%) {28%} [24%] (19%)

Do you generally support or oppose the tea party movement?

• Strongly support 19%
• Somewhat support 20%
• Somewhat oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 21%

How likely would you be to vote for a candidate who supports the tea party movement’s goals?

• Very likely 19%
• Somewhat likely 26%
• Not very likely 11%
• Not at all likely 23%

Do you think that abortion should be…

• Legal under any circumstances 19% (23%) {20%} [21%] (18%)
• Legal under certain circumstances 57% (50%) {54%} [54%] (58%)
• llegal in all circumstances 22% (24%) {23%} [23%] (22%)

Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?

• The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word. 49% (47%) {49%} [48%] (56%)
• The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 30% (34%) {33%} [32%] (25%)
• The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men. 18% (16%) {15%} [17%] (17%)

Survey of 1,143 adult residents of Pennsylvania, including 954 registered voters, and 324 likely voters, was conducted January 18-24, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. The sample error for registered adults is +/- 3.2 percentage points and is slightly higher for registered Democrats (+/- 4.5 percentage points) and registered Republicans (+/- 5.3 percentage points). Party registration breakdown: 51% (46%) {49%} [48%] (52%) Democrat; 36% (43%) {39%} [39%] (36%) Republican; 10% (9%) {10%} [10%] (8%) Independent. Party ID breakdown: 36% (31%) {36%} [34%] (37%) Democrat; 24% (30%) {27%} [28%] (23%) Republican; 36% (37%) {33%} [34%] (35%) Independent. Political views: 37% (42%) {39%} [43%] (37%) Conservative;33% ( 30%) {36%} [36%] (34%) Moderate;21% (19%) { 16%} [16%] (19%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted January 18-24, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 20-25, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-31, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 16-21, 2009 are in parentheses.

I am pleased to announce that our new site design will go live at midnight on March 1st, 2010.

Part of this transition is that we are changing the name of the site to Rightosphere.com. This was a big decision for me, as the “Race4″ sites have been a huge part of my life for so long now. But I felt the time had come for a couple of reasons.

First, it is becoming increasingly costly to own all of the “Race4″ URL’s needed to protect the brand I have built. I already, of course, own Race42008.com & Race42012.com, as well as Racefor2012.com, Race42016.com, Racefor2016.com, Race42020.com, Racefor2020.com, Race42024.com, and Racefor2024.com! So it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to decide where to draw the line as long as I stuck with the “Race4″ identity.

Also, it would become increasingly difficult to have the site consistently identified with one name as time went on (some people still refer to us as “Race42008.com”!) I foresee this becoming an even greater problem as time goes on. Having one name that does not change with each cycle alleviates this problem.

Secondly, I have received many requests throughout the years from the members of our community as to features they would like to see the site have. Some people would like to have the ability to from groups or tribes within the site, e.g., “Team Mitt” or “Team Huck.” Other wanted to have a list of the campaign stops that each candidate would make during campaign season. Others wanted the ability to create their own polls. Many thought it would be nice to have a fully functional social network added to the site so that they can connect with other like-minded conservatives.

About a year ago, Kris Lorelli and me were discussing these requests and we asked each “why not?” Why can’t the Race42012 Community have all of these features to have some fun with?

So we set out together to make this kind of community a reality. The results, I feel, speak for themselves. Rightosphere will have all of the features that anyone has ever asked for plus, much, much, more. In fact, I believe that there is no political website, Right or Left, that will have the features and resources that each member of the Rightosphere family will have.

I encourage everyone to head on over to the new site, register, and take a look around. If you are already on Facebook, you can login via your Facebook account (once registered) to keep your social networking profiles in sync.

Of course, I know that some people will miss the old site, and change of any kind is always somewhat scary. However, what is not changing is our community! Everything that made Race42008 & Race42012 great will be what makes Rightosphere great as well. Think of it this way, when a community builds a new town hall, they do not change the people in the city along with the building. They simply provide new, modern facilities to make community get togethers more fun. This is exactly what this redesign is meant to do.

The frontpage of site will still function in the same way as it has before, and will feature articles written by our tremendous staff. The comments sections will still feature the insights of the best conservative community out there. The only difference is that you will see essays that were posted on a commenter’s personal blog (yes, everyone who registers gets their own personal blog that everyone can subscribe to!) promoted to the frontpage, along with our Twitter feed, and a running scroll of all of the blogs written by the Rightosphere Community (entitled, “Right Now.”)

The transition of our little corner of the Internet from R4’12 to ROS represents the work of a little over a calendar year for Kris and I. It was a labor of love meant to give our little family great new digs. I sincerely hope that you all enjoy it as much as I think you will. Please feel free to email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com with any questions.

P.S. One little suggestion… If you haven’t yet, please consider downloading Firefox. Firefox is a free Internet browser that is faster, more secure, and more fully-featured that any other browser out there. R4’12, Rightosphere (and any other Internet site you visit) both work and look their best in Firefox.

FF is also highly customizable. I surf the ‘Net using the Aero Fox Theme. Give it a shot and see.

[Update 1] A few people have emailed me to ask where they can access all of the great new features of the new site. All of the new user features can be accessed from a toolbar which will appear after you have signed up and logged in (screen shot below):

If you wished to create a blog post (which will also appear in the “Right Now” section on the front page for the rest of the community to see), you would click on the “My Apps” tab in the task bar. This is also were you can sync your Rightosphere account with your Facebook account, post photos and videos, created polls, form groups or “tribes”, and input the RSS feeds of your favorite conservatives blogs to share with the rest of the community.

So what are you waiting for? Please head on over to the new site and signup today.

Quinnipiac Ohio Senatorial Survey

Democratic Primary

• Lee Fisher 29% (24%) {26%} [24%] (20%)
• Jennifer Brunner 20% (22%) {17%} [21%] (16%)

General Election

• Rob Portman (R) 40% (39%) {31%} [33%] (31%)
• Lee Fisher (D) 37% (36%) {42%} [37%] (42%)

• Rob Portman (R) 40% (38%) {34%} [34%] (32%)
• Jennifer Brunner (D) 35% (34%) {39%} [35%] (40%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rob Portman 25% (22%) {20%} [21%] (22%) / 7% (7%) {7%} [6%] (9%) {+18%}
• Lee Fisher 26% (25%) {33%} [29%] (37%) / 12% (15%) {13%} [17%] (13%) {+14%}
• Jennifer Brunner 21% (20%) {27%} [27%] (31%) / 12% (18%) {14%} [16%] (12%) {+9%}
• Tea Party movement 32% / 23% {+9%}
• Republican Party 37% / 46% {-9%}
• Democratic Party 38% / 50% {-12%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Voinovich is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 51% (47%) {52%} [52%]
• Disapprove 32% (36%) {34%} [29%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Sherrod Brown is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 43% (46%) {48%} [41%]
• Disapprove 30% (31%) {33%} [29%]

Survey of 1,662 voters was conducted February 16-21, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. The survey includes 604 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 5-9, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 10-13, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 25 – July 1, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 28 – May 4, 2009 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Wisconsin Gubernatorial Survey

• Scott Walker (R) 49% (48%)
• Tom Barrett (D) 40% (38%)

• Mark Neumann (R) 44% (42%)
• Tom Barrett (D) 42% (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Scott Walker 55% (56%) / 29% (27%) {+26%}
• Mark Neumann 49% (46%) / 31% (35%) {+18%}
• Tom Barrett 49% (44%) / 36% (41%) {+13%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted February 17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 26, 2010 are in parentheses.

It’s a bipartisan waste of money.

Senators have given final passage to the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (H.R. 2847) by a vote of 70 to 28.  In short, this is Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “jobs package.”

Prior to final passage, the Senate agreed to waive any applicable budget points of order against the legislation (including a violation of PAYGO rules) by a vote of 62 to 34.  Sixty votes were needed on the motion to waive.

A note from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office states that the jobs bill “would increase the on-budget deficit for the sum of the years 2010 to 2014.”  Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH) raised this violation.  Democrats argue that the bill is paid for, but just not in that immediate time-frame.

Here are some key aspects of the legislation, per the AP:

• Hiring tax incentives — Exempts employers from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax this year on newly hired workers that have been unemployed for 60 days or more. Provides additional $1,000 tax credit for workers retained for at least a year. Cost: $13 billion.
• Highway programs — Reauthorizes through the end of 2010 the highway trust fund to use gasoline taxes to help state and local governments pay for highway and transit projects. Deposits an additional $20 billion into the trust fund.
• Equipment write-offs — Permits businesses to write off equipment purchases as a business expense rather than depreciating them over time. Cost: $35 million.

Build America Bonds — Expands the Build America Bonds program to subsidize the interest costs of bonds for include certain school and energy projects. Cost: $2.3 billion.

A couple of noticeable items:

1. A whole bunch of Republicans voted for the bill (obviously). The Republicans included, says Politico, Scott Brown and others:

But the highway funds also lured in two retiring Midwestern senators, Kit Bond and George Voinovich, who also voted for the bill.

2. Also, according to Politico, Democrats are REALLY, REALLY serious about debt. Or not:

Democrats dodged a procedural bullet earlier Wednesday when Republicans raised a budget point of order against the legislation, saying it violated statutory pay as you go rules, but the Senate waved that rule aside on a 62-34 vote.

So, at the final count: more debt, more DC bribes and Republicans who are as corrupt as ever. Great.

Rasmussen Texas GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Rick Perry 48% (44%) [43%] <46%> {38%} (46%) [42%]
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 27% (29%) [33%] <35%> {40%} (35%) [38%]
• Debra Medina 16% (16%) [12%] <4%> {3%}
• Not Sure 9% (11%) [11%] <14%> {19%} (14%) [13%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Perry 67% (80%) [72%] <75%> {72%} (76%) [72%] / 31% (19%) [26%] <24%> {26%} (23%) [27%] {+36%}
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 56% (67%) [73%] <75%> {71%} (72%) [73%] / 42% (31%) [25%] <23%> {26%} (25%) [24%] {+14%}
• Debra Medina 35% (50%) [43%] <16%> {18%} / 47% (29%) [29%] <29%> {29%} {-12%}

How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 23% (18%) [22%] <25%> {20%} [25%]
• Somewhat approve 43% (56%) [46%] <48%> {49%} [47%]
• Somewhat disapprove 17% (16%) [20%] <14%> {17%} [16%]
• Strongly disapprove 15% (9%) [11%] <11%> {12%} [10%]

Survey of 500 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 23, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 1, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 17, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 11, 2009 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 16, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 6, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Among those who say they have already voted, Perry has earned 49% support, while Hutchison and Medina have picked up 24% and 20% respectively.

Perry, who is seeking an unprecedented third term as governor, carries the male voter by more than two-to-one over Hutchison and wins a plurality (45%) of the female vote as well.

The incumbent earns 56% of the conservative vote to Hutchison’s 22% and Medina’s 16%.

Conservatives dominate Republican primaries in Texas and nationally. But Perry also breaks even with Hutchison among GOP moderates.

I recently sent out an Email stating that, yes, there is plenty of room within K-12 school budgets to cut waste.  It was forwarded to a math teacher in Hudson, Kansas, and this was the math teacher’s reply to me, in which the teacher claimed that my point of view was not fair.  Out of respect to the teacher, I’ve removed the person’s name.  The teacher’s letter is first, and my reply is below the teacher’s letter.

Letter to me:

Dear Mr. Hodge,

I am not entirely sure where you get your information but as an elected official you need to find a better source. As a parent of students in grades k-12, I don’t appreciate you sitting in Topeka saying what is best for my kids having no background in education yourself.

School funding did increase from 2005-2008 because education was so poorly funded. Students need up to date textbooks not the out dated falling apart ones they have. Students need access to computers, which in case you don’t realize are expensive. In order for students to have the education and knowledge they need to succeed in higher education and in the work force, it takes money. This list could go on and on not even beginning to mention all the testing the State and Federal government require to meet No Child Left Behind, which has to be done on the computer.

I agree with you that schools are top heavy but cutting funding isn’t cutting administration. Do you honestly believe that the school superintendents are going to go their school boards and suggest that administration be cut, possibly putting their own jobs in jeopardy because they make the most? Yes, I know districts have to have a superintendent but it doesn’t mean that’s not where a school board might cut and hire someone cheaper if the Superintendent makes that suggestion. I have seen my children’s school cut teachers left and right the last few years. The school district has lost programs and is jeopardy of losing more. The class sizes continue to increase. Let me tell you, not once has it been mentioned that school administrators be cut. The lunch menu has been cut back to one choice with no seconds and smaller portion sizes. My kids never get enough to eat. Again, not once has it been mentioned that administration be cut. It isn’t the administration getting cut, it is the young good teachers.

Maybe you and some others in Topeka need to start talking to your constituents about what is really going on in their schools and towns.

I would also like to say that at this point in the cutting process it doesn’t matter if it is Education or Social Services or anything else. The different associations have met their limits and people are losing their jobs. Every time you cut an agency, they are letting someone go. This means less people paying state income tax and less people paying sales tax. Stop cutting programs and stop cutting agencies. Start finding a way to bring revenue into the state.

One last thing, I have seen where all of you in Topeka expect the rest of us to cut until it hurts (and it does hurt) but I have yet to see any of you take a cut. I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that all of you take a pay cut or cut your staffs back. I would be willing to bet that things are not run real efficiently in Topeka. I also have an accounting degree and I haven’t ever seen a government run efficiently. I would suggest that you take some of your own advice and start cutting, then maybe you might see how the rest of Kansas is feeling.

[Name of teacher]

My reply:

[Name of teacher],

I’m replying with the hope that you will appreciate a healthy debate. What some voters prefer is a watered-down, feel-good answer; I’m hoping you’re not one of them, so I’ll reply more meaningfully.

My thoughts in reply to your Email, in no particular order:

• I am not currently elected, to be clear. As my Email indicated at the top, I was in the state legislature from 2006-2008. But I am not currently elected. I do operate a state political action committee.
• You’re incorrect to assume I do not have educational experience. I served as a trustee of the largest college in Kansas, Johnson County Community College, for four years, and more reform — included the needed replacement of the president — occurred during my tenure than during any four-year period in the college’s history.
• You wrote, “As a parent of students in grades k-12, I don’t appreciate you sitting in Topeka saying what is best for my kids.” That’s false. I don’t think this — I don’t think that I know what is best for your children. I think that you know what is best for your children. However, you are stating that you know what is best for other people’s children, by mandating that they only have one choice of government-run education. Why should you have the ability to mandate a lower quality of education for a student, when the student’s parent believes they could obtain a better quality of education, elsewhere, through educational tax breaks or vouchers?
• I encourage you to consider your arguments as a type of faith. You’re welcome to any religion you wish to have, but it should be recognized that it is a faith-based argument to assume that more money equals more results, or that monopolized government-run K-12 education is best for every student. I’ll point you to the following study from the US Department of Education (which, I’ll note, should be considered unconstitutional), which demonstrates that the DC voucher program out-performed government-run DC public schools, and while the DC voucher program spend $7500 per child, compared to $25,000 per child for the public schools: http://www.heritage.org/research/education/wm1965.cfm.
• After a brief Google search, it appears that you are a math teacher, and you wrote that you have an accounting degree. Yet you write, “Every time you cut an agency, they are letting someone go. This means less people paying state income tax and less people paying sales tax.” Then, I ask you, why not have 100% of Kansans serve in government, with a 100% tax rate? Your argument appears to be based on emotion, rather than objective data. When more can be done with less money, as it can be done in this case, it will be better for the economy (and thus everybody’s pocket books) to have less government, and not more.
• You mention NCLB. You’re not obligated to anything under NCLB. Simply opt-out, and Kansas schools will merely lose 13% of total funding. I am on record a couple years back, suggesting that the state do this.
• You wrote, “Do you honestly believe that the school superintendents are going to go their school boards and suggest that administration be cut, possibly putting their own jobs in jeopardy because they make the most?” Yes, I believe that they should be required to behave in responsible, ethical manners as they spend the taxpayers’ money — other people’s money.
• You wrote, “Let me tell you, not once has it been mentioned that school administrators be cut.” Did I not read that you are a KNEA member? I must ask, why are you wasting your money on your union membership, if your union does not make obvious recommendations? Why don’t you mention this?
• You wrote, “I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that all of you take a pay cut or cut your staffs back.” From where do you obtain your news? Not only has it been mentioned, it’s even been voted on. After my comments, I will copy and paste a press release from one state senator, regarding a 5% pay cut. Furthermore, the Kansas House members do not have “staff.” There is one part-time secretary shared between either two or three legislators. The legislators, themselves, operate in a rather efficient manner.
• I fully agree with your comment here: “I haven’t ever seen a government run efficiently.” Why, then, should I assume on blind faith that your school (a government) is run efficiently? Put your itemized expenditures online, let the taxpayers see where the money is going, and the citizens of Kansas will then finally be able to determine whether your school is run efficiently. Until then, please stop demanding blind faith. (more…)

From my friend RJ:

It hurts, I know.  For the countless Conservatives and Tea Partiers who helped Scott Brown’s campaign make history, those who donated money from all around these United States (like the $348,000 spent by the Tea Party Express in California for a Scott Brown TV ad), those Republican operatives who boarded the buses here in DC and trekked northward into enemy territory to knock on doors: I cannot offer you and yours much comfort in my words.  Actions speak louder than words, and Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be uniting for the first time this year due to Senator Brown’s recent actions.

It sucks; and nobody wanted to think this was going to be the case because as Glenn Beck said during his closing speech at CPAC, “it’s not enough for Republicans to just suck less than the other side.”

What led us to this unfortunate quandary was the Senator’s recent vote against the filibuster for Senator Harry Reid’s Jobs Bill.  This will allow the Bill to reach a final vote in the Senate Wednesday.  His actions earned him praise from Maryland Democrat and Representative Steny Hoyer, which is the equivalent of Dallas Cowboys picking up L.T. and having Dan Snyder applaud the move as “great.”  It has also earned him some malicious scorn on his Facebook page and office phone lines; and a bit of criticism here at The Lobbyist as well.

Sen. Brown was probably pacing back and forth with his home state sticking to his shoes before returning to DC for votes this week.  He was probably taking a lot of information in about the problems facing Massachusetts, particularly unemployment which increased from 8.7% to 9.4% (November – December 2009), a  considerable increase especially when compared to the rest of the United States.  All the while, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Insurance benefits have dipped $41.9 million into the red.

I am not endorsing Senator Brown’s actions, nor am I even excusing them.  It is imperative that the Republican Party experience an eureka moment where they do not treat people who are for limited domestic influence by federal government as the fringe.  Can’t there be someone who can moderately explain why limited government involvement on the federal level is a good idea for the entire country?  Isn’t this where Reagan reigned supreme?  At the same time, can’t Tea Partiers, Conservatives and some Libertarians also come to accept that a Republican in Massachusetts will not be an exact replica of a Texas Republican, or a Carolina Republican?

I am just asking for everyone to hold tight I guess.  I know we made Scott Brown into this last best hope, and I do not think that his voting in favor of this particular jobs bill shows us anything we really should not have already expected: Scott Brown is a Republican.  Not a Tea Partier, not particularly Conservative, and certainly not a libertarian.  Does this make him a RINO?  No… he is still a Republican and can still help us keep the $1 Trillion government slow-roll take-over of healthcare.  That means a lot more to me right now than the $14-40 Billion jobs bill.  Let’s not burn our bridge just yet, and keep our eyes on the prize.

I’m not sure that RJ is correct on all points, but he is right overall. Brown is no conservative, but we knew that well before he was elected. To have thought anything else was foolish. However, he was better than the Democratic alternative in the MA race- and in fact still is- because, as RJ wrote, he can still help us stop the Democratic health care reform.

Unfortunately for the conservative cause, Brown is a mere Republican, but I am a believer in incremental victories in cases like this. Some situations call for holding the line- irresponsible budgets and bills, primary voting, etc.- but in this case I’m willing to not throw him to the wolves just yet.If we can show America that conservatism is the way to go, perhaps we can get Scott Brown 2.0 (or another Republican) after 2012- a version that is more in line with conservative governance. Over time, incremental gains are worth more than loss after loss by voting for candidates who won’t win in places like Massachusetts.

That does not mean I won’t critique his choice to vote for the bill, of course. He was wrong to do so. Jobs bills don’t work. Period.

Two weeks ago, Anthem Blue Cross raised its rates in California rather sharply. To my mind, the move gave a fresh boost to Democratic health care reform, certainly not a positive occurrence- even despite Anthem’s market-based, and quite logical, defense. Furthermore, the federal investigation into the rate hikes gave Obama a bit of a public relations boost, as his administration could now point to “evidence” that their reform was necessary. To paraphrase Nina Easton on last night’s “Special Report,” Obama’s new health care proposal hopes that the American people dislike insurance companies more than they distrust government officials.

As referenced above, Obama officially presented his health care reform proposal on Monday. Among other things, it closes the “Donut Hole” in Medicare Part D, keeps the so-called “Louisiana Purchase” and gets rid of the Cornhusker Kickback. It also creates an insurance company Rate Czar (I stole the term from Laura Ingraham) and costs $950 billion over 10 years. It also initially gave Obama a boost going into Thursday’s health care summit. However, a large detail seems to have been overlooked by the administration- the Congressional Budget Office has refused to score the bill. According to CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf,

“This morning the Obama Administration released a description of its health care proposal, and CBO has already received several requests to provide a cost estimate for that proposal. We had not previously received the proposal, and we have just begun the process of reviewing it—a process that will take some time, given the complexity of the issues involved. Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. Moreover, preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions, and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the provisions. Therefore, CBO cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal without additional detail, and, even if such detail were provided, analyzing the proposal would be a time-consuming process that could not be completed this week.”

This is wonderful news. On Thursday, Democrats will have the two very unpopular Senate and House health care proposals and an unscored administration proposal. Assuming they do not call the whole thing off- doubtful, but possible- Republicans have two openings with which to take a public relations coup from the summit.

The first, stealing a thought from a commenter on an article in The Hill, is to attack specific proposals in the Democratic proposals. Not with generalities such as “keeping government out of health care” or “don’t put a government bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor.” Instead, Republicans should study every idea put forward by the Democrats until their eyes bleed. To paraphrase the commenter, Republicans should be as specific as possible throughout the entire summit, without fail. Or, to put it another way and paraphrase former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, Democrats win when they obfuscate the issues. Republicans win when they clarify. Several issues to be clarified and specifically attacked include:

1. The White House cost estimate is short by almost one-third. Similar to the Baucus health bill last year, which also omitted major details that are rather important, the bill is “scored” by the White House for the next ten years, though expenses don’t start until 2013.

2. The cost of the “Doc Fix” is not included. That alone will cost at least $240 billion over ten years.

3. Taxes and fines are all over the proposal.

4. The Nelson abortion compromise is still in the bill. This compromise failed to get the support of the USCCB, which means it’s not a pro-life compromise and therefore not a pro-life bill.

The second thing Republicans should do is push a simple five-step process between now and Thursday. Without defending Anthem- as per The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney’s suggestion last year- they should explain how the following five steps would defuse future rate hikes:

1. Tort reform. It would lower health care costs, which in turn lowers health insurance rates and helps improve the quality of care in America.

2. Modify the employer exclusion tax. It, too, would lower costs and create a less regressive tax system.

3. Change our Medicare payment reform system in the style of the Dartmouth Atlas Program. It would lower costs, increase the quality of care and put something of a brake on the overutilization of resources America currently has.

4. Get rid of the insurance monopoly exemption. This will kick in market competition for both the numbers of insurance providers and the prices they charge.

5. Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, for the same reasons as number four above.

By marketing these proposals in the context of incremental reform and blunting future rate hikes, Republicans can put themselves in a very good spot come Thursday. Once the summit arrives, by hitting hard on specifics and repeatedly mentioning the unpopularity of the Congressional proposals and the unscoreability of the Obama proposal, as well as the unequivocal support Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has for the bill despite its lack of a CBO score, Republicans will be able to pull of a televised public relations coup and put the final nail in the coffin of ObamaCare and Democratic health care reform.

*Originally posted at Daily Caller. The one here has been corrected for a couple of typos and errors.

Update: Fox News’ Major Garrett writes (emphasis mine):

The summit, as White House advisers readily admit, is not about cobbling together a bi-partisan deal to break the health care logjam. The point is to show voters that Obama will sit with Republicans for six hours and see if, in spokesman Robert Gibbs’ words, engage in a “robust debate” with “open minds.”

“We’re always better when we’re on offense,” a senior official told Fox. “The summit is us on offense. At the end it will be painfully clear to American that Republicans have absolutely no intention of cooperating on health care.”

Maybe Laura Ingraham, Rush and the rest are right that Republicans should have rejected the summit after all. However, now they have accepted, so here’s hoping the use a good strategy before, during and after the summit.

I know that 17 year-old American Idol contestants are not standard fare around here . So, you’re probably scratching your heads and wondering if Brickley has lost his mind – but most of my posts generate that reaction anyway, so why should this one be any different? I’m sure 75% of Race42012 readers hate AI, but I’m going to justify this diversion on three grounds (other than simple personal indulgence and my lack of a personal blog).

1. I have an obsession with early trendspotting, and so this is no different than my normal posts on low-level congressional candidates.

2. This actually ties in with my official entry in the Race42012 New Years Prediction Contest (the pop culture section).

3.When even Simon Cowell misses the fact that he is sitting on a pop culture GOLDMINE, it makes me feel like my head is going to explode (even if it does involve teenyboppers).

So – meet Katie Stevens – an early favorite with a fantastic voice. However, when she performed Tuesday (NOT the video below), her 50s/early 60s retro sensibilities were harangued by the judges for sounding “too old” for her 17 years. Supposedly, she needs to find younger sound (skip below the video to find out why this is so terribly wrong)

Now – I will be the first to admit that her current old-school sound is a little too mature to catch on with her age group – and hence  unlikely to fly on AI – so the judges are not all wrong. However, shoving this talented individual into a Miley-shaped box would be a musical crime, and it would likely backfire by forcing an uncomfortable Stevens out of her wheelhouse and into a vocal train wreck.

However, what Simon and friends fail to see is that another teenager with almost identical retro vibes is SELLING RECORDS LIKE HOTCAKES in the UK. Her name is Pixie Lott, and if Stevens can capture her aura, she could instantly become a break out star.

Now, if you’re wondering why I  know so much about British teen-pop princesses – sorry, but the answer is far more innocent than what you’re conjuring up. I merely read BBC news every day, and so I watched  as PixieMania hit the UK last year – and since this artist was clearly not in the US yet, I looked her up to see what all the fuss was about (after which I had that freakin’ song stuck in my head for the next WEEK!)

Anyway, I am NOT suggesting that squeaky clean Katie Stevens morph into a down-and-dirty Pixie Lott wannabe (in fact her role-model quality is what makes her a fantastic American Idol -  and Pixie’s image isn’t my cup of tea anyway). I am, however, suggesting that Pixie and Katie have nearly identical vocal profiles and musical sensibilities – and those sensibilities SELL  (I watched those two videos back to back and was surprised how close they were).

Hence, if Stevens were to pull a pitch-perfect rendition of “Mama Do” next week – she not only saves her musical identity while still sounding younger, she becomes the first person introduce the already successful Pixie sound to US audiences. She’s likely to get rave reviews, establish herself as a runaway favorite, and probably drag Pixie herself across the Atlantic in the process (which Idol did once before when Kat McPhee sang KT Tunstall).

So, there’s my two cents – issued at extreme risk to my personal reputation. Hopefully someone with Stevens connections sees this. Oh…and Simon, if Katie Stevens becomes the American Pixie, I’m going to expect a cut of the mountain of cash she generates for your record company.

WE NOW RETURN TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POLITICS - and don’t worry, I’m not planning weekly Idol blogs.

Don’t usually push these long commercials, but for John Kasich, absolutely, and it’s a good ad to boot:

Mark Ambinder penned some interesting thoughts today on the post-CPAC conservative world. Sayeth Ambers:

How difficult is it to construct a typology of the conservative movement today?

How does Ron Paul relate to Sarah Palin? Palin to the Tea Partiers? The Tea Partiers to Paul? The Tea Parties to themselves? Do the Tea Partiers overlap with the Republican base? Are they entirely contained within it? What mental schemas link Tea Partiers with each other and divide them from the Republican Party establishment? How do they prioritize national security? Will they be able to organize so as to magnify their apparent power?

…

5. The Tea Partiers and Ron Paul’s libertarians overlap to some degree, but they differ strongly on national security, and the Tea Partiers are, generally, more ready to identify as Republicans than Paulites are. They’re also older.

6. Sarah Palin seems like a natural candidate for the Tea Party crowd; from a very un-elite state, anti-technocrat; anti-shades of gray; she’s taken on the elites and lost, and has a cross to bear; their embrace of her, for the most part, reveals how orthodox the TP movement actually is. Problem for Palin: if she’s seen as part of the establishment, she won’t play as well with the Tea Partiers. She really will have to run as an outsider and forcibly reject, for example, the Weekly Standard types who are rooting for her.

…

8. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have no chance whatsover to share the sensibility of the Tea Partiers and the Paulites, certainly not in their current incarnations. They don’t speak the language; and because the movement is not about particular issues, their resumes don’t particularly matter. Romney and Pawlenty have a much better chance with that portion of the GOP base which does not identify with the Tea Party movement — which is, by definition, more establishmentarian and hierarchical. The Tea Partiers, at least, have a vehicle for advancing a candidate; Libertarians (the Paulites) really don’t, because they are…libertarians and don’t like to be all collective-y.

There’s a lot to take in here, and I’ll try to sum up my thoughts in a way that makes sense, but suffice it to say that if you had told me a year ago that the future of conservatism would look more like Glenn Beck than Tim Pawlenty, I’d have thought you a loon. That’s probably also what Douthat and Salam would have thought, and in fact just today Douthat lamented that the Republican Party is beginning to look more like some weird fusion between Bill Clinton and Jim DeMint than the Sam’s Club future he had in mind for it. The trouble that prognosticators run into is that major economic and international events have the irritating tendency to throw their predictions off course and send their books to the bargain section of Borders, as does the complicated American political spectrum, in which today’s moderates are often tomorrow’s liberals or conservatives depending on which issues are at the forefront and which groups feel the most empowered or threatened by those in office.

I think it’s clear from all of the reports I’ve read about CPAC, and from the events of the past year or so, that all the energy in the room is on the side of two similar but distinct anti-government groups. The first is what Ambers calls the Paulites, which are really socially libertine members of the Old Right and who are highly skeptical of internationalism. The second group consists of the Tea Partiers, who may or may not be socially conservative but who are libertarian as far as the government’s role in society is concerned, and who are very economically conservative and highly supportive of national security measures that will protect our ability to continue to live as free individuals. What’s interesting is that both of these groups have united in opposition not just to Obama and the Democrats, but also to the National Review/Weekly Standard crew, which is essentially a big-government movement advocating “national greatness” at home and abroad through idealistic pursuits to spread American ideals throughout the world, collective cultural decision-making to keep the evangelicals mobilized, and good government that makes sure all the right voting blocs have the entitlements and pork that make them happy, all of which will be paid for by deficits. This is the ruling class that ran the Republican Party into the ground during the last Administration and that is lamenting the take-over of the GOP by the Beckians and Paulites. This is evident from their outright dismissal of Paul’s victory in the CPAC straw poll, which would have been front-page news at both National Review and the Weekly Standard had Romney, Huckabee, or Palin won.

That brings me to Sarah Palin. It seems that the appropriate candidate to lead both the Paul and Beck factions of the small government tsunami that is about to take over the GOP and the country would be someone who shares both groups’ distaste for government and who could chart a pro-growth course for the future in the style of Paul Ryan. It would also be someone who could make tight borders a security issue, thus pleasing both the anti-immigration Paulites and the security-heavy Beckians, and who could talk security in a tough-as-nails, keep-us-safe sort of way, not in a save-the-world, idealistic sort of way. The Paulites probably don’t mind wiretapping and waterboarding if it ensures a future free from American Sharia, and the Tea Partiers can probably do without democratizing the world as long as they get to blow places up that start to threaten America or Israel. And both groups would probably support a small government social agenda, which starts and stops with conservative judges. It seems that someone like Sarah Palin is tailor-made for such a role.

The problem with Palin is that Paulites and some Tea Partiers fear that her lack of experience and dearth of knowledge about major issues could result in her becoming a sort of Manchurian Candidate for the very forces that ran the Bush Republican Party off the cliff. Bill Kristol really likes Sarah Palin, and that really makes a lot of the small government types really uncomfortable. The idea that she may secretly be Santorum in a skirt is what makes the NR crowd adore her. The possibility that she may be another mavericky maverick ready to embark on a century along quest to find the Middle East’s Thomas Paine makes Barnes and Kristol swoon. And the good folks at the RNC are just waiting for another president who will sign all the right pork into law. Is Palin ready to be anything other than a puppet to these folks?

Until Sarah makes it clear that the answer to the aforementioned question is an emphatic “yes,” the small government types will continue to be wary of her. But that leaves them without a fusion candidate. Both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are too dovish to get the votes of the Beckians, while the perfect Beckian candidate, Paul Ryan, is a thirtysomething congressman who isn’t ready to take the plunge. As Ambers notes, neither Romney nor Pawlenty can harness these voters for reasons of tone if nothing else. Pawlenty, who has a fine conservative governing record, developed the soft-spoken Sam’s Club schtick back when he and I and everyone else thought that was what the voters wanted, and once the tectonic plates shifted again, T-Paw is left trying to decide whether to be the evangelical candidate or to stick with the original plan, and seems to awkwardly have one foot in either camp. And Huckabee, who was the evangelical, Sam’s Club candidate before it was cool to be one, realizes that it’s not the year for such a candidate, which is why he decided to take a knee on CPAC. Romney, meanwhile, is malleable enough and established enough to win the nomination by default if no one can unite the small government types, but if he does win, he’ll do so because it’s his turn, and only because it’s his turn, and won’t bring with him the excitement and enthusiasm that a true fusion of Ron Paul and Glenn Beck would.

This leaves the door open for someone like Rudy Giuliani to run as a small government, to-hell-with-them hawk and unite the various upstart factions in order to take the nomination. Whether Rudy or a similar candidate chooses to do so remains to be seen. What is clear is that the blueprint for the future Republican Party does not lie in the pages of Douthat’s Grand New Party or Frum’s Comeback, but on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.

Magellan Strategies (R) Kentucky 2012 GOP Primary

If the Republican primary election to choose a candidate for President was being held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?

• Sarah Palin 28.2%
• Mike Huckabee 24.0%
• Mitt Romney 16.1%
• Newt Gingrich 12.3%
• Ron Paul 3.8%
• Tim Pawlenty 2.1%
• Undecided 13.6%

Survey of 560 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.14 percentage points. Click here to view crosstabs.

H/T: Tommy Boy

A story of violence and forgiveness in Duluth brings home the importance of pro-life work. (Hat Tip: The Green Room.)

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rasmussen Texas Gubernatorial Survey

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 47% [49%] (52%)
• Bill White 38% [36%] (37%)

• Rick Perry 47% [48%] (50%)
• Bill White 41% [39%] (40%)

• Bill White 47% [38%] (44%)
• Debra Medina 37% [41%] (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill White 55% [46%] (49%) / 32% [38%] (35%) {+23%}
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 57% [57%] (61%) / 41% [39%] (35%) {+16%}
• Rick Perry 53% [54%] (55%) / 45% [44%] (42%) {+8%}
• Debra Medina 42% [44%] (39%) / 45% [34%] (32%) {-3%}

How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15% [11%] (16%)
• Somewhat approve 37% [39%] (37%)
• Somewhat disapprove 20% [24%] (23%)
• Strongly disapprove 26% [24%] (23%)

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

• Strongly approve 25% [27%] (29%)
• Somewhat approve 16% [14%] (15%)
• Somewhat disapprove 7% [10%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 50% [48%] (46%)

Survey of 1,200 Likely Voters was conducted February 22, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 1, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 17, 2010 are in parentheses.

(more…)

Canadian premier Danny Williams had this to say when criticized over going to the United States for a heart procedure, rather than opting to join a waiting list in his home country:

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

That’s right. You only signed away the rights of others. And you will continue to:

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province’s health care system.

“I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people,” he said.

Is this a harbinger of things to come here? Harry Reid wants you to sit down and shut up:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday that Republicans “should stop crying” about the possible use of the parliamentary procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a health care reform bill.

We’ll say the same thing to him when he loses his Senate seat in November.

In a really stunning interview, Donny Deutsch lashed out at Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio, calling the Cuban-American a ‘coconut’, which is used as a slang term to describe someone who is ‘tan on the outside, but white on the inside’. The attacks were leveled on far-left loon Joy Behar’s talk show, with the host either ignorant to the attack or condoning of it. Remarkably, Deutsch goes on to condemn the Tea Party (supporters of Rubio, who is Cuban) as racist while complaining about a lack of support for Charlie Crist (who is white).  Amazingly, Behar actually correctly identifies the Tea Party as angry at both Right and Left for fiscal irresponsibility, only to have that idea cast aside by Deutsch, who continued to claim that racism was instead the driving force.

BEHAR: Let’s talk about the Republican Party. They’re becoming- You’re a brander. You know about that. They are the party of no. And that’s not a good thing.

DEUTSCH: It’s not a good thing. But what they figured out, finally, unfortunately, in the last six weeks, if you think about Brown winning, if you think about in Virginia where they won, if you think about this guy Rubio they’re pushing in Florida, they’re understanding that just this vitriolic, “We hate Obama. The world is bad,” the Sarah Palins of the world, the Dick Cheneys of the world, the Rush Limbaughs, is unelectable. Let’s put forward a fiscal conservative, socially- what appears to be socially moderate in terms of whatnot [sic], that’s the electable candidate. So they’re getting it. There’s a difference between-

BEHAR: Who is that person?

DEUTSCH: It’s basically it’s a Scott Brown. And once again. It’s amazing. They’re talking about presidential timber. He’s never done anything in his whole life. That’s the whole thing. It’s the blank piece of paper people can assign things to. One of the reasons, interestingly enough, I think we are a society of no right now. One of the reasons Obama got elected, because he was a blank page. You could assign hope to him.

BEHAR: That’s true.

DEUTSCH: We’re such a media frenzy, 24/7 world that almost anybody that’s been around too long, there’s so much “no” attached to it, that you almost need that blank piece of paper. That’s the new model.Like, you know, this coconut Rubio down in Florida. You know-

BEHAR: What’s his name? I don’t know him. Rubio?

DEUTSCH: Marco Rubio. He’s running against Charlie Crist, who I think has done a great job. And he is the new great, you now, hope down there.

BEHAR: So, basically, these people, the tea partiers are basically angry with the right and the left for the same reason, that there’s fiscal irresponsibility?

DEUTSCH: No, they’re angry- they’re basically- their argument is- and I think there’s a lot of racism underneath it- is- “He, they, are taking your civil liberties away. They’re stomping on the Constitution. They’re telling us how many bullets we can have in our guns.”

Joe Scarborough has been fending off attacks on his conservatism recently.  Morning Joe has a chance to win the approval of a number of conservatives by condemning this racist attack by one of his frequent guests.  You can reach Joe Scarborough and tell him how you feel here.

______________________________________________________________________________

-Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rasmussen Florida Gubernatorial Survey

• Bill McCollum (R) 48% (46%) {44%} [46%] (42%)
• Alex Sink (D) 35% (35%) {39%} [35%] (34%)
• Some other candidate 4% (5%) {5%} [5%] (7%)
• Not sure 12% (13%) {12%} [15%] (18%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bill McCollum 53% (53%) {54%} [49%] (53%) / 29% (30%) {30%} [31%] (25%) {+24%}
• Alex Sink 38% (39%) {45%} [41%] (50%) / 34% (34%) {31%} [30%] (32%) {+4%}

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted February 18, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 27, 2010 are in parentheses. 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 curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 22, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Men in Florida heavily favor McCollum, but women are closely divided between the candidates. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, McCollum leads Sink by a two-to-one margin, 52% to 26%.