Obama's job approval numbers drop to record low.

According to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama's approval numbers are at an all time low, 41%.

President Barack Obama is struggling to overcome widespread pessimism about the economy and deep frustration with Washington, notching the lowest job-approval ratings of his presidency in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The results suggest Mr. Obama could weigh on fellow Democrats in midterm elections this fall, particularly in the conservative states that will play a large role in deciding whether his party retains its Senate majority.

Mr. Obama's job approval ticked down to 41% in March from 43% in January, marking a new low. Some 54% disapproved of the job he is doing, matching a previous high from December, when the botched rollout of his signature health law played prominently in the news. The latest survey also showed the lowest-ever approval in Journal/NBC polling for Mr. Obama's handling of foreign policy.

Coincidence? Ben Carson audited by IRS after calling out President Obama at National Prayer Breakfast

It's reported that Ben Carson, world renowned neurosurgeon, was audited by the IRS starting in June, a few months after he challenged some of President Obama's views at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Just months after he gave a speech earlier this year that challenged America's leadership in President Obama's presence, Dr. Ben Carson was targeted by IRS agents who requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit without finding any wrongdoing.

"I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS," Dr. Carson said in an interview Thursday with The Washington Times.  "But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion."

Dr. Carson is a world-renown neurosurgeon whose rise from poverty and a single-parent home, and his medical work with pediatric patients was celebrated in a movie called "Gifted Hands."

He has electrified the conservative world with speeches and columns since his February National Prayer Breakfast speech in front of Mr. Obama, in which he decried the "moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility" of America in recent years. He writes a weekly column for The Times.

Dr. Carson first hinted at the problem earlier this week during a speech in Alabama when he made a vague reference to having his first "encounter with the IRS" earlier this year.

Dr. Carson told The Times that IRS agents contacted him in June — less than four months after the speech — and requested to review his real estate holdings. After finding nothing that concerned them, the agents then informed him they were conducting a full audit of his finances, and then asked to go back an additional year to review his records, he said.

They finally ended the review in August after finding no problems, Dr. Carson said.
"They told me everything was in good standing and left," he said.

Asked whether he thought the audit was a retaliation for his speech, Dr. Carson quipped: "I guess I'm surprised it took them that long."

He said the more serious issue is that the IRS has been politicized — "something that should never have happened" — and that leaves all of its activities open to suspicion.

A coincidence?  I doubt it.

Scandal in the Obama Administration. Chicago style? And the buck stops where?

Here's an interesting exchange on FOX News' "Political Insiders" segment, featuring Pat Caddell and  Doug Schoen former Democrat political pollsters and former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) on the three major controversies swirling around the Obama Administration.  They think the Benghazi scandal is bigger than people think and the IRS scandal and invasion of the privacy of media and other opponents of the Obama Administration are just starting to come to light.

If so, it looks like things could drag on for a long time.  Some have noted that the Obama Administration's response is reminiscent of the Nixon White House.  Not that these scandals will rise to the level of Watergate but the response is similar -- refuse to be forthright, attack one's political opponents, etc., etc.

Also given where Obama learned his politics, Chicago, one wonders if the corruption endemic in Chicago politics has made its way into the White House.  If so, I'd expect a lot more stuff to come dribbling out.

And ultimately, will it implicate the man at the top, President Obama.  Only time will tell both the severity of the activities and whether President Obama had any personal knowledge of what went on.

President Obama has said in the past "the buck stops here" to borrow the famous Harry Truman line.  Certainly he's ultimately held accountable for what happens in his administration whether he had first hand knowledge or personally directed particular activities.  However, who one hires and the tone and values set by the top person and his close associates usually filter down through a particular organization.  What these scandals tell us about President Obama will be very interesting to say the least.

President Obama and arm twisting or lack thereof.

I thought this article in the New York Times has an interesting take on President Obama.  He's not usually willing to resort to arm twisting to achieve his political goals.  I suspect those around him are at times but it strikes me his temperament isn't there.  Reason, logic are what he gravitates towards.  The result?  A less effective presidency.  I think that will be the order of the day through the rest of his presidency unless Democrats regain control of the House.

On the other hand, he could position himself to make substantial changes if he's willing to work with Republicans to get control of our deficits, debt and entitlements.  But that would mean crossing his base and his own inclinations.  However, presidents also want a legacy and that will only be achieved by significant accomplishments.  I doubt that Obamacare will stand the test of time.  It looks to be unworkable and will have to be significantly changed or discarded.

...After more than four years in the Oval Office, the president has rarely demonstrated an appetite for ruthless politics that instills fear in lawmakers. That raises a broader question: If he cannot translate the support of 90 percent of the public for background checks into a victory on Capitol Hill, what can he expect to accomplish legislatively for his remaining three and a half years in office?

Robert Dallek, a historian and biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson, said Mr. Obama seems “inclined to believe that sweet reason is what you need to use with people in high office.” That contrasts with Johnson’s belief that “what you need to do is to back people up against a wall,” Mr. Dallek said.

“Obama has this more reasoned temperament,” he said. “It may well be that it’s not the prescription for making gains. It raises questions about his powers of persuasion.”

Some supporters said the imperative of the moment requires more force from Mr. Obama. “He needs to turn up the heat every way he can and every chance he gets because it’s not political points or poll numbers that are at stake but lives,” said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a New York Democrat who has sponsored a gun control bill in the House.

The White House on Monday defended the president’s efforts on the gun legislation, saying he had made a vigorous effort to lobby wavering senators. “He made numerous phone calls and had numerous meetings,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. “And his entire team here engaged in this process completely and thoroughly.”

But the president has long struggled to master his relationship with Congress. During his first two and a half years in office, he favored what aides called an inside approach, working quietly in back rooms to convince lawmakers of the logic of his positions. That worked better when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, and he passed legislation to expand health care, regulate Wall Street and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy.

Paul Ryan indicts Obama Administration for its failed policies and derilection of duty

In a powerful speech at the Republican convention, Paul Ryan indicted the President Obama and his administration for derilection of duty.

He recognizes the bad economic hand dealt Obama when he came into office.

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

 Yet then he noted the wide gap between what Obama promised and the reality of where things are at.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: "I believe that if our government is there to support you. this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that's how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. Twenty-three million people, unemployed or underemployed. Nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty. Millions of young Americans have graduated from college during the Obama presidency, ready to use their gifts and get moving in life. Half of them can't find the work they studied for, or any work at all.

Then he asks can we expect anything different if President Obama is given another four years based on what he's done with the first four years.  Chronicling Obama's track record, he gives a resounding no.

So here's the question: Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?

The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama's first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion- the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government.

It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.

What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn't just spent and wasted- it was borrowed, spent, and wasted.

Maybe the greatest waste of all was time. Here we were, faced with a massive job crisis - so deep that if everyone out of work stood in single file, that unemployment line would stretch the length of the entire American continent. You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business.

But this president didn't do that. Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care.

Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.

The president has declared that the debate over government-controlled health care is over. That will come as news to the millions of Americans who will elect Mitt Romney so we can repeal Obamacare.

And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly.

You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn't have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more. So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn't even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we're going to stop it.

...It began with a financial crisis; it ends with a job crisis.

It began with a housing crisis they alone didn't cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn't correct.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.

It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that's left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday's wind.

President Obama was asked not long ago to reflect on any mistakes he might have made. He said, well, "I haven't communicated enough." He said his job is to "tell a story to the American people"- as if that's the whole problem here? He needs to talk more, and we need to be better listeners?

He notes the incessant excuses and blame shifting, ignoring how his actions have added to the problem.

Ladies and gentlemen, these past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What's missing is leadership in the White House. And the story that Barack Obama does tell, forever shifting blame to the last administration, is getting old. The man assumed office almost four years ago- isn't it about time he assumed responsibility?

In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time. Back in 2008, candidate Obama called a $10 trillion national debt "unpatriotic"- serious talk from what looked to be a serious reformer.

Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.

He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing- nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue.

So here we are, $16 trillion in debt and still he does nothing. In Europe, massive debts have put entire governments at risk of collapse, and still he does nothing. And all we have heard from this president and his team are attacks on anyone who dares to point out the obvious.

They have no answer to this simple reality: We need to stop spending money we don't have.

What's Romney's and Ryan's plan for during things around?

After four years of government trying to divide up the wealth, we will get America creating wealth again. With tax fairness and regulatory reform, we'll put government back on the side of the men and women who create jobs, and the men and women who need jobs.

We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years.College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now. And I hope you understand this too, if you're feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.

None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers- a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.

Listen to the way we're spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate.

It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio. When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.

 Their guiding principles.

Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

The founding generation secured those rights for us, and in every generation since, the best among us have defended our freedoms. They are protecting us right now. We honor them and all our veterans, and we thank them.

The right that makes all the difference now, is the right to choose our own leaders. And you are entitled to the clearest possible choice, because the time for choosing is drawing near. So here is our pledge.

We will not duck the tough issues, we will lead.

We will not spend four years blaming others, we will take responsibility.

We will not try to replace our founding principles, we will reapply our founding principles.

The work ahead will be hard. These times demand the best of us- all of us, but we can do this. Together, we can do this.

There's certainly no guarantee that a Romney and Ryan Administration will be successful.  My concern is, is there time and the will in the nation to turn the ship in the right direction quickly enough.  Unless we aggressively move in another direction, we'll still go off the financial and economic cliff we're facing.

The difference as I see it President Obama's approach is only accelerating the rush to a crisis while Romney and Ryan are proposing we take the steps necessary to avert this looming crisis.

Tipping point? Obama, gay "marriage" and African American clergy.

The announcement a couple months ago by President Obama that his thinking on marriage had "evolved" to support for redefining marriage to encompass same sex persons is having an impact in the African American community.  African American clergy in Minnesota and nationally are rising up and speaking out against Obama's change of position on a critical moral and social issue.

The Rev. William Owens, Jr., head of the "Mandate for Marriage" initiative and son of the Rev. William Owens, Sr., the founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), told The Christian Post about the growing importance of the issue at an event on Tuesday.

"It's only going to increase because the very core of America is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs. That's debatable to some people but you can't do away with history," said Owens, Jr.

"When you begin to take on those core values you begin to take on what's the core for America. So when more and more begin to realize what is getting ready to happen, it's going to have to become an issue if we want to save our country."

Owens, Jr., made these remarks while part of a press conference held by CAAP at the National Press Club in D.C. The Rev. Owens, Sr., gave the opening remarks and answered questions from the audience.

"The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women," said Owens, Sr.

Other speakers at the event included Bishop Janice Hollis, presiding prelate for Covenant International Fellowship of Churches in Philadelphia; Bishop Charles G. Nauden of Holyway Church of God in Christ of Southern California; and the Reverend Dean Nelson, vice chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

I think this could have significance far beyond President Obama's change of heart.  Coupled with the Democrat party's office endorsement of same sex "marriage" these actions could impact Obama's re-election prospects but also the traditional political alignment of the African American community with the Democrat Party.

Marriage plays role in defeat of democrat candidate for Congress in NYC

In the upset victory by a Republican congressional candidate over the democrat candidate in a strongly democrat district, one issue which played a role was marriage. The democrat candidate David Weprin is a state legislator who voted in favor of redefining marriage in New York state earlier this year.

While voter discontent with President Obama's policies were a major concern, marriage did play a role.

The marriage issue will not go away.

Does President Obama have a problem with God being mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

Here's an interesting tape of President Obama's talk to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Note the hesitation and omission of a key phrase about God in the Declaration of Independence.

That says loads about what he values and devalues.

Good overview of political climate and anti-big government sentiment by Vin Weber.

Vin Weber came a good overview at the Humphrey Institute of the public's mood compared to past elections in 1980, 1982, and 1994 and what can be expected this November.

He sees big Republican gains this November. Likely Republican takeover of the US House and close in the US Senate. And he anticipates continuing conflict after the election because Obama sees himself as a "transformational" figure who will push his vision for bigger government whomever is in Congress.

When Clinton faced a similar disaster in his first midterm, he famously moved to the center and “triangulated” with the two parties in the House, announcing that the era of big government was over. But Weber recalled an interesting moment from 2008 when Obama got in some trouble for stating that Reagan had been a more “transformational” figure than Clinton. Obama sees himself as similarly transformational, and he will not triangulate, Weber predicted.

“This president has a different view of himself and his place in history,” Weber said. Obama will push for more change, and the kind of change he favors will continue to expand government and cost money.

But the Republican Party is also in the midst of a “transformation,” into a less pragmatic, more ideological, harder right, more libertarian party.

Obama will face a House dominated by “people who were elected by voters who are ready to throw out anyone who votes for any kind of spending or expansion of government,” Weber said. Every spending bill that comes along will cause those members to wonder whether this might be the one that will cost them their seats the way votes for TARP and the Obama stimulus measures appear to have ended the careers of long-serving members of Congress. Once you get into that mindset, Weber said, the safest, easiest vote on any spending bill is going to be “no.”

Weber views this election as more ideological than some of the other ground shaking revolutions we've had in the past few decades

Comparing the coming midterm earthquake to its most famous recent predecessors in 1982 (Ronald Reagan’s first midterm) and 1994 (Bill Clinton’s), Weber said this is a more ideological election based on that severe backlash against the Dems misreading.

The country has “moved further to the right in a shorter period than has happened in a long time,” Weber said, which is best reflected in poll results that show widespread public hostility to government spending and public debt and a near collapse of public confidence in the government’s ability to solve problems.

He also touched on the governor's race where there are some cross winds blowing. The national mood versus democrat's passionate desire to gain back the governorship for the first time since Rudy Perpich sat in the governor's chair in 1990.

Is 2010 election shaping up to be a 1994 election or worse?

Here's an interesting story in the Washington Post comparing the upcoming 2010 election to the 1994 election in which the Republicans gained 50 or so seats in the US House and took control of the US Senate.

It's of course speculative but nonetheless interestintg.

Is it deja vu all over again for Democrats?

Some neutral observers and senior strategists within the party have begun to believe that the national political environment is not only similar to what they saw in 1994 -- when Democrats lost control of the House and Senate -- but could in fact be worse by Election Day.

They look at generic ballots and presidential approval numbers.

A quick look at the broadest atmospheric indicators designed to measure which way the national winds are blowing -- the generic ballot and presidential approval -- affirms the sense that the political environment looks every bit as gloomy for Democrats today as it did 16 years ago.

"President Obama's job [approval] number is likely to be as bad or worse than [Bill] Clinton's when November rolls around, the Democratic generic-ballot advantage of plus 12 to plus 15 in 2006 and 2008 is now completely gone, and conservatives are energized like 1994," said Stu Rothenberg, an independent political analyst and editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a well-read campaign tip sheet.

The generic ballot -- would you vote for an unnamed Democrat or an unnamed Republican? -- is either similar or worse for Democrats (depending on which poll you look at) than it was in 1994.

In an August 1994 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 49 percent of respondents said they would vote for the Democrat while 42 percent said they would back the Republican. Last month, 47 percent said they would support the Republican while 46 percent chose the Democrat.

The results were strikingly similar in several other national surveys. In an August 1994 Gallup poll, 46 percent said they would vote for the Democrat and an equal 46 percent said they would support the Republican. The most recent Gallup data give Republicans an edge of 50 percent to 43 percent over Democrats. A CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that in August 1994, Republicans had a generic-ballot lead of 46 percent to 44 percent, a margin similar to the numbers in CNN data, 48 percent to 45 percent, this month.

Presidential approval numbers paint a slightly more optimistic picture for Democrats. In mid-August 1994, Clinton's approval rating in Gallup polling stood at 39 percent; Obama is at 44 percent approval in Gallup's most recent weekly tracking poll. (By Election Day or slightly before it in 1994, Clinton's approval numbers had bumped back up to 46 percent.) In the Post-ABC survey, a similar trend is borne out: Clinton was at 44 percent approval in August 1994, and Obama is at 50 percent this month.

Combine the similarities between 1994 and 2010 on the generic ballot and presidential approval with a clear intensity gap between the Republican base (fired up to vote) and the Democratic base (less so), and Democratic strategists are worried that they are watching history repeat itself.

Voter turnout was critical.

"Our losses occurred because Republican turnout was massive," said one senior party strategist deeply involved in the 1994 campaign. "The right was motivated in 1994, and while it would have seemed impossible to me then, it feels like the Republicans are much more motivated to participate in this election" than they were then.

Although few savvy Democratic strategists debate the difficulty of the national political environment, they do note that there are two important differences between the 1994 election and this one.

Couple of unpredictable variables. Republican brand and democrats understand what they're up against. (Though from President Obama's actions and statements on a wide range of topics, I don't know that he knows how to respond differently than he has.)

The first is the relative weakness of the Republican brand. In 1994, Republicans had been out of power in the House for four decades, and most voters had a limited sense of what a GOP House would be like. In 2010, the American public has fired Republicans -- in the House, Senate and White House -- twice in the past four years. And, in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the GOP had its lowest favorability ratings ever. (We repeat: ever.)

Second, Democrats understand the building frustration and desire for change in a way that the party simply didn't get 16 years ago. "The one advantage Democrats have is early-warning radar that we are facing a tough environment, and many of our incumbents have geared up their campaigns much earlier than in 1994," said Fred Yang, a leading Democratic pollster. "The possible wave may be too big for any campaign, but we're going to be ready this time and run harder and more aggressive campaigns."

Yang's last point is the central question on which the comparison between 1994 and 2010 rests: Can well-run and well-funded campaigns by Democratic incumbents save them from being dragged out to sea politically? Democrats think so, Republicans hope not.

And then of course there's the economy which is substantially worse than in 1994.

Charlie Cook, a political handicapper and editor of the Cook Political Report, acknowledged that every election has "its own set of unique characteristics and dynamics" but added that Democrats shouldn't take too much comfort in that. "Is 2010 the same as 1994? No, it isn't," he said. "But that doesn't mean that the outcome can't be roughly comparable."

Cook also noted that the state of the economy, which may have mitigated Democratic losses in 1994 with an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, almost certainly will exacerbate them this year, as unemployment now stands at 9.5 percent.

51 or 60 votes and hypocrisy.

There's an interesting debate over the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster and use of reconciliation to pass the health care bill or significant parts of it.

Eric Black of the liberal MinnPost newsblog accused both Republicans and Democrats of hypocrisy on the topic. Both have used it and then when convenient said it shouldn't be used. He took heat from fellow liberals.

What's most interesting are the comments made by Democrats including President Obama in 2005 when he was a US Senator. Now he's encouraging Democrats in Congress to use it.

Here's another group of videos and tapes where Obama said they would need 60 votes to pass it.

No wonder people get frustrated with politicians and especially, in this case, President Obama who held himself as someone who would bring change to Washington, DC; he would get things done.

I suspect if Democrats do use reconciliation now they'll give Republicans license to do it with more regularity in the future. And as Black mentions, could it be used to repeal Obamacare, if it passes, with only 51 votes in the future.

Interesting insights into Obama, ideology and State of the Union Address.

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece on President Obama's state of the union speech. She was Reagan's speechwriter and therefore have an interesting perspective on it's content.

She said the speech was OK, but nothing special.

President Obama's speech was not a pivot, a lunge or a plunge. It was a little of this and a little of that, a groping toward a place where the president might successfully stand. It was well written and performed with élan. The president will get some bounce from it, and the bounce will go away. Speeches are not magic, and this one did not rescue him from his political predicament, but it did allow him to live to fight another day. In that narrow way it was a success. But divisions may already have hardened. In our current media and political environment, it is a terrible thing to make a bad impression in your first year.

At the heart of the speech was a contradiction.

The central fact of the speech was the contradiction at its heart. It repeatedly asserted that Washington is the answer to everything. At the same time it painted a picture of Washington as a sick and broken place. It was a speech that argued against itself: You need us to heal you. Don't trust us, we think of no one but ourselves.

The people are good but need guidance—from Washington. The middle class is anxious, and its fears can be soothed—by Washington. Washington can "make sure consumers . . . have the information they need to make financial decisions." Washington must "make investments," "create" jobs, increase "production" and "efficiency."

At the same time Washington is a place "where every day is Election Day," where all is a "perpetual campaign" and the great sport is to "embarrass your opponents" and lob "schoolyard taunts."

Why would anyone have faith in that thing to help anyone do anything?

I thought she also had some interesting insights into Obama gleamed from a Republican member of Congress. Her friend said that Obama won't, can't move to the center because he's an ideologue. He's committed to his agenda right or wrong, whether people are behind him or not.

As the TV cameras panned the chamber, I saw a friendly acquaintance of the president, a Republican who bears him no animus. Why, I asked him later, did the president not move decisively to the political center?

Because he is more "intellectually honest" than that, he said. "I don't think he can do a Bill Clinton pivot, because he's not a pragmatist, he's an ideologue. He's a community organizer. He mixes the discrimination he felt as a young man with the hardship so many feel in this country, and he wants to change it and the way to change that is government programs and not opportunity."

He also told Noonan the big problem is spending. Democrats don't get it and Republicans are only a little bit better than Democrats on this issue.

The great issue, this friendly critic added, is debt. The public knows this; Congress and the White House do not. "To me the Republicans are as rotten as the Democrats" in terms of spending. "Almost."

"I hope we have big changes in 2010," the friend said. Only significant loss will force the president to focus on spending. "To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don't have adults in the Congress."

Given who's in power and their mindset, I think we're headed for greater economic difficulties. Tough and tougher times are still ahead of us. The President and Congress aren't willing to change course, so we'll keep heading down the path of more government spending and more debt and the resulting economic dislocations and problems.

As Noonan's friend suggests, everybody is at fault, but Obama and the Democrat Congress will take us in the wrong direction faster.

Democrat leaders in Congress put health care on hold.

As a result of the Brown election in Massachusetts, Democrat leaders in Congress are putting health care on hold. According the New York Times,

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying that they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” he said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.” He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

Mr. Reid said that he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months. “There are a number of options being discussed,” Mr. Reid said, emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue.

At the same time, two centrist Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year, Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Bayh of Indiana, said that they would resist efforts to muscle through a health care bill using a parliamentary tactic called budget reconciliation, which seemed to be the simplest way to advance the measure.

The White House has said in recent days that it would support that approach.

Some Democrats said that they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at earliest, perhaps after Congress returns from a weeklong recess. But the Democrats stand to lose momentum, and every day closer to the November election that the issue remains unresolved may reduce the chances of passing a far-reaching bill.

The gear-shift by Democrats underscored how the health care effort had been derailed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election last week, which effectively denied Democrats the 60th vote they need to be sure of overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Originally, Mr. Reid wanted to finish a bill early last August.

Considering all the time and political capital put into health care up to this point, there's nothing to show for it but a lot of significant frustration. I suspect this will only further demoralize President Obama's most ardent supporters.

The most effective advocates for limited government? Surprise. Obama and liberal Congress.

The effects of President Obama and the liberal Congress' push towards socialism is showing up in a significant shift in the public's attitude towards more government. The most recent evidence is a Gallup Poll showing that less than 50% of Americans don't think it's the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee healthcare coverage for all Americans nor is it the federal government's responsibility. 47% of Americans say it is. The significant fact is how much support has dropped for government involvement in health care.
More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

What's significant is support for the federal government's involvement in health care has dropped 22 percentage points from a high of 69% in the fall of 2006 to now 47% in the fall of 2009. The shift has accelerated in the last year from 54% support to now 47%.

With polls, it's always hard to know what's driving people's attitudes and whether they will last. I wonder if Americans are having second thoughts about the move towards socialism, European style. If so that's a very hopeful sign because we lose lots with socialized medicine. Costs and taxes rise and the overall quality of health care under socialized health care declines.

The bottom line?

The wording of the healthcare bill the House passed last Saturday explicitly states that one of the bill's purposes is to provide "affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans."

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

The great abortion and euthanasia power grab. Pelosi and Obama's health care bill.

Most of the national coverage and debate over the health care bill focuses on cost to taxpayers and government control over health care decisions. What the bill will also do is imbed taxpayer funding for abortion in our nation's health care system and put in place a framework for encouraging euthanasia. Here's a description of what the bill will do put out by the Human Life Alliance.

Today, Nancy Pelosi unveiled the updated health care reform bill. Talk about scary! The new bill is very similar to HR3200 as it was amended with the Capps amendment before Congress adjourned for the summer. This 2000 page bill is available online but let me highlight some of the main concerns that we have with it:

Abortion Funding: H.R. 3962 replicates the Capps amendment, passed in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill clearly does not incorporate the Hyde amendment. Instead it accomplishes the opposite of the Hyde amendment which prohibits funding for abortion through government programs. The newly created public option will be authorized to pay for abortions. While the Hyde amendment prohibits funding for coverage that includes abortion, H.R. 3962 establishes an accounting gimmick to justify subsidizing private plans that cover abortion.

School Based Health Clinics: School health clinics will be mandated. While a new provision prohibits the use of school based health clinic grants for abortion, there is no language regarding abortion referral or facilitating an abortion at another location.

Indian Health: Division D of H.R. 3962 reauthorizes the Indian Health Service (IHS) without a permanent ban on abortion funding. The Senate passed a ban on abortion funding (Vitter Amendment) in the last Congress, but the House did not consider the bill - reportedly due to concern that an abortion funding ban might be successfully attached in the House. The language in H.R. 3962 links Indian Health Service (IHS) funding for abortion to the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill for the given year. This arrangement replicates what is currently in law, but does not reflect the Vitter amendment. Therefore, the current bill will only restrict IHS abortion funding if the Hyde amendment is in effect.

Assisted Suicide: Section 240 of H.R. 3962 requires insurance companies to provide information related to "end-of-life planning" to individuals seeking enrollment in insurance offered on the health insurance exchange. Although the section has several provisions that say the materials provided shall not include assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy killing, there is a concerned because these terms are not defined, and broader protective language adopted earlier in the Energy and Commerce Committee version has been removed. The broader language was necessary because Oregon and Washington have laws permitting what is commonly thought of as assisted suicide, but those same state laws specifically say that what is done in their state is not assisted suicide. This creates a huge loophole that means H.R. 3962 will require the distribution of end of life materials that will likely include information about assisted suicide options in states such as Oregon and Washington.

Call and write your senators and your representative and tell them to vote NO on the health care reform bill. Tell them you do not want to pay for abortions or end of life counseling that includes assisted suicide or euthanasia!!

So here we have another effort by liberals to foist their abortion agenda on the entire nation with President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi leading the charge.

If Obama and Cong. Democrats pass a health care bill will it solve our health problems? Douthat says will merely kick problem down the street.

Are the problems with our nation's health care system going to be resolved if Obamacare is passed with or without a public option? It may reduce the number of people who don't have health insurance but it won't resolve the under cost problems driving premiums upward. In other words, it will give the appearance of a solution but in fact make the overall situation worse.

That's the analysis of the situation by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who in a column published in the Star Tribune, does a good job of giving an overview of the situation. He says:

Three major problems plague American health care. The cost of premiums is eating up an ever larger share of take-home pay. The cost of our public health care programs is eating up an ever larger share of the federal budget. And millions of people who need insurance are priced out of the market.

Now that Max Baucus’s version of health care legislation has been blessed, at least provisionally, by the hands of Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, it’s increasingly likely that Congress will pass reforms that address the third problem, while making the first two problems somewhat worse.

What will the Baucus type bill do?

If a Baucus-esque bill passes into law, we should expect a significant decline in the number of Americans without health insurance. But for Americans who have employer-based insurance — still the lion’s share of the working-age population — premiums could climb more swiftly than ever.

That’s exactly what’s happened under Massachusetts’s recent reform, the best state-level parallel to what Congress is attempting. The Baucus bill includes measures that might partially counteract this trend — delivery system reforms, for instance, and an excise tax on the highest-premium plans. But their effects are speculative; the Bay State’s swiftly rising premiums are facts on the ground.

Meanwhile, our long-term fiscal trajectory will remain as unsustainable as ever. Baucus’s legislation is revenue-neutral only under rosy political assumptions, and it adds another entitlement to an already-groaning system.

He points out what the reform won't do.

But any lawmakers voting “yes” should have no illusions about what they’re voting for. This version of reform probably won’t make health care more affordable for most Americans, or place the system on firmer footing for the long run. Despite all the talk about a once-in-a-generation opportunity, our political class will have barely finished congratulating itself before rising costs will force everyone back to the negotiating table to consider more radical approaches.

He also touches what many view as the liberals endgame and how a public option moves us closer to -- federal government takeover of health care through a single payer plan.

We know what one such approach would look like. It’s the eventual endgame that liberals pushing a “public option” are aiming for: a federal takeover of the health-insurance sector, paid for by rising tax rates, in which the government guarantees universal access while using its monopoly power to hold down costs.

Douthat has an alternative which he thinks will address the concerns of both those on the right and the left.

But there’s another path, equally radical, that’s more in keeping with the traditional American approach to government, taxation and free enterprise. This approach would give up on the costly goal of insuring everyone for everything, forever. Instead, it would seek to insure Americans only against costs that exceed a certain percentage of their income, while expecting them to pay for everyday medical expenditures out of their own pockets.

Such a system would provide universal catastrophic health insurance, in other words, while creating a free market for non-catastrophic care. In the process, it would marry a central conservative insight — that we’ll never control spending so long as Americans are insulated from the true price of their medical care — to the admirable liberal premise that nobody should go bankrupt paying for life-saving treatment.

The details would vary depending on your political predilections. Under the more free-market approach, championed by Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, the government would provide vouchers for the purchase of private catastrophic plans. Under a more liberal version, like the one sketched out by Berkeley’s Brad DeLong, the government itself would act as the insurer. And liberals and conservatives would no doubt disagree about where to set the income threshold, and what additional interventions to support.

I don't think his suggestion won't gain much support from President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress who see this as their opportunity to push through what they want.

Would the international, global warming treaty, the Copenhagen Treaty, be a threat to American sovereignty?

Here's a link to a posting of an excerpt of a talk on global warming given by British Lord Monckton in the Twin Cities last week. (The full talk is posted here.)

He asserts that the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009 will establish an international government entity designed to enforce provisions of the treaty which would then place enormous restrictions on developed countries regarding CO2 omissions. In turn this would have significant negative consequences for our economy.

Here's a link to a draft of the treaty being negotiated.

Here are a couple of the controversial provisions in the treaty. The first provision would establish a world governmental entity to enforce the provisions of the treaty.

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

A second would mean the compensation of third world countries by the West:

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

I'm told the site had over 120,000 hits as of Monday morning despite being posted only last Thursday.

Certainly Obama signing and then the Senate ratifying the treaty would have a major impact on our economy. This has the makings of a battle royale.

Who's leading the conservative resurgence in the US? President Obama?!

Rich Lowry has a humorous and clever column on the resurgence of the Republican Party and conservative causes in general. It's not the result of a prominent conservative spokesperson or political figure. Rather it's being led by President Obama, albeit unintentionally, and his aggressive push for a liberal agenda in Congress. People appear to be moving aggressively back in the conservative direction after drifting to the left over the past few years.

Lowry writes:

In nine months, he has breathed life into the Republican Party, boosted pro-lifers, tarnished the reputation of regulation, bolstered traditional values, increased the public's desire for immigration restriction and shifted independent voters rightward. No, Obama hasn't turned back the oceans. But revivifying conservatism almost before books announcing its death could be published qualifies as a feat almost as miraculous.

He points to polling showing a resurgence of identification with conservatism and related causes.

Gallup's surveys in recent months are a long catalog of the Obama snap-back. Fifty-three percent of Americans want government to promote traditional values -- "a return to the prevailing view from 1993 through 2004." Half of Americans want less immigration -- "a return to the attitudes that prevailed in the first few years after 9/11." Forty percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative -- "a level last seen in 2004." Fifty-one percent of Americans call themselves pro-life -- "a significant shift from a year ago." a significant shift from a year ago."

The rapid shift in public views on the issues is quite remarkable. If Lincoln is right and public sentiment ultimately guides the political process then change will follow though exactly when is uncertain.

Obama seeks to invoke the blessing of God while at the same time rejecting His standards regarding marriage and human relationships.

President Obama reaffirmed his intention to overall the mores of American society in his address to the Human Rights Campaign Fund event. (You can view it here.) He wants to do so by jettisoning the belief that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and children need a mother and a father.

How so? By his intention to redefine the institution of marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and establish a marital type status under the guise of domestic partnerships.

He also made his purpose clear when he said:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

What he is saying is there really is no difference between the two types of relationships. His view is not only morally wrong but factually wrong from both a health and societal perspective.

I'd be interested in what he grounds his view in. What ethical system he looks to? It's certainly not found in the moral tenets of Christianity or any other major religious system. Nor in the natural law rooted in the nature God has given to us.

Both Christianity and the natural law clearly reject the view that homosexual relationships are on par with those between a man and a woman. From just a biological and health perspective, homosexual behavior violates our natures and what's healthy for the human person.

Obama also sought to invoke God's blessing when he said, "Thank you for the work you're doing. God bless you. God bless America."

It's also very postmodern, e.g. relativistic that the president would seek to invoke the blessing of God on our nation and those actively seeking to overturn God's moral standards while at the same time stating it's his goal to reject God's standards in practice.

The President would do well to read and take to heart the words of the prophet Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!"

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/obamas-speech-text-transc_n_316844.htmlThe President would do well to read the prophet Jeremiah who sa

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize. For what?

It's announced that President Obama is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course the award is given for some particular accomplishment, or normally so. President Obama's accomplishment? Giving the world hope apparently. I'm not sure that's the case and, in fact, in my view his policies are inviting trouble both on the security and economic fronts.

His selection probably says more about the politicized nature of the Nobel Peace Prize. Here's an interesting list of past recipients of the award by the folks at Powerline.