Hagai Segal/Ynet: Obama - America’s false messiah, ability to get elected with ability to lead are unconnected

(Hagai Segal-Ynet).A year into Barack Obama’s term in office, he has joined a long list of false messiahs. Jewish history features several such messiahs, and now it’s America’s turn to have one.

Americans are already showing a growing tendency to be ashamed of the praise they lavished at him in January of last year. Obama is a good guy, an excellent orator, and a brilliant campaigner; however, he is not America’s redeemer or humanity’s savior. In fact, he is not even a successful president.

If we ignore for a moment some cosmetic improvements that occurred during his term in office here and there, we can see that the United States at this time is facing an almost identical situation to the one left by President George W. Bush.

The economy is facing a very grim state of affairs, thousands of soldiers are being dispatched to battlefield overseas, America has failed to bring peace to the Middle East, Iran blatantly ignores it, and Osama bin Laden still maintains a recording studio somewhere in the heart of Asia.

In short, all the things that used to be there are still there, and things are possibly even worse.

In a recent television interview, the president candidly spoke about the possibility that he will not be elected to another term in office. Sarah Palin, imagine that, is suddenly emerging as a candidate that could replace him three years from now; and it’s not because of her as much as it is because of him.

In retrospect, it is already clear that what we saw here during the presidential campaign was deceptive. The Bush-hating community created the Obama legend out of nothing. It took a young and articulate senator with zero experience and presented him as a quick fix to all the nation’s problems.

When he took his place at the starting line to the White House race, he could not boast of even one proven leadership achievement, yet nonetheless he was presented to the public as a surefire success story. America’s citizens fell too easily into the trap laid by his public relations staff.

Americans jumped at the rare opportunity to elect a black president, but forgot that they are facing a few more urgent problems aside from the racial issue.

At this time we need to pray that the price of this adventure will not be too high. We also need to learn the lesson: Presidential elections are not a beauty contest. People who look great and can speak wonderfully well do not necessarily also know how to manage.

Hence, the next time an articulate candidate declares “yes, we can,” we need to find out whether he is talking about his ability to get elected or about his ability to lead a government. The Obama case proves that these two talents are largely unconnected.

Scott Brown tells ABC's Barbara Walters president talk "silly," "humbling"

'Professor' Obama? President's SOTU Address Notches 4th Lowest Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score Since FDR

(smartpolitics).Text of Obama's Address has a readability score for an average 8th grader - two grades lower than George W. Bush's Addresses and the historical average for modern presidents

Barack Obama's ability as a public speaker since his 2008 presidential campaign has been alternately viewed, often depending on whether or not one is an Obama supporter, along various dyads: being inspirational versus being aloof, intellectualizing versus lecturing etc.

Along those lines, in her first month as a commentator for FOX News, Sarah Palin criticized Obama's first State of the Union Address on Wednesday night as "lecturing" the American public.

Unlike the criticisms hurled at his predecessor, however, few have ever charged that the President, a former senior lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has written or spoken too simplistically or catered his words to the lowest common denominator.

However, a Smart Politics analysis of nearly 70 oral State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama's speech on Wednesday evening to have one of the lowest scores on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test ever recorded by a U.S. President.

The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores.

Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 68 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt. Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956). Prior to FDR, most, but not all, such Addresses were delivered in writing.

Obama's Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 8.8 for his first State of the Union Address was the fourth lowest score since FDR's first Address in 1934.

What this means is that Obama wrote and delivered a speech that incorporated shorter sentences, with those sentences containing shorter words, than nearly every such Presidential Address in the modern era.

Across the more than 75 years of speeches under analysis, the average sentence in State of the Union Addresses is 20.6 words in length.

But the average length of sentences comprising Obama's 2010 address was just 16.6 words in length - or 19.4 percent shorter than average. This also marks the fourth lowest average words per sentence used in State of the Union Addresses during the period under study.

President Obama's comparative brevity in his sentence structure and his frequent use of monosyllabic words can be seen in the following excerpts from his Address:

"Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call."

"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."

"We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit."

As such, the speech by 'the professor' stands in contrast to his predecessor, 'the cowboy,' George W. Bush, who was frequently skewered by the left and late-night talk show hosts for his public speaking abilities, his intelligence, and his misuse of the English language.

Bush averaged a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.4 across his seven State of the Union Addresses - or nearly two full grades higher than Obama's speech. Bush's speeches also averaged 2.4 more words per sentence than Obama, at 19.0.

In other words, the text of George W. Bush's speeches are expected to be understandable (in written form) by an average sophomore in high school, whereas Obama's speech should be understandable by a junior high school student.

Interestingly, George W. Bush's 10.4 Flesch-Kincaid score was also higher than several of his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan (10.3), Bill Clinton (9.5), and his father George H.W. Bush (8.6).

Overall, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level of presidential State of the Union Addresses has decreased in recent decades - with the last five presidents notching the five lowest scores.

John F. Kennedy's Addresses averaged a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 12.0 - with these speeches averaging 23.8 words per sentence. Dwight Eisenhower was close behind with a Flesch-Kincaid score of 11.9, with Nixon at 11.5, FDR at 11.4 and Gerald Ford at 11.2.

Obama Takes Questions at GOP House Issues Conference

Obama's SOTU rally speech achieved its goal as 15% Dems returned home approving him

(Rasmussen).Looking only at interviews conducted on the two nights following the speech, it is clear that the President enjoyed a bounce in the polls and that the bounce came from members of his own party. On the morning of the speech, 50% of Democrats Strongly Approved of the President’s performance. On the two nights following the speech, that number jumped to 65%. There was essentially no change among Republican and unaffiliated voters.

This could suggest that the President’s “pivot” following the Republican upset in Massachusetts is a pivot towards energizing his party base more than reaching out for support from unaffiliated voters. In Massachusetts and the two Governor’s races last fall, a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats contributed to the party’s defeats.

Polling conducted after the speech also found that most voters do not believe the President’s assertions about tax cuts, economic growth, or job creation. Democrats tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Republicans and unaffiliated voters do not.

Krauthammer: Romney best candidate in 2012

Mitt Romney on Your World with Cavuto

Brown on Romney: 'He's changed'

(from his wide-ranging interview,with the Globe):

He's changed, he's changed. You know, he's actually -- before he was an outsider coming in and he was, you know, kind of, you know, stiff. But he's actually, like, funny, he's like -- when he was at my events he was cracking jokes, when we were on the bus -- I was like, who is this guy? He's really kind of, I think, settled into his role kind of being the elder statesman of the party and everything he went through as president. It's kind of, and once again it's my opinion but he's really a different guy than I knew when he was here, and I certainly appreciate everything he did for me. And it wasn't a lot, he was just there as the initial -- you know, 'here's a check, go get em!' And that says a lot, you know, when I signed my contract with the team, you know -- I worried about, how am I gonna pay for this? And he was one of the first guys that helped me towards that obligation. And I remember those people who took a chance.

State of the Union: Dangerous Weakness

(Anne Bayefsky-National Review Online).President Obama's message in the State of the Union address confirmed that he is tone-deaf to the grievous threats that exist to American national security and incapable of changing course before those dangers become a terrible reality.

The catastrophe of nuclear proliferation had finally made it to the top of the agenda by the time he took office. But over the past year, this president added disarmament to the same platform. He put the retention of U.S. nuclear weaponry on the U.N. negotiating table alongside Iranian acquisition of such arms. In this State of the Union address he wasn't shy about reasserting this world view: "We are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons." By which he meant, in American hands too. The president did not first and foremost promise never to let the genocidal Iranian regime acquire these weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the first national-security priority he articulated was to seek "to reduce our stockpiles and launchers."

According to President Obama, only by weakening America can we hope to convince our enemies to stand down.

The president alleged that it was "these diplomatic efforts" at disarmament that "have . . . strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that [are] . . . in pursuit of these weapons." He knows Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons. He is fully aware that the U.N. Security Council is deadlocked on adopting new sanctions against Iran. He is cognizant that China has repudiated the suggestion of a unified front to stop Iranian ambitions. And yet he told the American people - with a straight face - that his diplomatic effort at disarmament "is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated."

President Obama announced that in April he will hold another hand-shaking, hot-air-generating "nuclear security summit" - to control American and Russian arms. As for dealing with Iran, he could not manage to muster a single concrete move, just an empty "they too will face growing consequences."

The president then touted the only leg on which his foreign policy has been standing: "engagement." To Iran's brutalized dissidents, engagement has meant crocodile tears. The State of the Union added yet another layer of verbiage over their gravestones. "We support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran," claimed the president. Why the limitation? What about the children, the men, the myriad minorities? Why did the president delicately avoid naming any Iranian victim, including the Americans now being held hostage in Iran?

This is an administration that has turned its back on inconvenient victims from Tehran to Tibet to Israel. An administration that has climbed on board the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite its being a tool of Islamic states for defeating rights. And yet the president disingenuously lectured: "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."

The president concluded his perfunctory remarks on national security by analogizing the need for strength in an increasingly dangerous world to a childish game: "Let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." In so doing, he has underestimated the intelligence of his audience. Americans increasingly understand that the weakness exuded by President Obama over this past year, and venerated in this State of the Union address, has reinvigorated real enemies, not imaginary ones.

Rush Limbaugh reads Letter to President Obama

Celente: SOTU was a pep rally and a political theater for Obama

Senator Inhofe on Joe Kelley Show Says Obama Is Best Liar He’s Ever Seen

CNN focus group: Independents Tired of "Hope"/Health Care Talk

Frank Luntz focus group: "Talk is cheap, I'm tired of all his promises", "Chutzpa to continue these words,when his actions are different".

Mccain: Obama still suffers from a "blame it on Bush" syndrome.

(Via email to supporters).Tonight, during his State of the Union speech, President Obama laid out his vision for our nation's future. As you know, the President and I have differing views on the direction we should take the country, and I stand by my conservative values of reduced spending, low taxes, and a strong national defense.

During his first year in office, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have amassed a $12.4 trillion deficit that is growing each day. While the President advocates increased federal spending, I have actively advocated tax cuts, reduced spending and earmark reform to get our economy back on track.

The non-discretionary spending freeze announced by the President is a start, but what he also needs to do is promise to veto bills laden with pork barrel spending and begin creating jobs for the thousands of out-of-work Americans.

We currently face a national unemployment rate of over 10%, and it has only grown during President Obama's time in office. As we have seen, trillion-dollar, big-government stimulus packages are not the answer for creating jobs. To stimulate our economy for job growth, we need payroll tax cuts, tax incentives for small businesses and an assurance that Democrats will not raise taxes.

As a United States Senator, I fight each and every day for these and other conservative values. I won't settle for business-as-usual, behind-closed-doors politics. I'm not afraid to stand up and speak out for the majority of Americans who are angry at the current Democratic leadership in Washington.

The people of Massachusetts confirmed last week what we have been saying for a long time - the American people want a change in Washington and an end to big government solutions to problems like health care. I was proud to be an early supporter of Senator-elect Scott Brown's campaign. It was a landmark victory and I look forward to working with him to block government-run health care, tax increases and increased federal spending.

Romney on Good Morning America: “We’ve Lost a Year.”

Palin responds to Obama's speech: In one word - 'Lecture'

(Gop12).Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin chatted about Barack Obama's speech tonight.

VAN SUSTEREN: Governor Palin, if there's one single word that sort of describes your view of the State of the Union speech, what is it and why?

PALIN: In a word "lecture". I think there was quite a bit of lecturing; not leading in that as opposed to Governor McDonnell's follow-up comments were quite inspiring, his connection with the people, he absolutely gets it. He understands government's appropriate role.

And it seemed like our President still has that fundamental disconnect between what the people are expecting with their government and what he wants to deliver.

VAN SUSTEREN: And Governor Palin, in terms of this speech, do you think that he managed to reach across the aisle even though you used the word "lecture", did he reach across the aisle? Do you think any Republicans were persuaded [to say] let's try to work together?

PALIN: Not necessarily, Greta, because the remembrance here has got to be that he and the Democrats -- they have been in charge of Washington this last year, so the common sense reforms that he is looking for the Republicans to join him on -- he could have implemented many of those common sense, as he calls them, reforms all along. Nothing has stopped him from doing that.

His mention of off-shore drilling, considering that; new energy plans, and other things that do make a lot of sense, and I do appreciate him mentioning those in the speech.

Those things that are, again, common sense he could have implemented, and I think that was a bit condescending as he spoke that being received by Republicans who were saying "Wait, we wanted to do that all along. Where you been?"

McDonnell in Republican response to SOTU: "We want results, not rethoric"

Before a national audience, Gov. Bob McDonnell tonight hammered the White House over spending, health care and energy policy and stressed the job-and-economy theme that anchored his campaign.

McDonnell said in the Republican response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address that the federal government "is simply trying to do too much."

"Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8 percent," he said.

"In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren."

McDonnell surrounded by about 250 friends, family members, supporters, administration officials and others, delivered speech in the chamber of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Addressing health care, McDonnell said Americans agree on the need for a system that is affordable, accessible and of high quality. He said Republicans have put forth a plan that would not shift Medicaid costs to the states, cut Medicare, and raise taxes.

"And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests," he said.

He said Virginia has the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for, and produce, oil and natural gas offshore.

"But this administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes," he said.

'Candidate Obama' in SOTU speech: Do not govern as "every day is Election day", and declares: 'I don't quit'

(Yahoonews).Declaring "I don't quit,'" an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with a new burst of stimulus spending. Despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.

"Change has not come fast enough," Obama acknowledged before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. "As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth."

Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day's barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins. He spoke to a nation gloomy over double-digit unemployment and federal deficits soaring to a record $1.4 trillion, and to fellow Democrats dispirited about the fallen standing of a president they hoped would carry them through this fall's midterm elections.

A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress. "Do not walk away from reform," he implored. "Not now. Not when we are so close."

The president devoted about two-thirds of his speech to the economic worries foremost on Americans' minds as recession persists. "The devastation remains," he said.

Obama emphasized his ideas, some new but mostly old and explained anew, for restoring job growth, taming budget deficits and changing a Washington so polarized that "every day is Election Day." These concerns are at the roots of voter emotions that once drove supporters to Obama but now are turning on him as he governs.

In a remarkable shift from past addresses, and notable for a president whose candidacy first caught fire over Iraq war opposition, foreign policy took a relative back seat.

It came behind the economy and was largely devoid of new policy. And Obama made no mention of three of the toughest challenges he faced in his first year: failing to close the terrorist prison compound at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, failing to get Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations, and struggling with the al-Qaida havens in Pakistan that are at the core of the terrorist threat to America.

Obama's response to President Obama's State of the Union

Hush hush no Crush! 'Obama Girl' gives Obama only a B-: "He should be focusing a lot more on jobs, Economy"

(NYpost).First, Massachusetts turned on the president.

Now, the bikini-clad "Obama Girl" -- who fa mously cooed about her "crush" throughout the presidential campaign on YouTube videos -- admits the thrill is gone.

Amber Lee Ettinger -- the buxom sensa tion who lip-synched about her love for then-candidate Barack Obama -- said she wishes he spent his first year in office more fo cused on fixing the abysmal economy.

"I think he's doing an OK job," said Ettinger, whose original "Crush on Obama" video, first shown in 2007, has had more than 16.5 million views on YouTube.

"I know he's getting a lot of flak for things that he's not doing," she told The Post. "In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."

Ettinger, 28, said that even though she doesn't have health care -- "I can't afford it" -- she still thinks Obama should have waited to tackle the thorny legislation that has been blamed for the devastat ing Democratic loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

"It's definitely a distraction because of the economy being as bad as it is," said the Jersey City resident.

"He did create some jobs, but most of them were government jobs and that doesn't really help the middle class. But it helps a bit," said Ettinger.

Her grade for Obama: B- minus.

Victory truck drives down to PA - Poll: Toomey over Specter by 14 points 45-31

(Philadelphia Daily News).Former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey has opened up a 14-point lead among likely voters in his bid to deny U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter a sixth term, according to the latest Daily News/Franklin & Marshall Poll.

Poll director G. Terry Madonna said that the results reflect a growing national Republican resurgence mixed with a lack of Democratic enthusiasm as the two parties battle over issues like health care and the economy.

Specter, who switched from Republican to Democrat in April, was tied at 30 percent in a general election match-up with Toomey among registered voters, with 35 percent undecided, the poll found.

But Toomey jumped out to a 14- point lead when the poll targeted "likely voters," people who said they are certain to vote and are paying close attention to the race.

Among that group, Toomey led Specter 45-31 percent, with 20 percent undecided.

"I can't deny it's all very encouraging," Toomey said. "But I'm also very aware of the fact that the election is nine months away. A lot can happen. So I'm going to run like I'm 20 points behind."

Specter, who narrowly beat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary, declined to comment on the poll yesterday.

Toomey, who lives near Allentown, left his congressional seat for the 2004 race.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who is leaving his Delaware County congressional seat to challenge Specter in the primary, also came up a loser against Toomey in the poll. Toomey led Sestak among registered voters by 28-16 percent with 51 percent undecided.

With likely voters, Toomey's lead on Sestak grew to 41-19 percent with 37 percent undecided.

Sestak was unavailable for comment yesterday, a campaign spokesman said.

The poll found health care, the economy and jobs to be the top issues in the race.

The winner of the May 18 Democratic primary will have to deal with what Madonna calls the "enthusiasm gap."

Madonna notes that 47 percent of the registered Republicans in the poll said that they were likely to vote in the Nov. 2 general election, while only 35 percent of the Democrats felt the same way. He attributes that to national news of Democrats' struggling to implement their policies in Washington despite control of the White House and Congress.

Freeze the spin ! Obama offer spending freeze while he dismisses Mccain's suggestion for a freeze in the debates

Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

(FOXNews.com).A bipartisan, independent commission on stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction says that the Obama administration has failed in its first year in office to do enough to prevent a germ weapons attack on America or to respond quickly and effectively should such an attack occur.

In a 19-page report card being published Tuesday, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, chaired by former Senators Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida, and Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, gives the new administration the grade of "F" for failing to take key steps the commission outlined just over a year ago in its initial report.

Specifically, the commission concludes that the Obama administration, like the three administrations before it, has failed to pay consistent and urgent attention to increasing the nation's ability to respond quickly and effectively to a germ attack that would inflict massive casualties on the nation.

The commission repeated its warning that unless nations acted decisively and urgently, it was more likely than not that a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013, and that the terrorists' weapon of choice would be biological, rather than nuclear.

The administration's delayed response to the H1N1 virus, the report concludes, demonstrated that the United States was "woefully behind in its ability to rapidly produce rapidly vaccines and therapeutics, essential steps for adequately responding to a biological threat, whether natural or man-made."

Even with time to prepare, the report noted, the epidemic peaked "before most Americans had access to vaccine."

And a bio-attack, it warned, would have no such warning.

The administration's lack of urgency was also reflected in its lack of priority on producing and distributing enough vaccines and other medical countermeasures for Americans, its reluctance to insist that hospitals have enough surge capacity to treat people who would be infected in a bioterror attack, and the lack of a national plan to coordinate federal, state and local efforts following a bioterror strike, the document asserts.

Ultimately, the commission chairman and vice chairman say, the "lack of preparedness" and "consistent lack of action" reflect "a failure of the U.S. government to grasp the threat of biological weapons."

Unlike its effort to prevent a nuclear attack, the Obama administration has shown "no equal sense of urgency" about preventing or responding to germ warfare that might cause comparable death and suffering, the commission concludes.

The report assigns 17 grades that it says highlight the issues of greatest priority in protecting Americans from WMD. The commission gave the administration a "D+" for its efforts to tighten oversight of high-containment labs in which experiments involving the deadliest pathogens are conducted. There were still far too many Federal, state, and local agencies regulating germs in sometimes conflicting ways, it states.

The commission also gave Congress a failing grade for failing to consolidate the estimated 82 to 108 committees and subcommittees that oversee some part of the Department of Homeland Security.

"Virtually no progress has been made since consolidation was first recommended by the 9/11 Commission in 2004," the report asserts.

The Graham/Talent WMD Commission, as it is known, is a legacy of the 9/11 Commission, which recommended its creation to examine WMD proliferation threats in its own report. In December, 2008, the WMD commission concluded in its final report that American national security faced ever growing threats from unconventional weapons, and from biological weapons in particular.

Its report, "World at Risk," unanimously concluded that bioterrorism was the most likely WMD threat the nation confronted given the exponential growth of biological technology and the stated desire of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to acquire such weapons. It called upon the administration to take 13 steps to reduce America's vulnerability to such an attack. The new report card assesses the progress that the Obama administration has made in implementing its recommendations.

The report is not uniformly negative. It gives the Administration high marks -- an "A" -- for the reviews it has conducted into how best to store and secure dangerous pathogens, and two "A-minus" grades for appointing a WMD coordinator and restructuring how the White House oversees homeland security issues.

But it warns that such steps are not commensurate with the threat the nation faces from terrorist groups searching for unconventional weapons in asymmetrical warfare.

Palin: Mr. President: Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!"

(Facebook post).We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

Obama: I rather be a good One term President; Krauthammer: He is a Mediocre One Term President..

Quinnipiac poll: Rubio Leads Crist in Florida 47-44

A new Quinnipiac poll in Florida finds Marco Rubio (R) now leading Gov. Charlie Crist (R) in the Republican race for U.S. Senate, 47% to 44%.

Pollster Peter Brown: "Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads. He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead. And, the horse race numbers are not a fluke. Rubio also tops Crist on a number of other measurements from registered Republicans, who are the only folks who can vote in the primary. Rubio's grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off."

Rubio also beats Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) in a general election match up, 44% to 35%. Crist leads Meek, 48% to 36%.

Rubio gets a 32 - 14 percent favorability rating among Florida voters, with 53 percent who don't know enough about him to form an opinion. Republicans give him a 53 - 4 percent favorability, with 42 percent who don't know enough. Although Democrats view him negatively 25 - 7 percent, 34 percent of independent voters rate him favorably, with 13 percent unfavorable and 52 percent who don't know enough about him.

Crist is viewed favorably among Republicans 64 - 27 percent, 46 - 42 percent among Democrats and 51 - 36 percent among independents.

John Boehner: MA Election Was a Clear Repudiation of the Policies Coming Out of This Administration

"The election in Massachusetts, the election in New Jersey and Virginia is a clear repudiation of the policies coming out of this administration and this congress, whether it's health care, whether is the all the spending, the debt, the bailouts, the national energy tax, the American people are saying enough's enough. Another thing the American people are asking is where are the jobs. It's the issue that the American people want us to focus on, not another stimulus bill"

"The Divided States of Obama" - Gallup: Obama would exceed Bush as Most Polarized President

The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

"Prior to Ronald Reagan, no president averaged more than a 40-point gap in approval ratings by party during his term; since then, only the elder George Bush has averaged less than a 50-point gap."

Thus, the extraordinary level of polarization in Obama's first year in office is a combination of declining support from Republicans coupled with high and sustained approval from Democrats. In fact, his 88% average approval rating from his own party's supporters is exceeded only by George W. Bush's 92% during Bush's first year in office. Obama's 23% approval among supporters of the opposition party matches Bill Clinton's for the lowest for a first-year president. But Clinton was less popular among Democrats than Obama has been to date, making Obama's ratings more polarized.

Obama still has three years left in his first term and possibly seven more as president, so there is much time for the polarization of his approval ratings to subside. However, if the current level of polarization persists through the end of his term, Obama would exceed Bush as the president with the most polarized approval ratings.

Bush's average Republican-Democratic gap for his eight years in office was 61 points. This included the record gap for a single approval rating: 83 points, which occurred twice -- in September 2004 (95% Republican, 12% Democratic) and October 2004 (94% Republican, 11% Democratic).

The political divide in Bush's ratings is to some extent understated, though, given the rally in public support for Bush after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, when he received record-high approval ratings. Even with these approval ratings, he averaged a 55-point gap in approval by party during his first term. During his second term, the average party gap in his ratings was 68 points, higher than Obama's to date.

The accompanying graph makes clear how much the level of political polarization has grown in Americans' evaluations of presidents in recent decades. Prior to Ronald Reagan, no president averaged more than a 40-point gap in approval ratings by party during his term; since then, only the elder George Bush has averaged less than a 50-point gap, including Obama's average 65-point gap to date.

No wonder our Economy is so bad, Obama is busy online all day

(from Washington post)....Obama is the first truly wired president, the first to have Internet access at his desk and to converse regularly via e-mail. This fingertip access sends him "constantly" online, said one senior adviser, and the information he finds there influences his thinking and some of his deliberations. He also "uses the Internet like a normal adult," said another aide, "reading news articles, checking sports scores."

As for what Obama reads online, his advisers said he looks for offbeat blogs and news stories, tracking down firsthand reporting and seeking out writers with opinions about his policies. Obama was particularly interested in Atlantic Online's Andrew Sullivan's tweeting of the Iranian elections last year, said an aide, who requested anonymity to discuss what influences the president.

After losing 3 campaign active contests, Obama still sure about himself - “The Big Difference” Between '10 and '94 “Is Me”

(ABCnews).Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

Asked today by ABC News’ Yunji de Nies if the president said that, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pleaded ignorance.

“I have not talked to the president about that,” Gibbs said, employing one of his favorite dodges.

Gibbs seemed to suggest that he shared that view, whether or not President Obama said it.

“I hope it's not newsworthy to think that the president hopes and expects to be an effective campaigner in the midterm elections,” Gibbs said.

Berry told the newspaper that he “began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out…I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”

I'm sorry i voted for Obama, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma

(Jill Dorson-RCP).I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.

I'm not sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.

Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.

You see, I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world's most well-known hockey mom run this country, or to believe that Obama would surround himself with educated people and that he was smart enough to take their advice.

I was right. He is smart enough to seek counsel. I'm just outraged at the counsel he's seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.

I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush's was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

But McCain made it easy. He's a smart man, I don't doubt that. But between picking Palin, suggesting that the first debates be delayed and, well, picking Palin, he made it easy for Obama to win. As Election Day drew near, all Obama had to do was keep his mouth shut to win.

All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.

I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush's lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed "too big to fail." What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged - perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.

Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country's future into oblivion.

It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I'd made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for "big government."

Like many others, my view is narrow. I vote for the candidate I think will be best for me. I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But above all, I want to feel safe and I don't want to feel that I am being ripped off. I want a president who inspires me and cares about my contribution to the fabric of the country. I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.

I only hope the Republicans can find him the next time around.

President Obama to reintroduce himself as 'Candidate Obama' during State of the Union address

(Yahoo).President Obama will have a chance Wednesday to reintroduce himself to the nation when he delivers his first official State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.

The prime-time speech, which will be aired on all major TV networks and cable stations, could hardly come at a more critical time for a president grappling with double-digit unemployment, sinking poll numbers and the possible collapse of his top domestic policy priority, an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

"As often as the president has spoken over the past year, critics on the right and left have largely defined him," says University of Notre Dame American studies professor Robert Schmuhl. "For the State of the Union, he needs to redefine himself, who he is politically and what his core principles and policies are."

In Ohio on Friday, just three days after Democrats lost the 60th Senate vote that gave them an edge in pushing their agenda through Congress, Obama struck a decidedly populist tone.

Shunning a necktie for a midday town hall-style meeting in Elyria, Obama told the crowd again and again that he'll "never stop fighting" for them on issues from health care and jobs to education and accountability.



On Wednesday, however, the setting will be decidedly different: formal and steeped in history and tradition.

When he speaks to the nation from the House of Representatives' chamber, he will take "the biggest stage the president has" to speak to the people, says Michael Gerson, White House speechwriter for George W. Bush.

How he responds to last week's message from Massachusetts voters, who gave Republican Scott Brown the seat held by Sen. Edward Kennedy for nearly five decades, could set the political course for the next year and beyond.

"It's the moment when everybody's watching and when people take the measure of how he responds," Gerson says. The speech will tell voters and members of Congress, "this is the Obama strategy" after the Massachusetts election.

Inside the White House, the political strategy already has shifted. David Plouffe, who managed Obama's presidential campaign, has been tapped by the president to help Democrats stave off big losses in next fall's elections.

For Wednesday's speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says it was always the plan for Obama to focus mainly on jobs and the economy and there have been no major rewrites of the speech to account for Tuesday's election. On Sunday, senior White House adviser David Axelrod told CNN's State of the Union that the nation will hear Obama's "ideas about additional steps that we can take to help create and stir hiring around the country."

Others say there ought to be some readjustment, in tone and substance from a president whose approval rating is now at 48% in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

Dee Dee Myers, former president Bill Clinton's first White House press secretary, says Obama needs to "show some contrition" and let voters know that "he gets it" on health care and frustration with the slow pace of the economic rebound. She says Obama should acknowledge that the Democrats went about overhauling health care "in a way that left people with more questions than comfort."

At the same time, she says, he's got to show some spunk — without being artificially populist, a mantle not in keeping with his personality. Too often, "Obama seems like he tries to talk everyone into what he believes — and that's part of why we elected him, because he's a calm, reasonable guy — but behind that, there has to be some fight. You have to be able to take a few punches and throw a few punches."

Wayne Fields, an English professor at Washington University in St. Louis and author of Union of Words: A History of Presidential Eloquence, says Obama is at his best when he explains difficult issues as a teacher would.

"The crucial thing for him, first of all, is to be calm," Fields says. "He needs to make it clear he's not shaken by all of this." After setting that tone, he should remind people that the nation's "problems are hard and complicated and the responses are experimental."

O-BYE-MA! Huckabee leads Obama 45-44,Romney trails 42-44, Romney the most Popular GOP candidate among Independents

(PPP).For the first time in one of our monthly polls looking ahead to the 2012 Presidential election Barack Obama trails one of his hypothetical opponents, albeit by the smallest of margins.

Mike Huckabee has a 45-44 advantage over Obama, aided largely by a 44-38 lead with independents. There continues to be no evidence of any negative fallout for Huckabee after murders of police officers committed by an ex-Arkansas inmate whose sentence he had commuted. His 35/29 favorability breakdown is actually slightly better than it was in November before that incident.

Mitt Romney does the next best, trailing Obama 44-42. His favorability is 36/32, and he's the most popular Republican among independents (41/32). Romney actually matches Huckabee with GOP voters this month and gets over 50%, ending a trend in his numbers that had seemed to spell difficulty for snagging a Republican nomination.

Sarah Palin trails Obama 49-41 largely because she loses 14% of the Republican vote to him, making her the only one of the GOP candidates we tested who Obama could get double digit crossover support against. At the same time Palin continues to be the most well liked potential GOP candidate within her party- at 71% favorability. Her problem appears to be that the Republicans who don't care for her will go so far as to vote for Obama instead of her.

Finally our blog readers voted for David Petraeus as our wild card Republican this month and his numbers come out as a mixed bag. He has the largest deficit against Obama, trailing 44-34. But at +13 his net favorability is better than the President or any of the other Republicans we tested. The problem for him is that the numbers break down 25/12- 63% of voters in the country don't know enough about him to have formed an opinion. Who knows if Petraeus would actually have any interest in going into politics, but if he did he would be introducing himself to many voters for the first time.

Is it a big deal that Barack Obama trails Mike Huckabee by a single point in January 2010? Not really- we're mostly doing this poll every month so that we can have the tracking data over time. But it does reflect the reality that Obama has work to do in winning back over some of the folks who voted for him in 2008

Fox news poll: Mitt Romney best candidate against Obama in '12 - as 18% undecided could easily shift his way

(Foxnews)...With the president having been in office for about a year, 43 percent of Americans say they would vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the 2012 election were held today, which is unchanged from October, yet is down from 52 percent who said they would re-elect him in April.

All in all, 47 percent of Americans say they would vote for someone else rather than re-electing President Obama, up from 31 percent in April.

Moreover, the number saying they would "definitely" vote to re-elect Obama has declined -- going from 37 percent in April to 26 percent in October to 23 percent in the new poll.

Among Democrats, 46 percent say they would "definitely" vote to re-elect Obama, down from 69 percent in April. Similarly, among people who voted for Obama in the 2008 election, the poll shows 43 percent would "definitely" vote to re-elect him, down from 57 percent.

In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, President Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested.

By 47 percent to 35 percent Obama bests former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Obama leads only by 15% among independents, The president has an even wider edge over former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (55 percent to 31 percent), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (53 percent to 29 percent).

Loud warning to Obama - Republican win in Massachusetts represents win of mainstream US worldview

(Yoram Ettinger-Ynet).Scott Brown's victory constitutes an unprecedented earthquake in US politics. If a Massachusetts Senate seat is not safe, then no House, Senate or White House seat is safe anymore!

Scott Brown's victory dealt a severe blow to the Democratic Party in its own Flag Ship, Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedy family and Tip O'Neil, the state which introduced the healthcare reform, the only state which voted for McGovern in 1972, the state which had not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke in 1972, the state which accorded President Obama a 26% margin in 2008, a state where only 12% of the registered voters are Republicans.

Brown's election highlights a victory of the unique US democracy, which revolves around constituents and not around the president, Congress or political parties. Massachusetts voters supported Brown in defiance of the Republican machine, which did not consider him a worthy candidate at the beginning of the race, and in defiance of the Democratic machine, which attempted to discredit him.

Brown's victory is an indicator of Obama's desertion by Independents, who represent 51% of the Massachusetts electorate and 33% of US voters. From a 31% deficit 45 days ago, Brown surged ahead by 4% due to the Independent bloc, which voted Obama in 2008, was frustrated by Obama's performance in 2009 and considers Scott Brown an effective venue to send a loud warning to the White House.

Brown's victory will cause aftershocks throughout the USA in general and in the White House, 100 Senate offices and 435 House offices in particular. The victory has adrenalized Republicans, ahead of the spring 2010 primaries and the November 2010 congressional and gubernatorial election. It entices better candidates to enter the Republican primaries and generates more campaign contributions to Republican war chests.

On the other hand, it is already causing sleepless nights for Democratic incumbents and increases the potential for retirement and possible switchovers among moderate and conservative Democrats. The closer they get to November, the closer they get to their constituents, and therefore the farther away they may want to get from the president.

Brown's victory – on the day of Obama's first Presidential anniversary – confirms that the November 2009 election was indeed a validation of Obama's collapse in public opinion, of the growing public disappointment in Obama's character and capabilities and of Obama's increasing vulnerability at home and abroad. Brown targeted for criticism Obama's domestic and international policies. The Senator-elect represents the majority of the US public, which suspects – rightly or wrongly - that Obama is about to defy an American ethos by increasing taxes, exacerbating the budget deficit and expanding government involvement in the economy.

Brown has also criticized the White House soft position on Islamic terrorism and harsh attitude toward the CIA: "The President should bolster the armed forces and not bolster legal defense of terrorists."

Brown's victory was achieved in spite of – and due to – the intense involvement of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel in Obama's policy-making and in the Massachusetts election. Once again, it was evident that – in the US political arena - arrogance, rudeness, scorn and aggression drive voters away from elected officials. It constitutes a lethal boomerang.

Brown's election represents the victory of America's mainstream worldview over the worldview of President Obama. Brown represents non-apologetic patriotism, belief in liberty for the people and checks and balances for the government, Judeo-Christian values, pride in the moral, military, technological and economic US exceptionalism, reservations about the UN and the European state-of-mind, determination to defeat – and not to engage – rogue regimes, supporting mutually-beneficial cooperation with allies, which are bonded by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

The "Optimism for America" Election night broadcast with Jacob K. & Kristee Kelley

Scott Brown’s Twelve Keys To Victory…

(Neil Newhouse-POS.org).In addition to the #1 factor, which is Scott himself and his ability to connect with voters, following are the ten OTHER keys to Scott Brown’s victory:

1. Scott Brown.
This was his victory. Simply put, a terrific candidate. Never underestimate the impact of an articulate candidate with a compelling message.

2. The truck.
Scott’s pick-up truck and the ad showing him driving it around the state helped give depth to the image of him as a “regular guy” as well as reinforced the fact that he was actually out there campaigning, asking people for their support.

3. Coakley’s ill-timed vacation.
Nailing into voters’ minds the thought that Coakley believed she had the race wrapped up, she went on vacation in December. Voters noticed and later told us they believed she intended “to back into the seat.”

4. Not “Kennedy’s seat.”
This “Nashua moment,” courtesy of David Gergen at the January 11 debate, became a rallying cry for Scott and his supporters and helped frame the election as between the political insiders and the people, which was only exacerbated over the final days as Martha Coakley brought in name Democrats to provide her a lifeline.

5. Coakley’s negative advertising/Scott Brown’s response.
Anticipating a negative onslaught from the Coakley campaign, Scott’s internal ad team (hats off to Eric Fehrnstrom) cut a perfect Brown response ad aimed at Coakley for turning to a negative campaign. So, whose image changed after the negative ad and rebuttal went on the air? Coakley’s. It took just three days for her image to fall from +24 to “one-to-one.”

6. Brown’s Intensity Advantage.
Over the last ten days of this race Massachusetts voters fell hard for Scott Brown. His “very favorable” image increased ten points over the last week or so of the campaign, while Coakley’s image intensity was flat-lining.

7. Independent women.
These voters were a tough sell for Scott Brown, supporting Coakley by ten points just ten days ago. But all that changed after the January 11th debate and subsequent negative Coakley advertising onslaught, as these voters went into the final days giving Scott a two-to-one advantage.

8. DC Fundraiser?
Seriously, Martha Coakley’s image was already imploding after the January 11th debate and the launch of the negative advertising, and yet the decision is made to send her to DC on January 13th for a PAC fundraiser? With health care lobbyists? Where she watches as an aide pushes down a reporter trying to ask a question?

9. “Bloody sock.”
Curt Schilling a Yankee fan? Good joke. This, coupled with her tone-deaf shot at Scott for his grassroots campaigning at the New Year’s Day Bruins game at Fenway Park reinforced her elitist image.

10. Ayla and Arianna.
The two Brown daughters were stars in the campaign in helping get Scott’s message across and in deflating the over the top negative attacks against Scott. Ayla’s recorded phone calls were mentioned by voters as helping convince them to support Scott.

11. Fund-raising.
This is one for the record books. The daily totals were staggering. And, the campaign clearly understood the nexus between Scott’s visibility on conservative-tilted national news programs and the ability to raise money on-line.

With Republicans completely out of power, Scott’s on-line success suggests that the huge Democratic advantage on-line can be overcome by an energized national conservative base.

12. The Brown Team
There was an amazing combination of political expertise brought together for this abbreviated race For a state so bereft of GOP officeholders, it’s a gold mine of political talent. It was a seamless and self-less effort made possible by the NRSC and Mitt Romney’s on-the-ground team that made the difference here.

WSJ/NBC Poll: 41% want a Republican Congress, among highly interested voters Republicans are preferred 50-35

(WSJ).As Barack Obama enters his second year in office amid an enduring economic downturn, voters are less optimistic about his ability to succeed and no longer clearly favor keeping the Democrats in control of Congress, according to the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The trends point to an increasingly difficult political climate for President Obama as he hopes to push his domestic agenda beyond health care this year and preserve his party's majorities in the House and Senate. The severity of that climate, in fact, was promptly underscored by Democrats' surprising loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts Tuesday. The seat of the late Edward Kennedy went to a conservative Republican, Scott Brown, in one of the nation's bluest states.

That may not be an anomaly. Nationally, the new survey finds, voters now are evenly split over which party they hope will run Capitol Hill after the November elections—the first time Democrats haven't had the edge on that question since December 2003.

Moreover, Republicans are far more excited than Democrats to turn out and vote in November: 55% of Republican voters said they were "very interested" in the election, compared with 38% of Democrats.

Three-quarters said they liked Mr. Obama, who put his political capital on the line by campaigning for fellow Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. But just 22% said they were "optimistic and confident" about his presidency—a 10-point decline from a year ago. By comparison, 27% were "pessimistic and worried" about his presidency, compared with just 9% a year ago, when many hoped he would lead the nation into an economic recovery.

Overall, 48% said they approved of the job Mr. Obama is doing, while 43% disapproved—about the same as last month but down sharply from approval ratings in the 60% range in his early months in office.

The numbers reflect the stubborn economic slump in which joblessness stands at 10% and many Americans are angry about government bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry. "This president came in under extremely difficult circumstances, but the expectations were Rooseveltian, and he has been far more ordinary," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "They like him, but year two will determine whether they see him as the leader to solve our problems rather than just a charming,

Brown Campaign Could Provide Blueprint for Future GOP Success

(FOXNews).For GOP candidate Scott Brown to surge in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972 and is represented entirely by Democrats in Congress, he must have done something right.

And the Republican Party should be taking notes, analysts say, to try to replicate his strategy in races across the country in a year when GOP candidates are thought to be starting out with the upper hand.

With his victory Tuesday, the Massachusetts state senator proved that a Republican can be competitive in the bluest of states or districts.

"Every Republican long shot in America -- for House seats, Senate seats, gubernatorial contests, is going to shout in unison, Remember Scott Brown," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Surely the GOP state senator benefited from some unique circumstances. Democrat Martha Coakley made missteps in the closing weeks of the race and has been criticized for not being pro-active enough in protecting what was once her substantial lead. The race also generated tremendous national interest because of Brown's ability to break the Democrats' supermajority should he win.

But Brown practiced a certain practical conservatism in his campaign which appealed to voters, not unlike Chris Christie in the race for New Jersey governor and Bob McDonnell in the race for Virginia governor.

By concentrating on fiscal issues and focusing his criticism on the national Obama administration agenda, Republicans said, Brown brought himself to the verge of an upset.

"The lesson I take away from Massachusetts, win or lose, and New Jersey and Virginia prior to that, is there is no penalty to be paid for opposing the Obama agenda," said GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli. "All three of these elections were nationalized."

He said GOP candidates have to stand for something and they can't just present themselves as the anti-Obama candidate. But he said Brown achieved this balance -- noting that Brown, an Army reservist and seasoned state legislator, hardly came out of nowhere.

"I'm not suggesting that somebody can just come out of the blue and do this. We have to recruit good candidates," Donatelli said. He predicted the Massachusetts race would be "rocket fuel" for those efforts, as well as for fundraising.

John Feehery, a Republican strategist and past aide to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said Brown surged because he appealed to fiscal conservative beliefs -- not necessarily Republican Party talking points.

"Brown really did kind of emphasize fiscal issues, and that is a thing that unites the independents with the more traditional Republican base and the tea partiers," he said.

He said Brown did well by not presenting himself as a Washington Republican. Driving around the state in his pickup truck, Brown referred to himself as a "Scott Brown Republican" in what appeared to be an appeal to independents. Instead of dragging out the party brass to support him, Brown enlisted figures like former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling and actor John Ratzenberger.

"People don't want lockstep," Feehery said. "They want independent thought and somebody who's going to be an independent check on Obama."

Scott Brown's Victory speech - "This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party... This is the people's seat."

Mitt Romney on Hannity: Obama lost a referendum on his agenda

Gasing up The Truck to Washington - Scott Brown Wins MA Senate seat

(Newsmax).In one of the most shocking turnabouts in modern political history, GOP underdog Scott Brown has single-handedly captured the so-called "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts, wiped out the Democratic supermajority in Congress, and pushed the president's Obamacare agenda to the very brink of a stunning defeat.

Just before 9:30 p.m., The Associated Press declared Brown the winner, and Democrat Martha Coakley called him to concede. At the time Brown was declared the winner, returns showed him comfortably ahead by a margin of 52 percent to 47 percent.

Given Obama's personal investment in the race, the results represented a sharp rebuke of the president's healthcare reforms and big-government agenda.

Even before the polls closed, bitter accusations were hurled between defeated Democrat Martha Coakley and state Democratic officials over who was to blame for the debacle.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Fox News commentator and best-selling author Dick Morris discussed the astounding result: "It certainly is the revisiting of the shot heard 'round the world, which was originally made in Lexington and Concorde, Mass. … that absolutely was what happened tonight.

"A shot was fired that will be heard around the world. The most liberal seat in the most liberal state went Republican. And it didn't go for a squishy Olympia Snowe Republican. It went for a real Republican."

Morris added: "It marks the last bill Obama is ever going to pass of any consequence, except for bipartisan stuff. This is the end of the Obama ascendancy, because he has so systematically alienated the 40 Republicans, that now that there are 41, none of them is going to give him the right time of day.

And this really marks the end of Obama's attempts to reshape the United States," Morris said. "He'll try, but he won't succeed.

Despite polls showing Brown surging powerfully in the campaign's waning days, the Democratic machine's ability to turn out the vote and bad weather in Republican-leaning precincts left the election in doubt.

Throughout the day, reports of heavy turnout left observers perplexed over whether this favored Coakley given Democrats three-to-one registration advantage, or Brown due to a strong protest vote marching to the polls.

As the early returns began to pour in, Brown quickly jumped out to a comfortable lead, an advantage he held consistently as the night progressed.

Speaking before the outcome was announced, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said a Brown win would be "the biggest upset I've ever seen in my lifetime."

As the outcome became apparent, analysts expressed shock. After all, Obama carried the state with 62 percent of the vote in November 2008. The stunning Democratic setback came hard on the heels of embarrassing defeats in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey.

Longtime GOP political strategist Roger Stone called the outcome "A victory beyond conventional wisdom or belief." In an exclusive Newsmax interview, he compared the result's impact to the post-Watergate shift to the Democrats in 1974, and the shift to the Republican sea change in 1994.

"Obama's victory in 2008 was clearly not a repudiation of conservatism or an endorsement of big government," Stone declared. Rather it was a referendum of George W. Bush. Sadly, Obama misread this.

"To elect a Republican to Ted Kennedy's seat, in the bluest of blues states, shows us how disgusted swing voters are with the administration. Obama pull his full prestige on the line by visiting Sunday, and now he tells us if Brown gets less than 60 percent it's a loss. Does the president really think Americans are that stupid?"

Yet Stone predicts that Tuesday's shocking result is just a harbinger of worse news to come for the administration.

"This is just the beginning of the tsunamis that will sweep 2010," Stone tells Newsmax. "But they will not reach full strength until 2012".

Mitt Romney on Morning Joe:'The People' Ought To Run This Country; Romneycare heck of alot better then Obamacare

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Romney on "Fox & Friends": People oppose the "neo-monarchist, royalist attitude coming out of Washington"

ON BROWN'S CHANCES TODAY:

"I think Scott Brown is going to win, I think it's going to surprise a lot of people; he is going to win pretty significantly. I think there is a very strong attitude here- we want to send Washington a signal, no more monarchy reign from on high."

"This is a lot bigger than a couple of gaffes by Martha Coakley."

ON WHY HE HAS NOT CAMPAIGNED IN MASSACHUESETES FOR BROWN:

"I've been out of state, but I've been doing what I can. For instance, we have a bunch of fundraisers for Scott, I've been making media appearances, my team is helping run his campaign."

ON THE MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA IF BROWN WINS THE BOSTON ELECTION:

"I personally think it is a very clear indication that the people in Massachusetts, like folks around the country, are affected by some of the same issues, such as a very weakened economy and they are upset about the ineptitude that's come from Washington."

ON WHETHER BOSTONIANS AND AMERICANS AS A WHOLE ARE “UPSET” BY THE STATUS QUO IN WASHINGTON:

"[T]hey are upset about the arrogance, there is sense of: we in Washington know better than the people, we are going to jam through whatever we want to do…and even though the people think they're wrong, and the evidence says wrong, we know better than the people."

"That kind of attitude has people here very, very concerned and I think it's a sentiment that is growing around the country"

ON THE GROWTH OF SCOTT BROWN'S POPULARITY:

"This is overwhelmingly an outpouring and a surge of support for Scott Brown and for his vision. He has been having rallies the last few days where thousands of people have been showing up…this is a movement, this isn't about a candidates strength and weakness."

"This is big; and, its something I think you are going to see going across the nation if you continue to have the kind of if you will neo-monarchist, royalist attitude coming out of Washington. People are saying, no, this is a democracy. The people want to be heard."

ON WHETHER THE PEOPLE IN MASSACHUSETTES ARE UPSET ABOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE:

"I think healthcare has a lot to do with this…Obamacare would be a very raw deal for the people of Massachusetts, we already have a system that's working here…people would have to pay more taxes to their Medicare cut, they don't want Obamacare, they'd rather have what we've got here."

Hope is the final push in MA Senate special election

By Karl Vick and Paul Kane-WApo).On the eve of the Senate election that could determine the fate of President Obama's agenda, Democrats scrambled to build a firebreak around the candidacy of Martha Coakley against the phenomenon of Scott Brown, the Republican Massachusetts state senator whose underdog campaign has surged as the vessel for national opposition to the Democrats' supermajority in the chamber.

Both teams, reinforced by senior political operatives from Washington and bevies of volunteers from beyond Massachusetts, made ardent appeals for supporters to brave freezing temperatures to vote in Tuesday's special election to fill the seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy (D).

Democrats focused on trying to persuade independent women to vote for Coakley, who would become the first female senator from the Bay State. Republicans championed Brown as the best brake on runaway spending in Washington.

"We are going to bring this home tomorrow," Coakley said to cheers in a half-filled middle school gymnasium in Framingham, a Boston suburb where she made her fourth of six stops Monday. "Let's get to work."

Enthusiastic crowds greeted Brown, whose prospects sharply ascended when his candidacy was identified as an opportunity to deprive Democrats of the 60th vote required to stop debate on health-care reform, an issue that was Kennedy's lifelong quest. Chants of "Forty-one!" broke out at his campaign stops.
ad_icon

"I'm up in some polls, down in others," said Brown, who has based his campaign on soliciting independents and even Democrats. "We'll see tomorrow."

Several late polls suggested that Brown's remarkable surge may be pushing him beyond the dead heat where the race appeared to be a week ago. Over the weekend, Suffolk University surveyed three Massachusetts communities where past returns have mirrored statewide results, and found Brown leading by 14 to 17 percentage points.

A Brown campaign official predicted that independent voters rallying to the insurgent Republican would push turnout above 50 percent, twice that of the last special election.

"The enthusiasm is just unbelievable," said Brad Marston, a Brown campaign volunteer who was handing out placards. The placard features the candidate's name on a field of brown, and stylized lines curving in the "o" of Brown. The image, like the campaign itself, summons deliberate associations with the campaign of the president it has arrayed itself against.

"The half of my family who voted for Obama are for Brown," said Dennis Sheehan, an electrical technician from Lowell, who cheered the Senate candidate outside a Boston Bruins game. "They felt sold out. He said he'd bring the whole country together. I've never seen the country so divided in my life, and I grew up in the '60s, with Vietnam."

Brown has called his effort "the politics of hope" and, like candidate Obama did, admonished campaign workers to maintain courtesies -- at a Saturday stop in a call center in Worcester, he even complimented the "very respectful" behavior of the Democratic "trackers," the fixtures of modern campaigning who record a candidate's every move on video.

Suffolk Poll: Brown surges to double-digit solid lead over Coakley 55-40

(FOX25, myfoxboston) - A poll released a day before the special Senate race shows Senator Scott Brown surging to a double-digit lead over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the open Massachusetts Senate seat.

The shift in favor of the Republican Party is a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda.

Brown has surged to a double-digit lead over Coakley in three Massachusetts communities identified as bellwethers, according to the latest SuffolkUniversitybellwether polling of the race for U.S. Senate.

Gardner, Fitchburg and Peabody all show solid margins for Brown, the state senator running against Coakley. The cities were identified as bellwether communities because in the most recent "like election" - the November 2006 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Republican challenger Kenneth Chase - the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate. Additionally, party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup.

"Brown has continued to build on the momentum that we saw last week in the SuffolkUniversity statewide poll," said David Paleologos, director of the SuffolkUniversityPoliticalResearchCenter in Boston. "There's still a day left, and a number of factors, including weather, can affect turnout, but the latest bellwether polls suggest a solid lead for Brown."

SuffolkUniversity released a statewide poll Thursday, Jan. 14, that showed Brown (50 percent) leading Coakley (46 percent) by 4 points. The results showed a race within a margin of error of 4.38.

The bellwether polling, conducted Saturday, Jan. 16, and Sunday, Jan. 17, shows:



Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.



In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

Results of the November 2006 survey in the three bellwether communities closely traced the final statewide outcome.

Those 2006 results were as follows:

· Statewide: Edward M. Kennedy (D), 67%; Kenneth Chase (R), 29%; blanks, 4%
· Gardner: Kennedy, 68%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 3%
· Fitchburg: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 4%
· Peabody: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 29%; blanks, 4%

Party registration in the three bellwether communities largely mirrors statewide registration, with the following breakdown:

· Massachusetts statewide: Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 52%
· Gardner: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 53%
· Fitchburg: Democrats, 34%; Republicans, 11%; unenrolled, 55%
· Peabody: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 9%; unenrolled, 56%

Politico-IA poll has Brown leading +9, 52% to 43%.

A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted exclusively for POLITICO shows Republican Scott Brown surging to a 9-point advantage over Martha Coakley a day before Massachusetts voters trek to the ballot box to choose a new senator.

According to the survey conducted Sunday evening, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.

"I actually think the bottom is falling out," said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, referring to Coakley's fall in the polls over the last ten days. "I think that this candidate is in freefall. Clearly this race is imploding for her."

The numbers show males and independents overwhelmingly breaking for Brown, who has married his GQ looks with a populist tone in a pick-up truck on the campaign trail.

Brown holds a 15-point lead among males and crushes Coakley by 41 points among self-described independents, a group that's been steadily inching away from the Democratic party over the last year due to growing apprehension with government spending, bailouts and health care reform.

"Men are not going to vote for Coakley at all. You have a very angry male voter who's repudiating whatever is being said in Washington and they're taking it out on this woman. And independents are clearly going to the Republican in droves. What's left are the Democratic voters," said Towery, who is a former aide to Newt Gingrich.

And the survey shows almost a quarter of Democratic voters lining up with Brown.

Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46; Leads Ind. 64-32

(PPP).Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in our final Massachusetts Senate poll, an advantage that is within the margin of error for the poll.

Over the last week Brown has continued his dominance with independents and increased his ability to win over Obama voters as Coakley's favorability numbers have declined into negative territory. At the same time Democratic leaning voters have started to take more interest in the election, a trend that if it continues in the final 36 hours of the campaign could put her over the finish line.

Here's what we found:

-Brown is up 64-32 with independents and is winning 20% of the vote from people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 while Coakley is getting just 4% of the McCain vote.

-Brown's voters continue to be much more enthusiastic than Coakley's. 80% of his say they're 'very excited' about voting Tuesday while only 60% of hers express that sentiment. But the likely electorate now reports having voted for Barack Obama by 19 points, up from 16 a week ago, and a much smaller drop from his 26 point victory in the state than was seen in Virginia.

-Those planning to turn out continue to be skeptical of the Democratic health care plan, saying they oppose it by a 48/40 margin.

-Coakley's favorability dropped from 50% to 44% after a week filled with perceived missteps. Brown's negatives went up a lot but his positives only actually went from 57% to 56%, an indication that attacks against him may have been most effective with voters already planning to support Coakley but ambivalent toward Brown.

-56% of voters in the state think Brown has made a strong case for why he should be elected while just 41% say the same of Coakley. Even among Coakley's supporters only 73% think she's made the argument for herself, while 94% of Brown's supporters think he has.