Limbaugh: 'Greater embarrassment' than losing Olympics: "They love a weakened, neutered U.S"

(POLITICO 44).Conservatives pounced on the the Nobel Prize committee's decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, with talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh calling it a "greater embarrassment" than losing the Olympics.

"This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama," Limbaugh told POLITICO in an e-mail. "And with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States."

Limbaugh continued: "They love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too."

UPDATE: Limbaugh on his friday show:

“Don’t worry about it Mr. President, your day is coming. Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton. You see a pattern here folks? Liberal sell-outs – Liberal sell-outs get this prize. George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims, Ronald Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans, saves parts of Latin America. Any awards? No, just derision. Obama gives speeches trashing his own country, and he gets a prize for it…

“This is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympics bid was. And with this award – and Obama got it right – He knows exactly why he was given this award. The elites of the world are urging him, a man of peace, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, they are urging him not to take on Iran. Thats what this – if you want to get serious for a minute – that is what this is really all about".

The Nobel award comes a week to the day after Obama's personal pitch for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago was rejected by the International Olympic Committee.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele echoed the view: “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

And conservative strategist Craig Shirley said on POLITICO’s The Arena: “Utterly ridiculous. The credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize has been dwindling downward for years and now it has hit rock bottom.. . . Reagan won the Cold War, freed millions, yet was never awarded the Nobel.”

Even as some conservatives ridiculed the award, others in the GOP expressed more caution, not wanting to simply trample on what will be a great source of pride for many in the country.

Mike Huckabee urged restraint."There will be an outcry from those on the right who will say that Obama's nomination, made two weeks into his Presidency, is impossible to justify, but I think such an outcry will sound like right-wing whining," Huckabee said in a statement. "The better response is simply to allow those on the left to explain what he did in his first two weeks as President that merited such recognition."

Nobal Prize is No Game changer for Obama

(Chris Cillizza-in live chat on The Fix)...My guess is that both sides will try to use the surprising award for their own partisan purposes -- Democrats will tout it as tangible evidence that Obama has changed how the U.S. is viewed in the world, Republicans will argue this is yet another victory of style over substance for Obama -- and the people in the vast ideological middle will probably see the prize as nice (if a bit premature) and go on with their day.

I do think winning the Nobel will help bolster Obama's credibility within his own party on Afghanistan, which is a potentially sticky wicket given the concerns many Democrats have about repeating the mistakes the Bush Administration made in Iraq.

But, if the initial reaction from Republicans is any indication, Obama winning the Nobel is not a political game-changer in any real way. Rather than congratulating him, Republicans have been very aggressive in questioning how a president who had been in office for two weeks when the nomination period ended could have possibly won.

Remember that Obama made a much-ballyhooed (and much criticized by Republicans) trip to Europe last summer when he was still a candidate for president.

The message of that trip -- and of Obama's campaign more broadly -- was that he represented a sharp contrast with the Bush Administration's approach to America's place in the world.

My guess is that messaging -- and the excitement it generated in Europe -- had as much if not more to do with Obama winning the award than what he has done since coming into office.

Romney Reboots - Thinking about 2012

RAMESH PONNURU-NRO).In the early stages of the undeclared race for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner. The former governor of Massachusetts has the best-developed national network of supporters of any of the potential candidates. He is the one doing the most party-building across the country; of his potential rivals, only Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty comes close. He is the one to whom other Republicans are most likely to turn for answers on economic policy, and on many issues he is the only one giving them. When the auto companies came to Washington only Romney had a plan (“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check,” he wrote in the New York Times).

He knows more about a larger range of policy issues than most of the other Republican candidates. All the candidates can, presumably, say something plausible about Afghanistan; not many can give a credible answer to a question about the role mark-to-market accounting rules played in the financial crisis, as Romney recently did in an interview with me.

A Republican strategist with no ties to Romney recently heard him speak and came away impressed by how much better a speaker he has become. “His stump speech has gotten very, very good. It’s very honed.” In a recent Rasmussen poll, Romney narrowly beat Sarah Palin as the candidate Republican voters most favored. Even the narrowness of that win may work to his advantage. Romney is not so far out in front that he has to worry about meeting high expectations. Nor has he ever made himself the center of attention. Thus he has avoided much criticism and kept voters from getting bored with him. He has been detached and analytical rather than angry.

Romney still has his old-fashioned leading-man looks. He is seasoned. (Only once in the last 50 years have Republicans won with a nominee making his first run for president.) And his aides think they have learned from the mistakes they made in 2007 and 2008. Romney has had an excellent 2009.

Then again, George Allen had a pretty good 2005. At that time Senator Allen and Sen. Bill Frist were counted as two of the party’s top contenders for the 2008 nomination. Both were out of public life by the time the election year came. Romney is in a different situation than either of those men. But he faces a formidable list of obstacles, both old and new.

One theory that has received a thorough airing in the press is that Romney made a mistake in moving to the right in the run-up to the 2008 primaries: that he should have run as a problem-solver rather than a culture warrior and thus avoided charges of flip-flopping. The theory, in its strongest form, is dubious. Romney was never going to oust Rudolph Giuliani from the competent-pro-choicer niche, and it turned out in any case not to be a promising place from which to run for the Republican nomination. Becoming a pro-life politician was expedient as well as just. And it’s not as though Romney could have ducked on same-sex marriage once his state became the only one in the country to recognize it, and by judicial fiat to boot.

Romney’s current and former consultants tend to agree about what he did wrong last time. They do not fault the flip-flops. But “inauthentic” is a word that often comes up. “It’s a matter of emphasis,” says one former adviser. “He emphasized issues that didn’t fit his profile. The volume, the way he presented them, didn’t fit with who he is.” This adviser cites Romney’s attacks on McCain and Giuliani over their support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Another ’08 veteran agrees that Romney was badly positioned but mostly blames reporters. “They wanted to write the Mormon story and the abortion flip-flop story. And then in Iowa when the marriage issue [came] up, you [had] to talk about it.”

These Romneyites do not believe that the governor should abandon his conservative positions on the social issues. Most of them share those positions, and also know that flip-flopping again would render Romney ridiculous. They just want him to avoid emphasizing the social issues. It is advice he appears to be taking to heart. Economics and foreign policy, in that order, have been the focus of his public comments. His critique of Obama has been that the president is endangering our currency by spending so much on domestic programs, threatening our security by cutting defense spending, and reducing our credibility with allies by drawing closer to our enemies. Romney has not complained about Obama’s social liberalism. At one point, Romney was fighting against liberal policies on stem cells more actively than any other governor in the country. When I asked him about Obama’s record on the subject, he began his answer by noting that he had not been following it much over the last year.

This new strategy of playing down social issues raises the question of how the candidate should handle the Iowa caucuses. For much of 2007 Romney banked on winning Iowa (based on his social conservatism and money) and New Hampshire (based on his fiscal conservatism, money, and proximity) and thus establishing the momentum to win the nomination. After he lost Iowa to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, whose late surge took many observers by surprise, he never quite recovered. Some Romney supporters believe that hostility to Mormons among evangelical voters in Iowa doomed him, and that the effort to appeal to those voters forced him to overemphasize the social issues. Others say that his mistake was to have a more or less openly announced strategy that required him to win the state, and that better management of expectations would make a second-place finish there next time respectable. (The loss last time should keep those expectations in check.)

All these advisers may, however, be looking at Romney’s options too narrowly. Romney’s strategy in the last campaign was not to run as the social conservatives’ candidate. It was to run as the movement-conservative candidate. Throughout the primary he claimed that he best represented what he called “the three legs of the stool” holding up conservatism, with the legs representing conservative positions on social issues, economics, and foreign policy. The attempt to rally his party’s right made a certain strategic sense. Giuliani and John McCain started the primary season with higher profiles than Romney and, in different ways, represented the party’s left wing. Running to the right thus presented Romney with an opportunity.

Yet it is extremely difficult — more difficult than many people realize — to capture the Republican presidential nomination from the right in the modern era. The politics of religion largely account for this difficulty. The movement candidacy always runs a risk of being destroyed by an evangelical candidacy. No movement candidate can win without strong support from evangelical voters. But an evangelical candidate running on the basis of his religion can win a lot of votes from his coreligionists, and thus block the movement candidate’s progress, without being able to win the nomination himself. As Huckabee showed in the last race, the evangelical candidate need not be well-known or well-funded to play this role. Pat Robertson played it in 1988. (Pat Buchanan splintered the movement in a slightly different way in 1996.)

Romney’s problem was not that he is a Mormon. It was that he is not an evangelical. A strong plurality of evangelicals “would have backed Huckabee against anybody — Mormon, Buddhist, or Catholic,” says another former Romney adviser. “They were voting for one of their own.” To attribute Romney’s loss in Iowa to anti-Mormon prejudice from evangelicals, he says, is like attributing Romney’s victories in Utah and Nevada to Mormons’ hostility to people from all other faiths. But this adviser reaches the same conclusion as his colleagues who blamed anti-Mormonism: Romney should not spend as much time and resources on Iowa next time.

The movement candidate labors under another burden: He is competing for votes with everyone else in the field. He has to fight the establishment candidate to his left and the evangelical candidate to his right, while neither of them fights the other. McCain and Huckabee were not, by and large, competing for the same voters. That’s one reason Romney was the man most uniformly hated by the other candidates, and why voters saw Romney as the most negative candidate.

This time Romney could follow a different path. There are no prospective McCains or Giulianis, no heavyweights from the left or even the center of the party. Instead of running as the movement conservative in the race, Romney could run as a party-establishment candidate who is acceptable to the Right. That strategy wouldn’t require him to move left on the issues. But it would entail, among other things, taking fewer jabs at the other candidates for not being conservative enough (jabbing them for having bad ideas would still be in season). It would entail advertising Romney’s conservatism less. The policies could still be conservative — but he would promote them as good ideas more than as conservative ones.

Romney seems more naturally an establishmentarian than a conservative insurgent, so this strategy would be a better fit for him than his last one. He is not a man to be swayed by the momentary passions of his party’s base; pretending otherwise adds to his reputation for slickness. If he ran as an establishment candidate, the fact that he used to take less-conservative positions would still matter. But it would not matter as much, because he would no longer have to prove himself as a true-blue conservative.

Steele Scoffs at Obama Winning Peace Prize: What has Obama actually accomplished?

(Newsmax).The chairman of the Republican Party is contending that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize as result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

Michael Steele issued a statement Friday saying, "The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?"

It was "unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." He said he doesn't think Obama will be "receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."

"It's not April 1, is it?" - WHY?? For What??

(ABC, WSJ, Reuters).Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.

"It's not April 1, is it?" one said.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far," former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, said Friday. "He is still at an early stage."

Even in Norway, where Mr. Obama enjoys huge popularity, the decision raised eyebrows among some. "It is just too soon," said Siv Jensen, leader of Norway's main opposition party, the Progress Party. "It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results."

"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for."

When told of Obama's win Robert Schultz, 62, a retired civil servant and Vietnam veteran, asked: "For doing what?

"The guy hasn't solved any conflict anywhere so how can he win the peace prize? But if we don't reelect him the next go around we will all look like idiots because the world has anointed him," said Schultz, who lives in a suburb of Dallas.

New defenition for Peace - Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for NO action

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president…

The Nobel committee praised Obama’s creation of “a new climate in international politics” and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama’s predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said.

President Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize win mocks award; give the GOP critics room to maneuver

(Josh Greenman-DAILY NEWS)In one fell swoop, the Nobel Prize jury just made a mockery of the world's most revered honor and handed Barack Obama's opponents a great talking point. They wounded two doves with one stone.

Obama should say "Thanks, but no thanks. I really didn't earn this. It's far too early to know whether my efforts will further the cause of peace. There are countless people more deserving in America alone. And besides, I'll worry about prizes after I'm the President. For now, I have a job to do."

Do the folks in Oslo realize what a gift they just gave to the Republicans, who have been hammering away at what they view as Obama's weak-kneed foreign policy, at his flying all over the planet to curry favor while he (in their analysis) neglects the economy and capitulates on basic American national security interests?

Thanks to the Nobel committee, less than a year into his presidency he's President of the World, a label he won't be able to shake.

Even as Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, the war in Afghanistan worsens and China rises ominously in influence. And in all these trials, the jury is out as to whether Obama's efforts will succeed or backfire.

It gets even sillier; nominations had to be received much earlier this year, when Obama had fewer notches on his brand new belt. This -- the warrantless adulation of elites around the world -- is a recipe for intense U.S. populist disdain.

Obama's fault? No. Obama's problem? Yes

History is on Romney’s side - advantage to win the Republican nomination

(Richard Albert-The Hill).Two of the leading aspirants for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have recently garnered glowing national media coverage as they made dueling announcements about their budding, though still undeclared, presidential campaigns. But despite the early promise of Palin and Pawlenty, neither can lay claim to frontrunner status and both have a long way to go before catching former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who history suggests will be the 2012 Republican nominee.

Palin shook the political landscape when she announced a first printing of 1.5 million copies of her memoir, Going Rogue — a staggering number that has catapulted her book to the top of the charts. For his part, Pawlenty unveiled a new team of high-profile advisers, a mix of veterans from the successful Republican primary campaigns of George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), along with young blood with new-media expertise.

These were bold shows of force, meant to signal to party elites and early-primary voters the viability and respective strengths of each candidate. For Palin, her greatest asset is her undeniable popular appeal to the conservative base and to everyday Americans. For Pawlenty, his forte is organizational capacity and the big names on his team.

Compelling though they may be as prospective candidates, Palin and Pawlenty still lag far behind the leader in the race to carry the Republican banner in the next presidential election: Mitt Romney. But Romney is ahead of the pack thanks largely to a prominent blemish on his otherwise sterling resume: He lost the nomination in 2008.

It is a peculiar fact of modern political history that past failure in the Republican primaries is often an indication of future success. Unlike the Democratic Party, which often confers the nomination upon first-time candidates — think, for example, of Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004 and of course Barack Obama in 2008 — the Republican Party has a record of nominating battle-tested candidates who did not win the race their first time around the bend.

Consider the list of Republican presidential nominees since 1980. Of the five nominees, four had previously lost the nomination, often to a prior loser. The most recent nominee, McCain, lost to Bush in 2000. Bob Dole, the victor in 1996, was defeated in 1988 by George H.W. Bush, who had lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, who had himself tasted defeat in 1976 at the hands of Gerald Ford.

This is more than simple coincidence. Losing candidates win their second time around (or in Dole’s case, his third) precisely because they never stop campaigning. Of course, they do not run an overt or visible campaign but instead a covert campaign narrowly targeted to party leaders and opinion shapers.

Romney has been doing just that, choosing wisely not to rely only on the cycle of history to win the nomination. Just after bowing out of the 2008 Republican race, Romney founded a political action committee, Free and Strong America, that has allowed him to raise money at a rapid pace.

That has allowed Romney to collect IOUs in crucial primary and caucus states at an even faster clip. He has moreover kept intact the core of his campaign staff, and it stands at the ready to deploy at his call.

When viewed alongside his frequent public appearances on television and in print, and his attendance at private conservative gatherings, it should come as no surprise that recent polls show Romney maintaining an edge over other prospective candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and both Palin and Pawlenty.

All of this paints a promising portrait of Romney’s prospects for 2012. It remains to be seen whether he will actually run. But given what we know about history —namely, that it tends to repeat itself — two things are more likely than not: first, that Romney will run, and second, that he will win the Republican nomination.

McDonnell Widens Lead in Virginia Governor's Race +9 ; GOP voters more enthusiastic

(washingtonpost).Republican Robert F. McDonnell has taken a commanding lead over R. Creigh Deeds in the race for governor of Virginia, as momentum the Democrat had built with an attack on his opponent's conservative social views has dissipated, according to a new Washington Post poll.

McDonnell leads 53 to 44 percent among likely voters, expanding on the four-point lead he held in mid-September. Deeds's advantage with female voters has all but disappeared and McDonnell has grown his already wide margin among independents.

Much of the movement since last month, when a Post poll showed Deeds closing in on McDonnell, has come in Northern Virginia. A 17-point Deeds lead there has been whittled significantly, with his support waning substantially in Northern Virginia's left-leaning inner suburbs.

Republicans are also well positioned to sweep the other two statewide races, with Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli each holding identical 49 to 40 percent leads over Democrats Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon for lieutenant governor and attorney general.

The new poll comes at a particularly critical moment for Deeds, whose campaign has stumbled in recent weeks. Deeds has struggled in several appearances in Northern Virginia, including a debate last month in Fairfax County that he followed by bungling questions from reporters about whether he supports a tax increase. That scene has been turned into a campaign commercial by Republicans and is airing across the state.

Prominent party members have also been openly criticizing the focus and tone of Deeds's campaign. He also failed to win the endorsement of fellow Democrat L. Douglas Wilder, likely dampening his support among African Americans, and President Obama has not committed to campaigning for him in the final weeks of the race.

If national Democrats begin to view the race as unwinnable and focus their resources on New Jersey, the nation's only other gubernatorial election this year, Deeds could be further hamstrung. Democrats are not eager to lose both races, which are considered early indicators of Obama's leadership and a harbinger of next year's midterm congressional elections. Polls in New Jersey show an increasingly competitive race between incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie.

With a little more than three weeks before Election Day, the poll shows McDonnell in a powerful position. By double-digit margins voters believe he would better handle virtually every major issue facing Virginians, including transportation, taxes, education, the state budget and the economy. Only on issues of special concern to women does Deeds hold a tepid 47 to 41 point advantage.

McDonnell's supporters are also more enthusiastic than Deeds's and more voters say they believe he has advanced new ideas for the state. Deeds now trails among independent voters by a striking 21 percentage point margin -- 59 to 38 percent.

Despite a concerted advertising campaign by Deeds about controversial views McDonnell expressed about working women in his thesis -- the one area where the Republican had appeared vulnerable -- the erosion of support among women and Northern Virginians suggests that the line of attack might have run its course.

For the first time, a majority of voters, 51 percent, say McDonnell is "about right" ideologically, despite Democratic efforts to characterize the GOP candidate as out-of-touch with mainstream Virginia voters. More now see Deeds as "too liberal" than see McDonnell as "too conservative" (44 to 37 percent). Moreover, just 15 percent of voters see the thesis as "very important" in deciding how to vote, putting it well behind jobs, health care, education, taxes and transportation as a top concern.

Deeds has also failed to appeal to core Democratic constituencies -- a finding that might provide his effort a measure of hope. Only half of the voters who backed Obama a year ago said they are certain to vote in November, compared with the two-thirds of voters who backed Republican John McCain. That leaves a large pool of voters open to voting for a Democrat, if Deeds can win them over.

Gallup predicts if 2010 midterms were held today, Republicans would win

(thecompetentconservative).Democrats and Republicans are neck-and-neck in generic balloting for the 2010 elections, a sign that all the prognostications of a tough midterm battle are correct.

Democrats retain a 46 percent to 44 percent lead over the GOP among registered voters, when asked which party they’ll vote for in the 2010 congressional races, according to a new survey from Gallup. That’s closer than it’s been, for the most part, since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, except for moments of party parity in late 2006 and just after the Republican National Convention in September ‘08.

But Gallup actually predicts that, if the elections were held today, Republicans would come out on top–something House Minority Whip Eric Cantor predicted not too long ago.

In a War that Obama doesn't want to Win...Troop morale is down in Afghanistan

(Timesonline).American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

Quinnipiac poll:47-40% Oppose ObamaCare; Obama's approval at 50%

(Quinnipiac).American voters oppose 47 - 40 percent President Barack Obama's health care reform plan, and don't want an overhaul that only gets Democratic votes, but they support key parts of the plan, including 61 - 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

By a 57 - 37 percent margin, voters say Congress should not approve a health care overhaul with only Democratic votes. Democrats are OK with a one-party bill 63 - 29 percent, but opposition is 88 - 9 percent from Republicans and 62 - 32 percent from independent voters.

President Obama's job approval is 50 - 41 percent, virtually unchanged from his 50 - 42 percent rating August 6,The President's 41 - 51 percent negative rating on health care is barely changed from his 39 - 52 percent rating August 5.

"President Barack Obama's approval rating has held at 50 percent over the past two months of high-intensity debate on health care and other issues," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "And while the spotlight is on the President, Republicans are taking a public opinion pounding."

"The public says it doesn't want Congress to pass a plan that only gets Democratic votes, but with apparently solid opposition from the congressional Republicans to Obama's plan it will be interesting to see how this issue plays in 2010 should the Democrats push through a bill with just their own votes," said Brown. "The long-term politics of a Democratic-only bill are clear as mud because they would almost certainly depend on how the public likes the finished product when it comes time to vote in 2010 and 2012."

On the negative side, voters don't believe 71 - 19 percent that Obama can keep his promise that health insurance reform will not add to the federal deficit, down from 72 - 21 percent disbelief August 5. Even Democrats believe 50 - 32 percent that health insurance reform will add to the deficit.

"Voters overwhelmingly see the Republican opposition as not making a good faith effort to cooperate with Obama and the Democrats in Congress on health care and by a smaller 46 - 41 percent margin feel the Democrats are not playing fair with the Republicans," said Brown. "They trust Obama more than congressional Republicans on health care. Yet there is no groundswell of support of his health care plan itself."

Is Obama (Finally) Becoming a Joke?

(David Paul Kuhn-Realclearpolitics).Most presidents become a joke at some point. It's a matter of when and how. Both points should concern this president. In Winston Churchill's words, "a joke is a very serious thing." Or it can be, when the joke is about a very serious thing.

"Saturday Night Live" has long been a comedic benchmark. Last weekend, SNL took its first hard hit at President Obama. Fred Armisen, who plays the president, gave an Oval Office address questioning why some critics were distraught with him transforming the country: "When you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it."

Political satire matters when it is larger than the joke. The growing rap on Obama is that he is a man both ineffective and meek; a man who is loved by all and feared by none.

Bill Maher hit the punch line first in mid-June: "You don't have to be on television every minute of every day. You're the president, not a rerun of 'Law & Order'... TV stars are too worried about being popular and too concerned about being renewed."

Soon Maher came to his key point: "You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady, but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something."

Jon Stewart has been in on the joke all week. On Monday, Stewart hit Obama for "appeasing" the health care and energy industries. On Tuesday, Stewart showed clips of Obama's repeated campaign promises to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Stewart to Obama: "I know you have a lot on your desk plate. But as a thin man who smokes, you may not understand the concept. All that stuff you've been putting on your plate, it's f-cking chow time, brother. That's how you get things off of your plate. "

The Olympics only helped reinforce the punch line. The president went to Copenhagen to rally for his hometown. Analysts assumed that the White House was in on a secret. The president could tip the vote? But Chicago lost on the first round. The president looked powerless.

Many Sunday political shows touched on Obama's Olympic failure. Was it a metaphor? On ABC's "This Week," George Will said yes. He listed Obama's big initiatives abroad and the absence of progress. "Saying no to the president is a habit," Will argued. "The world adores him and ignores him." The digs came from all sides. But SNL brought the point home.

Smart administrations take jokes seriously. By the spring of 1982, Ronald Reagan's staff was concerned by a running joke. A new comedy record was popular, portraying Reagan as the amicable dunce.

Satire helped undermine both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. And as Reagan's pollster, Richard Wirthlin, put it then: "the danger" of political satire "arises when the humor portrays the president as silly or impotent or portrays what he's trying to do as irrelevant--when it attacks some of the basic elements of his leadership."

Mocking the powerful is as old as Ben Franklin. A JFK impersonator won a Grammy in 1963 for satirizing the Kennedys. By the late 1970s, SNL became political satire's defining institution.

Chevy Chase made Gerald Ford a klutz. Dana Carvey parodied George Bush as the wimpy, "wouldn't be prudent" president. Phil Hartman nailed Clinton as the fast food president in his McDonalds skit, cheapening Clinton as a man after the easy pleasures. Just last year, Tina Fey devastated Sarah Palin as a silly, high school cheerleading airhead.

It was supposed to be hard to joke about Obama. White liberal comics were afraid to touch on race. Obama came to office in serious times. But it was also Obama's image. He ran on a lofty persona unlike any candidate since Reagan. But in the case of Obama, the liberal pop culture was buying and selling it. Obama was to bring, "change, we can believe in."

But the change maker has not made change--at least not on the hard fights, not yet. Hillary Clinton once asked why Obama "can't close the deal." Her dig is now a punch line. And most people get the joke, except CNN.

This week CNN actually ran a segment fact checking the Obama SNL skit. Bush and Palin may have wondered why CNN never came to their defense. But then, where's the humor in that?

As Garry Trudeau, of "Doonesbury" fame, told one reporter, "For something to be funny, the audience has to be in a position to sense the truth of it." And SNL's lampoon of Obama was funny.

WHAT???? Secretary Gates on Afganisntan: "I Try To Avoid Terms Like Winning And Losing"

Amanpour: "Secretary Gates, the majority of the American people believe that America can win in Afghanistan, do you think America can win in Afghanistan?"

Gates: "From the time I took this job I have tried both in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid terms like winning and losing, because they become very loaded in our domestic debate, but they also become loaded around the world.

Senate health bill will ONLY cost $829 billion, Will still leave 10 Million uninsured

(Reuters) – The U.S. Senate Finance Committee's health bill would cost $829 billion and cut the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years, budget analysts said on Wednesday in a boost to President Barack Obama's efforts to reform health care.

In a report that could help smooth the way for committee approval, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would reduce the number of uninsured people in the United States by about 29 million by the year 2019.

The cost was lower than many analysts had expected, and the estimated reduction in the deficit and relatively large number of people covered probably means the panel will not have to make more adjustments before a vote on final passage within the next week.

The proposal is one of five pending bills in Congress on reforming healthcare, Obama's top domestic priority which Democrats hope to complete by the end of the year. The Finance Committee bill proposes reducing costs, regulating insurers and expanding coverage to the uninsured.

Republicans, concerned about the bill's costs and potential impact on the budget deficit, had demanded the budget estimate before they cast a vote on the proposal to dramatically transform the $2.5 trillion healthcare system.

Panel Chairman Max Baucus praised the forecast and said it showed the bill was "a smart investment" that would expand coverage and improve healthcare for millions of American families.

"Our balanced approach to health reform has paid off yet again," he said on the Senate floor.

On September 16, the CBO estimated the Baucus plan would cost $774 billion, shave $49 billion from the deficit over 10 years and add about 29 million people to the insurance rolls.

But even though other committee had added dozens of amendments during seven days of debate, the cost figure announced on Wednesday was still relatively low.

Gallup: Parties Nearly Tied for Congress in 2010

(Gallup). Roughly a year before the 2010 midterm elections, Gallup finds the Republican and Democratic Parties nearly tied in the congressional ballot preferences of registered voters. Forty-six percent of registered voters say they would vote for the Democrat and 44% say the Republican when asked which party's candidate they would support for Congress, if the election were held today.

The Democratic Party held a slightly wider, six percentage-point lead on this important indicator of party strength in July, 50% to 44%. However, both 2009 results show a more competitive political environment than Gallup has generally seen since before the Democrats regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2006 midterm elections. Closer to elections, Gallup bases its results on "likely voters." Doing so typically improves the Republicans' positioning by several points; thus, when Democrats lead slightly among registered voters, it is possible for Republicans to be ahead among likely voters.

"The Republican Party's relatively strong position on the generic ballot in the latest poll, conducted Oct. 1-4, stems from the support of political independents, who now favor Republican over Democratic candidates by 45% to 36%."

As Gallup's "generic ballot" trend shows, the Democrats held a sizable lead among registered voters from about March 2006 through most of 2008. The Republicans nearly tied the Democrats immediately following the Republican National Convention in September 2008, but that proved short-lived. The gap widened to 7 points by mid-October, and to 15 points immediately prior to the 2008 elections -- not only securing the Democrats' victory, but enabling them to greatly expand their majority position.

The Republican Party's relatively strong position on the generic ballot in the latest poll, conducted Oct. 1-4, stems from the support of political independents, who now favor Republican over Democratic candidates by 45% to 36%. In July, independents were evenly divided in their party voting preferences, whereas last fall they showed a clear preference for the Democrats.

Across these surveys, at least 90% each of Republicans and of Democrats have said they plan to vote for their own party's candidate. Today, that figure is 93% for the Democrats and 92% for the Republicans.

Shouts, insults fly at Rep. Israel's health care town hall

(fairspin.org).Rep. Steve Israel gamely tried to explain the proposed health care reform Monday night, but was often shouted down during his town hall-style meeting at Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood.

Israel (D-Huntington) at one point pleaded with those in the crowd yelling at him to "stop calling me a liar and listen." Judging by the ever-increasing decibel level, he did not win over many converts.

Shouts of -- "Stop printing money," "We don't care what you think," and "You're a moron" -- permeated the 90-minute session, which drew far more than the 450 people who filled Van Nostrand Theatre. Scores more were not allowed inside after a Suffolk fire marshal closed the doors.

People opposing the proposed health care reform outnumbered those in favor, though both sides strove to outshout each other during the question-and-answer period.

A typical scene came after Anneliese Lanza of Huntington asked, "Why can't we just fix the part of health care that is broken when what is needed is tort reform?" The anti-reform portion of the crowd broke into a raucous standing ovation chanting "tort reform."

"You're saying tort reform now, but if something happens to you, you'll be the first one to want to take the case to a judge and jury," Israel said. "I don't believe a member of the United States Congress should decide when you can go to court."

Israel, who supports the public option, which would allow people to purchase insurance through a government program, said he does not expect to support every aspect of the final reform bill.

"I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand," he said. "I'm not going to vote against 60 percent of what I want because I can't get 40 percent of what I want. There is no perfection."

@MittRomney: Is your family ready for a $1,761 a year tax increase?

(freestrongamerica).In the guise of addressing climate change, President Obama has asked Congress to pass a cap and trade program that will have a devastating impact on hard-working American families and on our economy as a whole. The House has already passed a version of this legislation, and just last week, Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry answered the President’s call by introducing a cap and trade bill in the Senate.

We need to act now before it is too late and stop this legislation.

This cap and trade bill represents an enormous, hidden tax on the American people and American businesses, and it must be defeated. As you may recall, candidate Obama promised not to raise taxes “by one dime” on people making less than $250,000 a year. His cap and trade program will demolish that promise.

In fact, estimates are that the Obama plan could cost the average American family $1,761 a year, the equivalent of a 15% income tax hike. It will kill jobs and make a bad economic situation even worse. And because it will simply move greenhouse gas emitters from America to other nations like China, it won’t do a thing to affect climate change.

SAVE NEW JERSEY- WAKE UP AMERICA! Christie and Corzine in a virtual tie

*The Monmouth/Gannett poll: Another poll finds Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine closing the gap on Republican challenger Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor's race.

Forty-three percent of likely voters in the Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll out Thursday favored Christie, 40 percent Corzine and 8 percent independent Chris Daggett. The 3-point difference is within the poll's sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

*Fairleigh Dickinson University poll: New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is now in a statistical tie with Republican challenger Chris Christie, leading him 44 percent to 43 percent with 4 supporting independent Chris Daggett and 5 percent undecided, according to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted Sept. 28-Oct. 5. The margin of error is 4 points.

DOCTORS FOR OBAMA - Obama Holds Doctors' Summit in Effort to Promote Health Care

(foxnews.com).The doctor made a White House call Monday -- 150 of them, in fact, all costumed in white hospital coats -- to try to help President Obama administer a booster shot to his ailing health care reform drive.



White House spokesman Reid Cherlin described the assembled physicians, from all 50 states, as the best voices for reform because they witness the current health care system on a day-to-day basis.

"These folks know better than anybody about what works and what doesn't," Cherlin told FOXNews.com, adding that the physicians come from "a variety of groups that we work with."

But the doctors in the Rose Garden were all supporters of health care reform -- and the invitation-only guest list drew heavily from Doctors for America, a grassroots organization that backs a government-run insurance option.

Via Hotairpundit for more coverage

YOU BETCHA! Schumer On 2010: "Like It Or Not, We're Tied To Obama"

(Thehill).....The New York senator, who headed up Democrats' 2008 campaign efforts in the Senate, also said that the fate of healthcare legislation and the political fate of President Barack Obama would largely affect Democrats' political fortunes in the 2010 midterm elections.

"In 2010, like it or not, we're tied to Obama," he said. "If his numbers are poor, we're going to do poorly."

Steve Schmidt: Palin Would Be "Catastrophic" For GOP in 2012

(Theatlantic). “I think that she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican candidate in 2012, and in fact, were she to be the nominee, we would have a catastrophic election result.”

“In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. … Th[e] independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don’t see that if you look at the things she has done over the year… that she is going to expand that base in the middle.”

Schmidt is the highest ranking former member of McCain’s inner circle to openly criticize Palin. He has largely remain silent since the election, being one of the few McCain staff members privy to entire vice presidential selection process. Partisan political allies have blamed Schmidt for unflattering leaks — including the famous, unattributed quote that Palin had “gone rogue” in the final weeks of the campaign. Schmidt has denied being the source of the leaks, though he has acknowledged tensions with Palin during the campaign.

SNL Unloads On Obama For Not Accomplishing Anything

oval office message
by postertube

Payback time - McCain boosts Romney's campaign war chest

(UPI) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is getting support from his former Republican rival for the presidential nomination Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Romney, with an eye to a possible 2012 presidential run, is touring the country on fundraising junkets and got an $80,000 boost Wednesday night in Phoenix, partly because of McCain's name on the invitations, The Boston Globe reported from Washington.

McCain was in Washington and didn't attend the $300-per-plate event, but his name on the invitation was instrumental in drawing more people to Romney's event, the newspaper said.

The two men exchanged acrimonious barbs during the 2008 primary battles that saw McCain go on to unsuccessfully challenge Barack Obama for the U.S. presidency.

In an interview, McCain told the newspaper his support this week was "certainly not a preference for the nominee."

When Romney showed poorly in the Super Tuesday nominations, he threw his support behind McCain, which the senator said wasn't forgotten.

"Every time our campaign asked him to go someplace or do something, he was always ready and willing to do it for us,'' McCain told the Globe.

Yes he Can be disappointed - Personal setback for Obama for loss of Chicago's Olympic bid

(Yahoonews).President Barack Obama had a message Friday for the many people — including himself — who put "heart and soul" into Chicago's losing bid for the 2016 Olympic Games: "A" for effort.

"You can play a great game and still not win," Obama said at the White House, shortly after returning from Copenhagen where his in-person plea did not put Chicago over the top. "Although I wish that we had come back with better news from Copenhagen, I could not be prouder."

Obama expressed no regret at putting so much on the line for the failed effort.

"I have no doubt that it was the strongest bid possible and I'm proud that I was able to come in and help make that case in person," the president said.

His chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters that Obama got the bad news aboard Air Force One as he and his wife, Michelle, flew back to Washington from the Danish capital. He was watching TV alone in his quarters on the presidential jet.

Mrs. Obama had gone to Copenhagen ahead of her husband and had lobbied hard for the Summer Games to be brought to her hometown and his adopted hometown.

Chicago's early exit from finalist balloting represented a personal setback for Obama and a painful defeat for Chicago, America's most prominent Midwestern city. The president put his personal prestige and political capital at risk when he decided late in the competition to go to Copenhagen and make a personal appeal.

"Absolutely," Gibbs replied, when asked whether Obama was glad he'd made such a large commitment to lobbying for the Games. He said the president "would never shy away from traveling anywhere, talking to anyone about this country."