Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Pew:Congressional Favorability at 24-Year Low; Generic ballot Evenly Divided 45-44; Ind. favor GOP

(Pewreaserch).Americans are extremely displeased with Congress, and there are already some signs that this could take a toll on the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Currently, 37% express a favorable opinion of Congress, while 52% hold an unfavorable view. Positive opinions of Congress have declined by 13 points since April and are now at one of their lowest points in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.

At the same time, intentions to vote Democratic in the next midterm election are markedly lower than they have been over the past four years. Voters are about evenly divided when asked how they would vote if the election for Congress were being held today: 45% say they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their district, or lean Democratic, while 44% say they would vote for a Republican or lean Republican. At about this point four years ago, Democrats led in the generic congressional ballot by 52% to 40% and went on to win a majority of the popular vote and regain control of Congress the following November.

The new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Aug. 20-27 in English and Spanish among 2,003 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that the Democrats’ dimmer electoral prospects are more a matter of disillusionment with the party that controls Congress than a revival of the image of the Republican Party. Favorable ratings of the GOP remain quite low (40%), even as opinion of Democrats has soured; just 48% say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, down 11 points since April.


Most of the shift in voting intentions since the 2006 election cycle has occurred among political independents. Independent voters backed Democrats by a wide margin in the previous midterm (11 points on the eve of the election), but currently say they support the GOP candidate in their district by 43% to 38%.

Rep. Ryan Talks About Health Care Reform

Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks - Gap now 5 points 45-40

(Gallup).In August, an average of 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned to the Democratic Party, while 40% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. This 5-point advantage represents a decided narrowing of the gap between the parties from the 17-point Democratic advantage in January.

The total of 45% current Democratic support derives from 34% of Americans who identify as Democrats and 11% who identify as independents but say they lean to the Democratic Party. The Republican Party's 40% support total includes 28% Republican identifiers and 12% Republican-leaning independents.

The shrinking Democratic-Republican gap since January is due to a decline in Democratic identification (from 38% to 34%) and a shift in the leanings of independents, from largely Democratic to an essentially equal distribution. Importantly, there has been essentially no increase in Republican identification over this time.

The narrowing of the gap may be merely a reflection of the difficulties a party has in governing. Democrats began to build up a party-identification advantage in 2005 as George W. Bush's job approval rating sank, which ultimately led to the Democrats' retaking party control of Congress in the 2006 elections and of the presidency in the 2008 election.

Over the course of the year, President Barack Obama's approval rating has declined, particularly during the last two months. While Obama and the Democrats may be accurate in saying they inherited a lot of the problems with which they are currently dealing, Americans show concern about rising federal spending and exploding budget deficits as their political leaders attempt to fix the problems. The debate over healthcare reform is also putting party ideological differences into sharper focus, and Democratic Party leaders have been put on the defensive about some of the key elements for healthcare reform they favor, such as a public-option health insurance plan.

Mitt Romney Diving into the Campaign trail leading to Pennsylvania Ave.

(Politico).While he remains publicly coy about the possibility of another White House bid, Mitt Romney’s calendar tells a very different story.

From returning to a key early primary state to delivering an address before a social conservative conference and reuniting with members of his campaign-in-waiting, Romney is scheduled to spend a good deal of his September in a fashion befitting a man very much interested in running for president.

Romney has been careful to avoid being overexposed this year, instead picking his spots to weigh in with an op-ed or talk show appearance when the national debate turns to health care, the auto industry or some other issue on which he’s well-versed.

But despite the relatively low media exposure, Romney has not ignored the importance of building and keeping his political contacts, especially in Washington.

To this end, the former Massachusetts governor will spend much of the middle of this month in and around the capital for a series of events aimed at retaining or building support with a number of valuable constituencies in a Republican primary.

On Saturday, Sept. 19, Romney will speak at the Values Voters Summit, an annual conference in the capital put on by the Family Research Council that frequently draws GOP presidential hopefuls.

First, on Thursday night, Romney is holding a $1,000-per-person fundraiser at a trendy Washington restaurant. Co-hosts include a number of Romney stalwarts such as former campaign counsel Ben Ginsberg and high-powered lobbyists Ron Kaufman, Drew Maloney, Al Cardenas and Jack Gerard.

On Friday, Romney heads across the Potomac to Alexandria for a breakfast fundraiser benefitting the re-election campaign of Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, an early supporter and state chair of the former governor’s 2008 bid.

The day after the Values Voters event, Romney is keynoting a $500-per-person afternoon reception at the Great Falls, Va., home of former solicitor general Ted Olson for Barbara Comstock, a Romney adviser now running for state delegate.

On that Monday, Romney will deliver a foreign policy address at a Washington conference put on by the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative.At night, he will raise money for Bob McDonnell, the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, at an evening reception in Washington.

But Romney’s not just tending to old relationships and building new ones inside the Beltway.

On Sept. 22, he’ll head to Atlanta – a major Republican fundraising hub – to raise money for Georgia’s House Republican caucus.

And that weekend, the son of a former Michigan governor will return to his childhood state to keynote the annual Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference, a heavily attended activist event on a picturesque island near the Upper Peninsula. In 2007, Romney used the same conference to offer a critical assessment of his own party and won the straw poll. He later carried the state during the GOP primary.

Asked about the flurry of political activity by Romney – who is also writing a future-oriented book entitled “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” – spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom suggested the fast-pace wouldn’t be just limited to September.

“Summer's over,” Fehrnstrom said. “With 2010 right around the corner, there's a lot of work to do, which means more travel, more fundraising and more campaigning.”

Under fire, President Obama shifts strategy - No public Option

(POLITICO 44).Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots, West Wing officials tell POLITICO.

Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.

“We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”

Top officials privately concede the past six weeks have taken their toll on Obama's popularity. But the officials also see the new diminished expectations as an opportunity to prove their critics wrong by signing a health care law, showing progress in Afghanistan, and using this month's anniversary of the fall of Lehman Brothers to push for a crackdown on Wall Street.

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

CNN Poll: 53% Independents disapprove of Obama

(CNN) — A majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama's handling his job as president, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

Obama's overall approval rating of 53 percent is down 3 points from a month ago, and down 8 points from June. Forty-five percent of those questioned disapprove, up 5 points from a month ago and up 8 points from June.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland:
"Obama won a majority of the vote among independents last year, and that helped put him in the White House,Losing their support makes it more difficult for Obama to govern from the center."
A majority now disapprove of how he has handled health care, taxes, the economy and the budget deficit.
"Among all Americans, his rating on health care has dropped 13 points since March. Compare that to his 16 point drop on the deficit and 17 point dip on taxes and it looks like there is growing discontent with Obama's overall domestic agenda — not just his health care policy."

Republicans Widen a 7 point Lead Over Democrats on Generic Ballot

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week. The previous low for Democrats over the past year was 37%.

This summer, support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%. Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

However, Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, notes that it’s too early for Republicans to be celebrating:
“These numbers certainly represent weakness for the Democrats, but it’s important to remember that the mid-term elections are 14 months away. That’s plenty of time for the President’s party to do some damage control and pick up the pieces from what has been a tough month of August.”

“Democrats in 2010 will have one advantage they couldn’t count on in 1994. During the Clinton years, nobody could remember a time when the GOP controlled Congress.”

WSJ James Taranto: Dick Cheney For President In 2012

Voters Misread Obama - Obama ran as a Moderate Republican

(Steve Chapman-RCP).Barack Obama came into office championing change, and he apparently assumed that if Americans voted for him, it was because they wanted the future to be different from what went before. Actually, what they wanted was a future much like the not-so-distant past -- before the financial crisis, before the recession, before the Iraq war, before the most unpopular president since the invention of polling.

If voters had wanted a sharp ideological shift, they could have voted for Democratic candidates more identified with Great Society-style government -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or even Dennis Kucinich. Obama got the early endorsement of Ted Kennedy, but like Bill Clinton before him, he won because he distanced himself from Kennedy-style liberalism. His promise of change was eloquent enough to motivate the left wing of his party but vague enough to make him acceptable to people in the middle.

Among independents, Obama beat John McCain by an 8-point margin. The reason John Kerry lost and Obama won, as Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has noted, was not liberal voters: They voted for both in the same proportion. The difference was that while Kerry had a 9-point edge over his Republican opponent among moderates, Obama carried them by 21 points. Obama also did significantly better among conservatives than Kerry.

After the election, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee Mike Duncan noted that the Democratic nominee supported offshore oil drilling, merit pay for teachers, a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, more troops in Afghanistan and an end to wasteful federal earmarks.
Put simply," he said, "Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower."
In the weeks after the election, amid talk of a second Great Depression, Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But by the time FDR took office, the economy had been in free fall for more than three years, creating mass desperation.

But the 44th president apparently thought he had a mandate for the expansion of federal power and responsibility, which he has used on everything from bailing out automakers to showering the economy with stimulus dollars to trying to overhaul health insurance. He and his allies have therefore been surprised to face a surge of angry opposition, including some based on wild flights of paranoia.

What they forgot is that the surest way to mobilize American political opposition, irrational as well as rational, is to enlarge the government's role in our lives. Liberals and conservatives disagree on when to distrust the government, but they share the same basic suspicion.

As 2012 seems competitive - Guiliani may run for President

New York State is abuzz with speculation that former New York City Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will run for governor there in 2010.

But the "general consensus" among Republicans around the state is that Rudy won't enter the race, New York magazine reports. The chief reason: He has his eye on the White House in 2012.

The magazine observes: "Giuliani can run for governor or run for president in 2012, but he probably can't do both...

"President Obama appears to be vulnerable, and the Republican field in 2012 is open."

A political insider told New York: "Do you go to Albany in a thankless job, or do you take another shot nationally? He's aware that the Obama administration is falling apart much more quickly than anybody imagined."

Obama reaches risky Re-election point - Rasmussen Daily approval at 45%

As i posted yesterday from Nate Silver:
Something like 45 percent, which is where Gerald Ford was when he lost to Jimmy Carter by two points in 1976, might be the more relevant number....A quick-and-dirty probit analysis, based on a dataset and placing slightly more weight on recent elections, puts the breakeven number at 44 percent.....
Well! Yesterday's Zogby poll that puts Obama's approval at 42% and today's Rasmussen Daily approval rating shows that Obama has Reached that point of risking his Re-election bid, although the numbers may bounce up and down as the debate heats up in Washington, The current numbers show one thing that Obama's support is not solid, and the Balloon could bust any day.


Rasmussehreports:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove .

Most voters now expect that the situation in Afghanistan will get worse over the next six months. That's up fourteen points over the past month. .

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That's down a point from yesterday and the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now. disapprove.

Experts see double-digit Dem losses

(Politico).After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance. Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.” "Many veteran congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats,” he wrote.

At the mid-August Netroots Nation convention, Nate Silver, a Democratic analyst whose uncannily accurate, stat-driven predictions have made his website FiveThirtyEight.com a must read among political junkies, predicted that Republicans will win between 20 and 50 seats next year. He further alarmed an audience of progressive activists by arguing that the GOP has between a 25 and 33 percent chance of winning back control of the House. “A lot of Democratic freshmen and sophomores will be running in a much tougher environment than in 2006 and 2008 and some will adapt to it, but a lot of others will inevitably freak out and end up losing,” Silver told POLITICO. “Complacency is another factor: We have volunteers who worked really hard in 2006 and in 2008 for Obama but it’s less compelling [for them] to preserve the majority.” Historic trends point to Republican House gains in the midterm election, particularly after facing two brutal election cycles where the party lost seats in every region and even in some of the most conservative states in the nation. Over the last five decades, the party out of power has picked up seats in 10 of the 12 midterm elections. Turnout levels may also work in the GOP’s favor: House Democrats who narrowly won election in 2008 on the strength of high turnout among African-Americans and young voters probably won’t be able to count on that same level of enthusiasm next year in a nonpresidential election.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Zogby: Obama Approval Plummets to 42 Percent


President Barack Obama's job approval rating is down to 42%, with a decline in approval from Democrats.


The latest Zogby Interactive poll of 4,518 likely voters conducted from August 28-31 found 48% disapprove and 42% approve of the job Obama is doing. The poll found 75% of Democrats approve of Obama's performance, a drop of 13 points among Democrats from an interactive poll done July 21-24 of this year. That same poll found 48% of all likely voters approving of Obama's job performance, and 49% disapproving.

In the most recent poll, 8% of Republicans and 37% of Independents approve of Obama's job performance. Both are down slightly from six weeks ago; two points among Republicans and three among Independents.

The Aug. 28-31 poll also found that:

* 17% give Obama an excellent job rating, 25% rate him good, 16% fair and 41% poor. Combining the two highest and lowest rankings shows 42% rating Obama positively and 57% negatively. (This is the standard Zogby International has used for many years in measuring job performance.)

* Likely voters are closely split on whether they have a favorable opinion of Obama, with 50% favorable and 48% unfavorable. Democrats are more positive about Obama personally than they are of his job performance, with 85% rating him favorably.

* 52% of all likely voters are proud to have Obama as President, and 35% are ashamed. The percentage of those proud is unchanged from six weeks ago.

Mitt Romney leads the prediction market for 2012 with a chance of 12.6%

Who will win the 2012 U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination?

*Mitt Romney $12.60
*Anyone not listed $8.44
*Mike Huckabee $7.46
*Sarah Palin $5.96
*Tim Pawlenty $5.00

Not That far down - Obama has to slip to a 45% approval rate to risk Re-election

(Fivthirtyeight via Race42012).Nate Silver has completed another insightful analysis regarding the effect of President Obama’s Gallup approval ratings on Congressional mid-terms and his re-election chances:

"Barack Obama's approval rating had dropped to 50 percent in the latest Gallup poll...

The thing is, though, that Obama's approval rating haven fallen to 50 percent is not particularly newsworthy. There's no reason that a drop from 51 percent to 50 percent, or from 50 percent to 49 percent, means anything particularly more than a drop from 58 percent to 57 percent, or from 37 percent to 36 percent.

First of all, although I'm on record as being quite pessimistic about what's liable to happen to the Democrats in 2010, odds are that Obama's approval will have to be somewhat worse than 50 percent for the Democrats to lose the House. The relationship between Presidential approval and his party's fate at the midterm elections is quite linear. An approval rating of 50 percent would typically be associated with a loss of about 26 seats.

The Democrats, however, currently have a 78-seat advantage in the House, meaning that it would take a 39-seat loss for them to lose control of the chamber. The over-under for how unpopular Obama would have to be in order to be more likely than not to cost his party those seats is not 50 percent -- it's probably more like 42 percent....

Likewise, Obama can probably afford an approval rating below 50 percent and still be a favorite to win re-election in 2012. George W. Bush won in 2004 with an approval rating of 48 percent, and Harry Truman won in what was considered a huge upset in 1948 with an approval number that had last been tested at 39 percent..

Against Sarah Palin, frankly, Obama could conceivably win re-election with an approval rating well into the 40's and possibly even into the 30's. He'll have less margin of error, potentially, if the GOP nominates someone like Mitt Romney .But again, there's nothing particularly special that happens at 50 percent. Something like 45 percent, which is where Gerald Ford was when he lost to Jimmy Carter by two points in 1976, might be the more relevant number.

A quick-and-dirty probit analysis, based on a dataset and placing slightly more weight on recent elections, puts the breakeven number at 44 percent, and suggests that a President at 50 percent approval is as much as a 90 percent bet to win a second term:

Did Ted Kennedy worry about debating Romney?

(GOP12).The New York Times re-runs an interesting interview from 1995, in which Vicki Kennedy and Ted Kennedy's biographer, Adam Clymer, discuss the relatively close 1994 duel with Mitt Romney.

Among other things, there was some concern over the debates.

Mr. Clymer: One friend of his [Kennedy's] told me that he was, too, not that he was afraid to debate, but reading all these stories and clips saying about how good Romney was, but he was a little concerned about it, and how well he could handle him.

Mrs. Kennedy: That Teddy was?

Mr. Clymer: Yeah. Not true?

Mrs. Kennedy: I just think that's very funny. No, obviously he took it seriously and he prepared. I mean I know him when he prepares and he knows himself when he prepares, and when he was ready to go do his thing, two days before the debate, he was brushing his teeth in Boston and he just apropos of nothing, turned to me and he said, "I'm ready, you know." And I said, "Yeah, I know." Because I did. I knew. You could just see it.

Mr. Clymer: No, I don't mean that late because by that point he was up there campaigning, and had done the Faneuil Hall and all of that. But I mean a little bit earlier.

Another Senator, a friend of his said that he was a little worried about Romney, in debating him.

GOP would repeal health bill if they win in 2010

(TheHill).Republicans will repeal healthcare reform legislation if they win control of Congress because of that bill, a key Republican pledged late Sunday.

The health bill is "dead on arrival" in Congress, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said during an interview on Fox News.

"If they somehow manage to get the votes and get enough Democrats to walk the plank and commit suicide, in the next Congress, I'll be chairman Joe Barton of the Energy and Commerce committee, and we'll repeal it," Barton said.

Republicans have shown optimism at picking up seats in the House and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections, largely as a byproduct of the contentious healthcare debate that has played out across the country.

Barton, whose committee is one of the three key House committees to craft healthcare legislation, suggested the current bill is basically not viable in its current form.

"Take the current bill and just tweak the public option and call it a 'deal' -- you put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of the potential changes that could be made to win lawmakers' votes. "I think this bill's dead on arrival."

53% Disapprove Obama's job handling,66% independents and 19% Dems disapprove; Daily approval at 46%

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Slumpy honeymoon - What it took for Bush over 3 years, happens to Obama in less then 8 Month

(Gallup).Barack Obama's latest job approval rating is 50%, according to Aug. 25-28 Gallup Daily tracking. Should his rating continue its downward trend and fall below 50%, he would -- like most post-World War II presidents -- have less-than-majority approval at some point in his presidency. However, Obama, in his eighth month in office, could hit this mark in a shorter time than has typically been the case. If his rating falls below 50% before November, it would represent the third-fastest drop to below majority approval since World War II, behind the declines for Gerald Ford (in his third month as president) and Bill Clinton (in his fourth month).

The time it has taken for presidents' approval ratings to drop below 50% has varied greatly.

*
Dwight Eisenhower did not fall below the majority level until his fifth year in office, and his 48% approval rating in March and April 1958 was his only sub-50% approval rating.
*
Both George Bushes were in office roughly three full years before their approval ratings slid below 50%. The younger Bush might have gotten there much faster if not for the post-Sept. 11 rally, as his approval rating just before the terror attacks was 51%, but it shot up to 86% days later.
*
Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon both served more than two years in office before their approval ratings fell below 50%.
*
Four presidents -- Harry Truman (11 months into his term), as well as Ford, Reagan, and Clinton -- dropped below majority approval in their first year in office.
*
Jimmy Carter had relatively high early approval ratings and did not drop below 50% approval until February 1978, after a year in office.
*
John Kennedy never had a sub-50% approval rating in his less-than-three-year term, though his ratings were on a downward trend at the time of his untimely death.

Excluding Kennedy's presidency, the average amount of time before a president lost majority approval is 23 months. The typical or median length is 13 months.

Obama began his term with one of the higher initial job approval ratings in recent history. His six-month honeymoon was slightly below average in length compared to those of other elected presidents in recent times. The recent further erosion in his public support -- perhaps a result of the push for healthcare reform and concern over the growth in government spending -- may result in one of the faster slides below majority approval for modern presidents.

However, falling below 50% would hardly mark a point of no return for Obama. All presidents went back above the 50% mark after their initial loss of majority public support. And Clinton and Reagan, who dropped below majority approval faster than most other presidents, easily won second terms in the subsequent election.

Will the Newly appointed FL Sen. Lemieux be the Dems 61st vote

(Ocala).To hear George LeMieux tell it, the approach he will bring to Washington, D.C., is modeled after that of the man who put him there - and who aims to take his place.

"I describe myself as a Charlie Crist Republican," LeMieux said.

LeMieux, named by Gov. Crist on Friday to take the spot of departing Sen. Mel Martinez, explained that means that he is a "problem solver" who is unafraid to reach across party lines but still committed to "limited government."

But will LeMieux, the governor's former chief of staff, tackle the controversial issues confronting the Senate over the next 16 months by casting votes with the solidly Republican bloc?

Or will he offer hope to Democrats struggling to find GOP support for major intitiatives such as health-care reform and new rules to slow global warming?

Martinez was reliably Republican, voting with the majority of his party nearly 85 percent of the time and scoring 100 percent ratings from such social conservative groups as the Family Research Council and Gun Owners of America.

LeMieux's record suggests he may not be as reliable a vote for his party.

In his only run for elected office, for the Statehouse in 1998, LeMieux favored gay rights, including adoptions.

And it was LeMieux who urged Crist to snub President George W. Bush just days before the 2006 election.

LeMieux worked with Crist, who was attorney general at the time, when Crist decided to stay out of the emotional fray surrounding the legislative and legal battle to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

LeMieux was also responsible for helping craft the finer details on some of Crist's signature moves, including his push in 2007 to overhaul the property insurance market by greatly expanding the state's role in providing reinsurance.

And LeMieux has been willing to reach out to Democrats in order to accomplish Crist's goals.

Chris Kise, a former top Crist aide, said there is a high level of understanding between the two men. "He knows how George thinks and he can trust that thinking," said Kise.

But the idea that LeMieux is nothing more than a Crist surrogate has drawn criticism.

"He says he's a Charlie Crist Republican. I'm still trying to figure out what that means," said Chris Ingram, a Republican political consultant from Tampa. "I guess that means LeMieux is going to stick his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows."

Romney - The Long-Distance Runner

(BostonGlobe).....People who asked Romney what he would do once his presidential campaign was over say the former businessman and one-term Massachusetts governor did not flinch: He wanted to keep his hand in politics. For more than a year, Romney has done so with the same competitiveness and discipline that has marked nearly every challenge he has taken on in his life, from his foreign assignment as a Mormon missionary and career as a management consultant and founder of Bain Capital to his stewardship of the Salt Lake City Olympics and campaigns for senator, governor, and president.

“He lost a tough race,” says New Hampshire state Senator Jeb Bradley, a Republican and former US congressman. “After that, Mitt could have done anything he wanted with his life: back to the nonprofit world or start a new business. But what has he been doing? He’s kept at it. He’s been busting his butt since losing more than anyone I have ever seen.”

Romney’s has been the metabolism of a candidate-in-waiting, one who started paying attention to his long-term interests even before he withdrew from the primaries. Over the last year, as his fellow Republicans made career-crippling moves or drifted toward irrelevance, Romney’s meticulous approach has left him not only the default front-runner for the party’s 2012 nomination but one of the only stable forces the GOP has left. The six-person operation that Romney built over the last year in a Lexington office complex -- under the flag of his Free and Strong America political action committee -- may qualify as the closest thing there is to a durable Republican infrastructure in the Obama era.

With nearly metronomic precision, Romney seems to emerge monthly from the cuckoo clock he has constructed for his exile. Each time, he delivers a speech with a carefully calibrated new critique of the Democratic regime, and then retreats back to a lower-profile schedule of fund-raisers, Op-Eds, and diligent networking among Republicans nationwide.

While Romney spent much of last year campaigning for other candidates, this year he turned his attention to what advisers acknowledge is the primary objective: financing his own political operations. In the first six months of the year, Romney’s PAC raised more than $1.6 million and spent most of it -- six times more than the committee gave away to other Republican candidates during the 2008 campaign. Much of the budget appears to have paid for salaries, consultant fees, and fund-raising expenses, including direct-mail printing, postage, and tens of thousands to the Romney for President campaign to acquire contributor lists. Romney is incubating a national organization ready to become a presidential campaign at a time when victory could cost $1 billion.

“He’s sensitive to that, and so he’s making smart and continuing investments in his own political infrastructure to keep his options open,” says Musser, the former adviser. “No one else is doing that today.”

Other potential Republican candidates have fought to earn a national profile, and most have stumbled from the overreach. Huckabee has launched a Fox News variety show and Alaska governor Sarah Palin abruptly quit her office midterm. Others trying to raise their profiles have made political enemies: Florida governor Charlie Crist outraged members of his own party by campaigning in favor of Obama’s stimulus bill, while Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal frustrated his state’s residents when he rejected a portion of the federal money. South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and US Senator John Ensign of Nevada were both forced into exposing comi-tragic dalliances.

Romney’s schedule is a testament to his measure and caution as he has worked to stay in front of crucial conservative constituencies and away from unnecessary squabbling on news shows. “He’s not a talking head, and he doesn’t want to be critic-in-chief,” says spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. Romney turns down 95 percent of the media requests he receives and has refused to cooperate with what he calls “Romney-in-exile” profiles, including this one. “He is not a candidate, he is a private citizen,” says Fehrnstrom. “He does not want to invite or encourage speculation about 2012.”

Instead, the PAC’s project has been to position Romney as the thinking man of the Republican Party. (Here he faces competition from former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who has his own policy-oriented PAC and well-earned ties to the conservative establishment.) The material that has survived since the campaign is the stuff that presents Romney as a sage, full of geo-strategic concepts and a passel of rhetorical tricks to elucidate them: analogies and typologies and copious references to great-man figures and historical “inflection points.” At the National Rifle Association convention, Romney spoke only cursorily of gun issues, saving most of his energy for a schematic account of the “four strategies competing to lead the world in this century” and a comparison of modern-day liberals to “monarchists.”

Romney is hoping to crystallize this worldview in his second book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, which he has been writing, with a research assistant’s help, from a laptop at his Lexington office and on the beachside patio of his home near San Diego. (It will be published in March.) Those who have read parts of the book say not to expect any surprises, just a coherent synthesis of Romney’s views that will help demonstrate his seriousness to a broad audience.

Romney also seems to be quietly aligning with a faction of conservatives bidding a quiet farewell to the party’s overarching obsession with culture. Last summer, Romney met Virginia congressman Eric Cantor when the two were dispatched for a day of spokesman duties at the Democratic Convention in Denver. In November, Cantor was elected House minority whip and quickly invited Romney to address congressional Republicans when they gathered for their first post-election retreat. Now the two speak regularly by phone.

When Cantor unveiled his National Council for a New America, perhaps the most concerted of the efforts within the party to rebrand the Republican agenda, he had Romney by his side for the early May photo op. At a suburban Virginia pizzeria, Romney and former Florida governor Jeb Bush were perched on wooden stools as two of Cantor’s five “national experts”: a tableau of a smart, good-natured party in search of a common-sense future. The group’s founding documents promised “a conversation with America that seeks to remove ideological filters” on issues like health care, education, energy, national security, and economic issues. There was no mention of immigration, abortion, judges, or gay rights, and Republican leaders most popular with religious conservatives -- Palin and Huckabee, in particular -- were glaringly not included.

“He’s someone who is solutions-oriented. He’s about results, it’s about deliverables. He says: Let’s put a goal out there,” Cantor says of Romney. “So much of what our party needs right now is the respect that we can implement our conservative vision.”

As Romney advisers mined their 2008 experience for potential 2012 lessons, several rued the fact that he had been introduced nationally as an ideological purist and not as a businesslike pragmatist. Instead, his campaign focused too intently on winning over Iowa’s evangelical voters, for whom Romney’s Mormonism had likely been an insurmountable hurdle, aides concluded after the election. “If you’re looking for a mistake we made, we should have made [the campaign] more about competence,” says Ron Kaufman, a lobbyist and former White House official who advises Romney. “If a Republican can win in 2012, it will be because competence matters.”

Advisers say Romney can likely wait until after the 2010 midterm elections before deciding whether to run and beginning to build a formal campaign organization. (Romney officially announced his last candidacy in February 2007, although staff and strategy had been in place for months beforehand.) “He’ll have the greatest flexibility to wait and not do all these things, because he’s done it before,” says Kaufman.

“My sense is, if Romney runs for president again, he won’t have the same problems with the ideological purists and those skeptical of his faith, his past position on abortion or guns. All those issues have been largely placated by him proving himself as a committed team player,” says Musser. “My bet is you’d see Mr. Fix-It on full display.”

The grander challenge is whether Romney, a proud strategist of reinvention who called his first book Turnaround, can get away with such a stylistic makeover -- even if Romney’s heart is far more that of a technocrat than a true believer.

This spring, Romney sold his homes in Belmont and Utah, bringing his recession-era inventory of houses to two (in California and New Hampshire). But he may add another: He has started shopping for a condo in Boston. “He’s slowing down a bit, and realized he has more than he needed,” says Tagg Romney, who now hosts his parents in a kitchenette-equipped guest room at his own Belmont home when Mitt and Ann need a place to sleep in Boston. (Romney’s staff is still struggling to capture the language of residential austerity: Fehrnstrom talks of “opening up the house” on New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee for summer as though it were a weeks-long activity.) The property shift sets Romney up to claim home-field advantage in New Hampshire, a state he needs to win. But Romney will remain registered to vote in Massachusetts, Fehrnstrom says.

When he geared up to run the last time, Romney went to Iowa and bivouacked there for much of 2007. Romney advisers are already beginning to see New Hampshire as a stronger base from which to launch the early days of a 2012 candidacy; when Romney volunteered to do future National Council events, he told Cantor he wanted to do them in the Northeast. “Iowa will be reassessed by both parties -- whether people should be planting the flag there as much as they have,” says Gage, the former Romney consultant. “My takeaway personally is that New Hampshire is still the king. It really is the most important, and not Iowa.”

The most audacious option would be to completely bypass Iowa -- as McCain did in 2000 and toyed with doing last year -- and with it downplay the circuit of conservative interest groups to which Romney felt obliged to pay fealty in advance of 2008. “He doesn’t have to do that again,” says Keene, the American Conservative Union head. “That’s the plus side of his candidacy. A lot of people got comfortable with him, and he didn’t make a fool out of himself. You don’t always lose by losing.”

Cheney Slams Obama's 'Politicized' Probe of CIA Interrogations

"We had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, 'How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?'

"Instead, they're out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions -- threatening contrary to what the president originally said. They're going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations," (Cheney).

(FOXNews).Calling it a "terrible decision" that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration's probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say," Cheney told "FOX News Sunday" in a no-holds-barred interview.

In blunt, unsparing language, Cheney accused President Obama of setting a "terrible precedent" by launching an "intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration." He seemed to question Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief.

"I have serious doubts about his policies," Cheney told FOX News' Chris Wallace in Jackson Hole, Wyo. "Serious doubts, especially, about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."

As evidence, Cheney pointed to Obama's decision last week to assert White House control over a newly formed unit that will interrogate terrorists. The new arrangement shifts control of such interrogations away from the CIA and toward the FBI, although oversight will be exercised by the National Security Council, which is located in the White House and reports directly to the president.

Cheney ridiculed the new unit, which will be known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG)."It's not even clear who's responsible," he marveled. "The Justice Department is, then they claim they aren't. The FBI is responsible, and they claim they aren't. It's some kind of interagency process by which they're going to be responsible for interrogating high-value detainees.

"If we had tried to do that back in the aftermath of 9/11, when we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, we'd have gotten no place," he said.

Cheney predicted the new unit will be incapable of effectively interrogating "people that may have knowledge about imminent attacks."

"They're going to have to have meetings and decide who gets to ask what question and who's going to Mirandize the witness," he said. "I think it's silly. It makes no sense. It doesn't appear to be a serious move in terms of being able to deal with the nation's security."

Cheney warned that curtailing the CIA's role in interrogations is a grave mistake.

"I think it's a direct slap at the CIA. I don't think it will work," he said. "It moves very much in the direction of going back to the old way of looking at these terrorist attacks -- that these are law enforcement problems, that this isn't a strategic threat to the United States."

Obama's approval hits new low.......only 47% approve

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President.

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Friday, August 28, 2009

The real Unemployment rate is 20.6% ,worst since the great depression

(USnews).The "Great Recession" is the name that has stuck for the economic decline that began in late 2007. But there's some reason to think that using the word recession is being kind.

The U.S. gross domestic product has shrunk 3.9 percent in the past year, the worst drop since the Great Depression. Plenty of observers are willing to say that this recession is much deeper than anything we've seen since the 1930s--including the big dip in the early 1980s, generally accepted as the other candidate for the worst recession since the Great Depression. "I think it's way worse today," says Ridgely Evers of Tapit Partners, a longtime entrepreneur and venture capitalist who founded the software company Netbooks (now known as WorkingPoint). In the recession of 1981 and 1982, "people recognized it as a dip. [Today,] nobody thinks we are going to come back out in relatively short order." This recession seems to have dragged on longer.

The unemployment rate is a murky number. It seems simple enough to look at the national unemployment figures released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July, that number was 9.4 percent...

So where's the murkiness? The problem is that many of the people one would think of as "unemployed" are not included in this unemployment rate. For one, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count unemployed people who have been discouraged by the labor market and have given up looking for work. You are counted as a "discouraged worker" if you are available to work, want to work, and tried to look for work in the past year but gave up within four weeks for reasons including the belief that no work is available. The fact that the national unemployment rate excludes these discouraged workers has led many observers to believe it does not reflect the "real" level of unemployment. "Ask the average person if he or she is unemployed, and there is little hesitation in giving you an answer, but that may not agree with government definitions," says John Williams, an economist who examines government statistics at shadowstats.com.

Other people who aren't counted in the official number are those who have been forced by the economy to work part time. The number of workers who wanted full-time jobs but could find only part-time work was 1.8 million last month, which amounts to 1.3 percent of the labor force.

What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month--nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July. "If you have that number of people leaving the workforce, that seems to me a serious problem," says economist John Lott.

Many people are giving up because the labor market is so bad--but how bad historically? A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933). Trying to compare that U-6 number with the early '80s recession gets a bit tricky. The U-6 measurement did not come into use until 1994. Before that, the Bureau of Labor Statistics used a broader measurement, referred to as U-7, to figure out the number of unemployed plus workers dropping out of the labor force. In 1982, U-7 hit a peak of 15.3 percent, below the current U-6 of 16.3 percent. But 1982 should probably look even better compared with the labor market of today. U-7 overestimates the number of discouraged workers compared with how we measure them today. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics started asking people in surveys if they were actually available to work. These and other changes reduced the measurement of discouraged workers by 50 percent, according to some estimates.

So if you care not just about people who meet the official definition of "unemployed" but also about people who are dropping out of the labor force, 2009 seems to be trailing 1982 in terms of the health of the labor market. Williams says that when he takes into consideration people who haven't looked for work in more than a year because they can't find jobs, the real unemployment rate today goes all the way up to 20.6 percent by his calculations. "It won't take much to get it to the worst since the Great Depression," he says.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Practice what you preach - Obama Pro bike helmets,but does not wear one

(ABC News).President Obama took a bike ride with his family today in Aquinnah, on Martha’s Vineyard. The First Family cruised along Lobsterville Beach on a gorgeous sunny day but there was one glaring omission in an otherwise picture perfect tableau – the president was not wearing a bike helmet.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said he did not know why the president was not wearing a helmet because he generally does.“He supports the wearing of bicycle helmets,” Burton said.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" (Churchill)