Blogs For Victory

To here the MSM tell it, Obama is just doing fabulous in his first 100 days. Often cited in this is Obama’s poll numbers – such as those from Gallup:

Now, 56% say he has done an “excellent” or “good” job as president vs. 20% who rate him as “poor” or “terrible.” An additional 23% say he has done “just OK.”

Hey, 56% is pretty good – but is it really all that good?

Over the past four decades, the average approval rating for presidents in April of their first year in office has been 61 percent — Bush’s now stands at 62 percent. That makes him slightly more popular at this juncture than his father or Bill Clinton were, and slightly less popular than Ronald Reagan at the same point in his presidency.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 62%

Disapprove 29

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

April approval ratings in first year in office

Bush now 62%

Clinton, 1993 55

Bush, 1989 58

Reagan, 1981 67

Carter, 1977 63

Nixon, 1969 61

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

The poll question here in 2009 seems a bit different than back in 2001, but I think that no matter how you slice it up, Obama is clearly not getting public approval at any greater level than his predecessors, and a strong case can be made that he’s actually coming off worse.

The bottom line here is that Obama won about 53% of the vote in November and he’s hovering right around that level of support among the American public right now. The good news for Obama is that his support is still ok – the bad news is that it hasn’t gotten any stronger than it was when he was the fresh, new face of hope and change for an overdrawn and worried America. Outside the kook left, with its servile devotion to Obama, the people seem willing to give Obama his chance, but they aren’t holding him up as some sort of mythical hero come to save the world.

Clearly, the MSM is doing all it can to keep the myth of Obama alive – they own “Obama the Great” and if Obama proves something less than “Great”, it will reflect poorly on an MSM already losing out in the popularity stakes.

Gee, who knew that he was a rightwing extremist?

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency. – Pope John Paul II

Our screwball, Latin American leftist neighbors have made a statement:

1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.

2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.

3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system…

…13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.

Translation from the socialese: “You suck. Give us your money.” Chesterton long ago pointed out that the fundamental flaw of the socialists is that they propose to be the successors of the capitalists – they propose a world changed from where a few business titans control the means of production to a world where a few government titans control the means of production. I can’t see the upside here – though I do note the rank hypocrisy of failed socialist States demanding of capitalist States that they hand over the swag, no strings attached (heck, you can’t even plow a field in Cuba without a permit…and we’re not supposed to even ask what they want to do with our money, should we give it to them?).

These socialists will wow the liberals of the United States with their declaration and I’m sure that if Obama is appraised of it he’ll say “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message”. But the problem we have in the world isn’t economic and it isn’t environmental – it is spiritual. Solzhenitsyn pointed out that the problem of the 20th century is that we forgot about God – it remains the problem of the 21st century. If all we’re worrying about is per-capita GDP or how to lessen carbon emissions, then we’re just spinning our wheels as we hurtle towards destruction. We need to get God back to the center of our lives and start to build a society of justice, mercy, reason and, most importantly, love…love of our neighbors as we love ourselves, and loving God with all our heart and soul. With love, to be poor is no bane; to be rich is no boon if there is not love.

It’s going to get rather bad over the next few years – but, in the end, Love will triumph over hate, even hate wrapped up in a pretty, pink blanket called “socialism”.

I’ve written about the Demcortas’ war on science before, it seems they are still at it. House Democrats apparently refused to allow a global warming skeptic to appear alongside Al Gore during a congressional hearing yesterday.

UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” 

This is rather sad. If they are confident that evidence supports their position on global warming, then they shouldn’t have any fear. Still, in the interest of facts, we should be willing to hear evidence from both sides and make an objective conclusion from that evidence. I know that facts and debate aren’t exactly the Democrats’ strong points, but when they are trying to push disastrous legislation through the politics of fear over global warming, then we need to  stand up against this.

Apparently, this whole charade has less to do with science about climate change, and more to do with a coordinated fundraising pitch for the DCCC.

Gore’s influence is felt in large and small ways — from providing his thoughts and strategic guidance to President Obama, House SpeakerNancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) to aiding his friend Al Franken in the ongoing Minnesota Senate race to fundraising for the party campaign committees.

Witness a fundraising email for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee signed by Gore set to be sent out today in coordination with Earth Day.

“I can tell you that President Obama has signaled in the strongest possible terms that he intends to take bold steps and harness innovative resources to solve the climate crisis,” writes Gore. “Not only that, but Speaker Pelosi has said she will personally shepherd climate legislation through.”

This has everything to do to more tax revenue and more campaign cash for the Democrats, and nothing to do with science…

And up and coming rightwing extremist:

As we embrace the American dream and the freedoms it represents, we must also ensure that those who wish to enjoy those freedoms become a part of our society and learn to speak our language. – Bobby Jindal

Half the nations of the world currently have fertility rates below replacement level and global population is expected to peak in 2050 and then start to decline…so, what does the Obama Administration propose to do? Pretend its still 1970 and go after the “population explosion”:

The new U.S. ambassador for global women’s issues pledged Thursday the Obama administration’s “deep commitment” to a U.N. blueprint aimed at slowing the world’s population explosion and empowering women.

What is really going on here? The advancement of a radical feminist, anti-religious and pro-abortion platform. There is no need to work out ways to reduce population growth – that is already happening and actually is becoming an impending catastrophe (as the Russians die out, for instance, who gets to take over Russia? Its 1/6th of the world and has vast natural resources…war will likely settle the issue). But there is a need, on the left, to essentially make traditional religious belief illegal and force women into the corporate/Statist lifestyle approved by liberals – and so under the rubric of stopping the “population explosion”, the left will insert all manner of anti-family, anti-religious and anti-freedom laws and regulations.

Our problem here, in the pro-life community, is that the so-called “population explosion” has been hammered in to the national consciousness for decades now. Most of the time, when you tell someone that China is less densely populated than Japan and that the Russians are dying out, they are quite surprised – to hear the population control people tell it, the Chinese are living right on top of each other and we’re down to the last half-acre of wilderness unless we act NOW to save the planet! Injecting a note of reality will prove difficult.

meg⋅a⋅lo⋅ma⋅ni⋅a [meg-uh-loh-mey-nee-uh] – noun

1. Psychiatry. a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.

2. an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.

Obama wants to take a prime time slot to discuss his first 100 days:

The President Obama Show will be making an appearance in the May sweeps.

Officials from the Obama administration have asked the major broadcast networks for up to an hour of primetime next Wednesday at 8, according to sources familiar with the request. Mr. Obama wants the time for a news conference outlining his first 100 days in office.

The end of those first 100 days comes on April 29, and at least one cable news channel, CNN, had already announced plans for a major Election Night-style coverage extravaganza.

By scheduling a press conference on the night, the president is positioning himself to directly participate in the debate over his early performance.

There’s no word yet on whether the broadcast networks will agree to the White House request, though one network insider said it’s all but a given they will.

What’s next? Another volume of his autobiography? Are we going to start getting a minute-by-minute update of Obama’s day? 7:59am, intel brief on terrorist threat; 8:01am, interview with GQ; 9:17am, cabinet meeting to discuss new stimulus bill; 9:19am, interview with People; 10:58am, break for photo op with Mrs O in vegetable garden; 12:07pm, lunch…

Mr. President – you haven’t done anything, yet. You’ve set in train a series of events which, you believe, will improve matters. Those of us with the sense God gave little, white mice know they will end in disaster – but bad or good, what you’ve started hasn’t actually happened. Its all in the planning and start-up phase. You’ve got nothing to talk about. Except yourself – which seems to be the point.

Get off your high horse – you really ain’t all that.

UPDATE: Washingtonian Magazine doctored the famous picture of Obama in the bathing suit. This is Stalinist stuff, boys and girls.

Rasmussen’s survey:

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

Toomey, who served in the House from 1999 to 2005, earns positive reviews from 66% and negative comments from just 19%.

Its time to read the writing on the wall, Senator: the GOP is rejecting you.

I bear no ill will towards Senator Specter and, to be honest, I often find myself admiring the man. But while I view Specter as an ally on some issues, I don’t view him as someone appropriate for the GOP Senate caucus. Even if Specter would be the 51st Senator to provide the GOP with a majority, I’d rather we didn’t have that – I don’t want any future GOP Senate majority dependent upon the good will of a man who consistently undercuts conservatism in the Senate. Better to be a strong minority than a weak majority, as far as the Senate goes. Specter now has his choice to make: run as a GOPer and likely get beaten in the primary, or run as an Independent and have a shot at winning in his own right and thus be able to ally himself with the GOP or the Democrats as his inclinations dictate and, in the end, as he’s done throughout his Senate career.

Will we win with Toomey? I’m not sure – he seems a bit conservative for Pennsylvania, but so did Santorum, and he managed to win and only got beaten in an anti-GOP “wave” year. Pennsylvania has a lot of liberal proclivities, especially in the Philly area, but it also has a lot of conservatism, especially on the matter of Life Issues. Toomey, running against a Democrat and an Independent might be able to squeak in on the center/right votes while the other two divvy up the center/left votes.

Stuart Rothenberg rates the GOP chances of securing a House majority next year at zero – and he’s not kidding; he’s dead certain that there is absolutely no chance that the GOP will secure the 40+ seat net gain necessary for a majority. Why? Because Rothenberg, wise political observer that he is, notes that for such a massive change in seats, you need a “wave”. Meaning that you need some groundswell of popular disapproval of the incumbent party to carry otherwise no-chance/low-chance challengers over the finish line. This is true, by the way. But is there no wave in the making? Lets take a look at how the Democrat governor of very liberal (Obama by 26 points) Massachusetts is doing:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, embroiled in a budget crisis like many state chief executives these days, may need to be thinking about another line of work.

Just 33% of Massachusetts voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic incumbent if he seeks reelection in 2010.

Nineteen percent (19%) say they’re not very likely to do so, and 38% say they aren’t likely at all to vote for Patrick, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Bay State voters.

One-third of the state’s voters (34%) now approve of the job Patrick is doing as governor, including only eight percent (8%) who Strongly Approve.

To say that Governor Patrick is “vulnerable” is to understate things quite a bit – unless things turn around massively for him, then the GOP will have no one but themselves to blame if they don’t find a candidate to win the governorship next year. There does seem to be the raw material in Massachusetts for a GOP wave in that State…and if the GOP ends up doing well in Massachusetts, can the GOP then end up doing less well in, say, Ohio, Virginia and Missouri? I suppose its possible, but it doesn’t seem probable.

Part of Rothenberg’s confidence is that Obama’s approval ratings run from 55% to 65% – what Rothenberg doesn’t mention is that the 63, 64 and 65% approval numbers in the most recent Real Clear Politics average are polls of “adults”. The 55% approval rating is from the one poll in the mix of “likely voters”. Now, any President is delighted to have 55% approval ratings from likely voters – such a President, in an election year, is likely coasting to re-election. But 2010 isn’t an election year for Obama, and the stark fact is that Rasmussen – the source of the 55% approval rating – has Obama’s “strongly approve” number dropping from about 45% on January 20th to 37% most recently, while the “strongly disapprove” number has climbed from about 15% to 31%. In other words, its not all rosy for Obama. While the American people are still cutting him some slack as the new guy and giving him his chance, if there’s no general improvement in American economic life (and/or if there is a serious military/national security setback) by the middle of 2010, then Obama’s popularity simply won’t be able to sustain its current levels. Obama boosts Democrats in 2009, but he might not do so in 2010, even if he’s not dragging them down.

So, what have we got? We’ve got Democrats in trouble in normally safe areas (Patrick in Massachuetts, Reid in Nevada, Dodd in Connecticut, eg), we’ve got a still-popular Obama suffering continual erosion of his support and, as it turns out, the “generic ballot” question has been pretty much tied up between Republicans and Democrats for a couple months now. Political junkies will instantly realize that this is a serious event, in and of itself: usually, the “generic ballot” favors the Democrats by a significant margin. Right around election day, the “generic ballot” gave the Democrats a 47% to 41% advantage…now its 39% for both sides (meaning, of course, that the GOP isn’t ragingly popular, either). Cobble together a weakening Obama, weakened incumbent Democrats and a general dismay with Congress and you have all the tools necessary for a wave. The question: Can the GOP capitalize on this?

The answer? Beats heck out of me. What it will take, first and foremost, is leadership. Back in 1994 – love him or hate him – the GOP had the superb leadership of Newt Gingrich. The GOP managed to distill the national issues down to a few quick points and then ran a very effective, anti-DC campaign against a corrupt and out-of-touch Democrat Congress. The Democrat Congress heading in to 2010 is just as corrupt and out of touch as the 1994 Democrat Congress and there are plenty of excellent issues for the GOP to run on (government spending, taxes, waste, corruption, etc, etc, etc), but there is, as yet, no clear GOP leadership. There is no one to lead the charge.

Given the current lack of leadership for the GOP, I rate our chances at a House majority at no better than 10%, with a Senate majority out of the question. On the other hand, even with weak GOP leadership, I figure we’re in for 20 House seats and three or four Senate seats. How to turn 20 in to 40 is the question the GOP must ask itself, and find the answer. We’ve got a few more months left to shake things out and think things over…but come Christmas, if we’re not ready to come out political guns blazing from January on, then we’ll be passing up what could be a great opportunity.

Man, what a screwball rightwinger he was:

The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests. – Andrew Jackson