Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

NEW SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Today we launch our first subscription drive of 2010.

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can fight off all evil. 

We started taking subscriptions about 18 months ago.   As a result, we're about 60% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  No, we're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of diminishing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  

And at The Angel's Corner we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of absurdity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a 91% subscriber retention rate - almost unheard of - but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

MONDAY,  FEBRUARY 22,  2010

ANOTHER "GESTURE" GONE BAD – AT 7:07 P.M. ET:  We report a great deal about Britain here, and we often quote British journalists.  Britain does things that are wonderful – the Brits are always with us in the end – and terrible. 

Go back to the U.K. of the late 30s, and into 1941, and you'll see the same pattern.  Britain fought alone, and valiantly, against Nazi Germany until the United States joined the war, but a chunk of its "elite" was pro-Nazi.  Fortunately, the good guys prevailed.

You may recall that, last year, the Brits released the Libyan Lockerbie bomber – the man convicted of helping to bring down PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.   They did so on "humanitarian" grounds after it was determined he would die soon of cancer.  And the upshot?  From The Telegraph:

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is living with his family in a luxury villa in Libya six months after he was released from jail on compassionate grounds because he had less than three months to live.

Maybe there was a mistake in the calendar.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending the course of chemotherapy that he had been given after returning to his homeland last August.

Professor Karol Sikora, the London-based doctor who examined Megrahi and predicted he would be dead by last October, admitted this weekend that the fact the bomber is still alive might be "difficult" for the families of the 270 victims of the attack.

Yeah, I would think so.

Most did not want Megrahi released and they suspected he would live longer than the predicted three months.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed last September that the Libyan government had paid for the medical evidence which helped Megrahi, 57, to be released. The Libyans had encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live.

The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.

COMMENT:  Great Britain has lucrative contracts with Libya.  And what are the feelings of 270 families, most of them American, compared to that?

Sickening.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

BROWN VOTES – AT 6:56 P.M. ET:  Newly minted Senator Scott Brown has cast a vote, and some conservatives won't be happy.  From the Washington Post:

The Senate voted Monday to advance a $15 billion jobs-creation measure, giving Democrats a key victory as they seek to reverse their declining political fortunes by emphasizing legislation to boost the economy. The chamber is now poised to pass the measure later this week.

Five Republicans, including new Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) joined 57 Democrats in voting to proceed on the jobs bill, after a suspenseful buildup in which members of both parties wondered whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could cobble together enough votes to proceed.

Reid lost the public support of several Republicans after discarding an $85 billion jobs package negotiated by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) in favor of a narrower bill. GOP leaders complained that Reid had spurned a bipartisan deal negotiated in good faith.

Republicans Christopher Bond (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (OhIo) joined Brown in deciding to back the bill anyway. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the lone Democrat to vote against the measure, which advanced, 62 to 30.

COMMENT:  No need to panic.  Look at the numbers.  Brown's vote was not decisive.  The Dems needed only 60 votes.  Without Brown, they would have had 61. 

Brown is involved in a balancing act, and he's a smart guy.  He represents one of the most liberal states in the country, and must keep to his pledge to work across the aisle whenever possible.  His vote did not make a difference in the outcome, and was a symbol of "bipartisanship."  Forgiven.

February 22, 2010   Permalink 

BY WAY OF WARNING – AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  A guilty plea in New York shows how close we've come to another catastrophic terror attack.  From The New York Times:

Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant who was a key player in what the federal authorities have said was one of the most serious threats to the United States since the 9/11 attacks, pleaded guilty on Monday to terrorism charges after admitting to a plot to blow up the subways.

He admitted that he came to New York around the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to kill himself and others on the subway, to draw attention to the killing of Afghan civilians by the United States military.

Mr. Zazi appeared before Judge Raymond J. Dearie at Federal District Court in Brooklyn. He pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit murder overseas, and providing material support for a terrorist organization. He faces a sentence of life in prison.

COMMENT:  We were lucky.  We stopped this one.  We've stopped a number of them.  But sooner or later, an attack is going to succeed.  We are not ready, psychologically or physically. 

February 22, 2010   Permalink

TOYOTA'S DISGRACE – AT 10:43 A.M. ET:  Apparently, there is more to Toyota's plunge than some bad engineering.  The New York Times reports:

Toyota estimated that it saved $100 million by negotiating with regulators for a limited recall of 2007 Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models for sudden acceleration, the same problem that has since prompted it to recall millions of cars, documents turned over to a Congressional committee showed Sunday.

The estimate was in a confidential presentation from July 2009 listing legislative and regulatory “wins” for the company. The presentation was among thousands of pages of documents provided as a result of subpoenas by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, one of three panels holding hearings in the next two weeks on Toyota’s safety problems.

The carmaker’s chief executive, Akio Toyoda, is set to testify before the oversight panel on Wednesday. The House Energy and Commerce Committee opens the round of hearings on Tuesday, while a Senate committee will meet on Toyota next week.

COMMENT:  This deserves a thorough airing.  Over the years, we have glorified Japanese companies.  They're not perfect, and some aren't even wonderful.  At the same time, we've tended to downplay American firms, even when they've done a fine job.  To some Americans, especially on the coasts, the word "imported" has a kind of absurd magic.

Let everything come out, and let Toyota take its lumps.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

STARTLING – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  We've reported here that not all conservative-leaning folks were thrilled by the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) convention.  Indeed, some major figures, like Sarah Palin, didn't show up.  Others expressed an uneasiness at what they considered some elements of extremism.

Now Mike Huckabee, a very shrewd political operator, adds to the doubters.  He's casting his political lot elsewhere.  From Politics Daily:

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on Fox News that he didn't attend this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because it had become dominated by libertarians and was far less relevant since the Tea Party movement began, Politico reports.

Confirming at least one part of Huckabee's analysis, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, known for his outspoken libertarian views, carried the CPAC straw poll with 31 percent. Mitt Romney came in second with 22 percent, while Huckabee only made a single-digit showing.

We should note, as we did yesterday, that only 25% of the attendees cast ballots in the straw poll.

But Huckabee, who has often spoken at the annual conference, said it mattered less than ever this year. "Where CPAC was historically the event, the Tea Parties are having their own events all over the country and a lot more truly grassroots people are getting involved because of the Tea Parties," Huckabee said.

COMMENT:  You can call it sour grapes, but we've seen a number of articles from credible conservative sources in the last few days expressing dismay at the raucous atmosphere and lack of intellectual discipline at the CPAC meeting.  Some have been especially harsh on Glenn Beck's wild presentation, in which he appeared to blame Republicans and Democrats equally for the nation's dilemma.

Parties run in elections.  Movements don't.  The CPAC meeting began well, with some effective speeches by Dick Cheney and Marco Rubio.  The convention kind of went downhill from there.  I don't think it attracted many people at home, which must be the objective of a political gathering. 

Look for some splits on the right.  They're inevitable.  How they're handled will have a great impact in November.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

WAIT, WAIT, THERE'S A NEWS BULLETIN – OBAMA TO CHANGE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The Politico is reporting this morning that change he can believe in is coming to the Obama strategy desk.  Try to contain your excitement:

President Barack Obama, after weeks of private talks, is putting the finishing touches on a new election-year strategy that replaces sweeping "change" with incremental reform, according to senior White House officials.

“Reform is the new change,” a senior aide told POLITICO.

Yeah, and sixty is the new fifty, and this is the new that.  Why is it that, in reading this story, I started humming, "There's No Business Like Show Business"?

The revamped 2010 plan focuses extensively on new reform efforts, starting with a “competitiveness” push, a call for tighter campaign finance laws and renewed attention to Obama’s open-government agenda.

I'm overwhelmed.  Wasn't this what we were supposed to get originally? 

The strategy involves heavy use of presidential statements and Obama's White House platform to position him as an agent of popular change, with less reliance on a complicated legislative agenda.

Huh?  You mean we haven't heard enough from Obama?  He's as overexposed as a Playboy centerfold.

Less reliance on a complicated legislative agenda?  Guess they're getting ready to lose Congress.

A close adviser said that Obama plans to increase his travel in the country, including mini-campaigns built around “a series of small but highly visible policy debates that clearly put the Democrats on the side of middle-class families, with lobbies for special interests on the other side.” Two likely targets: student-loan servicing organizations and banks.

Just a second here.  Isn't this what he's been doing?  This is one long campaign.

Finally, in an effort to reclaim the “change” mantle even though he now runs the government, Obama plans to emphasize his “transparency” agenda -- such measures as releasing White House visitor logs; posting specific projects funded by the stimulus bill; and signing an Open Government Directive requiring federal agencies to achieve milestones in transparency, participation, and collaboration.

I'm so excited.  Get me my pills. 

COMMENT:  This doesn't look like much, but, once again, we caution against underestimating Obama, especially the campaigning Obama. 

Some themes may well resonate, and appropriately so, with the American people.  Both parties concede that there are areas that cry out for reform, and that includes aspects of our health-insurance system.  So, Republicans must counter Obama with ideas of their own, not simply with rejection letters.

With Obama beginning this new crusade, it's a perfect time for the GOP to come out with a new Contract with America, and start to show the superiority of its approach.  If it doesn't, it will leave the field to the president.  Don't assume that poll results today will be reflected in election results in November.  Liberal Democrats don't sleep.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  No question is asked more in politics today than "What happened to Barack Obama?"  Michael Barone, one of our most astute observers, believes that the president simply lacks the "intuition" to govern.  From the Washington Examiner:

No president enters office knowing everything he needs to know...

So presidents must rely on something else, something intangible and unquantifiable, in determining what is within the realm of possibility and what is a bridge too far: intuition.
Great leaders have it, though it sometimes fails; failed leaders don't, though their plans sometimes succeed...

...Barack Obama, so far, seems to belong in the second category. Like everyone who gets elected president, he entered office brimming with confidence, convinced he could end the hostility of the Iranian mullahs, Islamist terrorists, the leaders of China and Russia, and the likes of Hugo Chavez.

At least so far, that confidence has proved to be dreamy. Obama now knows their hostility was rooted not just in distaste for George W. Bush's Texas twang but to the fundamental character of the American people. A Muslim middle name hasn't made much difference.

And...

At home, Obama, like many others and not just in his own party, believed that economic distress would move Americans to favor government direction of the health care and energy sectors and to support sharply increased federal spending.

That intuition now seems unfounded. As does the intuition that the Senate would pass hugely important legislation on a party-line vote with not one vote to spare.

The intuition needed to whip up an already friendly crowd during a political campaign, and the intuition to govern are two different things.  The mainstream media missed that, in part because many journalists today don't believe in intuition.  They believe in elite educations as a kind of cure-all for the world's problems.

Having had the privilege of an "elite" education, I can testify that, while a fine thing to have, it doesn't cure anything.

Obama's two predecessors also suffered from failures of intuition. Bill Clinton recovered and got deserved credit for the 1996 welfare reform and the 1997 balanced-budget deal. George W. Bush recovered and deserves credit (though Joe Biden is claiming it now) for the success of the Iraq surge strategy.

Obama too may develop better intuition than he has shown so far. But first he has to acknowledge that a successful presidency requires more than the confidence conferred by a high IQ and fancy degrees.

COMMENT:  Barone is on target again.  Lincoln had only one year of schooling.  FDR was called "featherduster" by some because he was seen as an intellectual lightweight.  But both men had superb instincts.

So did Ronald Reagan, who understood the American people, unlike Jimmah Carter, his predecessor.

Again, I don't in any way disparage a fine education.  We certainly put a great deal of emphasis on formal education for our daughters.  But it just isn't enough, and too many members of our elite classes think it is. 

February 22, 2010   Permalink

WE'RE IN DUTCH – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  A decision in The Netherlands is further evidence that Barack Obama's foreign policy just isn't working.  The Dutch government has collapsed...over Afghanistan.  NRO reports:

Then-candidate Obama, back in May of 2008: "Right now, we don't have enough troops, and NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. "

The news, today:

"A day after his government collapsed, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenendesaid Sunday that he expected Dutch troops to come home from Afghanistan before the end of the year.

"A last-ditch effort by Mr. Balkenende to keep Dutch soldiers in the dangerous southern Afghan province of Oruzgan instead saw the Labor Party quit the government in the Netherlands early Saturday, immediately raising fears that the Western military coalition fighting the war was increasingly at risk.

"Even as the allied offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marja continued, it appeared almost certain that most of the 2,000 Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The question plaguing military planners was whether a Dutch departure would embolden the war’s critics in other allied countries, where debate over deployment is continuing, and hasten the withdrawal of their troops as well."

So here's a country with about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. Iraq is calmer, our troops are gradually leaving that country, we've elected a president who opposed the war, and who spent two years pledging to carefully listen to allies. And now, they're not only not sending reinforcements, they're preparing to quit entirely. In retrospect, our NATO allies' disinclination to send more troops to Afghanistan for much of the past decade had very little to do with Iraq or George W. Bush, and a whole lot to do with their own populaces' de facto pacifism and isolationism. The Dutch people aren't convinced that this is their fight.

COMMENT:  Obama completely misled the American people in his foreign-policy pronouncements and pledges during the 2008 campaign.  He has gotten essentially nothing out of our allies, and less than nothing out of our enemies. 

How to you like the way Iran has abandoned its nuclear-weapons program because The One has demanded it?  What persuasion.  What charisma.  What...let's move on.

The Dutch don't see Afghanistan as their fight because NATO, with the exception of the Brits and Canadians, has largely been a one-way street.  It's the U.S. doing the heavy lifting and the Europeans accepting the lift.  True, some NATO members have done some things in Afghanistan, but, again with Britain and Canada being the exceptions, they've been minimal. 

The Dutch withdrawal is a major blow.  It will probably be followed by others.  The impact of our sending 30,000 additional troops will be eroded. 

Obama, how about doing some of that convincing that you promised us.

February 22,  2010   Permalink

SUNDAY,  FEBRUARY 21,  2010

WHERE'S THAT CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN? – AT 8:31 P.M. ET:  Apparently, Government Motors won't be run any differently than General Motors:

NEW YORK (AP) -- General Motors Co. CEO Ed Whitacre will receive a salary of $1.7 million this year, plus stock awards that will bring his total pay package to $9 million at a later date, the automaker said Friday.

On the basis of what?

In a surprise announcement, GM also said former CEO Fritz Henderson has been rehired as a consultant. Henderson, who was forced out of the job in December, will work 20 hours a month and will be paid $59,090 a month, the company said.

The company is laying off thousands, and a man gets almost $60,000 to work 20 hours?  Do they really need him that badly, or did he play golf with the right guy?

This is the kind of thing that discredits the enterprise system.  It's an embarrassment, one of many these days. 

Whitacre's total compensation is larger than Henderson's when he was CEO. Henderson received a total pay package worth nearly $5.5 million.

Whitacre's pay package includes a cash salary of $1.7 million that took effect Jan. 1. It also includes $5.3 million in stock awarded in increments starting in 2012, plus another stock award worth $2 million. The details, including the timing, of the $2 million stock award still need to be worked out, a GM spokeswoman said.

GM is 60 percent owned by the federal government and has received $52 billion in federal aid. The company plans to repay as much of the money as possible by issuing stock to the public, possibly as early as this year.

Wall Street is going back to the same obscene practices that helped lead to the financial crisis.  Apparently, GM wants to do the same.  Their lobbyists in Washington must be doing their jobs very well. 

If free enterprise is destroyed, it won't be because of the efforts of clownish, incompetent socialists, waving around their copies of Howard Zinn's fictional "A People's History..."  It will be because of public revulsion toward indefensible practices.

There used to be a saying that there's room in business for bulls and bears, but not for pigs.  Apparently, plenty of room has been made for the pigs.

February 21, 2010    Permalink

THAT STRAW POLL – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  There's much buzz on the internet, and much revulsion, over the fact that certifiable nutbag Ron Paul won the straw poll for president at the CPAC convention in Washington.

However, reader Bob Gilkison points out, and others confirm, that only about 25% of the participants in the convention actually voted in the poll, which eases the pain of the result.   

However, let me stress that things like this poll, even when correctly explained, still do damage.  We're not playing on a level field.  The mainstream media will cover for the lunatic fringe on the left, but it will magnify the off-kilter types on the right.  We just have to be more careful than the other side.

February 21, 2010   Permalink

ENOUGH ALREADY! – AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  I have just been named president of the PBWP, a national organization whose letters stand for People Bored With Powell.  It's true that I'm the only member, but others may join.

I'm sure Colin Powell was a fine soldier.  But, as a political figure, he's endlessly boring.  And his disloyalty to those who gave him high office is revolting.  He apparently considers himself lofty and above us all, something of an elder statesman.  In fact, he was never much of a statesman at all.

Now Powell is back, still claiming to be a Republican, but doing all he can to advance the other party and ridicule his own.  From the Washington Post:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said former Vice President Dick Cheney's claims that President Obama's policies are putting the nation at risk have no basis, especially since most of the programs and procedures the Bush administration enacted have been continued or heightened under the Obama tenure.

Programs like going around the world apologizing for the United States?  Programs like trying the mastermind of 9-11 in a residential neighborhood of New York?  Procedures like putting a deadline on our action in Afghanistan, giving the enemy a useful timeline?  Procedures like giving Iran one deadline after another, then ignoring them? 

I don't recall those being Bush programs and procedures.

Asked about progress in Iraq, Powell, who championed the invasion as secretary of state, said history will be the ultimate judge of events there.

If the man had such contempt for the administration he served, why didn't he resign on principle?  And he should have offered a vigorous defense of our Iraq action, which, at minimum, removed a regionally dangerous regime.

He cautioned fellow conservatives who call President Obama a socialist, saying rough-and-tumble politics is nothing new, but to constantly criticize without attempting to offer new ideas is not productive.

"Fellow conservatives"?  Is that what the writer actually wrote?  I don't recall the last time Powell uttered a conservative word. 

"Have we so lost our faith in this country that we think one person, one man, can suddenly change our entire system?" Powell asked. "That's kind of absurd."

No, but one man with the help of Congress can wreck a good part of the building. 

Secretary Powell, you are not being helpful.

February 21, 2010   Permalink

CHEER AMERICA – AT 12:18 A.M. ET:  Hey, have you been watching the Olympics?  Our kids are doing spectacularly well, despite gloomy predictions:

America is delivering an Olympics beating that nobody saw coming.

The U.S. won as many medals on Wednesday—six—as it won during the entirety of the 1988 Games in Calgary, Alberta.

The 20 medals that America had won through Friday afternoon at the Vancouver Games represent far more than half of its greatest Winter Olympics haul ever—the 34 that it garnered during the 2002 Salt Lake City Games.

Once the poor sisters of the Winter Games, once pressed to explain why a country with so much money and the greatest snow on earth couldn't dominate the slipping-and-sliding sports, America is on the verge of turning Vancouver into a romp.

Let's boast a little.  No more apologies.  Get that, White House?

Perhaps most impressive is that America is winning medals in traditional sports often dominated by Europeans, such as alpine skiing, figure skating and long-course speedskating. Noting that the number of Winter Olympics events has risen to 86 from 46 in Calgary, Olympic historian David Wallechinsky said, "We're expected to do well in new events like freestyle skiing and snowboarding. But this week is not just a new-event phenomenon for the U.S."

Never sell America short.  That is the message.  Of course, our past winter Olympics problems were caused by BUSH (!!).

February 21, 2010   Permalink

EXPOSING THE WARMERS – AT 10:49 A.M. ET:  George Will, who's been quite good recently, writes one of the best columns I've read about the global-warming controversy:

Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.

He is chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:

"They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder -- and I hope they put it on their faces every day."

Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement.

That is, of course, the point.  The warmers are involved as much in political science as actual science, if not more so.  They are shocked that anyone could possibly disagree with them.  These are the kind of people who'd put their College Board scores on their gravestones.

And there is this gem from Will:

Last week, Todd Stern, America's special envoy for climate change -- yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government -- warned that those interested in "undermining action on climate change" will seize on "whatever tidbit they can find." Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?

It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern's portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated.  One of the tragedies of this controversy, and the revelations of sloppiness and falsification on the warming side, is that it has shaken Americans' respect for science.  If some in the scientific establishment would get their noses out of the air for a few moments, they'd realize what a decline in respect can mean for the funding of their disciplines, and do something about it...fast.

February 21, 2010   Permalink

AND THERE'S MORE POLLING NEWS – AT 10:34 A.M. ET:  Since we're giving the bad polling news about Obama, let's pile on.   The president has been particularly popular among young voters, but that advantage seems to be fading, as Politics Daily reports:

One of the factors the fueled the resurgence of the Democrats in the 2006 midterms and particularly President Obama's 2008 campaign was the enthusiastic backing of the "Millennial" generation -- voters between 18 and 29. But a Pew Research Center study says that the Democrats' advantage over Republicans with this group has dramatically shrunk from a 32 point margin in 2008 to 14 points.

These numbers include both those who identify with one of the two parties, or lean towards one or the other.

And...

The Democrats in 2008 led Republicans among these young voters in party affiliation by 62 percent to 30 percent, a margin now down to 54 percent to 40 percent.

Pew adds the caveat that the Republican gains do not include a significant rise in the number (22 percent) of Millenials who identify as Republicans when leaners are excluded. The leaners accounted for most of the overall GOP gain, almost doubling from 8 percent in 2008 to 15 percent in December.

The Democrat's advantage among Millenials when leaners are not counted has also lessened, from a 41 percent to 28 percent margin 2008 to 36 percent to 24 percent.

COMMENT:  Maybe there's hope for the young yet, although I worry about what's put into their heads by our "educational" system.

February 21, 2010   Permalink

POLL STUNNER – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  The sky is indeed falling.  Look up.  Watch it come down.  Rasmussen's daily tracker is today reporting this:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That is the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President.

I have to say that I'm surprised at that.  I never thought the "strongly approve" would go much below 30% because of the structure of the electorate.  This 22% number is a jolt.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. The Approval Index has been lower only on one day during Barack Obama’s thirteen months in office (see trends). The previous low came on December 22 as the Senate was preparing to approve its version of the proposed health care legislation. The current lows come as the President is once again focusing attention on the health care legislation.

And...

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

And get this:

Currently, 39% of voters nationwide favor the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Only 35% believe Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections anyway. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Congress should wait until voters select new congressional representatives in November.

COMMENT:  Apparently the American people haven't seen change they can believe in.  We now hear that the Dems will try to push through their health plan in the face of overwhelming public opposition.  The last time we saw this mentality it was crashing planes into American ships off Okinawa.

February 21,  2010   Permalink