Despite clear opposition from the American people in poll after poll, the House Democrats, seemingly drunk with power, chose to push the bill through on a Saturday night. There is no doubt the plan has been to pass something before 2010 since clearly many of the representatives who support this legislation will be finding a new line of work when they’re voted out.

Report from Politico:

The House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time Saturday night that would provide health coverage to almost every American after nearly a century of false starts and un-kept campaign promises.

The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).

The bill has a steep cost – both in dollars, $1.2 trillion, and political capital – but Democrats hailed its passage as the next chapter in a governing legacy that produced Medicare and Social Security.

“Today, as we all know, is an historic moment for our nation and for American families,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor hours before the vote.

President Barack Obama has made health care reform his signature legislative priority — and he put his personal prestige on the line Saturday by traveling to the Capitol to rally Democrats, telling them to answer the call of history by passing the bill.

But Republicans were equally sweeping in their objections to the bill. “This is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years in Congress,” said Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Funny how Pelosi compared her bill to Social Security, another bankrupt government program they still haven’t fixed as they pile in trillions in more debt and wasteful spending.

Congressman Paul Ryan along with dozens of other Republicans argued passionately against the passage earlier today:

The next step will be for the Senate to kill the bill before it can be impugned on the American people and we systematically lose our health care freedom by Obama’s pen.

Report from Heritage:

On November 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the unemployment rate had soared from 9.8 percent to 10.2 percent in October. Jobs losses in October–190,000–were higher than expected. As job losses mount, the monthly jobs report continues to demonstrate both the failure of the stimulus bill and the hollowness of the Administration’s claim that it created or saved 640,000 jobs. Congress and the Administration should encourage private-sector investment and entrepreneurship instead of attempting to plan a recovery from Washington.

The Heritage Foundation put together a fantastic chart showing how abysmally wrong the White House’s estimates were compared to the reality that is our new 10.2% unemployment number:

Here’s another graph illustrating Obama’s obvious failures:

This is further exacerbated for the administration given the falsities continuing to be uncovered in their claim of jobs being “saved or created,” which is total nonsense. Hot Air has a story showing that 25% of the “saved or created” jobs on California are bogus according to the Sacramento Bee.

First and foremost, this legislation contains an mandate that you maintain a “level of acceptable health insurance” all year or face fines and possible jail time for continued non-compliance.

The Republican members of the House Committee on Ways & Means highlighted this actual text from the legislation Nancy Pelosi is trying to cram down everyone’s throats by today:

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Excerpts from the JCT letter explaining the madness:

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

Here are the criminal penalties as outline in Pelosi’s Obamacare legislation:

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

Apparently some members of the Senate Finance Committee worked to remove the criminal prosecution from any Senate versions of this bill. Speaker Pelosi did not take the same consideration:

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

It is stunning to me that Democrats are hell bent on passing this piece of trash and impugning it on the American people, those who they’re supposed to represent. Congress will not be subject to the same health care plan nor these same qualifications, they have a fantastic array of private health insurance plans to choose from. It is only the citizens of this country they’re going to force onto a government-run health insurance plan as they see fit, be it by fines, taxes or criminal prosecution.

I pray this does not pass and from many signs, the Democrats are having a civil war within their own party since some moderate Democrats are slightly concerned over this health control taxation bill and their chances for re-election. Pelosi cannot get members of her own party, in a majority in the House, to sign on and vote for this wretched legislation.

The GOP put together an excellent side-by-side comparison of the Pelosi Obamacare plan and the Republican plan, you can get it here as a PDF. Also see this.

In other news, President Obama’s wasteful $700 billion stimulus plan has now given us 10.2% unemployment, the highest in 26 years. I’m sure President Obama will defend his economic incompetence by blaming the previous administration.

Here’s a video of clips including some of the main speakers via Politico:

Report from Fox News:

As a crowd of protesters shouted “kill the bill,” House Republicans on Thursday rallied opposition against the Democrats’ health care legislation, even as President Obama touted two major endorsements from doctors and seniors groups.

The president interrupted the daily press briefing Thursday to note that the American Medical Association and AARP had just endorsed House Democrats’ health care plan.

“This is no small endorsement,” Obama said of the AARP’s backing. “They know it’s a good deal for our seniors.”

At the same time, Republicans decried the bill on the steps of Congress in a last-ditch bid to derail or at least delay the legislation heading toward a possible vote Saturday.

Thousands of protesters arrived by bus for the rally, which the GOP is calling an emergency “House Call.” The event drew the conservative “tea party” activists but unlike past rallies was officially sanctioned by House Republicans.

Republicans want those who attend to track down their elected representatives in Congress and put pressure on them to think twice about voting for the more than $1 trillion health care overhaul pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“They’re going to listen,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who originally called for the rally. “The biggest voice in the United States is your voice.”

According to a new report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the newly offered Republican plan costs fractions compared to the Democrat plan, increases availability, lowers costs and provides increased access to insurance:

This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

All this without another failing government program. Clearly it is one small step but it is a step which doesn’t destroy the private insurance market and force people onto a government insurance plan.

 Nope, gotcha! It’s the Democrats!

 Blue Dog Democrats, in the wake of the Tuesday elections are wondering which vial of hemlock to drink.  Should they drink the health care/cap & trade hemlock and risk general election defeats?  Or, should they refuse to go along and face the wrath of a variety of George Soros funded organizations, chief among them MoveOn.org.

 MoveOn commenced their latest e-mail campaign today the goal being $3 million dollars by the end of the week.  The focus of the fund raising effort is to fund primary challenges to any Democratic Senator who “helps” Republicans block a health care vote.   Executive Director Justin Ruben is quoted as saying “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform.” 

 Considering the breadth of Soros supported organizations and the history of those organizations Democrats are, without doubt, taking the threat seriously.  Decisions, decision: which vial of hemlock to drink?

 At the same time some Congressional Democrats are threatening to do “whatever it takes” to defeat health care if items such as federal funding for abortions make their way through the conference process.  About 49 Democratic seats are in districts won by John McCain in the last election and those districts have voted, typically, center right. Those districts might accurately be called, wait for it…………moderates.  One has to wonder what MoveOn has planned for them?

 Liberal commentators have developed nice little second careers advising Republicans and Conservatives on how to fix the GOP.  We’d like to thank you folks for your efforts but it appears as if Democrats could use a little advice as well. Just saying!

Pundits have, clearly, been in acute election withdrawal.  It’s nice to see them get a fix to restore that good old fashion election euphoria, 12 months absent.  Potomac fever will be epidemic by the end of the day.

The election commentary spans the political spectrum, everything from “great victory”, to “pay no attention to the election behind the curtain”.   Virginia, ‘no big deal, off year opposition election victories are consistent history, Deeds was a dope.”  New Jersey; “the incumbent was struck down by the economy.”  “It’s not about the President it’s about local issues.” The losers say “take it with a grain of salt”, the winners say “it’s akin to a message from God.  It quickly approaches the point of distraction as each pundit, in essence, talks to his or her constituency, that constituency longing for reasons in support of pre-existing perceptions and bias.

Polls regarding the President’s popularity are all over the board; selective quotation being the order of the day.  Maybe it was, maybe it was not about the President, but in light his campaign schedule in, at least, N.J., his commitment was clear and expected, he did what he had to do.  In the N.Y. 23^rd the President succeeded, with the unwitting help of the GOP, in staging a Democratic victory with an expected life span of about one year.  One more vote in an overwhelming Congressional majority is not significant in light of the ineptitude of the GOP in the N.Y. 23^rd.

In Virginia, however, a highly significant issue has failed to garner attention from the pundits, the down ballot voting pattern.  It is clear, that a high degree of straight ticket voting was the order of the day, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General’s races pulled numbers in the high 50’s consistent with the head of the ticket.  Republicans made gains in state wide races as well.  That pattern, and the consistency of the pattern, in a purple state, can only occur where independents voted a straight Republican ticket.  Areas, such as Fairfax County, which were overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, were essentially 50/50 in this election.  That number, in light of the high concentration of government employees in Fairfax County could also be telling we’re you to get beyond the cartoon punditry. 

The consistency of the down ballot patterns in Virginia does reflect on Washington, it has to.  This election represented one of only two opportunities for large voting populations to send a message and it appears that a message has been sent. 

The victims of these patterns, assuming the message is received are fundamentally economic.  Deficits, taxes, spending, the size of government and the inability of voters to perceive high levels of accountability are the issues on the table.  The details of the legislative agenda in 2010 will be held accountable to these general themes.  Most voters think in terms of general themes and context, these issues will clearly form that context. As always, independents, will decide the outcome in 2010 and self described independents are growing faster than either party.   

If the cartoon were to be drawn it would show an independent voter holding back both parties with the caption, “not so fast there big guy.”  It’s a question of who get’s the message and when.

Republicans also won huge in Virginia where Bob McDonnell has taken the governor seat in a 58% to 41% victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds. The Virginia Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General seats also went hard Republican winning by similar margins over their Democrat opponents. Republicans will also pick up seats in the state House of Delegates as well.

Report on VA/NJ from Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Republican gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia mark a troubling turn for President Obama, whose personal efforts couldn’t stop the fall of Democrats facing a voter backlash over the economy and a notable uptick in the government’s would-be role in people’s lives.

Obama’s 2008 victory in Old Dominion had marked an historic breakthrough for Democrats who hadn’t won Virginia’s electoral votes since 1964. The fight in the Garden State was more grueling than usually accompanies Democratic campaigns in the reliably blue state of New Jersey.

So the setbacks demonstrate the difficulty of presidential leadership following a campaign built on promises of unity followed by divisive policies and a relentless campaign approach toward big legislative issues like the stimulus and health care bills.

“What this is tonight, this victory here tonight, is a warning shot, and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi,” said Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor.

In Virginia, Republican Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell roundly defeated Democrat R. Creigh Deeds while GOP Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling won a second term and Republican Ken Cuccinelli was elected attorney general. It was the first time the GOP took the top three spots since 1997.

“We have really had a run of wins and we got used to winning and that makes it tough,” said outgoing Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. “We have to give credit where credit is do they ran a great campaign.”

“You guys are making this tougher than this has to be,” a resigned Deeds told the still chanting audience at his “victory party.”

In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie pulled off a stunning upset over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who was facing a backlash over property taxes and other economic issues. Independent Chris Daggett also pulled about 6 percent of the vote.

Here’s a clip of Bob McDonnell’s victory speech from Richmond, VA:

Here is Republican Chris Christie’s victory speech from New Jersey:

Update

Democrat Bill Owens was victorious over Conservative Doug Hoffman in the New York 23rd congressional seat race winning 49% to 45%.

With that, my predictions held up to be two-thirds correct. My guess is that Hoffman will return in 2010 with the full backing of the GOP to make a real run at this seat or perhaps another upstate New York congressional district.

All-in-all, the talk of some permanent Democrat realignment thanks to President Obama is total nonsense, the GOP won huge in the bluest of blue states, New Jersey. Furthermore, Virginia went hard conservative, very hard for a candidate with staunchly conservative positions who ran against big government liberal policies.

President Obama spent numerous days campaigning for Corzine and he was rebuked, as he was in Virginia, two states which went handily for Obama in 2008. If that doesn’t speak to the disgusted feelings from voters toward Washington, I don’t know what does.

First off, here are the poll open and closing times:

Virginia: Open 7am, Close 7pm

New Jersey: Open 6am, Close 8pm

New York: Open 6am, Close 9pm

All times eastern.

We’ll start off with the soap opera that has become the New York 23rd congressional district race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman.

A report on Hoffman’s campaigning from WWNY in Watertown, NY:

Report on Bill Owens’ campaign from WSYR in Syracuse, NY:

Here’s a snapshot of the latest polling in the NY-23 race from Pollster.com which is an average of every available poll:

Polls are giving Hoffman the edge in this race. My money is on Hoffman taking a victory though I think the margin of victory is anyone’s guess.

Prediction: Hoffman by 5

New Jersey is shaping up to be a nail-biter for both sides. Some polls show Republican Christie breaking away slightly though others show Corzine, the Democrat incumbent, holding on and taking a lead. All polls are generally within the margin of error not giving a clear indication of what will happen on Tuesday.

Here’s a report on the New Jersey race from WNYW in New York:

Here’s the polling snapshot from Pollster.com which averages every available poll from the New Jersey race:

This one is up in the air and the wild card will be Dagget’s support, or lack thereof, come Tuesday. I hesitate to make a prediction, however, against my better judgment I’m willing to wager one since it’s all in good fun.

Prediction: Christie by 2 (Though I wouldn’t put money on it)

Finally last, but not least, the Old Dominion of Virginia. Republican Bob McDonnell is running away with the polls in this race, the latest showing him up 18 points! Democrat Creigh Deeds hasn’t improved in the polls at all and President Obama was unable to move the needle either.

A report on the Virginia race from MyFoxDC:

Here’s the latest polling snapshot from Pollster.com averaging all available Virginia polls:

Clearly Virginia is going to be a Republican landslide according to the polls. From the governor’s seat, lieutenant governor, attorney general and on down to the Virginia House of Delegates, polls show Republicans leading majorly.

Prediction: McDonnell by 12 (could be higher, like 15)

Tune in Tuesday on Election Day and we’ll wrap up all the races and I’ll own up to my predictions should they be incorrect. The only one I’m hedging on is New Jersey, that one could go for Corzine, we shall see.

 Perhaps the only thing that makes some degree of convoluted sense is to simply assume that whatever it is, “it’s not about that”.   

 The stimulus package and the omnibus spending bill were about economic recovery.  Hair on fire, we have a crisis, we have to do it now! Jobs, jobs, jobs!  However, unemployment is 20% worse that predictions.  White House economists admit that we need to resign ourselves to 10% unemployment.  Outside of the stock market and massive gains in productivity based on the need for business to get lean in a hurry there is no significant recovery.  The consumer is the key and yet, we declare a start to the recovery in the absence of consumer spending.  Huh?  Analysis that contends the recovery is not really a recovery is supported by deducting temporary stimulus spending, temporary jobs and government jobs from the calculus.  Massive government job creation was, as you may recall, the very first section of the stimulus bill; permanent jobs to administer a temporary spending program, a symptom perhaps?  Massive amounts of stimulus spending went to bail out states guilty of profligate spending, what about next year?  Conclusion; the stimulus could not have been about recovery, if it was, it would have been structured differently, although that Turtle Tunnel project in Florida was a cute idea.

 Corporate bail outs were about saving jobs, the financial system and the manufacturing base.  However, bailed out auto manufactures continued to send jobs oversees and there was no caveat attached to the funding requiring that set the stage for bringing displaced jobs back to the U.S.  The traditional position of capital in the bankruptcy process was turned on its head in favor of union desires and yet unions still lost jobs under bail out funding.  The precedent applied to car companies puts all capital investment in question where the government stands to assume a role.  We’re we to give in to our lesser angels we might come to the conclusion that government control of the manufacturing base, the credit vehicles that go with that base, the insurance market, banks, investment houses, student loans, compensation and up to 70% of the home loan market was a quick and easy way to potentially exert a massive degree of vertical control the economy.  Just saying!  Whatever it was, it is not about what they said it was about or the results would be different.

 Compensation controls in the bailed out banks was about accountability and paying the taxpayers back.  It’s confusing, banks that did try to pay back TARP funding we’re met with resistance at every turn.  Of late, nothing about the management at Freddy and Fannie and their compensation guidelines; nothing about the Banking Committee’s role in setting policy and their points of accountability.  The argument is well made (Investors Business Daily, Thomas Sowell and others) that Freddy, Fannie and government mandates had more to do with the housing crisis than the banking industry, per se.  So is it really about compensation and accountability or is it about control and intimidation?  The inconsistencies loom large, a symptom perhaps?

 Health care simply cannot be about health care.  If health care was about health care Congress would be focused on making the deal that would deliver the most health care to the most people on the most immediate basis possible; a deal that would deal with issues of general agreement such as pre-existing conditions, availability, permanence and portability.  In the context of a threatened public option, at deal could be made within the regulated private insurance markets.  

 The obvious and ongoing complexity of the challenges inherent in legislating a health care solution is the best of all arguments for taking advantage of existing markets to address the problem.  If health care was about health care the public option would be the logical last resort not the first priority. 

 If the “crisis” in health care was actually about providing health care you would take the quickest road to solutions, not a public option that commences in five to six years when a nearly immediate fix is available in the markets that currently exist. 

 Is health care a slippery slope?  It could be!  As an operations executive I once worked with a Controller who defined his job as “anything that has to do with money and since everything has to do with money, my job is anything and everything I say it is”.  Could the same attitude prevail with a government option?  Food, weight, medication, environmental factors, exercise, stress, child care; these and more are all potentially health care issues.  Should we evolve to a single payer system can you be sure that “by definition”, the bureaucracy does not end up saying to you “since everything effects health our job is anything and everything we say it is?”  The EPA, “by administrative definition” declared CO2 a hazardous gas and now moves to apply their full weight to the control of a naturally occurring, necessary gas.  We do have the guiding light of actual examples to look to for guidance.            

 It is not about recovery, or jobs or health care.  It is about control and a Progressive ideology that glorifies the role of government in the pursuit of a yet undefined utopian ideal. 

 What this is about is who you trust.  Do you trust the individual or do you trust the collective wisdom of a massive bureaucracy?  Do you trust the dynamic of individual freedoms driving the process or must that process, and by extension the people, be controlled and guided at every turn?

 It’s not about what they say it’s about!   The good news is that this equation has two sides because  It’s also about standing against “it”, whatever form “it” may take.

The latest precipitant is two of the three 2009 races have an independent candidate; in one case, a clear conservative and in the second a fiscal conservative. It may be a telling message to the GOP that the independent candidates occurred in the context of Republican candidates not being perceived as conservative.

The argument for a Republican big “tent” assumes that if the parameters of ideological acceptability are expanded the “tent” will expand. The application of this argument is that Republicans should adopt a select few Democratic positions or ideological points of view, Democrat “light” if you prefer. This approach, favored by Senators McCain and Graham assumes that if Republicans can get the conservatives under control and define a more centrist agenda independents will flock to the Republican point of view. Maybe, but what about conservatives; does not the jeopardy exist that this approach will simply trade one constituency for another?

The stress point occurs as conservatives push back against the idea of a big tent for the sake of a big tent, the conservatives want the “Big Tent” folks to abandon the shift leftward or center-wise if you prefer. They point to consistent polling where a growing majority of Americans self describe themselves as conservative. They point to the failure of John McCain. They point to Bush’s fiscal failures. They point to the media’s infatuation with folks like John McCain, the suspicion being that a left orientated media is simply picking the candidate they think Democrats can beat.

Beware the conservative base! Conservatives are so frustrated with Republicans that the jeopardy of a third party from the right is an actual reality; the early indications are right in front of us. Recent polling indicates that 42% of Americans would look favorably on an independent candidate running in 2012! I know, I know, it changes in the voting booth but a message is a message! If a message falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a noise? The GOP is in jeopardy of becoming as tone deaf as Congress.

The equation here is simple; conservatives are willing to step up and lose elections in the short term, for the sake of making a point, confident that things will get so bad that conservative resurgence in the future is all but guaranteed. Republicans are not!

Message to the Republican establishment; forget about “making” the “tent” bigger worry about making the “tent” more attractive and more principled.

How do you make the “tent” more attractive?

The first thing you say is “to Hell with it, win or lose we will base our view on clear conservative principals and this time, we’ll stick with it. You aggressively communicate that if you disagree with 25% of what we say you don’t have to look for an exit for the ideologically impure. It simply means we will continue our effort to give you the evidence, logic and history that might alter you’re point of view. You simply say we are confident enough that we would welcome the opportunity to prove to you our 75% is a better deal than 75% of what the other guys stand for. If you build it they will come.

Then, of course, you have to define the principals. The principals should be defined in terms of priorities, most to least important.

Recommended Republican Priority one: economic conservatism, smaller government, common sense regulatory reform, tax reform, deficit reduction, national defense and a clear foreign policy guided by American self interest. All cast in the context of individual freedoms. We can’t solve every problem, but we can create the environment whereby you can solve them. The 80/20 rule! 20% of what we do, if carefully crafted, will address 80% of what you’re concerned about. The 80/20 rule never fails.

Republican Priority two: Education reform consisting of parental choice and educational competition, a commitment not to participate in the growing movement for “world government institutions and the proactive development of omnibus legislation to eliminate conflicting statutes in the current legal morass. Simplification, elimination of government subscribed winners and losers, a free market with common sense regulation and harsh penalties for the miscreant.

Republican Priority three: There are bad Republican actors out there, get rid of them yourselves. You want credibility? Go after your own! Zero tolerance on corruption, make it public, unapologetic and aggressive. Go after Immigration Reform with common sense, a recognition of the realities on the ground and national security as the key priority.

Republican Priority four: The social agenda. No matter how you cut it, the key issues to the social agenda has been a 50/50 proposition for decades and will remain so into the foreseeable future. There will be no conscientious on issues like abortion but, you can convince people that choice should not automatically be funded by tax dollars. Take what you can get on social issues, they will, eventually, follow the arc of the first three priorities.

The first two priorities, consistently and strongly applied make the “tent” more attractive. There has not been a better counterpoint upon which to cast these priorities since Jimmy Carter. A bigger “tent” is of no use if an equal number of people are both entering and leaving.

A “tent” that people actually want to enter is the answer, not some artificial projection of size. Motivating people to want to spend a little time testing the “tent” is about principal as the basis for policy. Conservatives have this little trick they use to good effect, its called logic. Conservative principals well represented actually stand up to the test of logic. A meaningless, manufactured hybrid is not the answer.

Hybrids may make fine little cars but hybrids do not drive arguments because there is no argument, just shades of gray along the fringes. If the choice is cast between a left leaning progressive and a right leaning progressive there is, for conservatives, not a beans worth of difference.

Do we still believe that principal and the courage of conviction is attractive?

The psychology of wining demands that you not be afraid of losing!

Politico reports:

Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesday’s NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents — Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.

The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.

Scozzafava has “probably made her last campaign appearance between now and Election Day,” spokesman Matt Burns told POLITICO. “She’s releasing her support to the two other candidates.”

“I had a discussion with her last night, and we made the decision after I spoke with her. We talked about it, what this came down to was spending. It came down to the ability to defend herself from the get-go. And that’s the reality. She was unable to define herself where the people didn’t know her.”

Scozzafava released a statement to her supporters:

Dear Friends and Supporters:

Throughout the course of my campaign for Congress, I have made the people of the 23rd District and the issues that affect them the focal point of my campaign. As a life long resident of this District, I care deeply and passionately about its people and our way of life. Whether as a candidate for Congress, a State Assemblywoman or a small town Mayor, I have always sought to act with the best interest of our District and its residents in mind—and today I again seek to act for the good of our community.

The opportunity to run as the Republican and Independence Party candidate to represent the 23rd District has been and remains one of the greatest honors of my life. During the past several months, as I’ve traveled the district, meeting and talking with voters about the issues that matter most to them, I’ve been overwhelmed by the amount of support I’ve received as I sought to serve as their voice in Washington. However, as Winston Churchill once said, Democracy can be a fickle employer, and the road to public office is not always a smooth one.

In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I’ve said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it’s about the people of this District. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best.

It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.

On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me – and to those who choose not to – I offer my sincerest thanks.

Dede

This, of course, sets up the possibility that Doug Hoffman, with the remainder of Scozzafava’s support, will be able to crush Bill Owens on Election Day.

There are no polls showing the impact since Scozzafava’s statement so this will take a couple days to play out. We should have a clearer view on Monday I’m betting when we’ll see the last polls coming out from the weekend which may reflect the intentions of voters now that the liberal Republican has dropped out of the race.

Nothing more to say, it’s all there.

Regardless of the numbers, the White House can’t escape the fact that 49 states lost jobs since the stimulus. Some recovery we got here, isn’t it!

The participants included Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Douglas Hoffman.

Here’s the full, unedited debate video from WSYR:

Part 1:

Continue watching the remaining parts:

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Reaction interviews with each candidate:

Scozzafava
Hoffman
Owens

Here’s a report on it from the DC Examiner:

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – The Republican showed her experience, the Conservative compared himself to Ronald Reagan, and the Democrat said he won’t be influenced by special interests in the first debate among all three candidates in New York’s 23rd Congressional race.

Conservative Doug Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens had missed several debates and candidate forums before Thursday’s debate at WSYR-TV studios in Syracuse. Republican Dierdre Scozzafava attended all of them.

Republican registration outnumbers Democrats by 45,000 in the sprawling, upstate, 11-county district, but President Barack Obama carried it by 5 points in 2008. The issues, rather than party labels, may ultimately decide the race.

Thursday’s debate five days before the election is likely the only one voters will see in this short special election period. Syracuse isn’t in the district, and the debate didn’t have a live audience beyond a handful of reporters.

Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman and the only elected official in the contest, took the opportunity to show off her knowledge from more than a decade in office. She was the only one to have an opinion on every question.

Republican supporters have been divided between Scozzafava and Hoffman nationally and in the northern, rural district.

Some Republicans have criticized Scozzafava as being too liberal while Hoffman has developed a following by staking out more socially and fiscally conservative positions.

“(Voters are) very concerned about the America we know and whether the America we know will be there for their children and their grandchildren,” Hoffman said. During the debate, Hoffman repeated at least three times that he’s a Ronald Reagan Republican.

Scozzafava said if she wins she will work to unite the party.

“I’m not going to be divisive,” she said. “To me, leadership is about doing things to bring people together.”

Democrat Bill Owens declined to comment on whether the schism between Republicans would give him a boost.

“I’m not focused on what they’re doing, I’m focused on what I’m doing,” he said. “I have consistently indicated that I’ve been out talking to folks, listening to them, traveling the district.”

The candidates were asked about the war in Afghanistan, health care and border issues, among other things.

Owens was noncommittal on the best strategy for the wars, saying he needed more information about what’s happening on the ground to know whether the U.S. should send more troops. Scozzafava said she supports sending more troops as long as that’s what the leaders on the ground are calling for, but the president needs to make a decision either way soon.

“Just to wait and waffle, I think it’s taking too much time and creating an unsafe situation,” she said.

Hoffman said more troops must be sent to finish the job as long as military leaders call for it.

On health care, Hoffman said he opposes any public options. Scozzafava said she is concerned the bill would include unfunded mandates and doesn’t address controlling health costs.

Owens said he was mostly pleased with the bill, but was noncommittal on whether he would vote for or against a measure with a public option.

Border issues are significant in the 23rd district because it shares a border with Canada. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, security measures – including a required passport – have affected the people who live there.

Owens said he was confident that the process was going smoothly. Scozzafava disagreed, saying security is important, but “our neighbors to the north are our friends,” and security measures must be reasonable.

Hoffman said the passport system has harmed the district’s economy and discouraged tourism.

This will be one to watch. A new poll from Research 2000 shows Owens up by only 1 point over Hoffman. Scozzafava’s support seems to be collapsing and I’m thinking this will continue. The race truly is between Hoffman and Owens at this point.

It should be called the “Higher Taxes, Lower Quality of Health Care for America Act.”

Listen to the opening monologue from Rush Limbaugh today on Pelosi’s health care bill, I can’t explain this any better. For anyone not a Rush 24/7 member, here’s the audio:

Download audio file (102909_1_pelosi_plan.mp3)

The most absurd part of this legislation is that the tax increases take effect immediately though the actual service part wouldn’t take effect until 2013. What this means is that we have nearly 5 years of paying taxes on it and then 5 years with taxes and service from it so the Democrats say it will produce a surplus in the first 10 years. That math only makes sense in Washington when you are trying to bamboozle the American people into adopting some new failing government program.

From Politico:

The CBO analysis will show that the bill runs surpluses in the first five years and deficits in the second, making it deficit neutral during the first decade. BUT those late decade deficits were raising questions about whether the CBO will be able to declare the second 10 years deficit neutral.

Of course it runs surpluses in the first five years! We’re all paying new taxes on everything and the program hasn’t even started yet!

The other sweeping change is that in the legislation, the “public” or “government” insurance option is now called the “consumer option.” I assume this is because Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats on Capitol Hill assume we, the American people, are really just that stupid.

The details on Pelosi’s new government-option from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government, aides said Wednesday.

Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a “consumer option,” would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the “robust” liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.

Members of the House Democratic leadership team offered these details of their bill, to be unveiled on Thursday. It would provide coverage to 35 million or 36 million people. The 10-year cost of expanding coverage would be less than the $900 billion ceiling suggested by President Obama. The cost would be offset by new taxes and by cutbacks in Medicare, so the bill would not increase the federal budget deficit in the next 10 years or in the decade after that.

The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 — just three-tenths of 1 percent of all households, Democrats said.

Ms. Pelosi can describe the proposal as a “millionaires’ tax.” The original thresholds were $280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for couples.

New taxes during a recession. I’m not sure you could find a better definition of incompetence if you tried.

Another way the bill claims to save money is simply by offloading federal costs onto the states, which many governors will not be pleased with.

Well, it turns out that Pelosi & Co have decided to shift more of those costs onto the state. Earlier versions had people at 133% of the poverty line eligible for Medicaid, the costs of which states largely have to bear. The new version hikes that to 150% of poverty line, forcing more people onto state rolls rather than federal. That allows Pelosi to claim some cost savings, but the public burden felt by taxpayers will increase, thanks to unfunded mandates on the states.

Democrats used to chide President Bush about “unfunded mandates” with regard to the “No Child Left Behind Act” yet now they seem fine with them since they fit into the liberal socialist agenda.

Pelosi’s bill also includes new taxes on medical devices, everything from pacemakers to tampons. If it can be considered a “medical device,” she’s probably taxing it to pay for this new government program destined for failure.

Republicans weighed in on Pelosi’s glorious new tax bill:

Everyone was invited to the unveiling ceremony this morning. That is, if “everyone” included House staffers, union members and Pelosi supporters. The Washington Times reports on the “closed public unveiling“:

House Democrats blocked the public from attending the unveiling ceremony of their health-care bill Thursday morning, allowing only pre-approved visitors whose names appeared on lists to enter the event at the West side of the Capitol.

The audience at the crowded press conference included Hill staffers, union workers, health care providers and students, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who thanked them for attending.

Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders announced the chamber’s long-awaited version of a health care overhaul, which would expand insurance coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, costing less than $900 billion over 10 years.

The West side of the Capitol – the area where President Barack Obama was inaugurated – is traditionally open to the public. But the entrances were blocked off Thursday morning by metal fences, with Capitol police officers standing next to staff members holding clipboards with lists of approved attendees.

Very nice that a bill which affects the public is closed off to the public when it is heaved upon them. Doesn’t this show the direction we’re heading? Pelosi doesn’t care about what you the American people think, she cares about ramming this agenda through congress and you’re feelings be damned.

Republican Representative Mike Pence was on CNN earlier discussing the Pelosi debacle:

Amen to that, we can improve access to health care without improving the federal government’s access to our wallets.

First and foremost, lets jump into the special election for New York’s 23rd congressional seat. This is the seat vacated since Republican John M. McHugh resigned on September 21, 2009 to become United States Secretary of the Army. Thus, a special election will occur next Tuesday to fill the seat and choose his successor.

Here is a snapshot of the latest polls from NY-23:

As you can see, if you believe the Minuteman and GFG poll, Hoffman leads by around 4 or 5 points. Hoffman is the Conservative Party candidate for this seat and has basically come out of nowhere to be a real contender. I am not so sure how this is going to play-out but polls in the next few days may give us a better idea. You can read more about the Conservative Party of New York on their Wikipedia page.

Here’s the latest on Doug Hoffman’s rise in the NY-23 race from USAToday:

The list of high-profile Republicans supporting Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the 23rd Congressional District in New York keeps getting longer.

The latest: former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a one-time presidential candidate, and Ex-Rep. Tom Cole, the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

As we’ve reported, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are among those Hoffman over Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava.

Thompson cut a TV ad for Hoffman,and Cole put out a statement of support.

“Due to the vagaries of local politics two Republicans are on the ballot in the special election in NY-23,” Cole said, adding that Hoffman is “the only Republican who can win this special election.”

This will be a fascinating one to watch and I am eagerly awaiting some new polling from, perhaps, some more established polling firms like Rasmussen.

New Jersey is shaping up to be a down-to-the-wire kind of race. Here’s the latest snapshot of polls:

It is a virtual dead heat. The amazing part is how Jon Corzine is so ridiculously unpopular that even with Chris Daggett pealing off some votes, Christie maintains a statistical tie right now.

Latest from the Philly Enquirer:

With one week to go until Election Day, Democratic Gov. Corzine is bringing back the national star power, Republican Christopher J. Christie is planning to get on the air, and independent Chris Daggett is firing up the tour bus.

“We intend to close the deal this week,” Christie said in a radio interview yesterday, summing up what may be the attitude for all three campaigns.

Corzine is counting on visits today by former President Bill Clinton and on Sunday by President Obama, who will be in Camden at 1:20 p.m., to help put him over the top in a tight campaign.

Christie’s campaign has promised its biggest ad buy of the race and a tour of the state’s 21 counties.

Daggett, who is planning to start a statewide tour Friday in Camden and Burlington Counties, yesterday cast himself as the only realistic alternative to Corzine, telling the Associated Press: “It’s either going to be Jon Corzine or me.”

The comment was a slap at Christie, who led in polls of prospective voters through the summer but slipped as Corzine deluged the media with questions about the Republicans’ values and ethics.

Christie told WCBS-AM in New York City that his campaign was “in very, very good position” despite being hammered by attack ads.

Daggett has gained ground on Christie and Corzine but trails both by significant margins in public-opinion polls.

Both Christie and Corzine, the only governor seeking reelection this year in the midst of the national recession, spent much of yesterday doing cable-television and radio interviews.

Corzine continued to play up his ties to Obama.

“It’s very helpful that a popular president believes that I can be a better partner with him than the other candidates in the race,” Corzine said in a morning appearance on Fox 5 in New York.

On Saturday, the governor’s campaign launched four television ads, including one of Obama speaking directly to the camera in English and Spanish, urging voters to support his fellow Democrat. Urban and minority voters make up a key part of the party’s base in the state.

The president’s visit this weekend will be Obama’s third trip to New Jersey on Corzine’s behalf.

I’m thinking that Christie still has a real chance to turn New Jersey red come next Tuesday. It will all hinge on how much Daggett truly has when voters enter the booth.

Finally, the Old Dominion of Virginia where Republican Bob McDonnell leads by a substantial margin. Here’s the latest with very, very bad news for Democrat Creigh Deeds:

McDonnell is running away with the polls in Virginia and President Obama’s campaigning for Creigh Deeds hasn’t helped at all, which says quite a bit at this point and time.

Report from the AP:

PURCELLVILLE, Va. — Just a year after this one-time Confederate state helped elect a black man president, Democrats are desperately trying to hang onto the governorship.

A lot has changed: Loyal Democrats are more subdued than last fall. Republicans are energized. Independents are proving to be … independent. Voters of all kinds seem disenchanted.

Just like Americans nationwide.

The contest between Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat R. Creigh Deeds provides a snapshot of sorts — 12 months after America elected Barack Obama as president and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress, and one year before midterm elections in every state.

And the picture, in Virginia as in the nation, is not pretty for Democrats.

McDonnell is in good shape next Tuesday.

We’ll continue watching these races for the next 7 days as we get down the Election Day on Tuesday, November 3rd.

The story from the Washington Post, of all places. Keep in mind, the WaPo has endorsed Deeds twice so they too are trying to explain why Deeds is losing since they’ll never admit they’ve become increasingly powerless with endorsements.

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Senior administration officials have expressed frustration with how Democrat R. Creigh Deeds has handled his campaign for governor, refusing early offers of strategic advice and failing to reach out to several key constituencies that helped Obama win Virginia in 2008, they say.

Democratic strategists said that over the summer, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) offered Deeds advice on winning a statewide election. Among other things, Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously. But Deeds did not embrace the advice, according to a national Democratic strategist.

A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House. “I understood in the beginning why there was some reluctance to run all around the state with Barack Obama,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. “You don’t do that in Virginia. But when you consider the African American turnout that they need, and then when you consider as well they’ve got a huge problem with surge voters, younger voters, we were just a natural for them.”

A second administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “Obama, Kaine and others had drawn a road map to victory in Virginia. Deeds chose another path.”

A loss for Deeds in Virginia — which for the first time in decades supported the Democratic presidential candidate in last year’s race — would likely be seen as a sign that Obama’s popularity is weakening in critical areas of the country. But the unusual preelection criticism could be an attempt to shield Obama from that narrative by ensuring that Deeds is blamed personally for the loss, particularly given the state’s three-decade pattern of backing candidates from the party out of power in the White House.

Deeds advisers insist the notion that he has distanced himself from Obama isn’t true. “We’ve enjoyed a tremendous relationship with the White House,” said Mo Elleithee, a campaign spokesman. “The campaign has worked very closely with them and the DNC and the [Democratic Governors Association] from the very beginning. They have given us just about everything the campaign asked for.”

This is rather amazing to see this happening before the election on November 3rd, in a couple weeks. Basically what they’re saying here is that Obama has nothing to do with Deeds’ campaign and if he loses, it proves nothing about Obama or the unpopular, anti-capitalist policies he supports.

The bottom line here, not good news for poor Creigh Deeds, he just can’t catch a break. The ulterior message from the White House has to be that if you don’t follow their line to the “T,” expect to be tossed under the Obama express for your transgressions against the administration.

In an amazing show of unity and decency, four major news agencies including CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN all stood up for Fox News and refused to go along with the White House’s unconstitutional demands. The report on this from the DC Examiner:

The Obama administration today tried to exclude Fox News from the White House press pool. This attempted act contradicted the spirit and letter of the First Amendment, and the press fought back.

Thursday the White House made “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network group that shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and has done so for decades.

But in a surprising show of decency, the four other members of the pool — ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN — told the White House if Fox were barred none of them would participate in the interview session.

The administration caved and made Feinberg available for Fox News.

This underscores something often misunderstood about the Free Press clause of the First Amendment. The provision is not in the Constitution to benefit reporters. It is there to benefit the public. The right of a free press is necessary to preserve the public’s right to know what is going on with their government.

This was a victory for America and the First Amendment, everyone should be proud of what happened on Thursday. The White House went out of it’s way in an attempt to marginalize a legitimate news organization and the other mainstream press organizations would have none of it, good for them.

I have to ask, just so that it is on the record, what would be said if the Bush administration had a similar directive specifically singling out NBC or CNN the way the White House is vociferously bashing Fox News. It would still be a New York Times page-one story today.

In the same line of Obama’s pettiness, the United States Chamber of Commerce is now in the White House sights ever since it decided to speak out in favor of capitalism and the free-market economic system which made this country great.

Report on this from Fox News, the White House’s blacklisted news agency:

The uneasy relationship between the Obama White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has steadily eroded over the past several months, with the business group’s opposition to health care and climate change legislation triggering an all-fronts backlash from the administration.

The administration is now trying to neutralize the Chamber by doing an end-run around the group and dealing directly with its members.

During remarks in early October, President Obama named and shamed the Chamber for opposing a consumer protection agency.

And the White House again criticized the group Tuesday, telling Fox News in an e-mail that the group’s opposition to reform efforts gives the administration pause.

“We have an open door to the ideas and suggestions of the business community including the Chamber,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, noting that administration “representatives” met with Chamber representatives last week. “But it does give us pause that they continue to throw millions of dollars against productive efforts under way to reform the regulatory structure, provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans and reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions — all plans essential to the continued growth and recovery of our economy.”

Obama and top aides quietly have met with 50 to 60 big-time corporate CEOs over the past few months in an effort to cultivate their support on key issues — the White House denies that it has encouraged any companies to sever ties with the Chamber.

A few companies, like Apple Inc., have left the Chamber principally due to disagreements over how to tackle climate change. Others, like Nike, have simply left the board of directors.

But Chamber executives told Fox News that since word of open warfare with the White House began to surface, membership has spiked. They warned White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel not to imagine the Chamber will retreat from spending heavily in the mid-term election cycle.

Video report on this story, also from Fox:

The Chamber of Commerce is pro-business, pro-capitalism, anti-taxes and anti-regulation, all positions which are exactly the opposite of what President Obama believes and espouses. Therefore, the White House isn’t too pleased, once again, that an organization is exercising it’s First Amendment rights to speak out against policies which will kill jobs and stifle productivity.

Moderate Democrats are also becoming disgusted with President Obama’s tactics, check this Politico story for more on that.

Again though, the Chamber said they’re having a spike in membership since landing on President Obama’s enemies list. Therefore, I call that a victory for the Chamber since it shows that freedom-loving pro-capitalist business owners refuse to go quietly in the night under Obama’s socialist sword.

Here is the entire McDonnell/Deeds debate video from Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at the debate sponsored by WSLS-TV held at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Report from WDBJ7:

Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds faced off for the fourth time Tuesday night at Roanoke College.

In contrast to their last meeting near Richmond, Tuesday’s exchange was less pointed and more polite.

In their last meeting before election day, the candidates did clash on issues that have already made headlines.

Bob McDonnell’s controversial college thesis was back on the table.

“I think he’s made a conscious decision that he has to go over and attack me on an old college paper. In fact most of his campaign has been backward looking,” said McDonnell.

“The thesis is relevant, because it puts into context Bob’s record, and it helps explain why he never wrote a bill to create a job. He never wrote a bill to expand an educational opportunity,” said Deeds.

And southwest Virginia figured prominently in a discussion of the climate change legislation known as cap and trade.

That bill will raise costs at a time of recession and will put American and Virginia businesses at a disadvantage. And i don’t support that and i’ve said it publicly yet Bob continues to spend millions of dollars trying to scare the people of southwest virginia into thinking i’m going to take their jobs away,” said Deeds.

“One of the largest employers in his district is Meadwestvaco and they’ve looked at our respective plans and our positions on this and they are strongly supporting me. 15-hundred jobs in Alleghany County in Creigh’s senate district that are potentially at risk with this massive new federal energy tax,” said McDonnell.

But if Deeds supporters were hoping for a knock-out blow, it never came. And Roanoke College Professor and News 7 political analyst Harry Wilson declared this confrontation a tie.

Just a note, when media outlets call a debate a “tie,” that means the Republican won handily. Deeds has nothing and brought no ideas to the table, he’s helping McDonnell at this point.

This report, released by the Republican members of the House Ways and Means committee, is not good news for the floundering administration.

Here are the details by the numbers:

The table below compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

I love the last line, “see how the stimulus has failed you state, see the table below.” Well without further ado, here is the mentioned table listing the administration’s projected job gains thanks to the stimulus next to the actual job loss numbers:

The state of Illinois is an ironic example in my opinion. Since Obama’s massive job-creation stimulus plan in February, the state has lost the exact mount of jobs it was forecast to gain. That’s the best illustration showing how these policies being peddled by the Obama administration couldn’t be further removed from economic reality or basic economic common sense.

Six million jobs shy of promised White House projections since we the taxpayers wrote a $700 billion pork-filled check back in February. How sick is that? Is this the change Obama spoke of? Bringing government waste and failure to an entirely new level of incompetence?

I, among many other people, argued vehemently against President Obama’s wasteful stimulus bill back in February of 2009 because I could see it had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. The legislation grew the size of government and did nothing with regard to job creation or spurring the private sector. President Obama can no longer blame his failures on President Bush, as he’s been doing for months. He must man-up and level with the American people on how he failed in terms of economic growth.

I know that will never happen since the smartest people in the White House will never admit they were wrong, despite factual evidence to the contrary. Of course, the Associated Press is now trying to argue that 10% unemployment is the new norm and we all need to just shut up and praise Obama for his good intentions.

Keep this all in mind when your grandchildren’s children are paying back President Obama’s failed stimulus plan.

To put some substance behind this, take a look at the latest from Rasmussen asking voters with whom they agree on the most pressing issues:

Note the trend on the “Democrat” issues of health care and education. This marks the first time Republicans have hit 10 for 10 on these issues and clearly shows that the Obama administration has not been effective in convincing voters to believe in bigger government, higher taxes, more inefficient bureaucracy and a loss of personal liberty.

A large part of the erosion is likely coming from liberal members of the Democrat Party disillusioned with Obama’s seeming inability to cram the liberal social agenda down American’s throats. However, that doesn’t explain increased GOP support which is coming from independent voters, many of whom previously supported President Obama.

Rasmussen is just one poll, however, other outlets are showing strikingly similar results. A recent CNN Poll shows similar reactions from voters:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – For the first time since he took over in the White House, Americans don’t see eye to eye with President Barack Obama on the important issues, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey does indicate that a majority approve of how Obama’s handling his duties as president.

According to the poll, which was released Tuesday, 48 percent of people questioned say that they agree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them, with 51 percent saying no. That’s a switch from April, when 57 percent said they agreed with the president on important issues, with 41 percent disagreeing.

A recent Harris Interactive poll also shows voters growing concerned over President Obama’s inability to govern on many issues:

It is somewhat stunning that the highest level of “pretty good” tops out at 41%.

In response to falling poll numbers and growing resistance to President Obama’s policies, the administration has begun attacking Fox News. This makes perfect sense because President Obama isn’t used to the media questioning his policies or demanding answers since none of the other media outlets do.

The administration is crashing and burning on many fronts, I’m amazed that they think Fox News is their biggest problem. Perhaps they should examine their own failing liberal polices and incompetence before throwing stones.