In recent polls for the 2012 presidential contest, a contest that is a year and a half away, Barack Obama beats or ties most of the announced or potential Republican candidates. Romney has traded places atop the polls but for the most part, Obama is ahead of the pack.

The polling that asks about the generic Republican shows that Obama loses. Obama loses to an unnamed, unknown generic Republican but beats the current field. This shows two things. America is generally tired of Obama and wants a change in leadership and that the current crop (thus far) is not the change in leadership that they want.

This could change over time as right now allegiances are spread across a wide Republican field but as it stands right now, Obama beats them when he can’t beat the generic candidate.

Unless someone jumps out of the pack of Republicans and espouses what those polled see in the “generic” candidate, Republicans need to find that generic candidate somewhere else.

The population is looking for a conservative with a proven record of financial experience who has not wavered on core principles. The current pack has few of those in it. Romney gave us Obamacare light and has changed his positions on several issues. He is a smart money man but to many, Obamacare light is a deal breaker.

People have a right to change positions over time based on experience and knowledge but too often positions change based on politics and that is not the mark of a principled person. Plenty of politicians opposed abortion (or federal funding of it) but changed over time for political gain. Look at how many have no problem with federal funding of abortion under Obamacare. Al Gore changed his position completely when being pro life was not to his political advantage.

These are not principled positions. The Republicans need that person who has a solid record of conservative values and have been principled in the approach to these sensitive issues.

Who will that generic person be?

Right now it is hard to say if one of the current contenders is the one or if a new person will have to emerge.

But one thing is certain, whomever it is, the left and its media wing will wage a full scale assault on that person. Power is a strong incentive to many people who have less than honorable intentions.

The Rasmussen poll linked above shows that voters are likely to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate and that is the generic Republican. This is misleading when one considers that the individuals currently in the race lose when polled head to head against Obama (except Romney who trades places depending upon the poll). If current economic conditions persist it is possible for Obama to lose to any candidate but if they improve the Republicans will need a strong, principled candidate in order to win.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico announced he will not seek reelection in 2012 as another rat jumps from the sinking ship. While Bingaman’s departure will make it even more difficult for Democrats to maintain control of the Senate, the Democrat party is not the ship I was talking about.

Bingaman is like many other politicians, from both parties, who have decided not to seek reelection. Yes, most of them are Democrats and yes their party is destroying the country and moving it toward Socialism, but no, they are not the only ones. Republicans (mostly in name only) have helped move us toward destruction.

The ship I think Bingaman and the other politicians are abandoning is the ship of state. None of these people wants to be on board when the country slips into the abyss because they do not want to be blamed for the destruction. They do not want the immediate blame or the blame history will assign to those who were on board when the ship went to the bottom of the sea.

It is too late and it matters not if these people are in office when the demise of this great country takes place because they are all to blame. They all had a hand in sinking the country and they will all be remembered as the people who did us in.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama was in Maryland yesterday stumping for Moron OweMalley, the Democrat Governor (who endorsed Hillary Clinton). When he was not making the crowd ill, he used the same tired analogy he has used for the past few months. He told the crowd of sycophant Democrats that if you want to move a car forward you put it in D and if you want to move backwards you put it in R. He told them this was no coincidence (it actually is a coincidence but he is talking to Democrats).

If we were to carry Obama’s analogy further we would have to point out that the R on a car is an important feature. If your car was facing the edge of a cliff what would you put the gear selector in? I am willing to bet most folks would pick the R and get out of trouble. Then there would be those few who think it is a coincidence and drive on.

The country is on the edge of a cliff that, until Obama took office, we approached rather slowly. Once Obama took office he put it in D and kicked in the turbo chargers. We are now on that cliff and voters need to decide whether we select the D and drive off the cliff or if we pick the R and reverse course.

The Titanic was in D when it hit the iceberg…

We know that Obamanomics is not working. He has spent trillions of dollars and tripled the deficit that Bush left. Obama is the Bush spending agenda on steroids (great, now Congress will be investigating steroid use).

Obama spent a trillion dollars on stimulus and the only thing stimulated was the payoff to his supporters. There are no jobs being created (they overestimated last year by nearly a million jobs and we lost nearly 100k more in September) and the economy remains in the doldrums. Obama’s legislative agenda has been filled with Socialist wishes and lies. The Health Care takeover that would save money is estimated to cost trillions of dollars and will burden the country.

Remember, Obama says that government can do it better. It is your mommy and daddy and can care for you. This would be the same government that spent over 20 million dollars on stimulus checks that went to dead people and those in jail. Where was the government oversight in this relatively small program (when compared to the size and scope of health care)? If this government cannot avoid wasting millions of dollars on the dead and felons then how on Earth will it ever run a program the size of health care with any efficiency?

The answer is, it will not because it cannot.

And this is the so called forward progress that Obama discusses when he talks about putting the car in D.

It would do voters well to also note that Recovery begins with R…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Ignoring the Kos polls that Kos admitted were manipulated to give him the results he was looking for, we can start looking at the polls for the upcoming elections. The Kos polls were over the top but not too terribly far off from many MSM backed polls of the past few years. The pollsters typically find ways to skew results to make things more positive for Democrats because controlling the message is important to the Socialists and Marxists in government and their sock puppets in the media. The pollsters can swing public opinion by skewing polls.

So when polls conducted by Democrat supporters start to show things are bad, they are.

A poll done by James Carville’s firm shows the Republicans up by 6% in the generic ballot (48%-42%). This is the generic ballot. The local races are beginning to look bad for some long time Democrats. Boxer, Reid and Feingold are in trouble in the polls and could very well end up unemployed after November.

Another interesting thing from the same Carville poll is that 55% of respondents said that Socialist was an accurate way to describe Barack Hussein Obama.

And Obama is losing his appeal. Not long ago he was filling venues with his lofty talk of hope and change and how he would do this or that and people swooned over him, fainted, screamed and followed just to touch his robes. Now his presence cannot fill a venue one tenth the size he has in the past and prices have to be reduced to induce people to attend.

From Yes We Can to Oh No You Didn’t in a year and a half…

Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama faces the real possibility of losing not only seats but the majority he enjoys, especially in the Senate. It is a long way to the election and anything can happen but Democrat Senators are dropping like flies (there are slightly more Democrats not returning than there are Republicans) and Obama is still stinging from the loss of the people’s seat in Massachusetts.

So Obama is embarking on a “save the Senate” tour where he will campaign for Democrats in peril of losing their seats.

President Obama kicks off what might be called his “Save the Senate” tour this week, heading west to campaign for two embattled Democrats trailing badly against Republican challengers – including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Washington Times

Considering that he is 0-3, he might want to skip the campaign appearances if he wants to actually help them.

Obama has much more to worry about because a new CNN poll shows that 52% of the people polled do not think he deserves a second term. He has three years to fix that problem so now is not the time to panic but considering he has only been in office for 13 months, it might be time to worry a bit.

Obama will certainly triangulate and work to appear moderate so that he can garner more support. There are people who will forget that, to many, he appeared moderate during the campaign only to become more radical upon taking office. He was (and still is) radical all along to those of us not receiving the Kool Aid IV.

This November the clout of Barack Obama will be put to the test. If he can muster enough votes to keep the majority then he might be on semi solid ground. If he loses a lot, and particularly loses one or both chambers, he will be in trouble.

Then again, Republicans in the Congress helped Bill Clinton with a make-over that gave him a second term.

The economy will not be healed any time soon, particularly with the policies of this administration and once inflation hits things will be really bad.

No wonder Obama is sporting more gray hair.

Barack Obama and James Carville like to call the last decade the lost decade. It is a swipe at George Bush and the assertion is that the economy was terrible while he was in office. Randall Hoven at American Thinker has a great post up comparing the years and how we did and it is broken down by which party controlled the government.

This should drive the Democrats nuts (OK, it is more like a short putt):

So that “lost decade” was really just five lost years: the years when Republicans did not control Congress. When Republicans did control Congress, all of ten years in the last eighty, the economy did just fine — better than most recent decade averages.

Let me be clear. We got “lost” only when Democrats took over Congress. That is a fact.

Not to worry, the Obama apologists who frequent here will come up with some defense of the anointed one.

The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is coming to America for heart surgery:

The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador will be coming to the US for heart surgery for a procedure his deputy claims is not available in his home province. Just One Minute

I am certain that someone will point out that this guy’s province is small and does not offer the surgery that is needed and that this is the case all over Canada depending on where people live and what the population is. This is the excuse we hear when they make excuses for wait times.

But surely this surgery is offered somewhere in Canada. You mean to tell me this guy could not find some place in Canada, with its wonderful health care, where he could get the heart surgery he needs?

No, he is wealthy and he is coming to America to get his surgery. He is coming here for a reason and it is not that the surgery is not offered in his province…

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen does not feel safe under Obama [Big Dog Salute to Just One Minute]:

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America’s critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality.

Hey Richard, welcome to the club.

Bonus

Republicans get more in fundraising money in December.

That’s the wrap up for now. As always, your comments are appreciated.

It looks like Harry Reid is cracking up under all the pressure being put on him to get a health care bill passed. Combine that pressure with his diminishing chance for reelection and it all adds up to a crack-up. Today, Reid compared Republicans’ resistance to the health care legislation to those who opposed the ending of slavery in this country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Fox News

It was indeed the Republican party that ended slavery in this country and the Democrats were the ones opposed to it. Republicans were the movers and shakers in the ending of the suffrage of women and in getting civil rights legislation passed. The Democrats were the ones who opposed all those things so at least Reid has his party’s history to look at when making the comparison.

The Democrats still espouse slavery in this country and they work hard to keep minorities, particularly blacks, on their plantation. Democrats do not work for equality and support plans that view minorities and women as second class citizens who need a helping hand because they are unable to make it on their own. The Democrats keep select groups enslaved in order to ensure votes. They are aware that as long as they keep promising to make things better they will keep people in chains, beholden to the Democrats who look down upon them.

The health care plan being pushed along will make every American, except the very wealthy and the political elite, slaves to the government. We will depend on government for one of the most important and personal items in our lives, our medical care. The Democrats know that if they can take over health care they will hold people hostage and will use this advantage to ensure wins in future elections.

Look at how the elderly are held hostage over Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats, at election time, always talk about Social Security and how it will be lost under Republicans. The Democrats use the threat of decreased SS or Medicare benefits as a weapon to keep the elderly in line. Fear of losing these benefits is what the Democrats want.

This will happen if we are all forced to be at the mercy of government. The government can justify anything it wants if it holds the keys to the health care mansion. They will regulate what you eat, how much exercise you get, what your kids do, and will increase taxes all under the threat of health care expense and in the name of the common good. It is a dangerous game and it is up to Republicans to stop it.

Republicans ended slavery in this country at the cost of a lot of lives all because Democrats wanted to keep blacks on a leash as servants.

After bondage ended the Democrats worked to enslave blacks and other minorities with social programs that keep the downtrodden at the bottom of the social ladder and always looking up for a hand.

“Please sir, I want some more.”

Republicans have traditionally believed that people who need a helping hand get one but that it is temporary and that the help one gets should be in helping him to improve his lot in life. We believe that you cannot make the poor wealth by making the wealthy poor and that making people dependent will not miraculously lead them to independence. Democrats don’t actually believe it either, they know that making the wealthy poor makes everyone poor and that the best way to control people is to make them dependent. This is their goal.

Once people are hooked they will always do what their masters say because they are afraid of losing what meager things they get.

One only needs to look at how people in New Orleans were unable to care for themselves after Hurricane Katrina to see the harm of dependence on government.

Republicans must rise up and defeat this health care legislation so that we maintain our independence.

I never want to have to tell my grandchildren that they are servants of the government because I stood silently and allowed it to take away our freedom.

Wouldn’t this be a kick in the pants? It looks like it is possible that a Republican could win the Senate seat that was held by Barack Obama. There is some infighting in Illinois among politicians who wanted the seat (part of the Blago deal making) but did not get it. The seat went to Roland Burris and he is not running for reelection.

Democratic Party leaders in Washington — and the Obama White House — failed to recruit a candidate strong enough to scare Rep. Mark Kirk — the Republicans’ best bet — from the race. The only luck they had was the decision by Sen. Roland Burris — appointed by now-indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s remaining term — not to run to keep the seat. Chicago Sun Times

It looks like Mark Kirk has plenty of money and will make a contest of the whole thing.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the seat held by Obama turned parties and that took the filibuster proof majority away from Harry Reid (who will likely be gone as well) and the Democrats?

After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.

I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.

First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.

That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times

In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)

The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.

It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.

Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).

How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]

The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.

I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:

In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:

“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).

Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).

Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants

People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

~snip~

The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law

This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.

Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.

Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.

The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).

Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.

Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.

So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.

Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.

Arlen Specter, the Democrat who came out of the liberal closet, has been stripped of his seniority even though he was promised he would keep it. Now he might not be able to bring home the bacon, so to speak, and that might just move Pennsylvania Democrats to select someone else in the primary. That would be the best slap of all. Imagine; Specter leaves the Republican party because he cannot win the primary and then loses the Democratic primary. This would be the best punishment for him.

There is an article in the Washington Post describing the strange things that have taken place since Specter defected. In the article there is discussion about the loss of seniority and how it might affect Democratic voters and then there is a major gaffe Specter made:

In a sitdown with the New York Times’ Deborah Solomon, Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do “justice” and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back told Reid that he briefly “forgot what team I was on.” WaPo

This is funny because no matter how he tries to get out of this he will end up looking bad. He already said that a victory for Coleman would be justice which means a victory for Franken would be an injustice. It is obvious that his rhetoric is all political because he admitted he forgot what team he was on. Then again, he was on the Democratic team so much he should have known his team…

Should this surprise anyone? He forgot what team he was on when he was needed for a number of critical votes. He forgot he was a Republican countless times so I can understand how he could forget the team he is on.

He also forgot the team of people who voted for him when he switched parties. The ones who voted for him were cheated out of 18 months of having the guy they voted for. Of course, since he did not represent their values too often it was probably not a huge shock.

Any way, it will be fun to watch this unfold and things might be unfolding now. The article states:

And, average voters are not likely to be following every jot and tittle of the Specter saga — especially so far from an election. Still, insiders are paying very close attention and, if Specter’s stumbles over the past week encourage Rep. Joe Sestak to run in the primary, then the damage will have been done.

Joe Sestak announced today he was considering a run. That cannot bode well for Specter.

Maybe the Democrats should put their least senior guy in the back of the room so no one will pay attention to him.