Some of the latest from the ongoing debate over ObamaCare...

Obama orders full speed ahead

The Washington Times op-ed has a nice paragraph that summarizes fairly simply why the plan needs to be defeated.

At stake is the biggest policy initiative of the year-old Obama presidency, a rewrite of the nation's health care system that would trim hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, expand Medicaid, mandate that every American join a plan and rewrite rules telling insurance companies how they can operate.

Exactly.

Are Democrats whistling past the graveyard on ObamaCare?

Via Julie Mason:

Republicans warned they will use Obama's reliance on parliamentary moves to push the unpopular bill through as a top campaign issue in the fall. Democrats are hoping Americans ignore rhetoric about voting procedures in Congress and credit them with passing something.

"I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right," Obama said of his latest proposal.  read more »

Fellow Conservatives,

This coming Thursday Barack Obama will convene his "health care summit" - and he and the Democrat leadership are trying to lay a trap to find some Republicans that will agree to some version of ObamaCare.

We can't let that happen.

(Click here and contact your members of Congress)

For over a year conservatives have managed to keep this from becoming law.  We're close the finish line, but it's not over yet.

Tell the Republicans to stay strong and oppose Obama and the liberal congressional leadership.  Tell them you're fine with their being the "Party of No".

Tell Democrats that you oppose any move to implement ObamaCare or any form of a "public option" by using tricks like the "budget reconciliation" process to get around a filibuster.
 read more »

As hard (or easy) as it may be to believe, the education establishment in North Carolina is proposing new standards that would eliminate the teaching of any American history prior to 1877 to high school seniors.

Yes, really.

Of course, the people pushing these changes have a perfectly logical explanation...

We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day."

Sure, it's about ten months away, but there's not time like the present to do some idle speculaton.  Especially in light of recent polls, such as Obama's falling ratings, the Republican advantage on the generic ballot, the (hopeful) death of Obamacare, increasing debt and, of course, the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

With all that in mind, take our poll and then add your comments below....

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most polarizing of them all?

The answer?  Barack Obama.  (via Gallup):

The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

So how does a "polarizing" president try to become less polarizing?  By focusing on something that the bulk of the country agrees on.  According to the latest news, Obama plans to focus on the fact that we're spending too much money and need to get our fiscal house in order.

The only problem with is that the message doesn't fit the messenger.  It's a little like a call girl being a big advocate for chastity.

Reports indicate he'll use his State of the Union speech to call for a "freeze" on "non-defense, discretionary" spending.  Basically, that means he's not touching where the real spending is - entitlements.  As Hot Air pointed out, the $250 billion he says this would save is only a little more than the roughly $200 billion in MONTHLY deficit spending this government does.  read more »

Michael Barone has taken a look at the results of the Massachusetts Senate race on a district by district basis (among the Mass congressional districts) and notes the following:

Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.

Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103. The other 332 districts voted 63% or less for Obama. Interestingly, there are more 64%+ Obama districts in the West (36) than in the East (27) and more in the South (21) than in the Midwest (19).

All but two of the 103 Obama 64%+ districts are represented by Democrats. The two exceptions are Louisiana 2, where Republican An Joseph Cao beat Democrat William “Cold Cash” Jefferson in a December 2008 runoff, and Florida 19, whose incumbent Robert Wexler resigned and a special election will be held in April. And, yes, it will be amazing if this heavily Jewish district in Palm Beach and Broward Counties elects a Republican; heavily Jewish Brookline and Newton voted heavily against Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

From 'round the sphere...

Obama is good for business

Yes, you read that headline correctly.  Of course, what KIND of business is another matter.  In Obama's case, he's good for the lobbying business.  2009 reports from K Street (DC's lobbying district) show big gains, some on the order of 40% over 2008.

Bottom line?  When you work to have government take greater control of various aspects of business and our daily lives you increase the odds that citizens (whether on an individual or corporate basis) will fight back.  And (at least until November) that involves lobbying.

GOP Recruiting picks up speed

What a difference one election makes.  In the wake of this week's election in Massachusetts, the NRCC says their candidate recruitment has picked up considerably.  And, as you can imagine, they're now having an easier time getting good potential challengers to take a serious look at challening some previously "un-challengable" Democrats, (you know, the Massachusetts variety).

Obama to campaign for Reed

You really have to love this.  After going 0 for 3 in the past few months, (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts), Obama is going to hit the campaign trail for Harry Reid (who is wayyyyyy down in the polls in Nevada right now).  read more »

In his column today, Krauthammer takes a look at the Obama response to Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts...and the fact that he blamed the election on generalized "anger and frustration" due to what's happened "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

About which Krauthammer writes: 

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

Maybe hatred of Bush will still be so great by November that it will elect a Republican Congress.

Of course there are a lot of polls out there, but PPP (Public Policy Polling) is a liberal outfit.  And now even their numbers show "The One" in negative territory...

For the first time in our monthly national surveys Barack Obama's approval rating has slipped into negative territory. 46% of voters in the country approve of the job he's doing while 47% disapprove.

Obama's approval peaked in our polling last May at 55%. Since then his largest declines in popularity have come with whites (from 48% to 36%), independents (from 55% to 43%), and conservatives (24 to 14%). He's also seen a decent drop with moderates from 69 to 61%. With his core groups of support- Democrats, liberals, and racial minorities- he's seen only minimal change in his standing.

The fact that they mention the racial aspect of his polling is interesting, and reminds me of an by Pat Buchanan yesterday, ("Has Obama lost white America?"), which points out that the white vote is turning into Obama's biggest problem...and is likely to be, by default, a big problem forthe Democrats in general this November.

Buchanan writes:

If Republicans will study the returns from Massachusetts, then review the returns from Virginia and New Jersey, light will fall upon the path to victory over Barack Obama in 2012.
    
Obama defeated John McCain by winning the black vote 24 to one, the Hispanic vote two to one and taking a larger share of the white vote, 44 percent, than did John Kerry or Al Gore. As the white vote was three-fourths of the national turnout, Obama coasted to victory.
    
Now consider Massachusetts. In the 2008 election, no less than 79 percent of the voters were white, and Obama carried them by 20 points, winning the state 62 to 36.

 Here's a look at Karl Rove's latest US Senate race map.  As you can see, there's a lotta' red there.  And, of course, keep in mind that Massachusetts was "solid blue" just two weeks ago.

Larry Sabato also has a list of current projections up on Rasmussen's site.  He's currently showing a 7 seat gain for the GOP, for what it's worth.

Of course all this stuff can change in a heart beat one way or another, (as Scott Brown demonstrated).  And the election is a full 9 months away...which is an eternity in politics.  But given the current environment...and if the GOP puts up the right candidates which stick to a real conservative message, it should be a good November.