U.S. Senate leader at risk in healthcare battle

Other than President Barack Obama, perhaps no one's political future is riding more on the U.S. Senate battle to revamp the healthcare system than the chamber's Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid.

With Reid already in danger of being unseated in next year's congressional election, the fight over the Democratic president's top domestic priority gives him a chance to prove his clout to voters in his home state of Nevada.

If Reid helps pass what proves to be a popular bill, he will earn new power and respect, and increase his prospects for winning a fifth, six-year Senate term in November 2010.

But if the bill fails or draws public contempt, the Senate leader will be pinned with much of the blame, increasing chances that Republicans will unseat him and perhaps other Democrats next year.

Reid effectively raised the bar with recent campaign ads that describe him as "the most powerful senator Nevada's ever had," said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

To be sure, all of the Senate's 100 lawmakers have much riding on the healthcare outcome.

"No matter how they vote, a portion of their constituency is going to be angry," Duffy said.

"In some ways, Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't," said Paul Light of New York University's Center for the Study of Congress. "If they don't pass it, it's a failure of achievement. If they pass it, they will have to deal with implementation, which could be problematic."

Round one of the Senate floor fight starts on Saturday when Reid and his fellow Democrats will seek to clear the first procedural hurdle -- mustering 60 votes to begin debate on the legislation.

Republicans, led by Senator Mitch McConnell, are also at a crossroads.

If they stop the bill, they will be hailed by their party's conservative base, which has denounced the plan as an excessive federal reach into the private sector. But if Republicans fail to block it -- and some of them cross the aisle and back it -- they will be pilloried by members of their party's increasingly vocal right wing.

Last year, they blasted McConnell and others for backing a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. They have also accused Republicans of letting Democrats increase federal spending and the size of the U.S. government.

'TOUGH SPOT'

"McConnell is in a tough spot," said Ethan Siegal of the Washington Exchange, a private firm that tracks Congress for institutional investors. "He has to deliver on something -- stopping the bill -- that may be undeliverable" if Democrats stick together, Siegal said.

If the Senate passes a bill and the measure eventually drives down costs and extends coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, Obama and his fellow Democrats will bask in a historic achievement.

But if Obama signs legislation into law and it backfires, complicating the relationship between patients and their doctors or costing far more than expected, the president and his fellow Democrats could feel the heat for years.

And that could help Republicans pick up seats in Congress, beginning in next year's election, though key elements of the measure would not go into effect until 2014.

Defeat of the legislation could further erode public support for Obama, whose approval rating has fallen since taking office in January from above 60 percent to about 50 percent.

A politically wounded Obama would undermine Democrats' chances to retain their robust majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives in the 2010 election as well as dim his chances for a second term.

Stem-cell debate unlikely to fade after Neb. vote

The University of Nebraska's governing board was expected to vote Friday on a resolution that would limit stem-cell research at the university system's facilities to rules approved under former President George W. Bush.

The vote by the Board of Regents would come eight months after President Barack Obama removed government funding restrictions on new stem-cell lines.

Supporters of stem-cell research hope it will lead to cures for diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Opponents believe embryos, which are destroyed during the research, are the starting point of human life and destroying them is immoral.

"Overall, the debate still deeply divides, because any concession on the morality of embryo research is still seen by pro-life people as a concession that the embryo is not a person," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "Limits on research are still seen by pro-research patient advocacy groups and scientists as putting the interests of a possible person ahead of real people, here and now, with real diseases. Those are tough gaps to bridge."

The resolution comes 20 months after a state law was enacted prohibiting the use of state resources for creating or destroying embryos for research. That law had been a compromise between abortion opponents and University of Nebraska researchers in which abortion foes agreed not to push for further legislation if certain conditions were met.

Some supporters of the researchers have said that agreement extends to the regents. But abortion opponents say the compromise was never meant to keep them from lobbying the regents for policy changes.

The resolution would need five votes from the eight-member board to pass. A split vote means the proposal fails.

Jim McClurg, a regent endorsed by the anti-abortion group Nebraska Right to Life, did not sign off on the resolution and has said he will wait to hear public comments before deciding how he will vote on the resolution.

Those on both sides must weigh moral convictions against university prosperity, Caplan said.

"With some states allowing (broadened) embryonic stem-cell research, people in the state of Nebraska may worry that they're going lose their best scientists to other schools," Caplan said. "If Nebraska had an aspiration to become a world-class biotech science incubator, it's dangerous to put restrictions on stem-cell research.

"If Nebraska doesn't care or doesn't think that's plausible, then the moral opposition to stem-cell research gets a little bit more political sway."

Socialist Obama & Democrats Destroying America

This article is from speaknowamerica.org and always makes me laugh. The contact information is in the body of the article if you e-mail this person. They seem pretty level-headed.

Socialist Barack Hussein Obama, Comrade Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrats want to destroy the American economy. By destroying the economy they get more power and control. For these socialist it’s all about power and control. Socialist Obama has been President for less than 75 days. With the help of Comrade Pelosi and Reid the socialist Obama has amassed more debt for America than all previous Presidents combined. In conjunction with this drunken spending binge the Federal Reserve has cranked up the printing press and is turning out 100’s billions of dollars.

Every day the socialists come up with more spending plans. What has all of this spending and proposed spending done for America and the economy? For America it has put our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren so deep in debt they’ll never be able to pay it all off.

The economy with trillions of dollars already spent is in a steep downward spiral. Unemployment is going up each day. Manufacturing is declining daily. The socialists Obama, Reid, and Comrade Pelosi have a new solution every day. It’s simple they come up with another spending plan. More money America doesn’t have.

There is only one answer to the crazy socialist actions. They want to destroy America. The socialists want to destroy the American economy, they want to destroy democracy and the capitalist society. Socialist Obama, Reid, and comrade Pelosi want to make America socialist.

To help pay for these stimulus bills and the pork these socialists are selling America to foreigners. Foreigners are buying American property sight unseen. Even worse the Chinese have lent America more than a trillion dollars so far and now China is already starting to tell the socialists what to do.

The socialists are destroying America. They are eliminating the chance for our children to have a chance at the American dream. The socialists’ bailouts and stimulus bills are destroying this great country. Socialist Obama, Reid, Comrade Pelosi, and the Democrats want to destroy America.

America don’t let the socialist behavior of President Barack Hussein Obama and the socialist Democrats destroy America. Join with SpeakNowAmerica.org today! We are ready to defend our rights and tell the truth the socialist main stream media won’t tell you. Join us America to protect your rights, your country, and your money. Comment here and email us at YourVoice@speaknowamerica.org. Help us and be part of bringing our Great country back.

Let GOP duke it out

For Sarah Palin, with her personality and history, to tell Rush Limbaugh that Republicans should welcome primary fights within their own ranks is hardly surprising.

As much as it may pain her many critics, she also has a lot of history on her side.

Many Republicans, looking at the recent fiasco in New York's 23rd Congressional District, argue that the endorsement by Palin and her talk-radio buddies of a rigid right-winger running on the Conservative Party cost Republicans a House seat they had held for more than a century. They worry that the populist anti-establishment ``rogues'' like Palin will kill GOP prospects for a comeback in 2010 by backing ideologues in many other primaries and scaring off independents and moderate Republicans.

Internal fight

They are wasting their breath on Palin, who got to be governor of Alaska by knocking off incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in a Republican primary in 2006. When she told Limbaugh, ``What I appreciate about the Republican Party (is) we have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries,'' she had that fight in mind.

Unlike Palin, most campaign managers and party chairmen hate primaries. They hate to see the money spent fighting people on the same team, and they fear the scars that may be left.

But Palin has a strong point, especially when a party has as many unsettled issues as the Republicans do these days. In such a situation, primaries are the best way to test leaders and ideas. The modern Republican Party began recovering from the many defeats of the New Deal era only in 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero, defeated Adlai Stevenson. But before Ike could win the general election, he had to face down Robert A. Taft, the leader of the GOP congressional wing and an embodiment of conservatism. Their battle started in the New Hampshire primary and continued through bitter convention roll calls testing and finally overthrowing establishment control.

Another such fight came in 1980, after the ruin of Watergate had restored Democrats to the White House. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush squared off, with Bush winning the first round in Iowa and Reagan forced to defend his claim in New Hampshire and in later primaries. Without those tests, Reagan would not have been the candidate who ousted Jimmy Carter.

And as recently as 2000, George W. Bush had to absorb a shellacking at the hands of John McCain in the New Hampshire primary before he was able to slug his way back in South Carolina and develop the tough tactics that he used to claw out his narrow, disputed win over Al Gore.

Against those examples of tough primary battles that preceded and prepared the winners for victory, we have the 1976 struggle in which Reagan challenged President Jerry Ford for the nomination. Ford went to his grave believing that Reagan had weakened him so much that Carter could send him home.

Roots of defeat

He argued that if Reagan had conceded earlier and campaigned harder for the Ford-Bob Dole ticket, the Republicans could have prevailed. But in fact, Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and debate slip-up on Poland had as much or more to do with his defeat.

The overall pattern has been much the same in Republican primaries for governor and senator. The number of cases where a potential winner has been sabotaged by a primary contest's leftover wounds is remarkably few.

The fear among some Republican pros now is that as the GOP base has shrunk and become more monolithically conservative, ideological purity may replace broad voter appeal as the criterion for prevailing in primaries. The answer to that is to bring more people to the polls, as Eisenhower and Reagan both did.

The way to deal with Palin is not to shut her down, but to match her in appeal and effort.

Liberals smarter than conservatives, Republicans smarter than Democrats

The General Social Survey includes a ten item vocabulary test, coded WORDSUM, which is likely strongly correlated with intelligence. This is an opportunity for us to determine whether liberals and Democrats are smarter than conservatives and Republicans.

For the purpose of this comparison, I consider a high vocabulary score to be 9 or 10 correct answers on the vocabulary test (WORDSUM 9-10).

LIBERALS ARE SMARTER THAN CONSERVATIVES

Of those who consider themselves “liberal” or “extremely liberal” (POLVIEWS 1-2), 20.8% had high vocabulary scores.

Of whose who consider themselves “conservative” or “extremely conservative” (POLVIEWS 6-7), only 13.8% had high vocabulary scores.

REPUBLICANS ARE SMARTER THAN DEMOCRATS

Of those who identify as Republican (PARTYID 5-6), 15.6% had high vocabulary scores.

Of those who identify as Democrats (PARTYID 0-1), only 11.9% had high vocabulary scores.

ANALYSIS

This is an extremely surprising result. Because there is a strong correlation between liberal and Democrat, and between conservative and Republican, I would have assumed that if something were true for liberals it would also be true for Democrats, and the same for conservatives and Republicans.

My hypothesis is that people consider many factors when determining if they are liberal or conservative, including leftist or rightist orientation (leftist being liberal), religiosity (religious being conservative), and attitudes corresponding to what’s considered “Openness” in the Five Factor personality model (with Openness being liberal).

But when people decide which party to vote for, a major factor is how much money they make and/or what social class they consider themselves a part of. People who are of a higher social class or make more money (both of these factors correlating with higher intelligence) are more likely to vote Republican.

You probably already no my stance............

Just in case you didn't!



I cannot stand her face! However, on a serious, here is a list of why she will not win a presidential candidacy in 2012. She may not even get the nod from the republicans.

Reason Number 1: Too Many Better Candidates

The dust hasn’t even settled from the 2008 contest, and Republicans are already salivating over who the next GOP presidential nominee will be. To be sure, Palin’s name is among those that are being floated as possible candidates, along with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and South Dakota Senator John Thune. But does it really stand out?

Experience-wise, every single one of those candidates puts Palin to shame. Additionally, each of those candidate brings far more expertise to the table than Palin. And maybe that will change over the next four years. But in the meantime, Romney is seen by many as an expert on economic issues by virtue of his successful construction (and later resuscitation) of Bain Capital, and given current economic concerns, that could be a big arrow in his quiver. Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty are probably the truest conservatives of the bunch, and in fact would probably be more solidly aligned with the conservative base than any GOP candidate since George H.W. Bush was the nominee as the incumbent president back in 1992. Candidates like Jindal and Thune are largely considered by many to be the future of the Republican Party. Palin would have a difficult time distinguishing herself from the breadth of possibility in that field.

Reason Number 2: The Primary Process Has A Heavy Debate Emphasis

The 2008 presidential election season was unprecedented in the visibility of candidates. En route to the nomination, John McCain participated in 17 debates in the primary race alone. Few will argue with the assertion that Sarah Palin is at her worst in (a) debates, and (b) one-on-one interviews. It was a constant worry of the McCain campaign, and a primary reason behind the fact that Palin only debated Democratic vice-presidential nominee (and now Vice President-elect) Joe Biden one time. On that occasion, expectations going into the forum were lowered to a point that essentially credited Palin with an incredible performance as long as she managed to avoid a catastrophic failure.

She wouldn’t have that benefit if she were on the stage with Romney (a prolific debater), Gingrich, Jindal, Thune, or Pawlenty, to say nothing of any other GOP candidates who might jump in the race.

Reason Number 3: The GOP Favors Candidates Who’ve Sought the Presidency Before

With the exception of George W. Bush, Republicans tend to favor candidates who’ve sought the nomination before. John McCain (’08), Bob Dole (‘96), George H.W. Bush (‘92, ‘88), Ronald Reagan (‘80, ‘84), Richard Nixon (‘72, ‘68), Barry Goldwater (‘64)- all of them sought the GOP nomination at least one time before eventually winning it (Gerald Ford is absent from the list, because he was the incumbent president and nominee in ‘76 without ever actually having been elected president in the first place). That kind of news bodes well for a candidate like Mitt Romney, who made a substantial impact in 2008, but fell short.

Reason Number 4: Barack Obama Already Defeated Sarah Palin

Palin participated in a Republican ticket that got handed its worst electoral beating since 1964. On the safe assumption that Barack Obama would seek a second term in 2012 2008, she’d be facing the same guy who demolished her ticket the first time around.

Moreover, Obama didn’t just beat McCain-Palin in swing states. He didn’t even just beat them in states that are only moderately Republican. He beat them in GOP strongholds like North Carolina and Virginia. Palin was brought in as McCain’s running mate not only to make an offensive run at women, but also to shore up conservative and rural support. She couldn’t do it. It’s hard to see how she’d have any better luck on her own four years from now.

Reason Number 5: Palin Has Enough Baggage

Between Troopergate, her use of campaign funds for a pricey shopping spree, her former membership in an Alaskan separatist group, and her history of handing out high-paying government patronage jobs to her girlfriends from high school and college, Palin had a lot weighing her down in the 2008 race before her qualifications were even addressed. Romney’s biggest problem was that he began as a much more liberal politician than he is now. But that pales in comparison to Palin’s ethically questionable behavior. Gingrich had an extramarital affair, but he admitted that years ago, so it’s not really a newsworthy issue anymore. And Jindal, Pawlenty, and Thune are clean…for now anyway. Palin will have a tough time getting voters to look past her problems, particularly when there are other more qualified candidates to choose from who don’t have that kind of baggage.

So, I joined a forum to which I can write whatever my heart desires! Where to begin? I'm loving life and you should expect much more to come from me very shortly.