From CNN:

Obama resigns from controversial church
Posted: 06:22 PM ET

(CNN) — Barack Obama resigned Saturday from his Chicago church — where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers had created repeated political headaches for the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination — his campaign confirmed.

The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama’s Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, for crying in New Hampshire during the runup to the primary there.

Previously, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ and Obama’s minister for about 20 years — drew unwanted attention for the campaign when videos of several of his fiery sermons surfaced.

In them, Wright suggested the U.S. government may be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and equated some American wartime activities to terrorism.

Obama has said he was not present for the controversial sermons by Wright or Pfleger and had condemned both — most recently saying he was “deeply disappointed” by Pfleger’s “divisive, backward-looking rhetoric.”

Interesting to see how this will play out; probably a smart move overall just to get past the issue, especially after Fr. Pfleger. Also, smart to do it on a Saturday.

Pew Research 2008 General Election Poll, conducted May 21st-25th, 2008

• Barack Obama 47%
• John McCain 44%

This poll sampled registered voters.

Politico notes Obama’s drastic decline among white women over the past few months:

Barack Obama’s favorability ratings among white women has declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party’s base.

According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.

Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.

Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall.

White men, in general and among Democrats, have shown only a slight drop-off in their perception of Obama — one-third of the shift seen in white women. About 20 percent of Democratic white men have an unfavorable view of Obama, a figure which has remained stable since February.

Pew also found that among self-described Clinton supporters, the negative shift against Obama is more severe among women than among men.

Still unknown is whether white women’s support for Clinton would translate into problems for Obama in the general election.

More evidence in the case for Sarah Palin?

The daily tracking poll updates from Rasmussen:

Rasmussen Reports Daily General Election Tracking Poll

• McCain - 46%
• Obama - 43%

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings

• McCain - 52/46 (+6)
• Obama - 45/53 (-8)

As usual, Huckabee provides the biggest boost (outside of MI):

SurveyUSA Wisconsin General Election Poll, conducted May 16th-18th, 2008

• Barack Obama 48%
• John McCain 42%

This survey was conducted between May 16th-May18th, 2008

.
Here are the veep numbers:

Continued good news from Rasmussen regarding these critical issues:

When it comes to the economy, 47% of voters trust John McCain more than Barack Obama. Obama is trusted more by 41%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that, when it comes to the War in Iraq, McCain is trusted more by 49% of voters. Obama is preferred by 37%. McCain has an even larger edge—53% to 31%–on the broader topic of National Security. These results are little changed from a month ago.

Obama enjoys a 43% to 39% advantage when it comes to government ethics and reducing corruption. McCain has a 44% to 38% advantage on taxes.

It is interesting to note that while McCain has the edge over Obama on these issues, Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on a generic basis. This ability of McCain to outperform the party label helps explain why he is competitive with the Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking poll.

When it comes to the economy, men trust McCain more by a 55% to 33% margin. Among women, Obama has a seven-point edge. Obama has the advantage among voters under 30 while McCain is preferred by their elders. Investors prefer McCain while non-Investors are evenly divided. Union Members prefer Obama 46% to 40%. Government Workers are evenly divided while Entrepreneurs and Private Sector Employees are more likely to trust McCain.

McCain is trusted more by 25% of Democrats. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats trust the likely nominee of their Party.

Recent surveys have found that most voters believe the economic stimulus package has had little impact, most believe that tax hikes are bad for the economy, and 65% oppose an increase in the capital gains tax. The Rasmussen Consumer Index has found consumer and investor confidence at record low levels.

As for the War in Iraq, McCain is trusted more by 85% of Republicans, 22% of Democrats, and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Tracking polls have shown that roughly 6-out-of-ten Americans want troops home from Iraq within a year. However, only about one-in-four want the troops brought home immediately. The gap between those numbers is filled by Americans who both parties have a chance to persuade during Election 2008. A recent survey found that 52% of voters believe it is more important to get U.S. troops out of Iraq than it is to win the War. Expectations are that a McCain Presidency would more likely lead to victory in Iraq while Obama is more likely to get the troops home.

The broader topic of National Security is one of the few issues where Republicans are competitive on a generic basis with Democrats. However, following seven years of the Bush Administration, the GOP advantage on this issue has declined.

On taxes, Republicans are preferred over Democrats, 46% to 42%. McCain is trusted over Clinton 45% to 36% and by a 41% to 38% margin over Obama.

When it comes to government ethics and reducing corruption, both candidates are trusted more by roughly seven-out-of-ten within their own party. Obama has a statistically insignificant two-point edge among unaffiliated voters. What is perhaps more significant is that 28% of unaffiliated voters trust neither candidate on this topic.

This week’s question is: What are some of your favorite political websites?

Mine: Drudge Report, Swing State Project, Real Clear Politics, Polling Report, Slate, and, of course, Race 4 2008. Polling Report is a vastly underutilized resource! The aim of this question is for others to share similarly overlooked sites. I also like to peruse Reason, Newsmax, and Human Events. Washington Whispers is a fun political gossip blog run by the folks at US News and World Report. I’m sure more will come to mind; I’ll update in the comments section, if so…

SurveyUSA Kansas General Election Matchup

• John McCain- 49%
• Barack Obama- 39%

This is a poll of registered voters.

Things are a little close for comfort down in the Magnolia State, where Bush won by 20 points four years ago, but the favorability ratings are certainly a good sign:

Rasmussen Reports Mississippi General Election Matchup

• McCain - 50%
• Obama - 44%

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings

• McCain - 55/42
• Obama - 44/54

Scott makes the observation that the racial divide is huge in the breakdown of the crosstabs.

The Senate races:

• Musgrove (D) - 47%
• Wicker (R-inc) - 46%

Wicker was appointed by Governor Barbour to fill out the rest of Trent Lott’s term when Lott retired. Intrade currently rates this race as an exactly 50/50 tossup.

• Cochran (R-inc) - 58%
• Fleming (D) - 35%

I agree with Clarence below that it is highly unlikely that HRC will become Majority Leader anytime in the near future, much less Majority Leader with a filibuster-proof majority. Even setting aside the enmity she might be engendering with her quixotic bid for President, I just don’t see her leapfrogging past Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, and Byron Dorgan.

But a filibuster-proof majority is by no means outside of the realm of possibility. Below is my chart of how I currently see the races. The categorizations are simple. Safe means that I can’t envision the other side winning. “Likely” means that it is almost impossible for me to see the other side winning. For example, in VA it would require either Warner being named the Veep candidate or the absolute collapse of the Obama campaign. For NJ it would require a major gaffe by Lautenberg (not impossible, given his age), and probably also require the collapse of the Obama campaign (which I don’t view as impossible).

There are some “tweeners” in the safe category — ID, KS, and NE on the Republican side and SD, MA, and IA on the Dem side — races that could conceivably be competitive given the quality of the opposition, the nature of the state, and/or problems with the incubment (have you seen Kerry’s approval ratings lately). But I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that these races become competitive, even if it is possible.

Given that, Democrats basically start this cycle out with a floor of 51 seats. The problem for Republicans is that there is only one Democratic race in play. An additional 11 Republican seats are in various states of play.

Lean races mean that it is not difficult to imagine a victory by the other side, but that the playing field currently favors one candidate or the other. NH and NM are races that could be placed in the “Likely” category. But I think that Udall is awfully liberal for New Mexico (he’s a co-sponsor of Kucinich’s Department of Peace for crying out loud), and Sununu has a massive cash advantage over Shaheen (who, given her three terms as governor, is something of an incumbent herself, which is why her polling numbers don’t bother me as much). And McCain will likely perform well in these states. I expect the Dems to win these races, but it wouldn’t take an act of God for them to lose, as with the “likely” category.

On the Republican side, KY and TX are two races where polling has showed challengers within a few points of the incumbent (The balance of the KY polls show McConnell more around 50%). Neither incumbent has great approval ratings. That said, the incumbents have a massive cash-on-hand advantage over their challengers. I suspect they will pull through, if for no other reason than the partisan affiliation of their states and Obama’s likely poor performance there. These races strike me as kind of Kyl-Pederson in 2006.

An argument could be made for placing ME, MN, and/or OR in the Slight Lean category. But as I said, this is where I suspect that things will end up, not where I necessarily think things are now. ME is almost certainly placed correctly; I think that Collins is a good fit for her state; indeed a better fit than Allen. Remember, Maine ain’t exactly Rhode Island. MN and OR are closer calls, but given Franken’s troubles (which are just now beginning, I think) and Smith’s persona (his approvals are now back over 50%), I expect they’ll win.

Which brings me to the “Slight Lean” category. These are really tossups, but not calling a state is for wussies, as far as I’m concerned. I give Udall the slight edge in CO and Landrieu the slight edge in LA, although no one really knows how things will look in November. CO is trending blue, but I’m not sure it is trending liberal; remember, this the state voted to ban gay marriage, deny civil unions, and nearly voted against raising the minimum wage in 2004. The formula for CO Democrats has been to run moderate Democrats like Ritter and Salazar; 2008 will be a test to see if things can be pushed farther to the left. I could easily see either race flipping.

That leaves Dole, Wicker, and Stevens. I don’t have to go into the problems for the three of them. Stevens seems the most likely to lose, although Begich has problems of his own, and Lisa Murkowski trailed in polls for most of 2004 before winning against Knowles. Wicker has time to right the ship, and Musgrove is a former Governor who arguably should be treated as more of an incumbent than Wicker for purposes of polling. But Musgrove will likely benefit from a huge black turnout from the Obama campaign. That leaves Dole in NC. I think she is in real trouble. Part of the polling problem is that Hagan just won a competitive primary, and is benefitting from good publicity from that. But Dole isn’t an especially gifted campaigner, and this state will likely have massive African American turnout as well in 2008. That’s trouble.

So in short, as of right now I expect Dems to come out with a 55-seat majority. But it wouldn’t take a great leap for them to get to 58. Beyond that, even 63 would be within the realm of possibility.

Combined with an Obama presidency, and what is likely coming in the House, that should make conservatives very, very uncomfortable, with or without a Hillary Clinton majority leadership.

The daily tracking poll updates from Rasmussen:

Rasmussen Reports Daily General Election Tracking Poll

• McCain - 47% (47)
• Obama - 42% (43)

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings

• McCain - 52/45 (50/46)
• Obama - 48/49 (48/49)

No problem for the GOP in Alabama:

Rasmussen Reports Alabama General Election Matchup

• McCain - 60% (55)
• Obama - 32% (37)

Survey was completed May 27 of 500 likely voters and has a 4% MoE. Numbers in parentheses are from the April poll.

Favorable/Unfavorable Numbers

• McCain - 62/34
• Obama - 36/61

And Jeff Sessions is more than cruising to reelection against Vivian Davis Figures:

• Sessions - 62% (57)
• Figures - 29% (36)

This link courtesy of comment veteran Palin for VP!

Regarding an earlier post suggesting the possibility of Hillary Clinton, as a consolation prize, becoming the Majority Leader of a
filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. If you were to bet on that today, you might get good odds, but I think it is a sucker bet.

For the scenario to occur, two things would have to happen that I just do not see. Democrats would have to control 60 of 100 Senate seats, and Hillary Clinton would have to be elected Majority Leader. I also do not think she will change her name back to Rodham either, as the title implies.

There are currently only 49 United States Senators elected as Democrats as well as 49 elected as Republicans. If you include socialist Bernie Sanders and McCain-supporter (and often-touted VP choice by the person who wrote the post which I am refuting) Joe Lieberman, that puts the Democrats at 51. If you look at the political report put out by Charlie Cook , a non-partisan political handicapper, on May 22, he rates 10 seats as solidly Democrat. Then Tim Johnson’s seat is “likely Dem”. Mary Landrieu’s is “lean Dem”. For the sake of this argument, I will assume Democrats hold all of those.

Senator John Warner’s seat in Virginia is rated as likely Dem also because he is retiring and Mark Warner (no relation) is heavily favored over Jim Gilmore. Gilmore was also a four-year governor of the state and was elected by a bigger margin than Warner, but all polls show Warner ahead. He is expected to win. There are then 6 seats rated as toss ups. I repeat. Toss ups. Not likely Dem, not lean Dem, toss up.

That means in theory Republicans should win 3 and Democrats 3. They include Stevens in Alaska, the open seat in Colorado, Coleman in Minnesota, Wicker in Missippi, Sununu in New Hampshire, and the open seat in New Mexico. Coleman still narrowly leads in Minnesota. Colorado’s polls have always been close, as have Alaska’s. If you give all 6 seats to the Democrats, the equivalent of flipping a coin 6 times and having it show up heads for all 6, that puts the Democrats at 58 seats. Then Sue Collins and Gordon Smith are rated as lean Rep. The open Nebraska seat and Liddy Dole are likely Rep. There are 12 solid Republican seats, but some of them are questionable. A recent Rasmussen poll has Mitch McConnell behind, for example.

Charlie Cook is a non-partisan political analyst. My understanding is that he is personally slightly left of center, and Stuart Rothenberg is personally right of center. For the Democrats to get a filibuster-proof majority, they would have to keep Landrieu, elect Mark Warner, have the coin land on heads 6 times in a row andtake all 6 toss up seats, and win 2 out of 5 seats where they are decidedly underdogs (ME, OR, NE, NC, KY). In addition to that, Joe Lieberman would have to continue to caucus with the Democrats. Even with this perfect storm, they would still only have 58 Senators elected as Democrats, but they would have a caucus of 60 with Lieberman and Sanders.

As I have just shown, the odds of everything breaking perfectly for Democrats and having them get to 60 seats is very slim. The chances of Hillary Clinton then becoming the leader of this caucus, in my opinion, is even slimmer. She clearly does not have very many friends in the Democratic caucus. Pat Leahy called on her to drop out.

John Kerry clearly does not think much of the Clintons. Dick Durbin is second in command under Reid and is a strong Obama partisan. Despite her being in the Senate since 2001 and having four years longer to make friends and build trust than Barack Obama has had, he has 16 Senate endorsements to her 13. Plus even that 13 overstates her support because a few signed up early on when she looked inevitable. What is more, from what I can tell, Harry Reid is fairly well-liked in that caucus.

If you’re thinking of betting on Hillary Clinton becoming the Majority Leader of a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate, spend your money on a Powerball ticket. You’ll have a better chance.

There’s been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might pick Jim Webb as his Vice Presidential candidate. The thinking is that Webb helps Obama carry Virginia, and if Obama carries Virginia, it is well nigh impossible for McCain to win. Indeed, IA, NM, VA, and CO for Obama means that McCain could flip MI and NH and still lose. This prospect has worried several top-flight bloggers I’ve spoken to.

But I might point out that Webb’s approval ratings in Virginia — among adults — are a fairly anemic 47%-41%. I do believe that Obama needs someone with experience and preferably military credentials, I’m just not sure that Webb will get the job done for him past that.

As I aimlessly flipped through yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer Business section, I found this disturbing piece tucked away in the top corner of a page. The numbers do not look good:

Soaring gasoline prices and weakening job prospects left shoppers gloomier about the economy in May, sending a key barometer of consumer sentiment to its lowest level in almost 16 years.

The Conference Board said yesterday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 57.2 from a revised 62.8 in April. Economists surveyed by Thomson Financial/IFR had expected a reading of 60.

The May reading marked the fifth straight month of decline and was the lowest since the index registered 54.6 in October 1992, when the economy was coming out of a recession.

…

Franco said consumers’ worries about inflation, fueled by increasing prices at the gas pump, were now at an “all-time high” and were likely to rise further in the months ahead. She said that based on consumers’ outlook on the economy, she believed there was little likelihood of a quick turnaround.

Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wachovia Corp., agreed, saying that as “awful as these numbers” looked, he did not believe confidence had bottomed out yet - an ominous sign for consumer spending.

There it is: October 1992

Sixteen years later, not much has changed: A Bush sits in the White House, his approval ratings south of 40%, with the country’s economy unable to gain much traction and a pivotal general election looming ahead. In one case, the GOP has reigned supreme at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for 12 years, in the other, 8 years. Democratic challengers Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ride into Washington as youthful “change” agents, ready to capitalize on public angst and frustration.

Yet, there is John McCain, the only man that doesn’t quite fit into this puzzle. Can he avoid the fate of President George H.W. Bush by successfully running away from the current President Bush? We can be certain that Barack Obama has a long way to go before he can prove he is as electorally appealing as former President Bill Clinton. America simply does not have a history of electing northern liberal Democrats (see Stevenson, Adlai; Humphrey, Hubert; McGovern, George; Mondale, Walter; Dukakis, Michael). John F. Kennedy was the exception of course, but even he was a member of the Democratic Party when it was still relatively hawkish on foreign policy. 

The simple passage above, however, highlights McCain’s fragile position: The senator must pivot away from Bush’s economic policies, while pointing out the risks and fallacies in trusting the levers of commerce to Barack Obama. Deservedly or not, McCain will be tied to the current President and his perceived failure to steady the economy. For all the emphasize he places on Iraq and his mastery of foreign affairs, McCain must bolster his economic message and make it an integral part of his campaign. Ignoring it or simply asserting that he understands the struggles of working-class Americans will not suffice.

There must be a serious discussion about developing alternative energy and reducing our need for Middle Eastern oil. In particular, McCain should elaborate on his ”2013″ video by spelling out specific goals he would like to meet by the end of his first term. Continuing to push a gas-tax holiday cannot be the Senator’s centerpiece on energy security. John McCain will win the energy argument when he can convince the American people that he is very serious about developing the alternatives that President Bush never had the courage to pursue.

That kind of effort must be duplicated for pork-barrel spending, government efficiency, veteran’s affairs, military preparedness, etc. As Iraq’s security improves and we move into the summer months, the American electorate will ultimately judge the candidates on their economic plans. John McCain must prove that he is the Republican Americans are looking for: a man that will stay out of their wallets, yet, at the same time, endlessly fight to reduce our oil dependence, lower inflation, strengthen the dollar, and trim the wide waist of Washington.

Yet another poll shows John McCain besting Barack Obama in the State of Michigan, according to one of the state’s most trusted pollsters:

EPIC-MRA Michigan General Election, conducted May 19-22, 2008.

• McCain - 44%
• Obama - 40%

Survey was done May 19-22 of 600 likely voters, and has a 4% MoE.

According to this pollster, Hillary would provide a massive boost to an Obama-led ticket in the Wolverine State, while Mitt Romney would actually be a net drag on a McCain-led ticket. Obama/Clinton best McCain/Romney by fully seven points, 51 percent to 44 percent. That means that Hillary brings tons of undecideds to the Democratic ticket, while Romney convinces not a single additional voter to back McCain.

In the one-on-one matchup, McCain beats Obama among Michigan independents by 13 percentage points.

A filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is beginning to look like a reality. Red-staters are apparently ready to join the rest of the nation in vomiting Republicans out this November. And that means even more vulnerable GOP Senate seats on the horizon.

As an avid follower of the biannual race for the Senate, I’ve noticed a few general rules that bode ill for the GOP this time around. First, one of the surest ways to predict months in advance whether an incumbent senator will win or lose an election is to simply determine whether the incumbent is able to garner majority support in most polls. Those who do generally hold their seats. Those who don’t, well, don’t. Secondly, in almost every election cycle, the bulk of contested Senate races generally breaks one way or the other on Election Day. That is to say, if there are six Senate races that could go either way come November, it’s much more likely for five of them to break for the same party than it is for each party to win three.

When these rules are applied to the current Senate landscape, fully 10 current GOP Senate seats are found to be up for grabs, while the same cannot be said for a single Democratic seat. According to the RCP polling archive, of the GOP senators facing reelection this year, seven have either trailed their opponent or fallen below 50% in at least one recent poll. Those endangered incumbents include Liddy Dole of NC, John Sununu of NH, Ted Stevens of AK, Mitch McConnell of KY, John Cornyn of TX, Norm Coleman of MN, and Roger Wicker of MS. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate leads the GOP candidate in three additional open seats according to at least one recent poll: CO, NM, and VA. Were the Democrats to sweep all of these seats, and were Sen. Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats, fully 61 senators would be voting for Majority Leader Hillary Clinton in 2009, her likely consolation prize for her efforts this year.

Now, things could change between now and November, but if 10 GOP Senate seats are still up for grabs after Labor Day, and if Mary Landrieu still seems poised to coast to victory, I would be very surprised if Democrats ended up with fewer than seven additional seats in the Senate. That’s a 58-seat Democratic Senate, probably with a corresponding majority in the House. If those sorts of Democratic supermajorities don’t convince conservatives to vote for John McCain in the fall, I just don’t know what will.

As I was glassing over the news that I have missed over the last week, I came across this item from May 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal:

The New Big Dig
May 21, 2008; Page A18

Mitt Romney’s presidential run is history, but it looks as if the taxpayers of Massachusetts will be paying for it for years to come. The former Governor had hoped to ride his grand state “universal” health-care reform of 2006 to the White House, but his state’s residents are now having to live with what he and the state’s Democratic Legislature passed. As the Boston press likes to say, it’s “the new Big Dig.”

The showpiece of RomneyCare was its individual mandate, a requirement that all Massachusetts residents obtain health insurance by July of last year or else pay penalties. The idea was that getting everyone into the insurance system would eliminate the “free-rider” problem of those who refuse to buy insurance but then go to emergency rooms when they’re sick; thus costs would fall. “Will it work? I’m optimistic, but time will tell,” Mr. Romney wrote in these pages in 2006.

Well, the returns are rolling in, and the critics look prescient. First, the plan isn’t “universal” at all: About 350,000 more people are now insured in Massachusetts since the reform passed. Federal estimates put the prior number of uninsured at more than 657,000, so there was a reduction. But it was not secured through the market reforms that Governor Romney promised. Instead, Massachusetts also created a new state entitlement that is already trembling on the verge of bankruptcy inside of a year.

Some two-thirds of the growth in coverage owes to a low- or no-cost public insurance option. Called Commonwealth Care, it uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. Commonwealth Care also accounts for 60% of statewide growth in individual insurance over the last year, and the trend is expected to accelerate, perhaps double.

…

One lesson here is that while pledging “universal” coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year’s appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget. It’s too early to tell how much is new coverage or if state programs are displacing private insurance.

The “new Big Dig” moniker refers to the legendary cost overruns when Boston rebuilt its traffic system. Now state legislators are pushing new schemes to offset RomneyCare’s runaway expenses, including reductions in state payments to doctors and hospitals, enlarged business penalties, an increase in the state tobacco tax, and more restrictions on drug companies and insurers.

Mr. Romney’s fundamental mistake was focusing on making health insurance “universal” without first reforming the private insurance market. The “connector” that was supposed to link individuals to private insurance options has barely been used, as lower-income workers flood to the public option. Meanwhile, low-cost private insurers continue to avoid the state because it imposes multiple and costly mandates on all policies.

Hailed at first as a new national model, the Massachusetts nonmiracle ought to be a warning to Washington. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale, with similar promises that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs. Mr. Obama at least argues that more people would be covered were insurance more affordable. But his solution is Massachusetts on steroids – make insurance less expensive for policyholders by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Mrs. Clinton likes that but also wants the individual mandate, despite the mediocre results so far.

The real problem in health care is the way the tax code and third-party payment system distort incentives. That’s where John McCain has been focusing his reform efforts – because that really does have the potential to reduce costs while covering more of the uninsured – and Republicans ought to follow his lead.

In this respect paradoxically, we can be thankful that Massachusetts ignored the cost problems that doomed other recent liberal health insurance overhauls in California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Illinois. The Bay State is showing everyone how not to reform health care.

I’m not trying to stir up contreversy, and a lot of my beef with Romney was buried a long time ago, but the fact remains that his defining achievement as the governor of MA is turning out to be a disaster. Granted, as one commenter (Illinoisguy) noted when I raised this point earlier, if Romney had stayed in MA, he could’ve adjusted it, but the facts are not pretty, as pointed out by the libertarian leaning Pacific Research Institute:

The program is in intensive care, surviving only on massive infusions of other people’s money. The plan’s boosters celebrate that it’s covered 342,000 people. Quite an accomplishment until we understand that of these, 176,000 are enrolled in nearly free or entirely free plans — free to enrollees but not state and federal taxpayers. Another 55,000 were simply enrolled in Medicaid.

This isn’t a new trend where the blame can be solely placed on the shoulders of current MA Governor Deval Patrick. Commonwealth Care has been a disaster waiting to happen.

The CATO Institute predicted this from the getgo. This article from last December:

Massachusetts has done better at signing people up for subsidized coverage. No surprise: People are all too happy to sign up if others pay the bill - and Romney extended subsidies well into the middle class - a family of four earning $63,000 per year qualifies.

That “success” here translates to failure on another front: The cost of the program has exploded; it’s running $150 million above the original projection for this year alone.

Nor has the reform succeeded in holding down other costs. Insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10 to 12 percent next year - double the national average. While many factors surely contribute to that jump, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created - called “the Connector” - has been adding new regulations and mandates.

This program has turned out to be a disaster, and although he had left office by the time the program could be properly evaluated, Romney was responsible. Liz Mair predicted this back in 2006, when Romney was still in office.

She noted that:

RomneyCare has not even been fully implemented yet, and a cost overrun of $151 million in 2007 alone is already in the cards, perhaps because the RomneyCare financial model assumed the wrong number of uninsured in Massachusetts (the Census Bureau puts it at 748,000, but RomneyCare assumes only 500,000). But any needed hike in taxes won’t be pushed through by Romney—he’ll be out of office when the bill comes due, and when extra federal dollars will likely have to be allocated to Massachusetts to help cover the shortfall between RomneyCare’s cost and its budget.

Ms. Mair was correct on the eventual cost overrun, and on the outcome of the program. Since leaving office, Romney has done well to define himself, and has turned himself into a credible possibility for the vice presidential nod, despite the fact that his largest accomplishment at the time of the launch of his candidacy has turned out to be a failure.

I’m not starting another crusade against Mitt Romney. In fact at this point, I think he’d be a better pick than some of the names that are being seriously considered. However, since those who are in the running for the vice presidential nod are being debated, such as Lieberman (who I have strongly and publicly opposed), and Bobby Jindale (who I think would be one of the stronger picks), one must reevaluate the pros and cons of putting Mitt Romney on the ticket.

Although one can only get a marginal view of how a campaign is gearing up while sitting on the sidelines as I am, one couldn’t help but notice that a large majority of arguments in support of John McCain have to do with trying to use the democratic candidates as a major reason to vote for the Maverick.

That’s not going to sell.

By pursuing this type of dialogue, the rank and file dedicated republicans are not doing themselves any favors, and the blame for this line of reasoning falls at the feet of the candidate, himself.

To win a national election in the 21st century, a candidate must be able to define themselves, as well as the opposition. Throughout the primary, John McCain ran as the candidate who would defeat the terrorists. He was, to put it bluntly, lucky that the race was wide open and there were multiple candidates fighting for the same votes that McCain wasn’t likely to carry in the first place. Now, he is the party’s nominee, and he has yet to give the conservative branch of the GOP much to ease their suspicions of him. Running strictly as the Anti-Obama might be enough for some, but it’s not going to win over people on the fence.

Many people have grown weary of the republican brand, and have spent the last twenty years voting for Republicans because they weren’t as bad as the democrats. Now, the tables have turned.

To win, John McCain and his supporters have to give people a reason to vote for him, as opposed to another reason to vote against Obama.

If one reviews the 2007-08 primaries, the only clear picture one gets of the McCain candidacy is that he is tough on terror. Many of the causes that he ran on in 2000 have fallen out of favor with not just conservatives who appreciated his straight candor, but with other elements of the party as well. In 2008, he hasn’t done seem to have that advantage.

2008 is going to be the year that democrats have the easier time of persuading people to vote for Obama, for precisely the using the same argument that many in conservative circles are giving in favor of McCain. All they have to say is that “at least Obama’s not a republican.”

Right now, John McCain is the republican nominee, and one whose ideas have not inspired the base.

And to win, people are going to have to get excited about John McCain, not repulsed by the thought of Barack Obama.

Wonderful. John McCain has rarely captivated me personally, but I was in shivers here. Positively Churchhillian. “So we’ve gotta show him the facts on the ground!” Goosebumps.

Here’s reason #693 why Barack Obama being elected President would be a disaster:

The airplane came to a stop, the door opened and out popped Tony Blair. At the bottom of the stairs to greet the former British prime minister on Saturday was Sen. John Kerry, looking every part the diplomat.

Four years after a failed presidential bid and amid a race for a fifth Senate term this fall, Kerry’s moves have prompted some questions:

Is the Massachusetts Democrat positioning himself to be secretary of state in a potential Barack Obama administration?

Kerry aides insist he’s not angling for the job and point to his long involvement in foreign affairs. It started with his famous testimony as a 27-year-old veteran questioning the Vietnam War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It continues today, at age 64, as the No. 3 Democrat on the same panel.

But envisioning him in the post would hardly be a stretch given Obama’s chances at securing the Democratic nomination, a general election shaping up as a “change” campaign and Kerry’s relationship with the Illinois senator.

(H/T: HotAir)

Good news from Florida, where Rasmussen shows McCain with a double-digit lead:

Rasmussen Reports Florida General Election Poll, conducted May 19th, 2008

• McCain - 50% (53)
• Obama - 40% (38)

Poll was done May 19 of 500 likely voters, and has a 4% MoE.

Although the numbers are down a bit from last month’s poll, two months ago McCain led Obama by just 4 points in the Sunshine State.

Colorado is trending bluer the longer the campaign goes on, according to Rasmussen:

Rasmussen Reports Colorado General Election, conducted May 19th, 2008.

• Obama - 48% (46)
• McCain - 42% (43)

Survey was done May 19 of 500 likely voters, and has a 4% MoE.

According to Rasmussen, two months ago McCain and Obama were tied in Colorado. Last month, Obama led by 3, and now he leads by 6.

Here’s the latest from Rasmussen. First, the head-to-head matchup:

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracking Poll

• McCain - 47%
• Obama - 43%

Next, the favorable/unfavorable ratings:

• McCain - 50/46 (+4)
• Obama - 48/49 (-1)

Scott points out that opinions about Obama are much stronger on both sides - broken down, his numbers are 26% very favorable, 22% favorable / 14% unfavorable, 35% very unfavorable. Compare this to McCain’s numbers which break down at 17% very favorable, 33% favorable / 23% unfavorable, 23% very unfavorable.

And finally, how Americans view McCain’s and Obama’s political ideologies (numbers in parentheses are from their poll at the beginning of April):

McCain

• Liberal - 17% (9)
• Moderate - 31% (41)
• Conservative - 45% (41)

Obama

• Liberal - 72% (54)
• Moderate - 19% (28)
• Conservative - 3% (8)

Deal Hudson, a former Bush adviser on Catholic issues and former chairman of RNC Catholic Outreach, has an interesting piece up on his website, InsideCatholic.com. In his article, Deal explores the future of the GOP and religious conservatives, and outlines the impact of the recent McCain endorsement rejections of Evangelical stars Hagee and Parsley, and what McCain can do to claim religious conservative votes.

Are Religious Conservatives and the GOP Heading for Divorce?
by Deal W. Hudson
5/27/08

On May 22, 2008,a new era began in the history of what is called the Religious Right. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain rejected the endorsements of two of the leading Evangelical pastors in the United States, Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley. The impact of McCain publicly disavowing these two major figures will create a new alignment among politically active religious conservatives and the political parties.

In my recent book Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, I wrote a final chapter titled, “Can the Democrats Get Religion, Can the Republicans Keep It?” I predicted the 2008 election would bring about a struggle within the Democratic Party to close the “God Gap,” while within the GOP those uncomfortable with the influence of conservative Christians would seek to push them to the sidelines.

The new emphasis on discussing personal faith among Democrats appears to be working. (It is noticeable, however, that the label “theocrat” has yet to be applied to Obama or Clinton, as it was to Bush and other Republican leaders who discussed their personal faith.)

Among Republicans, the move of religious conservatives to the campaign fringe has come about for two reasons, one intentional, the other accidental. When McCain was nominated, Republican voters knew that the Religious Right wasn’t going to play the role it had with Bush in 2000 and 2004. The natural affinity didn’t exist between these religious activists and the religiously reserved McCain.

The expectation remained, however, that through an effective faith outreach, the McCain campaign would bring reluctant religious conservatives into the fold. It would be a tough sell, but given the choice between Obama, the “infanticide candidate,” and the pro-life McCain, religiously active voters would come around.

Then the unforeseen happened: Hagee, the mega-church pastor from San Antonio, was charged with anti-Catholic statements by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. McCain, hesitant to offend Evangelicals, waited over a week before issuing a statement repudiating Hagee’s comments. By that time, the damage was done to Hagee among Catholics, many of whom were upset it took so long for McCain to respond. Not only did the Hagee affair threaten Catholic support, but it also cast a shadow over the 30-year coalition of Catholics and Evangelicals that make up the religious right.

The unexpected apology by Pastor Hagee to Donohue, and their subsequent warm meeting in New York City, appeared to have put the controversy to rest. It didn’t last. The Huffington Post unearthed a video of Hagee describing Adolph Hitler as God’s “hunter” who forced Jews to create the state of Israel. This time McCain did not hesitate — the next day he rejected Hagee’s endorsement and added a rejection of anti-Muslim Ohio televangelist Parsley as well.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”

Hagee tried to beat McCain to the punch by withdrawing his endorsement. If McCain had simply waited a few hours, he could have graciously accepted Hagee’s withdrawal, thus accomplishing the same thing but softening its impact on Evangelical voters. Interestingly enough, Hagee’s former critic, Bill Donohue, immediately issued a statement defending Hagee against the ridiculous charge of anti-Semitism:

One week ago today, I met with Pastor Hagee in my office. I found him to be sincere, apologetic, and friendly. I also found him to be the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met, and that is why attempts to portray him as anything but a genuine friend to Jews — one for whom the Holocaust is the horror of horrors — is despicable.

Controversial statements from leaders of the Religious Right are not new — Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson all committed their share. Never before, however, has the leader of the Republican Party made such a point of distancing himself and the party. McCain’s rejection of the endorsements, added to his already well-known reticence toward religious activists, places a marker in the political landscape that will last into November and beyond.

There will surely be those who applaud McCain for distancing himself from the “fanatics” on the Religious Right. They will argue that McCain will gain moderate support as a result. Maybe so, but much more important is the message this sends to the religiously conservative voters who have given the GOP its winning edge for nearly 30 years.

Ronald Reagan won Evangelical support with a now-famous line at a 1980 National Affairs Briefing held in Dallas: “I understand that you can’t endorse me, but I’m here to endorse you.” Some historians point to this moment as the official beginning of the Religious Right movement.

The unanswered question raised by McCain’s words on May 22 is whether he will be viewed by Evangelicals as explicitly reversing Reagan’s endorsement. How many Evangelical voters will feel rejected along with Reverend Hagee?

Within the past two months, McCain has unintentionally aggravated both Evangelicals and Catholics. Both groups had already responded to the McCain nomination with skepticism: Catholics because of McCain’s position on embryonic stem cells, Evangelicals because of his blistering attack on Falwell and Robertson after the 2000 South Carolina primary.

As things stand, I believe Catholics are still in play for McCain, if his campaign conducts a vigorous outreach. L’Affaire Hagee will be harder for his campaign to overcome with Evangelicals without significantly ramping up their relationship with grassroots leaders.

And this is no small thing: McCain will need religiously active voters over the next five months. It’s not the moderate voters who raise money, register voters, print and pass out voter guides, recruit their neighbors, and drive people to the polls. Moderates are… well… moderates. They don’t bring passion to a campaign.

The fact is, McCain’s moderates can’t beat Obama’s adoring groupies. With many religious conservative voters feeling benched, and others feeling outright rejection, the Religious Right will begin exploring other options for the investment of its energy. (Bob Barr, the newly nominated Libertarian Party candidate, may find himself the beneficiary of the present unhappiness.)

More likely, new leadership will emerge among religious conservatives propelled to the forefront by the national fight over gay marr