2010: The Year of the Elephant

In American electoral politics, the great pendulum that is the balance of power between the two major parties inevitably swings from side to side as voters grow weary of ineffectual or excessively ideological rule by the party in power. As we approach the 2010 Midterm Elections, the pendulum, having moved far left in 2006 and 2008, is poised to make a dramatic swing back towards the right. Over the past two elections, Democrats picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 14 seats in the Senate. In 2006, Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of Congress. In 2008, the party stretched its majorities in Congress and elected Barack Obama to the White House.

Only one year ago, Barack Obama was on top of the world and riding a wave of hope into the second decade of the 21st Century. Analysts predicted Democrats would add seats to their supermajority in the Senate, and, while the historic norm of the President's party losing House seats in his first midterm election was expected, no one dreamt that the party's 77-seat majority could be in danger. That was then; this is now.

In the months sinse, three Senate Democrats have announced retirements, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana, joining 16 in the House, including one more today, which hands Republicans another solid pickup opportunity. These retirements, with the exception of Dodd, only exacerbate what is already becoming a potentially disastrous cycle for Democrats, and many think the exit number will go higher.

The generic congressional ballot has swung 13 points towards Republicans, from a eight point Dem advantage in 2008 to a five point lead for the GOP. Democrats also fell below the majority support enjoyed since 2005 and saw their affiliation shrink in 39 states. The net favorability of the two parties has converged as Democrats have watched an 18 point positive become a 10 point negative. A full 40% of Americans now describe themselves as conservative, the highest number in years and twice the liberal ID of 20%. There has unquestionably been a significant political climate change across the country, yet Democrats in power haven't seemed to notice.

In his first year, the President's approval has rapidly fallen from 68 to below 50, a record decline. He's suffered an approval index dive of 41 points. Obama's approval in December was the lowest ever recorded 11 months into a president's term. His standing is even worse on major issues with Republicans now trusted more than Democrats to solve many of the nations most salient problems. Much of this drop is due to broken promises, the substance of his policies and what some see as a bait-and-switch operation. Even in the White House press room, the laughter has ended.

The swing has been most dramatic among the ever-critical Independent bloc of voters. This group supported Obama 64-16 in January 2009 but now disapprove of his performance 51-38. They approve of his performance on only one issue, international affairs. Democrats are understandably alarmed as Independents desert the party, due in no small part to the protracted fight for Democrat's health care reform. Independents now give Republicans a 16 point advantage on the generic ballot. What's more, there is a significant intensity gap with Republicans far more interested in November's midterm elections than Democrats. In midterm elections, where turnout is key, this intensity gap could portend the kind of wave Republicans hope for.

At the ballot box, Republicans have swept three state-wide elections. November saw Republicans take over the governor's mansions in Virginia and New Jersey. In January, a cataclysmic shock went across the political world as Republican Scott Brown won the Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusetts. That defeat cost Democrats their supermajority in the Senate, a result applauded by most Americans. Independent voters in these elections resoundingly supported the Republicans, 66-33 in Virginia, 60-30 in New Jersey and 65-34 in Massachusetts, after supporting Obama in 2008.

As the election calendar turns towards the midterms, most analysts are predicting Republican gains of around 25 seats or higher in the House and as many as 7 or 8 in the Senate, leading many to speculate that we could be seeing the landslide of 1994 all over again. Indeed, Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster, acknowledges that his polls are eliciting a feeling of panic as it's beginning to look like that epic election cycle. Indeed, the polling looks remarkably similar. To regain control of Congress, Republicans must flip 40 seats in the House and 10 in the Senate. Senate control is not yet in play. However, top political handicapper Charlie Cook has gone so far as to say it is "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House." He added that you could triple the Republican Party's problems and they'd be better than those currently facing Dems. He blames the White House for "fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning" about the direction to take the country.

Even in our political system, in which change is the only constant, the seismic shift in the political landscape we've witnessed over the last year is remarkable. Cook notes, Democrats dominated Congress for four decades until the Republican Revolution of 1994. Then Republicans held the House for 12 years before being ousted in 2006. That seems like a lifetime compared to the current outlook for Democrats. Says Cook...

The trajectory of this election looks horrific for Democrats. In this kind of environment, days that go by without some "game-changing" development benefiting the GOP in a state or district are the exception, not the rule...

Whether or not Democrats hold onto their House majority by a sliver -- say, five or six seats -- and hold their Senate losses to five seats or so, the fact is that after just four years in power, congressional Democrats are in trouble.

There seems to be a new impatience among the electorate as voters sour on DC and the politicians, for the time being Democrats, who run it. Members of Congress earn the worst honesty and ethics score of any profession tested by Gallup. Voters see very little "we" in the political process and are sending a strong message to Washington that they've had enough of the perpetual dysfunction that grips the city. Eighty-six percent of Americans believe government is broken and 71% give Congress poor ratings. Some blame the President, pointing out that the US is far from ungovernable, while others blame Republicans. We are seeing a new populism, some call it a peasant revolt. In this environment, all incumbents should beware of the widespread sentiment, but Democrats, as the party holding all levers of power, will bear the brunt of voter backlash, just as they did in Massachusetts.

Fortunately for the majority, congressional popularity has little correlation with midterm election results. Unfortunately for Democrats, presidential popularity is of great import. Despite Obama's attempts to reassure fellow Democrats that the "big difference" between 2010 and 1994 is "you've got me," history tells us that the President will only drag his party down in November. No president has ever gained in approval between the beginning of a midterm year and the November elections. While Obama says the "buzz saw"of opposition won't stop him, it may well end the political careers of his friends, leading some to keep their distance.

While the outlook is quite rosy for Republicans, Cook reminds the GOP that, as I wrote in my last post, the voter discontent and outright anger now aimed at Democrats and elevating Republicans can easily turn on the GOP, particularly if we take control of the House and fail to move the country in a positive direction. If, however, Republicans are faithful stewards of voters' trust, we stand to make many more gains in the years to come. In 2012 and 2014, Democrats must defend a combined 43 Senate seats as Republicans defend only 22. The recent electoral imbalance which helped Democrats achieve a short-lived supermajority will afford Republicans an advantage in the next two cycles. This makes the odds of Republicans regaining the Senate majority in the not-to-distant future very good.

As for the elections in our immediate future, Michael Barone, author of "the bible of American politics," sums it all up saying,

What we have here are the makings of an epic party disaster. Whether it comes to pass is still uncertain. But it certainly could.

Will November, nine short (long?) months away, bring an epic disaster for the Democratic Party and see previously laughable Republican dreams realized or will these next months prove as tumultuous and unpredictable as the last, allowing Democrats to mitigate their own impending demise? While the GOP has all the momentum, alarms are sounding much earlier in the cycle than they did in 1994, which gives Democrats time to try a course correction. The smartest analysts in the business see little hope for such a turnaround, but remember, change is the only constant when talking about the individual political sentiments of 200 million unique voters and a political world in which new developments happen not by the week but by the minute. Here's to Republicans capitalizing on Democrat's failures, not just for the sake of renewed power but for the sake of the American people and a more prosperous future. Republicans must stand ready to govern, to bring the real change and progress we so deeply desire.

PG Poll: Put on your political prognosticator hat. Do you thing Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives this November? How about the Senate by 2012? Vote on the left side of the page and leave your comments below!

Senate Shock: Voters Voted & Everything Changed in Washington

This just in: elections matter! Last week, Massachusetts voters went to the polls and sent a message to Washington that shocked the political world. The message sent was in the form of Senator-Elect Scott Brown. A largely unknown state senator, one of only five Republicans in the 40-member body, became the "Scott heard around the world," drastically altering the political landscape in Washington, the presidency of Barack Obama and the course of national policy for years to come, most immediately with regard to health care reform.

In what has been cleverly dubbed a "Mass-acre" and many consider the biggest upset in modern political history, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by five points in a state that, just over a year ago, supported Obama by 26 points over John McCain and had not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972. Whats more, there are 3 times as many registered Democrats in the state as Republicans! As recently as November, Coakley held a 31 point lead over Brown in the race to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. The seat had been in the Kennedy family almost every year since 1952. Coakley's election was to be nothing more than a formality as no one gave any Republican a snowball's chance in Hell of taking "The Kennedy Seat."

With only three weeks to go before the January 19th special election, all of that changed. With a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley's lead down to only 9, the media began to wonder if the Senate race is Massachusetts was somehow getting closer, and Democrats grew anxious. With a week to go, everyone realized the "people's seat" was up for grabs; with five days to go it was deemed a toss-up. Democrats launched a full court press, investing millions upon millions of dollars in a state everyone had taken for granted. Despite their best efforts to save the sinking ship, Scott Brown was favored on Election Eve. Even Democrats seemed to be breaking for Brown at the last minute.

On January 19, 2010, the seemingly impossible happened in Massachusetts and everyone was left to do a few double takes then try to digest it all, sorting out fact from myth. Democrats, even before the polls closed were pointing fingers at each other, engaging in a self-defeating blame game. For his part, the President blamed the loss on a failure of his own economic plans as well as voter anger and frustration. It was revealed that the NRSC saw the possibility early and had launched a stealth operation to catch the Democrats with their... well, on Christmas vacation. At the end of the day, there were exuberant winners and stunned losers. One of the winners, Brown's pollster Neil Newhouse (a Dukie I might add) wrote a tongue-in-cheek memo to Democrats, IDed the twelve keys to Brown's victory and unpacked the broader lessons of the recent GOP wins to lay the groundwork for continued success in the Midterms.

Democrats on the Hill were meeting even as Massachusettians were still voting, rethinking their entire strategy, trying to chart contingency plans for their health care reform bills which suddenly seemed to be gasping for last breath. The bill on which Obama has spent so much (all?) of his political capital seems to have dragged down everyone in his party. His decision to go all in on health care is beginning to look like a "disastrous gamble." Indeed, exit poll data in MA revealed that health care legislation was the most salient issue for voters last Tuesday. He has since considered paring down his goals for the bill, which Senate leadership says is on the House as moderate Democratic Senators, ready to move on or take a breather, refuse to use reconciliation to pass the measure with only 51 votes. However, putting it on the House may not bear any fruit for Democrats as Pelosi has declared that she does not have the votes to pass the more moderate Senate bill. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans want Democrats to suspend work on the bill and consider alternatives Republicans would support. Nevermind that, Democrats are now attempting to unite around their "last, best hope" for a strictly Democratic overhaul, using reconciliation to alter the Senate bill enough to garner majority support in the House. Despite these last ditch efforts, many observers believe Obama's top legislative priority is truly dead this time. We shall see.

Who could have imagined that exactly one year after millions of Americans flocked to DC to witness, with fervent hope and excitement, the historic inauguration of our new President, Republicans would be the ones hardly able to contain their jubilance? On that day last winter, President Obama enjoyed sky-high approval among the electorate, but a year is an eternity in politics. Of Democrats' year, Charlie Cook says, "their celebration has turned into a nightmare." In a few short, tumultuous months, a man who once seemed immortal has quickly come down to Earth as he and his party have overreached in their expansion of government and pursuit of a liberal policy agenda which runs counter to the will of a center-right nation. And yes, this downward trajectory for the President, which began in earnest over the summer, was of enormous consequence in Massachusetts this past Tuesday. The President made a last minute visit to the state, a risky gamble, in a desperate attempt to avert political catastrophe for his party. This visit had no tangible impact on the election results. While Obama excited the base, he was unable to move the dial in Coakley's favor. This from a man who regularly brought adoring supporters to tears throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, winning over Democrats and Independents alike.

The Obama magic has left the building. After failing to inspire voters and avoid embarrassing defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts, it is abundantly clear that the electorate, particularly Independents, have rapidly soured on the President. This is why politics is so fascinating and exciting! No matter how strongly and decisively expressed at a moment in time, individual voter sentiments and collective national mood are stubbornly dynamic. Many voted for "change" in 2008 but have been disheartened by the slow progress on some fronts and the type of change pursued on others. Voters are looking for results when they cast their ballots, and if they aren't seeing the kind of results they hoped for, they'll be back in the ballot box before you know it to vent their discontent. Thank God for democracy!

Americans prefer checks and balances in Washington, each political party acting to temper the excesses of the other. If voters sense that the party to which they have entrusted the levers of power is overreaching, irresponsibly wielding the power granted it for its own narrow, idealogical objectives, those same voters will snatch it back, or at least, as in the case of Massachusetts, ensure that the power goes unchecked no longer. By installing Scott Brown as the 41st Republican senator, voters in the bluest of blue states single-handedly broke the Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority, putting the emergency breaks on the leftist agenda which Republicans were previously powerless to thwart on their own.

Let's not forget one of the key truths realized in Massachusetts and already noted in relation to the President. A few months is an eternity in politics, and neither party is immune to the shifting winds. The thumpings Republicans took in 2006 and 2008, after seeing George W. Bush elected to a second-term only 2 years before, are still fresh memories. The mood of the national electorate could hardly be moving in a more favorable direction for the GOP, which currently holds all of the momentum heading into the Midterms as Democrats have badly damaged their brand, but pride cometh before the fall. It would be a fatal mistake for Republicans to begin taking the favor of voters for granted and assuming the inevitability of the monumental Republican wave which appears to be taking shape towards November 2010. When I asked a veteran GOP aide in the House how Hill Republicans were feeling in the aftermath of Tuesday's astonishing result, he said all were thrilled but not taking anything for granted or resting on their laurels.

There is much work left to rebuild the Republican brand and, much more importantly, put the country back on a prosperous course. Republicans must do all they can with their newfound influence on the Hill to lead a course correction for the good of all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. The same independent voters who came out against Democrats in Massachusetts will have very little patience with obstructionism for obstructionism's sake over the coming months. There are fundamental differences in principle on which Republicans should not waiver, but when prudent for the country, the two parties must learn to work together toward shared objectives such as economic recovery. One thing that became clear this past Tuesday is that voters in every state, even the bluest, have had enough and want a change... change, where have we heard that before?

Merry Christmas!!

I wish all of my readers a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2010! May you enjoy a wonderful time with family and look forward to the many blessings a new year will bring.

~Pearce

2009 Roundup: Health Care, Afghanistan & The Economy

UPDATE 12/24/2009: The United States Senate has passed its version of the Democrats' health care bill on a 60-39, strict party-line vote which took place Christmas Eve morning. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will now work to merge the Senate bill with the much more liberal House bill. Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Nelson (D-NE) have vowed to veto the final bill if it moves left of the version they supported this morning. With their more moderate interest on one side and disenchanted House liberals on the other, the Conferencing of the two bills promises more drama, deal-making and a still uncertain fate for President Obama's top legislative priority.

ORIGINAL POST: As the pre-teens draw to a close, let's look at the big issues dominating our collective consciousness and political discourse, issues that set the stage for the 2nd decade of the 21st Century and will determine the course of politics and the balance of power for years to come. 2009 began with a monumental event in history as America saw the first black citizen assume the office of the presidency. Most Americans met this milestone with enormous hope, hope that far out-sized any one man's ability, even the most powerful man in the world. Hope has turned to frustration as President Obama has struggled to unite political factions, quickly repair the economy or pass his landmark legislation, health care reform, to this point. The President has three years to recover; Democrats on the Hill have 10 months. Both have seen their fortunes turn rather dramatically since sweeping wins in November of 2008.

Democrats' health care reform legislation remains bogged down in flying sausage, though an end is potentially within site as Democrats desperately fight to give Obama a landmark 1st-year achievement and pass a bill before Christmas. I've written 8 posts on health care with a good bit of background and plenty of my views on the issue. In sum, health care reform is of critical importance to the longterm sustainability and decency of the country we all love, BUT, unlike Americans, all health care reform is not created equal and is not by definition a positive step forward for the nation. Health care reform which fails to address the fundamental issues underlying our health care crisis of costs, quality & coverage and only adds more people, programs and taxpayer dollars to a quickly failing system will only exacerbate the problem and send us faster into the abyss. This type of legislation is indeed far worse than doing nothing. This is not to say that all Democrat ideas embodied in their bills fit this profile, but those which do are a grave concern. Indeed there is room for hope that with some of the pilot projects in the Senate bill aimed at controlling costs, current legislation will be a first step in a long process of getting the system under control. Forgive me for being skeptical and believing Democrats have put the cart before the horse, expanding coverage with very little real effort to first control exploding costs. With all of that said, let's see where we are with 17 days remaining in 2009.

For months now, public opinion has been trending against Democrats' health care reform, with no momentum following passage in the House. The latest CNN poll shows 61% in opposition to the bill. Also, a majority disapprove of the President's handling of the issue. Americans' believe health care coverage is not the government's responsibility and that their costs will increase. They think it is the wrong time for health care reform in light of the economy, unemployment and the growing deficit, which most believe these bills will increase. Perhaps surprisingly, much opposition is from the left.

This has made health care reform an excruciatingly tenuous issue for Democrats facing voters in only 10 months. The fact that they are sitting on a very different political timeline than that of President Obama is causing much concern. These lawmakers are trying to figure out how a vote for health reform against the will of voters will be anything less than a death sentence for their political careers. Despite being the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is in

more political trouble over health care than most members of his caucus as his state stands firmly against his bill. One idea is to push benefits up to 2010 in order to show tangible, positive results before voters head to the polls. Stu Rothenberg wonders Democrats are trying to walk off a cliff as those most likely to vote in 2010 are against the Democrats' reform.

The bills passed by the House and the one currently at play in the Senate are being decried by smart observers and activists on the right and left. The left complains that the bills do not contain a "robust" public option, aka quick trojan horse to single payer care, that they still leave millions uninsured and that the House bill restricts government subsidies of abortions. The right is incensed by the expansion of government control over patients' decisions and treatments, the fact that the bills bend the cost curve up instead of down as confirmed by the director of the Congressional Budget Office and the CMMS, the increase in individual insurance premiums, that they fail to block illegal immigrants from receiving coverage, that millions will lose their coverage, that they include potentially unconstitutional individual mandates, and that the Senate bill slashes Medicare, an arguably hypocritical stance. Some Democrats and liberals are also raising alarms over the costs of the bills and demanding the ban on taxpayer funds for abortion. These bills indeed send several of the President's promises down the river.

The dean of Harvard Medical School penned a must-read piece in the WSJ saying he gives the current bills a failing grade. In Dean Flier's words,

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care...

The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform...

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system...

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

As Harry Reid frantically tries to round of the 60 votes needed to pass his health care bill, even inserting $100 million dollars for Louisiana to get Landrieu's support, Joe Lieberman has become the biggest thorn in his side. Lieberman was one of the Democratic Senators (yes, I know he's technically an Independent following his 2006 loss in the Connecticut Democratic primary, but he caucuses with Democrats) to demand scrapping the public option from Reid's bill. They succeeded. Yesterday, Lieberman announced that he would vote against the current bill, due to its expansion of Medicare (a "compromise" many, including the Washington Post, believe is a faster route to single-payer than the public option). Democrat Ben Nelson is also against the compromise. With only 60 votes in his caucus, including Lieberman, and no Republicans likely to support the bill, Reid has zero room for error. Politico is reporting that Obama has told Reid to give Lieberman what he wants (a report the White House denies), but Reid is holding on as the Senate is in hurry up and wait mode for the CBO score of the latest compromise deal due in the next day or two. Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker Pelosi proclaims she is ready to do "almost anything" to pass reform this year, setting up a potential showdown with her liberal wing who won't like the watered down Senate version. Needless to say, these disputes among Democrats pose a grave threat to the self-imposed imperative of passing reform in 2009. Obama has summoned the entire Senate Democratic caucus to the White House tomorrow for a meeting at this "make-or-break" moment for his health care overhaul.

In the end, as David Brooks says, health care reform rests on a values question, our values individually and as a nation. Their is no clear right answer. It is a "brutal choice." No one in this debate is evil or selfish. With all of our similarities as fellow citizens we have different values. That is as it should be, and those values inform our stance on health care reform. As Brooks explains the dichotomy,

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one...

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

The other major story as we conclude 2009 is President Obama's bold decision to send 30,000 more American troops into combat in Afghanistan. Obama rightly sees Afghanistan as imperative for our security. As he put it in March, “This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. ... This is fundamental to the defense of our people.” Everything is easier said than done. At West Point, the President turned those strong words into strong action, much to the relief and pleasure of conservatives, who feared weakness, and to the dismay of many liberals. Indeed, on Afghanistan, the President is dealing with reverse coalitions. The political peril in the President's decision makes it all the more admirable.

The President has tried his much discussed soft, outstretched hand approach and against challenges, reality and limited success, has been forced to move on to plan B. His decision process on Afghanistan was long, laborious and, to some, amounted to dithering. It was clouded with leaks and angry conflict between the White House and its own commanders. However, he did come to a firm decision and is moving forward. This President operates in "analytic mode," dispassionate but serious and thoughtful.

In the next sentence after announcing the troop buildup, the President stated that troops would begin withdrawing in July of 2011, an obvious concession to his base. His advisors differ on how firm that date is, but we know now this President is serious about and taking ownership of this war. I, therefore, have little concern that he will cut and run in July of 2011. He said nothing about how steep said draw-down would be.

In Oslo last week, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He used the opportunity to give a poignant defense of war. This was no doubt jarring to his immediate audience but encouraging to conservatives at home who have worried this man is too naive and idealistic to lead in our world in which, as he stated, "evil does exist." We learn a lot about Obama the man through his speeches and some see the most recent as a move to the center, a place of strength for an American president, and a foreign policy shift as Obama bows to reality.

The stark reality is that terrorists dreaming of and plotting for the destruction of America are still not tired. We must fight on, steadfast in our commitment to freedom and security. To prevail we must have strong allies, a major question mark in Afghanistan. I hope and pray Obama's decision was right. I hope he found the perfect balance between our national security, his most solemn duty, and the risk to our brave men and women, our most precious treasures. Obama can win in Afghanistan, and if he remains firm in his resolve, conservatives and Americans at large will stand behind him through thick and thin, all the way to victory.

The economy, the one issue in politics that voters think about every single day, every time they pull out their wallets and every time they think about the future. The economy is the top issue for voters now as it has been for most of 2009. With unemployment rising to 10.2 percent in October and the '09 deficit topping $1.4 trillion, Americans are understandably worried and skiddish. The U-6 statistic tells us that a more accurate look at total economic dislocation is 17%, which includes underemployment. For Democrats, that means it's time to put jobs first or risk enraging the struggling electorate. With every passing day, the "rubble" of the economy is increasingly at Obama's feet, and Americans expect him to fix it. Interestingly, Democrats are more likely to be unemployed than Republicans. Blacks are worst hit, with 35 percent of the young unemployed.

While there are green shoots in the economy, recovery is scarcely touching jobs. The White House is doing its best to convince voters that the stimulus package has "created or saved" thousands of jobs, but watchdogs have concluded those advertised numbers are inflated, inaccurate, temporary or just made up. Now, finally, the White House seems to be turning its attention to the deficit, hopefully in earnest. The wave of debt payments facing the government have the potential of crippling the economy, again. Voters rightly see deficit reduction as the top budget priority for Washington, well above health care. At the same time, voters worry the government will do too much for the economy, making the situation worse and hampering recovery. Only 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right. 76% prefer a free market economy, and Republicans are now trusted more than Democrats to fix the economy. Mitt Romney, an almost certain presidential candidate in 2012, has outlined his plan.

Americans need economic recovery. We need a renewal of "moral materialism" and the manic energy which has taken America from the banks of Plymoth to the pinnacle of prosperity, power and influence. We've survived the shocks of a year ago, but people are truly struggling and having a hard time seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. We must unleash market power and individual innovation to ensure a bottom up recovery for America, quick, strong and enduring.

2009 LEFTOVERS

Check out the Top 10 Everything of 2009.

As you enjoy the many college football bowl games this holiday season, think about whether or not the government should intervene to push for a playoff to replace the BCS system. Principled conservatives believe this idea, by a Texas Republican, should "draw a 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness to the idea of limited government."

On Tiger, how utterly disappointing. Read Bill Simmons' piece on the "zoo."

As far as views on Christmas across the country, 76% believe religious symbols should be allowed on public land, 72% prefer "Merry Christmas" to 'Happy Holidays" and 77% say they've been nice this year. I'm with the majorities!

As we move into decade 2 of the 21st century, we're witnessing the end of the email era as Twitter is changing the way we live.

Consider giving cash or gift cards this year. It's better for the economy.

Finally, I'm very proud of Raleigh-Durham, NC for being ranked the smartest city in America! Let's Go Duke! And Carolina is pretty smart too.

Have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

Seeya in 2010! Midterm elections anyone?!