Poll: Opposition to Obama's Health Law Surges

Fox News

WASHINGTON -- Opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law jumped after he signed it -- a clear indication his victory could become a liability for Democrats in this fall's elections.

A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds Americans oppose the health care remake 50 percent to 39 percent. Before a divided Congress finally passed the bill and Obama signed it at a jubilant White House ceremony last month, public opinion was about evenly split. Another 10 percent of Americans say they are neutral.

Disapproval for Obama's handling of health care also increased from 46 percent in early March before he signed the bill, to 52 percent currently -- a level not seen since last summer's angry town hall meetings.

Nonetheless, the bleak numbers may not represent a final judgment for the president and his Democratic allies in Congress.

Only 28 percent of those polled said they understand the overhaul extremely or very well. And a big chunk of those who don't understand it remain neutral. Democrats hope to change public opinion by calling attention to benefits available this year for seniors, families with children transitioning to work and people shut out of coverage because of a medical problem.

"There are some things I like, because I think that there are some people who need health care," said Jim Fall, 73, a retired computer consultant from Wrightwood, Calif.

But "I don't like the idea of the government dictating what health care should be like," added Fall. "Nor do I like them taking money out of Medicare. They are going to create more waste and they are going to take away benefits."

Seniors -- reliable voters in midterm congressional races -- were more likely to oppose the law. Forty-nine percent strongly opposed it, compared with 37 percent of those 64 and younger. Seniors' worries that Medicare cuts to insurers, hospitals and other providers will undermine their care represent a formidable challenge for Democratic congressional candidates this fall.

Analysts said the level of public wariness on such a major piece of social legislation is unusual.

"The surprise of this poll is that you would expect people to be more supportive of the bill now that it's the law of the land -- and that's not the case," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends on health care. "The election for the House is going to be competitive, and health care is clearly going to be an issue."

The nearly $1 trillion, 10-year health care remake would provide coverage to nearly all Americans while also attempting to improve quality and slow the ruinous pace of rising medical costs.

Nonpartisan congressional budget analysts say the law is fully paid for. Its mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases, falling mainly on upper-income earners, would actually reduce the federal deficit. And people covered by large employers may even see a dip in their premiums.

The public doesn't seem to be buying it.

Fifty-seven percent said they expect to pay more for their own health care, contrasted with 7 percent who expect to pay less. And 47 percent said they expect their own medical care to get worse, compared with 14 percent looking forward to an improvement.

"Based on the little information we know, somebody's going to have to pay for it, so it makes sense that taxes would go up," said Lang Fu, 48, an oil and gas engineer from Houston.

Politically, Americans are polarized. Democrats support the overhaul by 68 percent to 18 percent, while Republicans oppose it 85 percent to 9 percent. Independents are roughly even, with 44 percent opposed and 40 percent in favor -- within the poll's margin of error. That suggests there's some space for Obama and the law's supporters to make an appeal in its favor.

Donna Christian of Kingsport, Tenn., is a political independent who says she's leaning in favor of the law. A bad heart forced Christian, 45, to leave her job as a supervisor at a wireless phone company a few years ago. She and her 10-year-old daughter make do on a limited income, and have coverage through Medicaid.

"I think Americans are going to be better off in the long run even if they don't see that now," Christian said. "More will have coverage, and they'll be able to go to the hospital when they need to."

Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group that supports the overhaul, said it will be "a real task" to turn public opinion around, but he's confident it will happen.

"When you dig deeper, individual provisions of the law have enormous support," he said. Pollack believes current polls reflect public disgust with a "very lengthy and messy process."

But Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., says Democrats have already lost their chance to persuade the public.

"They have had 16 months to explain this bill," Camp said. "Good luck trying to explain it in the next six."

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 7-12, 2010, by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide on landline and cellular telephones. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

Robocop's Comment:

No shit?

"People of color" at Tea Parties

Crash Dummies For "The Cause" 04.12.10

We keep hearing Libtards joking about Joe Sixpack, and Bubba. But here is a non-joking example of your typical Libtard at a protest...

Tea Party Tour Brings Out Array of Activism

Fox News

From a former Delta flight attendant to the mother of a fallen Iraq Navy SEAL, the activists and organizers aboard the Tea Party Express each seem to represent a slice of America. But who are these people who drop everything to spend weeks on the road on a bus talking about the Constitution and turning '60s-style activism on its head?

TUPELO, Miss. -- From a former Delta flight attendant to the mother of a fallen Iraq Navy SEAL, the activists and organizers aboard the Tea Party Express each seem to represent a slice of America.

Travelers on the tour, a three-bus caravan barnstorming the country in protest of the Washington establishment, claim to be brought together by common principles: small government, less spending and a fierce defense of individual freedom.

But a lot of Americans hold those values. So who are these people who drop everything to spend weeks on the road on a bus talking about the Constitution and turning '60s-style activism on its head?

Some are folksy, some are strictly business. Everyday Americans make up the bulk of those on board and at the rallies, but there's also a strong organizing factor that makes the cross-country tour, which is on its third run and starting to carry some political heft, what it is.

By some appearances, the highly coordinated rallies and pulse of the 42-city national bus tour have all the markings of a political campaign.

Staff members work 18-hour days, seven days a week, and the chief strategist behind the group, Sal Russo, is a longtime Republican consultant from California who began his political career as a personal aide to Ronald Reagan.

Russo, who is head of the Sacramento-based political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, which is funding the bus tour, has 40 years of political consulting under his belt. In the mid-1980s, Russo joined forces with former Reagan campaign director Ed Rollins to start a political consulting firm, which took on clients like former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp.

"It has all the intensity of a campaign, but more like an old-fashioned one," Russo said of his group as the bus rolled along a stretch of highway en route from Arkansas to Mississippi. "We don't have a high-paid staff."

"The Tea Partiers remind me very much of the Reagan crowds of 1966," he added. "But this is a movement, not a party."

The Tea Party Express set off on its first national tour last August to protest the tax-and-spend policies of Congress and to cement its message with the thousands of other Tea Party factions that had formed around the country, said Joe Wierzbicki, one of the group's founding members.

The second bus tour launched in October, largely as an effort to debunk rumors that the Tea Party movement was nothing more than a passing fad.

This time around, Wierzbicki said, the purpose of the "Just Vote Them Out" tour is more exact: "To start putting together the campaigns that will change who's in office in 2010."

He added. "And health care has created the perfect storm for that."

At the tour's weekend stop in Little Rock, Ark., Tea Partiers targeted Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in large part over her support for the health care legislation.

The money raised by the Tea Party Express is hardly loose change. Russo's PAC raked in more than $4.5 million since forming in 2008 to help John McCain's presidential campaign -- some of it from corporate executives and high-end donors like actor Chuck Norris. Russo said the Tea Party bus tour will cost close to $1 million by the time it concludes in Washington on April 15, tax day -- a hefty sum he claims was entirely paid for by "ordinary folks" donating to his PAC.

Roughly 15 staff members, four entertainers and a dozen speakers ride in the red, gold and blue buses that have meandered across the country. A colorful map of the 50 states is painted on each side with the group's mission statement printed clearly: "Stop the out of control spending! No government run healthcare! Stop raising our taxes!"

Some organizers have given up their regular lives to work full-time for the Tea Party Express -- like Tiffiny Ruegner, a massage therapist and single mother from Sacramento, Calif., who lost 90 percent of her clientele last summer after the economy crashed.

"You have all these people who are in different situations in life," said Wierzbicki. "Some of them are married with kids and they have to leave their families for extended periods of time and it's difficult for them."

Debbie Lee, from Phoenix, took to the road after she lost part of her family.

In 2006, Lee was celebrating her birthday with friends when she learned that her son, Marc, was the first Navy SEAL to be killed in Iraq. Now, four years later, Lee is a familiar face at Tea Party rallies, speaking before crowds about the sacrifices of military families.

She says her son's death inspired her to join the movement, which she described as a place for people "who have never before attended political rallies."

The everyday logistics aboard the Tea Party Express don't always run smoothly, a sign that the movement's not quite as polished as its critics would make it out to be. Working toilets, an adequate food supply and scheduling dilemmas are sometimes problems for the over-stretched staff.

"The toilet's clogged -- again!" snapped bus driver Raymond March in the middle of one recent leg.

But Russo said the movement, like others before it, is only for believers.

"You can't do this kind of thing unless you believe in the cause," he said. "Everybody who's involved in this feels passionately about what we're doing. It's not about the money and it's not about the hours."

Heller’s Offspring

WSJ-A Look at the New Generation of Gun-Control Suits

These are the offspring of Heller:

A woman contends her small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals but says she was turned down for a concealed-carry handgun permit by the Sacramento County sheriff.

A Californian man, born without an arm below the right elbow, argues that the state’s roster of “approved” handguns precludes him from being able to buy a left-handed Glock.

An American man who now lives in Canada would like to purchase guns in the U.S. to store at his relatives’ home in Mount Vernon, Ohio, to use for sporting and self-defense.

All are now plaintiffs in suits that were filed in the wake of the June 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms at home, but left the door open to certain types of gun restrictions, many of which are currently being challenged.

The Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Wash., nonprofit, that took in $3.6 million in revenue in 2008, is paying for their legal challenges. Their cases are being handled by its attorney, Alan Gura, who won the Heller case.

Never mind that the landmark Heller ruling hasn’t led to massive gun-toting in D.C., where the city council so far has managed to maintain certain gun restrictions that it hopes avoid constitutional problems. Effectively, “the D.C. city council has kept its handgun ban and said ‘heck with you’” to the Supreme Court, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. The NRA financed its own (unsuccessful) challenge to the new restrictions. Click here for that ruling, which came down late last week. The NRA says it will appeal.

But the Heller ruling did spawn a bunch of litigation, including, of course, McDonald v. Chicago, a constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban, for which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month. The Second Amendment Foundation is now working on record 19 gun cases—a huge jump from its prior caseload of one or two lawsuits a year, according to founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Among them is the case of Tom G. Palmer, a gay man who once used a handgun to avoid gay-bashing. One of the original plaintiffs in Heller, Palmer is suing Washington, D.C., arguing that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is invalid under Heller.

“What we are saying is you can’t ban open-carry and concealed carry and leave people no option at all” for carrying guns, Gottlieb said.

Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors'

Fox News

ALBANY, N.Y. – They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partiers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.

"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
related links

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partiers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."

"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."

Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.

Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election — and their distaste for his policies — with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.

"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.

Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives — away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.

Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.

A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.

The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.

"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."

Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally — and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.

McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.

McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.

Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partiers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.

Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think — something that offensive — you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.

"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.

"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."

Never Forgotten

A Gun Ban By Any Other Name...

FoxNews

Gun control laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.



On Friday, a federal District Court judge tried to indirectly reinstate the D.C. handgun ban. Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Clinton appointee, wants to make it so difficult for people living in DC to use a handgun defensively that few will get one.

Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."

So when do these types of regulations constitute just as much of a ban on handguns as an outright ban? A dollar tax solely on newspapers would clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. The power to regulate can destroy both the First and Second Amendments. Despite the costs, about a thousand people may have gotten handgun permits. That is only about 0.2 percent of adults living in D.C. The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.

Judge Urbina justifies the regulations using the same reasons that D.C. originally tried to use to justify the ban based on public safety. But for the regulations ruled on by Judge Urbina, the evidence clearly shows that freedom and safety go together. More guns mean less crime. Rules that make it very costly and difficult for people to register handguns for self-defense, disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals and make crime more likely. It isn't too surprising that every place in the world where guns have been banned and crime rates are available to study have seen an increase in murder rates.

After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and gunlocks in 2008, the D.C. Council enacted strict new handgun laws. On Friday, the judge found D.C.'s new handgun laws constitutional because "the Council provided ample evidence of the ways [the different gun laws] will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety." The problem is that D.C. really didn't provide "evidence," and merely made claims that the gun laws work. The court ruled that those claimed benefits outweighed the constitutional rights lost from the regulations.

Yet, the available evidence contradicts the safety argument.

Gunlocks -- The Supreme Court was right in the Heller decision. It ruled that a locked, unloaded gun "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Empirical work shows that gunlock laws have failed to reduce accidental gun deaths for children. Instead, they have cost innocent lives as law-abiding citizens have become more vulnerable to criminal attack. Just as higher arrest or conviction rates or longer prison sentences can deter criminals, so can more self-defense. Gunlock laws not only embolden criminals to attack people in their homes. These laws also increase the probability that the criminal will be successful.

Limiting the number of bullets that a gun can hold to 10 -- This was one of the restrictions that had been in the Federal Assault Weapons ban that lasted from 1994 to 2004. But despite a large academic literature on Assault Weapon bans, there hasn't been a single refereed study by either criminologists or economists that such laws reduce violent crime.

Handgun registration -- After the decision on Friday, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson claimed: "Because law-abiding citizens register their guns, it makes it easier for the police to identify and arrest the criminals." Despite the inaccuracies show on television shows, registration doesn’t work to solve crimes. In theory, if a gun is registered and it is left at the scene, it could theoretically be traced back to the owner. But guns from crimes are virtually never left at the scene of the crime. When they are left at the scene, it is primarily in cases where the criminal has been seriously wounded or killed. Then, of course, the weapon is not needed to catch the perpetrator. Moreover, in the few cases guns are left at the scene, they are traced back to somebody else because the criminals never bothered to register their guns.

In spite of the statements in “The Bill of Rights” that "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed," courts don't view constitutional rights as absolutes. Courts now ask whether the benefits from the law outweigh the constitutional rights lost -- so-called "balancing" tests. With high levels of "scrutiny" usually reserved for “The Bill of Rights,” courts must also find that the laws are "narrowly tailored" to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Public safety is surely an important governmental interest, but the evidence shows that gun control laws either produce no benefit, or actually increase crime rates, nevermind that these laws are the only way to reduce crime. Indeed, every location for which crime data is available has seen an increase in murder rates after gun bans have been imposed. D.C.'s gun laws can't meet these constitutional tests as they don't even reduce crime, let alone meet the other constitutional tests.

What is worse is that these laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition will be published in May."

Journalists Guide To Firearms

Happy Easter!

Matthew 28:1-10

1 After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb. 2 Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, because an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and approached [the tomb]. He rolled back the stone and was sitting on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his robe was as white as snow. 4 The guards were so shaken from fear of him that they became like dead men.

5 But the angel told the women, "Don't be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here! For He has been resurrected, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell His disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead. In fact, He is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see Him there.' Listen, I have told you."

8 So, departing quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell His disciples the news. 9 Just then Jesus met them and said, "Good morning!" They came up, took hold of His feet, and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus told them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see Me there."

Good Friday

HCSB

50 Jesus shouted again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit. 51 Suddenly, the curtain of the sanctuary was split in two from top to bottom; the earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened and many bodies of the saints who had gone to their rest were raised. 53 And they came out of the tombs after His resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many.

Robocop's Comment:

Amen!!!

Jury Acquits Honor Student Of Gun Charge

San Francisco Public Defender

March 24th, 2010

San Francisco, CA – An Army veteran and Dean’s List student who was prosecuted over a legally-registered, unloaded gun was found not guilty by a San Francisco jury Wednesday.

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.

Banks, who has no criminal convictions, was arrested Oct. 9, 2009 following a contested traffic stop at Kearny and Clay streets. Officers stated in the police report that they immediately saw a handgun in a belt holster propped up against the center console.

“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

During the two day trial, Banks testified that he felt comfortable carrying a handgun for protection because of his Army training and understanding of gun laws. Even though firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not considered concealed according to California Penal Code, Banks testified that he took the already visible belt holster off his hip and placed it further up on the driver’s seat against the armrest to ensure his unloaded gun was completely visible as he drove.

A sergeant and two officers from the San Francisco Police Department testified at the trial. Police also submitted photographs of Banks’ gun partially wedged into the corner of his seat. During cross examination by Lopez, however, the sergeant admitted that the photographs were taken after he had handled the gun and placed it in that position.

“The testimony and photographs were not consistent with the initial police report and there was tampering with the evidence,” Lopez said. “The jury couldn’t understand why this went to trial. Either a gun is concealed or it is not, and this gun clearly was not.”

Banks, a 4.0 student and track team member at San Francisco City College, plans to transfer to Morehouse College and feared a conviction could ruin his chances for financial aid and scholarships, Lopez said.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi called the trial a waste of resources.

“Mr. Banks was extremely conscientious about following the laws surrounding gun ownership,” Adachi said. “Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it’s difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks.”

Robocop's Comment:

Another case of fellow officers taking an axe to grind at work. Almost makes me ashamed to wear a badge. These dirty cops should be prosecuted for tampering with evidence. Chalk another one for the good guys.

Independent Voters Go From Hopeful to Angry at Dems

Washington Times

President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008.

At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama's health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November's midterm elections.

"There is an overall sense of frustration that no one is listening," pollster Scott Rasmussen said about a problem that has plagued the political party in power for decades.

Mr. Rasmussen said the more pressing issue for Democrats is that swing voters are not just anxious about health care; they're also angry about the stimulus package and auto industry bailouts.

"It is gathering steam in the sense that the longer the frustration goes unanswered, the more it grows," said the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

In 2008, Mr. Obama's hope and change messages seemed to win over independents, and he captured about 52 percent of the independent vote in the election that year.

Self-identified independents continued to back Mr. Obama through June, with about 60 percent saying they approved of his job performance. But as the year wore on and the health care battle gained steam, their approval of the president plummeted and hardened in the low 40s, according to Quinnipiac University polls.

The president's approval ratings have not rebounded since the health care vote, but the latest Quinnipiac poll shows some positive movement for Mr. Obama. The percentage of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance has dropped nine points, from 53 percent to 44 percent.

"It may be that passage of health care eventually helps President Barack Obama's approval ratings, but at this point there's no sign of that," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"The White House believes that now that the legislation has been signed into law they can sell it to the American people. Approval of health care reform is growing - or disapproval is shrinking - but the president still has his work cut out for him."

Independents make for fickle voters. Two former political strategists for Bill Clinton said they've already seen independents begin to recoil from Republicans.

In February, Republicans held a 22-percentage-point advantage over Democrats among independents, according to the strategists' polling, but that had slid to just five percentage points by last month. The drop was attributed almost entirely to female independents, who went from favoring the GOP to favoring Democrats.

The strategists, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, who had front-row seats for Republicans' congressional victories in 1994 when Mr. Clinton was president, said they don't see a repeat this November - mainly because the GOP's high point has come and gone. That apex was in January, when Republican Scott Brown won the seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

"When we look back on this, we're going to say Massachusetts is when 1994 happened," Mr. Greenberg said.

In state after state, unaffiliated voters now hold the key to elections. Mr. Brown capitalized on that momentum in Massachusetts by telling voters he would be an independent voice in the Senate.

Seeking to boost the numbers, Mr. Obama is traveling across the country to trumpet the short-term benefits of the new health care law.

On Thursday, he was in Portland, Maine, where he predicted voters will start to support health care reform, and ridiculed early polls suggesting that voters continue to be unimpressed with the changes.

"It's been a week, folks," Mr. Obama said. "Before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought."

For now, the health care debate's political effect on Republicans and Democrats is easy to spot: Both sides are more energized.

A CNN poll released Tuesday found that 56 percent of Republicans said they're extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in November, a six-point jump since January, while 36 percent of Democrats said they're similarly enthused, which marks a five-point increase.

That enthusiasm gap bodes well for Republicans heading into the elections, but Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Carville said the GOP's brand image is likely too tarnished for them to retake the House and Senate.

They said in 1994, Republicans emerged from every policy fight with a strengthened image, but this year the GOP is suffering from each policy fight.

Mr. Carville predicted that Republicans will net about 25 House seats and six or seven Senate seats - not enough to give them control of either chamber, but enough to drop Democrats' margins dramatically.

He said, though, that this will be the third election in a row in which a party has scored those big congressional wins, after Democrats' double-dip successes of 2006 and 2008, and said voters are profoundly unhappy.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.

The shocking truth about a fundamental right being denied to 55% of citizens

American Thinker

M Allen Fritsch
There is a fundamental right being denied 55% of all Americans. This denial costs over 16,000 lives per year, meaning more than 44 of our fellow Americans will die every day that we delay. What should be done in light of these shocking figures?

Using the example set by President Obama and the Congressional Democrats, there is only one answer: Universal Gun Care for every American. Surely a right outlined in the Bill of Rights (2d Amendment) is just as important as a right NOT found the Constitution (Health Care).

Bonus, it should be easier to implement. After all, gun dealers and manufacturers are ready and willing to help solve the problem. Unlike the evil insurance companies, gun dealers don't want to take your weapon away from you when you most need it. Nor will they deny selling you a weapon simply because you haven't purchased one in the past (i.e. a pre-existing condition).

• Conventional estimates state that 45% of all US households own a firearm. This leaves at least 55% of all Americans "uncovered."
• In 2008 there were 16,272 murders in the USA. How many of those could have been prevented if the victims had been able to protect themselves?

My proposal is a modest one:

• Mandate for every American to purchase a gun or be provided one by their employer (children under the age of 26 can share a weapon with their parents)
• Tax credits to offset the cost of purchase (for those making less than $250,000 per year and everyone in Nebraska)
• For those that can't afford it, a grant or subsidy to purchase a weapon (union members can get two weapons subsidized before 2018)
• Funding for a series of community based gun dealers/clinics and firing ranges (especially in under-served urban and rural areas)
• Monthly ammunition benefit so that no one has to choose between feeding their kids, paying the rent, or buying a box of .38 special cartridges

Contact your representative today. The time to act is now.


M Allen Fritsch is an entrepreneur and business owner. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and a former Army officer. His household is one of the 45%.