ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100129

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"My Comments"

I received an e-mail from Nevada GOP US Senate nominee Sue Lowden. She is a real Conservative "winner". I propose you visit Sue Lowden's website: http://www.suelowden.com/

Friends,

Struggling Nevadans know that the time for hope is long past - and the time for real solutions has come. Washington still hasn't figured it out. It's the place of grand speeches and poll-tested promises. Unfortunately, too many promises have been broken, priorities misplaced and opportunities squandered.

Today, we have higher unemployment, higher debt and hardworking Nevadans continue to be separated from their homes in record numbers. Washington taxes too much and spends even more. In fact, each Nevada taxpayer is saddled with $110,000 of debt. It's too late to simply freeze government spending - we must cut spending across the board.

I am proud to have outlined real solutions to real problems in my campaign. From outlining a jobs plan to providing more affordable and accessible health care, my campaign has focused on not just issues - but solutions. My plans are backed not just by promises, but by a record of action and progress.

Government growth and personal freedom do not go hand-in-hand. It's time for Washington to know that Nevadans choose more freedom over more government.

Sincerely,

Sue Lowden for U.S. Senate



Rasmussen Reports

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

Survey of 500 Likely Voters in NV

January 11, 2010

Election 2010: Nevada Senate Race

Sue Lowden (R)
48%

Harry Reid (D)
36%

Some other candidate
8%

Not sure
7%



Election 2010: Nevada Senate Race

Danny Tarkanian (R)
50%

Harry Reid (D)
36%

Other
5%

Not sure
9%



Election 2010: Nevada Senate Race

Sharron Angle (R)
44%

Harry Reid (D)
40%

Other
10%

Not sure
7%



"Daily Motivations"

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain

"I am not a has-been. I am a will be." -- Lauren Bacall

"Do not wait; the time will never be 'just right.' Start where you stand, and work with whatever tools you may have at your command, and better tools will be found as you go along." -- Napoleon Hill



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

The LORD our God is just in everything He does. (Daniel 9:14)

In one of the worst travesties in American justice, four young men from Chicago with no history of violence were convicted of kidnapping, rape, and double murder. The bullet-riddled bodies of a young couple were found on May 12, 1978. Acting on an anonymous telephone tip, the police arrested the four suspects. News reports declared that the crime had been solved. The men were convicted, and two were sentenced to death row. Appeals failed; all looked hopeless.

But in September 1981, a tattered envelope arrived at the offices of the Chicago Lawyer magazine. That letter led Rob Warden, editor and publisher of the Chicago Lawyer, and Dennis Protess, professor at Northwestern School of Journalism, to investigate the case. They uncovered substantial evidence that ultimately exonerated the four convicts.

Finally, on July 2, 1996, Judge Thomas Fitzgerald ended the defendants' fight against an unjust sentence by reading, "All the convictions are vacated." The four prisoners were free! The next day, the state attorney's office charged the real killers.

Justice is a pillar of any society. It vindicates the innocent and punishes the guilty. All too often though, this standard is compromised for personal gain. Corrupt judges sometimes tilt the scales of justice; unscrupulous lawyers manipulate laws and juries; witnesses lie. Truth is often distorted to benefit the powerful.

Today, since our legal system can often be manipulated, many people mistakenly believe they can manipulate God's justice. But oh, how wrong they are! You can always count on God to act according to His perfectly just character.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Imagine for a moment a God who is perfectly just, but not merciful. Describe what that would look like. Now imagine a God that is loving but not perfectly just. Describe what that would look like? Now imagine a God who is both perfectly loving and perfectly just. Describe what that would look like? Today, worship the God who is perfect in every way.



"The Patriot Post"

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson



Government & Politics

The Modern-Day Plantation

Democrats run the Capitol like a plantationThe new book "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin has Washington buzzing. The book revealed some comments made by prominent Democrats that they probably wish had stayed in the smoke-filled room. The one receiving most attention is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's remark that Barack Obama would succeed as a presidential candidate because he is "light-skinned" and speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Reactions on the Left were all too predictable: Reid groveled before Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and Democrats circled the wagons. It almost goes without saying that, were a Republican to have said the same thing, he would have been run out of town on a rail. But Republicans didn't have to say anything before Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, thundered, "Senator Reid's record provides a stark contrast to actions of Republicans to block legislation that would benefit poor and minority communities -- most recently reflected in Republican opposition to the health bill now under consideration." Reid also last month called opponents of health care racists in the vein of those who resisted civil rights legislation in the 1960s (i.e., Democrats).

More interesting, though, is that conservatives disagree on how to handle the revelation. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, called for Reid to resign his leadership post because that's what Sen. Trent Lott did in a similar situation in 2002. Steele is an attack dog; it's his job to say this. But what would Republicans gain by collecting Reid's scalp? Probably not much. Given his dismal poll numbers, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund doesn't believe Reid will even run for re-election, much less win it, so the GOP may pick up his seat anyway.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg took issue with Steele's premise as well, writing, "[B]y demanding Reid's resignation, Steele is making an idiotic, nasty and entirely cynical game bipartisan. Yes, there's a double standard, but the point is that the standard used against conservatives is unfair, not that that unfair standard should be used against Democrats as well."

Thanks to Democrats, racism has been so broadly defined that practically anything Republicans do or say can be construed as such. As long as that doesn't change, the double standard will remain in effect.

Beyond the political chess match, however, the core of the matter is that Reid's observation isn't necessarily racist. He was partly correct, too. Besides the fact that no Republican was going to win the White House last year, Obama's race helped him.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once put it, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Democrats still have that reversed: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin." What's truly racist is that Democrats demand absolute allegiance and ideological purity from blacks, in effect keeping their prized constituency on the modern-day plantation..



News From the Swamp: Health Care Cost Shuffle

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the latest organization to analyze the health care fiasco currently being cooked up behind closed doors in Washington, and its assessment is not good. According to the report, the legislation will force health care spending to rise by $222 billion over the next 10 years. Conveniently, revenue for the legislation is spread out over a 10-year budget period, but most of the spending provisions are in effect for only six years.

The report also attacks the idea that cuts in Medicare will help fund the health care bill, pointing out that doctors and hospitals will bear the brunt of these reductions. It's obvious to anyone willing to admit it that this will lead to a lower quality of service and doctors turning away patients insured by the government in favor of those with private coverage and "relatively attractive payment rates." This report, and several like it from numerous nonpartisan groups, have pointed out repeatedly that the health care bill in its current form will do exactly the opposite of what Democrats claim it will do, yet our "representatives" in Congress continue the proverbial march off of the cliff.



Open Query

"We're looking at 37 Democrats who are in districts that are particularly upset and vulnerable to the provisions of this health care bill. Are they going to be with the people or are they going to be with Pelosi?" --House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), saying that "this health care bill can be defeated"



On Cross-Examination

"For some time now, leading Democrats have seemed to suffer from an ideological monomania vis-à-vis ObamaCare. No matter how unpopular the measure is, and thus how politically perilous for Democratic office-holders -- they are determined to push it through. But this reaches a new level of pathology. One can understand why they might want to play games with the certification of a Brown victory, but what in the world do they gain by saying so ahead of time? If Brown becomes the first Republican elected to the Senate from Massachusetts since 1972, it would be as clear a message of opposition to ObamaCare as one could hope to have.... For Democrats to announce pre-emptively that they will ignore such a message shows a stunning contempt for democracy." -- Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto



Judicial Benchmarks: Washington's Felon Vote

In its ongoing war against sanity, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has once again decided it knows better than the people and their elected representatives. Why wouldn't it? After all, there are upwards of 30 of our most politically connected former lawyers on the Circuit. Why shouldn't they know more about what to do about 100-year-old provisions of the Washington State constitution than the 6.5 million citizens of Washington?

The Court is offended that prison inmates in Washington are disproportionately minorities (this is a painful fact across America). Thus, two members of the Circuit concluded that the provision in the state's constitution denying felons the right to vote was racial discrimination, violating the federal Voting Rights Act. Now, we always thought that convicted felons became convicted felons because a jury found them guilty of committing a felony. We find it hard to believe that Washington juries are motivated to convict by the race of the accused. We also find it difficult to believe that the citizens of Washington would tolerate such a racist judicial system. However, we find it all too believable that two members of the most reversed court in America would rule this way. After all, judges know best. Soon, however, the case may head to the U.S. Supreme Court, where sanity is more likely to prevail.



"Crosswalk.Com"

Dear Crosswalk Friends,

Once again our values are under intense attack from radical liberal feminists. Only this time they are venturing where they never should have gone..

Football. And not just any football game. The Super Bowl.

This week, the liberal feminist organization, National Organization for Women (NOW), launched an all-out effort attacking a pro-life ad that will be in the Super Bowl commercial line-up. The ad, produced by our good friends at Focus on the Family, tells the story of Pam Tebow’s decision to continue with her pregnancy against her doctor’s advice and give birth to the Heisman trophy winning Florida Gator Quarterback, Tim Tebow.

NOW’s call to take this advertisement off the air is their attempt at shutting down the Christian witness of Tim Tebow and his mother. Standing by their convictions, the Tebows made this ad to share their experience of accepting God’s plan for their lives and experiencing the ultimate gift of Life.

Shouldn't the “pro-choice� position respect Pam Tebow’s decision to choose Life and then tell others about that choice? What is the worst case scenario in allowing this ad to air? Women are exposed to an example of sacrifice for the sake of an unborn child.

The fact of the matter here is that they are attacking more than just Tim Tebow and his mother for having the courage of their convictions to share the positive message of Life—they are attacking you and me, and the values we stand for.

We can’t allow this to go unanswered. When someone this prominent is willing to put himself out there with a positive message about Life, we need to support him.

Click here and go to our page, where you can send your name and a message of encouragement to Tim Tebow and his family.

Let’s show Tim Tebow that the pro-life movement is standing behind him and thank him for sharing his mom’s beautiful testimony on choosing Life.

God bless,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President
Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org



"The Web"

The 2010 State of the Union Address

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1PWQtCDaYY&feature=sub



Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) Responds to State of the Union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeSLVnAQSYo&feature=featured



FACT CHECK: Obama and the 'hatchet' job

Calvin Woodward- Associated Press

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=873366

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed. His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "commonsense" call to action. A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for healthcare legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.



A speech only Washington could love

Conn Carroll - Guest Columnist

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/morning-bell-a-speech-only-washington-could-love/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

The more things change, the more things stay the same. A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama came to office expecting to pass a "big bang" of policy changes all in the first year: healthcare, cap-and-trade, and banking regulation. With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, President Obama's State of the Union address last night desperately tried to keep all of these legislative efforts alive while also acknowledging that the country has firmly rejected his policy agenda.

The result was an incoherent mess of promised tax cuts for small businesses coupled with the threat of tax hikes from his healthcare and energy proposals; more federal money to encourage banks to lend to businesses, coupled with new taxes on banks and individuals; the continued waste of his $862 billion stimulus plan and $2 trillion in new healthcare spending, coupled with a delayed and temporary spending freeze. As one of the longest State of the Unions in the past 45 years, we cannot cover everything here. But our crack team of Heritage experts did hit almost every issue last night, and you can read their full reactions here. Highlights include:

The new hire tax credit

The tax credit for new hires is another recycled idea from Washington. Last tried in the 1970s, the tax credit proved to be a windfall for big businesses that were planning to hire anyway. Small businesses, the engine of job growth, did not use the tax credit largely because they were unaware of it and did not understand how to take advantage of the credit. The jobs tax credit proposal will likely also delay hiring since businesses that understand the tax credit now face an incentive to postpone hiring decisions to take advantage of the tax credit. Extending the Bush tax cuts and undoing the heavy taxes in the healthcare legislation is a better step to job creation than this tax credit.

The bank tax

President Obama called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, "a modest fee," he said, "to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need." That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments. On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers -- including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler -- would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers and exempt those who have not.

The spending freeze

Obama's spending freeze would apply to a narrow sliver of spending (somewhere around 1/8th of total spending) and at best, savings would be less than one percent of the total budget. Moreover, it explicitly exempts the very entitlement programs driving future deficits. At a time when the deficit is $1.4 trillion and we face a sea of even worse red ink as far as the eye can see, such a freeze is tantamount to bailing out -- forgive the double entendre -- the Titanic with a Dixie Cup. And it would start next year, conveniently after the elections. Freezing spending is the right idea, but this freeze falls short of real action.

Energy production

His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers' money on wind, solar, and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

Foreign policy

Many around the world have expressed concern that a U.S. administration so focused on domestic priorities and troubles as the current one will be too inward-looking to be deeply engaged in the world. Judging by its placement in his list of priorities, foreign affairs did seem like an afterthought, briefly addressed. In Afghanistan, allied nations are hardly coming together to support the President's surge -- indeed French President Nicolas Sarkozy very publicly stated this week that he would not be contributing any more troops to the endeavor, this on the eve of the Afghanistan conference in London.

And the fight on terrorism has not, as stated, been advanced by the Obama administration -- quite the reverse as the nation has become more vulnerable. Nor has the administration distinguished itself by its support for human rights in Iran -- in fact it missed a critical moment to get involved during last summer's uprisings against the Iranian regime. As for the President's aspiration to control nuclear materials around the world, a goal to be reached through an international conference -- that horse left the barn a long time ago.

In Government's End, Jonathan Rauch writes: "Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce....Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves." From complicated new tax credits that small business owners don't have the time or expertise to take advantage of, to new energy, financial and trade regulations that only large corporations have the lawyers and lobbyists to take advantage of, every policy proposal in Obama's speech last night is a boon for the lawyer/lobbyist economy in Washington and a hindrance to wealth-creating Americans everywhere. This was a speech only the entrenched interests in Washington could love.



Voter Views on State-of-the-Union Points

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/january_2010/voter_views_on_state_of_the_union_points

During his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama touched on a number of topics that Rasmussen Reports has current polling data on measuring the attitudes of the American people.

In his speech, for example, the president called for taxing banks to repay bailouts. Most Americans like the general idea of a tax on large banks to help repay the bailout money. Voters think that only banks that received the bailout should pay the tax though, and 72% believe that other financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should also pay the tax.

The president presented the $787-billion economic stimulus package as a success story. However, just 35% of voters believe the stimulus plan has helped the economy, while 31% believe it hurt. At this time, 39% are concerned the government will do too little to deal with the economy while 49% fear it will do too much.

Obama said the unpopular bailouts saved the economy. He’s right that they’re unpopular. By a two-to-one margin, voters still believe they were a bad idea. Voters are evenly divided as to whether they helped or hurt the economy in the short-term. However, voters overwhelmingly believe the bailouts are bad for the long-term health of the economy.

The president spoke about small business issues at a time when just 29% of small business owners say conditions for their businesses are getting better. That’s up seven points from a month ago, but 43% still say conditions for their business are getting worse.

On the housing front, just 55% now say buying a home is the best investment a family can make. That’s down from 79% in 2008. The public was way ahead of Treasury officials on dealing with the reality of the mortgage crisis

The president asked Congress to counter the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance. However, public reaction is mixed: 26% agree with the decision, 34% oppose it, and 41% are not sure. Sixty-five percent (65%) also say corporations and unions should be allowed to buy ads to let people know how politicians voted on issues.

Voters still say deficit reduction is the most important priority laid out by the president last February. They also believe it is the presidential priority least likely to be achieved.

The president referenced the Congressional Budget Office analysis that suggested his health care plan would reduce the deficit. However, most Americans don’t believe the numbers. Voters overwhelmingly think the plan's costs will be higher than projected, and 81% say passage of the plan will likely lead to higher middle class taxes. Sixty-eight percent (68%) say it will increase the deficit

Most voters continue to oppose the proposed health care plan.

Sixty-one percent (61%) now want Congress to drop health care and focus on jobs.

On Afghanistan, the president reaffirmed the strategy he outlined a couple of months ago. Most voters agree with his plan to send more troops in, and a slightly smaller number support his plan to begin withdrawal in 2011. However, few agree with both aspects of the plan.

On Haiti, 74% of voters say the government response has been good or excellent.

Obama said he has cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but nearly half the nation’s voters expect their taxes will go up during the Obama years. Hardly anybody expects their taxes to be cut.

Americans strongly believe that cutting taxes is the best way to create jobs. However, few expect the nation’s elected politicians to follow that route.

The president said he has never been more hopeful about the nation’s future. However, a solid plurality of voters believe that the nation’s best days have come and gone.



Medicare & Medicaid Melting Down in Michigan [John R. Graham]

Another day, another report in the local newspaper about the shortage of doctors, driven by the policies and pay under which government programs expect physicians to labor.

The latest is Michigan's South Bend Tribune, which reports that several thousand physicians have stopped practicing in the state. The Michigan State Medical Society assigns primary blame to a recent 8 percent cut in Medicare and Medicaid fees.

These government programs are nothing short of miraculous: Per capita spending on both Medicare and Medicaid have increased one third more than private health spending, from 1970 through 2008. Nevertheless, their dependents are rapidly losing access to medical services, because reimbursements are too low. Only government could have a track record like that, and keep proposing their expansion.

Instead of fixing these broken programs, the health "reform" proposes to decimate Medicare Advantage, a program which reduces Medicare's hidden tax on private plans, and provides better care to beneficiaries than the traditional Medicare monopoly.

If the government succeeds, the flow of patients escaping government-rationed care across the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor (Ontario) and Detroit might well reverse itself.

— John R. Graham is director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute.



Election 2010: Nevada Senate

2010 Nevada Senate: Reid’s Support Falls Even Lower

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate Support among Nevada voters for embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s reelection has fallen even further following disclosure in a new book of remarks he made about Barack Obama during Election 2008.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Nevada finds Reid earning just 36% of the vote against his two top Republican challengers. That’s a seven-point drop from 43% a month ago.
Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.

But the poll shows that neither of the Republicans - Sue Lowden, ex-chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and businessman Danny Tarkanian – gained any ground in the new survey, highlighting the fact that the race continues to be a referendum on Reid rather than an outpouring of support for either of the top GOP hopefuls.

“Reid’s difficulties stem directly from the fact that he is the Majority Leader of the United States Senate,” according to Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “His responsibilities as leader of the Senate Democrats have placed him in a very visible position promoting an agenda that is viewed with some skepticism by Nevada voters.”

Some have speculated that Reid like other longtime Senate incumbents Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota may ultimately decide to retire rather than face an increasingly hostile electorate.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Nevada voters say they have followed news reports about Reid’s comments about Obama, including 55% who have followed very closely. But his bigger problem appears to be his championing of a health care plan that remains unpopular in his home state.

Reid is out front pushing the national health care plan crafted by President Obama and congressional Democrats, but just 39% of Nevada voters support that plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) oppose it. Those numbers include just 21% who Strongly Favor it while more than twice as many, 45%, Strongly Oppose the plan. These numbers are comparable to the overall feelings about the health care plan nationwide.

Among those who Strongly Oppose the plan, anywhere from 80% to 89% support any of the Republican candidates who oppose Reid. The incumbent earns slightly less support from the smaller group that Strongly Favor the plan.

In a match-up with Reid, the GOP’s Lowden now earns 48% of the vote while Tarkanian picks up 50% of the Nevada vote against Reid. . In December, both had 49% support.

In both races, the number of those who prefer some other candidate and are undecided remain in single digits.

In September, Lowden led Reid by 10 percentage points, 50% to 40%, while Tarkanian bested him 50% to 43%.

A third Republican contender, former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, now beats Reid 44% to 40%, with 10% opting for another candidate and seven percent (7%) undecided. In the previous survey, Angle bested Reid 47% to 43% in December, while seven percent (7%) liked another candidate and three percent (3%) weren’t sure.

Men continue to overwhelmingly prefer any of the Republican candidates to Reid, while women are almost evenly divided.

Those who have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid now outnumber those with a very favorable view of the longtime senator by two-to-one – 47% to 23%. This marks virtually no change from December.

Lowden is viewed very favorably by eight percent (8%) and very unfavorably by nine percent (9%). For Tarkanian, very favorables add up to 20% percent and very unfavorables 10%. Seven percent (7%) have a very favorable view of Angle, while 13% regard her very unfavorably.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

In common with voters around the country, most Nevada voters (54%) say cost is the biggest problem with health care. Eighteen percent (18%) say the quality of care is the bigger problem, while 15% list the lack of universal coverage. For three percent (3%), it’s the inconvenience of scheduling.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) in Nevada oppose the creation of a single-payer health care system, comparable to views nationally. Fifty-two percent (52%) believe states should have the right to opt out if a national health care plan is passed, but 34% disagree. This is slightly higher support for opting out than is found nationally.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Nevada voters say the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, but 36% believe the terrorists are winning. Twenty-one percent (21%) say it’s a draw. This is a slightly more pessimistic view than is found nationally.

Forty percent (40%) rate the president’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan as good or excellent, while 29% say he is doing a poor job. Forty-two percent (42%) expect the situation there to worsen in the next six months. Twenty-two percent (22%) say it will get better, and 26% think the situation will stay the same. These findings mirror national attitudes on these questions.

Forty-one percent (41%) believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights in cases involving national security. Eighteen percent (18%) say the system worries too much about protecting national security, and 31% say the balance is about right. This is comparable to national views on this question.

Obama carried Nevada over John McCain with 55% of the vote in November 2008, but just 49% of voters in the state now approve of the president’s job performance, including 29% who strongly approve. This is roughly comparable to Obama’s national job approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.



"The e-mail Bag"

Redneck Jokes

A new law was recently passed in Tennessee. When a couple gets a divorce they're still brother and sister.


Best bar pick-up line in Kentucky: "Hey, you don't sweat much for a fat broad."


How do you know when your staying in an Arkansas hotel?
When you call the front desk and say "I've gotta leak in my sink" and the person at the front desk says "go ahead."