After summarizing a nearly forty-year-old Life magazine account of Israel “on the occasion of its 25th birthday in May 1973″, Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, asked Monday in the Wall Street Journal, “Would a mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today, during the week of its 64th birthday?”

Unlikely. Rather, readers would learn about Israel’s overwhelming military might, brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values—plus the Palestinians’ plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show not cool students and cutting-edge artists but soldiers at checkpoints and religious radicals.

Why has Israel’s image deteriorated? After all, Israel today is more democratic and—despite all the threats it faces—even more committed to peace.

The media’s darker portrayals of Israel notwithstanding, the American public continue to hold the Jewish State in high regard, with a March Gallup poll finding that the “large majority of Americans continue to view Israel favorably, while far fewer say they view the Palestinian Authority or Iran very or mostly favorably“:

In addition, more than 60% of Americans “say their sympathies are more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians”, with 19% saying their sympathies are with the Palestinians and the same percentage with both sides or neither.

Considering the media bias against Israel, these numbers are particularly impressive. It is instructive to note that even as Republicans only manage to capture about one-fourth to one-third of the Jewish vote, 78% sympathize more with the Jewish State than with the Palestinian Arbs. Barely half (53%) of Democrats hold similar sympathies. (more…)

There are two new polls out which suggest that even as voters across the country reject state recognition of same-sex marriages, they are increasingly open to civil unions.  Given the care Gallup takes to survey a representative sample of the American population, we should have every confidence that theirs presents a pretty accurate portrait of American public opinion.

Their latest shows, as per their headline, U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal. Indeed.  Take a gander at this chart and look when the shift occurred:

During the Bush years, the 13-point advantage of those finding gay relations morally wrong was erased.

And this belief that gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable accelerated in recent years. Another chart shows that more Americans find gay/lesbian relationships morally acceptable than believes same-sex marriages should be valid. Guess that means that all opponents of state recognized gay marriages are not haters — as goes the narrative.

By a 2-to-1 margin (63-31), Americans think gay and lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal. A CBS survey yields a similar result, showing that “62 percent – close to two thirds – of Americans believe that same-sex unions should be recognized by law.”

With research from NYU political scientist Patrick Egan showing that “the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day”, perhaps the better strategy toward improving the lot of gay people in relationships would be, in the present, to push for civil unions.

These numbers show just how greatly things are improving for gay people in America.  Attitudes are shifting.  Not all Americans may want to call our unions marriages, but increasingly, they respect their integrity and moral worth.  A good sign indeed.

Maybe it’s that because at least starting in college, we have to confront the biases of our professors, listening to, engaging with and responding to their arguments that we develop the appreciation of opposing arguments.

Yesterday, Bruce alerted me to a poll (which I had also noticed) showing how (compared to Democrats) broad-minded Republicans are:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

. . . .

Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.

Emphasis added.  In addition, more than twice as many liberals as conservatives “deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.”

And yet the perception persists that conservatives are intolerant troglodytes, lacking the understanding of their arguments of their ideological adversaries or unwilling to associate with those holding views different from their own.  Wonder why that is.

Democrats are surely focusing on the headline numbers in the latest Washington Post/ABCNews poll, showing the president 8 points ahead of Mitt Romney, his likely Republican opponent this fall and with approval at 50%.

Now, to be sure, those numbers do look pretty good for the incumbent, but looking more deeply into the poll, particularly at its internals, a number of bloggers have teased out details which should undermine the recent overconfidence of the Obama campaign. Over at the Washington Examiner, Charlie Spiering has found three numbers which should cause heartburn at the White House, particularly given numbers which his colleague Conn Carroll and HotAIr’s Ed Morrissey highlight. Spiering notes that Romney leads Obama on the economy, deficit and energy by 47-43, 51-38 and 47-42 respectively.

Putting the Post poll in context, Carroll reports that it oversamples Democrats, “34 percent of those polled identified themselves as Democrats, 23 percent identified themselves as Republicans, and 34 percent identified themselves as Independents.” He goes on to compare that number to the “the turnout realities of the past four elections” and finds that even in the banner Democratic year of 2008, Democrats only enjoyed a 7-point advantage.

Image what Romney’s lead on those key issues which would like in a less skewed sample.

Surveyed the skewed  numbers and comparing it to the Post’s previous polls where Democrats only enjoyed a 4-point advantage (as opposed to 11 in the current survey), Ed Morrissey observes:

. . .  one should be seeing huge leads for Obama in the head-to-head matchups.  Instead, Obama lead Romney by only eight among general-population adults, 51/43, barely getting into majority territory, and Santorum by ten, 51/41.  Among registered voters, Obama leads Romney by seven, 51/44 — in both cases, smaller than the artificial sample advantage of the poll.  (more…)

Linking the latest Washington Post/ABC News Poll, headlined, Gas prices sink Obama’s ratings on economy, bring parity to race for White House, Glenn Reynolds, quips, “This is why they want people talking about birth control.”  In his piece on the very same poll, Jim Geraghty challenges the conventional wisdom about Obama’s inevitability, ABC/WashPost Poll: Unstoppable Incumbent Now Trails Romney Again.

“It seems,” Ed Morrissey writes looking at the poll . . .

. . . that Obama’s dismissive advice last week that gas prices are always “spiking up” this time of year didn’t do anything to set minds at ease.  Rapid gas price hikes and the resulting increase in food prices quickly erode buying power in working-class and middle-class households, which means that fewer people will have money for vacations and impulse spending in 2012.

And there we have (again) the specter of higher food prices, an increase felt more acutely by those who do the grocery shopping which, in heterosexual households, tends to be women.  No wonder the Obama campaign is making “an intensified effort this week to build support among women“.  Distraction, anyone?

UPDATE:  Have voters comes to expect incompetence from Obama?  Conflicting responses (which Geraghty noted) to the same question posed just shy of six years ago when George W. Bush was president offers a clue that they might: (more…)

A couple times in the past few weeks, I thought that perhaps I had finally been contacted for a poll of national consequence. Now, to be sure, I had been surveyed on issues of local import, that is, West Hollywood ballot initiatives, but this morning I received a call from the 307-area code (i.e., from the Cowboy State), asking me to participate in a brief 30-second inquiry into my political opinions.

Cool, I thought for a second, I was going to participate in a poll.  Then, the female voice told me that if I did I’d be eligible for a two-day cruise.  Or did she tell me that if I did answer the questions, I’d get to go on said cruise?  I never found out; the offer of the cruise made the call seem suspect. I hung up.  As I did, I remembered receiving a similar offer a few weeks ago.  Exact same voice.  Exact same offer.

Perhaps, I should have stayed on the line to see what she was offering.

Or maybe this was a sincere survey?  Has anyone else received similar phone calls?

Looking at liberal blogger Ezra Klein’s “laundry list of Republican Party flip-flops”, the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll finds a pattern:

In every policy area mentioned above, the Republican party has become more libertarian. Some Republicans used to like Keynesian stimulus, now they don’t. Libertarians never did. Some Republicans used to like individual mandates, now they don’t. Libertarians never did. Some Republicans used to like cap and trade, now they don’t. Libertarians never did. You get the idea. There is a reason Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has been speaking so highly of Ron Paul.

This shift, Carroll contends, corresponds with polling data showing that “Americas are just becoming more libertarian“, with “Republican leaders” merely “responding to those changing beliefs.”  The growing distrust of government solutions (to social and economic problems) has become particularly pronounced since Obama took office.

In a piece on former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s speech this past weekend to the California Republican Party Convention, Reason magazine’s Tim Cavanaugh contends the the Golden State GOP has floundered largely because its leaders have failed to embrace libertarian ideals:

The party is marginal and becoming more so, but the leadership is deathly afraid of the one proven source of Republican energy and enthusiasm – because that source is considered too marginal. If the California Republicans continue distancing themselves from the libertarian movement, they will continue to suffer, and so will everybody else who has to live in a state where one party has absolute power and the other refuses to compete.

He’s onto something.  Talk to small businessmen and -women here in Southern California, even to Democratic City Council candidates in West Hollywood, and you’ll hear these entrepreneurs grumbling about the amount of bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through before they can open up a new enterprise.  People across the political spectrum fault the state’s overspending and its overgenerous benefits to public employee unions.

In short, people here would welcome a government which scales back its intrusion into the marketplace — and reduces its expenditures.

To that end, we in California might more readily embrace a more libertarian Republican Party.   As would the nation as a whole.

A libertarian shift within the GOP, like those recent votes in Congress, would show Republican leaders embracing the emerging American consensus on the size of government.

NB:  Tweaked the post after its initial publication to make my point clearer.

Got an e-mail alert earlier today to a most interesting tidbit that the AP (yes, the AP!) caught in their recent poll.  They found that Americans’

fondness for limited government is significant in this election year because it shows voters prefer the Republican approach in the core partisan dispute over resolving the nation’s fiscal problems.

The AP-GfK poll found that 65 percent favor requiring that people earning $1 million or more annually pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. Just 26 percent oppose.

Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, people picked cutting government services over tax increases as the best way to reduce federal deficits.

They did also find, in line with Obama’s rhetoric, that asking millionaires “pay a significant share of their incomes in taxes is widely popular.”  SPending cuts remain a big issue to most Americans.  And Republicans need keep that in mind as the campaign heats up.

Back before the New Year when the president’s approval rating languished in the low 40s, I always assumed that he might be in decent shape (for reelection) even if his approval rating didn’t quite reach 50%.  I based this assumption on conversations with liberals who grumble about his performance in office, yet rush to defend him when the subject of his reelection comes up.

They may not approve of his job performance, but come November, they’ll rally to his cause.

He would, I contended, poll better in match-ups against a Republican than he does in polls on his job performance.  So, I was stunned earlier this week to see a New York Times/CBS News poll, which tends to lean left, pegging the president’s “job rating at exactly 50 percent“, but showing him with a lesser tally when matched up against the various Republicans running against him.  Against Mitt Romney, he drew only 48% of the vote, one point higher when facing off against Rick Santorum.

One explanation for this phenomenon could be that, in the past seven weeks, with the media focus on the Republican contest, the president has been gradually winning back his base.  My liberal Facebook friends have expressed delight at his recess appointments and the contraception mandate, with several seeing such moves as evidence he’s finally fighting for the principles they share.

Even as the president’s current poll numbers nationally look better than they did last fall, with him running slightly ahead of the leading Republican contenders, some state polls show him in trouble.  A recent poll in Iowa, a state which George W. Bush lost narrowly in 2000, won narrowly in 2004 and which Obama won by nearly 10 points 4 years ago, shows Obama running between three of the four remaining Republican candidates, running ahead only of Newt Gingrich.

A recent survey of Washington State voters showed Obama with an approval rating of only 42 (with 47% disapproving).  Ed Morrissey reminds us that the Democrat “won the state of Washington by seventeen points in 2008, and it is a bastion of Democratic strength and enthusiasm”: (more…)

Gallup releases yet another poll showing just how of touch is the incumbent President of the United States with the general tenor of the American people.  According to a Gallup poll released yesterday:

Americans’ satisfaction with the size and power of the federal government is at a record-low 29% and their satisfaction with the size and influence of major corporations remains near the all-time low at 30% — making both highly susceptible targets for politicians and presidential candidates in this election year.

Even Democrats are only barely satisfied with the size and power of the federal government, with 49% satisfied and 47% dissatisfied.

Given the dissatisfaction with big corporations, it is important for Republicans to stress that ours is the party of free enterprise not of big business — and that it is Democratic policies which most benefit big business. Reducing regulation decreases the cost of compliance with government mandates, making it easier for smaller firms to thrive in the marketplace — and requiring bigger companies to invest less in lobbying and more in innovation.

Free markets do not necessarily benefit big business.  And Republicans need make that clear on the campaign trail.

RELATED: Obama running as unabashed corporatist

Bruce just alerted me to this Gallup poll showing just stable Americans’ ideological preferences have been since just after Obama took office:

Interesting how the percentage identifying as liberals inched during the second half the George W. Bush administration as the percentage seeing themselves as conservative declined, only to quickly rebound once Obama took office.

Independents have also become increasingly conservative in recent years.  In 2008, 30% of independents identified as conservative.  Today that stands at 35%.  At the same time, the number calling themselves moderate fell from 46 to 41%.  Only one in five (20%) independents identify as liberal.

In his interview with the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Mitt Romney showed that he understands the core issue facing conservative voters today:

So it is also notable that now Mr. Romney describes the core failure of Mr. Obama’s economic agenda as faith in “a wise group of governmental bureaucrats” rather than political and economic freedom. “It is a refrain that we have seen throughout history where smart people are convinced that smart people ought to be able to guide an economy better than hordes of individuals pursuing their self-interest,” Mr. Romney says, “the helter-skelter of free people choosing their course in life.”

The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008 [, but] drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama’s bid to “fundamentally transform” the country, to use the president’s own words, into “an entitlement society,” to use Mr. Romney’s.

“America can continue to lead the world from a values standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and from a military standpoint,” Mr. Romney avers. He says the coming election represents “a very simple choice” between Mr. Obama’s “European social democrat” vision and “a merit-based opportunity society—an American-style society—where people earn their rewards based upon their education, their work, their willingness to take risks and their dreams.”

Emphasis added.  Read the whole thing.  He gets that the major problem of the Obama administration (and even, to some extent, the Bush administration that preceded it) is to prefer the judgment of a handful of experts in Washington, D.C. (drawn from and at university campuses) to that of millions of Americans and the entrepreneurs among us acting independently in cities, suburbs, towns and hamlets across the country.

This is not to say I’m backing Romney, only to point out that he sees the stakes.  The article goes on to recount more episodes from the interview which makes Mr. Romney seem, at least in his approach to governing, more like Bill Clinton than anyone else.  He is wonkish, “highly analytical,” as he puts it, “driven by data”.

And like that Democrat, he does understand the tenor of the times and tapers his policies toward them.

From a small government point of view, that is not entirely a bad thing.

In a post over at Hot Air, Tina Korbe cites a “new poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard University” showing that millenials prefer the incumbent Democrat to a generic Republican by a margin of 35 percent to 29 percent.  When it comes to specific candidates:

They’d pick Obama over Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin (37 percent to 26 percent) and over Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry by a 16-point spread (39 percent to 23 percent).

Nevertheless, the blogress adds, “poll experts suggest the results could mean what I’ve said for some time: An opening exists with millennials for any candidate willing to take advantage of it.”

What is striking about the poll is not that Obama is leading, but the percentage he garners among the group which gave him the largest margin of support in the 2008 election.  In no poll does he comes close to the 66% he won in 2012.  In fact, he doesn’t even muster a majority.

Let’s say those who didn’t register an opinion in the latest poll break evenly for the incumbent and the Republican challenger, that would give him a 53-47 margin over a generic Republican or a 55-45 margin over Mitt Romney.  It would only be 59-41 over Gingrich or Romney.  In any case, that represents a significant slide in his support since 2008.

We should also note that undecideds tend to break against the incumbent, so those numbers represent an optimistic scenario for the Democrat.

Seems Michael Barone was prescient about this poll: Under Obama, Millennials move into the GOP column.

One wonders if the president would have delivered his paean to “progressive” (i.e., big) government last week in Osawatomie had he seen these numbers from Gallup:

Americans’ concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat.

Via Instapundit.
Interesting how the first poll to ask this question after the Occupy rallies gained media attention shows a tapering off in distrust of big business. “In fact,” writes Elizabeth Mendes on Gallup’s web-site, “Americans’ concerns about big business have declined significantly since 2009.”

What’s also notable is the spike in those concerned about the threat of big government since Obama took office in 2009. He doesn’t seem to have rallied the American people to his vision of large and more active federal government.

Over at Hot Air, Tina Korbe finds it “notable” that “the recent rise in distrust of big government . . . has been driven by Democrats“. Sounds like a Republican candidate with the right kind of appeal, emphasizing his commitment to reducing the size of the federal government could not only rally the Republican pass and reach out to independents (64% of whom “view big government as the biggest threat”), but also pull some Democrats into his camp.

The numbers simply don’t support the kind of rhetoric the president has offered.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Zendo Deb puts the fear of big government in a larger context:

Actually it looks like fear of big government has increased since George W Bush was in office. Not surprising given the Patriot Act – which the Dems hated and complained about then reauthorized as almost the first thing Obama did.

And to be a bit more to the point, that fear of government has increased since Nixon was in office. With a downward blip after 911 because the government was going to “save us” from the evil terrorists.

That fear has increased in both good time and bad, and under both Democrats and Republicans. Maybe there is some hope for the US population.

The bigger the government gets, the more Americans fear it.

Well, the current Governor of New York once did serve in the cabinet of the immediate past Democratic President of the United States. But, unlike the Democratic incumbent, he does seem to understand the legacy of the former, the most legacy-obsessed chief executive. He appears to recognize that the shibboleths of his party’s left-wing won’t help win the hearts of the American people.

He’s not buying into the class warfare rhetoric of Barack Obama or the president’s intellectual allies in #Occupy Wall Street. “You are kidding yourself,” the New York Democrat said, “if you think you can be one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, have a reputation for being anti-business — and have a rosy economic future.”

Via Instapundit.  Seems this Democrat learned well from his former boss.  His party’s path to victory cannot be on terms which worked in the early parts of the last century.  You can’t treat business as the enemy; the corollary to that notion being that free enterprise is the engine which drives our economy.

Seems this man may succeed where his father failed.

Ed Driscoll, however, thinks Andrew Cuomo Is Kidding Himself (h/t to Insta for this as well).

Wonder if the White House has seen this poll:

Ronald Reagan beat out Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the former president Americans would like to see in the White House during these trying economic times, a new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll finds.

Thirty-six percent of those polled said they wanted the Gipper to lead America out of the economic crisis, while 29 percent picked Roosevelt. Thomas Jefferson came in third place with the support of 14 percent of those polled, followed by Roosevelt’s successorHarry Truman at 8 percent. William Henry Harrison, who was inaugurated in March 1841 and died one month later, came in last with 1 percent support.

Maybe that’s because there’s actual evidence that Reagan’s policies worked, helping end an economic downturn and create an era of prosperity.  By contrast, FDR’s policies worked only in theory.

Well, if the president’s jobs bill enjoys majority support as the Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests, it isn’t helping his overall approval which, according to Gallup, just slipped to 38:

Seems his poll numbers are heading in the opposite direction of the Gipper’s in the third year of his term. Many pundits have claimed that Obama could win because his numbers this year were similar to Reagan’s in 1983. Only problem was that Reagan’s polls started ticking upwards as his economic plan kicked in. Obama’s plan was supposed to start working just a few months after it was passed (more than two years ago).

Maybe that’s because as Jim Hoft reports, “In Ronald Reagan’s third September in office he created 1.1 million jobs in one month.”  (By contrast, “Employers added 103,000 jobs in [Obama's third] September [in office]. Half of those were striking Verizon workers returning to work.”)

Well, technically, the Gipper didn’t create the jobs.  He just put policies in place which made it possible for entrepreneurs and businessmen to create and expand their enterprises, thus making it necessary for them to bring on more employees.

While some in the mainstream media still think President Obama is the favorite in next fall’s presidential election, one statistic should be, well, sobering.  According the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, twice as many registered voters will vote against the Democrat than will vote for him:

Among registered voters, 46% say they will definitely not vote for Obama next year, while only 23% say they definitely will — a slight improvement over August’s results.

And this from a poll with a sample “with a sample tilted toward Democrats”.  A recent McClatchy/Marist poll has an even higher number, “49 percent of voters” saying “they definitely plan to vote against Obama in 2012.” Not just that, the president’s numbers on the economy are in the tank:

His approval numbers on the economy are almost as bad, 32/64, and only 66% of Democrats approve, while 29% disapprove.  Independents disapprove 26/69.  Voters now give an edge to Republicans in Congress on economic leadership, 43/41, never a good sign for an incumbent President.

The current presumptive Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, has a huge advantage on this, the biggest issue on voters’ minds:

Quinnipiac asked respondents whether Obama or Mitt Romney would do better as the nation’s economic leader — and Romney wins by 10 points, 49/39, with indies giving him a 13-point edge, 49/36.

No wonder his team is trying to distract us by focusing on Republicans’ flaws (real, perceived and invented). If the 2012 election were a referendum on Barack Obama, the current opposition would win in a potentially realigning landslide.

UPDATE:  Now, I’m not saying it’s a done deal for the GOP.  The administration’s negative campaign could work.  But, if we go by the WaPo/ABCNews numbers, Obama will have to win approximately 90% of the voters who aren’t yet definitely set on voting for (or against) him.

With a sample, as Ed Morrissey reports, “tilted toward Democrats at 32/25/37,”  the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll finds President Obama and the Tea Party enjoying identical favorable ratings, with “42 percent” approving the job the president is doing while 42 percent support the Tea Party.

Interesting, 47% support the grassroots political movement while “54 percent disapprove” of the incumbent Democratic president.

I am proud this morning to announce my support for Herman Cain for President.

This is a personal decision by me and does not reflect the views of my co-bloggers nor should be construed as an official endorsement by GOPROUD of which I am a board member.

Now that I’m done with that disclaimer….let me shout this from sea to shining sea — AMERICA NEEDS HERMAN CAIN!!!! I have been flirting with the Cain candidacy for over a year now. I had the pleasure to meet him at CPAC and I have been closely following his campaign long before most people knew his name.

I felt it was important to declare my preference publicly today as I have decided to become actively involved in Team Cain to assist in the South Carolina primary and beyond. I owe my readers the transparency of knowing why I am writing about certain things and not to be confused by my intent.

Why Herman Cain? Well, haven’t been this excited about a Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 (the first year I was old enough to truly know anything and make a difference).

Some will now say, “now Bruce….there will never be another Ronald Reagan!” And that is true. And I am NOT equating Mr. Cain to Mr. Reagan. What I am saying is that Mr. Cain excites me with his common sense ideas, love of country, and ability to connect to the American psyche. Choosing a President has always been a “gut feeling” thing for America. I have a great feeling about Herman Cain.

Herman Cain has been plucked by destiny to arrive at America’s electoral doorstep at just the right time. He has a solid business background, is an inspirational leader of people, and understands the complexities of the world economy. He wasn’t a community organizer, he is a jobs and growth creator. He wasn’t a concocted creation of America’s radical left and academic centers of power, he is a true child of the American Experience. He has never scoffed at American values, he embraces our nation’s special place in the history of mankind and knows we are teetering on the edge.

Mr. Cain is familiar with rescuing failing enterprises, which to me is his most important qualification. In a sheer coincidence to the timing of my announcement, Daniel Henninger wrote this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:

Does a résumé like Herman Cain’s add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we’ve fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I’m rewriting my presidential-selection software. [Emphasis added.]

Conventional wisdom holds that this week’s Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they’ve got.

Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain’s life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.

No other GOP candidate can bring the fight to Obama over the sorry state of the American economy than Herman Cain. Our other choices are, I’m sad to say, more of the same old thing — career professional politicians. Yes, even Ron Paul, folks.

So there you have it. My big announcement. Herman Cain is the first Presidential candidate I will actively and ENTHUSIASTICALLY campaign for through blood, sweat, money & tears since Ronald Reagan in 1984. That’s a long time of being unmoved by GOP nominees, don’t you think?

There will be more to say about Herman Cain and the issues. But I wanted to stand up today and proudly declare my support for the 45th President of the United States of America and the next true heir of the American Experience — Mr. Herman Cain.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)