It certainly looks like the folks in the White House are beginning to put Obama's re-election machinery into high gear.  According to Politico, Obama's top hands are laying the groundwork for the 2012 campaign.

Of course, it's not unusual or even unexpected for a president to begin to make high profile preparations for a re-election campaign.  It would be more surprising if he didn't.  But what is surprising is how soon into his term that they've begun to make those moves.  Usually this sort of thing doesn't happen until after the mid-term elections are over.  But given how bad things look for Democrats lately, it doesn't look like they want to wait and take any chances.

And we're sure this story indicating that the younger demographic is beginning to slip away gives the president cause for concern.  Especially when you consider that the greatest percentage of support for Barack Obama in his 2008 election came from young adults:

A year after supporting Barack Obama for president by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are cooling quickly toward his Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.

Some of today's ObamaCare headlines...

Washington Post -- Obama stays on offense with health-care proposal

There had been rampant speculation that the White House would narrow
its ambitions for health-care legislation after the loss of the
Democrats' filibuster-proof
Senate majority last month. Instead, the president's proposal is
striking for the extent to which it hews to the basic scale and
framework of the bills on which Congress has toiled for months.

That decision -- to go big one last time, rather than small -- emerged quickly inside the White House after senior advisers to President Obama concluded privately that his goals for comprehensive changes to the health-care system could not be done piecemeal....

Gay marriage activists in Texas are trying to use divorce as a means to legalizing gay marriage in that state.  And it looks like they've found at least one judge that's willing to help them do it.

Even though only five states currently recognize gay marriage - and even though Texas isn't one of them (having passed a constitutional amendment on the issue) - a state judge has granted a "divorce" to a gay couple in that state who were "married" in another state.

Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has stepped in to stand up for the voters in his state.  After the judges decision, Abbott released a statement saying:

"The Court has no legal authority to
grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this
case to defend the Texas Constitution."

While it might seem kind of obvious to most people (especially Texas voters) that you grant end (by way of divorce) something that state law doesn't recognize as having ever begun.  Which is exactly why gay activist are using the case.  The point is to use the fabricated legal conundrum as a way to bring judges back into the debate in Texas, given that voters in that state have already had their say and rejected gay marriage.

Congressional Democrats have not given up on the idea of passing government run health care - despite the overwhelming opposition of the American public.

Senate and House liberals are co-signing a letter urging Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the budget reconciliation process to push the so-called "public option" through the Senate.  Now that Republicans have the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster, the Democrats want to get around the filibuster all together by using the budget process to pass legislation that would alter 1/6th of the American economy.  Which the majority of the American public do NOT want.

Via CNN:

The fight over health care reform burst back into public view Tuesday as four Democratic senators asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote on a government-run public insurance option.

Some highlights and lowlights...

Planned Parenthood has the keys to the White House

At least metaphorically speaking, that is.  White House visitor logs reveal that, since Obama became President, the folks from Planned Parenthood have pretty much come and gone as they pleased, having access to top White House staffers throughout 2009.  Their first meeting there?  January 20 - Inauguration Day.  (And who says the White House can't get things done quick when they want to?)

As you can imagine, a lot of the meetings seem to have centered on Obama's proposed health care "reform" bill...and the desire of the Planned Parenthood folks to have abortion included as a covered "service" in any new health care system, (government run, or otherwise). And, for the record, it doesn't seem that the pro-life groups have had that kind of access.

Monday, Indiana Democrat Senator Evan Bayh dropped a bombshell on the political world and announced he would not run for re-election this fall - just one day before the deadline to file in that state.

Given that Bayh was a two term incumbent and had about thriteen million dollars in his campaign account, he was the strongest bet the Democrats had to hold the seat this fall.  In fact, in spite of his advantages, the seat was rated as only "slightly" leaning in the Democrats direction, (due in part to the fact that Indiana is generally more of a Republican state).  That's changed now.  Within hours of Bayh's announcement, pundits have switched the contest to "slightly Republican" odds.

Also, from a pro-life standpoint, it increases the odds of another pick-up in the Senate, given that Bayh was pro-abortion, (and both of the leading GOP contenders are solidly pro-life).

Here's a roundup from the pundit class...

Susan Ferrechio: With Bayh's retirement, there are now eight Senate seats currently held by Democrats that Republicans may grab this fall. Seats in Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Illinois, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Delaware were already looking vulnerable. Bayh's decision follows the retirements of Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

Over the course of the past year as the Obama administration and Congress have been busy proposing and debating the creation of new, bigger government programs, the public resistance to bigger and more expensive government has increased, which also translated into more state legislators introducing legislation to have their states opt out of such programs (like ObamaCare).

A recent Rasmussen poll would seem to confirm the resurgence of public support for federalism.  The survey found that 59% of voters agree that states should be able to opt out of federal programs that they oppose.  (Only 25% disagreed, and 15% didn't know)

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think
states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs
if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Seventeen percent
(17%) say states should not have the right to opt out of federally
mandated programs. ...

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 67% of
voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have
the right to opt out of federal programs with which they don’t agree.
Just 37% of Democrats agree.

The latest from the world of politics...

The last of the Kennedy's decides to retire from Congress

Connecticut Representative Patrick Kennedy, (son of former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy), has decided not to run for re-election this year - which means this will be the first time in almost fifty years that a member of the Kennedy clan has not been in Congress.  Kennedy issued a statement announcing his decision, saying that his life was "taking a new direction".

Of course, this is best viewed in the light of the recent stunning upset victory by Scott Brown for his dad's old Senate seat...and the fact that recent polls all point to a tough re-election fight this November for Kennedy.

Over the course of the debate over gay "marriage", supporters have made contended that homosexuals provide stable family environments, at least as much as heterosexuals.  You hear a lot of this in debates over adoption policies as well. Well now a new study is about to be released (out of San Francisco of all places), that should cast some much deserved doubt on that notion.

The study, done by San Francisco State University, was recently previewed in the New York Times (no doubt as potential damage control) and it finds that about half of all male gay couples admit that they regularly engage in sexual activity outside of their "committed" relationship...with the approval of their partner.  Again, half admitted to such behavior, which leaves you to wonder about the other half.

Of course, in the process of doing its damage control duty, the Times did its best to put a positive spin on the study, suggesting that this kind of "transparency can make relationships stronger".

So it's come to this?  Suggesting that "open" marriages can be more stable, therefore gay marriage is no problem?  The one and only reason to even make such a suggestion is because they are worried that this revelation will hurt the chances of approving gay marriage in other states.

As pretty much anyone and everyone who's paid any attention to the news for the past generation knows, Social Security, as it is currently configured, is going to run out of money.  It's simple math.  But it has always (to a great many people) seemed like a distant prospect, not something that demanded to be dealt with right now.

For decades and decades, the program has muddled along, with a few tweaks here and there, running a surplus of funds paid it by workers versus benefits paid to retirees.  And, of course, the federal government "borrowed" those surpluses from the Social Security fund and spent them on just about everything else under the sun.  Which means there has been an ever growing IOU in the "trust fund".  Couple this with the beginning retirements of baby boomers, and many people have pointed out that it's going to be a problem sooner rather than later.

Well, guess what?  That day of reckoning is here.  Via USA Today: