Being a tea party member is no cup of tea.

According to a recent New York Times/CBS survey, tea party members are less popular than atheists, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, and 21 other groups. The movement has lost 20 percent of its supporters and gained 40 percent more opponents, according to the poll. Another NYT/CBS poll published earlier this month revealed that the tea party’s unfavorable rating had increased 29 percent since April.

According to the Times, the tea party is catching up to the Christian Right’s low popularity. Times writers David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam present possible justifications for this, stating that the tea party’s mixing of politics and religion simply doesn’t appeal to the majority of Americans. Citing Texas Governor Rick Perry’s prayer rally and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s “lengthy prayers at campaign stops,” the story claims pro-tea party folks are becoming “increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans.”

“Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose,” the authors wrote. “While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.”

Read More at the Daily Caller  By Laura Donovan, The Daily Caller

Last May I wrote the Pakistanis cannot be trusted. I hate being right about Pakistan.

The Pakistani government views China as a better ally than the unstable United States under Barack Obama, and their relationship with us has deteriorated since the killing of Osama bin Laden. They were upset about not being allowed to warn the al-Qaeda leader about the planned raid on his compound as they clearly did in 1998, before the retaliatory cruise missile attacks for the U.S. embassy attacks in Africa.

During the raid that killed bin Laden, the United States lost a stealth helicopter modeled after the MH-60 Blackhawk. Its exterior was modified to reduce its radar signature, and its engines and blades were developed to reduce noise, making this platform a perfect infiltration machine. Unfortunately, during its landing the helicopter’s tail struck a fence, forcing it to crash. With no chance of carrying the ship’s remaining secrets away, explosives were used to render the wreckage components useless.

Embarrassed and angry at not being informed of the raid beforehand, the Pakistanis threatened to grant China access to the remains of the helicopter. Despite the Obama administration’s request not to do so, they did anyway. As reported by the Financial Times, an anonymous U.S. Intelligence Official said, “The U.S. now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad.”

The administration thought they had won a diplomatic victory when Sen. John Kerry went to Pakistan to grovel before the Pakistanis, begging to get the helicopter back. It was reported that the highly photographed tail portion was sent back, but as always, it’s difficult to believe Barack Obama about anything. There was enough left behind to sell to the highest bidder.

Read More at Floyd Reports  By Jim Emerson, Floyd Reports

A day after clashing with a tea party activist, President Obama Tuesday told crowds here that it was “a faction in Congress” that was to blame for blocking economic progress.

At a rural jobs forum, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of pending bills that he said would create jobs.

“The only thing that’s preventing us from passing the bills I just mentioned is the refusal of a faction in Congress to put country ahead of party,” the president said in a thinly veiled reference to House Republicans backed by the tea party. “That has to stop.”

At a town-hall meeting Monday night in Decorah, Iowa, Mr. Obama was confronted by Ryan Rhodes, a leader of the tea party in this state. Mr. Rhodes told the president that his calls for civility were meaningless while Democrats such as Vice President Joseph R. Biden have referred to tea party members as “terrorists.”

The president said he agreed with Mr. Rhodes that “everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric.”

 Read More at The Washington Times  By Dave Boyer, The Washington Times

Captains of industry have begun, in uncustomary fashion, speaking up against President Barack Obama and his policies – and the chorus will likely grow louder going into next year’s presidential election, perhaps swaying independent voters. The president may dismiss the chorus as the rantings of greedy “corporate jet owners,” but he may soon see himself on a collision course with big job creators during his 2012 reelection campaign – a time when job creation and the economy well could be issues driving the electorate.

It is usually frowned upon – even looked upon as taboo – for CEOs of major U.S. companies, and especially multinational corporations, to openly criticize the president or show outright partisanship toward or against a political party. At least publicly. But recently – and, especially, within the past month – corporate leaders have begun to openly criticize administration policies as helping to depress the nation’s business climate.

In that time, three major business leaders spoke out against the Obama administration: Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot; Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants (parent of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s); and casino tycoon Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts. They contend that President Obama has strangled the economy and hamstrung job growth in the country. As Puzder told me directly, businesses in the country “are being actually prevented” from creating jobs because of the administration.

CEOs are typically careful, measured and scripted when making political remarks, but that approach is changing, likely because of the Obama administration’s constant demonization of corporate America.

During a well-publicized company conference call last month, Wynn, a self-described Democrat and supporter of fellow Nevadan Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told listeners, “This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime.” He added that businesses “are frightened to death about all the new regulations,” singling out Obamacare as a major challenge for companies. Fear of the administration, he said, “makes you slow down and not invest your money.”

Read More at CA Political Review By Brian Calle, California Political Review

When the implosion of the Gingrich campaign freed up key former aides to Rick Perry, chatter in the pundit class immediately focused on the possibility of the Texas governor’s running. It initially seemed like inside-baseball talk run amok, but soon enough came word that Perry was seriously thinking about it, reports of his meeting with outside policy experts, and then this weekend — the announcement.

There are two schools of thought on Perry. One says his strength on the cusp of his announcement mostly had to do with his being a relative unknown and not yet in the race. Others see a truly formidable candidacy in the making — one that can steal establishment support from Mitt Romney and compete with Michele Bachmann for tea-party and evangelical voters, all while touting a record of accomplishment more impressive than any of the other candidates’.

It surely is some of both. Perry hasn’t yet had a campaign flub, nor had to endure the constant scrutiny of the campaign trail. It’s easy for people to project whatever they want onto him. But he starts off from a position of strength. He gets an automatic entrée into the top tier and an excellent chance to become Romney’s chief competitor, if not himself the frontrunner. Besides Bachmann, he’s the only current officeholder among the top candidates. There’s no arguing with his experience as governor the last ten years of one of the country’s most populous and economically dynamic states. He has a natural narrative as the outsider who has succeeded in addressing the nation’s foremost problem — jobs — by rejecting the nostrums popular in Washington today. He’s a down-the-line conservative with a no-holds-barred combativeness when both substantive purity and a hard-line affect are highly prized by the party’s grassroots.
He must be taken seriously. Whether he gets the nomination will depend in part on these five questions:

1. Can he win Iowa?

Perry obviously would have enormous strengths in the South and especially in the crucial South Carolina primary. But he has to get there first, which probably means winning in Iowa. New Hampshire isn’t typically happy hunting grounds for southern evangelicals — witness the humbling of George W. Bush in the 2000 primary and Mike Huckabee’s distant third-place finish in 2008. In theory, perhaps Perry could finish second in Iowa and second in New Hampshire and still retain significant support going into South Carolina, but Mitt Romney proved in 2008 that boasting of “silver medals” doesn’t count for much. Especially given the large expectations for Perry, anything but first in Iowa would be a blow.

Read More at National Review  Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry, National Review