Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has a hair-raising piece in the Telegraph on the contraction of US credit markets:

Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research said US bank loans have fallen at an annual pace of almost 14pc in the three months to August (from $7,147bn to $6,886bn).

"There has been nothing like this in the USA since the 1930s," he said. "The rapid destruction of money balances is madness."

At the end of the piece Congdon tells Evans-Pritchard that "the Federal Reserve and other central banks will be forced to engage in outright monetisation of government debt by next year." Scary stuff.

Obama got a little bounce in his numbers in the wake of his health care speech last Wednesday.  Polling released on Thursday in three-day tracking polls didn't include post-speech numbers, but the numbers from Friday, Saturday, and Sunday all included numbers from the day after the speech.  They all showed steadily increasing numbers for Obama, even reaching the point where his approval rating was positive in RasmussenReports and where majorities approved of his health care plan.

Today, Obama's numbers abruptly inverted.  Support for the health care plan fell back to pre-speech levels (45% approve, 52% disapprove) while his overall approval is back to 50-50.

There's two interpretations.  The first is that there was an unusually bad sample for Obama yesterday that is dragging him down off of his true support.  If this is the case, we should see a bounce-back in three days after today's sample rolls out.

The second is that there was a huge bounce in Obama's support in the two days after the health care speech. These numbers are now cycling out and Obama's numbers are coming down to earth.

I think what we're seeing is more consistent with the first interpretation, and we frequently see the second phenomenon after major events (conventions, debates, SOTU addresses, etc.) but we'll see what other pollsters show, and what happens over the course of the week.

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), whose numbers took a steep drop earlier this summer, now appears to be treading water amid challenging economic times in the Buckeye State. Fourteen months before he stands for re-election his lead has grown to 10 points in a Quinnipiac Poll, but that may be more a result of Republican John Kasich's numbers settling after an announcement boost.

General Election Matchup
Strickland 46 (+3 from last poll, 7/3)
Kasich 36 (-6)
Don't Know 15 (-1)

Strickland Job Approval: 48 / 42

Though his approval number is two points higher, it's still far lower than his all time high from this February, 63 percent. And he's below the 50 percent threshold for any incumbent to feel comfortable at this point. On the economy, only 33 percent approve of his performance, while 54 percent disapprove.

Forty-three percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Strickland, compared to 34 percent who view him unfavorably. Kasich, a former Congressman and Fox News Channel host, is viewed favorably by 22 percent and unfavorably by 10 percent, with 68 percent saying they haven't heard enough.

Asked if they were satisfied with how things were going in Ohio, only 39 percent were very or somewhat satisfied, compared to 60 percent who were somewhat or very unsatisfied. On the question of whether Strickland has kept his campaign promises, 37 percent said yes, 40 percent said no.

Strickland leads Kasich by 5.7 percent in the RCP Polling Average.

The survey of 1,074 Ohio voters was conducted Sept. 10-13, and had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

A new CNN/Opinion Research survey (Sept. 11-13, 1012 A, MoE +/- 3%) finds President Obama's approval ratings on the rise since his speech last week -- both overall, as well as on individual issues such as health care (51%), the economy (54%), foreign affairs (58%) and taxes (52%). More still disapprove of his handling of the federal budget deficit (51%), but his approval on the issue is up 10 points (to 46%).

Obama now has a 58% job approval rating, up 5 points since the previous poll in late August; his disapproval rating, 40%, is down 5 points.

Although nearly three in five approve of the job he's doing in office, just half (51%) favor his proposal to reform the country's health care system, while 46% oppose it. That is up from last month (48% support/51% oppose), but shows that the country remains split on the issue. Of those in favor of the plan, only half "strongly favor" it, while the other half "moderately favor" it.

Less than half (47%) now believe that reform would increase the amount they pay for medical care, down from 55% last month. More think their family would, in general, be about the same (43%) rather than better off (21%) or worse off (35%), while respondents were split on the welfare of senior citizens as a result of reform -- 37% said they would be worse off, 36% about the same and 24% better off.

Adults are split on whether they think Obama and Congress "will be able to make substantial progress toward passing health care reform by the end of 2009" -- 50% say it's likely and 48% say it's unlikely. Three in five (61%) say Republicans are being obstructionist for political reasons, while 35% say they're offering constructive criticism.

Here's a question: if I went out and made a claim I believed but no one else thought possible - that a greyhound could outrun a cheetah, for example - would that be considered a lie or just naive, wishful thinking?

The reason I bring this up is because Bob Herbert made a rather astonishing admission about President Obama's health care plan in his column on Saturday:

The president also said, as he estimated the cost of his proposal at $900 billion over 10 years, that he “will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”

I'm sure he means it. But I have not spoken to anyone, either on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, who believes that is doable. (emphasis added)

So Obama's assertion he can expand coverage and care without adding a dime to the deficit over the next ten years is, by the admission of even one of his most ardent supporters,  a claim that virtually no one believes. Generically speaking, when someone makes a claim that no one believes it's characterized as a lie.

But the difference between wishful thinking and a lie comes down to intent. This is why the operative line in Herbert's column is "I'm sure he [Obama] really believes it." Because if Obama really believes his claim then it can't be considered a lie, just as I  wouldn't technically be guilty of lying if I believed in my heart that a greyhound could outrun a cheetah. What I would be guilty of, however, is gross naivete and wishful thinking.

So, depending on what you think of Obama's intent, the best case scenario is that he's guilty of wishful thinking while the worst case scenario is that he is intentionally being dishonest and misleading the American people about the financials of his health care plan.

This brings to mind an episode not so long ago when another President made a claim which, by all accounts, he really believed to be true.  Unlike the case with Obama, however, where we can't find any experts willing to support his claim, when President George W. Bush went before the country in 2002 and stated he believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs there was a truckload of people - including a number of Democratic Senators, the Clinton administration, current and former intelligence officials, and a number of foreign governments - who had all seen the evidence and came to the same conclusion as President Bush.

But that didn't stop liberals and Democrats in Congress from repeating over and over again for years that Bush "lied" about the matter. Not surprisingly, one of the loudest and most shrill of those voices was Bob Herbert, who opined regularly that the Bush administration "specialized in deceit" and was guilty of "incompetence, duplicity, bad faith and outright lies."

In a December, 2005 column Herbert slammed President Bush over a speech he gave outlining the situation in Iraq, writing that "Mr. Bush could have been honest about this yesterday, but he chose not to be."

Herbert concluded by saying, "a president who's little more than a bundle of talking points cannot possibly maintain the long-term trust and confidence of the public."

Obama should heed those words because whether he's guilty of naivete, wishful thinking or something worse, the public doesn't seem to trust that his health care math adds up.

A few days ago, I authored a post noting that Colorado's appointed Senator Michael Bennet was vulnerable against some relatively no-name opponents (although upon further review, both opponents brought some real strengths to the table).  To be sure, part of Bennet's problem is that he was relatively unknown -- googling him returns more hits about the dancer and the football player than it does about the Senator.  Presumably he has more room for growth than most incumbents who find themselves under 50%.

At any rate, he will have a top-notch opponent later this week.  The Denver Post's Dan Haley reports:

The Republican contest for Colorado's U.S. Senate seat so far has been like a NASCAR race in a mud bog. Lots of shiny race cars revving their engines, but no one gaining any real traction.

Enter new driver Jane Norton, the former lieutenant governor and half of a GOP power couple. (Her husband, Mike, is a former U.S. attorney who ran for Congress in the 1980s.)

Last week, Norton — no, not Gale Norton or Kay Norton — filed paperwork to form an exploratory committee. Even though she has no voting record and no readily known stances on hot-button issues — one insider even admitted she can't remember what Norton's voice sounds like — the former lite guv will be a game-changer in the crowded primary field. That is, if conservatives decide that winning is more important than past indiscretions. (More on that in a bit.)

Norton is a protege of former Governor Bill Owens, who is conservative but has endorsed some tax hikes and other measures that are anathema to movement conservatives.  Norton herself is something of a blank slate, so she can tailor many of her positions as she sees fit.  This turns the race into a top-tier event.

USA Today's blog post carrying the write up of its new survey (with Gallup) carries the same headline as the one at ABC News this morning:  Poll: Speech doesn't boost Obama. Obama's job approval in the new USAT/Gallup survey is 54%, unchanged from the two polls taken in August. On the other hand, his disapproval rating has jumped from 38% in August to 43% in the latest survey, the highest it's ever been in USAT/Gallup.

Overall, Obama's job approval rating in the updated RCP Average is 52.3% and his disapproval is at an all time high of 44.2%

If it was ever in question, it isn't anymore. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced today that he will vote 'No' on a potential resolution that condemns Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) actions last week during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress.

Greg Sargent reported today that Democrats are planning a "resolution of disapproval," the lowest of four levels of condemnation in the House (below reprimand, censure and expulsion).

“Rep. Wilson has apologized to the President, and the President accepted his apology," Boehner said in a released statement. "Last Thursday, Speaker Pelosi said that she believed it was time to move on and discuss health care. I couldn't agree more, and that's why I plan to vote ‘no' on this resolution. Instead of pursuing this type of petty partisanship, we should be working together to lower costs and expand access to affordable, high-quality health coverage on behalf of the American people."

Since Wilson's "You lie!" outburst last Wednesday, both he and his Democratic challenger in the 2010 election, Rob Miller, have reportedly raised more than $1 million. The action has clearly energized both conservatives and liberals.

A new Marist Poll finds President Obama's job approval rating in the state of New York at 57% -- down from previous months -- with 43% disapproving (Sept. 8-10, 805 RV, MoE +/- 3.5%). The president enjoyed a 63% approval rating in July and 64% in May.

By party, 79% of Democrats approve of Obama's job performance, as do 53% of independents and 29% of Republicans.

On health care, which remains atop the congressional agenda, 52% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while 60% approve of his handling of the economy.

Instead of promising to fund health care without adding to the deficit by wringing hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse out of the system (which, curiously, is something that apparently can't be done without expanding coverage at the same time), here's a suggestion for President Obama to raise $435.45 million dollars to fund health care reform TODAY.

All he has to do is ask the eight richest Democratic members of Congress (John Kerry, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Warner, Jared Polis, Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Harry Teague) - all of whom are in favor of Obama's plan - to donate any assets in excess of $25 million to help fund Obamacare.  John Kerry's contribution alone would be $142.55 million.

Really, why can't these Democrats squeeze by on just $25 million in assets so the rest of the country can be granted the "civil right" of health care coverage? After all, didn't all these folks support Obama's vision of "spreading the wealth around" to help benefit the lesser among us? Now's the time to prove it.

Health care problem solved. Now, which Democrats want to pony up to save the planet by funding the cap and trade bill? Somebody get Al Gore's phone number for the President.....