Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

FRIDAY,  APRIL 9,  2010

SOMETHING ELSE SNEAKING UP – AT 8:10 P.M. ET:  As we struggle to regenerate our economy, the oil boys are waiting in the wings.  Not good, not good.  From CBS Chicago:

Don't look now, but a gradual rise in gasoline prices has suddenly turned into a gallop, with drivers facing a new round of sticker shock...

...The growing pain at the pump kind of snuck up on many Chicago drivers, but now they're really feeling the bite.

"I just paid $3.54 for gas," said Michelle as she filled up at a Chicago gas station. "It's just outrageous."

Just a month ago, according to AAA Chicago, unleaded regular averaged $2.86 a gallon in the Chicago area.

COMMENT:  This has gotten remarkably little publicity, perhaps because the increases have come slowly this time.  The increase in gas prices, expected to reach four dollars a gallon soon, can put a serious damper over any economic recovery. 

No doubt some "environmentalists" are delighted.  The higher the price of gasoline, the less is purchased.  Who cares about that working stiff who needs his car to get to the job?  Why, if he'd had any sense, he'd have gone to Harvard Law and learned to take public transport. 

This can have political implications as the midterms approach.  Once again we'll be reminded of our dependence on foreign oil, and the fact that we're not permitted to develop our own domestic resources.  And higher oil prices, which must be paid by businesses, can mean more layoffs and fewer new employees being hired.

Anything being done about this in Washington?  Nah.  Washington is in the clouds, thinking about grander things.

April 9, 2010    Permalink

OBAMA NOMINEE DENOMINATES HERSELF – AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  On the day when President Obama learned that he'll have another Supreme Court appointment, he also learned how hard the confirmation process is when you nominate a controversial figure.  From The Politico: 

Dawn Johnsen withdrew her bid to be confirmed as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel Friday because of the “lengthy delays and political opposition” to her stalled nomination.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had recommended her confirmation on party-line votes. But Johnsen’s confirmation has been delayed for about a year. Republicans objected to her outspoken criticism of torture and terrorist interrogation practices under President George W. Bush.

“I am deeply honored that President Obama, the Attorney General and a strong majority of the U.S. Senate have demonstrated faith and confidence in my ability to lead the Office of Legal Counsel,” she said in a statement. “Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly.”

Johnsen would have been a senior aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. When President Barack Obama recently decided to offer recess appointments to 15 stalled nominees, Johnsen’s name was notably absent from the list.

COMMENT:  In other words, "Take a hike, Dawn."  Dawn Johnsen now joins a host of other Obama loyalists who reside beneath the bus that they were thrown under.  But there's plenty of shade, and the oil leak was patched. 

Johnsen was too far to the left for that job, and her withdrawal is no loss to justice.

April 9, 2010    Permalink

CREDIBLE THREAT – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  This one, reminding us that the war on terror is still red hot, kind of crept up on us.  From Fox:

The State Department has been providing South African police with extensive training after threats against the American and British teams during the world's most-watched sporting event.

We forget how popular soccer is around the world.

Al Qaeda has put the American and British soccer teams directly in its crosshairs, circulating word online that the athletes are prime targets for an attack at the World Cup Games in South Africa in June -- and the State Department has been providing South African police with extensive training in an effort to prevent a catastrophe at the most-watched sporting event in the world.

The threats from Al Qaeda target a range of teams competing at the World Cup, but the June 12 USA vs. England match, scheduled for live broadcast, is the terrorists’ top priority, according to threats published in an online Jihadist magazine.

“The game … is broadcast live. The stadium is full of a Crusader audience while the sound of a blast shocks the stands and turns the stadium on its head. God willing, there will [be] dozens and hundreds of casualties. 50 grams alone are sufficient for such an operation,” reads a post on the online magazine.

“All the inspection barriers and the x-ray screening machines the U.S. may send after reading this article will not bring about the discovery of the manner in which these explosives will be brought into the stadium, for a simple reason that will be made known at the appropriate time.”

The South African Ministry of Police says it is aware of the threats, and the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security is providing support as the host country beefs up security in preparations for the tournament.

COMMENT:  Sporting events have been a traditional terror target.  The most horrible example, of course, was the murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games.  A terror attack on the Super Bowl was the featured event in the popular novel, and film, "Black Sunday." 

I would take this threat very seriously.  Also, I'm far from convinced that the South African authorities, living in a country where they're routinely taught to hate the Americans and the British, are adequate to protect the teams. 

It's a little crazy to have a world-class event, and an obvious terror target, in an unstable country like South Africa, and we have a right to be concerned about our athletes.

April 9, 2010    Permalink

BULLETIN:  STEVENS TO RETIRE – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Associate Justice John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court has announced his retirement.

Justice Stevens is the honorary leader of the Court's liberal bloc.  So, you will be reading a great deal of gibberish that Obama's choice to replace him will "not change the Court's ideological balance."  Don't believe a word of that.  Liberalism, like any other philosophy, has degrees.  Stevens is a mainstream liberal, not a radical liberal.  Obama, who will seek confirmation before the November elections, may go for broke and name a gold-plated lefty.

Justice Stevens's retirement means there will be no Protestants on the Supreme Court.  I bring that up only because there is so much hoopla about other groups.  Protestants deserve their day in court, so to speak, as well.  This will be brought to Obama's attention, and I have a hunch he will appoint a Protestant to avoid flak. 

Let the speculation begin.  Names to come.

April 9, 2010    Permalink 

DEMS HAVE IMAGE PROBLEMS – AT 10:40 A.M. ET:  I'm so upset by this.  Imagine, the Democratic Party is having image problems, according to the latest Gallup Poll.  Who would have guessed?  Why, when you look at Pelosi and Reid, and Barney Frank, and Charlie Rangel, don't you just think "winners"?   From The Politico:

The Democratic Party's favorability rating has dropped to the "lowest point in the 18-year history" of Gallup testing that number, the pollster reports. Just 41 percent of voters have a favorable impression of the Democratic Party, compared with 42 percent who have a positive view of the GOP. Democrats held an 11-point lead on this question when Gallup polled it late last summer.

COMMENT:  Now the idea for the GOP is to act in such a way as to increase its favorability number.  We simply cannot rest on the incompetence of the opposition.

April 9, 2010    Permalink

MORE UPCOMING NEWS TO EXCITE YOU – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  As American foreign policy rolls along from one spectacular success to another, there is news being made by those culturally misunderstood folks with those little beards and those belts with wires attached:

(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will unveil new "third generation" centrifuges later on Friday capable of much faster uranium enrichment, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said.

"Iran will demonstrate third generation centrifuges today which have a separation power 10 times that of the first generation," Ali Akbar Salehi said at a speech marking Iran's annual national nuclear day, according to a text of his speech given to Reuters in advance.

I know you'll all want to send your congratulations.  We'll try to provide an address. 

And then there's this:

United States President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Friday that there is no guarantee sanctions will change Iran's behavior but he believes steady international pressure could alter Tehran's nuclear calculations over time.

Huh?  Wha..?  Over time?  Over time?  How much time we talkin' 'bout?  Is this man real?

"If the question is, do we have a guarantee as to the sanctions we are able to institute at this stage are automatically going to change Iranian behavior, of course we don't," Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America."

Earth to small-time Chicago politician:  Then what is the purpose of them?  They're moving toward a bomb every day?

"The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don't."

Oh dear Lawd.  Aren't you reassured by that?  That is the president of the United States speaking.  Does this gent understand what happens when "they don't" change behavior?  The operative word is BOOM!  And it hurts. 

Some of you old enough to remember may recall a radio, and then a television program, called "The Original Amateur Hour."  Amateur acts would come on and compete for audience acclaim.  Do you get the feeling that Barack Obama, in a past life, was a contestant? 

In fact, I recall he was Contestant #2.  Barry from Indonesia.  He was a comedian, unintentionally. 

April 9, 2010    Permalink

BULLETIN:  STUPAK TO LEAVE CONGRESS – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Bart Stupak, informal head of the pro-life Democrats in the House, will announce his retirement from Congress, CNN reports:

Marquette, Michigan (CNN) – Nine-term Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, will reveal Friday he is retiring from Congress, several Democratic sources close to Stupak tell CNN.

The anti-abortion Democrat has been facing opposition from both the right and the left for his 11th hour deal with the White House that he says bans federal funding for abortion. The deal ultimately led to his decisive vote in favor of the health care bill.

Stupak first informed Democratic leaders last week that he was considering retiring. He has received calls from President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others urging him to run again.

Democratic sources in Washington and Michigan say they fear losing Stupak, a historically popular Democrat in a sprawling conservative district, will mean likely losing his seat to the Republicans.

COMMENT:  Stupak, it's widely felt, sold out his constituency by voting for health-care "reform" after getting Obama to sign, with no cameras present, a piece of paper that presumably bans federal funding for abortion.  Not many people on the pro-life side take that piece of paper seriously.

Stupak's retirement is a big deal.  It may, we hope, send a message from the American people to "moderate" Democrats that we expect them to behave like moderates when they're in Congress, not just when they're running.  If Stupak is brought down because he's perceived to have sold out, a chill will go up many moderate spines in the Democratic Party.

April 9, 2010   Permalink

THE ARROGANCE ROLLS ON – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  Have you ever seen a more arrogant, self-righteous administration?  When have you last seen a president who seems so willing constantly to fly in the face of public opinion? 

Now we have the new trial balloon, floating grandly above us.  To pay for this administration's recklessness, we must, say some stern people, adopt a VAT, a value added tax.  Why, that's just what we need to get us back on the road to economy recovery, more taxes!  Are they not brilliant?  Are you not impressed with their College Board scores?

The Washington Examiner deals with the idea, giving it the respect it deserves:

When drug addicts do speedballs, they combine cocaine and heroin in one massive dose that lets them experience the former drug's instant rush with the euphoria induced by the latter. Druggies say it's an incredible high, but it's also often a short one because the cocaine effects wear off quickly and the addict dies from an acute heroin overdose that paralyzes the lungs. Sounds a lot like what Washington's political establishment is trying now to avoid admitting its spending addiction.

The political speedball would combine the quick rush of income tax increases with the euphoria induced by a value-added tax on consumption. Tax increases typically produce a revenue spurt that quickly cools off as people find creative ways to evade them, while the VAT keeps taxing consumption at every stage from production to purchase of a product. European VATs typically create substantial revenue streams, but stifle entrepreneurial energy and job creation. That's why all of Europe's welfare states are slow-growth economies.

And...

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has long pushed for a VAT, predicted it will come soon in "a larger overhaul of the tax code."

And...

...the fundamental problem here is not that Americans pay too little in taxes, it's that Washington politicians can't stop spending more and more of our money every year. By 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending will equal 90 percent of the country's gross domestic product. So our politicians clearly have no intention of checking into spending rehab. They're counting on getting that euphoria with the VAT fix. If they do, the rest of us will be left with a dead economy.

COMMENT:  Unbelievable, incredible.  They just passed a health "reform" bill, claiming it will save money.  Now they're telling us we need the VAT to compensate for the huge debts that health bill, plus other "reforms," will bring. 

The people pushing us must think we're very stupid.  But that's the point.  That's exactly what they think.

Will the VAT get through?

I think the issue is in doubt.  People on our side know the damage it can do.  But Obama and his crowd will simply say to the American people, "Without a VAT, no more health care."  That's the way the game is played.  Scare the people into paying taxes.

Oh, of course we'll be told that the VAT will be fashioned so that the poor and middle class are not hurt.  Yeah, right.  As if the poor and middle class aren't hurt by a dying economy. 

The Dems are building up a huge class of citizens dependent on the government.  They are the Pauls who receive what we rob from the Peters.  They will vote for the VAT.  They will vote for Obama.  They will have their free lunch.  And a lot of great boys and girls who, in previous times, might have dreamed of doing something great with their lives, will sit around and ask, "Why bother?"

Thus a civilization dies.

April 9, 2010    Permalink

SAY WHAT? – AT 7:59 A.M. ET:  The New York Times is running an op-ed that will get a lot of play by Dems wanting to justify Obama's new nuclear-weapons policy.  CAUTION LIGHTS SHOULD BE ON:

IN the spring of 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a sweeping change in the American approach to nuclear war. Henceforth, the United States would rule out waging nuclear war against non-nuclear states. It would eliminate the “ambiguity” of previous strategies, drawing a stark line between conventional and nuclear wars. And the primary role of nuclear weapons would henceforth be to deter nuclear war: to indicate to American adversaries (namely, the Soviet Union) that any attack would engender overwhelming retaliation and hence amount to national suicide...

...On Monday, President Obama announced, in his Nuclear Posture Review, a new American approach to nuclear war that comes right out of Eisenhower’s playbook. And, indeed, Mr. Obama quickly came under criticism from those who have argued that new American technologies, together with the diminished capacity of traditional adversaries, have now made nuclear war winnable.

COMMENT:  First, let me concede that I am not familar with the exact text of Eisenhower's order.  But if you Google the subject, you'll find that there was a massive amount of paper coming out of the Eisenhower administration on the subject of nuclear weapons during this period.  There was also raging debate inside the U.S. government, leading to the resignations of some very high-profile military men, like Gen. James Gavin. 

The op-ed piece does not give exact wording.  But please note that Eisenhower had already threatened the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers when he threatened to use them to end the Korean War.  It is inconceivable to me that Ike would have ruled out, in advance, the use of tactical nuclear weapons to respond to a massive conventional attack by, say, China, whose conventional forces dwarfed ours.

This is going to be a continuing discussion.  I'm hopeful that someone with detailed knowledge of the Eisenhower administration will elaborate on this op-ed, which I have to believe is over-simplified.

April 9,  2010   Permalink

THURSDAY,  APRIL 8,  2010

QUESTION ANSWERED – AT 8:28 P.M. ET:  A couple of posts down I expressed the wish that pollsters would ask more about Obama's foreign policy.  And now, by pure coincidence, my wish has been answered via Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Time's Top of the Ticket blog.

It turns out that polling has been done by Scott Rasmussen, and the president doesn't come out too well:

The ink isn't even dry on the president's treaty signature in Prague on Thursday, and he's still dining in old castles over there. But Rasmussen Reports finds that not even....

...one-in-three thinks it was a good idea to agree with the Medvedev-Putin gang to cut the number of U.S. warheads to 1,550.

In fact, 53% think it was a bad idea. (Sixteen percent are unsure, but they're being rounded up as we write.)

In fact again, only 31% believes the Russians will actually do what they just promised to do. How's that for job approval?

Not that the leaders of either nation admit to paying attention to polls because they know best.

Speaking of knowing best, earlier this week the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner announced a new unilateral nuclear arms use policy for the United States. Obama prohibited this country from using such weapons against a non-nuclear-armed country even if that country unleashed biological or chemical weapons against the United States.

Previous presidents of both parties have chosen not to announce when they would not use nuclear weapons, thinking that the possibility of annihilation might discourage an enemy attack. Obama has now erased that uncertainty except, he says, for Iran and North Korea.

The same Rasmussen national phone poll finds that 55% of Americans disagree with the Democrat's thinking on this one too. One-in-four agree with Obama.

Additionally, 45% of Americans side with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in opposing Obama's decision to halt new nuclear weapons development; 34% like the Democrat's plan.

COMMENT:  I once asked the late Charles Kuralt to name the most important thing he'd learned in all his years of doing the "On the Road" series for CBS News, an enterprise that took him around the United States.  "I've always been impressed," he replied, "at how well informed Americans are."

That's a contrarian opinion, of course.  The elites believe that Americans, as opposed to say, rural Norwegians, are dumb and empty-headed.  The elites are wrong and Kuralt was right.  The poll results reported here show that Americans are watching, listening, interested, and forming their opinions, as they always have.

And those opinions are correct.  The president is taking us down a hazardous path.  Americans understand that.  I hope they send an appropriate message at the polls.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

FLORIDA FOLLY – AT 7:56 P.M. ET:   This morning I wrote about Marco Rubio, a rising star in GOP politics.  He is the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Florida, defeating incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist.

We now learn that Crist isn't going quietly.  News reports indicate that he is seriously considering dropping out of the Republican primary race and running for the Senate as an independent.  Apparently, it would be comparatively easy for him, under Florida law, to make the transition and take his campaign funds with him. 

Crist could wind up splitting the GOP vote, acting as a spoiler, and allowing a Democrat to win.  That will end his political career.  Or, he could actually win, since he'd be running in a general election, which will include liberal and independent voters. 

I hope that some major Republican figures have Crist's cell phone number and make a couple of calls, suggesting that Crist consider the practice of law, or cooking, or something, instead of becoming a pariah within the GOP. 

It would be a shame to see Marco Rubio's rise threatened by a spoiler tactic.  We'll watch this closely.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

PRESIDENT STILL SLUGGISH IN FOX POLL – AT 7:46 P.M. ET:  Fox confirms what other polls are showing, that any bounce the president may have gotten after the passage of the health-care bill has flown away:

Two weeks after President Obama signed the new health care bill, opposition to it remains strong. In addition, the president’s legislative victory did not help his job approval rating, which hit a new low in a Fox News poll released Thursday.

The poll also finds more voters would punish rather than reward incumbents who voted for the health care bill, and that the Democratic win did nothing to energize the party faithful for the midterms.

President Obama’s overall job approval rating dropped to a new low of 43 percent. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- disapprove. In mid-March, it was 46-48 percent. His current rating among Democrats (80 percent) and independents (38 percent) are among his lowest ratings with these groups. He is now in single digits among Republicans (7 percent). By comparison, former President George W. Bush’s approval among Democrats went as low as 4 percent.

The poll finds by a 54 to 39 percent margin, American voters oppose the new health care law. Just prior to the bill’s passage, 55 percent opposed, while 35 percent favored the overhaul.

And get this:

Interest in this fall’s elections among Democratic voters continues to fall far below that of Republicans.

COMMENT:  Voters say the economy will be their number one issue, which is not surprising.  I'd like to see, though, how the president stands on foreign policy.  The signing of the arms-control treaty today is a pretty slim reed.  The rest of the record is failure and excuse.

Obama now says that sanctions against Iran are just weeks away.  Trouble is, they were weeks away a year ago.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

JOB SHOCK – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  There was some guardedly good news on jobs last week, but things seem to have slipped back.  This wasn't expected:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims increased by 18,000 in the week ending April 3, to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That's worse than economists' estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The report covers the week that includes the Easter holiday, and a Labor Department analyst said seasonal adjustment for Easter can be difficult since the holiday occurs in different weeks each year.

California also closed its state offices for a holiday March 31, the analyst said, which likely held down the claims figures. On an unadjusted basis, claims rose by 6,500 to nearly 415,000.

Economists closely watch unemployment claims, which are seen as a gauge of layoffs and a measure of companies' willingness to hire new workers.

The four week average, which smooths volatility, rose to 450,250. Two weeks ago, the average fell to its lowest level since September 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the financial crisis intensified.

Jobless claims peaked during the recession at 651,000 in late March 2009.

COMMENT:  If this can't be turned around in the seven months before the midterms, Democrats will take a bath.  We'll supply the soap.  And maybe bubbles too.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA? – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  The great Michael Ledeen, who has been more right on Iran than any scholar out there, now turns his attention to a deft analysis, at Pajamas Media, of Barack Obama, what he is, and why.  Required reading, I think.  Thanks to Ed Lasky of American Thinker for alerting us to this. 

Obama, Ledeen says, should be seen as a guy in a classroom.

Because he’s the stereotypical American undergrad at a stereotypical Ivy League college in the age of political correctness.

He doesn’t much like America or Americans, or the “former colonial powers” like Britain. Like so many would-be intellectuals, he admires lefty writers and screenwriters and actors and actresses. He likes the downtrodden, like the Palestinians, but he’s overcome with awe for the occasional cool (non-Western) monarch or emperor (whether Arab or Chinese). He probably has a Che tee shirt tucked away in a drawer, don’t you think?

He doesn’t know much history...

The most important thing to this president is how you feel and what you say, not all those annoying facts...

And, like most students, when the debate goes badly for him, the president makes fun of his critics–when he actually lets them talk a little bit....

As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?

Well, grownups don’t necessarily agree. It all depends how you get there, and what the others do along the way. We do have real enemies, but our undergrad-president understands their ire and shares their pain...

Finally, he doesn’t seem to realize what a mess he’s making. And when he gets his grades, he blames the professors (we the people, in this case) for being unfair...

That’s the sort we’ve been graduating for a generation or more, isn’t it?   Did you really think we’d never get one as president?

Great stuff.  Read the whole thing.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

PENNSYLVANIA – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Pennsylvania has been trending Democratic in recent elections, but the drift may be reversed this year.  A new Quinnipiac poll shows GOP Senate candidate Pat Toomey waltzing past new Democratic convert Arlen Specter:

Republican Pat Toomey is back on top 46 - 41 percent over Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's seesaw U.S. Senate race, while Attorney General Tom Corbett, the leader for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, remains ahead of each of the three top Democratic contenders by double digits, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Gov. Ed Rendell's job approval rating is 45 - 45 percent, up from a negative 43 - 49 percent last month, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds. But President Barack Obama's approval is a negative 45 - 49 percent, down from 49 - 46 percent.

Disapproval of the President's health care plan, 53 - 39 percent, is unchanged from a 52 - 37 percent disapproval March 2. Pennsylvania voters say 39 - 20 percent they are more likely to vote against a lawmaker who supported the health plan.

Toomey, a former congressman who is unchallenged for the GOP Senate nomination, trailed Specter 49 - 42 percent March 2. The two men have swapped the lead by small margins since last fall.

Toomey also leads U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who is challenging Specter in the Democratic primary, by 42 - 34 percent. Specter leads Sestak for the Democratic nomination 53 - 32 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday of likely Democratic primary voters, a different sample.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  One of the GOP dreams is to pick up Pennsylvania in the 2012 presidential election.  Big state.  Mucho electoral votes.  Let's start thinking that way.  With Marco Rubio leading in Florida, that state will have a powerful GOP effort in 2012. 

Win.  I'm not interested in anything else for 2012.  No excuses.

April 8, 2010    Permalink

THE NEW STAR – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  At political meetings I attend, most of the talk isn't about Scott Brown of Massachusetts, but about Marco Rubio, running for the GOP Senate nomination in Florida.  Real Clear Politics:

In the first three months of 2010, Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R) raised an impressive $3.6 million. Over the same time period, Rubio pushed Gov. Charlie Crist, the former frontrunner, out of the lead in their primary race.

Starting the year with a strong fundraising quarter was important for Rubio, who had some catching up to do. With more than $7.5 million in the bank, Crist held a $5.5 million cash advantage at the end of the year.

Rubio's take for the first quarter of the year represents nearly half of his total receipts over the entirety of his campaign. He raised $1.75 million in the 4th quarter of 2009 and more than $1 million in the 3rd quarter.

Rubio holds a 25.4-point lead in the RCP Average for the Florida Republican Senate primary. Florida is currently listed as Likely Republican on RCP's new Battle For The Senate Map.

COMMENT:  Rubio is a coming star.  He is Hispanic, from Florida, and, if he wins big in November, an obvious entry on the vice presidential possibilities list for 2012.

By the way, the other name I hear most often is Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a young man who dazzles with his sheer knowledge of issues and his ability to present them.  The GOP bench is getting thicker.

April 8, 2010   Permalink

THAT SICK FEELING – AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  The United States and Russia have signed an arms-reduction treaty.  President Obama traveled to Prague, Czech Republic, an ally for whom he has shown minimal respect, to sign the agreement.  Russian President Medvedev also signed. 

We have no problem here with intelligent arms agreements.  President Reagan was an arms controller, and an active one, but the difference is that Reagan believed in a strong national defense and Obama...well, you know.

The New York Times has the story, which contains some curious comments.  Consider: 

The apparently warm relationship between the two presidents was on display as they entered the hall to trumpet music. They whispered and smiled with each other in English as they sat side by side signing copies of the so-called New Start treaty, then traded compliments during a follow-up exchange with reporters.

Mr. Obama called the Russian a “friend and partner” and said “without his personal efforts and strong leadership, we would not be here today.” For his part, Mr. Medvedev said the two had developed a “very good personal relationship and a very good personal chemistry as they say.”

Contrast this, please, with Obama's behavior with actual friends of the United States – Britain, India, Israel, even Canada.  No warmth.  No praise for leaders.  No sensitivity. 

No, the president seems to feel right at home with the Russians.  Considering his past associations, that shouldn't shock us.

And note this:

Warmer relations with the Kremlin worry American allies in Central and Eastern Europe, which were already concerned that Mr. Obama’s decision last year to scrap Mr. Bush’s missile defense plan in favor of a reformulated architecture was seen as a concession to Moscow.

Hoping to soothe those concerns, Mr. Obama plans to have dinner Thursday night in Prague with 11 leaders from the region, including the presidents or prime ministers of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Huh?  What is this, a mass feeding?  Will there be menus, or just selections written on a big chalk board posted at the entrance?  Will there be a coat check room?   Genuine cloth napkins?

The president should be meeting individually with all those leaders, if only for brief periods, to show his respect, and his respect for the struggles of Eastern Europe to free itself from the Soviet grasp.  But he doesn't have that respect, and it shows.

We'll judge the treaty on its merits.  The body language surrounding Obama's foreign policy is already being judged around the world.  We lose.

April 8,  2010   Permalink