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 16,  2010

THERE HE GOES AGAIN – AT 9:27 P.M. ET:  Bill Clinton, who by now should know better, is off on another campaign to brand the tea partiers as dangerous people.  Shame, shame, shame:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying "the words we use really do matter."

This is really vile.  First, the tea partiers aren't anti-government.  They're anti wasteful government, dishonest government, and incompetent government.  Second, the "slippery slope" argument doesn't wash, and never has.  Third, how about some equal rhetoric directed at those who called President Bush a Nazi...or, who called Bill Clinton a racist during the Democratic primaries of 2008?

The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn't trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.

Almost any language can be taken the wrong way.  And the violent individual doesn't need incendiary language.  What incendiary language motivated Lee Harvey Oswald?

On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Wrong.  It wasn't an anti-government conspiracy.  It was directed specifically against the United States Government as these twisted souls saw it.

"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.

What strikes me about this Democratic crowd is how patronizing its members are.  And, of course, the most patronizing are the ones who went to the "right" schools.  At one time, it was Republicans who acted that way.  What a role reversal.

"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."

Yes, and it applies to all sides, Bill.  And maybe you ought to direct your attention to the jihadists and their sympathizers, who really do plan violence, and carry it out.  We didn't hear much from you, Mr. President, after Fort Hood.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

CAN'T WAIT TO OPEN IT – AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  The illustrious president of Iran has written a letter to President Obama:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, calling on him to cooperate with the Islamic Republic, CNN reported on Friday citing the Iranian Republic News Agency (IRNA).

No, that's the problem.  He has cooperated, far too much. 

"Obama has only one way to remain in power and be successful," Ahmadinejad reportedly said in a speech earlier this week. "This way is Iran."

Obama has been pushing fellow members of the UN Security Council, particularly Russia and China, to support enacting a tougher package of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Washington fears Iran's nuclear program will allow Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies any such intention and says it only wants to generate electricity.

Right.  You know, now with the iPad coming out, a country needs so much more juice. 

Ahmadinejad said that it is not Iran that faces isolation from the world but rather the U.S. that finds itself in that situation.

"Once [the U.S. was] at the height of glory," he said. "Now they are collapsing. They have many economic and cultural problems. They have security problems in the world and their influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is vanishing."

The sad fact is that this is the way many countries now see the United States.  Obama, with his outreach/appeasement policies, and his disgraceful behavior toward our closest allies, like Britain, has weakened America, and it's being noticed. 

You can criticize George W. Bush for many things, but the world knew that the gun in his holster was loaded.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

FLORIDA – COME ON DOWN, MITT – AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  There's more on the hot, and getting hotter, Florida Senate race.  Mitt Romney will apparently endorse Marco Rubio tomorrow:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will endorse Marco Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida's Republican Senate primary.

Romney plans to announce the endorsement Saturday, according to a Romney adviser who asked to remain anonymous because the official announcement has not been made.

Romney is the third major 2008 presidential candidate to endorse Rubio. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have also endorsed the former House speaker.

The adviser said Crist and Rubio both sought the endorsement, but Romney believes Rubio has a stronger conservative record and is an idea-driven leader.

Romney's PAC is contributing $5,000 to Rubio's campaign and the former governor plans to campaign with Rubio on Monday.

Do we yawn now, or do we yawn later?  Rubio is 23 points ahead of Crist.  He needs Romney's endorsement like the proverbial hole in the head.  This again underlines my uneasiness over Romney's political instincts.  Had he endorsed Rubio earlier, it might have been meaningful.  Now it's an afterthought.  No one cares. 

And more on the Florida race:  Republican Governor Charlie Crist, who had been denying any rogue thoughts, is now hinting that he may indeed run as an independent.  This follows a Quinnipiac poll reporting that Crist would win such a race, although only by a few points.

Nothing is certain in Florida just yet.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS – AT 10:57 A.M. ET:  The very well-heeled Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, a money machine in overdrive, is being brought down to Earth this morning by a serious government charge, as The New York Times reports:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

COMMENT:  There is, of course, a presumption of innocence.  But we've heard about stuff like this for years, here in New York.  This, of course, has nothing to do with "free enterprise."  It is, if true, deception and corruption.  Jail terms should be served.

This is also the kind of thing that outrages ordinary Americans, who don't get ten-million-dollar bonuses or have four homes. 

Let's see how this turns out.  Bernie Madoff may soon have company in his federal housing.  Lovely rooms, just lovely.  And those curtains!

April 16, 2010    Permalink

BRITAIN TO VOTE – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  Britain will vote on May 6th.  This is of major concern to Americans since most of us, with the possible exception of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., think of the United Kingdom as one of our closest allies.  I know that's middle-class and old-fashioned, but I just can't help it. 

The Brits just held a TV debate.  The third party, the Liberals, clearly won, and that isn't good news for us.  We don't want to encourage Obama with progress overseas by like-minded eccentrics:

Labour and the Tories turned their guns on Nick Clegg today, hoping to bring the Liberal Democrat leader straight back to earth after his outsider’s victory in last night’s first televised campaign debate.

Sixty-one per cent of viewers chose Mr Clegg as the winner after the 90-minute showdown, according to an immediate online poll conducted by Populus for The Times. That compared with 22 per cent for David Cameron, the Tory leader and just 17 per cent for Gordon Brown.

Mr Clegg was back on the campaign trail after celebrating his win with a cigarette and a single glass of wine - and the mood on the Liberal Democrat battlebus was one of barely suppressed excitement despite claims that he had always been expected to shine on the big stage.

Lib Dem officials were hailing their leader’s performance at the Granada studios in Manchester as a potential “game-changer” in a close election which already appears to have given the party its best chance of government for a generation.

The "game-changer" is actually the possibility of a hung Parliament, leading to negotiations to form a government.  That's a mess.

It's apparent from press reports in Britain that many Brits don't actually know what the Liberal Dems stand for.  Think well to the left of Jimmah Carter, and you're almost there.  The libs want to give up Britain's nuclear deterrent at sea, the Trident submarines, and give amnesty to illegal aliens.  Sound familiar?

The libs won't win the largest number of votes, so they won't have the prime ministership, but they may force their way into a coalition.  That's grim, as they don't exactly love America.  On the other hand, if they gain power, Obama may love them.  Birds of a feather.  Oh, wait.  That may be a vicious, unfeeling anti-bird comment.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

AND WHAT COULD THE MATTER BE? – MAYBE THIS – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  A big chunk of the real America isn't afraid to use the "s" ism when speaking about the president of the United States.  That is not adding to his popularity:

(CNSNews.com) – A New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think the policies of President Barack Obama are moving the United States toward socialism.

Of course, the intellectual elites believe the American people don't know what socialism is.  I think they have a pretty good idea, if not a theoretical knowledge.

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the tea party movement. It found that while tea party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the tea party movement – 92 percent – shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether the president’s policies “are moving the country more toward socialism.” Fifty-two percent answered “toward socialism” while only 38 percent answered “not toward socialism.”

The president was quoted yesterday as saying that Americans are opposing him because they're frightened of altering the status quo, even when the status quo isn't working for them.  There's some truth to that.  People generally are resistant to change.  However, the introduction of Social Security and Medicare did not frighten most Americans because they understood how the programs would work, and that they would be insurance plans, with payments paid in. 

The president's statement contained breathtaking arrogance:

"Change is never easy, I don't know if you've noticed that," he said. "People hold onto the status quo, even when the status quo is not working for them."

The president pointed out that most American workers received a tax cut under the 2009 stimulus plan and said he's "been amused in recent days by these people having rallies" -- a reference to Tea Party events across the country to protest taxes.

"I think they should be saying thank you," he said.

Well, excuse me!  Mr. President, we don't thank public officials for returning our own money to us.  It's like thanking Citibank for allowing us to make a withdrawal. 

Obama doesn't get the tea parties.  The tea partiers are worried about vast expansions in spending, deficits and the national debt.  They also worry about ballooning tax increases to come.  They aren't in a "thank you, dear leader" mood.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

MORE GRAY HAIR FOR THE DEMS – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog brings more worry to the Democratic Party, as he reports Stu Rothenberg's assessment of Dem prospects this November:

In a new report to be issued this morning, the respected nonpartisan political prognosticator Stuart Rothenberg will predict "inevitable" Republican gains of House seats this November, likely in excess of two dozen and possibly even above the 40 necessary to turn control of that body over to the GOP.

From his mouth to you know whose ears.

"Substantial Republican gains are inevitable," Rothenberg writes, "with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible."

Such a long list of losses would be far beyond the historical average of 16 turnovers in the first midterm election of a new president like Barack Obama. In the first midterm election of Bill Clinton's presidency in 1994, Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years and held them for 12 years, even through the first midterm elections of George W. Bush's presidency.

The 28 weeks until Nov. 2 is a very long time in American politics. But at the moment a decisive victory seems the Republicans' to lose.

COMMENT:  Not to throw a damper on the celebration, but I'll have a piece at The Angel's Corner tonight outlining the things that can go wrong with this scenario, and why we must work to prevent them.  It never hurts to be prepared, as the Boy Scouts know.

We hope for an enormous victory.  But the election isn't being held today, and the other side has no history of playing dead, which is a Republican specialty.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

A TALE OF TWO COUNTRIES – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  The Politico has an incisive, if a bit tardy piece this morning, reporting what many have already seen:  There is the nation of Washington, D.C., which may include territories like Manhattan, New York; Hollywood, California; and Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Then there's the nation called America. 

And they disagree on Obama.

The cover of The Atlantic this month shows a shirt-sleeved President Barack Obama and the headline, “WHY HE’S RIGHT.” It reflects the Washington conventional wisdom that Obama is on a roll, bolstered by his long-delayed victory on health reform.

Someone should tell the rest of the country.

While Washington talks about Obama’s new mojo, polls show voters outside the Beltway are sulking — soured on the president, his party and his program. The Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval rating at an ominous 49 percent, after hitting a record low of 47 percent last weekend. A new poll in Pennsylvania, a bellwether industrial state, shows his numbers sinking, as did recent polls in Ohio and Florida.

So there are two Obamas: Rising in D.C., struggling in the U.S.

And...

It’s yet another deficit for Obama to tackle: The Republican Party has closed its popularity gap with the Democrats, and people say they’d be at least as happy with the GOP in charge of Capitol Hill. Wall Street sees a recovery, but everyday Americans think their country is still on the wrong track. And health reform is even less popular now in some polls than it was before it passed.

“Everyone in the pressure cooker in Washington got all excited like the millennium had arrived [when health care reform passed], but I don’t think most reasonable people read it that way,” Democratic Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said. Bredesen said people are worried about the cost and “appalled at the process in the Congress that produced it.”

COMMENT:  Why the gap?  Because the one profession that can link Washington with the reality of America is either asleep at the switch, or pulling the switch for Obama.  There is very little serious reporting about what Americans think because so many "journalists" have contempt for the American people.  What do those peasants know?  Have they ever tasted the desserts at Princeton?

We recall the famous comment by the film critic, Pauline Kael, who, after the 1972 election, expressed amazement that Nixon had won because she didn't know anyone who'd voted for him. 

Washington is not America.  Today, it doesn't even like America.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

THURSDAY,  APRIL 15,  2010

OUTRAGE – AT 8:37 P.M. ET:  Do you want to know the kind of thing that outrages tea partiers and their allies?

Well, get this:  In New York City, once the home of the greatest urban school system in the United States – a system that produced one star after another – teachers accused of the most serious offenses have been placed in something called a "rubber room," where they do nothing for months, even years, on full salary.  Finally, this obscenity is ending.  From the New York Post:

The city’s bizarre disciplinary system that pays teachers accused of misconduct for months and years on end for doing nothing is being expelled.

Mayor Bloomberg announced a "breakthrough" agreement with the United Federation of Teachers today that's designed to clear a backlog of more than 600 cases by year’s end and shutter the eight teacher reassignment centers known as "rubber rooms" on the last day of school in June.

The deal will force most educators accused of misdeeds to work for their earnings in district offices or in non-teaching roles in schools until their cases are resolved.

Those accused of more serious sexual or financial misconduct would be sent home with pay rather than be given administrative duty, while those charged with felony offenses in criminal court would be removed from their schools without pay...

...Columnist Andrea Peyser wrote in February, "Rubber rooms have become the symbol of everything in city government that makes one's head want to explode. These oases of waste and neglect exist in all five boroughs, playing host to a whopping 660 educators who've been accused of everything from sexual abuse and stealing to incompetence."

There was a time when being a New York City teacher was an honor.  I recall stories of how teacher candidates had to go before boards of examiners.  A New York City teacher's license was a point of pride.

We still have many wonderful teachers, but the effects of unionization, begun in the early 60s, took hold, and, while the unions improved the lot of teachers, they also encouraged abuses like rubber rooms.

And we wonder why people are furious with government.

April 15      Permalink

PETRAEUS INTRIGUE – AT 7:16 P.M. ET:  We report periodically on the speculation that General David Petraeus will run for president in 2012.  He has hotly denied it.  But they always hotly deny it.  In the absence of the Sherman Oath, enforced by a .45 pointed at his head, with his own finger on the trigger, one is permitted to wonder.

We wonder anew.  Recently, in testimony before a congressional committee, Petraeus seemed to endorse the new administration line that conflicts in the Middle East, like the Palestine-Israel nastiness, are a national-security threat to the United States, and may even cost American lives.  This did not go down well with many conservatives and supporters of Israel, who pointed out that Americans are being killed by Islamists, and that Israel has never asked for a single American combat soldier.

In the weeks since his statement, Petraeus has been a very busy man, going out of his way to make one entirely voluntary statement after another modifying his original comment.  The latest was today, when he spoke in the Capitol rotunda to a group of veterans who helped liberate the concentration camps at the end of World War II.  Another pro-Israel statement came last week in Washington.

This sounds like a man who is politically sensitive, and who has his ear to political voices other than those coming from the White House.  These statements did not have to be made.  Petraeus is secure in his position, with an outstanding record.

I heard General Petraeus speak recently in New York.  Once again he denied presidential ambitions.  But when you watch him maneuver politically, you watch a politically astute man at work. 

We're wondering again.

April 15     Permalink 

THE FLORIDA COMPLICATION – AT 7:07 P.M. ET:  Is Charlie Crist about to pull a Joe Lieberman in Florida?  He says he's not planning it, but, you know, the English language is flexible, especially when employed by politicians.

Crist, a popular Republican governor, generally considered moderate, is being beaten badly for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination by Marco Rubio, a rising conservative star.  However, Quinnipiac reports that Crist might do better by taking a different course:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Gov. Charlie Crist has fallen far behind in Florida's Republican primary contest for the U.S. Senate, but he could capture a three-way race in November, a poll released Thursday suggests.

Crist must decide by April 30 whether to remain in the GOP primary where former state House Speaker Marco Rubio is favored or pursue an independent bid. He has refused to shut the door on speculation he might bolt the party that helped him win races as Florida's attorney general and education commissioner before he became governor in 2006.

If the general election were held now, 32 percent of voters would favor Crist, compared with 30 percent for Rubio and 24 percent for the Democratic hopeful, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, according to a survey of 1,250 registered voters taken April 8-13 by Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.

"The biggest threat to Crist's political career is the Republican primary," said Peter Brown, Quinnipiac's assistant polling director. "People overall think he is doing a good job as governor, but that doesn't mean Republicans think that he should be their U.S. senator."

COMMENT:  Crist's strong showing stems from his popularity among independents and some Democrats.  It shows once again the value of expanding the base, not resting on it.

Florida is far from settled.  We lean Rubio here, but Crist should not be written off.

April 15    Permalink

OH DEAR, MUST WE CORRECT HIM AGAIN? – AT 11:09 A.M. ET:  Well, the world may not long remember what they said there, but at least a few journalists are noting what he said there.  The "he" is President Obama, speaking at the end of his largely failed nuclear nonproliferation summit, and again he made a mess of things:

Being a superpower ain't all that, at least according to President Obama.

In a little-noticed remark at the close of the two-day nuclear security summit in Washington, D.C., this week, President Obama suggested the United States is somehow burdened by its military might -- a comment that drew a stern rebuke from his former rival in the presidential campaign.

Obama was responding to a question Tuesday about how the summit would play into peace-making efforts in the Middle East when he addressed the downsides of -- by virtue of America's world stature -- being obligated to intervene in international conflicts.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

The remark got little attention in mainstream coverage of the summit, but was picked up on several conservative blogs, which panned the president for suggesting Americans had grown weary of superpower status.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., slammed the leader of the free world Thursday, calling the remark a "direct contradiction to everything America believes in."

"That's one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard a president of the United States make in modern times," McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, told Fox News. "We are the dominant superpower, and we're the greatest force for good...and I thank God every day that we are a dominant superpower."

COMMENT:  And that is why John McCain must be reelected to the Senate.  He understands this country's place, and what it has contributed.  The current president does not.  What a mistake this country made in 2008.

April 15, 2010    Permalink

OH, IT'S TAX DAY – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  Taxes are due today.  Taxes will also be a major issue in this year's midterm elections.

No one likes taxes, but people are willing to pay them, within reason, if they feel they're getting value.  One reason for the tea party movement's success is the feeling that 1) governments, especially in Washington, abuse us by spending too much generally and 2) we don't get the result that's promised.

Our side has to be careful.  Taxes are necessary to provide the services we demand.  We can't just blindly be "anti-tax." But when you see the waste, the obscene pensions paid to public employees at the state level, the fact that the average public employee today earns more than his or her counterpart in the private sector, the enormity of the fat in education and social-service budgets that produce marginal results, you can understand the anger.

A rational, mature tax revolt begins with an assessment of what we want from government, and how it can be delivered at the lowest possible cost.  You can't scream "law and order" and then say you don't want to pay for the police.  At the same time, you can demand efficiency and sane staffing levels. 

We have a right to know where every tax dollar goes.  That means taking on the sacred cows, like universities, which demand the money, then get very haughty if the public wants to know what it's being used for.   And yes, it includes the Pentagon, where procurement practices can border on the bizarre. 

One of the things that outrages taxpayers the most is when their taxes go to establish and preserve a class dependent on the government – a built-in voting bloc for one of our parties.   And they're outraged when they find out that 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all.  That is a dependent class.  It's been pointed out that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for you.

There is now serious talk of vastly increased taxes to pay for the profligacy of our federal government, and the fact that the ruling party is made up of constituencies, who, like organized-crime mobs, demand their cut of the action and piece of the turf.  The most serious talk revolves around VAT, the so-called value added tax, favored by wealthy social schemers like Nancy Pelosi, who won't even feel it.  Reject the VAT.  It will take trillions out of the private sector and will never be used to reduce the national debt.  It will be used for new social programs ordered up by the Democrats.  See the Wall Street Journal's piece on the impact of VAT in Europe.

So let us demand lower taxes and greater efficiency.  Let us demand that any new tax be used exclusively to pay down the national debt and remove the yearly deficit.  Let us demand an across-the-board cut in government spending.  Let us bring public pensions in line with sanity.  But let us do these things carefully, presenting to the American people a rational, convincing plan, not just a placard waved in the wind.

April 15, 2010    Permalink

AND NOW THE OTHER NUTS – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  We reported earlier this morning on the right-wing sniping against Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, whose ideological cleanliness is under attack from the GOP Purity and Goodness Police.  But let us not forget that most of the P&G police that we've seen are in the other party, walking their beats zealously every day.  From the Washington Times:

While conservatives and "tea party" activists have made headlines pressuring Republican candidates from the right this election season, a number of moderate Democrats are under attack in primary battles and even third-party challenges from their labor allies on the left.

The AFL-CIO and other labor groups have been a mainstay of the Democratic coalition, but have not always seen eye to eye with the Obama administration or with a number of centrist Democrats - differences highlighted in the lengthy battle over health care, in debates over education reform, and in stalled efforts to change key labor laws.

In Arkansas, the AFL-CIO is openly working to defeat incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an opponent of the health bill's public option plan, in the May 18 Democratic primary. Hawaii labor unions have broken with the national Democratic Party over which candidate to back in a special House election, giving Republicans an opening to win the seat. And in North Carolina, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is helping to form a third party designed in part to challenge state Democratic lawmakers who voted against the health care law.

COMMENT:  That's really bright – dividing the Democratic Party in a Republican year. 

We have no problem with honest labor unions here, but this kind of zealotry just doesn't work.  But, if the leftist Dems want to self-destruct, more power to them.  We'll send them instruction manuals, crayons for painting signs...and the names and addresses of their new Republican senators and representatives.

It's been many decades since Franklin Roosevelt would order, "Clear it with Sidney," a reference to Sidney Hillman, a key labor leader of the 1930s.  Unions are trying to regain political power, but simply haven't got the strength in numbers to do so.  They may be overplaying their hand in some of these primary battles, and the Dems won't appreciate the kind of interference that can elect the opposition in November.

April 15, 2010    Permalink

REPEAL! – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  A new Associated Press poll – a poll that generally tilts a bit Dem – shows that opposition to Obamacare is surging.  This can spell real trouble for Democrats in November.

WASHINGTON -- Opposition to President Barack Obama's health care law jumped after he signed it -- a clear indication his victory could become a liability for Democrats in this fall's elections.

A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds Americans oppose the health care remake 50 percent to 39 percent. Before a divided Congress finally passed the bill and Obama signed it at a jubilant White House ceremony last month, public opinion was about evenly split. Another 10 percent of Americans say they are neutral.

Disapproval for Obama's handling of health care also increased from 46 percent in early March before he signed the bill, to 52 percent currently -- a level not seen since last summer's angry town hall meetings.

Nonetheless, the bleak numbers may not represent a final judgment for the president and his Democratic allies in Congress.

Only 28 percent of those polled said they understand the overhaul extremely or very well. And a big chunk of those who don't understand it remain neutral. Democrats hope to change public opinion by calling attention to benefits available this year for seniors, families with children transitioning to work and people shut out of coverage because of a medical problem.

COMMENT:  Democrats will give the "benefits" bit the full treatment.  Making people dependent on federal programs is their stock-in-trade.  However, Republicans have been very effective in exposing the costs of Obamacare, costs that will seem even larger as most Americans start to realize that most benefits won't kick in for years.

April 15, 2010    Permalink

SCOTT BROWN AND THE GOP RIGHT – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  It was probably inevitable.  I sometimes think that politics in America isn't divided between Democrats and Republicans, but between grown-ups and children.

We're seeing that now in the tension between Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts and some "conservative" elements (not really) in the GOP, who believe Brown should commit political suicide to remain ideologically pure.  From The Politico:

...the divide between Brown and the Republican conservative base is at risk of growing — as it did this week when Brown joined moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio to help Democrats overcome a GOP filibuster on an extension of jobless benefits.

“I assume there will be votes that he’ll throw to the other team to show that he’s the new guy from Massachusetts and not the new guy from Texas,” said Grover Norquist, a leading conservative activist in Washington. “But I just don’t think that spending money is the way to do that.”

Brown, 50, still maintains celebrity status on the right, and he’s one of the few freshmen to carry a national profile; on Sunday, he’s scheduled to be a guest on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” a rare Sunday morning appearance for a newly elected senator. And for now, most Republicans in the Senate and conservative activists off the Hill have given him a pass, saying he represents a different constituency than most of the other 40 Republicans and needs to position himself in the political middle in order to stand a chance at winning reelection in 2012.

Some on the right already have Brown in their sights.  And, yes, I would also oppose some of his votes.

But leave the man alone.  He, like Rudy Giuliani, operates in a tough environment for Republicans.  He's not going to be John Cornyn or Jim DeMint.  Brown was elected to fill the unexpired term of the late Edward Kennedy.  He has to run again in a few years in liberal Massachusetts.  Now, who would you prefer be elected to a full term, Scott Brown or a Kennedy clone? 

I prefer Brown, and will give him many a pass as he maneuvers through the minefield.  Brown has done more in one election to make the GOP a national party again than some of the purists have done in their lifetime.

Successful politics in America is never about ideological purity, unless you're talking about a small and specific geographic area.  Ronald Reagan compromised constantly, especially when he was governor of California. 

So leave the man alone.

April 15, 2010    Permalink