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.

WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY 3,  2010

THE NATION'S FUTURE – AT 10:12 P.M. ET:  It's hard to believe this, but I'm afraid it's the trend.  From Fox News:

He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.

State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day."

As the North Carolina curriculum stands now, ninth-grade students take world history, 10th-graders study civics and economics and 11th-graders take U.S. history going back to the country's founding.

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward.

Math, science and English classes are also getting an update.

COMMENT:  Hey, who needs Lincoln when you've got a cool guy like Lenin? 

And I'd just love to know what "big idea" Ms. Garland is talking about.   Why do I think "global warming" will be part of it?  And American imperialism?  And trans fats?

Wave of the future, unless we stop it, starting at the local level.

February 3, 2010   Permalink

HYPOCRISY WATCH – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  The president is acting like a Chicago pol again.  Stop him before he falsifies again!  From The Washington Times:

President Obama on Wednesday blasted Senate Republicans for using "holds," a tactic that delays considering nominees -- even though as a senator he used the technique to block several of President George W. Bush's appointments.

Oh, come on.  This is unfair.  He wasn't a god then.  Once he got the promotion, he could do anything he wanted.  These hack journalists.

Speaking to Senate Democrats at their annual retreat, Mr. Obama complained that Republican objections have created "a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified" but who get held up because a senator is trying to force the administration's hand on an issue.

Wait, wait.  If they're unanimously viewed as well qualified, why are other "folks" trying to block them?

As an example, Mr. Obama said his nominee to head the General Services Administration, Martha Johnson, is being held up over issues unrelated to GSA's business of running federal buildings.

"Let's have a fight about real stuff. Don't hold this woman hostage."

Dammit, that's right.  If you want to hold someone hostage, hijack an airliner.  Then you get Miranda rights and bags of free gifts.

If you have an objection about my health-care policies, then let's debate the health-care policies. But don't suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck in limbo somewhere because you don't like something else that we're doing," he said.

Somehow I think the president isn't being completely honest.  (Express your shock in a responsible manner.)  Most nominees who get held up are targeted because of real concerns.  But in Chicago, everyone nominated by the guy at the top gets approved, so what relevant experience can Obama possibly have?

February 3, 2010   Permalink

SPIN, BABY, SPIN – AT 5:28 P.M. ET:  The Justice Department spin machine has been at full throttle today, demonstrating that the department does one thing extremely well.  Its skill at blurring is unparalleled.  From The Washington Post:

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up a jet airplane on Christmas Day, has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week, Obama administration sources said Tuesday.

Strange, they didn't mention this earlier. 

The fact is, this is garbage in, garbage out.  He can be singing like a canary, but the canary now has a lawyer to give him the notes. 

Separately, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told senators at an intelligence committee hearing that Abdulmutallab was giving information to investigators. Mueller did not elaborate.

Information?  Like how much he wants for the book rights? 

In recent days, two law enforcement sources said, Abdulmutallab has told authorities more about where he trained overseas and others he met there -- leads that the FBI has shared with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Investigators are following up to corroborate the information.

That is not the issue.  Maybe he'll name some names and give the address of the local Al Qaeda gym.  The issue is what he might have revealed had he been treated correctly, as an enemy combatant, and interrogated for days without Clarence Darrow writing the script. 

February 3, 2010    Permalink

ONE DOWN – AT 5:14 P.M. ET:  There's been an important terrorist conviction in New York.  From The New York Times:

A Pakistani neuroscientist was convicted on Wednesday of attempted murder for trying to kill American soldiers and F.B.I. agents in Afghanistan.

Federal prosecutors said the neuroscientist, Aafia Siddiqui, 37, grabbed an M4 rifle in a police station in the city of Ghazni, Afghanistan, on July 18, 2008, and fired on American officers and federal agents.

After slightly more than two days of deliberations, a jury in Federal District Court in Manhattan found her guilty.

As the jurors began leaving the courtroom, Ms. Siddiqui, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University, turned in her chair to face them.

“This is a verdict coming from Israel and not from America,” she said, holding her right index finger in the air. “That’s where the anger belongs. I can testify to this, and I have proof.”

Ms. Siddiqui was then led out of the courtroom while the judge and lawyers for both sides discussed a sentencing date.

COMMENT:  Trouble is, the Obamans will use this case to "prove" that you can have terror trials in the heart of a big city.  Of course, this sweet lady was a foot soldier.  The mastermind of 9-11, whom Eric Holder would like to try in New York, is the equivalent of Hermann Goering.  A bit of a difference on the publicity curve.

February 3,  2010   Permalink

THE COMPETENCE WATCH – AT 4:47 P.M. ET:  Another Cabinet officer demonstrates that ability was the only standard the Obamans used when carefully selecting their highest-level nominees:

WASHINGTON (CBS) — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood now says he misspoke when telling owners of recalled Toyotas to stop driving then.

Pray, how does one "misspeak" when employing the words, "Stop driving them"?  Is there a variation on that?

Instead, LaHood says take them to dealerships to get them repaired.

Oh, that's close.  Yes, of course.  When one says, "Stop driving them" one may well actually mean, "Take them to Bruno's Toyota."  Who are we to question cultural interpretation? 

LaHood told reporters it was "obviously a misstatement" when he told a House panel earlier Wednesday that he would advise owners not to drive recalled vehicles. The remark came during testimony to the Appropriations subcommittee on transportation.

"What I said in there, or what I thought I said was, 'if you own one of these cars, or if you're in doubt, take it to the dealer,'" LaHood said.

He's only the secretary of transportation.  Thank the Lord he isn't an air controller.  "United Eight, uh, turn way left until the sun is kinda in your eyes a bit.  Hold at a pretty high altitude.  Stay awhile."

February 3, 2010   Permalink

DISGRACEFUL – AT 10:08 P.M. ET:  GEERT WILDERS, A MEMBER OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENT, WILL GO ON TRIAL FOR THINGS HE SAID:

AMSTERDAM, Feb 3 (Reuters) - An Amsterdam court said on Wednesday it will hear the case against right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims, rejecting his request to be judged in the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the court rejected an assertion from Wilders' lawyer, who argued in January at the start of the trial the Supreme Court should hear the case because as a politician, Wilders has a certain protection under freedom of speech laws.

The case is considered to be at the heart of the Dutch constitutional state, exploring the line between the right to freedom of speech and the ban on discrimination in the traditionally tolerant Netherlands.

COMMENT:  This case has attracted international attention.  Wilders has said some rough things, but he appears to be the victim of selective application of "hate speech" laws.  In the real world, hate speech is often speech directed against groups that are popular on the political left.

Wilders is being tried for offending Muslims, but Muslim spokesmen can make the most vile statements about Christians and Jews without any punishment at all.  And they have the protection afforded by their leftist, usually Marxist, allies.

Beware of people pushing "hate speech" rules and laws.  They're popular on American college campuses where, as usual, they're selectively enforced.  A few years ago a nutball dean at Pace University, five blocks from Ground Zero in New York, threatened to report a group of students to the police  for "hate speech" for daring to show a film on Islamo-fascism.

One of the last remaining decent ACLU lawyers told me privately how worried he was about the organization because some members of its national board no longer believe in free speech. 

While some proponents of "hate speech" laws are well meaning, those laws are a Trojan horse, easily misused to keep some people free, and muzzle others.  Look what's happening to Geert Wilders.

February 3, 2010   Permalink 

AND NOW THE PENNSYLVANIA JOKER – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  Arlen Specter, that is.  His recent bizarre behavior – wandering onto a stage he shouldn't have been on, insulting Congresswoman Michelle Bachman – may be a portent of a rough fall campaign for the Republican turned Democrat.  Looks like the GOP has another good shot.  From the New York Post:

"I'm running like I'm 20 points behind and I'll continue to run like I'm 20 points behind," says Pat Toomey, the presumptive GOP nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania -- who in fact now leads Sen. Arlen Specter 45 percent to 31 percent among likely voters in the latest Frank & Marshall College poll.

Hey, I'm starting to like this.  Possible pickup in Illinois, possible pickup in Pennsylvania, possible pickup in Delaware, probable pickup in North Dakota.  And that's just the start.

Specter, who switched parties last year for fear of losing a Republican primary to Toomey, still has to finish off a challenger from the left, Rep. Joe Sestak, in the May 18 Democratic primary. Meanwhile, as the nation turns sour on the Obama agenda that Specter has helped enact, Toomey's been charging up -- six months ago, he was down eight points.

Specter's party switch apparently hasn't done him much good.  But he is likely to defeat Sestak in the Dem primary. 

Pennsylvania, like Illinois, is a blue state, and occasionally the dearly departed have been known to vote in Philadelphia.  But Toomey is torrid this year, after several Senate tries in the past.  And President Obama has lost steam in the state:

In February of last year, the F&M poll showed that 55 percent thought Obama was doing a good or excellent job, while 36 percent said he was doing a fair or poor job. In the latest poll, that job-approval rating had essentially reversed: 38 percent view him positively and 61 percent negatively.

And Toomey has another advantage:

Toomey still has to get his name-recognition numbers up -- but his strength now is the fact that Specter has held the seat for 30 years. The F&M poll reports that six in 10 voters think it's time for a new senator.

We think so too. 

February 3, 2010   Permalink

ILLINOIS PROSPECTS – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  We've been reporting on the Illinois primaries, held yesterday.  Gubernatorial races in both parties are still too close to call, meaning that Mayor Daley of Chicago may just have to find cartons of absentee ballots in that warehouse they have.

The attention is on the Senate race, probably the most fascinating since the Great Scott victory in Massachusetts, for Illinois will fill the seat held by President Obama, or at least assigned to him.  Legend has it that he didn't spend too much time sitting in it.

Congressman Mark Kirk is now the official GOP candidate.  Can Kirk pull it off in blue Illinois?   He's got a solid shot, as Real Clear Politics reports:

A quick comparison to 2004 tells the tale. Of course, 2004 was a presidential year that generated a lot more enthusiasm on the Democratic side, but it was also the last time Illinois had a competitive Senate primary on both sides.

In '04, turnout in the Republican Senate primary was 661,804. This year it was 736,137, an 11 percent increase. In '04 Barack Obama won his party's nomination taking 53% of the vote on turnout of 1,242,996. This year turnout in the Democratic primary was just 885,268, a decrease of nearly 30 percent.

So Republicans exit Tuesday's primary with an energized base and solid party support behind a moderate candidate, while Democrat enter the general election seemingly less enthusiastic and with a candidate with real political vulnerabilities.

Yeah, the Dem candidate is Alexi Giannoulias, the machine's choice, who enters the general election with a lot of ethical and financial questions hanging over him.

The bottom line is that in order for any Republican to win statewide in Illinois they must win a combination of conservative voters in the southern part of the state and moderate voters in the suburbs outside of Chicago. Kirk is well positioned to do the latter. Barring a third party "Tea Party" type candidate who might siphon off conservative support, if Kirk can win over energized Republican voters downstate he will have a very real chance of picking up Obama's seat in November.

COMMENT:  I doubt if the tea partiers will interfere.  If they're smart, they wouldn't want to interfere with the prospect of the GOP picking off the Obama seat.  Also, they don't have a ready candidate with Kirk's general popularity and name recognition. 

February 3, 2010   Permalink

DEMS REVOLT ON TERROR TRIALS – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  Democratic officeholders, who can still read poll numbers despite our educational system, are running away from Obaman plans for terror trials in the U.S.  There is nothing so compelling in Washington as a threat to reelection.  From The Politico:

New York politicians were able to kick the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial out of Manhattan, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that not a single member of Congress wants the trial held in their home town either.

A growing coalition of lawmakers are saying “not in my back yard” to the terrorism trial, as even the most loyal Democrats are moving to block funding for any civilian trials. The pushback may represent yet another congressional rebellion against a high profile Obama White House terrorism decision, proving that even a persuasive president can’t overcome the power of local politics.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure they don’t point at western Pennsylvania as a possible venue,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). “We are all united, going to voice our opinion, both at the state level and at the congressional level.”

Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) is also opposed to having the trials in Pennsylvania and “has made that sentiment known to the Justice Department,” spokesman Larry Smar said. Pennsylvania has been among the regions floated for such trials because Flight 93 on 9/11 went down in the western part of the state.

It is time for the president, or maybe Joe Biden, to send an anonymous envelope to Attorney General Holder with want ads for experienced lawyers.  Great opportunities out there, Eric.  Great opportunities.  Be out by noon.

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb is leading Democrats’ charge against the trials in the Senate. Webb favors military commissions, and he says Virginia lawmakers will be opposed to having a civilian trial in Alexandria.

“We will be saying more about it,” Webb told POLITICO. “I don’t think we’d have any trouble getting support from at least most of the delegation that that’s a bad idea.”

COMMENT:  There's a lot of buzz that the trials will eventually be held in Gitmo, meaning that Obama couldn't close the prison.  Tranquilizers, their costs covered by a variety of insurance plans, are being rushed to the Democratic Party's left fringers.

February 3, 2010   Permalink

THE RACES – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  The Republican Party has been saved from deep embarrassment in Indiana by finding a credible candidate to take on incumbent Democrat Evan Bayh in November.

Bayh is a middle-of-the-road Democrat and a decent man.  In recent days he has distanced himself more and more from the Stalin-was-misunderstood branch of his party, generally headquartered in San Francisco.  From the Atlantic:

It's a cold winter, but Indiana Republicans managed to recruit a top-tier candidate to take on Sen. Evan Bayh: Dan Coats, the former Republican senator from Indiana and ambassador to Germany, now a Washington policy adviser and a lobbyist. Bayh succeeded Coats in 1998. The news of Coats's political comeback was first reported by Howey Politics Indiana. Coats is a household name in the state and will be able to raise a lot of money instantly.

This may be his first challenge in a year when Washington isn't popular.

Coats was a key behind-the-scenes force in convincing John McCain to take Sarah Palin seriously as a vice presidential candidate. He was a member of "The Family," a close-knit group of rigorously evangelical Christians who run, among things, the now well-known C Street rooming house in Washington, D.C. He also lobbied on behalf of Roache Diagnostics during the health battle reform battle.

Bayh is popular, and it will be a steep climb for Coats.  But at least he's respectable.  After the fine congressman, Mike Pence, pulled out of the GOP running, the better to preserve his stellar House career, the Republicans were left with the frightening prospect of nominating the former congressman, John Hostettler, a public embarrassment who was thrown out of his House seat in a landslide defeat, handing the seat over to a Democrat.  Hostettler, who proclaims himself a conservative, is actually a right-wing extremist and religious nut who came equipped with more baggage than American Airlines.  He isn't even a legitimate Republican.  In 2008 he wouldn't even support John McCain in the general election, preferring to cast his lot with some fringe party. 

But Coats saved Indiana from humiliation.  This should be a solid contest between two respected candidates, which is the way I like it.

February 3,  2010   Permalink

TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 2,  2010

RESULTS, ILLINOIS PRIMARY – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Mark Kirk has easily won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Illinois.  At this hour it appears that he will face ethically challenged Alexi Giannoulias, an ally of President Obama and a man with a strange banking history in something called the Broadway Bank.  (Need we say more?  Would you put your money in a name like the Broadway Bank?) 

The Dems had a fine primary candidate in David Hoffman, former inspector general of Chicago, and winner of a number of newspaper endorsements.  But, you know, he just didn't have that shady past that makes a man a man in the Illinois Democratic Party. 

We look forward to a Republican pickup, if justice and sanity prevail.  Wait, it's Illinois.  Let's say we hope for a Republican pickup if the dearly departed can be kept away from the polls.

Gubernatorial results:  Too close to call in both parties.  The governorship of Illinois is important because it's often been a springboard for the next step up in Illinois – prison.  Free meals and housing, snappy striped uniform.  What else could a governor want?  We won't have these results for a time. 

February 2, 2010   Permalink

ATTACK EXPECTED – AT 7:42 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Al Qaeda can be expected to attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months, senior U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday.

The terrorist organization is deploying operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country, including "clean" recruits with a negligible trail of terrorist contacts, CIA Director Leon Panetta said. Al Qaeda is also inspiring homegrown extremists to trigger violence on their own, Panetta added.

The annual assessment of the nation's terror threats provided no startling new terror trends, but amplified growing concerns since the Christmas Day airline attack in Detroit that militants are growing harder to detect and moving more quickly in their plots.

"The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect," Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

COMMENT:  The Justice Department has swung into action to prepare.  It's probably making sure that all law-enforcement officers have framed copies of the Miranda Rights.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

EUROPE IS SO, SO UPSET;  DO YOU CARE? – President Obama, apparently not liking the scenery or something, is declining to attend a summit conference in Europe.  Europeans feel the pain:

PARIS — President Obama’s decision to skip a United States-European Union summit meeting scheduled for Madrid in May has predictably upset European officials, who suggested on Tuesday that the summit itself will now be postponed, possibly to the autumn. 

In addition to the palpable sense of insult among European officials, there was a growing concern that Europe is being taken for granted and losing importance in American eyes compared to the rise of a newly truculent China.

European Union officials found out about the decision through the news media late on Monday, senior European officials said Tuesday morning. The Obama decision was first reported on the Web site of The Wall Street Journal.

The Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who is scheduled to arrive in Washington this week on a visit, was described as angry and embarrassed, and European officials said there was a set of high-level diplomatic exchanges overnight.

COMMENT:  As FDR used to say, "I love it, I love it, I love it."  Weren't these the same suckers who, not many months ago, were bowing down to Obama, and welcoming him as the new deity?  Of course, they haven't done much for the old one lately, so maybe they were just in a shopping mood.

And Zapatero?  That America basher?  He's angry and embarrassed?  What, precisely, do we owe this frustrated matador, considered so immature that many in Spain call him "Bambi"?

The enchantment with The One has clearly worn off.  Who will Europeans boost next for president of the United States?  Well, the French like Jerry Lewis.  Sleep on that.

February 2,  2010   Permalink

DON'T TELL THIS TO ERIC HOLDER – AT 6:40 P.M. ET:  Now this is something you just don't see too often.  It'll make your day:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court says a 22-year prison sentence is too lenient for an al-Qaida-trained terrorist convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the sentence Tuesday. It also removed the Seattle trial judge from the case and assigned the re-sentencing of Ahmed Ressam to another judge.

Border agents in Washington state arrested Ressam in December 1999 after he entered the United States from Canada on a ferry with a car packed with explosives.

A judge cited Ressam's cooperation with investigators in meting out the original sentence. But since Ressam recanted his cooperation after two years, the appeals court says he deserves a longer sentence.

COMMENT:  Sanity sometimes prevails.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA GOES BACK TO THE FORMER JOB – AT 6:02 P.M. ET:  The fellas from CNN were on earlier, talking about Obama's trip to New Hampshire today.  David Gergen made the point that Obama seemed more a candidate than a president.

Yup, and that's the problem.  The guy does one thing really well – he campaigns.  Governing?  Well, he's not quite into that.  Hey, it's a lot more fun to talk to teenagers in Nashua than to an Iranian dictator in a steamy room.  A man's gotta live.

The problem for us is that Obama's campaign skills can be very effective.  In 1948 Harry Truman ran against the "do nothing" Republican Congress, and he made the charge stick.  (It was also accurate.)  Republicans must snap back at Obama with a real program, ready to roll, to deflect the charge that they're the party of "no." 

The Democratic plan for the year is clear:  Run against Republicans, blame everything on Bush, play the victim, send Obama into campaign mode. 

Don't sell these guys short.  The one thing they do well is the very thing that brings bodies to the polls.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

THE PREMIER TRAVELS SOUTH – AT 5:40 P.M. ET:  Reader Meg Lewiston alerts us to this late medical news from Canada:

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

COMMENT:  Ah, a return to socialist tradition.  The peasants get the national health-care offerings, and the leaders go to the U.S.  It's nice to be back in the good old days.

Quick!  Get him the operation before Obamacare tells him he's too old.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

THE TALIBAN MANEUVERS – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  A respected authority on the Afghanistan war alerts us to this piece by Bill Roggio at Threat Matrix, a blog of the Long War Journal.  Once again the enemy, as savage as it is, shows that it has a functioning brain:

This was inevitable. The Taliban have used General Stanley McChrystal's statements on his desire for negotiations in their propaganda. Here is an except from the Taliban's English-language Voice of Jihad website:

"The top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal, in an interview with The Financial Times, has said: 'We fought along war in Afghanistan. Now there is need for peace and for efforts to establish peace. '

"His remarks come amidst reports that it is impossible for his invading forces and other coalition troops in Afghanistan to turn the Jihadic resistance. In fact, the Americans tried every means and tool to wipe out the Jihadic resistance, but the graph of the resistance of the Afghans has been ascending, and opposition to the presence of the invaders intensifying."

While we might dismiss the Taliban's statement as mere propaganda, it is very effective to their targeted audience: the Taliban commanders and fighters in the field. McChrystal's words will be viewed as a sign of weakness, and will reinforce the Taliban leadership's longstanding charge that NATO and the US have been weakened and are seeking the exit. McChrystal's statement will be a disincentive for Taliban fighters and low-level commanders who might have considered defecting to do so. This is why you offer the olive branch only after you grind down an enemy force, and not before.

COMMENT:  Absolutely accurate.  But McChrystal, who knows better, is working for a vague commander-in-chief who's already told the enemy that we plan to withdraw from Afghanistan starting in 2011.  Now that the Taliban has our timetable tacked to the wall of its command cave, why do anything except hold out and try to kill as many of us as possible?

We elected the left wing of the Democratic Party.  We're now paying the price.  That price can get much higher.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

FLORIDA STUNNER – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  The Florida Senate race is absolutely fascinating.  Voters will decide in November who will replace retiring Republican Senator Mel Martinez.  For the GOP, this is a critical "hold."

Months ago it was expected that Governor Charlie Crist, a moderate Republican who embraced Obama's stimulus package, would have an easy run at the Senate nomination.  But enter Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House.  A conservative, a Cuban-American, his campaign has caught fire.  Scott Rasmussen reports:

Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio has now jumped to a 12-point lead over Governor Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided.

The new numbers mark a stunning turnaround. Crist was the strong favorite when he first announced for the Senate seat, and Rubio was viewed as a long-shot challenger.

Rubio, who has excited a lot of interest among conservatives around the nation, will likely get the nomination.  And he has a great shot at winning the November election, where the Dem candidate will likely be Rep. Kendrick Meek, an African-American congressman:

Former House Speaker Marco Rubio now posts a 17-point lead on Meek, 49% to 32%. He had a 14-point lead on the Democrat in the previous survey and a similar margin in October. In a Rubio-Meek contest, six percent (6%) like another candidate, and 13% are undecided.

Again, surprises can happen.  Meek could be pressured to withdraw in favor of a stronger candidate, and Rubio can stumble.  We run as if we're 20 points behind.

February 2, 2010   Permalink 

TONY BLAIR WARNS OF WAR WITH IRAN – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  Blair was George Bush's greatest ally in the Iraq War, and continues to take plenty of heat for it.  He's a courageous man who refuses to back down from his concerns, while others live their illusions:

World leaders might have to go to war to stop Iran developing its weapons programme, Tony Blair suggested yesterday.

The former Prime Minister, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, said that Tehran’s actions had made him more afraid today that a rogue state could supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists than he was when he took Britain to war with Iraq in 2003.

He warned that world leaders, including the British Prime Minister, now faced the same kinds of decision about the dangers posed by repressive regimes as he did seven years ago.

“My judgment — and it may be other people don’t take this view, and that’s for the leaders of today to make their judgment — is we don’t take any risks with this issue,” he said.

The sneer-and-smugness crowd will laugh at Blair, pointing out that we didn't find stockpiles of WMD when we went into Iraq.  This same group refuses to acknowledge that we did find the WMD programs, ready to be restarted once UN sanctions on Iraq were lifted.  They were expected to be lifted in 2003.  We can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would have had in the way of WMD today.

The former Prime Minister raised concerns about Tehran’s links with terrorist organisations.

Mr Blair said: “My fear was — and I would say I hold this fear stronger today than I did back then as a result of what Iran particularly today is doing — my fear is that states that are highly repressive or failed, the danger of a WMD link is that they become porous, they construct all sorts of different alliances with people.”

The key to dealing with Iran is the president of the United States.  There are many Iran "experts" who want us simply to accept the Iranian nuclear program.  Blair, though, has it right.  Iran is fanatical and unstable, and we know of its ties to terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.  We must assume, for our own safety, ties to Al Qaeda.

This will be the year of Iran.  So far the administration is involved in "discussions" over sanctions.  The centrifuges in Iran are not involved in discussions.

February 2, 2010   Permalink

THE GROWING SCANDAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  We speculated yesterday on how long it will be before Obama throws Attorney General Eric Holder under the bus.  Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, follows the story and gives us this report:

To Charles Grassley, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the questions seem pretty simple. How many of the political appointees now in charge of terrorist detainee issues at the Obama Justice Department were, not too long ago, lawyers and activists working on behalf of those very detainees? Who are they? Have they removed themselves from cases involving their former clients?

Does the term "conflict of interest" come to mind?

So far, Grassley is having a hard time getting the information he wants. His problems started on Nov. 18, 2009, when Holder appeared before the Judiciary Committee and Grassley asked him to reveal which department lawyers had represented which detainees. Grassley is still waiting for an answer.

“He said something like, ‘I have to think about it,’ ” Grassley says. “He must still be thinking about it two and a half months later.”

Eric Holder's thoughts are very deep.  They take time.

Specifically, Grassley asked Holder about lawyers like principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal. Katyal is well-known for representing Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni who learned jihad from Osama bin Laden himself and served as bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard until November 2001, when he was captured in Afghanistan, ultimately ending up at Guantanamo...

...Grassley also asked about Jennifer Daskal, who joined the Justice Department after working on behalf of Guantanamo detainees at the organization Human Rights Watch. In the past, Daskal, who has no prosecutorial experience, has lamented the U.S. military policy of allowing Gitmo inmates only one book in their cells at a time, and has fretted that a detainee who is a “self-styled poet” was given a pen or pencil only for short periods. Now, Daskal reportedly works on detainee issues at the Justice Department.

This is fine reporting by Byron York.  Not exactly the kind of detail you find in the wine-and-Brie press.

In the meantime, other unanswered questions about the Justice Department’s terrorism policies are piling up on Holder’s desk. There are still questions about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decision, as well as the administration’s misbegotten effort to close Guantanamo. And a bipartisan group of senators wants to know who decided to cut short the interrogation of accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, granting him full American constitutional rights in the civilian justice system and killing the chance to gain potentially valuable intelligence about the al Qaeda group that sent Abdulmutallab to the United States on his deadly mission.

And...

It is impossible to overstate how seriously Republicans view these issues, and, despite their weaknesses as the minority party, they are determined to get answers out of Holder.

COMMENT:  Holder must go.  Answers aren't enough.  And the department needs a housecleaning.  All the wrong people have been brought in, seriously hampering our war effort. 

During World War II, President Roosevelt worked around the State Department, understanding how ineffectual it was.  But it's impossible to work around the Justice Department, for it is involved, by definition, in so many critical issues.  That's why only massive personnel changes will do the job.

February 2, 2010   Permalink 

ELECTIONS 2010 – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  As Sinatra might have put it, leave us we should remember that the midterm elections take place nine months from today. 

Nine months is about 20 lifetimes in politics.  I am becoming increasingly concerned at the overconfidence I see on our side, the belief that gains will somehow be automatic.  We have to fight as if we're 20 points behind.  The economy can improve by November, even if the improvement is more cosmetic than real.  The president might pull off some kind of "tough" international action, making him seem more than he is, which isn't difficult.  The press will return to its 2008 role as national cheerleader for the left.  And Republicans themselves, who are hardly winning popularity contests as a party, might fail to come up with anything that brings in the actual, live voters.

Another alert:  Leave us also remember that today is primary day in Illinois.  It's a wonderful day, when shuttle services run to and from the cemeteries of Chicago, bringing citizens to the polls to exercise their sacred right.  Some come three and four times, out of a spirit of patriotism.

Both parties will run primaries for gubernatorial candidates.  The prison system in Illinois has been alerted to the prospect of still one more inmate.  An embarrassing number of recent Illinois governors have found themselves in stripes, making a political and fashion statement at the same time. 

The major interest, though, is in the Senate seat, up for grabs in November.  This is the seat that was held by Barack Obama, so the symbolic value is as great as the Kennedy seat recently won by our guy, Scott Brown, in Massachusetts.  The Republican primary winner tonight will almost certainly be Rep. Mark Kirk, a conservative with moderate overtones, as is Brown.  Political observers in Illinois believe he has a good chance to win the election.

Kirk's nomination will be a test of the maturity of Republicans.  Will they go all out for him, as they did for Scott Brown, even though he is not an Ivory-pure conservative, or will the true believers take their marbles and go home?  Kirk has been a fine congressman, highly respected by conservatives I know personally, even though they may not agree with him on every single point.  He deserves the Senate seat, in large measure because of his commitment to national defense.  Illinois is traditionally blue, as is Massachusetts.  It will be a fight, and a fight we must win.

We'll be reporting the returns tonight.

February 2,  2010   Permalink