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.

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 20,  2010

WILL THE INMATES TAKE OVER THE ASYLUM? – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  We already reported on one disgraceful blunder by the people running the CPAC convention in Washington – allowing the execrable John Birch Society to be one of the sponsors. 

Now there's another embarrassment:

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican who ran a quixotic bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, was the top vote-getter in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll, capturing the support of 33 percent of those who participated in the contest.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had won the CPAC straw poll for three consecutive years, took 22 percent of the vote. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won 7 percent and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty 6 percent. Pawlenty attended the conference; Palin did not.

Paul’s victory renders a straw poll that was already lightly contested among the likely 2012 GOP hopefuls all but irrelevant as the 74-year-old Texan is unlikely to be a serious contender for his party’s nomination.

Ron Paul is not a conservative.  He's a kook, a right-wing nut with fascistic leanings.  He is also, incredibly, an open, unashamed apologist for Osama bin Laden.  His website recently featured a tribute to a vile, pro-Hitler writer who'd just died.   

CPAC organizers were plainly embarrassed by the results, which could reduce the perceived impact of a contest that was once thought to offer a window into which White House hopefuls were favored by movement conservatives.

Well, at least they were embarrassed.  I guess they couldn't control who came to the convention, but maybe there should be mental health professionals on hand next time.

A spokesman for the conference rushed over to reporters following the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.

This is the same old story.  William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan fought against this craziness all their lives.  Through their efforts, the conservative movement largely freed itself from the extremists who'd held it back. 

I'm afraid we have some further work to do.

Many conservatives just don't comprehend the damage that the fringe can do.  Remember, the mainstream media covers for the extremists on the left.  I can cite you chapter and verse on how the media leaves out critical facts about leftist fringe operators.  But the media will never extend that courtesy to the right.  Every nut case will be brought front and center in news stories and TV reports. 

Look at what was emphasized at tea party rallies.  Thousands of responsible people showed up.  But if one guy had a crazy, threatening sign, it would make CNN.  A few days ago, when that suicide pilot crashed his plane into a building in Texas, some commentators actually linked his views to that of the tea partiers, even though there was no link whatsoever.

One of the most noble things you can do in life is to keep your movement honest and clean.  A movement, or a party, can be a big tent, but it cannot be an infinite tent.

I wrote at Angel's Corner last night about the danger of extremism on the right.  It didn't take very long for some nuts at the CPAC convention to prove the point.

Hard work ahead.  A lot hangs in the balance.

February 20, 2010   Permalink

EMBARRASSMENT, AND HYPOCRISY – AT 6:50 P.M. ET:  Some people do dumb things, and others do fatal things.  From the New York Daily News:

A snowboard bronze medalist from New Hampshire is kissing the Olympics goodbye after risque photos emerged of a girl kissing his medal hello.

Halfpipe boarder Scotty Lago volunteered to leave the Vancouver Games amidst the sneers of Olympic officials reacting to photos of a girl kissing his medal - which was affixed to his pants and covering his crotch.

There was a second photo of Lago holding the medal in his hand as the attractive young woman bit down on it as if to prove the authenticity of the bronze, while teammate Greg Bretz looked on.

Dressed in a "Team USA" T-shirt, Lago was photographed at a party following his award ceremony Thursday night.

He apologized Friday to the U.S. Olympic Committee and U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association, and decided it was best to pack his bags before the closing ceremonies.

COMMENT:  Clearly inappropriate behavior, and leaving the games was the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, a louger from Georgia was killed in a training accident on a course that had drawn repeated complaints over safety for months.  Anyone punished? 

The Olympics are like the mainstream media.  They'll correct a small mistake, but rarely a big one.  When there's a full, satisfactory investigation of the louger's death, and why the Olympics ignored all the warnings, then we'll talk about racy pictures.

February 20, 2010   Permalink

PLEASE MAKE A CASH CONTRIBUTION – AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  I know that all of you will have your checkbooks out by the time you finish this story about the latest act of unfairness toward an Illinois politician:

SPRINGFIELD — Ex-Gov. George Ryan won't get to collect his state pension as he sits in an Indiana federal prison, a decision his attorney former Gov. Jim Thompson called "deeply disappointing" because the once-affable cigar-smoking old-school Republican "has nothing."

Hilarious if it weren't so sad:  One governor is lawyer for another.  Nothing like an intimate club to warm the heart.  And now the facts:

But Ryan already has raked in $635,000 from Illinois taxpayers in the three-plus years between his retirement and his major political corruption conviction, a top pension official said. Ryan also got a refund of $235,500 when his pension was taken away — the amount of personal contributions he made during his more than 30 years in public office.

Please note that this is the Illinois political class's definition of "nothing."

The pension payments run counter to the sympathetic image Thompson is trying to cultivate for Ryan, who turns 76 on Wednesday, faces at least three more years in prison and is hoping President Barack Obama will grant his request for freedom.

Now watch.  Obama will seek legal advice from Bill Clinton.  Uh, wait, Clinton was disbarred.  Eric Holder?  Uh, no, Eric can't get anything right and wants to try terrorists in New York neighborhoods.  Janet Reno?  Well...no, she's too creepy to be alive. 

I know:  The president should go to that law firm that advertises low rates on TV.  What is it?  Legal Zoom dot com?  He'll probably do a lot better there.

Of course, he could contact someone who's a real expert on the inner workings of Illinois politics.  But they're all in jail.

I'd love to see how this turns out.

February 20,  2010   Permalink

ANOTHER DISGRACE – AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  At last night's Angel's Corner I wrote about the conservative resurgence and what, to me at least, was the basic cause – a belief that our basic institutions have broken down, and are in desperate need of renewal.

But I also warned that this resurgence could collapse if influenced by extremists and crackpots, who must be shown the door, and then some.  No movement can prosper unless it is disciplined and sane. 

Sadly, we've just learned of a serious breach, reported by my friend, Scott Johnson, at Power Line.  It seems that a co-sponsor of this week's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference ) convention in Washington is the John Birch Society.  For those too young to recall, the JBS is an extremist, right-wing (not conservative) club made up of deranged clowns who did severe damage to the conservative movement in the late fifties and early sixties.

William F. Buckley Jr. crusaded against the Birchers, who, among other things, argued that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist agent.  He was joined in this fight against nuttery by leading conservatives, including Barry Goldwater.  And for years the Birchers were essentially banned from respectable conservative gatherings.

Now they're back.  Scott reports:

The annual Conservative Political Action Conference is a great event attended by just about everybody who is anybody in the conservative movement. It also attracts a lot of college students who aspire to make a contribution to the movement.

ABC's Jonathan Karl reports that this year's CPAC event was co-sponsored, unbelievably to me, by the John Birch Society. Karl quotes some of Buckley's characteristically vibrant denunciations of the JBS. "Two years after Buckley's death," Karl observes, "the John Birch Society is no longer banished; it is listed as one of about 100 co-sponsors of the 2010 CPAC."

Karl reasonably asks: "Why is the Birch Society a co-sponsor?"

"They're a conservative organization," according to Lisa Depasquale, the CPAC Director for the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC. "Beyond that," she told Karl, "I have no comment."

Additional comment is required, and if Depasquale will not provide it, I will. This is a disgrace.

The John Birch affiliation must go.  Immediately.  Right now.  This is just the kind of thing that can cripple the conservative resurgence.   It did so before.

February 20, 2010   Permalink

THE DISGRACE – AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  This man should never have been appointed in the first place.  He's another proof that, despite slogans to the contrary, this is an administration of the real left.  From the Politico:

President Barack Obama’s new Islamic envoy, Rashad Hussain, changed course Friday – admitting he made sharply critical statements about a U.S. terror prosecution against a Muslim professor after initially saying he had no recollection of making such comments.

“I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated,” Hussain said, referring to a 2004 conference where he discussed the case.

He obviously lied about the "no recollection" statement, and should be fired like a shot. 

Hussain’s reversal came after POLITICO obtained a recording of his presentation to a Muslim students’ conference in Chicago, where he can be heard portraying the government’s cases towards professor Sami Al-Arian, as well as other Muslim terrorism suspects, as “politically motivated persecutions.” Al-Arian later pled guilty to aiding terrorists.

The comments touched off criticism from conservative commentators, who questioned whether someone who held those views should represent the United States in the Muslim world.

The question is whether someone who held those views should be president of the United States.

Hussain was a White House counsel, with access to classified information. 

The White House declined to say Friday whether the statements or the controversy affected Obama’s confidence in Hussain.

Hussain also answered another question surrounding his comments – why they were removed from the website of a magazine on Middle East issues that published a brief account of the panel back in 2004, attributing the statement about “politically motivated persecutions” to Hussain.

It was Hussain himself, he said Friday, who contacted the publication to complain about the story.

We'll follow this.  Hussain must go, but that might "offend" the Democratic left.  Obama needs some backbone on the issue.  There are plenty of others who can represent us to the Muslim world, as if the job will really produce results.

February 20, 2010   Permalink

SAD, AND WITH PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS – AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  The White House and its leftist allies may not care, as democracy has been downgraded as an American cause in the era of Obama. 

But others do care that the Iranian resistance movement has all but collapsed.  Major anti-government demonstrations planned for February 11th never materialized.  We'd hoped that a collapse of the mullah regime would send Iran on a new course, mitigating the crisis involving its nuclear-weapons program.  From The Washington Post:

After their planned show of strength largely fizzled Feb. 11 in the face of heavy security for state-sponsored celebrations of the Islamic revolution's 31st anniversary, activists in Iran's political opposition have been left demoralized, wondering how to revive a movement that many hoped would lead to a more open society, greater personal freedoms and fairer elections.

They certainly got no encouragement from Washington.  Democracy was a BUSH (!!) notion, therefore not very important to the current administration.

Those attending the dissidents' get-together contemplated the reasons for their defeat as they sought to answer the question, "What now?" Some admitted that they had been afraid to join anti-government protests scheduled to coincide with the anniversary rallies. Others said they had tried to go but faced thousands of armed security forces who blocked streets. All agreed that the opposition's failure to make an impact during the state-backed demonstrations represented a huge blow for the grass-roots movement.

In this well-reported story, not one of the Iranian dissidents apparently said a word about Barack Hussein Obama, whom, we had been told during the 2008 campaign, had an affinity with young people in the "Third World." Not these young people.

...there was consensus on one issue. "Just because our protest failed, that doesn't mean we have lost our anger," the student said. "We have a very simple demand: freedom. But I don't see how we can get it."

COMMENT:  The Post has run a fine story.  But notice the absence of any passion in most of the mainstream media.  The media is composed of "journalists" who went into journalism, many of them, to "make a difference." Look at the difference they're making.

The failure, at least thus far, to budge the mullah regime, will strengthen its confidence as it confronts the West over nuclear weapons.  It's pretty clear it will get those weapons unless our side, led by Obama, takes some strong, maybe unpleasant action.  Obama doesn't seem to have the stomach.  If his attitude toward the freedom fighters is any guide, he doesn't have the passion either.

February 20, 2010   Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  President Obama's numbers in the Rasmussen poll have been remarkably steady in the last two months, but that's not good news for him.

They've been remarkably steady in a negative direction:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

And...

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  This White House is a permanent campaign.  It's been stepped up in the last month (at our expense).  The president yesterday was on still one more campaign swing, but none of it seems to make a difference.

There appears to be, if the numbers are correct, a hardening of attitudes about this president.  Of course, some huge event can change his standing, but, after a year, he is hardly getting a vote of confidence.

February 20,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 19,  2010

THE DEPARTMENT OF MAYBE SOME JUSTICE – AT 6:26 P.M. ET:  When a new attorney general takes office in Washington, he or she has a vast number of lawyers available in the nation who'd love to be appointed to Justice Department positions. 

So it's fascinating to see who actually gets chosen.  Fascinating, and sometimes depressing. 

Attorney General Eric Holder has now disclosed what was actually already known, that some of his appointees have histories of defending Guantanamo detainees.  Nothing wrong with people having a defense, of course, but there are serious questions here about conflicts of interest.  Byron York of the Washington Examiner has the story:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Question:  Why was it necessary to pick these particular lawyers for the department when Holder knew that detainee issues would be front and center?

Holder's admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."

Human Rights Watch?  Are we serious?  That is a once-great organization that fell under the spell of the international left.  That's where we get our federal lawyers?

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing. He says nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley already knew. "To the best of our knowledge," Holder writes, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.

Holder has been a liability for Obama.  He seems to make one mistake after another, and has a political tin ear.  Maybe next he'll hire O.J. Simpson to give advice on domestic crime.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

CASE CLOSED, WE THINK – AT 6:19 P.M. ET:  The FBI has closed its investigation into the anthrax attacks of 2001:

The FBI officially closed its eight-year investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks Friday after concluding that Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins acted alone in preparing and mailing the deadly spores that killed five people and terrorized the nation.

The long-delayed end to the case known as Amerithrax was accompanied by the release of hundreds of pages of documents -- many of them not previously public -- describing in unprecedented detail how agents tied the eccentric Maryland scientist to the country's worst bioterrorist attack, and ruled out other potential suspects.

The validity of the FBI's case will never be tested in court because Ivins, a specialist in anthrax vaccines at Frederick's Fort Detrick Army base, committed suicide in 2008 as investigators were preparing to charge him.

The documents reveal for the first time that Ivins, a man with a long history of mental and emotional disorders, confided before his death that he was worried he might have committed acts he said he could not recall.

COMMENT:  Well, they probably got it right, but I'm always uneasy about investigations that blame a dead guy.  At the same time, a legitimate question can be asked:  Why was a man with "a long history ofmental and emotional disorders" permitted to work in an Army anthrax laboratory?  I'd like to see that answered.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

REMEMBERING – AT 5:29 P.M. ET:  Today marks the 65th anniversary of the invasion of Iwo Jima by United States Marines.

And, as this is being written, Marines are fighting in Afghanistan.

Iwo Jima was one of the iconic battles of World War II, etched in our memory through the photograph of Marines raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi.

It was a battle in which the United States suffered more total casualties than our enemy, Japan, although almost the entire Japanese garrison was destroyed.

Iwo Jima was a Japanese island before World War II.  The mayor of Tokyo was the mayor of Iwo Jima.

One of the tragedies of Iwo Jima is that the island proved only minimally useful to the United States after it was taken.  War plans had changed.  Strategies were altered.  But none of that minimizes the sacrifice of the Marines who took the island.  Marine and Navy fatalities totaled more than 6,000.

Iwo Jima was returned to the Japanese in 1968.  Americans are permitted to visit once a year for remembrance. 

Reader Claude Williams has visited Iwo Jima and writes about it at this evening's edition of The Angel's Corner.

February 19, 2010    Permalink

AN ERA FADES – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  Kathryn Grayson has died at 88.  For those of a certain age, or for their children who were taught what movies are really about, her name has resonance.

Kathryn Grayson was one of the stars of the truly legendary Freed unit, the division of MGM that made the great MGM musicals of the 30's, 40's and 50's.  She was beautiful, and sang with the quality of the trained operatic singer that she was.

The MGM musicals symbolized, possibly more than any other form, the golden age of American movies, movies made to entertain an audience, not give a political lecture.  MGM lavished endless attention on its musicals, employing the finest composers, lyricists, designers, directors and performers.  The "film sophisticates" sneered that MGM was a movie factory.  That is exactly right.  It made movies.  That was its job.  It made them all the time, allowing artists to practice their craft every day.  Hey, you think that may have had something to do with the quality?

One of my most memorable experiences was to walk through the soundstages of MGM and remember the musicals that were made there.  You felt ghosts.  You really did.

We will remember Kathryn Grayson for her performances in "Show Boat" and "Kiss Me Kate," as well as many others.  She glowed, and perfectly symbolized an American art form.  She was one of the last survivors of the Freed unit.  Cyd Charisse died two years ago.  Leslie Caron still lives. 

Here is Kathryn Grayson with Mario Lanza:

Go get the DVD's.  And enjoy.   There's nothing wrong with that.  And listen to the music.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

THE SARAH DEBATE – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  What a remarkable debate is occurring on the right regarding Sarah Palin.  It simply shows that she is endlessly fascinating. 

In the last few days, Sarah has come under criticism from two prominent conservative writers - Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal – quoted at Urgent Agenda – and George Will.

Now, at NRO, another writer, Mike Potemra, gallantly defends Sarah.  Oh, the tradition.  Oh, the chivalry.  Nancy Pelosi, eat your heart out:

What, specifically, does Rabinowitz object to? In part, the fact that Palin has endorsed Ron Paul’s son for the U.S. Senate; but, more significantly: “The unsavory echoes of [Palin’s] regular references to ‘the real America’ as opposed to those shadowy ‘elites,’ now charged with threats to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of all real Americans. [Palin seems not] to have any idea of how that low soap-box oratory — embracing one kind of American as the real kind, those builders in the towns and cities across America — rings in the ear today.”

Now, I share — quite intensely, as it happens — Rabinowitz’s dislike of the sort of rhetoric for which she faults Sarah Palin. I would not welcome a continuation of it for all three years leading up to the 2012 election, much less for the four years of the next presidency. But I think Rabinowitz is wrong in saying that Palin is unaware of how that sort of speech “rings in the ear today.” Rabinowitz and I may not like it, but we are probably in the minority. Palin may have found just the right emotional buttons to be a successful politician in our time.

A good point, but Sarah must be careful that her rhetoric not attract the out-of-the-woodwork crowd, who can destroy any movement.

Which brings me to George Will, who writes: “Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska’s governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states...

...When I read this sort of thing, I can’t help remembering that there was a point in 2007 when the Obama campaign was faltering, and I was thinking, What a dumb idea it is for a guy with no experience, no qualifications, and a record of less than half a term in the Senate to think he can be elected president. The sooner he gets out of the race, the less embarrassed he’ll end up being.

And...

The gravamen of his substantive objection to Palin – i.e., as opposed to the highly questionable assertion that she can’t win — is that while she has “showed grit . . . she has also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning.” The thing about seasoning, though, is that it can come with time. I have seen already that Palin is a political natural, so I have little doubt she has the raw political talents to win people’s affections: In this regard, she reminds me of no one so much as of Bill Clinton, who in the 1992 primaries managed to turn catastrophe into political gold.

Finally...

Rabinowitz writes: “At a time when Republican hopes are in the ascendancy, as now (and even when they are not), it’s impossible to imagine the Sarah Palin known to the world today as their leader. It would be well for her to begin pondering the reasons.” The first sentence here is true, in a sense, but misleading; the second assumes, perhaps contrary to fact, that Palin has not yet considered the question. In my view, Palin is showing a great deal of skill in her current task: tapping today’s mood to win a lot of support among some highly politically involved and energized Americans. She can hardly be faulted for not yet having moved on to the next task: to demonstrate that she can lead a party, and a nation. The answer on that, we can leave to be determined in an actual campaign.

COMMENT:  This debate will continue, and we'll be following it.  Candidates rarely attract this kind of passion.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

THE WARNING – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  This is delicate, and the source must be hidden.  I received the following e-mail from a highly qualified person.  The e-mail has been edited to disguise the individuals involved:

A friend...who works in a very high intelligence position in the national government made clear...yesterday that the most uncontrollable and unpredictable terrorism problem involves "lone wolf" operatives who get propaganda from terrorist websites that eventually lead them to commit terrorist acts.  The Fort Hood killer is an example of that.  Expect more such incidents.  

He described the likelihood of continued terrorist incidents within the US as a "certainty."  He also told us that since 9/11 the government has stopped "hundreds and hundreds" of domestic terrorism efforts, none of which are known to the public or media. Many of these would have produced true catastrophes and came quite close to fruition.  He indicated that Al Qaeda is currently experiencing an "upswing" in its resources and capabilities.

This person travels overseas always with government-provided bodyguards.

COMMENT:  Please remember that warning.  And remember the statement that we've stopped "hundrds and hundreds" of domestic terrorism attempts.  I'm sure the left feels that each of our successes was deeply offensive to the innocent, misunderstood jihadists.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

FANATICISM – AT 8:30 A.M. ET:  Although the president has invited Republican lawmakers to a televised meeting on health-care legislation, to be held Febuary 25th, apparently it's little more than a show.  Mr. Obama, despite widespread public opposition, has his own plan:

President Obama is working on health care legislation intended to reconcile differences between House and Senate Democrats that could be attached to a budget bill and avoid a Republican filibuster, according to a published report.

The president's proposal, which is still being written, will be posted on the Internet by Monday morning, senior administration officials and Congressional aides told the New York Times.

By piggybacking the legislation onto a budget bill, Democrats would be able to advance the bill with a simple majority of just 51 votes, averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

The White House signaled Thursday that an aggressive, all-Democratic strategy for overhauling the nation's health system remains a serious option, even as Obama invites Republicans to next week's televised summit to seek possible compromises.

"It will be a reconciliation bill," the Times quoted a Democratic aide as saying. "If Republicans don't come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do."

The administration's stance could set the stage for a political showdown, with Democrats struggling to enact the president's top domestic priority and Republicans trying to block what many conservatives see as government overreach.

COMMENT:  The cynicism is overwhelming, and the contempt for the public is stunning.  It is typical of the arrogant crowd running the government these days.  They've learned nothing from recent election setbacks, from polls, from clear expressions of public rejection.  They know what's good for us.

This is the left wing of the Democratic Party at work.  It will stop at nothing.  It wants control of the nation's health care.  Its masters understand that, once that control is written into law, it will be very hard to reverse it. 

The dream, of course, is to make America more like Europe, which the left considers superior to the vulgar, imperialist, expansionist, militaristic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic and meat-eating nation they live in. 

The Republican strategy is still evolving.  Republicans should recall the admonition of General Douglas MacArthur, that all defeats begin with two words:  Too late.  The GOP must present its health-care ideas to the American people, and they've got to be good and convincing.  Otherwise, the Dems will go crazy and pass their monstrosity.

February 19, 2010   Permalink

GOP HOUSE PROSPECTS – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  The prospects seem to get better and better, as The Politico reports:

Highlighting the GOP’s continued momentum, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report made ratings changes in 25 House races Thursday, all of which favor Republican candidates. The downgrading of Democratic prospects in the races paints an increasingly promising picture for GOP chances of taking over the House next year.

The respected political publication now rates 54 Democratic-held seats in the most highly competitive category — with 26 of them either pure tossups or favoring the Republican candidate. The publication rates 95 Democratic seats in total as potentially vulnerable — over one-third of the entire caucus.

Republicans need to pick up a net of 40 seats to win back control of the House. According to the Cook ratings, the GOP has only six seats that are at risk of flipping.

The list of potentially vulnerable Democrats, according to the Cook Report, includes members who have been virtually untouchable in the past, including Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Nick Rahall, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who hasn’t faced a competitive race since 1990.

“At this rate, Democrats are likely to lose at least 25-35 seats in the House and would have to bend the current trajectory of the cycle to hold onto their House majority,” wrote Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman.

COMMENT:  Comforting news that will make for a better weekend.  However, Charles Krauthammer warned several days ago that the current Republican momentum may not last, and is subject to any number of derailers.  The economy can improve.  An international crisis may produce the "rally 'round the president" effect.  The Republicans may fail to exploit their advantage.  Dissident groups on the right may run third-party candidates, effectively electing Democrats.

So, we say again, we have to run as if we're 20 points behind.

February 19,  2010   Permalink