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.

I was very pleased this evening to appear again on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent internet talk show, broadcast from Dallas.  Also appearing on the show was very knowledgeable Urgent Agenda reader and subscriber, Chris Corbett.  For those interested in listening, it's here.

SUNDAY,  MARCH 21,  2010

BULLETIN:  HEALTH PILL TAKEN – AT 10:50 P.M. ET:  The House has passed the Senate version of the health bill, 219 to 212, with 34 Democrats voting against. 

The vote was closer than had been expected. 

March 21, 2010    Permalink

BATTLE OF THE SENATE – AT 8:27 P.M. ET:  As John Hinderaker writes in the post below, Republicans haven't yet begun to fight on health care.  ABC's "The Note" has a prediction on the next battle action:

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: The House bill has not yet passed and already we are seeing the reconciliation fight start in the Senate.

Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats - thrown out with a trump card procedural motion. And they say Democrats are slow-walking a decision from the parliamentarian until the House passes the Senate bill.

That means the Senate bill, which everyone in the House seems to universally hate, will be the law of the land.

This afternoon Senate Republicans say Democrats won’t meet with them and the parliamentarian – a charge Democratic staffers call “absurd”. (The timing of the allegation also works as a last-minute, probably too-late message to wavering House Democrats).

Bottom line: Don’t expect the health reform debate to end tonight even though the health reform bill will become law as soon as Obama signs the Senate bill.

Should the House pass the Senate bill and the package of reconciliation fix-its tonight, Senators will take over the reconciliation fix-its as soon as Tuesday.

That will set in motion a week or longer parliamentary floor battle with points of order, references to the budget act, the Byrd Rule and more.

And...

If Republicans can get the parliamentarian to agree with them even once, whatever ultimately passes the Senate will have to go back to the House.  And Democrats in the House quietly admit that its very likely they will have to vote again on the reconciliation fixes at some point down the road.

COMMENT:  What an incredible situation.  The whole thing can still come down.  Stand by.  I haven't seen legislative combat like this in my lifetime.  It's true that the extension of the draft passed the House by only one vote in 1940, but the continuing controversy over that was ended for us by the Japanese on December 7, 1941.

The closest thing to what we're seeing now was the civil rights debate in 1964.  But the civil rights package had bipartisan support then.  This health bill has zero bipartisan support. 

I am absolutely curious to see how the American people, in polls, react to what's going on. 

March 21, 2010   Permalink 

REACTION TO THE INEVITABLE – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Reaction is starting to come in from conservative sources to the inevitable passage of the health-deform bill in the House.  The most thoughtful so far, I think, is from John Hinderaker at Power Line:

With collapse, passage of the Democrats' government medicine bill is assured. This is a dark day in American history; one of the darkest. But there are many reasons for optimism. Here are a few:

* The health care battle is just beginning. Next, the Senate will try to enact the House's "fixes" to the original Senate bill. Some Senators say that won't happen. If not, then President Obama has the option of signing the original Senate bill--now passed by the House--Cornhusker Kickback and all. I assume he would do that, but the resulting blowback from House Democrats, not to mention the American people, would be something to behold.

* The health care bill's taxes will go into effect promptly, but its substantive provisions are, for the most part, deferred for four years. This means that we have plenty of time to repeal the legislation...

* I've never been prouder to be a Republican. The party's Congressional leaders have fought this battle to the end on behalf of the American people--with intelligence, toughness, persistence and good humor. The contrast between the parties has never been starker than in today's debate. If any intelligent Democrats were watching--there must be some left--they had to be embarrassed for their party.

* Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.

* The health care debate has energized the conservative movement and awoken the sleeping giant, that is, the American people....

* Barack Obama has used his political capital--pretty much all of it--on unpopular legislation that will continue to rile the voters for years to come. As a result, Obama is a remarkably unpopular second-year President....

So, be of good cheer. To paraphrase a great American, we have not yet begun to fight.

COMMENT:  I think many of us feel pretty much the same.  If there's any issue that should have been handled with class and dignity, it's the health care of citizens.  Look at the way this was done.  The United States House of Representatives looked like the Chicago City Council deciding where to put sewer pipes.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

WELL, IT'S PRETTY MUCH OVER IN THE HOUSE – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The House on Sunday took the most critical step yet toward adoption of legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system and guarantee access to medical insurance for tens of millions of Americans, all but assuring a hard-fought but politically risky victory for President Obama and his party.

Again, the myths go forward.  All Americans have reasonable access to the health-care system, even if they don't have insurance.  It's awkward, it's in need of reform, but we're not, under the current system, leaving bodies in the streets. 

By a vote of 224-206, the House approved the key procedural measure necessary to pass the legislation, showing that Democrats and Mr. Obama had succeeded in cobbling together the votes they need to achieve a goal sought by presidents and progressives for more than a half-century.

I love the term "progressives," don't you?  Many of these "progressives" have a disturbingly warm feeling for some of the trendiest dictatorships.

The action came after a year of intense partisan combat, weeks of legislative brinksmanship and a last round of procedural roadblocks thrown up by Republicans, with the White House and Congressional leaders scrambling in the hours leading up to the vote to win over enough wavering Democrats to assure passage. The last outstanding challenge was finding a way to allay the concerns of Democrats who feared the bill would allow the use of federal money to pay for abortion or for insurance covering the procedure.

House Democrats clinched their victory on Sunday with an agreement on abortion. Democratic opponents of abortion rights, led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, announced that they would vote for the legislation after Mr. Obama promised to issue an executive order “to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services” if the bill passed.

Mr. Stupak described the order as a significant guarantee that would "protect the sanctity of life in health care reform.” But supporters of abortion rights said it merely reaffirmed what was in the bill.

I have no idea which is the case.  But if the system is administered by "progressives," you may be sure that abortions will be paid for.

Following the procedural vote, on setting the rules for debate on the legislation, the House proceeded to debate the underlying bill and a package of changes. It was expected to vote later Sunday on two separate measures needed to complete its work: the health care bill passed by the Senate in December, and a package of changes to that bill that will be sent back to the Senate for its approval on a simple majority vote under a procedure that allows Democrats to sidestep a Republican filibuster.

The Senate is the last barricade.  The story says the changes can be approved by a simple majority vote in the Senate.  Republicans will try points of order to argue that some of the proposed changes don't fall within the "simple majority" rule. 

My guess is that this thing will eventually become law in an elaborate ceremony signed by the president.  Then will come the process whereby the law is put into practice, and the American people will have to decide whether they like a more socialized form of medicine.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

LATEST RASMUSSEN POLL ON HEALTH PLAN – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:   From Scott Rasmussen:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a House of Representatives vote today on the health care reform plan proposed by the President Obama and congressional Democrats. Yet while in Congress there has been months of posturing and shifting of political tactics, voter attitudes have remained constant: A majority oppose the plan being considered by the legislators.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. These figures have barely budged in recent months.

Another finding that has remained constant is that the intensity is stronger among those who oppose the plan. The latest findings include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who Strongly Oppose it.

The partisan divide remains constant as well. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 87% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% are in favor, and 59% are opposed.

That independent vote, if it holds up, can kill the Dems this November.

Still, 50% of all voters say they’re less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that if the plan passes, the cost of health care will go up. Only 17% believe the plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing the cost of care.

At the same time, most voters (54%) believe that passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

COMMENT:  What an endorsement!  But a word of caution:  If the bill passes, it's possible that the White House spin machine, plus some early benefits, might sway some people in the "pro" direction.  So we have to keep up the fight even after passage.  And we can't just argue for repeal.  We have to argue for replacement with something better, and have that replacement ready to explain to the American people – a health-care contract with America.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Major House Dem claims victory on health vote.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats have the 216 votes needed to pass health care reform legislation in the House on Sunday, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus told CNN.

"This is a historic day and we are happy warriors," Rep. John Larson, D- Connecticut, told CNN's "State of the Union." He added, "We've got the votes."

But the chief deputy whip in the House, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, cautioned, "We don't have a hard 216 right now." Schultz made the statement to "Fox News Sunday" just as Larson was speaking to CNN.

Wasserman Schultz added, "I firmly believe we will have 216."

"This fight is not lost, yet," said House Minority Leader John Boehner on NBC's "Meet the Press."

COMMENT:  This could be Dem hype, or it could be real.  But what a spectacle – trying to get the bare minimum to pass a bill of this magnitude.  What leadership, what vision.  Why, we're in the presence of another Lincoln.  Or maybe it's a Mercury.  Or an Edsel.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

PETRAEUS FOR PRESIDENT? – WE DOUBT IT – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  From London's Telegraph, via the Vancouver Sun:

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus is being strongly suggested as the Republican presidential candidate to stand against Barack Obama in 2012.

Speculation is growing that the shrewd and articulate commander credited with turning around the Iraq war is contemplating a run for the White House.

Next week, he will deliver a speech at St Anselm College in New Hampshire, a traditional staging post in the state where the first presidential primaries are held every four years.

Each of the last eight presidents has spoken at the college on the way to victory.

It will be the latest in a series of engagements where the head of U.S. Central Command -- which covers the Middle East and Central Asia including Afghanistan -- has veered into foreign policy discussion.

Petraeus has consistently denied any ambitions to run for the presidency, once joking: "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

COMMENT:  This is going to pop up from time to time until 2012.  The chances of Petraeus running are not great.  His chances for a draft are poorer.  His chances at election, competing with Obama, are problematical.

First, Petraeus would be running against his own commander-in-chief.  The question would legitimately be asked:  If you think he's that bad, why didn't you resign earlier?

Second, he's a Rockefeller Republican, not exactly in style in today's Republican Party.

Third, military officers usually do not fare well in politics.  John McCain, a genuine hero, was defeated in 2008.  Our last military president was Dwight Eisenhower, who was also seen as a statesman.  That was half a century ago. 

Fourth, he's, at best, an average speaker. 

Petraeus is a fine man, and his surge strategy in Iraq worked.  But by 2012 the surge will be distant history.  Remember that Wesley Clark, who oversaw NATO's action in Bosnia, tried to get the Democratic nomination for president, and didn't come close.

Barring some major surprise, I wouldn't rate this story too highly.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

PRAISE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  You don't see words like that here very often.  However, The Times is to be praised for publishing the best, and most devastating, analysis of the real cost of the health bill to be voted on today: 

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

Yeah, we kind of suspected this.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Oh.  Well, here, let me get out my checkbook. 

There follows a careful exposing of how deceitful the bill actually is, including this:

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

Knowing the way Congress usually acts, the picture may actually be worse.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

If this thing passes we should all be required to write a note to the next generation, apologizing.  Although maybe we can ease the apology by pointing out that we did leave our kids reality TV, the legacy of John Edwards, and Barack Obama's foreign policy.  Be proud, be proud.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

THE RUMBLE – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  It has a bit of the feel of "West Side Story."  The House will clash on, then vote on, health care today or tonight, at least according to the script.  The sides will soon gather in the House chamber, on the bad side of town, for a rumble. 

The Washington Post has the latest:

House leaders decided Saturday to stage a vote on the Senate's health-care bill, dropping a much-criticized strategy of allowing lawmakers to "deem" the landmark legislation into law. But the outcome of that vote remained in doubt as a pivotal bloc of Democrats continued to withhold its support over fears that the bill would open the door to the federal funding of abortion.

House leaders were working to secure their votes late Saturday with the promise of an executive order affirming President Obama's commitment to a longstanding ban on public abortion funding except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a key antiabortion vote, said she thought the document would be insufficient to bring the entire group of about 10 antiabortion Democrats onboard.

Senior Democrats predicted a cliffhanger when the House is expected to vote Sunday night, saying they are likely to clear the 216-vote threshold for final passage by the narrowest of margins. Democratic leaders huddled in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) late into the evening, reviewing the final list of commitments.

COMMENT:  What a way to seize one sixth of the national economy and decide the medical fate of the entire population – a party-line affair that may pass by a few votes, without a single Republican in support.  All truly historic legislation, as Bill Kristol pointed out yesterday, has had bipartisan support.

March 21,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  MARCH 20,  2010

UNEQUAL OUTRAGE – AT 10:02 P.M. ET:  A story now getting wide circulation holds that some black members of Congress were cursed and spat at by tea partiers protesting the health bill outside the Capitol.

If it is true, and I have no reason to doubt the testimony of Congressman John Lewis and other black congressmen of fine reputation, then the tea party movement must immediately, and I mean immediately, denounce and condemn these scummy individuals, try to identify them, and drum them out of the movement.  I've never seen anything racial about the tea party phenomenon.  It is impossible to control every individual who shows up at a Capitol rally.  Some nuts may have joined in.

That having been said, I have a question:  Why is it that, when anti-black racism is charged, it becomes a headline story, but bigotry against other groups is largely ignored by the press?  Now, don't get me wrong.  The anti-black racism must be exposed and stomped out.  But I've seen CSPAN coverage of so-called "anti-war" rallies and pro-abortion demonstrations in which the most vile anti-Christian and anti-Semitic filth is spouted, and it isn't even reported.  If I weren't watching CSPAN, I wouldn't have known about it.

There is a double standard.  It's one of the reasons the press is held in such low regard.  The double standard must end.

March 20, 2010   Permalink

HEALTH CARE - NIGHT REPORT – AT 9:52 P.M. ET:  There have been no dramatic developments since our reports earlier today. 

The Dems are regularly sending the message, like a flashing neon sign, that they have the votes to pass the bill in the House, without even resorting to parliamentary gimmicks.  They probably do, although we won't know until late tomorrow.  Some of the "moderate" Democrats have clearly caved in.  I suspect they realized that their jobs would be worthless on Capitol Hill if they opposed Nancy Pelosi, even if those jobs will be in jeopardy in November.

Some moderate Dems may also figure – it's a line being spread rather actively by some liberal pundits – that health-care "reform" will become more popular once it's passed.  This line is based on the well-traveled idea that, when people start receiving benefits, they like them...and don't care how they're being paid for, or not being paid for.  And it's true:  It's almost impossible to take benefits away.

We'll know the House story within 24 hours.  Voting is expected late in the day, or at night. 

March 20, 2010   Permalink

HEALTH MOMENTUM – AT 5:23 P.M. ET:  Democrats have dropped the controversial "deem and pass" gimmick from their arsenal, another sign that they think they have the votes to pass their health plan tomorrow.  From Fox:

House Democrats on Saturday decided against using a controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill without an actual vote.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD., said he believes Democrats have enough votes to pass the legislation.

The decision capped an ongoing discussion on whether to use a so-called "deem and pass" strategy that would allow House members to approve the Senate version of health care bill without an actual vote before taking up a second "fix-it" resolution, known as reconciliation.

The stage is now set for three big votes on Sunday: the first to bring the "fix-it" bill to the House floor. The second on the bill. Then the final vote would be on the Senate bill itself.

If the final bill passes the House, the Senate plans to take it up next week.

Taking away "deem and pass" also takes away a powerful Republican issue and a possible basis for lawsuits. 

Harry Reid is claiming, at this hour, that he has majority support in the Senate to pass reconciliation measures.

If Dem claims are accurate, this is essentially over, with an Obama victory.  But Dems have made claims before.  I'd wait for the action, especially in the Senate, where Republicans will try to bring the bill down with objections.

March 20, 2010    Permalink

HEALTH CARE LATEST - AT 12:33 P.M. ET:   The Dems are starting to act as if they have the votes to pass the bill tomorrow.  From Fox:

House Democratic leaders have decided against including tighter restrictions on abortion funding in the final health care bill, indicating that they believe they have enough votes to pass legislation without the support of anti-abortion Democrats.

Members of the House Rules Committee, which began deliberations Saturday that will set the terms for Sunday's expected vote in the full House, told Fox News that no changes would be made to the abortion funding restrictions contained in the Senate version of the bill.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has led the charge to include in the final bill tougher anti-abortion language passed last November by the House, postponed a Saturday morning news conference in which he was expected to announce a deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

COMMENT:  Not that shocking.  Abortion is a religious cause for the left wing of the Democratic Party.  For some, abortion rights became the central issue in their lives.  (I've known people like that.)  The pro-life caucus, if things hold, is being put out to pasture. 

The real shame here is the behavior of so-called "moderate" Democrats who folded under pressure.  There is nothing moderate about this health bill.  They will have to explain it to their constituents, who should reject the explanations.

March 20, 2010   Permalink

A STRANGE APPEAL – AT 11:41 A.M. ET:  In a manner befitting the president of a student government, the president is appealing directly to the Iranian people, who have absolutely no power.  From AP:

In a fresh appeal directly to the Iranian people, US President Barack Obama says in an online video that the United States wants more educational and cultural exchanges for their students and better access to the Internet to give them a more hopeful future.

Isn't that precious?  We give them internet.  They send us nuclear explosions.  Fair deal, don't you think?

In the video, the second of his presidency directed at Iran, Obama said that the United States' offer of diplomatic dialogue still stands but that the Iranian government has chosen isolation. He said the US believes in the dignity of every human being.

Unfortunately, that belief in "the dignity of every human being" seems to include dictators.

Even though the United States and Iran continue to have differences, Obama said, "we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people — for instance, by increasing opportunities for educational exchanges so that Iranian students can come to our colleges and universities and through our efforts to ensure that Iranians can have access to the software and Internet technology that will enable them to communicate with each other and with the world without fear of censorship."

So lovely.  So irrelevant.  Obama has gotten absolutely nowhere with Iran.  This must be some kind of consolation prize.  We've seen, in the administration's Israel bashing in the last few weeks, just how amateurish this crew is.  Video appeals like this might get Obama some points in the warm 'n fuzzy part of the job, but little else.

It's been a rough road for Obama, and there have been few signs Teheran is loosening its grip after bloody elections marred with allegations of fraud. And efforts to impose new sanctions have been slow to find unified support from US allies.

They call that the bottom line.  It's a concept Obama really doesn't understand. 

I wonder what those Iranians who see this video will really think of our president.  You'll recall that, during the insurrections in Iran, some demonstrators carried banners asking, "Obama, where are you?"  Now they know where he is.  He's in the Oval Office designing cultural exchanges.

March 20, 2010   Permalink 

AND IN THE SENATE... – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  So much attention has been focused on the House vote on unhealthy care tomorrow that we forget there's another division of Congress, the U.S. Senate.  The Hill reports on what the Senate might do if the bill passes the House:

The Senate could take up the healthcare bill as early as Tuesday if the House passes it on Sunday, the second-ranking Senate Republican said Friday night.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said he expected the Senate debate on healthcare to begin Tuesday if House Democrats are able to stay on track and pass their bill tomorrow afternoon as planned.

Only a simple majority would be required, as the bill would be taken up under the rules of the reconciliation process. 

Under those rules, there is limited debate and an exhaustive round of amendments before moving to final passage, which only requires a simple majority instead of the 60 votes normally needed to end a filibuster in the Senate.

Conversely, new elements of the healthcare bill could be stricken if they are deemed to not strictly relate to budgetary issues. Republicans are hoping to force such changes through points of order.

"Now, points of order can be raised at any time, and there will be a several points of order that can be raised against this legislation," Kyl explained.

The Republican goal is clear:

If Republicans are able to force changes in the Senate, it raises the prospect of the bill returning to the House again, where Democratic leaders over there would be forced to wrangle the votes again to pass the legislation.

COMMENT:  A momentous week coming up.  Get out all those self-examination medical kits available online from companies you never heard of, 'cause that's what you'll need if this monstrosity goes through.

March 20, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA HITS HIS ALL-TIME BOTTOM AGAIN IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  As we anticipate tomorrow's health-care vote in the House, President Obama is being greeted by a wave of popular disapproval, as reported by Scott Rasmussen:

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. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

Each time the President leads a big push for his health care plan, his job approval ratings suffer. While some portions of the plan are popular, others are not.

And...

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That also matches the lowest level yet recorded for this President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  I'd be cautious about these figures.  If the president's bill passes tomorrow, and he can sign it into law, public opinion, which is fickle, might change.  On the one hand, public anger toward the president can grow, as the American people look forward to federally managed care.  On the other hand, there may be a tendency to say, "All right, it passed.  Let's get behind it and give it a chance."

Also, polls show that Mitt Romney is the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.  He's the "next in line," which, sadly, is how the Republicans often nominate their presidential candidates.  Although it's very early in the game, I don't see Romney as a particularly strong candidate, although that could change by 2012.  There is no Reagan in the wings, and it may take a Reagan to defeat an Obama in campaign mode.

March 20,  2010   Permalink