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.

THURSDAY,  MAY 20,  2010

ANOTHER FILM CLASSIC – AT 9:17 P.M. ET:  I know you'll want to order your tickets early:

BANDUNG, Indonesia (AP) - Young Barry Obama is struggling with his pingpong shot.

Or rather, 12-year-old Hasan Faruq Ali is struggling to play left-handed in imitation of the character he is portraying in a new Indonesian film, "Little Obama."

Are they thanking the academy already?  Actually, it sounds like a crime movie, like "Little Caesar."

The film tells the story of Obama's childhood in Jakarta, where he lived with his mother and Indonesian stepfather from age 6 to 10.

"It's about his friendships, his hobbies, just a childhood story," said screenwriter and co-director Damien Dematra. "It's not about politics, it's just the story of a boy."

Oh, of course it's not about politics.  Who could even think about politics?  Why, it's just like "Lassie."

The movie is taken from Dematra's book "Obama Anak Menteng"—"Obama, the Menteng Kid"—a fictionalized biography based on interviews with about 30 old friends and neighbors.

Wait, wait.  If you're going to do 30 interviews, why make it a fictionalized biography?  What part is fiction?  Will we be told?

Ready to be sick?  Do it now:

Dematra said he was a Hillary Rodham Clinton fan until he researched Obama.

"I just felt that this guy is an extraordinary person," Dematra said. "The reason I'm doing this is I want people around the world to know that Obama can become who he is because of his background in Indonesia. The different religions and races, the pressures that he had. I want the film to inspire people."

No, dork.  He can be who he is because he's an American.  You might note that we also have different religions and races.  We're not perfect, but we've done it better than anyone else. 

I'm sure the film will inspire people.  What they'll be inspired to do is a different matter altogether.

I'd rather see a rerun of "Casablanca."

May 20, 2010     Permalink

NORTH KOREA THREATENS – AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  North Korea has threatened war if South Korea retaliates for the north's sinking of a South Korean naval vessel:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Tensions deepened Thursday on the Korean peninsula as South Korea accused North Korea of firing a torpedo that sank a naval warship, killing 46 sailors in the country's worst military disaster since the Korean War.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed "stern action" for the provocation following the release of long-awaited results from a multinational investigation into the March 26 sinking near the Koreas' tense maritime border. North Korea, reacting swiftly, called the results a fabrication, and warned that any retaliation would trigger war. It continued to deny involvement in the sinking of the warship Cheonan.

"If the (South Korean) enemies try to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," Col. Pak In Ho of North Korea's navy told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

An international civilian-military investigation team said evidence overwhelmingly proves a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo that caused a massive underwater blast that tore the Cheonan apart. Fifty-eight sailors were rescued from the frigid Yellow Sea waters, but 46 perished.

Since the 1950-53 war on the Korean peninsula ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty, the two Koreas remain locked in a state of war and divided by the world's most heavily armed border.
The truce prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack.

COMMENT:  This is a growing crisis, to be watched carefully.  The South Koreans, and their American allies, must do something to punish North Korea for its attack – and the evidence pointing to North Korea is clear – but a failure to act decisively will be seen as weakness of the worst sort.

Retaliation doesn't have to be military.  It can be economic, diplomatic, sanctions, or other punishment.

My fear is that the White House, acting according to its usual pattern, will try to manage the dispute and calm it down, with North Korea receiving hardly a slap on the wrist.  It's the Obama way.  Let's see if he can break with his own bad habits.

May 20, 2010     Permalink

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH – AT 7:27 P.M. ET:  Most foreign presidents who are invited to address a joint session of Congress go out of their way to be diplomatic.  Apparently, no one gave President Felipe Calderon of Mexico the protocol sheet.

Calderon said the usual nice things, then criticized Arizona's new illegal-immigration law, never conceding that immigration laws in Mexico are vastly more onerous. 

He then went on to link the rise in violence in Mexico directly to the lifting of the ban on the sale of assault weapons in the United States. 

This, of course, is absurd.  The drug dealers who get these assault weapons can get them from many places around the world.  If they get them from the U.S., the sales are illegal.  I doubt very much if reinstating the ban, which may or may not be a good idea, would do anything to deter illegal sales.

There may well be things we can do to help Mexico.  But I, for one, am tired of the great excuse machine.  Someone should ask President Calderon two questions:  1) Why can't Mexico, an oil-exporting country, develop enough of an economy to feed its people and make illegal immigration unnecessary, and 2) Why don't we have these same problems on the Canadian border? 

I doubt very much if these questions will be asked.  President Calderon is, in many respects, an admirable guy, and vastly preferable to the Chavez ally he defeated in the last Mexican election.  But we are not to blame for Mexico's internal problems.

May 20, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA SLIPS MORE IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  President Obama, in the last few months, made some gains in the Rasmussen survey, and appeared to be consolidating those gains.  But slippage has begun again:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16...

...Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove Those figures also reflect the weakest ratings for the president since the health care bill became law.

COMMENT:  Passion is the issue again.  The fact that 42% of likely voters strongly disapprove of the president's performance is just stunning.  Only 26% strongly approve, which is not very much above Obama's ethnic base. 

Of course, the president isn't on the ballot this November, and presidents have been far down before and snapped back for second-term victories.  But these numbers may, at least in part, explain why Mr. Obama seems to have so little impact on Democratic fortunes in voting held so far this year.

May 20, 2010     Permalink

THE GOP KAMIKAZES – We warned earlier this morning that the GOP remains unpopular, and must be more than an opposition party to become triumphant.  Now comes evidence that the Republican kamikazes are at work, trying to make the party as unattractive as possible.  At this they are expert.  From The Hill:

House Republicans in line to chair important committees want less-stringent earmark spending rules next year, when they hope to be in control of the chamber.

Senior Republicans are pushing for a policy that would allow earmarks, the provisions lawmakers insert in spending bills to fund projects in their districts, but would make the process more transparent. House GOP leaders imposed a temporary moratorium on all earmarks in March in a bid to demonstrate fiscal discipline in an election year.

That moratorium ends at the end of the year, when a new policy will be put in place, said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
“It is just a moratorium, it’s not a total ban,” he said.

COMMENT:  You can be sure that the Democratic National Committee is on this story already, and is poised to portray the GOP as the party of special interests and pork barrel spending. 

Fellas, can't you wait 'til after the election to go back to hackery? 

This is why a new "contract with America" is needed, and one that will clearly place the GOP on the side of congressional reform, not the side of "business as usual."  Anyone listening?

May 20, 2010     Permalink

TURNAROUND? – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  There are conflicting reports on how the United States will address the crisis brewing in Korea, one of the most volatile places on Earth.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — South Korea’s formal accusation that a North Korean torpedo sank one of its warships, killing 46 sailors, will set off a diplomatic drumbeat to punish North Korea, backed by the United States and other nations, which could end up in the United Nations Security Council.

On Thursday morning in Seoul, the South Korean government presented forensic evidence, including part of a torpedo propeller with what investigators believe is a North Korean serial number.

They said it proved that the underwater explosion that shattered the 1,200-ton corvette, the Cheonan, in March near a disputed sea border with the North was caused by the detonation of a torpedo.

On Monday, South Korea is expected to push for the case to be referred to the United Nations, and the United States plans to back Seoul “strongly and unequivocally,” according to Obama administration officials.

The investigation “points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that North Korea was responsible for this attack,” the White House said in a statement after the report was released in Seoul. “This act of aggression is one more instance of North Korea’s unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law.”

COMMENT:  Hold on, hold on.  That sounds very good.  We will back our ally "strongly and unequivocally." 

But just yesterday, at an off-the-record briefing, a former high official of the U.S. Government told a group of us that the facts are otherwise – that the United States is trying to restrain the South Koreans, and wants them to shove this incident under the rug so we can go back to more talking with the North. 

I'd watch this one with two eyes, to see what the U.S. really does.  Backing our allies hasn't been a priority of this administration, to put it mildly.  And the lefties in the Obama camp have little use for a vibrant, successful country like South Korea.  We're talking a good game, and that kind of talk may be prominent before the midterms, just to assure the American voters that there's a real president in the White House.  It's after the election that I worry about.

May 20, 2010     Permalink

OH, THERE'S THAT PROBLEM, ISN'T THERE? – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  Just when the administration thought it could devote increasing resources to waging war against the foreign nation of Arizona, some statistics got in the way.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The big surge was a setback to hopes that layoffs were declining.

The Labor Department says that applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week. The unexpectedly large rise in new claims underscored that even though the economy is growing, improvements in the labor market are coming in fits and starts.

COMMENT:  This is not good, for the country or for the president.  And yet, it reflects what people are observing "out there."  The unemployment crisis isn't being solved.  In fact, it really isn't being addressed.  Should the unemployment rate go above 10 percent, which means an underemployment rate that is much higher, it could have a devastating psychological impact on the nation, and on the upcoming elections.

May 20, 2010     Permalink

GET IT RIGHT – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  One of the constant themes of pundits since Tuesday's voting is the condition of the Republican Party.  That condition is unstable.

It may well be that momentum alone will propel the party to victory in November, even taking over both houses of Congress.  But the fact is, and it is confirmed in every poll, that the GOP is unpopular.  Its message is incoherent, it often appears disorganized, and some of its new, leading personalities – like Rand Paul – are what the Brits call "nutters." 

The American people increasingly don't like the Obama administration or its program.  The opportunity for the Republicans is golden.  And yet, what are they doing with that opportunity?  Instead of coming up with a coherent, attractive program, they're simply positioning themselves as the opposition.  "Vote for us because we're not as bad as the other guys" seems to be the theme.  This may work for a time, but there's a point where "no" becomes rather unexciting.

In addition, it's becoming obvious, just a year before the presidential sweepstakes of 2012 begin, that the Republicans do not have a particular strong stable of candidates who can take on Barack Obama.  The president may be failing, but so was Bill Clinton before he was reelected decisively in 1996.  The Republican tendency simply to pick the next guy in line appears to be at work.  Mitt Romney is the frontrunner by default, something never said about Ronald Reagan.

We have a bit more than five months to go before the election.  You may be sure that the White House is in overdrive trying to come up with ways to mitigate the expected damage to Democrats in Congress.  At least they're doing something, and don't be shocked if they start doing it very well.

We have work to do, and we can't leave it to the tea partiers.

May 20, 2010    Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  MAY 19,  2010

ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE – AT 8:37 P.M. ET:  It is hard to be shocked at one more revelation of the kind of extremist hired by the Obama administration, but this is pretty disgraceful.  From The Politico:

Arizona’s two senators are demanding that a top State Department official apologize for comparing the state’s new immigration law with human rights abuses in China.

“As the [official] in charge of the Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights, your remarks are particularly offensive,” Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl wrote Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. “We demand that you retract your statement and issue an apology.”

Posner’s comments came at a Friday press briefing outlining a meeting between U.S. and Chinese officials on human rights issues.

Asked if the Arizona law was discussed and whether it was Chinese or American officials who had broached the subject, Posner said, according to a State Department transcript of the briefing: “We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Posner is the proverbial useful idiot.  He has a long history in left-wing interest groups.  He should not hold the position he holds.

But is anyone surprised?  Posner is just the latest lefty to be outed. 

“You seemed to imply [the Arizona law] is morally equivalent to China’s persistent pattern of abuse and repression of its people,” McCain and Kyl wrote in demanding the apology. “To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive.”

COMMENT:  I suspect that McCain and Kyl will be ignored, but they should not let the matter drop.  This gent works for Hillary Clinton, and she should be called on the carpet and made to explain why, in a nation of 306 million, we can't find a better guy for the job.

May 19, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA'S MISSING CLOUT – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  One of the things commentators are noting about yesterday's voting is that President Obama didn't seem able to influence much of it.  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- The role of endorser in chief isn't working so well for President Barack Obama.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from Republican to Democrat last year in hopes of keeping his Pennsylvania seat, became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement, raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter's loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama's influence and popularity even within his own party -- and in a battleground state, closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, no less.

Of course, it's possible that Democrats will fare better than expected this fall. And there's only so much that any president can do to help other candidates, especially in a non-presidential election year.

Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.

COMMENT:  Endorsements, even from presidents, are generally overrated.  And newspaper and celebrity endorsements are definitely overrated.  But this president seems uncommonly weak as a persuader in races other than his own.  Does this mean anything for 2012?  I don't think anyone knows yet.  Obama, polls show, is clearly vulnerable, but you can't beat somebody with nobody, and right now the Republican presidential field is nobody.  Squared.

May 19, 2010     Permalink

BLUMEY, WE HARDLY KNEW YE – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The Senate race in Connecticut moved closer to being competitive, in the light of revelations that the probable Dem candidate told lies about his military record.  From the New York Post:

Following bombshell revelations that he claimed he served in Vietnam when he hadn't, Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal's once-robust lead in the polls has hit record lows.

The Senate hopeful now leads Republican challenger Linda McMahon by a mere three points -- a 10-point drop from two weeks ago, according to according to a Rasmussen poll conducted on Tuesday. The latest poll had Blumenthal at 48 percent compared to McMahon, the co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment, who had 45 percent of the vote.

It's the closest McMahon or any other candidate has ever come to Blumenthal in the polls.

You'd think that Blumenthal would have already collapsed completely in the polls, but it's possible some voters aren't yet familiar with his newly discovered fiction writing.  Also, in the western part of the state, they may not care all that much.  These are the wealthy suburbs around New York, who practice a kind of Dracula liberalism – they knife each other in business during the day, then come out as great progressives at night.  A little lying may not bother them, especially if it's about something as illiberal as military service.

Blumenthal -- the current Connecticut Attorney General who was widely perceived to be the favorite to replace retiring US Sen. Chris Dodd -- also lost ground in his lead over Republican Rob Simmons. He now leads Simmons by 11 points -- 50 percent to 39 percent -- down from a 23 point lead over the former congressman.

Any honorable man who's been caught lying about a military record would get out of the race.  But men who lie about their military records aren't honorable.

In the 1950s, a Utah Republican congressman named Douglas Stringfellow was caught lying about his World War II record.  He was forced to resign from Congress, and had to take jobs under an assumed name.  Times have changed, haven't they?

May 19,  2010    Permalink

CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  Events involving the Iranian nuclear program are proceeding rapidly.  On Monday a sham agreement was announced by Turkey and Brazil, two pals of Iran, that was intended to show Iranian "cooperation," and ward off new UN sanctions.

We weren't buying.  Secretary Clinton must be commended for her quick reaction to Monday's announcement.  Yesterday, the US announced that China and Russia had agreed to a new sanctions statement to be taken up by the Security Council.

Look, we're less than enthusiastic.  Any sanctions regime that has the support of Russia and China is going to be weak and full of holes.  But at least we didn't succumb to the pressure to put off talk of sanctions because of the Turkey/Brazil "breakthrough."  That "breakthrough" is pretty much a dead issue, only two days after it was unveiled.

But we still have major problems.  The Security Council could still balk.  It could weaken a new sanctions agreement even further.  And what it does will probably not matter a bit to a determined Iran:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States and its Western allies won crucial support from Russia and China for new sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear program, but they now face a tough campaign to get backing from the rest of the U.N. Security Council.

The draft resolution, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, would ban Iran from pursuing ''any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,'' freeze assets of nuclear-related companies linked to the Revolutionary Guard, bar Iranian investment in activities such as uranium mining, and prohibit Iran from buying several categories of heavy weapons including attack helicopters and missiles.

It would also call on all countries to cooperate in cargo inspections -- which must receive the consent of the ship's flag state -- if there are ''reasonable grounds'' to believe these activities could contribute to Iranian nuclear activities.

On the financial side, the draft calls on -- but does not require -- countries to block financial transactions, including insurance and reinsurance, and ban the licensing of Iranian banks if they have information that provides ''reasonable grounds'' to believe these activities could contribute to Iranian nuclear activities.

COMMENT:  Well, you can easily see the holes.  These sanctions are better than nothing, but they're the nearest thing to nothing.

Our Iran policy is failing.  The Iranian centrifuges are spinning.  By this time next year we'll be hearing a great deal about the wonders of containment of a nuclear Iran.

May 19, 2010     Permalink

THE LARGER WORLD – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  There's a world outside American politics, although American politics will always affect it.  The South Koreans have made a definitive statement regarding the recent sinking of their warship.  From The Washington Post:

SEOUL -- South Korea's foreign minister said Wednesday the sinking of one of its warships in March was the result of a North Korean attack, adding that his country now has enough evidence to seek action by the U.N. Security Council against the North.

Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan's remarks were the first by a South Korean official to pin definitive blame on North Korea for an attack that killed 46 sailors and sharply escalated tension on the Korean Peninsula.

Yu spoke out a day before South Korea planned to release the results of an investigation that U.S. and East Asian officials say has uncovered strong evidence showing that North Korea launched a torpedo that sank the 1,200-ton Cheonan near a disputed sea border between the two nations.

COMMENT:  The evidence presented in the story is compelling, but what will be the result?  China, North Korea's main ally, has veto power in the Security Council.  And if the world hasn't acted strongly against North Korea's nuclear program, which continues, why should we think it will act in response to a ship sinking?

The key nation here, as always, is the United States.  Our wobbly foreign policy will be no source of strength to South Korea.  Action can be taken outside the U.N., but will we approve, or will we, in the name of "outreach," simply let the matter slip?  My guess, and it must be labeled as speculation, is that we will let things slip, maybe calling for more "discussions," or simply make a stern speech at the U.N. and leave it at that.

A record has consequences, and the Obama record of the last 16 months flashes a signal of weakness.  Why would North Korea be afraid?

May 19, 2010    Permalink

A GENERATIONAL FAILURE – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  We turn our attention to Richard Blumenthal, only recently the fair-haired attorney general of Connecticut and sure-thing Democratic Senate candidate to succeed Chris Dodd.  Now Blumey is under a cloud, and the cloud isn't passing by.

Blumenthal has clearly lied about his service record, having claimed or implied, on many occasions, that he served in Vietnam when in fact he was a Marine reservist who'd accepted multiple deferments.  Even The New York Times, in an editorial, has expressed dismay over Blumenthal's deception.  When The Times expresses dismay over a liberal, that's the Earth moving.

In a provocative op-ed, also in The Times, former Republican Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota, analyzes Blumenthal's generation, and finds his behavior disturbingly typical:

THE problems faced by Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general, over his depiction of his military service are indicative of a broader disease in our society. The issues of integrity in business and politics that plague us today — the way elites are no longer trusted — are rooted in the dishonesty that surrounded the Vietnam-era draft...

...Many of those who didn’t serve were helped by an inherently unfair draft. I don’t fault anyone for taking advantage of the law. Where I do find fault is among those who say they were avoiding the draft because they were idealistically opposed to the war — when, in fact, they mostly didn’t want to make the sacrifice. The problem is that for every person who won a deferment or a spot in a special National Guard unit, someone poorer or less educated, and usually African-American, had to serve.

I'm glad this issue is coming out. 

I had a unique opportunity to observe the best and brightest of my generation — first as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford in 1964 and then when I attended Harvard Law School after serving in Vietnam. Among both sets of my classmates were some who used elaborate steps to avoid the draft. (At school, I recall articles circulating that explained how to fail Army physicals.)

In private conversations with my classmates, I was told over and over that they didn’t want to serve in the military because it would hold up their careers. To the outside world, though, many would proclaim they weren’t going because they were opposed to the war and we should end all wars. Eventually they began to believe their “idealism” was superior to that of those who did serve. They said that it was courageous to resist the draft — something that would have been true if they had actually become conscientious objectors and gone to prison.

Pressler is dead on, and his argument can be expanded.  Much of the "idealism" of the late sixties was self-serving.   Some feminists were idealistic and women of integrity, but others were simply advancing legal or writing careers.  Believe me, I knew them.  Most African-Americans saw the civil rights movement as, correctly, noble and needed to remove a stain on our society.  Some, sadly, used the movement to advance their personal political power.  We saw this, painfully, in New York, where a huge dispute over who would control the great New York City school system was really a debate over who would have patronage power over the schools, not a debate over improving education.

In the coming days, I imagine we will learn more details of Mr. Blumenthal’s sad story. What we know, though, more generally, is much more troubling. Too many members of my generation learned to believe that they could work within the law to evade basic responsibilities, cloaking their actions in idealism. It’s a way of thinking that scars us to this day.

Because the "intellectual" world is so stacked with those on the left, we haven't had a true academic examination of the hypocrisy that was (and is) rampant in the sixties generation.  It is long overdue, and will enlighten us about the behavior of some of today's leaders.

May 19, 2010     Permalink

AFTERMATH – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  So now that yesterday's vote has been counted, what happened?  Well, not much really. 

There will be all kinds of analyses this morning, but they're meaningless.  The vote went pretty much according to the polling.  The only surprise, and it wasn't much of one, was that Republican Tim Burns didn't pick up John Murtha's seat in western Pennsylvania, which would have been big news.  The Democrat, Mark Critz, a Murtha employee, squeezed in with a narrow victory in a district that's 2-1 Democratic.  Democrats will point to this as a famous victory, but Critz's vote percentage – in the low 50s at last count – isn't famous. 

Michael Barone points out that many traditional, somewhat conservative Democrats didn't come out to vote in the 12th.  These are the people that Republicans are counting on to help in November, but Barone warns that they simply may not vote, and Republicans should not count on them.  That's good advice.

Joe Sestak, the newly minted Dem candidate for the Senate in PA, is obnoxious, but will be tougher for our guy, Pat Toomey, to beat than Arlen Specter.  Sestak, as we've noted, is a former Navy vice admiral (the wrong men sometimes get promoted), who refuses to man up and admit that he was pressured out of the Navy because of personality conflicts.  Indeed, he's said that he left the Navy because of his daughter's illness – a disgusting use of a child's health to mask the truth.  But that's Joe. 

Also obnoxious is the GOP candidate for the Senate in Kentucky, Rand Paul, whom we cannot support.  The son of extremist Ron Paul, Rand is less nutty but nutty enough.  His foreign- and defense-policy views, on the fringe left, are simply unacceptable, period.  Dick Cheney warned about him, but the GOP voters of Kentucky, to their discredit, weren't listening.  Paul claims the support of tea partiers.  When they learn more about him, they may start drinking hemlock rather than tea.

In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff by Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, who ran to her left and had the support of the usual leftist suspects.  Should be a GOP pickup in November.

The big lesson is from Pennsylvania's 12th C.D.:  Republicans must not be overconfident.  There's been a lot of GOP strutting recently.  There's an election in November.  Save the strut for the next day.  Earn the strut beforehand.

May 19, 2010    Permalink