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

JANUARY 25,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:

CONVERSION – Liam Neeson says he is considering abandoning his Catholic faith and converting to Islam.  He apparently got the idea while filming in Turkey and hearing all the calls to prayer.  Convert to Islam?  An actor?  In Islam they call this a coming to the faith.  In Hollywood they call it a career ender.

THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER SPEAKS – Fidel Castro has rendered his opinion on the 2012 Republican presidential contest, calling it  “the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."  This is in contrast to the wise policies Castro has enacted in Cuba, keeping hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in jail, maintaining a complete dictatorship for more than half a century, and aligning Cuba with such winners as Soviet Russia, the mullahs of Iran, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. 

GINGRICH SLIPS BACK – The topsy turvy GOP race just got topsier and turvier.  Late polls now show Mitt Romney either catching up to Newt Gingrich in Florida, or going ahead of him.  Romney has engaged in a sustained TV attack on Gingrich, and it's beginning to bite, just as it bit in Iowa.  In addition, a number of conservative pundits are expressing reluctance about Newt, and that apparently is having an effect.  One well-known writer, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., is referring to him as William Jefferson Gingrich, which is not meant as a compliment.  Further, opposition research on Gingrich is reaching its peak, revealing a man with a sharp tongue who's made many enemies, and who engaged in some spirited attacks on...Ronald Reagan.

WE SAW NOTHING – A stunning new poll in Germany reports that one in five young Germans has no idea that Auschwitz was a Nazi death camp, and that one third of Germans do not know that Auschwitz is in today's Poland.
The memories of World War II are fading, and, I'm afraid, so are its lessons, such as the importance of preserving the peace by being ready for war.  It was perhaps naive of us to believe that all the horrible ideas of Nazism died in Hitler's bunker in 1945, or that the rottenness of Communism died with the Soviet Union...or that the hateful philosophy of Al Qaeda died in the raid that killed bin Laden.

January 25, 2012        Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  – From British writer Nile Gardiner, in the Daily Telegraph, on President Obama's State of the Union message:

Two words hardly mentioned in Barack Obama’s 65-minute State of the Union address to Congress: freedom and liberty. President Obama’s fourth and possibly last State of the Union speech was long on big government proposals, but short on the principles that have made America the world’s greatest power. His lecturing tone exuded arrogance, and he failed to present a coherent vision for getting the United States back on its feet after three years of economic decline. It was heavy on class-war rhetoric, punitive taxation, and frequent references to the Left-wing mantra of “fairness”, hardly likely to instil confidence in a battered business community that is the lifeblood of the American economy.

And, by contrast, Gardiner quotes Ronald Reagan, in one of his State of the Union messages.  What a difference:

… How can we not believe in the greatness of America? How can we not do what is right and needed to preserve this last best hope of man on Earth? After all our struggles to restore America, to revive confidence in our country, hope for our future, after all our hard-won victories earned through the patience and courage of every citizen, we cannot, must not, and will not turn back. We will finish our job. How could we do less? We're Americans.

I've never felt more strongly that America's best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. We're a powerful force for good. With faith and courage, we can perform great deeds and take freedom's next step… Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

COMMENT:  Like Ronald Reagan, President Obama is a fine speaker.  The difference is in the substance.  Reagan understood his country and its place in history.  Obama doesn't.  Reagan understood that Americans strive for something greater than material goods.  Obama doesn't. 

Republicans can capitalize on the depressing nature of the Obama presidency...if they can get their act together.  So far that's been a vain hope, but we can be optimists and hope that some political deliverance is in store for us sometime later in this campaign.

January 25, 2012       Permalink 

DO NOT INVITE ME, PLEASE – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  We've all had this experience:  We hear of a party, and we hope we're not invited.  The people.  The noise.  The phoniness.  The boredom.  There are times you just want to stay home and watch a Hitchcock movie.

I had that same sensation when reading this, about a party in Davos, Switzerland, where the mighty and the shallow of the Earth are meeting to contemplate our economic future:

...silent in the social networks on her trip to the confab so far is New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson. (In fact, her most recent tweet, back in December, announced her trip to Iowa for the caucuses, which hardly rates.)

Linda Zebian, a spokesperson for the Times Company, confirmed that Abramson, who's been in the top Times masthead slot since September, "is indeed attending Davos this year for the first time."

Her predecessor, Bill Keller, never attended the conference.

"I'm just not that into conferences, but I know a lot of people find them useful," he said.

Keller wasn't sure whether his predecessor, Howell Raines, had ever gone, but pointed out that Times journalists often do.

This year, the crew includes Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof and Andrew Ross Sorkin, Zebian confirmed.

Abramson will be joined by publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who's long been a fixture on the Davos circuit.

And more: Sulzberger is hosting a dinner tomorrow on Abramson's behalf, Zebian said, and Abramson will lead "a panel of women leaders" in a discussion on Thursday.

Zebian declined to offer any further details since "both are private events," but said "no news will be made" at the dinner and that Abramson's panel would be hosted by PriceWaterhouseCooper International.

Well, news is seldom made at dinners or panel discussions except for who showed up and what they said.

COMMENT:  I have personally instructed members of my family to screen my mail and incoming electronic messages for any hint of an invitation to said events, especially the dinner.  If such hints are forthcoming, they are to be kept from my eyes.

Can you think of anything so dull as the publisher of the failing New York Times holding a dinner in Switzerland to introduce his new editor, whose major claim to fame is co-authoring a hit book on Clarence Thomas? 

I'm not worried.  I don't think I'm on the invite list.  I'm going into New York this week to have a hamburger with my younger daughter, and that's far more important...and interesting.

January 25, 2012        Permalink

IRAN ON THE BRINK –  AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  While we're fighting an election, the confrontation with Iran is still building.  New sanctions are going into effect.  They're hurting the Iranian economy.  But are they having the desired effect?  The New York Times provides a surprisingly clear summary of where we are, and aren't:

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration and its European allies toughened economic sanctions against Iran on Monday — blocking its access to the world financial system and undermining its critical oil and gas industry — officials on both sides of the Atlantic acknowledge that their last-ditch effort has only a limited chance of persuading Tehran to abandon what the West fears is its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

That leaves open this critical question: And then what?

While the United States and Israel have not taken military options off the table, pursuing them is unpalatable, at least for now. Several American and European officials say privately that the most attainable outcome for the West could be for Iran to maintain the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon while stopping short of doing so. That would allow it to assert its sovereignty and save face after years of diplomatic tensions.

While that might seem to be a big concession on the part of the United States, Iran would first have to make even bigger ones: demonstrate that it could be trusted and drop its veil of secrecy so that inspectors could verify that its nuclear work was peaceful, steps Iran has resisted.

COMMENT:  The fact is that we've made, essentially, no progress in all the years of discussing the Iranian nuclear program.  There may well be new talks with Iran – talks are a great stalling tactic – but Iran is relentlessly pursuing nuclear development.  It would be utterly reckless to assume that its intentions are peaceful.

President Obama assures us that we will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  How? 

The best thing that could happen would be regime change.  We had a chance at that in 2009 when democracy demonstrators took to the streets in a preview of the "Arab spring," but the president of the United States couldn't be bothered to give them any encouragement.  Now the democracy movement seems utterly suppressed.

This will be the year of Iran in foreign policy.  It's now widely believed that an Iranian bomb will change the whole balance of the region.  We have not found an answer short of a massive military strike, and we recognize the great instability such a strike would bring.

For Americans a key question is this:  Will Obama pull an October surprise with Iran?  Military action of some kind, even a naval blockade, could guarantee his re-election, although he'd lose Michael Moore's vote. 

And we must ask this question:  How will events in Syria affect Iran's nuclear program?  Syria is Iran's strongest Arab ally.  If the Syrian regime collapses, will the Iranian mullahs be frightened enough to start making compromises?  Or will they do something crazy and rash to prove their virility? 

Dull year, isn't it?  And we're cutting our defenses.

January 25, 2012       Permalink

THE NEWT SURGE CONTINUES – AT 7:49 A.M. ET:  He's like the Energizer bunny.  Newt Gingrich just continues to move.  He has devastated Mitt Romney's lead in national polls, according to Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Newt Gingrich has all but erased Mitt Romney's 23-percentage-point lead of a week ago among Republican voters nationally, and the two candidates are now essentially tied, at 29% for Romney and 28% for Gingrich. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have significantly lower levels of support, at 13% and 11%, respectively.

Romney held a 23-point lead over Gingrich as recently as Jan. 11-15. Thus, in a matter of one week, Republicans who are registered to vote have shifted their support substantially -- with Romney dropping 8 points and Gingrich gaining 14 points. The latest Gallup tracking update covers Jan. 18-22, encompassing Gingrich's come-from-behind 12-point victory over Romney in Saturday's South Carolina Republican primary. Gingrich began to gain on Romney well before Saturday's vote, however, most likely reflecting his performance in the two nationally televised debates held in South Carolina last Monday and Thursday.

And...

Gingrich and Romney continue to exchange the lead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, not unlike the final quarter of a close championship football game. The most obvious implication of this back and forth is Romney's failure to consolidate and sustain his support among Republicans nationally. The virtual evaporation of Romney's 20-plus-point lead over the last week suggests that Republicans most certainly have not settled on the former Massachusetts governor as their final choice for the nominee. The fact that Gingrich has managed to resurrect his standing in the polls once again suggests that Republicans have most certainly not ruled him out.

COMMENT:  We are six days away from the Florida primary, although many voters have already voted, given Florida's advance voting system.  New polls show Newt leading Romney, although Romney led substantially only a few weeks ago. 

We commented yesterday on the "Republican crisis," and it continues.  The party is having trouble deciding between two flawed candidates, and I still maintain that there may well be a movement to bring in someone who is not yet running.

January 25,  2012     Permalink

JANUARY 24,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:39 P.M. ET: 

THE SPEECH – Oh, I guess the State of the Union message was delivered tonight.  It will be forgotten by tomorrow, this time.  These SOTU speeches get great publicity, but I can't actually recall any.  Obama laid out his basic theme – narrowing economic unfairness, and I can't deny that it's an appealing theme.  Mitt Romney, in an act of exquisitely bad timing, released his tax returns today, showing a mammoth income from investments, something that played right into Obama's hands.  Actually, I thought the most important line in Obama's speech came when he threatened colleges with reduction in federal aid if they didn't keep students' costs down.  It's about time.

A RISING ISSUE – In a remarkable statement that is bound to become controversial, the archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, who will become a cardinal next month, slammed President Obama's health care policies, under which the Catholic church will be forced to cover its employees for birth control.  This issue may catch fire, for the Obama administration's position represents a remarkable intrusion in the affairs of religious groups.  “The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church,” Dolan said.

NO MORE ENDORSEMENTS – The Chicago Sun-Times has announced that it will no longer endorse candidates for political office, including the presidency.  The paper cited the multitude of information sources available to voters, diminishing the importance of endorsements.  I think it's a good move, although endorsements for smaller, local offices can be helpful to voters who haven't followed those races.  However, endorsements for major offices have always been overrated.  In 1936 more than 80% of American newspapers endorsed Republican Governor Alf Landon for president, rather than incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Roosevelt won in a landslide anyway. 

QUOTE OF THE DAY –  “The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy."  From Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who delivered the Republican response to the president's State of the Union message.

January 24,  2012    Permalink

DRAFT JEB? – AT 8:14 P.M. ET:  Do you know Artur Davis?  He's a terrific, former Democratic congressman from Alabama, an African American, who's moved increasingly to the right since leaving office.  He is regarded as a heretic by some in the Democratic Party and the black establishment.  Won't go along with the party line.

We've commented here on the frustration and sense of pessimism within the Republican Party over the presidential contest.   Artur Davis, in National Review, offers a way out.  He wants the GOP to draft former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida.  Davis notes that in 1972, another unpopular president, Richard Nixon, simply waited for the opposition party to self-destruct.  It did.  The Democrats nominated fringe candidate George McGovern and Nixon won in a landslide:

...Republicans look dangerously on the verge of repeating the demolition derby that so weakened Democrats that year. Mitt Romney may be a better-constructed front-runner than Ed Muskie, but he is still a flawed contender whose candidacy seems at odds with his party’s mood and whose own half-answers have made his wealth seem shadowy and amoral. Newt Gingrich may be a far better-known quantity than the hapless George McGovern, but he still seems, like McGovern, more suited to the task of revolution than political persuasion. Republicans are, and should be, very worried.

Enter the last dream date that Republicans may have at their disposal. His name is Jeb Bush, and this time, there is a feasibility around the idea that seemed unthinkable months ago.

Hmm.  Fascinating. 

Arguably, a deadlock is an entirely realistic outcome in a race where Romney’s institutional edges are considerable, but his vulnerabilities and Gingrich’s raw campaign skills are more than enough to offset that advantage. It is also all too likely that the result of a protracted bout would be two candidates so bruised that neither remains competitive with Obama. If so, there will be a sense of panic, and it is not hard to conceive that Romney could come under intense pressure to sacrifice himself to avert a November catastrophe.

Davis lists the Bush advantages, including his ability at coalition building, and concludes:

The fact is that Jeb Bush bent Florida, a famously interest-group-ridden state, in a rightward direction; that’s an accomplishment Romney can’t begin to claim vis-à-vis Massachusetts. Bush is not just an authentic movement conservative, but a groundbreaker on an array of issues that drive votes, such as accountability for teachers and reining in the costs of private health insurance. While his record has blemishes that Democrats would exploit, from his stint in the Eighties lobbying for southern-Florida business interests to his ill-timed tenure at Lehman Brothers in 2007, this Bush is an adept, articulate campaigner who is unlikely to be tied in knots defending his history. Also, the statute of limitations seems to have expired on the ugliest sentiments around the last Bush presidency.

Jeb Bush should measure his reluctance against the risks looming for his party and, potentially, his country. The fact is that his party could be staring at an unavoidable disaster unless, in the interests of saving it, its best candidate comes out of retirement.

COMMENT:  By all means, read the whole piece.  I think it's intriguing that Bush has refused to endorse any candidate in the Florida primary, which will be held Tuesday.  Many expected him to endorse Romney.  By refusing to endorse, he's kept his options open.

The main objection to Bush is that he's a Bush, brother of one president, son of another.  We don't do dynasties in America, and the Dems will exploit the family connection.  Bush could, of course, counter with the Kennedy and Roosevelt stories.

Bush was a fine governor, left with high approval ratings, and is married to a Hispanic woman.  He is received warmly in the Hispanic community.

Artur Davis has broken some ground here.  I don't know how far his argument can go, and it's always possible that one GOP candidate can pull well ahead in the coming months, earning the nomination on points.  It's also possible that even the flawed GOP field can start to do well in matchup polls against Barack Obama.

But the Republicans are really in trouble, having a talk with Jeb Bush might not be a bad idea.

January 24, 2012       Permalink

SAILING OUT TO CONFRONT THE GREAT SATAN – AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  This is sent by my good friend and terrific Iranian freedom activist, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi.  The title:  "Supreme Leader's Representative Heads to Persian Gulf to Close Down the Strait of Hormuz."

I wonder which one is the admiral of the fleet.

January 24, 2012        Permalink

IRAN DEFIANT – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  Iran's response to the imposition of new European sanctions on its oil industry is one of defiance, which is standard for the mullahs: 

(Reuters) - Iranian politicians said on Tuesday they expected the European Union to backtrack on its oil embargo and repeated a threat to close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if the West succeeds in preventing Tehran from exporting crude.

"The West's ineffective sanctions against the Islamic state are not a threat to us. They are opportunities and have already brought lots of benefits to the country," Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi told the official IRNA news agency.

Speaking a day after the EU slapped a ban on Iranian oil - to take full effect within six months - in a move to press Tehran into curbing its contested nuclear program and engage in negotiations with six world powers, the tone in the Islamic Republic was defiant, even skeptical.

"The global economic situation is not one in which a country can be destroyed by imposing sanctions," Moslehi said, repeating Iran's stance that with the EU in economic and monetary crisis, it needs Iran's oil more than Iran needs its business.

A spokesman for the oil ministry said Iran had had plenty of time to prepare for the sanctions and would find alternative customers for the 18 percent of its exports that up to now have gone to the 27-nation European bloc.

COMMENT:  Of course, this could be bluster.  Iran recently threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and even to attack American warships.  But an allied flotilla passed through the Strait just a few days ago, without incident. 

On the other hand, the defiance can be genuine.  Remember, no sanctions have ever slowed the Iranian nuclear program, which is the pride of the regime.  Iran is widely viewed as being within a year of building its first atomic bomb, and the Iranians could certainly hold out for that year to get the job done.  An Iranian bomb would immediately change the way Iran was looked at.  The country would have vastly greater leverage than it has today, and I suspect that sanctions would melt away.

January 24, 2012       Permalink

OH DEAR, THE HYPOCRISY FLOWS – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:   Having worked in film and TV – everyone must wallow for a time in moral degeneracy before finding the light – I always marveled at the pomposity and self-love that hangs over these industries.  But this one must take some kind of prize.  From Fox:

Attention, One Percenters! You can go home now. The Sundance Film Festival is not ... repeat NOT ... for you. (Except of course our corporate sponsors and super rich celebrity guests. You can stay. As a matter of fact, we'd be lost without you!)

That's the mixed message the was being sent as Robert Redford opened the 34th annual Sundance Film Festival with a populist pitch on Thursday, slamming the government for failing its citizens and talking about how Sundance exists for the forgotten "99 percent."

"We show stories of what people in America are really dealing with, and really living with, against a consequence of having a government that’s let them down," Redford said. "People can come and say, ‘God, at least we’re seeing how people are really living in America, and what they’re up against.’ We square away on the 99 percent."

I think I'm having a fainting spell.  My pills, my pills!

But the scene in Park City, Utah, where Sundance is held, would seem to run counter to Redford's characterization, with big corporations sponsoring virtually every event and venue, and super rich celebrities racing each other to scoop up corporate sponsor freebies.

COMMENT:  In an industry of sound effects, the sound film people like most is the sound of cash registers.  And as far as Sundance existing for the forgotten "99 percent," yeah, right.  The kind of people who attend Sundance wouldn't rub shoulders with that 99 percent.  Those are the "flyover" people who volunteer for the military and go to religious services.  What kind of peasants could they possibly be?  Did they spend their junior years abroad? 

And as for pomposity, is Redford really saying that people must go to his festival to find out what's happening in America?  If that's the case, he should invite Obama to attend.  Speaking of someone who's out of touch.

January 24, 2012       Permalink 

DOES THE GOP DESERVE TO WIN? – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  Bret Stephens, of The Wall Street Journal, is one of the most astute political writers around, and a solid conservative.  He writes today, apropos of our first post this morning, that the Republican Party doesn't deserve to win this year.  I think you'll be hearing this argument repeated more and more in the weeks to come.  It is painful:

Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

And...

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn't because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

COMMENT:  Bret nails it!  Please read the entire thing.  It's one of the most incisive columns I've read on the campaign for president in many weeks.

January 24, 2012       Permalink

THE REPUBLICAN CRISIS – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  There was a debate last night in Florida among the remaining Republican candidates for president.  There were four – Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul, if you count Paul as a Republican, which he really isn't.  He's a libertarian who didn't even support the Republican presidential ticket in 2008.

The debate will be analyzed and dissected, but we must finally ask:  Does it really matter?

There is a growing discontent with the Republican presidential slate, both within and outside the party.  It follows on the unpopularity of the Republican congressional party amidst the general public. 

True, a party suffers in primary season when its leaders go at each other.  Obama has it relatively easy because he's unchallenged for his party's nomination.  There is some truth in Jimmy Carter's claim that he was badly damaged in 1980 when Ted Kennedy ran against him for the Democratic nomination, even though Carter was an incumbent Democratic president.  The public is turned off by acrimony.

But it's worse than that.  There are only two serious announced candidates on the GOP side, Romney and Gingrich, and both have grave electability problems.  Gingrich's negatives are through the roof, and Romney's, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, are rising rapidly:

The number of Americans with negative views of Mitt Romney has spiked in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compounding the former Massachusetts governor’s challenges as he tries to rally from Saturday’s big loss in South Carolina.

Among independents, Romney’s unfavorable rating now tops 50 percent — albeit by a single point — a first in Post-ABC polling back to 2006. Just two weeks ago, more independents had favorable than unfavorable views of Romney; now, it’s 2 to 1 negative.

Why is that?  I suspect it has a great deal to do with Romney's handling of questions dealing with his personal wealth.  Yes, yes, I know, we've had rich presidents before.  FDR was a patrician, and Kennedy came from wealth.  But FDR also had a common touch, had experienced polio, and was seen, rightly or wrongly, as "understanding" the average American.  Jack Kennedy was not short of cash, but had served in World War II, had been wounded, and his brother killed. 

And in neither Roosevelt's nor Kennedy's case did we know many financial details.  Romney has now been forced to reveal his finances, on the eve of Obama's State of the Union speech, which will focus on "fairness."  Here is a Reuters headline from this morning:

How did Romney's IRA grow so big?

The story reports that Romney's individual retirement account is worth $101-million.  That's not exactly the image you want at a time of stress in the economy.  And Romney, apparently a very decent man, often comes off as aloof and out of touch.  He is also a Republican, running in a party often seen, and portrayed by the press, as the party of big business.

So we have Gingrich, the bomb throwing debater with heavy baggage and a tendency to implode regularly, and Romney, a man who just can't connect.  Is it any wonder there's an incipient panic within the Republican Party.  The talk is growing every day about a brokered convention, or some new figure coming into the race late.  But who is there who is willing to make the effort?

This should have been an easy political year for the Republican Party.  It isn't.  You can have a great message, but you'd better have great messengers to deliver it.  In 2010 the Republicans took the House.  They could have taken the Senate, but too many Republican candidates were weak or goofy, and the party fell short.

The lesson has not been learned.

January 24,  2012     Permalink