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.

WE'RE BACK

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL 21,  2010

OH WAIT, ANOTHER LATEST POLICY – AT 10:30 P.M. ET:  Are we not blessed?  We get two "latest policy" pronouncements in one day.  (See the post just below.)  I'm just bowled over by the intellectual alertness in Washington.  Maybe they are demigods.

Oh, yes, the latest.  Well (organ music, please) in the last week or so we've gotten a lot of hints that the administration may ask for a VAT (value added tax) to raise money to cover the cost of the country it's buying.  Ours. 

No, said the White House news secretary, Robert Gibbs.  Perish the thought.

No, said the president.  Perish the thought again to be sure it's perished.

No said the administration in unison.  Perish, perish, and perish.

Uh, until today.  Apparently, perish doesn't mean the same thing in Noah Obama's International Dictionary as it does in my little Webster's.  We must accept refinement of ideas:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT. 

COMMENT:  More integrity and transparency.  They're makin' it up as they go along.  As I understand it, one presidential statement will appear on The New York Times fiction bestseller list Sunday.  I'm checking my local bookstore.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE LATEST POLICY – AT 10:28 P.M. ET:  What remarkable people we have running things in Washington.  They can change policies every, oh, 10 minutes, 20 minutes.  Please try to keep up.

Earlier in the day, Michele – no, not the Michelle, who lives in the White House, but Michele Flournoy, our heroic undersecretary of defense for policy – declared that a military option against Iran was off the table for now.

Yuch.  The phones started ringing.  Ulcers started bothering.  Once again, an American official had dropped the appeasement bomb.

Apparently realizing the damage, the Pentagon itself issued a "clarification."  In Washington a "clarification" means that someone had acted like a jerk and told the truth.  Herewith, the new explanation.  May we have a fanfare?

U.S. military action against Iran remains an option even as the United States pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country's nuclear program, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

"We are not taking any options off the table as we pursue the pressure and engagement tracks," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The president always has at his disposal a full array of options, including use of the military ... It is clearly not our preferred course of action but it has never been, nor is it now, off the table."

Morrell was responding to reported comments by a top U.S. defense official who was quoted in Singapore as saying a strike on Iran was off the table in the near term.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said earlier Wednesday that the U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons.

COMMENT:  Apparently this other Michele got too much into Obama's head and revealed what's really going on, requiring a clarification.  Are you believing that our defense is in the hands of this adolescent crowd?

April 21, 2010     Permalink

ANYONE BELIEVE THIS? – AT 2:56 P.M. ET:  The president has pronounced on the manner in which he will nominate the next Supreme Court justice.  From The Hill:

Abortion will not be a “litmus test” for a Supreme Court nominee, whom President Barack Obama said would be named by the end of May.

And the tooth fairy will help Mr. Obama make the choice.

The president emphasized Tuesday during a meeting with Senate leaders that he would pick someone who keeps women's-rights issues in mind when considering cases.

Obama said his nominee would be someone who interprets “our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights.”

Earth to the Oval Office:  In the women's movement, critical to your candidacy, women's rights absolutely and unequivocally include abortion rights, so your statement makes no sense whatsoever.  Not the first time.

“And that's going to be something that’s very important to me,” Obama said.
Obama made the comments at a meeting with Senate leaders from both parties in the Oval Office on Wednesday to discuss his second nomination to the high court.

COMMENT:  The administration also said today that it  can protect the U.S. against an Iranian ICBM strike.

These are not serious people.  Well, maybe they are, but in the wrong way.  They regard the truth as just another "narrative," no better than any other.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

MY, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE... – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Britain holds a major election on May 6th.  The election is in turmoil thanks in part to the spectacular performance of Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg in a recent TV debate. 

Clegg, representing a party of eccentrics, skyrocketed in the polls, making this a genuine three-way race with the Tories and Labour.  But now, having gotten what he wished for, the Lib Dem leader is learning the American way of press scrutiny.  His fall may be as quick as his rise.  From the Daily Mail:

Nick Clegg was forced on to the defensive last night over his expenses and lobbying activities.

The Lib Dem leader regularly claimed more than Gordon Brown and David Cameron and charged the taxpayer for three kitchen upgrades in six months.

He also billed for foreign phone calls, napkins, cake tins and for hundreds of pounds to prune his fruit trees.

Questioned over his expenses relating to his constituency property, he hit back, bizarrely saying: 'It's not my home, it's yours.'

That ranks right up there with, "I was for it before I was against it."  The Brits are learning.

 - As the Lib Dems faced unprecedented media and public scrutiny following their extraordinary poll bounce:

  - It emerged that Mr Clegg worked as a partner of a major European lobbying firm, G-Plus, only five years ago

  - The Lib Dem leader repeatedly refused to say which main party he would back in a hung Parliament

  - The spotlight turned on to the expenses claims of other Lib Dem MPs

Figures showed half the Lib Dems' recent donations came from a figure linked to disgraced benefactor Michael Brown

Mr Clegg's claim to be a straight-talker was undermined by his repeated refusal to indicate which party he would back if a coalition was necessary to form a government.

'I'm Nick Clegg, I'm not Nostradamus,' he said yesterday.

And he's not prime minister either, and won't be.   Mr. Clegg, it appears, isn't quite as Ivory pure as he seemed during his TV debate.  We'll watch his poll numbers. 

Most of British politics is pretty creepy, and even the conservatives are barely acceptable.  No Churchill waits in the wings to protect the Brits from the nanny state, with its jihad-friendly immigration policies.  Britain, I'm afraid, is a mess.

We'd looked to the May 6th elections to bring the conservatives to power as the least of three evils.  Now there is a possibility, with three parties contending, of a hung parliament, which means bargaining and hopeless compromise.  This comes at a time when Obama has quite visibily downgraded the U.S.-Britain relationship. 

Well, at least they gave us the Beatles.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

SMART MOVE – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  Congressional Republicans, showing signs of strategic intelligence, are moving toward an agreement with the Dems on a financial-reform measure.  From the Washington Post:

Key Senate Republicans on Tuesday began to back away from their sharp criticism of proposed new financial regulations and expressed optimism that a bipartisan deal on a bill that would drastically change the way Wall Street operates could emerge in the coming days.

After a week of attacking the proposals as paving the way for new taxpayer "bailouts," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor that he was "heartened to hear that bipartisan talks have resumed in earnest." Later, after a meeting with fellow Republicans, he told reporters that while he believes that there are still serious flaws in the legislation, "I'm convinced now there is a new element of seriousness attached to this, rather than just trying to score political points. . . . I think that's a good sign."

COMMENT:  Smart.  Opposing financial reform is a major loser for Republicans.  Once again the party would be seen as fronting for big business.  As Charles Krauthammer advised, get a compromise measure passed and put the issue behind us.  The further back from the November elections that this issue can be put to bed, the better it is for the GOP.  And, if Republicans help pass a measure, it diminishes Democratic credit.

Wall Street is about as popular now as it was in 1933.  One difference is that the Democrats are just as connected to the Street now as Republicans are, and in fact got the bulk of Wall Street financial contributions in 2008.  The GOP must hammer that home, denting the "we're for the little guy" claims of the Dems.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

MORE BLUNDERING – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  After a week in which a leaked memo revealed that the secretary of defense had warned the president about the weakness of our Iran policy, and another leaked memo warned that Iran could have a missile capable of reaching the U.S. by 2015, how does the U.S. Government respond?  Why, show a little kindness:

SINGAPORE (AP) -- The U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons, a top U.S. defense department official said Wednesday.

''Military force is an option of last resort,'' Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. ''It's off the table in the near term.''

Did she have to say "off the table"?  Did she have to signal, once again, that the Obamans are putting no serious pressure on the Iranians?  You know, a little strategic ambiguity wouldn't hurt here.  Instead, every discussion on Iran seems to end with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain showing up and doing his number, complete with choreography.

The U.S. and its allies fear Tehran is using its nuclear program to build arms. Iran denies the charges, and says its program only aims to generate electricity.

''Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions,'' Flournoy said. ''We have not seen Iran engage productively in response.''

Iran has rejected a 2009 U.N.-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods to Tehran in exchange for Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium. The swap would curb Tehran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

COMMENT:  Terms like "off the table" should never be used.  I know, I know – she was only talking about "any time soon," but the message conveyed to Tehran is one of weakness and drift, reinforcing the image of our policy that already exists.

Many reporters have said that the Obama administration is privately reconciled to an Iranian bomb, hoping deterrence will save us.  That would be consistent with the kind of thinking this crowd does, if "thinking" is not too strong a word.   

I'm not sure I want to put our future in the hands of the Iranian mullahs, but some on the left seem to think it's a fine idea.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

TIMING IS EVERYTHING – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  The administration is pushing a financial-reform bill, and, poof, we're suddenly told that Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs is being charged with fraud. 

There'll be a major Senate race in Florida this year, and, poof, we're suddenly told that...  The Politico explains:

The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times report this evening that federal authorities -- the IRS, FBI, and U.S. Attorney -- are probing the use of party credit cards by Republican Party officials including former Chairman Jim Greer, and by Marco Rubio, who's now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Senate:

[T]he IRS is also looking at the tax records of at least three former party credit card holders — former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, ex-state party chairman Jim Greer and ex-party executive director Delmar Johnson — to determine whether they misused their party credit cards for personal expenses, according to a source familiar with the preliminary inquiry.

Political parties, which are tax exempt, are allowed to spend money only on political activities, such as fundraising, running campaigns and registering voters. While it's commonplace for party officials and politicians to wine and dine donors, the Florida party allowed credit cardholders to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges with little oversight.

The IRS opened the so-called "primary'' investigation into Rubio, the leading Republican candidate for Florida's open U.S. Senate seat, and the two state GOP ex-officials to see if there's enough evidence to support a full-fledged criminal probe, according to a source familiar with the IRS examination.

Rubio campaign advisor Todd Harris said Tuesday that the former lawmaker from Miami has not been contacted by any federal investigators.

"There is absolutely nothing to this,'' he said. "Anyone who is looking into it or investigating will quickly come to the same conclusion.''

COMMENT:  It's entirely fitting and proper that they should do this – except that the timing has an aroma about it.  The Democratic political operation in Washington would like nothing better than to knock off Marco Rubio, a rising Republican star, and a Hispanic.  Think national ticket, v.p. slot, 2012 or 2016. 

Polls show that Rubio has the GOP Senate nomination locked up, and will be an easy winner in November if Governor Charlie Crist doesn't run as an independent.  But if Crist runs, and Rubio is damaged by a federal probe, it's possible for weak Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek to slip through.

Just speculating, just speculating. 

April 21, 2010     Permalink

ADVENTURES IN DOING GOOD – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Just thought that those of you who contributed to the UN fund for Haiti might like to know where the money goes.  From Fox:

The United Nations has quietly upped this year's peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The world organization plans to spend the money on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.

Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls "national staff" attached to the peacekeeping effort.

Presumably, the budget also includes at least part of some $10 million that the U.N. has spent on renting two passenger vessels, the Sea Voyager (known to some U.N. staffers as the "Love Boat") and the Ola Esmeralda, for a minimum of 90 days each, as highly subsidized housing for some of its peacekeepers and humanitarian staff. The tab for the two vessels, which offer catered food, linen service and comfortable staterooms and lounges, is about $112,500 per day.

COMMENT:  And the people of Haiti?  Well, just keep them poor and dependent.  It's the socialist thing to do, dearies. 

Eric Hoffer once said that all causes eventually become businesses, and then rackets.  Hoffer was a smart guy.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

TUESDAY,  APRIL 20,  2010

RUMBLINGS – AT 8:02 P.M. ET:  In the post just below we reported on a revolt within the Democratic Party over immigration reform.  But that is small when compared to the larger revolt brewing over Iran.

This morning we noted that a leaked Defense Department document predicts that Iran may well have an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. by 2015.  Over the weekend we learned, from another leak, that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates had warned the White House in January that this country does not have a strategic plan to deal with a nuclear Iran.

I doubt if these leaks are coincidental.  One senses that a power center has opened up in the Defense Department, at odds with the prevailing wisdom (or ignorance) of the Obama administration that Iran can be managed through "outreach."

An insurrection like this is fairly common in American history.  We've gone through periods when military men are at odds with the administration, or, more often, with each other.  And the grinding of the parts can be heard throughout Washington.

We had Billy Mitchell's revolt in the 1920s, on behalf of greater development of air power.  Mitchell, although court-martialed for insubordination, was proved correct 

We had the "revolt of the admirals" in the late 1940s, when senior Navy brass balked at plans to reduce this country's dependence on aircraft carriers.  They also were proved correct. 

We had the Army revolt in the 1950s, against a president who'd been a five-star general, over the so-called "new look" in defense, which reduced emphasis on ground forces.  We later learned, to our pain, that dependence on ground forces was still critical in any conflict.

Now there's a new rumbling.  The critics have ready allies in the Republican Party and amidst the conservative punditry. 

One thing to look for in the coming months is the position of Gates within the administration.  It's pretty clear that he has some doubts about Obama's direction.  Besides questions about Iran, it's well known that Gates fought hard for a new generation of nuclear warheads, and was rebuffed.

Will Gates survive?  Will he be forced out and replaced by a compliant airhead like Chuck Hagel?  Or will his hand be strengthened by events?  Obama probably understands that he's seen as a weak president on defense matters.  That image could erode further if he tries to force out a respected defense secretary.  On the other hand, Obama has shown himself to be pretty ruthless, and a semi-skilled player at Chicago-style politics.

Stay tuned.  This could get very interesting, and dangerous.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

FEAR HIM NOT – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  President Obama must now put down a revolt within his own party, and instigated by a fellow Illinoisan.  The cause?  Immigration reform, one of the most boiling of the hot-button issues.  The revolt demonstrates that people in his own party no longer fear Obama, a weakening president.  From Fox:

Forget the Tea Parties. President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have another rebellion on their hands -- led by a fellow Democrat from Obama's home state.

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez is turning up the volume on his already piercing criticism of the Obama administration for failing to tackle immigration reform and is now threatening to rally Hispanics to stay home on Election Day.

When a Chicago Democrat threatens to hold back voters, dead ones or living ones, that is news.

Gutierrez took his criticism a step further Tuesday, holding a news conference on Capitol Hill with other Latino lawmakers to slam a bill making its way toward the governor's desk in Arizona that would give state officials broad new powers to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants -- a bill Gutierrez blames in part on Obama.

Gutierrez said the measure will only lead to "violations of people's basic fundamental civil rights" and called on the president to make clear that federal policy preempts "all state laws."

COMMENT:  Now it is true that Gutierrez is a firebrand, somewhat to the left of Vlad Lenin, but this challenge to the president is extraordinary, especially coming from a representative of a sympathetic ethnic caucus.  Politicians can sense weakness and vulnerability.  It is being sensed.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

GEORGE W. BUSH SPEAKS – AT 2:52 P.M. ET:  And it's a breath of fresh air.  George Bush left office reviled by the elites and even by the voters.  But his wisdom, often expressed in rough-hewn language, is showing itself.  He was far from a perfect president, but compared to what we have now, well...  From Contentions:

I’m in Dallas, Texas, attending the George W. Bush Institute’s “Conference on Cyber Dissidents: Global Successes and Challenges.” There will be various discussions involving dissidents from five countries rated “not free” by Freedom House: China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Russia, as well as two countries rated “partially free” by same: Venezuela and Colombia.

Unfortunately, that is not language used by this White House.

Laura Bush just offered some introductory remarks and singled out the Burmese regime for jailing democrats and enacting a “systematic campaign of rape and abuse.”

President Bush then spoke frankly about the disturbing change in the country’s attitude toward freedom and democracy abroad. “I am concerned about isolationism,” he said. It was a reifying moment to hear the president so closely associated with the promotion of freedom and human rights state plainly that we must “fight off isolationism,” which is making a return in the public consciousness and policy circles.

He was referring to the appeasement Democrats and the Ron Paul "Republicans."

None of the “false choice,” gray-area equivocation that we’ve come to hear day in and day out over the past year. “If we allow isolation to become a dominant philosophy we forget our own past,” he said. America’s long-active role as engine and projector of freedom abroad is indeed being forgotten with news of each cynical “reset” and every panicking ally.

COMMENT:  I wish the former president would speak out more frequently, and make a major speech on foreign policy.  He's very much the gentleman, and wants to give Obama a chance, but there should be limits.

April 20, 2010    Permalink

RUDY DOES THE RIGHT THING – AT 2:38 P.M. ET:  There is growing concern in sane circles about the Kentucky GOP primary for the U.S. Senate.  It features a responsible guy against a guy who, well, may need some help with reality.  From The Politico:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the latest national Republican to weigh in on the Kentucky Senate race, endorsing Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the GOP primary as the candidate who "understands the great threat posed by our enemies abroad."

"Trey Grayson is the candidate in this race who will make the right decisions necessary to keep America safe and prevent more attacks on our homeland. He is not part of the 'blame America first' crowd that wants to bestow the rights of U.S. citizens on terrorists and point fingers at America for somehow causing 9/11," Giuliani said, in a clear swipe at Grayson's primary opponent, Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is the son of the certifiable Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.  Ron Paul, who runs as a Republican, really isn't.  He's a hopeless reactionary who would drag the GOP back to its dark, isolationist days.  True conservatives run from him, and are now running from his son. 

Giuliani's backing could help Grayson amplify his message on national security. The secretary of state has attacked Paul for "wonder[ing] whether 9/11 was our fault" and picked up the support of former Vice President Dick Cheney earlier in the campaign.

On Friday, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also endorsed Grayson, calling him a strong opponent of abortion.

Santorum's endorsement should ease any conservative concerns.  He doesn't give endorsements freely.

Still, Grayson appears to have a challenging task ahead of him in the final weeks of the race: a SurveyUSA poll released last week showed him trailing Paul by 15 points, and his opponent won the support of retiring Sen. Jim Bunning.

That is the sad part.  Either there's a pretty hopeless faction of the GOP at work here, or voters just haven't concentrated yet on the campaign.  Also, in a rare but major political blunder, Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul early, apparently unaware of his national-security views, which are much more consistent with the far left than with the Republican Party.  Sarah should withdraw her endorsement.  As for Bunning's endorsement of Paul, it's meaningless.  Bunning was pressured by the GOP establishment to vacate his Senate seat, and this is retaliation.

We cannot blindly support anyone with the Republican label, and we will not.  Rand Paul, because of his national-security views, does not belong in the Senate, and the people of Kentucky should not send him there.  There are other Republicans who worry us as well.

There is a small, but influential faction within the conservative movement that rejects Ronald Reagan's world view.  Be careful of them.

April 20, 2010    Permalink

GOP ROMPS IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has been tracking the generic Republican vs. Democrat ratings, and finds the GOP in a strong position:

Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot, tying the GOP's high for the year recorded the second week in March and their biggest lead in nearly three years of weekly tracking.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of likely U.S. voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

COMMENT:  Other polling organizations show lower numbers.  Gallup has the GOP generic lead at three points.  We lean toward Rasmussen because he polls likely voters rather than registered voters or all adults, and we've found the likelies give the most accurate result.

Obviously, if Ras's numbers hold, that could mean a landslide.  But the election is more than six months away.  And the Dem fear machine is getting revved up. 

April 20, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA DOES IT AGAIN – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  You have to admire the man's consistency.  When it comes to insulting allies, Barack Obama is the champ.  The man never fails.   He is The One, and very possibly godlike...in this little area.

You'll recall that Mr. Outreach was scheduled to attend the funerals of Poland's president and first lady, killed in an air crash last week.  But the ash cloud over Europe, we were told, forced the leader of the free world to cancel his trip.  And what did he do as a substitute?  Memorial service in Washington?  Solemn trip to the Polish embassy?  Speech on TV to the Polish people?  Nah.  That's so old-time.  When Barack Obama has some free hours, he plays golf.  Publicly.  Photo ops for the press.

That certainly went down well in Poland:  From the Warsaw Business Journal:

Other world leaders found ways to attend the funeral, including Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip, who made an 18-hour drive, while Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus travelled by car and train. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych also attended.

The late president's close friend, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, also managed to attend, flying in from Georgia through Rome.

Look, someone explain to these people:  Our president doesn't do trains.  Not cool, not cool.  And there's no golf on the train. 

COMMENT:  Again, Obama shows his disregard for America's friends. 

We're told that America's image in the world has improved since the president took office.  I'd like to see the internals of those polls and find out exactly who's saying what.  I'll be willing to bet that the Brits, the French, the Israelis, the Japanese, the Indians, the Canadians, the Poles and the Czechs aren't jumping up and down with glee.

But he's very large in Yemen.

April 20, 2010      Permalink

PRIMARY NEWS – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist has confirmed publicly what everyone knew, that he's weighing an independent bid for the U.S. Senate, now that his primary campaign against Marco Rubio is sinking.  From AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. | Gov. Charlie Crist said Monday he is considering an independent Florida Senate bid despite growing pressure from top Republicans to drop out of the race if he thinks he can't win a GOP primary.

Mr. Crist told the Associated Press in a phone interview that he wants to listen to Florida residents as he makes up his mind whether to stay in a Republican primary against Marco Rubio or run without party affiliation.

"I want to be very, very thoughtful and deliberate," Mr. Crist said. "I want to listen to the people and do what I think is in the best interest of Florida."

His comments came after the executive director of a national group that helps Republicans get elected to the Senate e-mailed consultants and said he thought there was "zero chance" Mr. Crist would stay in the GOP primary.

Major Republicans are jumping ship on Crist.  Mitt Romney endorsed Rubio yesterday, as if anyone cares at this late date.  Once again Romney looks like the guy who waits until the water is 75 degrees to jump in. 

But a word of caution:  Charlie Crist is the sitting Republican governor.  By most accounts, he's done a credible job.  A year ago he was considered a shoo-in for the Senate nomination.  This is a time for his opponents within the GOP to be magnanimous.  If the Republicans want to start eating their own, the way Democrats tried to eat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, they could wind up with an independent Senator Crist. 

Treat Crist with respect, while urging him to stand aside and wait for a better day.  He still has many supporters among Florida Republicans.  Turning him into an enemy with demeaning or insulting remarks makes no sense.

April 20, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL THREAT – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  As Iran works on its nuclear program, it's simultaneously developing a chilling array of missiles.  Even if never used, these weapons are great persuaders, especially to nations in the region that don't have them:

(Reuters) - Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," said the April report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

A classified version was also submitted to Congress.

The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Worrisome, to put it mildly.  I'm actually more concerned, in operational terms, about a bomb slipped into an American harbor and detonated by a suicide crew.  But the missiles will give Iran a negotiating clout and feeling of immunity that most nations only dream of.

And then of course there's this:

"Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy," the report said.

I love it.  Even this report goes PC, referring to a "deterrent strategy."  I'm not concerned about Iran's deterrent strategy.  I'm concerned about its offensive ability, and the potential willingness of a fanatical religious regime to use it. 

I wonder how the White House will react to this report.  I suspect they'll assure an apprehensive nation that "talks" are underway and "options" are being reviewed. 

Sleep well tonight.

April 20, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  From Byron York of the Washington Examiner, on the attempt to brand all tea partiers as violent racists:

Hate groups do exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the expressions of frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at so many Tea Party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is an entirely mainstream reaction to the sharply activist course the president and congressional leadership have taken. While the level of frustration is indeed a threat, it is a political threat. Ask Democrats running in this November's elections.

It's important to distinguish between a political threat and a physical one.

COMMENT:   York points out that former President Bill Clinton is the "leading voice" of this ugly narrative, Clinton suggesting that the political tone of the tea partiers reminds him of the days leading up to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. 

York also points out that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which "monitors" extremist activity, is consistently warning that the threat of violence is growing.  SPLC has done some good work, but it raises its funds by scaring people, and the "growing threat" picture is at the heart of the scare.

In fact, it took no mass political movement for Tim McVeigh to bomb the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.  And the threat that's been growing in America is the threat of Islamic extremism.  There are certainly hate groups on the right fringe, but what strikes us in the years since Oklahoma City is their (thank goodness) relative ineffectiveness.  Clearly, the ones who are violence-prone must be watched, but to compare the tea partiers to these elements is disgraceful.

April 20, 2010    Permalink