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.

THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY 4,  2010

ANOTHER MAN OF THE YEAR NOMINEE EMERGES IN ILLINOIS - AT 9:02 P.M. ET:  Illinois likes to be known as the land of Lincoln.  If Lincoln were alive, he'd probably ask that they take down the sign.  The state's most important product these days is embarrassment:

On the same day Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn officially claimed the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, he found out that his newly-minted running mate has a rap sheet that includes alleged domestic battery and tax evasion. The revelation has shocked Democrats, leading to worries that his presence could taint the entire statewide ticket.

Yeah, I guess there are judgment questions. 

According to court records obtained by the Chicago Tribune, Scott Lee Cohen, a millionaire pawnbroker who prevailed with a narrow plurality in the crowded primary for lieutenant governor, was accused by his ex-girlfriend, a prostitute, of holding a knife to her neck in a 2005 domestic dispute.

Cohen said in a statement Wednesday that he had no intention of ending his bid.

“I have no intention of stepping down or stepping aside. When the facts come to light, after my ex-wife and ex-girlfriend speak, the people of Illinois can decide, and I will listen to them directly,” said Cohen.

When they speak?  Where?  In Wrigley Field?  The ex-girlfriend already charged him with holding a knife to her throat.   What will she say now, and how much will she be paid to say it?

“I tried to tell everyone about this early on. I wanted to talk about all of these issues, but everyone wrote me off, and said I didn’t have a chance to win. Now that I’m the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor, the day after the election, there are questions. I am happy to answer any and all questions; I just need time to do so,” he said.

Time?  Why would you need time?  Maybe to consult with a criminal lawyer?

Illinois Democrats, many of whom first found out about Cohen’s past from newspaper reports Thursday, are now scrambling to find a way to remove him from the ballot – a process that they acknowledge is far from simple.

Look, it's Illinois.  How much damage can a knife-wielding lieutenant governor do?

February 4, 2010   Permalink

THE MOMENT – AT 8:21 P.M. ET:  Scott Brown has been sworn in as senator from Massachusetts.  Joe Biden fluffed only once in administering the oath:

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as a U.S. senator, filling the seat held for almost half a century by the late Edward Kennedy and ending Democrats’ supermajority that let them overcome stalling tactics on legislation.

“I want to get to work,” Brown said at a news conference after he was sworn in today. “There are a lot of votes pending that I would like to participate in.”

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath of office to Brown in the Senate chamber. Brown, 50, who won a special election Jan. 19, had been scheduled to take office next week until he asked Massachusetts officials to certify the results so he could join the Senate today.

Brown’s victory over once-favored Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley emboldened Republicans and stalled President Barack Obama’s efforts to pass sweeping overhaul of the health-care system, his top domestic priority. Health-care legislation was Kennedy’s decades-long goal as well.

You can see the swearing in here.

And now, for another view of Scott Brown.  Two guys I admire, Michael Ledeen and Roger Simon, sent me this, from YouTube – Adolf Hitler learns that Scott Brown won the election. 

February 4, 2010    Permalink

HANSON ON THE FADING OBAMA – AT 7:10 P.M. ET:  It's widely remarked that never have we had a president who's fallen from grace faster than Barack Obama.  The impact of the crash-and-burn is now being widely felt in our foreign policy. 

Not only does this president no longer walk on the water connecting the world's continents, he's barely swimming.  Victor Davis Hanson, a historian of this kind of rise and fall pattern, examines the mess:

What’s gone wrong with Obama’s dream of multilateral cooperation?

For starters, the world’s tensions were not caused by, and remain far larger than, George W. Bush — and thus cannot be easily solved by his absence.

Obama also has apparently confused what people say with what nations do.

Yeah, noticed that.

...unfortunately, national leaders themselves do not behave like excited concertgoers or European intellectuals. Instead, they have only long-term self-interests — not temporary emotional crushes — and so seek to expand their influence whenever they can.

Obama had better understand that difference. A world without strong U.S. leadership really would become a far more dangerous place where the strong do as they please and the weak obey as they must.

Seems to me we're already getting there, thanks to The One, the Most Holy.

Hanson points out that, after World War II, the United States intervened to stabilize critical parts of the world, to prevent the kind of chaos that marked the 20th century.  Inevitably, that intervention brought some resentment, much of it tinged with jealousy.

And if allies sometimes derided America, privately they were mostly relieved that there was some sort of policeman — and that it was us and not an authoritarian nation like China, Iran, or Russia.

The tragedy is that, in many of our universities, students are taught that we are no better than China, Iran, or Russia.  They are taught by "scholars" who never lived under those regimes.

Obama may for practical and idealistic reasons believe that America should not or can no longer afford to play that pre-eminent role; he may even believe that such prominence was never really needed and was mostly counterproductive...

...But he should at least admit that in such a vacuum of American power and influence, the natural order of things abroad would be chaos. 

I want to hear the admission.  In fact, I want to see it in writing.

...broadcasting supposed past American sins; issuing meaningless deadlines to Iran; and snubbing allies such as Britain, Israel, Poland, and the Czech Republic won’t win over enemies or ease world tensions.

Amazing how past presidents understood that.  Well, maybe Jimmah didn't, but most did.

Right now the world’s bad actors confidently see “hope” for a vast “change” in the old world order — but not the kind Obama once so boldly promised.

COMMENT:  Is there any evidence that Obama has learned from the mess that his first year left all over the globe?  Not so far.  But there are 11 months left.  Jack Kennedy took office in January of 1961, flopped in his first year, then confronted the Soviet Union in October of 1962 in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We came off pretty well, but that was 90 miles off our shore.  Enemies won't make it that convenient next time.  Iran means longer flight time than even Nancy Pelosi can tolerate.

The real tests are coming up.  Confidence in the president is not high.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

BUDDING SCANDAL – AT 4:48 P.M. ET:  This warrants further investigation, because if Bond's accusations are correct, it could turn into a major security scandal.  From Fox News:

The White House strongly rejected assertions by Sen. Kit Bond on Thursday that administration officials defied an FBI request for secrecy when it held a briefing with reporters Tuesday about Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities.

In a letter to President Obama, Bond, R-Mo., scolded the White House for revealing the details of the interrogations, saying the administration is undermining national security by providing details the FBI specifically asked not be revealed.

"FBI officials stressed the importance of not disclosing the fact of his cooperation in order to protect ongoing and follow-on operations to neutralize additional threats to the American public," Bond, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee wrote.

"FBI Director Bob Muller (sic) personally stressed to me that keeping the fact of his cooperation quiet was vital to preventing future attacks against the United States," he continued.

COMMENT:  The key sentence is the last one.  It's highly unlikely that Bond, an experienced senator, would go out on a limb and claim that the FBI director told him something, if it weren't true. 

The briefing Tuesday raised a battalion of eyebrows.  Informing the public, and thus the enemy, that the terrorist was cooperating is a major blunder.  Al Qaeda will make reasonable judgments as to what Abdulmutallab knew and how well he knew it.  Plans can be changed, even codes. 

Does the administration care, or is it just in the reelection business?  Given that the president seems to prefer campaigning to governing, maybe the question answers itself.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

LATEST ILLINOIS POLL – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  From our favorite opinion analyst, Scott Rasmussen: 

Republican Mark Kirk holds a modest 46% to 40% lead over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias in the race for the Illinois Senate following Tuesday’s party primaries.

The first post-primary Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of the Kirk-Giannoulias race finds just four percent (4%) of likely voters in the state prefer some other candidate, while another 10% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties, the Republican holds a sizable 59% to 22% lead.

In December, Giannoulias was up by three points over Kirk. In October, the two men were tied at 41% each. In mid-August, Kirk held a modest 41% to 38% lead over Giannoulias.

And...

Kirk, a U.S. congressman, leads Giannoulias, Illinois’ current state treasurer, by a wide margin among male voters but trails his Democratic rival by 13 points among female voters.

COMMENT:  I'm baffled by the gender gap.  I hope future surveys try to explain it. 

The most striking figure is the independent vote, where Kirk leads 59% to 22%.  A Republican in Illinois, though, must overcome the large Democratic registration advantage, and the Democratic machine in Chicago, which churns out large numbers from voters living and dead. 

February 4, 2010   Permalink

MEDICAL ADVANCE, AND SOBER QUESTIONS ABOUT "SETTLED SCIENCE" – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  We don't do many medical stories here, but I'm quoting this for good reason.  From The New York Times:

He emerged from the car accident alive but alone, there and not there: a young man whose eyes opened yet whose brain seemed shut down. For five years he lay mute and immobile beneath a diagnosis — “vegetative state” — that all but ruled out the possibility of thought, much less recovery.

But in recent months at a clinic in Liège, Belgium, the patient, now 29, showed traces of brain activity in response to commands from doctors. Now, according to a new report, he has begun to communicate: in response to simple questions, like “Do you have any brothers?,” he showed distinct traces of activity on a brain imaging machine that represented either “yes” or “no.”

And a few days ago, The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, withdrew a landmark study that seemed to link autism to certain vaccines given to children.

So, science progresses.  It changes.  Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned hundreds of years of Newtonian physics.  Many of us began life at a time when the advice to heart patients was to rest, and essentially withdraw from active work.  The advice is very different today.   

But you would never know that science changes from the true-believer discussions of "global warming."  You'd think it was somehow sinful to question anything with the label "science" attached.  It's settled, isn't it?  It's cast in stone, right?

No.  There is no such thing as "settled" science.  The very word is anathema to true scientists.  As scandal after scandal emerges from the murky world of global-warming "research," we're reminded that real progress begins with questioning.

So now we have an advance in brain-function research.  And we have a major study on autism withdrawn because it didn't stand up in the face of new examinations and probing.

Question, question, question!  Don't let science become political science. 

February 4, 2010   Permalink

THE PARTY OF "WIN" – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  The Politico reports on a clear trend, thus far, in the GOP politics of 2010 – that Republicans are more interested in winning than in ideological disputes.  Good.  Become the party of "win."

The widely anticipated civil war within the Republican Party is off to a decidedly dull start.

Defying predictions from last year, early evidence suggests that party leaders and even most grass-roots activists are more interested in winning elections than in ideological bloodletting.

A spate of recent developments points to two conclusions about the modern Republican Party that were in doubt as recently as a few months ago.

The first is that for all the talk about tea party insurgents and fulminating radio and cable commentators taking over, the GOP remains above all an establishment party.

GOP leaders easily swatted down a proposed “purity test” for candidates at last week’s Republican National Committee meeting — an indication that party officials are no more willing to turn over the keys to right-wing activists now than they were during the Bush years.

In Illinois, Rep. Mark Kirk is hardly a conservative heartthrob — and some activists are openly contemptuous of what they perceive as his moderation — but he easily won the Republican Senate primary there Tuesday night, against a more conservative, underfunded opponent, in part because he is seen as having the best chance to capture President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.

Recent elections also suggest a second trend: It may not be all that hard in a favorable political environment for skilled Republicans to bridge or blur the ideological divide between the conservative activists who dominate the party and the more moderate swing voters whom candidates need to win office.

COMMENT:  This is a good analysis, although I object to the term "right-wing activists."  When is the last time you saw a reference to "left-wing activists" when the mainstream media discusses the Democratic Party?

And we certainly insist on the right to debate within the party, and recognize that debates will occasionally become acrimonious.  But Republicans are learning that it's far better to get 75% of something, than 0% of nothing.  There are no prizes for second place in elections.  There is no "first runner-up." 

I'd love to see us win that Illinois seat, kept lukewarm by Barack Obama.  I want to see Obama deliver his next State of the Union address, look right down at that chamber and see Mark Kirk.  Calming pills are available.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

TODAY'S THE DAY – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  It's the day when Scott Brown, Massachusetts resident, becomes the 41st GOP vote in the Senate.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- Republican Scott Brown is poised to take over the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's long-held seat a week earlier than he had planned, ending the Democrats' Senate supermajority and giving the GOP 41 votes they can use to block President Barack Obama's agenda.

A swearing-in ceremony was set for 5 p.m. Thursday for the little-known Massachusetts state senator who shocked the nation with his upset victory last month over a favored Democrat and put the 2010 midterm elections in play for a possible GOP takeover of Congress. Originally, Brown had said he did not want to be sworn in until Feb. 11.

He felt he needed time to hire a staff.  But Brown, who will probably make the mistakes of a Washington newcomer, has learned that he's the senator, and that no one outside the Beltway cares about the staff.

But in response to criticism from conservative radio hosts and newspaper columnists, he pressed Massachusetts officials on Wednesday to certify his election for the hurry-up swearing-in to fill the last two years of Kennedy's term....

...Brown said Wednesday there were upcoming Senate votes he wanted to participate in, after saying earlier that he needed time before taking office to hire a staff and prepare for his new job.

COMMENT:  Welcome Senator Brown.  Now the real show begins.

February 4, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DISCOVER THAT A GOD IS A GUY – AT 8:18 A.M. ET: 

Silvio Canto Jr., on whose radio show I often appear, alerts us to the quote of the day, from an article in the French newspaper Le Monde, as translated by a great website Silvio refers us to, No Parasan!:

Bush was not the problem. Obama is not the solution: one year after the arrival at the White House of a Democratic president, disenchantment is mutual on either side of the Atlantic. The Allies are discovering — if indeed they were unaware of it before — that misunderstandings go beyond individuals.

Having denounced Mr. Bush's imperialism, Europeans are criticizing Mr. Obama for his impotence. They are complaining of his not being able to bend China at the Copenhagen summit on the fight against global warming. "We overestimated his room for maneuver," said adviser to the French executive; "The Chinese were facing a weakling", said a person close to Mr. Sarkozy in an accusing voice.

COMMENT:  The Europeans feel snubbed by Mr. Obama, and maybe Europe needs a little healthy snubbing.  But the "facing a weakling" part should frighten us.  President Bush, who had failings, was never seen is weak.  The perception of weakness doesn't prevent wars, it leads to them.  That is one of the great lessons of the 20th century, a lesson many "analysts" would like to ignore because it interferes with the approved journalistic or university narrative.  But it remains valid with or without the support of the Georgetown parlor crowd.

February 4,  2010   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY 3,  2010

THE NATION'S FUTURE – AT 10:12 P.M. ET:  It's hard to believe this, but I'm afraid it's the trend.  From Fox News:

He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.

State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth.

"We are certainly not trying to go away from American history," Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. "What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day."

As the North Carolina curriculum stands now, ninth-grade students take world history, 10th-graders study civics and economics and 11th-graders take U.S. history going back to the country's founding.

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward.

Math, science and English classes are also getting an update.

COMMENT:  Hey, who needs Lincoln when you've got a cool guy like Lenin? 

And I'd just love to know what "big idea" Ms. Garland is talking about.   Why do I think "global warming" will be part of it?  And American imperialism?  And trans fats?

Wave of the future, unless we stop it, starting at the local level.

February 3, 2010   Permalink

HYPOCRISY WATCH – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  The president is acting like a Chicago pol again.  Stop him before he falsifies again!  From The Washington Times:

President Obama on Wednesday blasted Senate Republicans for using "holds," a tactic that delays considering nominees -- even though as a senator he used the technique to block several of President George W. Bush's appointments.

Oh, come on.  This is unfair.  He wasn't a god then.  Once he got the promotion, he could do anything he wanted.  These hack journalists.

Speaking to Senate Democrats at their annual retreat, Mr. Obama complained that Republican objections have created "a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified" but who get held up because a senator is trying to force the administration's hand on an issue.

Wait, wait.  If they're unanimously viewed as well qualified, why are other "folks" trying to block them?

As an example, Mr. Obama said his nominee to head the General Services Administration, Martha Johnson, is being held up over issues unrelated to GSA's business of running federal buildings.

"Let's have a fight about real stuff. Don't hold this woman hostage."

Dammit, that's right.  If you want to hold someone hostage, hijack an airliner.  Then you get Miranda rights and bags of free gifts.

If you have an objection about my health-care policies, then let's debate the health-care policies. But don't suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck in limbo somewhere because you don't like something else that we're doing," he said.

Somehow I think the president isn't being completely honest.  (Express your shock in a responsible manner.)  Most nominees who get held up are targeted because of real concerns.  But in Chicago, everyone nominated by the guy at the top gets approved, so what relevant experience can Obama possibly have?

February 3, 2010   Permalink

SPIN, BABY, SPIN – AT 5:28 P.M. ET:  The Justice Department spin machine has been at full throttle today, demonstrating that the department does one thing extremely well.  Its skill at blurring is unparalleled.  From The Washington Post:

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up a jet airplane on Christmas Day, has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week, Obama administration sources said Tuesday.

Strange, they didn't mention this earlier. 

The fact is, this is garbage in, garbage out.  He can be singing like a canary, but the canary now has a lawyer to give him the notes. 

Separately, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told senators at an intelligence committee hearing that Abdulmutallab was giving information to investigators. Mueller did not elaborate.

Information?  Like how much he wants for the book rights? 

In recent days, two law enforcement sources said, Abdulmutallab has told authorities more about where he trained overseas and others he met there -- leads that the FBI has shared with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Investigators are following up to corroborate the information.

That is not the issue.  Maybe he'll name some names and give the address of the local Al Qaeda gym.  The issue is what he might have revealed had he been treated correctly, as an enemy combatant, and interrogated for days without Clarence Darrow writing the script. 

February 3, 2010    Permalink

ONE DOWN – AT 5:14 P.M. ET:  There's been an important terrorist conviction in New York.  From The New York Times:

A Pakistani neuroscientist was convicted on Wednesday of attempted murder for trying to kill American soldiers and F.B.I. agents in Afghanistan.

Federal prosecutors said the neuroscientist, Aafia Siddiqui, 37, grabbed an M4 rifle in a police station in the city of Ghazni, Afghanistan, on July 18, 2008, and fired on American officers and federal agents.

After slightly more than two days of deliberations, a jury in Federal District Court in Manhattan found her guilty.

As the jurors began leaving the courtroom, Ms. Siddiqui, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University, turned in her chair to face them.

“This is a verdict coming from Israel and not from America,” she said, holding her right index finger in the air. “That’s where the anger belongs. I can testify to this, and I have proof.”

Ms. Siddiqui was then led out of the courtroom while the judge and lawyers for both sides discussed a sentencing date.

COMMENT:  Trouble is, the Obamans will use this case to "prove" that you can have terror trials in the heart of a big city.  Of course, this sweet lady was a foot soldier.  The mastermind of 9-11, whom Eric Holder would like to try in New York, is the equivalent of Hermann Goering.  A bit of a difference on the publicity curve.

February 3,  2010   Permalink

THE COMPETENCE WATCH – AT 4:47 P.M. ET:  Another Cabinet officer demonstrates that ability was the only standard the Obamans used when carefully selecting their highest-level nominees:

WASHINGTON (CBS) — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood now says he misspoke when telling owners of recalled Toyotas to stop driving then.

Pray, how does one "misspeak" when employing the words, "Stop driving them"?  Is there a variation on that?

Instead, LaHood says take them to dealerships to get them repaired.

Oh, that's close.  Yes, of course.  When one says, "Stop driving them" one may well actually mean, "Take them to Bruno's Toyota."  Who are we to question cultural interpretation? 

LaHood told reporters it was "obviously a misstatement" when he told a House panel earlier Wednesday that he would advise owners not to drive recalled vehicles. The remark came during testimony to the Appropriations subcommittee on transportation.

"What I said in there, or what I thought I said was, 'if you own one of these cars, or if you're in doubt, take it to the dealer,'" LaHood said.

He's only the secretary of transportation.  Thank the Lord he isn't an air controller.  "United Eight, uh, turn way left until the sun is kinda in your eyes a bit.  Hold at a pretty high altitude.  Stay awhile."

February 3, 2010   Permalink

DISGRACEFUL – AT 10:08 P.M. ET:  GEERT WILDERS, A MEMBER OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENT, WILL GO ON TRIAL FOR THINGS HE SAID:

AMSTERDAM, Feb 3 (Reuters) - An Amsterdam court said on Wednesday it will hear the case against right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims, rejecting his request to be judged in the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the court rejected an assertion from Wilders' lawyer, who argued in January at the start of the trial the Supreme Court should hear the case because as a politician, Wilders has a certain protection under freedom of speech laws.

The case is considered to be at the heart of the Dutch constitutional state, exploring the line between the right to freedom of speech and the ban on discrimination in the traditionally tolerant Netherlands.

COMMENT:  This case has attracted international attention.  Wilders has said some rough things, but he appears to be the victim of selective application of "hate speech" laws.  In the real world, hate speech is often speech directed against groups that are popular on the political left.

Wilders is being tried for offending Muslims, but Muslim spokesmen can make the most vile statements about Christians and Jews without any punishment at all.  And they have the protection afforded by their leftist, usually Marxist, allies.

Beware of people pushing "hate speech" rules and laws.  They're popular on American college campuses where, as usual, they're selectively enforced.  A few years ago a nutball dean at Pace University, five blocks from Ground Zero in New York, threatened to report a group of students to the police  for "hate speech" for daring to show a film on Islamo-fascism.

One of the last remaining decent ACLU lawyers told me privately how worried he was about the organization because some members of its national board no longer believe in free speech. 

While some proponents of "hate speech" laws are well meaning, those laws are a Trojan horse, easily misused to keep some people free, and muzzle others.  Look what's happening to Geert Wilders.

February 3, 2010   Permalink 

AND NOW THE PENNSYLVANIA JOKER – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  Arlen Specter, that is.  His recent bizarre behavior – wandering onto a stage he shouldn't have been on, insulting Congresswoman Michelle Bachman – may be a portent of a rough fall campaign for the Republican turned Democrat.  Looks like the GOP has another good shot.  From the New York Post:

"I'm running like I'm 20 points behind and I'll continue to run like I'm 20 points behind," says Pat Toomey, the presumptive GOP nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania -- who in fact now leads Sen. Arlen Specter 45 percent to 31 percent among likely voters in the latest Frank & Marshall College poll.

Hey, I'm starting to like this.  Possible pickup in Illinois, possible pickup in Pennsylvania, possible pickup in Delaware, probable pickup in North Dakota.  And that's just the start.

Specter, who switched parties last year for fear of losing a Republican primary to Toomey, still has to finish off a challenger from the left, Rep. Joe Sestak, in the May 18 Democratic primary. Meanwhile, as the nation turns sour on the Obama agenda that Specter has helped enact, Toomey's been charging up -- six months ago, he was down eight points.

Specter's party switch apparently hasn't done him much good.  But he is likely to defeat Sestak in the Dem primary. 

Pennsylvania, like Illinois, is a blue state, and occasionally the dearly departed have been known to vote in Philadelphia.  But Toomey is torrid this year, after several Senate tries in the past.  And President Obama has lost steam in the state:

In February of last year, the F&M poll showed that 55 percent thought Obama was doing a good or excellent job, while 36 percent said he was doing a fair or poor job. In the latest poll, that job-approval rating had essentially reversed: 38 percent view him positively and 61 percent negatively.

And Toomey has another advantage:

Toomey still has to get his name-recognition numbers up -- but his strength now is the fact that Specter has held the seat for 30 years. The F&M poll reports that six in 10 voters think it's time for a new senator.

We think so too. 

February 3, 2010   Permalink

ILLINOIS PROSPECTS – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  We've been reporting on the Illinois primaries, held yesterday.  Gubernatorial races in both parties are still too close to call, meaning that Mayor Daley of Chicago may just have to find cartons of absentee ballots in that warehouse they have.

The attention is on the Senate race, probably the most fascinating since the Great Scott victory in Massachusetts, for Illinois will fill the seat held by President Obama, or at least assigned to him.  Legend has it that he didn't spend too much time sitting in it.

Congressman Mark Kirk is now the official GOP candidate.  Can Kirk pull it off in blue Illinois?   He's got a solid shot, as Real Clear Politics reports:

A quick comparison to 2004 tells the tale. Of course, 2004 was a presidential year that generated a lot more enthusiasm on the Democratic side, but it was also the last time Illinois had a competitive Senate primary on both sides.

In '04, turnout in the Republican Senate primary was 661,804. This year it was 736,137, an 11 percent increase. In '04 Barack Obama won his party's nomination taking 53% of the vote on turnout of 1,242,996. This year turnout in the Democratic primary was just 885,268, a decrease of nearly 30 percent.

So Republicans exit Tuesday's primary with an energized base and solid party support behind a moderate candidate, while Democrat enter the general election seemingly less enthusiastic and with a candidate with real political vulnerabilities.

Yeah, the Dem candidate is Alexi Giannoulias, the machine's choice, who enters the general election with a lot of ethical and financial questions hanging over him.

The bottom line is that in order for any Republican to win statewide in Illinois they must win a combination of conservative voters in the southern part of the state and moderate voters in the suburbs outside of Chicago. Kirk is well positioned to do the latter. Barring a third party "Tea Party" type candidate who might siphon off conservative support, if Kirk can win over energized Republican voters downstate he will have a very real chance of picking up Obama's seat in November.

COMMENT:  I doubt if the tea partiers will interfere.  If they're smart, they wouldn't want to interfere with the prospect of the GOP picking off the Obama seat.  Also, they don't have a ready candidate with Kirk's general popularity and name recognition. 

February 3, 2010   Permalink

DEMS REVOLT ON TERROR TRIALS – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  Democratic officeholders, who can still read poll numbers despite our educational system, are running away from Obaman plans for terror trials in the U.S.  There is nothing so compelling in Washington as a threat to reelection.  From The Politico:

New York politicians were able to kick the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial out of Manhattan, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that not a single member of Congress wants the trial held in their home town either.

A growing coalition of lawmakers are saying “not in my back yard” to the terrorism trial, as even the most loyal Democrats are moving to block funding for any civilian trials. The pushback may represent yet another congressional rebellion against a high profile Obama White House terrorism decision, proving that even a persuasive president can’t overcome the power of local politics.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure they don’t point at western Pennsylvania as a possible venue,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). “We are all united, going to voice our opinion, both at the state level and at the congressional level.”

Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) is also opposed to having the trials in Pennsylvania and “has made that sentiment known to the Justice Department,” spokesman Larry Smar said. Pennsylvania has been among the regions floated for such trials because Flight 93 on 9/11 went down in the western part of the state.

It is time for the president, or maybe Joe Biden, to send an anonymous envelope to Attorney General Holder with want ads for experienced lawyers.  Great opportunities out there, Eric.  Great opportunities.  Be out by noon.

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb is leading Democrats’ charge against the trials in the Senate. Webb favors military commissions, and he says Virginia lawmakers will be opposed to having a civilian trial in Alexandria.

“We will be saying more about it,” Webb told POLITICO. “I don’t think we’d have any trouble getting support from at least most of the delegation that that’s a bad idea.”

COMMENT:  There's a lot of buzz that the trials will eventually be held in Gitmo, meaning that Obama couldn't close the prison.  Tranquilizers, their costs covered by a variety of insurance plans, are being rushed to the Democratic Party's left fringers.

February 3, 2010   Permalink

THE RACES – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  The Republican Party has been saved from deep embarrassment in Indiana by finding a credible candidate to take on incumbent Democrat Evan Bayh in November.

Bayh is a middle-of-the-road Democrat and a decent man.  In recent days he has distanced himself more and more from the Stalin-was-misunderstood branch of his party, generally headquartered in San Francisco.  From the Atlantic:

It's a cold winter, but Indiana Republicans managed to recruit a top-tier candidate to take on Sen. Evan Bayh: Dan Coats, the former Republican senator from Indiana and ambassador to Germany, now a Washington policy adviser and a lobbyist. Bayh succeeded Coats in 1998. The news of Coats's political comeback was first reported by Howey Politics Indiana. Coats is a household name in the state and will be able to raise a lot of money instantly.

This may be his first challenge in a year when Washington isn't popular.

Coats was a key behind-the-scenes force in convincing John McCain to take Sarah Palin seriously as a vice presidential candidate. He was a member of "The Family," a close-knit group of rigorously evangelical Christians who run, among things, the now well-known C Street rooming house in Washington, D.C. He also lobbied on behalf of Roache Diagnostics during the health battle reform battle.

Bayh is popular, and it will be a steep climb for Coats.  But at least he's respectable.  After the fine congressman, Mike Pence, pulled out of the GOP running, the better to preserve his stellar House career, the Republicans were left with the frightening prospect of nominating the former congressman, John Hostettler, a public embarrassment who was thrown out of his House seat in a landslide defeat, handing the seat over to a Democrat.  Hostettler, who proclaims himself a conservative, is actually a right-wing extremist and religious nut who came equipped with more baggage than American Airlines.  He isn't even a legitimate Republican.  In 2008 he wouldn't even support John McCain in the general election, preferring to cast his lot with some fringe party. 

But Coats saved Indiana from humiliation.  This should be a solid contest between two respected candidates, which is the way I like it.

February 3,  2010   Permalink