THURSDAY,  JANUARY 21,  2010

MAJOR HIGHLY CLASSIFIED NATIONAL-DEFENSE BULLETIN - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  From Fox News.  Please don't spread this around: 

The United States apparently possesses an "earthquake weapon" that set off the catastrophic quake in Haiti and killed 200,000 innocents. Don't believe it's true? Just ask Hugo Chavez.

Citing an alleged report from Russia's Northern Fleet, the Venezuelan strongman's state mouthpiece ViVe TV shot out a press release saying the 7.0 magnitude Haiti quake was caused by a U.S. test of an experimental shockwave system that can also create "weather anomalies to cause floods, droughts and hurricanes."

The station's Web site added that the U.S. government's HAARP program, an atmospheric research facility in Alaska (and frequent subject of conspiracy theories), was also to blame for a Jan. 9 quake in Eureka, Calif., and may have been behind the 7.8-magnitude quake in China that killed nearly 90,000 people in 2008.

What's more, the site says, the cataclysmic ruin in Haiti was only a test run for much bigger game: the coming showdown with Iran.

The ultimate goal of the test attack in Haiti, the report reads, is the United States' "planned destruction of Iran through a series of earthquakes designed to topple the current Islamic regime."

COMMENT:  My Lord, we're good.  What technology.  What vision.  They must be shivering in Tehran tonight.

Oh, the Venezuelans took the story down later, but didn't retract it. 

Thank goodness for Venezuelan investigative reporters.

January 21,  2010   Permalink

HEALTH PLAN ESSENTIALLY DEAD – AT 6:12 P.M. ET:  The shot heard 'round the world, fired from Massachusetts on Tuesday, scored a direct hit on the Dems' health "reform" bill.  Nancy Pelosi sounded a San Francisco retreat:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi's remarks signaled that advancing health legislation through Congress will likely be a lengthy process—despite Democrats' desire for a quick election-year pivot to address jobs and the economy, which polls show are the public's top concern.

COMMENT:  Look for newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass., yay) to be a leader in fashioning some compromise plan that has bipartisan support. 

Of course, the Dem left is now furious...at its own party.  They're saying that the Dems are losing because they're not left-wing enough.   Some of them swear to take their ten voters and go somewhere else.  Maybe Hamas will take them.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

GENERAL LEE'S MUD – AT 5:47 P.M. ET:  A little broadcasting note, from The New York Times:

Air America, the progressive talk radio network, said Thursday that it would cease broadcasting immediately, bowing to what it called a “very difficult economic environment.”

“It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business,” the chair of Air America Media, Charlie Kireker, said in a memorandum.

And a bit of history:

Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, hosted an Air America show from 2004 to 2007 before running for office.

Ah yes, another career highlight.

I'm reminded of the story of the officer who complained to General Grant, during the Civil War, that a particular maneuver was difficult because there was a lot of mud in the area.  Grant is reported to have replied tersely, "General Lee has the same mud."

And, yes, the economic environment was difficult for Air America, but Fox News works in that same environment.  The difference is the message.  There just weren't enough people available who were interested in the weirdness and anger put out by Air America.  Professionalism shows.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 4:16 P.M. ET:  By Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who stood up to militant Islam in the Netherlands, and is now on trial there for daring to speak his mind.  From Hudson New York:

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes. Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

COMMENT: Wilders is controversial, but free speech is about controversy and debate.  He has the courage to fight our fight.

Meanwhile, a new US Army report on the Fort Hood massacre failed to mention, even once, the ideological motivation of the shooter.  In the Netherlands, court is in session.  In the U.S., political correctness is in session.

January 21, 2010    Permalink 

THE GRAND CONTRADICTION – AT 3:52 P.M. ET:  It might be wise for President Obama to contemplate the virtues of silence. 

In trying to explain away the Massachusetts massacre, the president, in one interview, conceded that he'd lost the connection with the American people because "we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people..."

Yeah.  Problem is, that contradicts what Obama said in another interview.  It wasn't that he was so busy getting stuff done, it was that, well, he kinda misjudged how hard things would be, so stuff wasn't getting done:

Getting the Israelis and Palestinians to agree to negotiate, or even to agree to the framework in which negotiations will take place, "is just really hard," US President Barack Obama said in an interview with Time magazine published Thursday, as the president was completing his first year in office.

Gee, I didn't know.  I thought this would be easy.  I mean, a single word from The One...

Apparently, it goes beyond that conflict:

In the interview, which covered a vast range of topics from internal issues like health care to foreign policy regarding North Korea, Obama said that if he would have anticipated the issues early on, "we might not have raised expectations as high."

Yeah.  When you present yourself as a demigod, people expect things to happen. 

Instead of real progress, real accomplishment, this is what we're getting from Obama.  From the TIME interview:

On Iran, one of our trickiest foreign policy challenges, we have held the international community together, both in our engagement strategy, but also now as we move into a dual-track approach. Which is, If they don't accept the open hand, we've got to make sure they understand there are consequences for breaking international rules. It's going to be tough, but I think the relationship we've developed with Russia will be very helpful. The outreach we've done to our traditional NATO allies will be very helpful. The work that we've done with China — including the work we've done with China to enforce sanctions against North Korea — will help us in dealing more effectively with Iran.

Can you figure that out?  Can anyone explain what progress we've made with China on Iran?  The Chinese have been absolutely rigid.  Is the president just spinning, or is he delusional?

Remember the campaign, when McCain and Palin raised questions about Obama's experience, his knowledge, the fact that he'd never run anything larger than his office?  Too bad the country wasn't listening.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

GRIMNESS ON JOBS – AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  The key economic concern is jobs, and, despite claims from the Obama bunker that both the eastern and western fronts are holding, the picture is simply not improving:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the first time since August, to 448,250.

COMMENT:  If this continues during most of the year, the Washington D.C. real-estate market will come alive just from the sale of homes by departing Democratic congressmen.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

PROSPECTS FOR NOVEMBER – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Superlative political analyst Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia, analyzes the Massachusetts vote and projects some of the other critical contests to be decided in November:

With Tuesday night’s upset by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the GOP gained more than just a 41st vote to disrupt the Obama agenda. As attention turns to the midterm elections in November, the Republican Party has strong momentum...

...In fact, it is likely that the Republicans will gain at least 3 to 5 Senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contests were somehow moved to January.

A word of caution:

Luckily for the Democrats, the election is not today. By November the economy may be in much better shape, and some of the current controversies may appear less significant. Contests that would tip to the GOP today could easily wobble back to the Democrats (such as Missouri and Pennsylvania). That is why we still classify them as toss-ups overall.

The endangered species:

Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)...

...Post-Brown, the magic number for Republicans is 10 if the GOP is to take control of the Senate. (Vice President Joe Biden would cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of Democratic control should there be a 50-50 split.)

Finally...

A lot can happen in a short time, as Tuesday showed anew. Democrats have plenty of chances to ward off this “Nightmare on November Street” if the economy and Obama’s approval ratings rebound over the next nine and a half months. For the moment, though, the Democrats’ nightmare is the Republican dream scenario, as our Senate rankings suggest.

COMMENT:  A week is a lifetime in politics.  The Dems have large financial resources, and the political gimmickry of this White House should never be underestimated.  Add to that the continued loyalty of much of the Obamafied press, and the GOP still has a mountain to climb. 

January 21, 2010   Permalink

HANSON ON OBAMA – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson sums up the Obama dilemma, a year after The One's triumphant inauguration.  I find it fascinating to count how many warnings about Obama, ignored during the presidential campaign, have proved to be accurate:

In Plato's ideal society, philosopher kings and elite Guardians shepherded the rabble to force them to do the "right" thing.

To prevent the unwashed from doing anything stupid, the all-powerful, all-wise Guardians often had to tell a few "noble" lies. And, of course, these caretakers themselves were exempt from most rules they made for others.

We are now seeing such thinking in the Obama administration and among its supporters.

A technocracy - many Ivy-League-educated and without much experience outside academia and government - pushes legislation most people do not want but is nevertheless judged to be good for them.

These are people who'd put their College Board scores on their gravestones.

Hanson notes that a good part of the Obama agenda is actually unpopular with the very nation that elected him.

Why, then, does the Obama administration persist with such an apparently unpopular agenda?

Like Plato's all-knowing elite, Obama seems to feel that those he deems less informed will "suddenly" learn to appreciate his benevolent guidance once these laws are pushed through.

Liberal columnist Thomas Frank once promoted similar assumptions in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank argued that clueless American voters can't quite figure out what their own self-interests are.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, another Obama supporter, also reflected the philosopher-king thinking in a recent column praising China's "reasonably enlightened" dictatorship. Unlike the messiness of American democracy, he argued, a few smart strongmen in China can ram through the necessary policies "to move a society forward in the 21st century."

It's the totalitarian temptation.  And there are many "leading intellectuals" who are prone to it, which explains, in part, why intellectuals often support the worst causes.

There is one other trait of this administration similar to those of utopian philosopher kings. Our elite must have the leeway to be exempt from their own rules.

Higher taxes must be levied on many of us. But the guardian of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, now and then can cheat a little. So can the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, who oversees the writing of tax law.

And, finally, why Plato was a lot smarter than Obama:

There is, however, one difference between Plato's thinking and the Obama administration's agenda. Plato at least assumed that philosopher kings were fantasy ideas and his utopia unachievable.

Our president and his modern-day Guardians in contrast haven't quite figured that out yet. Perhaps after this week's election in Massachusetts they will.

It's unlikely.  It's in their career interests not to.

Wise politicians know that they must never get too far ahead of the people.  I said "wise" politicians.  One problem with the Obamans is that they confuse education and wisdom, assuming the former guarantees the latter.  It does not, just as it does not guarantee morality or goodness. 

The midterms in November will be the most significant of our era.  One more Massachusetts message must be sent.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER MESS – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  Truth eventually comes out.  From the Washington Post:

Former senator John Edwards on Thursday admitted paternity of a daughter with former mistress Rielle Hunter, despite his previous denials, in a statement given to the "Today" show.

Harrison Hickman, a trusted Edwards adviser, went on the show to discuss the statement from the former presidential candidate, who also served as the vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in 2004.

"I am Quinn's father," Edwards said in the statement. "I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves.... It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter."

He also apologized to his daughter, now nearly two, saying he hoped she could forgive him one day, and to the public. "To all those I have have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough. But I am truly sorry," he said.

"I know it's not possible," Edwards previously said over the question of whether Frances Quinn Hunter was his child.

Hickman said that Elizabeth Edwards, who is battling cancer, and John have separated and that she is supportive of him coming forward about the child. "Elizabeth thinks he should acknowledge this," Hickman said.

COMMENT:  This man was almost vice president of the United State – he was on Kerry's ticket in 2004 – and he could have gone higher than that.

Our anger should not only be directed at Edwards, a professional sleazeball, but at the press.  Edwards, who made millions in the very murky world of medical malpractice lawsuits, was never properly vetted by the lamestream media, which examines every word and action of leading conservatives.  He took the standard liberal positions, and thus got a pass.

Edwards won his most famous medical malpractice case using junk science.  That should be a warning to us that failure to examine the science used in political and judicial arguments – and that includes global warming – is one of the journalistic scandals of our time.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

Y'THINK?  – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States has defined his political problem:

President Obama yesterday tried to explain the shocking election of a Republican senator in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts, insisting he understands voters' anger -- even while admitting he lost touch with the American people.

"If there's one thing that I regret this year, it's that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values," said Obama.

Huh?  Read that again.  Did he say, "...speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are"? 

Mr. President, the American people know what their core values are.  We don't need any lectures.  The question is whether you know what our core values are.  You know, when you wait for days to cruise out to a microphone to say you support democracy fighters in Iran, when you wait three days to acknowledge the Christmas airline bombing, when you appoint radical Marxists to government jobs, when you produce a 2,000-page health-care bill that no one understands, when you grovel to every two-bit dictator in the world, while apologizing for the United States...people get annoyed. 

You got that?

How about this...

Later, he insisted, "What I haven't always been successful at doing is breaking through the noise and speaking directly to the American people in a way that during the campaign you could do."

But despite that sentiment, Obama didn't seem to be at a loss for communication in his first year in the White House.

According to CBS News, he held 42 news conferences, gave 158 interviews and made 411 speeches and remarks. That included 52 addresses or statements on health-care reform efforts alone. And the number of interviews was far more than any of his recent predecessors during the first year of their terms.

The man is speaking gibberish.  He just can't accept that the worship has stopped.

January 21, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Momentous news of the highest importance.  Really, world-changing:

LOS ANGELES - After days of tense negotiations, "The Tonight Show" host Conan O'Brien signed an agreement with NBC early Thursday to part ways with the network, NBC confirms.

Martha Coakley is quoted as saying that she's relieved that Johnny Carson is returning to the show.

(Okay, okay.  I apologize.  I couldn't resist it.)

January 21,  2010   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 20,  2010

THE P.C. CRUSADE CONTINUES - AT 11:17 P.M. ET:  The p.c. crowd has won a victory at the State Department, and Hillary Clinton is accountable:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Two prominent Muslim scholars once accused of having ties to terrorism can reapply to travel to the United States now that the State Department has concluded they pose no danger to the country, federal spokesmen said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the re-entry of professors Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University in England and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa once they obtain required admittance documents, department spokesman Darby Holladay said.

Clinton "has chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib," Holladay said. "We'll let that action speak for itself."

It sure does speak for itself.  I don't know about Habib, but Tariq Ramadan is a very bad piece of work.  But, after all, who are we to criticize other cultures?

In a prepared statement, Holladay noted the change in U.S. posture since both professors, who are frequently invited to the United States to lecture, were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy.

"Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Holladay said. The decision was made after consultations with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice, he added.

COMMENT:  Yes, we've certainly seen the "mutual respect."  I'd love to see an example of respect for us coming from radical Islam.  Maybe I missed it.

It's business as usual in our appeasement-oriented foreign policy.  Massachusetts hasn't changed that.

January 20, 2009   Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE – AT 9:34 P.M. ET:  Remember that, while we're focused on Massachusetts, other things are happening, many of them exposing once more the sheer incompetence and even silliness of the current and temporary administration in Washington. 

We're learning more every day about the Christmas airline bomber and our government's reaction to him.  It's hard to keep a straight face about this:

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that he was not consulted on whether (Umar Farouk) Abdulmutallab should be questioned by the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG.

"That unit was created exactly for this purpose," Blair said. "We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have."

Under questioning by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Blair and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said they were not consulted before the decision was made to not use the high-value detainee interrogation group. Also, Michael Leiter, chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, said he was not consulted.

"That is very troubling," Collins said.

Troubling, but not surprising.  Our anti-terror policy is under the control of Attorney General Eric "try Al Qaeda in New York" Holder and his band of liberal lawyers in the Justice Department, some of them recruited from the same firms that enthusiastically defended the Gitmo vacationers. 

Meanwhile, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that al-Qaida and its offshoots are spreading and rebuilding in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa.

That's good to know.  It's been reported by responsible media for years.

You should sleep more soundly tonight knowing that this crew is in charge of your safety.  That is not a serious statement.

January 20, 2009   Permalink

ABOLISH KIDS!  ABOLISH KIDS! – AT 9:01 P.M. ET:  We hear the chant from the precincts of the far left:  "Hey hey, ho ho, all those kids have got to go!"  Why?  Because the kids are apparently turning against President Obama:

A BAD week for President Barack Obama got a little worse yesterday after Time Magazine for Kids announced that even the nation's youngsters were souring on him.

Asked to grade Mr Obama on his first year in office, kids gave the President an average of C-minus - with 16 per cent going so far as to mark F on the President’s report card, according to the magazine’s poll of 1000 youngsters ages 9 to 13.

Nineteen per cent gave him an A, with 30 per cent B’s, 24 per cent C’s and 10 per cent D’s.

The same magazine found in 2008 that US children favored Mr Obama over Senator John McCain in the presidential race by a thin margin.

COMMENT:  It's the unkindest cut.  Lyndon Johnson once said about Walter Cronkite's turning against the Vietnam War:  "If I've lost Walter, I've lost America."  Now Barack Obama must be saying, "If I've lost Jimmy and Buffy, I've lost those people with their guns and religion...and trucks."

It's very sad.  It really is.  Choke.

January 20,  2009   Permalink

THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The foreign press is now picking up the Massachusetts story.  Reader James Croak alerts us to this, from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:

At 9.20pm today, in Massachusetts, or 1.20pm on the Australian east coast, the era of Obamamania abruptly ended. The euphoria surrounding the elevation of Barack Obama to the American presidency was brought to a crashing end.

It didn't even last a year.

Oh, the pain.  Not really.

The writer notes the anniversary of Obama's swearing in:

On the eve of that anniversary, the people of Massachusetts, the bluest of blue Democratic states, delivered a thunderous rejection of the Democratic Party and, by implication, the President.

In a special election to fill the seat vacated by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the people of Massachusetts did something they had not done for more than 40 years: they elected a Republican to represent them in the Senate.

This was unimaginable one year ago, as Washington was gripped by euphoria over the charismatic Obama.

And...

Not only does it follow the double-digit swings against the Democrats in governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia two months ago, it confirms and cements the mood of anger in the electorate toward the Obama-led Congress.

On Sunday, the President rushed to campaign in Massachusetts after it emerged that his candidate was in serious trouble. His attempt to mobilise the party base failed.

What I like about the British and Australian writers, at least those not under the thumb of the politically correct, is that they're so direct.  Don't you hate subtlety at a time like this?

This was a protest vote heard around the nation, from the state famous for the Boston tea party in December 1773, an act of civil disobedience that foreshadowed the American revolt against British rule.

And the fact is, that, the term "tea party" is equated with "fascist" on the loony left.

A second Boston tea party is now resonating around America.

The liberals are now the British.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, FINALLY – AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  President Obama, operating independently of his beleaguered party, some of whose members he's already thrown under the bus, says that, hey, maybe there's a compromise on health care.  From the Washington Post:

As Democrats searched for a way forward after their defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, President Obama said Wednesday that "core elements" of his health-care package enjoy broad support and could form the basis for a swift compromise.

Hey, wait, guy.  Isn't this what the Republicans have been saying for months?  Fix it, don't replace it?  Have you heard this before, Saint Barack?

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on," Obama said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

Now there's a revolutionary idea.  In fact, a guy in Massachusetts named Brown was talking about it.

"We know that we need insurance reform. The health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up."

The Senate passed its health-care package late last year without a single Republican vote, and the surprise election of Scott Brown (R) on Tuesday deprived Democratics of their filibuster-proof majority.

Maybe someone should ask the Republicans why they voted against it.

White House aides initially said they favored having the House pass the Senate-passed version, rendering another Senate vote unnecessary, and then refining it later. But in comments that appeared to represent a change of position, Obama said Brown should be part of the process. The president ruled out one possible approach that other leading Democrats have also opposed.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "The people of Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

Until Scott Brown is seated?  Until?  A good reporter might ask what that meant.

Many people are saying that Obama now must make a choice between being Kennedy or Carter, between being a man who recognized his mistakes and tried to correct him, or a holier-than-thou figure who would not change because he was better than all of us.  On that choice will rest his presidency.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

MAJOR MORALITY ADVANCE – AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  The White House is admitting that it may just – little bitsy – bear some responsibility for the Massachusetts massacre.  Please read carefully, as words are being formed with a delicate scalpel:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the Obama administration "bears some responsibility" for Democrat Martha Coakley's loss in the Massachusetts Senate election Tuesday.

"The president didn't expect — I would certainly put myself in that category — not expecting to lose that Senate race," Gibbs told reporters in his daily briefing. "There's no doubt we are frustrated by that. So I think everybody bears some responsibility, certainly including the White House."

Whaa?  Are they bearing responsibility for the frustration, or what?

Asked to assign comparative levels of blame to national Democrats for their role in the campaign and Coakley's camp for its weak performance, Gibbs reiterated: "We all bear some responsibility."

Well, it's not exactly Jack Kennedy's phrase, uttered after the Bay of Pigs, "I am the responsible officer of the government," but it's something.  The psychiatrists will give all the White House guys something to say.  Remember, bottom line, the fault lies with BUSH (!!).

January 20, 2010   Permalink

HEY, NO KIDDING – AT 6:05 P.M. ET:  The Dems are reportedly "rethinking" their approach to health care.  It reminds me of the old diplomatic phrase, "an agonizing reappraisal."  From The Politico:

Scott Brown’s shot heard 'round the political world left congressional Democrats stunned and befuddled about what to do next in the yearlong push to overhaul the country’s health care system.

Maybe they'll finally realize the people don't want an overhaul.  They want the carburetor fixed and the oil changed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his top lieutenants emerged from a Wednesday morning strategy session with no clear path to proceed in the health care fight, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could only repeat her well-worn promise that Congress “will move forward.”

Even though the other Dems "moving forward" are moving forward right off a cliff.

"People just have different feelings about this," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). "This was obviously not a good day for us. To be honest, you have to sit back and reassess and move forward."

Democrats were weeks — and possibly even days — from achieving their decades-long goal of near-universal health care coverage, only to watch the finish line move once again when a long-shot Republican beat the Democratic candidate in a race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. But after Democrats lived dangerously all year by passing controversial bills on tight, party-line votes, Tuesday's results were the biggest blow yet to health care reform.

A bit of bias there.  No, they weren't the biggest blow yet to health-care reform, they were the biggest blow yet to the particular bill before Congress. 

As lawmakers sifted through the wreckage on Wednesday, no clear strategy emerged to keep President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority moving through the halls of Congress. With the loss of the crucial 60th vote, two alternatives moved into consideration.

One idea is to pass the Senate bill through the House, with the addition of a “cleanup” bill that could be done through a parliamentary process, known as reconciliation, that requires only 51 votes.

A second idea is to move a dramatically scaled-back bill either through reconciliation or by attracting Republican votes.

But each of those scenarios makes an already difficult needle to thread even harder. And House Democrats have little appetite to swallow the Senate bill as it passed at the end of December.

"I don't feel like I can vote for it," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a prominent liberal and Pelosi ally, said of the Senate health care bill. "I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, but I really don't feel like I can vote for it."

Of course not.  It wasn't introduced into Congress by Lenin himself.  McGovern is so far to the left, he needs binoculars to see the center.

These guys remain in their dream world.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

RELATED TO MASSACHUSETTS? – AT 2:32 P.M. ET:  This is pure speculation on my part, but maybe the Obamans realize, as a result of yesterday's mishap in Massachusetts, that they can't get away with shabby governing, including the appointment of defective officials, the way they used to.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration's choice to lead the struggling Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name from consideration Wednesday, just weeks after revelations that he had provided misleading information to Congress prompted several Republicans to suggest his nomination would not move forward without a fight.

Erroll Southers, a former FBI agent and homeland security specialist, was presented as a leader who would improve the TSA's sprawling operations and improve passenger screening to prevent such attacks as the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner.

But GOP opposition to Southers escalated rapidly after The Washington Post reported that Southers had given Congress and the White House misleading information about incidents two decades ago in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database to obtain information about his estranged wife's new boyfriend, possibly in violation of privacy laws.

In a statement released by the White House, Southers blamed congressional critics motivated by "political ideology" for the troubles that overshadowed his nomination.

COMMENT:  Southers was also quoted as saying that the environment was more important than terrorism, not exactly the kind of rallying cry you want at the TSA. 

Maybe the White House will now try to find an appointee without a painful past.  This is serious stuff.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

THIS IS TERRIFIC – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  Reader Tom Wharton alerts us to this remarkable piece by a former member of John Kerry's 2004 legal team.  The man wants to vindicate George W. Bush:

America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.

But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Congress did not base its 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

Remember, this is from a member of Kerry's legal team.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

That is why Obama is now following his lead.

Stunning.  Absolutely stunning.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

Now, that warms the heart.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

NUTS – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  Some institutions never learn:

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take.

Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site.

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

COMMENT:  They tried something like this before, and it failed.  My own sense is that this will fail as well.  People will just use up their quota of free articles, then switch to another online newspaper.  The Times is no longer the newspaper of record.  They've ruined that image.  There are loads of other news sources.

This is slow-motion self-punishment.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

FROM SCOTT RASMUSSEN – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Our favorite pollster analyzes some of the statistics that came out of yesterday's Massachusetts massacre:

On the first anniversary of his inauguration, the President is dealing with the fallout from a stunning election upset in Massachusetts last night. On his way to victory, Scott Brown won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. That is consistent with a weakness among unaffiliated voters that has been evident in the President’s numbers for several months. Currently, just 25% of unaffiliated voters Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 44% Strongly Disapprove.

Most voters said health care was the top voting issue in Massachusetts. But, a final look at the Massachusetts Election Night Poll shows that Martha Coakley narrowly won among voters who ranked health care as most important. Brown won among those who consider the economy most important. That’s consistent with national polling showing that voters are now more likely to trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to the economy.

Overall, just 38% of voters nationwide now support the health care plan working its way through Congress. That matches the lowest level of support yet measured.

COMMENT:  The attitude of Dems in Congress is to tell Americans that they don't understand their own health needs, and probably didn't do very well on their College Boards.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

THE MASSACHUSETTS MESSAGE – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the very best political commentators we have, analyzes what happened last night:

The final percentages aren't in as this is written, but it's plain that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a substantial margin in the race for the remainder of the late Edward Kennedy's Senate term. In Massachusetts. The state that in the last four presidential elections has voted on average 61 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. That's a bigger margin than in any other state.

If a Republican can win there, he (or she) can win anywhere. That's a message that is not lost on anyone whose name is on the ballot later this year.

But it may be lost on the narrow operators in the White House.  Their guy's name isn't on the ballot this year, and he's been known to throw even his grandmother under the bus.

On the health-care bill:

...the Massachusetts vote is a loud and clear signal that the American people hate this legislation. Barack Obama came into office assuming that economic distress would move most Americans to favor big-government legislation. It turns out that's not so. Not when Democratic bills would take away the health insurance most of them are content with. Not when it's the product of backroom deals and blatant political bribery.

And...

Democrats will be tempted to dismiss Brown's victory as a triumph of an appealing candidate and the rejection of an opponent who proved to be a dud. But Brown would never have been competitive if Americans generally favored the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders. In that case, even a dud would have trounced the man who drives a truck.

And there's this absolutely fascinating political point:

Unfortunately there was no exit poll (because news organizations didn't think this would be a seriously contested race until 10 days ago), and so we can't be sure whether, as at least one pre-election poll indicated, Brown swept young voters in a state where they voted 78 percent to 20 percent for Obama.

Of course, the academic crowd remained respectably brainless:

Brown's gains were not as great in areas dominated by what the New York Times's David Brooks called, perhaps archly, "the educated class." Cambridge and Amherst remained solidly monopartisan. But in suburbs with many upward strivers, people who (like Scott Brown) have worked their way from the economic margins to some comfort, turnout was almost as high as in November 2008. Towns that split evenly in the presidential race went 2-to-1 for Brown.

What will Cambridge and Amherst do now?  Maybe Obama should have another beer summit on the White House lawn to introduce Senator Brown to the anthropology departments. 

Obama and "the educated class" think they know what is best for the little guy. The voters of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) beg to differ. Is anyone in the White House listening?

That's the political question of the year.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

STAND BY FOR THE HYPOCRISY – AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  It's already starting – Dems distancing themselves from the very things they were embracing as late as yesterday afternoon.  Get this gem from Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a major Democratic campaign strategist. 

“Health care was also part of the debate, and the people of Massachusetts were right to be upset about provisions in the Senate bill like the Nebraska purchase and other special deals,” Mr. Van Hollen said, referring to elements included in the bill to win the votes of Democratic senators and round up 60 votes.

COMMENT:  Oh right, Chris.  We sure saw you and other Democratic leaders protesting those deals before last night.   Yes sirree, you were right out front. 

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to change your stripes, at least get the stripes right.  It's the Louisiana Purchase, which refers to the $300-million given to Senator Mary Landrieu's state of Louisiana in exchange for her vote on health care.  The Nebraska deal, giving Senator Ben Nelson's Nebraska a subsidy for Medicaid not given to any other state, is called the Cornhusker Kickback. 

Just thought you'd like to know.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, MR. PRESIDENT – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  Barack Obama became president of the United States one year ago today.  At this moment, a year ago, he was probably dressing for the occasion.

Who would have thought, one year later, on this anniversary, that Mr. Obama would be reflecting on the fact that the Democratic Party, under his leadership, could not hold onto the Senate seat that had been occupied by Ted Kennedy.

At the White House, they must be asking whether they'll actually allow Massachusetts to secede, or whether they'll order Gen. McClellan north to stop the outrage.

There is, across the internet, a kind of numbness.  Yes, some pundits have spoken, and have not said much.  But in the face of revolution, silence is often the wisest response.  We have not had a political result like this in many decades.

I recall, walking through the streets of Chicago at 5 a.m., the day after the 1960 election, savoring the apparent victory of John F. Kennedy over the loathed Richard M. Nixon.  Who would have thought then that, 50 years later, the Democratic Party would come to this?  The party of Roosevelt and Truman, the party that really did try to stick up for the average guy, the national defense party that ran to the right of the GOP on military preparedness, has become a pathetic mess, an elitist bunch of Aspen-skiing, terrorist coddling  snobs, so out of touch with the common man that its Senate candidate in Massachusetts couldn't even correctly identify the team loyalty of a local baseball legend.  It's as if someone running for senator from New York thought Joe DiMaggio was a St. Louis Cardinal. 

What is the president thinking today?  Well, being Barack Obama, he's probably thinking that it's someone else's fault.  It was Martha Coakley.  Ran a bad campaign.  It was the Senate Dems, who didn't see it coming.  It was Sean Hannity.  Rush.  O'Reilly.  Wait.  It was certainly BUSH (!!), and probably CHENEY (!!!).  Maybe even Liz Cheney.

It was Obama.  He hovered over this race like Nancy Pelosi over a wine and Brie party.

Now the question, on this first anniversary, is how the president responds.  That response may well shape the remainder of his term, possibly his only term.

January 20,  2010   Permalink