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.

MONDAY,  JANUARY 25,  2010

GEEZ - AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  We suspected the president has an out-of-control ego, but this is the gun, and it is smoking.  Heavy, thick smoke.  Congressman Marion Berry of Arkansas, as reported in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, via The Politico:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

COMMENT:  Yeah, we got you, babe.  And we're all so thrilled.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall, listening to Bill Clinton's reaction as he reads that Obama comment.  Clinton, as you'll recall, was the president we had in 1994.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

NEW ALERT ABOUT IRAN – AT 8:42 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to this report from Germany, which is spreading rapidly around the internet.  It deals with new intelligence information from Iranian defectors, and other sources:

The West has long been suspicious of Iran's nuclear program. SPIEGEL has obtained new documents on secret tests and leadership structures that call into question Tehran's claims to be exclusively interested in the peaceful use of the technology...

...The new information, say American experts, will likely prompt the US government to reassess the risks coming from the mullah-controlled country in the coming days and raise the alarm level from yellow to red. Skeptics who in the past, sometimes justifiably so, treated alarmist reports as Israeli propaganda, are also extremely worried. They include the experts from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose goal is prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

I love the little nasty comment about Israel.  If these European "sophisticates" had listened to Israeli intelligence, and indeed some Arab intelligence agencies, years go, they'd be in a much better position.

And the document that Spiegel, a German magazine, has apparently seen?

According to the classified document, there is a secret military branch of Iran's nuclear research program that answers to the Defense Ministry and has clandestine structures. The officials who have read the dossier conclude that the government in Tehran is serious about developing a bomb, and that its plans are well advanced.

This comes as no shock to anyone with common sense.  The Iranians didn't build all those plants and underground facilities because they needed power to recharge iPods.  This has been a military program from the start.

The trouble is, nothing has been done to stop it.  The sanctions applied to Iran thus far have been laughed at.  The Chinese, who have veto power in the UN Security Council, are militantly against new sanctions, and it's unlikely we could even get some European countries, with extensive commercial ties to Iran, to go along:

This leaves the military option. Apart from the political consequences and the possibility of counter-attacks, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be extremely difficult. The nuclear experts have literally buried themselves and their facilities underground, in locations that would be virtually impossible to reach with conventional weapons.

While even Israeli experts are skeptical over how much damage bombing the facilities could do to the nuclear program, the normally levelheaded US General David Petraeus sounded downright belligerent when asked whether the Iranian nuclear facilities could be attacked militarily. "Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said just two weeks ago in Washington.

COMMENT:  I doubt if Obama, strapped in tight by the left wing of his party, has the stomach for military action, which would have to be sustained.  That leaves the real possibility that the mullahs of Iran will have the bomb.  And if they are in danger of being overturned, they might just give it to some allies.

This is an extraordinary dangerous situation.  Some say the mullahs can be deterred, as were the Soviets.  But the Soviet Union, with all its horrors, was rational.  The leaders wanted to live.  The Iranians, with their religious fanaticism, may be more like the Japanese kamikaze.

We look to Obama, probably in vain.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

HOME SALES DIVE – AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  The idea of an economic "recovery" took a big hit last month, as home sales tumbled:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sales of previously occupied homes took the largest monthly drop in more than 40 years last month, sinking more dramatically than expected after lawmakers gave buyers additional time to use a tax credit.

The report reflects a sharp drop in demand after buyers stopped scrambling to qualify for a tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homeowners. It had been due to expire on Nov. 30. But Congress extended the deadline until April 30 and expanded it with a new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners who move.

"It's 'exit stage left' for first-time homebuyers," wrote Guy LeBas, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott.

December's sales fell 16.7 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.45 million, from an unchanged pace of 6.54 million in November, the National Association of Realtors said Monday. Sales had been expected to fall by about 10 percent, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters.

The report "places a large question mark over whether the recovery can be sustained when the extended tax credit expires," wrote Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.

COMMENT:  This will continue unless new jobs are generated, the credit markets return to normal, and people become sane about home values.  One of the worst things that happened economically in this country over the last 25 years is that the American people started believing that their fortunes were in their homes.  They are not.  They are in their work, their savings, and their financial plans. 

Home prices are a function of many things, but home prices that are too high can actually do devastating damage to an economy, as they have in New York.  The high cost of living in New York has turned it into an out-migration state, and the people leaving are the most productive citizens.  Reasonable, and sane, housing policies attract young people, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

This recession is far from over.  What some economists fear is a "double dip" recession, with the second dip occurring later this year.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

WHEN WILL THE BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA END? – AT 5:05 P.M. ET:  Or, when will the White House start shooting the pollsters?  A new poll shows how extensive the disillusionment with The One has become.  From the Washington Times:

Only 43 percent of Americans would vote to re-elect President Obama, fully 10 percent lower than the percentage that put him into office just more than a year ago.

Fifty percent think it's time for someone new to be president, according to the latest poll conducted by Zogby International from Jan. 19 to 21, when the president completed his first term in office.

Among independent voters, only 30 percent would vote to re-elect Mr. Obama, and 60 percent say it is time for someone new.

COMMENT:  Obviously, this is very, very preliminary.  The president isn't up until 2012, and we haven't even had the 2010 elections.  But the figure among independents has got to worry the White House immensely.   Mr. Obama rode to power largely because of his strength among independents.  That strength is now gone, at least for now.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN:  MAJOR MOTION PICTURE NEWS – AT 3:34 P.M. ET:  From the BBC:

The world's first film shot entirely by chimpanzees is to be broadcast by the BBC as part of a natural history documentary.

The apes created the movie using a specially designed chimp-proof camera given to them by primatologists.

The film-making exercise is part of a scientific study into how chimpanzees perceive the world and each other.

It will be screened within the Natural World programme "Chimpcam" shown on BBC Two at 2000GMT on Wednesday 27 January.

Making the movie was the brainchild of primatologist Ms Betsy Herrelko, who is studying for a PhD in primate behaviour at the University of Stirling, UK.

COMMENT:  You can be sure that this will be far more accurate than any other BBC documentary in recent memory. 

Now watch:  BBC's next project will be a chimp-made anti-American documentary.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

NEW TERROR WARNING – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  The Brits are on the case, as some new and disturbing developments emerge:

Two men were stopped boarding US-bound planes at Heathrow days before Britain's terror threat was raised to "severe".

News of the incidents came hours after Home Secretary Alan Johnson lifted the threat level amid fears that al-Qaeda is planning an attack.

The new level, which means an attack is reckoned "highly likely", is second only to "critical".

Security sources say an Egyptian was stopped last Saturday as he tried to board an American Airlines flight to Miami. A man from Saudi Arabia was banned from boarding a United Airlines flight to Chicago the next day and sent back to Saudi.

The incidents and the raised threat level follow the failed Christmas Day bombing on a plane over Detroit.

And this is especially worrisome:

Anti-terror officials said the past week had seen an "unusually high" number of people on their no-fly list trying to board US-bound planes.

And...

Security is being tightened in Britain ahead of high-level meetings which will see world leaders including Hillary Clinton heading to Britain this week. The US Secretary of State and other leading foreign ministers will be in London on Wednesday and Thursday for summits on Yemen - thought to be a terror haven - and Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  The president's state of the union message is Wednesday.  Amidst all the new and improved posturing over the economy, let's see if he says anything about national security.  He might begin by reminding his own Justice Department that reading terrorists their Miranda rights may not be the highest priority at the moment.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW?  SOME REAL REALISM – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  A foreign-policy realist gets realistic.

I've never been impressed by the "realists" in foreign policy.  They always seemed to be the most unrealistic chaps of all.  Their "realism" never seems to work for more than five minutes, and always manages to shame us.

Now, Richard Haass, one of the most prominent "realists" – a favorite of Bush 41, which tells you everything – has had an epiphany.  In foreign policy, that's like having triplets.  In a Newsweek piece, he concedes that our "realist" policy toward Iran has failed, that we face a major crisis, and that a major change is needed.  He is correct:

The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

The authorities overreached in their blatant manipulation of last June's presidential election, and then made matters worse by brutally repressing those who protested. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lost much of his legitimacy, as has the "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The opposition Green Movement has grown larger and stronger than many predicted.

And...

The United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change.

That is what scholars like Michael Ledeen have been advocating for years, only to be met with ridicule by the self-proclaimed intellectual establishment. 

Leaders should speak out for the Iranian people and their rights. President Obama did this on Dec. 28 after several protesters were killed on the Shia holy day of Ashura, and he should do so again. So should congressional and world leaders. Iran's Revolutionary Guards should be singled out for sanctions. Lists of their extensive financial holdings can be published on the Internet. The United States should press the European Union and others not to trade or provide financing to selected entities controlled by the Guards.  

That's where the problem comes.  Money talks.  The Germans, in particular, have been obscene in their trading policies with Iran.  And China is unspeakable. 

Just as important as what to do is what to avoid. Congressmen and senior administration figures should avoid meeting with the regime. Any and all help for Iran's opposition should be nonviolent. Iran's opposition should be supported by Western governments, not led. In this vein, outsiders should refrain from articulating specific political objectives other than support for democracy and an end to violence and unlawful detention. Sanctions on Iran's gasoline imports and refining, currently being debated in Congress, should be pursued at the United Nations so international focus does not switch from the illegality of Iran's behavior to the legality of unilateral American sanctions.

Finally...

Critics will say promoting regime change will encourage Iranian authorities to tar the opposition as pawns of the West. But the regime is already doing so. Outsiders should act to strengthen the opposition and to deepen rifts among the rulers. This process is underway, and while it will take time, it promises the first good chance in decades to bring about an Iran that, even if less than a model country, would nonetheless act considerably better at home and abroad. Even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed.

COMMENT:  Solid argument.  Sadly, there will be other "realists," especially those associated with the "it's our fault" school, who will not go along.  But I'm hopeful that Haass's piece reflects real change in the realist camp.

Of course, his prescription requires that the Obama administration actually do something, which is not its greatest strength.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

POLITICAL STUNNER – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  The Rothenberg Political Report is one of the most respected political sources in Washington.  This morning it published its latest judgments, reinforcing the New York Times story we quoted just below, and adding some juicy details:

After a stunning GOP Senate win in Massachusetts and a slew of new polls showing many Democratic incumbents in trouble, it’s hard to argue with the obvious: the Republicans unquestionably have momentum as 2010 begins.

We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.

Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

COMMENT:  A word of caution:  Districts and states are fought one by one by one.  They're not fought as a mass.  Many Americans find the Republican Party unattractive because, let's face it, many of its leaders would not win a political beauty contest, or any other kind.  GOP congressional leaders hold news conferences, and the image is one of tired white guys.  No women.  No minorities.  Scott Brown showed that an attractive candidate, articulate and determined, can change that picture.  He's a white guy, but he's certainly not tired or average.

The party's success in November will be decided heavily by the quality of the candidates it recruits.  It will also be decided by its ability to avoid any hint of extremism or nuttiness.  These are serious times.  People want real answers, not ideological readings.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

SEIZING THE INITIATIVE – IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  Traditionally, one hasn't looked to the Republican Party for a lot of electoral energy.  You sometimes had the feeling that the party needed constant treatment by paramedics, especially right before elections.  But there may be change we can believe in coming.  From The New York Times, which must be experiencing pain in reporting the story:

WASHINGTON — Republicans are luring new candidates into House and Senate races, and the number of seats up for grabs in November appears to be growing, setting up a midterm election likely to be harder fought than anyone anticipated before the party’s big victory in Massachusetts last week.

It's great to have good news on a Monday morning.

Republicans still face many obstacles, not least a number of potentially divisive primaries in coming months that will highlight the deep ideological rifts within the party.

That is correct.  We wrote about it here just yesterday.  Some heads may have to be knocked together.  And the purists may have to be taught some basic math:  In politics, you can get 75% of something, or 100% of nothing. 

But in the days since Republicans claimed the Senate seat that Edward M. Kennedy had held for decades, upending assumptions in both parties about the political landscape for 2010, they have seen not just a jolt of energy and optimism but also more concrete opportunities to take on Democrats.

Just since Tuesday, half a dozen Republicans have expressed interest in challenging Democrats in House races in New York, Pennsylvania and potentially Massachusetts, party officials said.

The bottom line:

Republicans need a net gain of 40 seats to regain control of the House. That still seems unlikely, though hardly impossible.

COMMENT:  It was a pipe dream only two months ago.  But the election isn't being held today, and the White House political team is not dumb.  Much can happen between now and November, which is why the GOP must run as if tomorrow is election day.

The sleeper issue:  National security.  The economy will be the major "talked about" issue, but polling in Massachusetts last week showed that national security was a major factor in Scott Brown's election.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

AMBUSH AT APPROVAL GAP – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Gallup is reporting another new record for President Obama, not the kind he will post on the Oval Office wall:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

My question is this:  Precisely what is it that Democrats approve of?  You get the sense that this is all personal.

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

And...

In fact, his 88% average approval rating from his own party's supporters is exceeded only by George W. Bush's 92% during Bush's first year in office. Obama's 23% approval among supporters of the opposition party matches Bill Clinton's for the lowest for a first-year president. But Clinton was less popular among Democrats than Obama has been to date, making Obama's ratings more polarized.

COMMENT:  The only thing that can possibly change here is that Dems might start losing faith.  I can't imagine moderate Democrats continuing to support this president. 

The figures are not only startling, they're discouraging.  This kind of polarization is dangerous for the country, and reflects a failure of leadership. 

The survey did not measure support for Obama among independents, which has dropped dramatically, and which will make him a one-term president if there are no corrections.

January 25,  2010   Permalink

SUNDAY,  JANUARY 24,  2010

FOR BIN LADEN, WHAT COMES NEXT? – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  There is informed speculation on the meaning of today's comments by Osama bin Laden, assuming it was really him on the tape:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Osama bin Laden's word choice in the latest audio message attributed to him is seen as a "possible indicator" of an upcoming attack by his Al-Qaeda network, a US monitoring group warned Sunday.

IntelCenter, a US group that monitors Islamist websites, also said that manner of the release and the content of the message showed it was "credible" that it was a new release from the Saudi extremist.

"The Osama bin Laden audio message released to Al-Jazeera on 24 January 2010 contains specific language used by bin Laden in his statements in advance of attacks," IntelCenter said in a statement.

The group said it considered the language "a possible indicator of an upcoming attack" in the next 12 months.

"This phrase, 'Peace be upon those who follow guidance,' appears at the beginning and end of messages released in advance of attacks that are designed to provide warning to Al-Qaeda's enemies that they need to change their ways or they will be attacked," the group said.

In a statement carried by Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden praised the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to blow up a US airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day.

COMMENT:   Britain has now raised its terror alert.  A third of all the attempts to attack American targets, in the time after 9-11, have occurred on Barack Obama's watch.  Bin Laden and his like-minded jihadists have responded to Obama's outreach and talk of peace with more attacks and more threats.  That is what weakness always gets you.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

SOME COMMON SENSE COMING? – AT 5:55 P.M. ET:  Maybe, just maybe, the Obamans will finally realize that trying the mastermind of 9-11 in a civilian New York courtroom is an awful, terrible, ignorant, and clownish idea.  And it's unpopular, too.  Michael Isikoff of Newsweek has some news that gives us a bit of optimism:

Top administration officials are getting nervous that they may not be able to proceed with one of their most controversial national-security moves: trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 conspirators in federal court in New York City.

I'm glad for their nervousness.  It's long in coming.

...because of shifting political winds in Congress, the trial is now "potentially in jeopardy," a senior official, who did not want to be named talking about a sensitive situation, tells NEWSWEEK. The chief concern: that Republicans will renew attempts to strip funding for the trial and, in the aftermath of the bombing attempt aboard Northwest Flight 253, pick up enough support from moderate Democrats to prevail.

Unless of course the moderate Dems wimp out in the end, which is their glorious tradition, told in story and song.

"I'm afraid it's probably going to pass," says Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who has strongly backed the administration on the issue.

One of the scummier members of Congress, Moran is sympathetic to Arab and Muslim causes, and maybe thinks KSM can do some advertising for the righteous during his trial.

Another big factor? The price tag. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently sent a letter to the White House budget office seeking more than $216 million to provide security for the trial this year—and more than $200 million for each year after that. The figures have prompted some critics to say that, given the years a complex conspiracy case could take, the final cost could approach $1 billion.

I'd rather see that money go for veterans' hospitals to take care of the troops who fight the terror forces and their allies.

The Justice Department has yet to indict the suspects, nor has it given Congress the required 45-day notice that it plans to bring them to New York. But spokesman Matthew Miller says the attorney general remains "committed to bringing to justice those allegedly responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 people"—and "we can do it in trials that are safe, secure, and respected around the world."

Oh, right.  They'll be "respected around the world" until the defense raises one objection.  Then the headlines in Europe will read NEW YORK TRIAL, FAIRNESS OR A SHAM?  You can just see it coming.

If Holder's plans are thwarted, though, one top administration official, who also didn't want to be named talking about delicate issues, notes there is a Plan B—reviving the case against the alleged 9/11 conspirators before a military tribunal, just as the Bush administration tried to do.

Three cheers for Plan B.  Good then, good now.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 5:45 P.M. ET:  From Wes Pruden of The Washington Times:

Scott Brown has given the Republicans an opportunity, not a cure - either for his party or the country. He's showing the Republicans how to get up to fight again. He stopped the rush to destroy American health care (with all its manifold shortcomings still the best place in the world to get sick) and remake America into a European nanny state. Mr. Brown succeeded because he didn't adopt his party's usual war cry: "I'm a Republican but I'm not as bad as you think."

If the Democrats can't learn the lesson of Massachusetts, there will be other Scott Browns on the way. In many quarters, disappointment and disbelief have yet to turn to determination to get up off the floor.

COMMENT:  True.  The most important point, though, is Pruden's line that Brown has given the GOP an opportunity, not a cure.  Republicans are still unpopular.  There is no coherent platform.  As we noted earlier today, there are serious signs of regional splits, with egomaniacal forces barging in and demanding ideological purity, a death knell for any party in this pragmatic country. 

The GOP should not use the Brown election as a vote of confidence, but as a vote of what is possible – with discipline, attractive candidates and a good dose of sanity.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

HAPPY BIRTHDAY – AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  Thought you'd like to know, from AP:

SADDLE BROOK, N.J. — People have walked to the altar dressed in it, protected their garden plants with it, even put it on display at highbrow art museums.

Mostly, they like the sound it makes when they pop it, which largely explains the appeal of Bubble Wrap, the stress reducer disguised as package cushioning that maintains an inexplicable hold on pop culture.

The product once envisioned as a new type of wallpaper turns 50 this month.

COMMENT:  I don't know what kind of a gift you give to Bubble Wrap.  Maybe something it could wrap and protect.

In my house we're taking a yard of the stuff and popping each bubble.  It's a ritual.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

INCREDIBLE – AT 12:05 P.M. ET:  Twice in a 24-hour period The Times of London has broken a story revealing another scandal in the murky world of "global-warming science": 

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

COMMENT:  As we've said here before, we're dealing, not with real science, but with political science.  Yet, American media has been lethargic in exposing the cracks in the wall that the global-warming industry has erected to protect itself. 

The Times of London has become one of the major "go to" places for the latest on the collapsing theories.  Fox News plays a bit of that role here, but only a bit.  We need major press attention, and we need some major investigations to be launched in Washington.  There are too many scandals breaking.  We can't even keep up.

Reader David B. Havanich, Sr. refers us to still more juicy information on the global-warming industry and its followers, here.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

SO ARE WE – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  David Axelrod, Obama's senior political guy, says the president is "feeling feisty" after the worst week of his presidency, and has no intention of mending his ways.  From The Politico:

President Obama is moving swiftly to try to recover from his worst week in the White House, speeding up his schedule for engaging in the 2010 political races and planning to use his State of the Union address on Wednesday to show the public a feisty side, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview with POLITICO.

Feisty?  What means this?

He vowed, however, that there will be “no reinventing” of the president, even though “Washington loves a shakeup or human sacrifice.”

“There’s no need to,” Axelrod said. “We’re governing through difficult times. There’s a sense of impatience and frustration about the state of the economy, but also about the nature of how Washington works. That was true in 2008, and it’s true now. The president is as determined to deal with those things now as he was then.”

Trouble is, he's had a year and nothing has worked.  You can only blame BUSH (!!) for so long.

Stunned by the rejection of the Democrat in the Massachusetts Senate race last week, Obama asked David Plouffe, his 2008 campaign manager, to increase his work as an outside White House adviser.

“Everybody would acknowledge that we kind of took Massachusetts for granted and we shouldn’t have,” Axelrod said. “It just reminded us that we’ve got to be at the top of our game.”

Plouffe’s mission is to bring the winning formula he brought to the 2008 campaign to this fall’s Democratic campaigns, at a time when economic and historical headwinds threaten the party with a rout.

“The same forces that we saw at play in Massachusetts were the ones that propelled [Obama] to office,” Axelrod said. “There’s no reinventing any message here. It’s a reaffirmation of a message. And that is our goal to advocate fiercely for the middle class and for people all across this country who’ve been struggling in this economy and long before the recession.”

Plouffe is a first-class political operative.  No matter how strongly we might feel about the mess in the White House, don't underestimate him.  Remember, virtually every poll shows that, while Americans are rejecting the administration, they aren't embracing the Republican Party, which has a remarkable skill at blowing opportunities and ruining a message. 

Also, there are some growing indications of major splits in some regional Republican organizations, splits between pragmatists and ideologues.  We could easily see a situation, as we did in the presidential race of 1992, when a third-party candidate splits the conservative vote.  (Ross Perot took votes from George H.W. Bush in 1992.) 

There are no guarantees for Republicans, only opportunities.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

HEY, I WANT MY NAME OVER THE TITLE – AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  Like a fading Hollywood producer, Usama bin Laden takes credit for the Christmas day bombing attempt.  From Fox:

CAIRO — Usama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas in a new audio message released Sunday threatening more attacks on the United States.

A senior U.S. intelligence official in Washington said there is "no evidence whatsoever" that bin Laden had any involvement on the Christmas Day attack — or even knew about it beforehand. The message suggests the Al Qaeda leader wants to appear in direct command of the terrorist group's many affiliates around the world at a time when some analysts have suggested he is mostly a figurehead.

In the minute-long recording carried by Al-Jazeera Arabic news channel, bin Laden addressed President Obama saying the Christmas attack was meant to send a message similar to that of the Sept. 11 attacks.

COMMENT:  The sad fact is that there will be some people who'll take this message seriously and demand that we change our foreign policy to accommodate bin Laden, the classic appeasement approach.  It was true back in 1940 that a number of Americans, including members of the establishment, wanted us to cut off aid to Britain so as not to anger Adolf Hitler.  The problem, of course, is that this approach essentially surrenders American independence and allows others to manipulate our foreign policy.  And appeasement usually whets the appetitute of the aggressor.  Rarely does it satisfy it.

January 24, 2010    Permalink

AND NOW VENEZUELA – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Thousands have demonstrated against Hugo Chavez in the streets of Caracas.  From Fox News:

CARACAS, Venezuela — Tens of thousands of Venezuelans opposed to President Hugo Chavez took to the streets Saturday, blaming him for rolling blackouts, water rationing, widespread crime and other problems they say are making daily life increasingly difficult.

Chavez backers flooded the capital's avenues with an equally impressive demonstration as the socialist leader confronts mounting criticism and an emboldened opposition ahead of upcoming congressional elections.

Waving Venezuelan flags, protesters accused Chavez of dragging the politically divided South American country into a severe crisis as he accelerates his drive to transform it into a socialist state.

"Chavez is leading the country to ruin," said 79-year-old Olga Damjanovich at the opposition protest. "He's controlled all the country's institutions for more than a decade, so how could it be possible that he's not responsible for the problems weighing down on us?"

Many wore T-shirts that read: "3 Strikes: Blackouts, Water Rationing and Crime. Chavez, You've Struck Out!"

COMMENT:  As usual, the White House has not yet commented.  When Iranians demonstrated for democracy, it took Obama three or four days finally to trot out to a microphone and give a lukewarm expression of support.  I wonder whether he'll even notice the Venezuelans. 

January 24,  2010    Permalink