WE'RE ON TWITTER, GO HERE WE'RE ON FACEBOOK, GO HERE
Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page. Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.
OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.
FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2010
AND NOW THE FINE PRINT – AT 8:31 P.M. ET: We all know that the European Union has had to bail out Greece, home of democracy, the Olympics and good salads. But the bailout comes with stipulations, some of which might, uh, interest us here. Investors Business Daily, in an editorial, outlines the terms:
Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
COMMENT: Catch the last paragraph. This is the first I've read about the health-care recommendation applied to Greece. If any of you read about it anywhere else, please let me know. I think the IBD editorial is correct – the mainstream media is playing it down because it conflicts with their own agenda.
Maybe we should contemplate the Greek experience before we launch Obamacare. If Republicans take control of Congress in the fall, that may well happen.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
AMAZING WE NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS – AT 7:55 P.M. ET: There is an aftermath to the recent crash that killed so many top Polish leaders. I'm surprised no one thought of this factor earlier, but superlative defense reporter Bill Gertz is on the case:
The recent crash of a Polish military transport that killed most of Warsaw's senior civilian and military leaders was not only a human catastrophe for a key U.S. ally. NATO sources said that, in addition to the loss of nearly 100 pro-U.S. Polish leaders, the crash provided Moscow with a windfall of secrets.
The crash killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski in western Russia on April 10 and decapitated Poland's military, killing two service chiefs, key military aides and several national security officials, many of whom were carrying computers and pocket memory sticks that contained sensitive NATO data.
Perhaps the most significant compromise, according to a NATO intelligence source, is that the Russians are suspected of obtaining ultrasecret codes used by NATO militaries for secure satellite communications.
The compromise of the codes is considered what electronic spies call a "break" for Moscow code-breakers. New NATO codes almost certainly were issued to allied militaries immediately after the crash.
The new codes are a good move, but they don't solve the entire problem:
But if the Russian electronic intelligence service, known as the Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information, was able to recover and use the communication key code from the wreckage, electronic spies will be able to decode months' or perhaps years' worth of scrambled communications that are routinely gathered electronically for just such an occasion.
The coded communications, if decrypted, would reveal some of NATO's most intimate secrets, such as plans for defenses and even the identities of agents or allied eavesdropping sources.
COMMENT: Obviously, this will increase suspicions about the cause of the crash. Russia is not our friend. Just in the last day it has tongue-lashed the United States and warned us about imposing sanctions on Iran, and it has made a deal to deliver advanced weapons to Syria.
I have absolutely no evidence that Russia caused the crash, but Moscow has clearly benefited from it.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
IS HE MAD? – AT 7:39 P.M. ET: You have to wonder if Bill Clinton is trying to sink his wife's career. If he isn't trying, he may do it anyway. From The Hill:
The U.S. needs more immigrants and a value-added tax to help reduce the deficit, former President Bill Clinton said Friday.
Clinton said the country was "mortgaging out a lot of our sovereignty" by using foreign creditors to pay for an "exploding" debt.
His recipe? More growth and revenue, fueled by immigrant workers and a controversial value-added tax.
How do you think that will play out in the heartland?
"I think we're going to have to have more taxpayers, which is why I favor, in a disciplined way, immigration reform and letting more immigrants come to the country," Clinton told CNBC. "I think it would make more jobs for people who are unemployed, not fewer."
Second, Clinton said, more tax revenue could be collected by imposing a value-added tax, which taxes products at each stage of the manufacturing or distribution process.
"I think they ought to look at a progressive value-added tax, just because — and I think it's important the American people understand this — most of our competitors have tax systems like this," Clinton said.
Wha? I think they call that a smoking gun. It's an absolute confirmation of what we suspect – that the Democratic Party is in awe of European countries. Yeah, they have a VAT (value added tax). And look at the shape they're in.
And if you think the receipts from a VAT would go to drawing down the debt, you're smokin' something. It will be grabbed by politicians and be used for their favorite pork-laden programs.
The VAT has depressed Europe. Don't let it happen here.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
OBAMA SLIPS AGAIN IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 9:43 A.M. ET: The president's position in the Rasmussen poll seemed to have stabilized recently, primarily because more Democrats are expressing greater enthusiasm for The One.
But now we see some signs of slippage:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.
While this is not as bad as the -21 rating on March 20th, it caps three straight days of -13.
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
Is the president slipping again, or are these just statistical blips. We'll follow this for the next week to see if decline is setting in again. But, clearly, these are not great numbers five months before an election.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
FASCINATING – AT 9:03 A.M. ET: We make an assumption that money buys votes, and that big money buys many votes. But there are exceptions. Nelson Rockefeller wanted very much to be president, but all his money couldn't buy the office. Same with Ted Kennedy.
Now, a new study confirms direct observation – that money isn't always a guarantee of success in elections. From the Washington Times:
...recent elections show that having big money is no clear path to electoral success, and wealthy self-funded candidates such as...California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman are finding so far that deep pockets can't even guarantee them a lead in the polls.
The winning candidate in more than 90 percent of the 2008 House and Senate races was also the candidate who spent the most money. However, the record for self-funded millionaires and billionaires is far less impressive, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Of the 51 self-funded millionaires the Washington-based group counted in 2008 races, 37 either lost or quit their races before Election Day. And roughly 41 percent of them never got past the primaries, including California developer and former Republican congressman Doug Ose, who spent $4.1 million in a failed - and expensive - comeback effort.
The template for buying a race may have been set by Democrat Jon Corzine, who pumped a record-shattering $62 million of the fortune he made at Goldman Sachs into his winning Senate race in 2000, and tapped his bank account again to win the New Jersey governorship six years later. Media magnate Michael R. Bloomberg raised the bar by dropping $109 million for his re-election campaign as New York City mayor in 2009.
But the record Mr. Corzine broke was held by California multimillionaire Michael Huffington, who lost his 1994 Senate race to Democrat Dianne Feinstein. And Mr. Bloomberg limped to an unimpressive four-point win against a hopelessly outspent opponent in his latest race. Massive fortunes also did not translate into Election Day victory for presidential hopefuls such as Ross Perot and Steve Forbes.
COMMENT: Some cautionary notes: While it's gratifying that voters can look past the money machine, there's no doubt that personal money makes it easier for some people to gain access to the system, and get themselves on the ballot in the first place. It also distorts the concept of representation. The U.S. Senate is, on average, far wealthier than its constituents.
We still have not solved the issue of money in politics: How do you permit those of means to enter the system, and use their resources to advance their causes, while at the same time providing fairness and access to others? Neither hard liberals or hard conservatives have provided much in the way of useful answers.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
TIMES SQUARE UPDATE – AT 8:49 A.M. ET: The Times Square bombing case gets curioser and curioser. Remember, this case began with our being assured by Janet Napolitano and even David Petraeus that the guy who parked the bomb car was a lone wolf. Boy, has that "narrative" disappeared. From The Washington Post:
The Pakistani government has arrested a suspect with connections to a Pakistani militant group who said he acted as an accomplice to the man accused of trying to bomb Times Square, U.S. officials said.
The suspect, whose arrest has not been previously disclosed, provided an "independent stream" of evidence that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the attempt and has admitted helping Faisal Shahzad, the main suspect, travel into Pakistan's tribal belt for bomb training.
Officials familiar with the investigation cautioned about inconsistencies in the two suspects' accounts. Federal authorities expanded their search for evidence Thursday, carrying out raids in four northeastern states, and arresting three people suspected of funneling money to Shahzad.
There are always inconsistencies. No two people tell exactly the same story, which is why cops (and journalists) must sift through the evidence and look for connections.
Still, the U.S. determination that the Pakistani Taliban directed the attempted attack is based largely on accounts given by the two men, several U.S. officials said. Authorities have been examining phone records, e-mail and other communication to see whether they contain firmer evidence of links between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban.
"What they said has been corroborated by other evidence,'' said a senior law enforcement source, who would not specify that evidence, saying it is classified.
COMMENT: There is still going to be an element in government and media that plays down any international connection, because that line favors their own point of view. But the Times Square guy spent plenty of time in Pakistan, and there's no evidence he was weaving rugs. And for a fella whose house was in foreclosure, he seemed to have plenty of money, some of which was used to buy the bomb car.
If there's one, there have to be others. And, as one congressman said at a hearing yesterday, one of these days the terror groups will send a guy who knows how to make a bomb and set it off.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
OH DEAR, SHE SPEAKS AGAIN – AT 8:05 A.M. ET: You know, there are reasons why people lose elections, even in states where they should be shoo-ins.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, recently defeated by Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate, was asked why so many illegal immigrants were attracted to Massachusetts. Her answer, deep and profound:
“Technically,” she replied, “it is not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.”
That is probably the best expression of modern liberalism that I've heard recently. It's right up there with being for it before being against it, and "man-caused disasters" taking the place of terrorism.
Ah, whatever happened to the Democratic Party. Franklin, Harry and Jack must be spinning in their graves. They should only know that many "liberals" today probably think of them as fascists.
May 14, 2010 Permalink
THE OBAMAN "OUTREACH" CONTINUES – PREPARE TO BE ILL – AT 7:58 A.M. ET: As the president talks tough on terror in New York, and his attorney general talks less than tough on terror in Washington, his UN ambassador talks gibberish at the UN.
From the great Anne Bayefsky at NRO:
On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.
Isn't it time to replace the UN with a league of democratic nations?
Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”
We must not offend. That's a crime against humanity.
Not constructive because, Rice suggested, it was no big deal. She described the countries on the Council — which include human-rights experts Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba in addition to the incoming freshman class — as just “countries whose orientation and perspectives we don’t agree with.” And later on she described the election as one which “yielded an outcome that we think is a good reflection on the potential of the Human Rights Council.”
COMMENT: Apparently, this is the foreign policy that's supposed to make us proud again. Sure, if you're a left-wing activist in the Middle East studies department at Columbia University, you'll be bursting your buttons with pride.
As for the rest of us...
May 14, 2010 Permalink
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2010
MR. PRESIDENT, PHONE HOME – AT 8:10 P.M. ET: Actually, don't phone home. Phone your attorney general. You guys should speak occasionally to get your act together.
While Holder was refusing to utter the words "Islamic extremism" in Washington, and was still evasive about whether terror trials will be held in New York – even angering Democratic congressmen from New York City – where was the boss? Why, he was in New York City, telling the guys on the front line of terror just how much he loves them. It's real love, not puppy love:
President Obama visited Police Headquarters today to personally congratulate the NYPD for its efforts in fighting terrorism and reassure New York’s Finest of his commitment to providing them with resources to protect the Big Apple.
"I just wanted to stop by to say Thank you," Obama began during a 10-minute visit to the NYPD’s Real Time Crime Center. "The country is proud of you. . . the president is proud of you.
I'm sure everyone was deeply moved.
"I don’t think I need to tell you that given the potential for attack everywhere in the country, we’ve got a lot to learn from what is taking place here," Obama said as he lauded the NYPD’s role in tracking down suspected car bomber terrorist Faisal Shahzad after he tried to detonate explosives in crowded Times Square.
Learn? Learn? Your attorney general has learned nothing. He just thinks the guys who planted the latest bomb may or may not be Muslim extremists. Y'know, you don't want to jump to conclusions. Maybe they felt they paid too much for their theater tickets.
Look, it's an election year. The White House is running the 2008 "Hey, I'm a moderate" script. Wait 'til the election is over for the real Obama.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
ARRESTS IN TIMES SQUARE CASE – AT 7:26 P.M. ET: Even as Attorney General Holder made a fool of himself before a congressional committee today (see post directly below), the real guys were out doing their jobs. From AP:
WATERTOWN, Massachusetts — Federal agents conducted Thursday morning raids in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey in connection with the failed Times Square car bomb and arrested two Pakistani men who provided money to suspect Faisal Shahzad, law enforcement officials said.
The searches were the product of evidence gathered in the investigation into the Times Square bomb attempt two weeks ago, but there was "no known immediate threat to the public or any active plot against the United States," FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz said.
The two Boston-area men had a "direct connection" to Pakistani-American suspect Faisal Shahzad, said a top Massachusetts law enforcement official. They are believed to have provided money to him, but investigators weren't sure whether they were witting accomplices or simply moving funds, as is common among people from the Middle East and Central Asia who live in the US, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
"These people might be completely innocent and not know what they were providing money for, but it's clear there's a connection," the official said.
COMMENT: A well-informed observer noted in an off-the-record speech a few days ago that the terror groups used to transfer money electronically, before The New York Times irresponsibly revealed that we had developed a method of detecting those payments. Now the terrorists use human couriers, who are far harder to detect. Nice work, Mr. Sulzberger.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
HOLD THAT HOLDER – AT 7:09 P.M. ET: They just can't help themselves. It must be an emotional thing. Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee today, and did his Alice in Wonderland act regarding terrorism. From The Hill:
Under direct questioning from(Congressman Lamar) Smith, Holder also refused to say whether “radical Islam” motivated Shahzad or terrorists in general.
“There are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions,” Holder said. “I think we have to look at each individual case…radical Islam could have been one of the reasons…there are a variety of reasons why people do these things.”
Oh please, oh please. Enough of this. It is disgraceful. Of course radical Islam is the key factor motivating Muslim terrorists. It's the one thing they all have in common. The refusal to acknowledge this is based, of course, on Obama's desire to "reach out" to the Muslim world and show it "respect."
Well, there are right ways and wrong ways of showing respect. And this administration is doing it the wrong way. There are plenty of people in the Muslim world who would cheer an honest description of what we're up against, so they can separate themselves from these extremists. We're seeing here the culminating of four decades of political correctness in our universities and even our press.
“Our national security policy should consist of more than relying on dumb bombers and smart citizens,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking Republican on the panel. “Sooner or later, a terrorist is going to build a bomb that works.”
COMMENT: It will be sooner, rather than later. And it might contain radioactive materials.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
ANOTHER FAMOUS VICTORY FOR "OUTREACH": Oh, how our foreign-policy victories pile up – AT 9:58 A.M. ET: Obama has poured a great deal of glittering outreach dust into Russia, and here is the result:
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.
The European Union has said it may impose unilateral sanctions if a U.N. Security Council resolution fails.
U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been lobbying Western companies not to do business with Iran, but has not imposed sanctions against them.
Countries facing Security Council sanctions "cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council," Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax.
"The position of the United States today does not display understanding of this absolutely clear truth."
COMMENT: My, my, how friendly. I guess that outreach really worked.
The fact is that, at best, the UN will only vote the mildest of sanctions – taking away the mullahs' Milky Way bars, or something similar. Only unilateral sanctions can have any teeth. The Russian attitude, combined with reports in recent days that Moscow may establish a nuclear relationship with Syria, shows once again the folly of "outreach," when it is not backed by firm policy.
Iran has been out of the news in recent days, but it is one of our greatest challenges, and no progress is being made.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
SARAH TO THE RESCUE – AT 9:17 A.M. ET: We reported yesterday how some nutbag "educators" in Highland Park, Illinois (outside Chicago) have cancelled the trip of the high-school girls' basketball team to Arizona because of that state's adoption of an anti-illegal-immigration law. Seems the "educators" don't like Arizona values.
But the scholars didn't count on Sister Sarah, who happens to be in Illinois right now. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
With 4,000 Chicago area fans cheering her on, former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin trained her sights Wednesday night on Highland Park High School, which conservative talk radio has targeted for canceling the girls basketball team’s trip to a tournament in Arizona.
“Them are fightin’ words when you say a girl can’t play in the basketball tournament … for political reasons … so we’re going to see about that,” Palin said.
Sarah was a basketball champion in Alaska. It was on the basketball court that she got the nickname, "Sarah Barracuda."
Arizona’s strict crackdown on illegal immigration is projected to cost that state millions in tourism from such cancellations.
“I said, ‘Wait, I thought it was already a crime for an illegal alien [to be here],” Palin said to raucous cheers at the Rosemont Theatre.
Noting that the Highland Park girls held bake sales to pay their way to the national finals for the first time in 26 years, Palin suggested conservatives could get the girls to Arizona despite High School District 113’s decision to keep the girls home this winter.
Quoting her book “Going Rogue,” Palin said: “Everything I ever needed to know, I learned on the Basketball Court: self-discipline, setting goals, teamwork, responsibility. She later added: “faith.”
Palin said the school is still sponsoring a trip to China.
“You know how they treat girls in China?” Palin said. “It makes no sense. Even if they have to do this on our own. ... If the kids have to ‘Go Rogue’ girls."
COMMENT: Now this is political theater. I'd love it if Sarah broke through the school bureaucracy and escorted those girls to Arizona. The country would eat it up.
Go Sarah. Let's see that barracuda instinct.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
PENNSYLVANIA JOKER – AT 8:52 A.M. ET: The Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is Tuesday. It couldn't be closer. Incumbent Senator and recent convert to Demism Arlen Specter is battling Congressman Joe Sestak: The latest, from RealClearPolitics:
The latest Muhlenberg College tracking poll (5/9-12, 405 LVs, MoE +/- 5%) of the Pennsylvania Senate race shows Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak still neck-and-neck with just days to go.
Senate Primary Election Matchup
Sestak 44 (-1)
Specter 44 (-1)
Und 12 (+3)
Specter is a known quantity. Sestak is a former Navy vice admiral, something that might help him draw independents in the general election, should he win the nomination.
However, there's a shadow over Sestak's service career, and it involves his leaving the Navy. An informed source sends Urgent Agenda the following:
One of Admiral Michael Mullen's first acts as chief of naval operations was to tell then Vice Admiral Sestak it was time to go home. When he announced his decision at a meeting of three- and four-star admirals, Admiral Mullen received a standing ovation. Sestak was a very difficult case who treated people - including other flag officers - with disdain and rudeness....
That is bound to come out in a general-election campaign. Americans revere their military, and correctly so, but have a long tradition of looking at retired officers as they would any other candidates. That is healthy in a democracy. Douglas MacArthur, a hero when President Truman relieved him of command in Korea in 1951, thought he could return to the U.S. and name his ticket. But his extreme statements turned off the electorate, which embraced another five-star, Dwight Eisenhower, elected president in 1952.
How will Sestak do, if he gets the Senate nomination? Well, a statewide Pennsylvania campaign against GOP star Pat Toomey is different from being elected to Congress in a Democratic district. Sestak's unfavorable separation from the Navy is bound to hurt in conservative areas, which might ordinarily lean toward a military officer.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
BRILLIANT, REALLY BRILLIANT – AT 8:29 A.M. ET: Just when we thought the Obamans were learning a thing or two about responding to terror, they retreat to their old ways. This will do them a lot of good. From the New York Post:
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will announce tomorrow it has slashed anti-terror funds for New York City, despite the attempted Times Square bombing less than two weeks ago that underscored the enormous threat to the city.
The Department of Homeland Security informed New York officials yesterday that grants to the city were cut 27 percent for mass transit security and 25 percent for port security.
The mass transit funds dropped $42 million, from $153 million last year to $111 this year.
Port security funds suffered a $11.2 million cut, from $45 million to $33.8 million, officials said.
Look, every community in America should be prepared for a terror attack because you never know what the bad guys' next strategy will look like. After all, remember Fort Hood.
But does anyone doubt that New York is the main target? It's the symbol of everything the terrorists want to destroy. To cut anti-terror funds right now is a kind of tin-ear madness. But the Obamans have done it before, and they'll do it again.
The timing of the announcement drew howls from New York lawmakers on Capitol Hill, whose recent pleas for increased anti-terror spending in the Big Apple – along with the same plea from Mayor Bloomberg – fell flat.
They said the Times Square bomb attempt shows that New Yok remains the top target for terrorists and that the city deserves the lion’s share of federal spending on security.
"For the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted Times Square bombing shows they just don’t get it and are not doing right by New York City on anti-terrorism funding," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said.
Schumer, a passionately loyal Democrat, is obviously ready to throw Obama under the bus if his own career is in jeopardy. Democrats can occasionally go kamikaze in New York, and haven't elected a Democratic mayor in New York City since 1989 – that's the last century. So Schumer understands the dynamics.
Once again, the lack of seriousness in the administration shows. They can't help themselves.
May 13, 2010 Permalink
GOP GAINS IN POLLS – AT 8:12 A.M. ET: GOP solidifying support from voters who may have drifted away. From The Wall Street Journal:
Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's mid-term campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
The findings suggest that public opinion has hardened in advance of the 2010 elections, making it tougher for Democrats to translate their legislative successes, or a tentatively improving U.S. economy, into gains among voters.
Republicans have reassembled their coalition by reconnecting with independents, seniors, blue-collar voters, suburban women and small town and rural voters—all of whom had moved away from the party in the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Those voter groups now favor GOP control of Congress.
A big shift is evident among independents, who at this point in the 2006 campaign favored Democratic control of Congress rather than Republican control, 40% to 24%. In this poll, independents favored the GOP, 38% to 30%.
Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. In the latest survey, they narrowly favored Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround was seen among voters 65 and older.
COMMENT: So far, so good. But the election is five and a half months away, about three lifetimes in politics. Don't underestimate this White House, or blind luck. Suddenly, the Senate race in Florida is up in the air. So is the one in Pennsylvania. Obama could pull a few presidential gimmicks. And divisions within the GOP could do damage. The party itself remains unpopular:
While the survey results foreshadow a strong showing for Republicans, they also show that voters were far more motivated by their frustration with Democrats and government in general than by an affinity for the GOP.
Just 30% in the survey said they felt positively about the Republican Party—a smaller share than for the Democratic Party and the tea party movement.
Of those who want to see Republicans control the House, less than one-third said that was because they support the GOP and its candidates.
Rather, nearly two-thirds said they were motivated by opposition to Mr. Obama and Democratic policies.
You can't run on negatives forever. The Republican Party must create a positive program and image. Otherwise, it's at the mercy of the other guy failing, which is not a recipe for continued success.
May 13, 2010 Permalink