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.

I did another interview with Silvio Canto Jr. in Dallas on Tuesday night.  It's here.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2010

IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 8:28 P.M. ET:  Reader John Dowd alerts us to an utterly absurd story from the equally absurd kingdom of Chicago.  Apparently, in today's "urban environment," everyone has equal standing to complain.  From the Chicago Sun-Times:

At 10 a.m. today, a group of black men will gather in front of the Columbus Park Refectory on the West Side to denounce Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis' threats to crack down on gang leaders.

These are not the usual suspects.

They aren't ministers leading a march. Nor are they activists and politicians rallying constituents around a cause.

They are men who are affiliated with some of the city's most notorious street gangs. They are Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, Kings, Stones, Hustlers, Souls and Cobras.

And they are going to Columbus Park to let Weis know they believe the threats he made during a secret meeting amount to unfair harassment.

Weis vowed to use federal RICO laws against gang leaders if a member of one gang shoots a member of another.

The threat represents a new anti-violence strategy that includes seizing a gang leader's car and home.

"The general feeling out here is that [the meeting] was a trick, and we feel it is unconstitutional for a person to be declared guilty before innocent," said Jim Allen, a self-identified Vice Lord and convener of the news conference.

COMMENT:  Wait a second.  Just wait a second.  We have gang leaders holding a protest meeting in a very public place because their feelings have been hurt by the police superintendent?  And they feel, based on their vast legal background, that they're being harassed?

What will we have next, Charles Manson complaining about the "offensive" way he's portrayed on television? 

The police superintendent vowed to use RICO laws against gang leaders if a member of one gang shoots a member of another.  What right, the gang bangers imply, does a cop have to interfere with such wholesome urban sport?

Is your sympathy for gangs rising already?

Only in Chicago, folks.  Only in Chicago.  I'll bet someone offers one of the gang leaders a TV reality show, featuring real ambushes.

September 2, 2010      Permalink

WHAT GETS AMERICANS SO MAD – AT 8:12 P.M. ET:  One of the things that outrages Americans, especially in hard times, is the way in which some people manipulate the system to enrich themselves while delivering "services" that no one can quite figure out.

Remember Bernie Madoff, the consummate investment crook?  Well, there are some guys who are being paid to sort out his holdings and distribute them to his victims.  Consider this, from the New York Post:

Hundreds of Ponzi king Bernard Madoff's victims today challenged the latest bill from his bankruptcy trustee, which seeks more than $34 million for 120 days of work.

The Aug. 20 bill, for services rendered between Feb. 1 and May 31, works out to more than $5,000 a day for court-appointed trustee Irving Picard and more than $283,000 a day for his firm, Baker & Hostetler, court papers say.

"On an annualized basis, this would be $104,900,950," according to the objection filed by Diane and Roger Peskin, Maureen Ebel and "several hundred" other unnamed Madoff investors.

Maybe that's why luxury stores in New York are booming while the rest of the country suffers.

Their Manhattan Bankruptcy Court filing says that "investors have no ability to evaluate the efficiency or professionalism of the work covered by these applications" because Judge Burton Lifland ruled that Picard and his firm "do not have to file their detailed billing reports."

But they say that "despite the expenditure of more than $2.3 million per week in professional fees and expenses, the trustee has still not determined 2,995 customer claims constituting $14 billion of the $20 billion of claims the trustee has said he will recognize."

The filing also alleges that while Picard has claimed to have recovered $1.5 billion in assets to distribute to Madoff's burned investors, nearly $100 billion was "simply sitting in bank accounts in Madoff's name when the trustee was appointed."

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  Don't tell me this is "free enterprise."  This is somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody in authority.  It's a big problem in New York. 

But the guy who's getting all this loot knows one thing:  All he has to do is write a check fora measly three million to his favorite charity, and he becomes "a great man," a "philathropist," someone who "gave back," and a hero.  My friends, that is the way the Manhattan game is played.

September 2, 2010      Permalink

A DEVASTATING VERDICT ON OBAMA – AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  From Jennifer Rubin, at Contentions:

In a fascinating interview with Robert Costa, Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell zeroes in on the Democrats’ impending doom (”the general outcome is baked”) and on Obama’s failure to live up to expectations (”The killer in American politics is disappointment. When you are elected on expectations, and you fail to meet them, your decline steepens”). But his most cogent analysis focuses on Obama’s base. He writes:

The people who own the party — George Soros, the Center for American Progress, the public-employee union bosses, rich folks flying private jets to “ideas festivals” in Aspen — they’re Obama’s base.

Yowser. He omitted only the liberal media, but I suppose they too — along with young people, old people, Hispanics, working- and middle-class whites, and even 42 percent of Jews — have grown disillusioned as well.

It will be interesting to see whether the puny base is the result of Obama’s extreme agenda or the reason it is so extreme. If you believe the former, Obama has traveled so far left that he’s lost virtually everyone else in the Democratic coalition and turned off independents as well. But if you follow Caddell’s implication (that this is the group that “owns” the party), Obama takes these steps because that’s what his core constituency wants. Why persist in supporting the repeal of the Bush tax cuts? These groups wouldn’t accept anything less. Why use controversial figures as recess appointees (e.g. Craig Becker, Donald Berwick)? Well, these are the sorts of appointees that give his “base” reassurance. Why continue to push climate change regulation and anti-business legislation in the midst of a recession? You got it — give the base what it wants.

COMMENT:  This is a very different base from the one I saw when growing up in Democratic Party politics.  In Illinois we would visit union meetings and local PTA's, and feel right at home.  Today, most members of the Democratic elite wouldn't even talk to those people.  They're the "flyover people."  Who do they think they are? 

There are too many powerful figures among today's base who spend their lives advertising their College Board scores.  We were more impressed, back then, with people who'd gone to the school of hard knocks.

There's been a role reversal in American politics.  Today it's the Republicans who are closer to the people than are the Democrats.  But no one has yet informed the Democrats.

September 2, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  Suggested by great talk-show host Mike Scully:

"Iraq is a true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world today. It is there that the future of democracy in the region will play itself out. Iraq could potentially become a political model for its neighbors. And, whether one likes it or not, all this has come about thanks to the American intervention of 2003."

- French ambassador to Iraq, Boris Boillon
August 30, 2010   Le Figaro

As Mike says, "Of all people, an ambassador of France can make such an admission, but not Barack Obama."

September 2, 2010      Permalink

TROUBLED WATERS – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  There is probably no member of Congress who brags more consistently about her commitment to "the people" than Maxine Waters, the far-left representative from Los Angeles.  Why, she'd volunteer to be burned at the stake for the benefit of "the people."

Problem is, we're not sure which people she's referring to.  From the Washington Times:

Rep. Maxine Waters has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or "slate mailer," she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters, records show.

Some statewide candidates paid as much as $45,000 for their share of the costs to be included in the mailer, according to state and federal election records, and while it can be costly for the candidates, the mailer has proved profitable for Mrs. Waters' daughter, Karen.

Karen Waters's public relations firm, Progressive Connections, has been paid $354,500 since late 2004 to direct production and distribution of the mailer - about a third of the $1 million collected from the candidates and issue groups seeking to be included on the sample ballot, the records show.

I love that name, "Progressive Connections."  Well, they have the connections, but they don't seem overly progressive.

The public relations firm was owed an additional $82,000 as of June 30 for her work on the mailer in the primary, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Her fees do not include expenses for printing and mailing, which are paid separately by the committee.

In 2004, Mrs. Waters - who is fighting charges by the House ethics committee that she improperly sought federal help for a bank in which her husband owned stock - obtained an opinion from the FEC allowing her to run the mailer operation through her federal political committee, Citizens for Waters.

Congresswoman Waters may not have broken any laws with the mailers, but her name carries great influence with California's black voters.  Some observers are concerned over the precedent:

Some consultants and watchdogs are troubled that Mrs. Waters' campaign is charging candidates she endorses to be included in her mailer and said it borders on "pay-to-play" schemes, which have recently come under scrutiny by federal authorities.

And this isn't even Illinois.

One hitch here is that African-American members of Congress have been complaining bitterly about being singled out on ethics charges.  Earlier this week the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, was charged in the press with directing scholarships reserved for black students to members of her own family.  It will be very awkward, given the racial sensitivities, to pursue still more charges against black members of Congress.

Most black congressmen and congresswomen represent "safe" districts.  They can probably stay a lifetime.  That's part of the problem.  When you're unchallenged, ethical limits tend to get pushed.

September 2, 2010       Permalink

AS ARIZONA GOES – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  In the post just below we recalled the formal end of World War II on this date in 1945.  For the United States, that war began on December 7, 1941, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  The symbolic moment in that attack was the destruction of the U.S.S. Arizona.

How could we have known that, in 2010, the United States Department of State, in a report to the vastly corrupt U.N. Human Rights Council, would single out the state for which that ship was named as a potential violator of human rights because of its illegal-immigration law.

The people of Arizona aren't buying it, and won't back down, as demonstrated by a new poll:

PHOENIX (AP) -- A poll released Wednesday found that an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters support the types of provisions that are at the heart of a national debate involving the state's immigration law.

The survey conducted on behalf of Arizona State University's Morrison Institute for Public Policy found 81 percent of registered voters approved of requiring people to produce documents that show they're in the country legally.

It found that 74 percent believe police should be allowed to detain anyone who's unable to verify their legal immigration status, and 68 percent say police should be allowed to question anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

The survey of 614 registered voters was conducted July 16-Aug. 6 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

COMMENT:  Actually, the AP story misstates some of the provisions of the law, which isn't that tough, but you get the picture.  Arizona is on the front line, absorbing illegal immigrants while the federal government refuses to completely seal our borders. 

The Arizona poll is indicative of a national mood of defiance.  Americans are increasingly fed up with being dictated to by a Washington elite that is out of touch with the country.  And there is outrage that our own government, reflecting the high-grovel of the White House, is actually reporting American states to the U.N.  If the GOP takes over Congress, it might consider legislation to ban this kind of obscene practice, and dare the president to veto it.

September 2, 2010     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 2ND – AT 7:40 A.M. ET:  Today marks the 65th anniversary of the formal end of World War II.  There was a time, not many decades ago, when most Americans knew the meaning of this date.  Now, as the World War II generation fades away, few do. 

On this date in 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allied nations aboard the battleship U.S.S. Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay.  The ceremony was presided over by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, who ended the greatest war in history with the simple words, "These proceedings are closed."

We honored the veterans of World War II.  We didn't do so well in honoring the veterans of the wars that followed.  Korea was called a stalemate, even though we achieved our objective.  That's why there's a South Korea.  Vietnam was called a loss, even though our forces never lost a a battle.  Our military distinguished itself.  Our civilian leadership, too often attuned to press coverage rather than reality, did not.

Americans were indifferent about the first Gulf War, fought to retain the independence of Kuwait, about which most of our people cared little.  We have done better in showing respect for those who've fought for us since September 11, 2001, despite domestic divisions.

There are reasons why Americans did so much better in honoring the troops returning from World War II.  First of all, it was indeed a world war.  Our very survival was at stake.  Second, our victory was complete, total.  Japan and Germany were occupied, defeated nations.  Third, our entire country was mobilized.  We had 15 million men and women under arms in World War II, out of a population of about 130 million.  Today we have a force of 1.5 million, out of a population of 305 million.  (Still, the whiners complain that we're "overstretched.")  Every family seemed to be involved, either in active military service or in war-related production.  And fourth, we had, during World War II, the support of the American left, with its influence in journalism and the academy.  In our confrontation with the Soviet Union and its allies in the year after 1945, the left was considerably less enthusiastic.  Today, some on the left disgracefully ally themselves with the enemy's cause.

Our military today is a class apart.  Few Americans know a soldier.  Too many young Americans think military service is for "suckers."  Sadly, some of their teachers encourage that attitude.

So it might be wise to take a few moments today to think about September 2, 1945, when our nation was united in a hard-fought triumph.  We may not see that kind of total victory again, but we'd better see some kind of victory in the war on terror, or we will have betrayed the legacy that the World War II generation left us.

September 2, 2010     Permalink

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

ZERO ON THE SPEEDOMETER – AT 8:38 P.M. ET:  After all the hoopla about GM making a profit, the latest news from the auto industry is more sobering.  From CNN:

The nation's top automakers reported disappointing sales Wednesday, resulting in the worst August for industrywide auto sales in 27 years.

According to sales tracker Autodata, U.S. new vehicle sales fell just short of 1 million vehicles, a drop of 21% from a year ago, which included Cash for Clunkers. That federal program created a sugar rush of sales by dangling an incentive of up to $4,500 in cash for buyers who traded in older gas guzzlers for more efficient models.

Industry sales also fell 5% from July levels. August sales typically outpace July, as deals become available on older models ahead of the fall introduction of new model year cars. August sales would equate to an annual sales pace of about 11.5 million vehicles.

"Car buying is far from repaired, and consumers hesitate before they make a big ticket purchase," said Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the auto pricing Web site Truecar.com. "It shows that the recovery is going to be much slower and more painful than expected."

This year was the weakest August sales total since the 993,100 sold in 1983. Analysts had been forecasting a weak month, with expected sales of about 1.03 million. Most of the major automakers fell short of estimates. The soft demand for autos is seen by economists as another sign of growing weakness among nervous consumers.

COMMENT:  Cash for clunkers was just a temporary stimulant, but it did not address fundamental problems in the economy, just as tax credits for homes didn't do much to strengthen housing for more than a few months.

We need a change away from the thinking in Washington that the federal government will save us.  Only the private economy can save us.  I'm not an economist, but we must expand that private economy, or our standard of living will decline and decline.

September 1, 2010      Permalink

BORDER INCIDENTS – AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  One of the sleeper issues that keeps homeland security types awake at night is the possibility that elements from the Mideast may try to cross into the U.S. from Mexico.  Now, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) expands on the danger from the South, which should concern all of us:

An indictment was handed down Aug. 30 by the Southern District Court of New York that shows a connection between Hezbollah - the proxy army of Iran and a designated terrorist organization - and the drug cartels that violently plague the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, a well-known international arms dealer was trying to orchestrate an arms-for-drugs deal in which cocaine from FARC - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which works with Mexican drug cartels to take cocaine into America - would be traded for thousands of weapons housed by a Hezbollah operative in Mexico...

...This is just the most recent incident in which it's clear that Hezbollah may have a presence in Mexico and along our southern border. There have been more incidents - which have been ignored by the Obama administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

And...

The evidence is there: Hezbollah's cooperation with countries across South America. Highly sophisticated tunnels for transferring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border, ones very similar to the tunnels dug by Hezbollah into Israel. The close relationship between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the increase in Iranian nationals traveling through Venezuela to receive false documents, which they use to cross into the United States. Mexican officials raising concerns about Hezbollah operatives possibly training Mexican drug cartel enforcers in making car bombs.

And...

it was reported that Jameel Nasr, a Mexican national with ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, "entrusted with forming a base in South America and the United States to carry out operations against Israeli and Western targets," was arrested by the Mexican government. Days later, a cell-phone-detonated car bomb - the first of its kind reported used by Mexican drug cartels - was deployed just across the U.S.-Mexico border in Juarez. On Aug. 27, another car bomb exploded in a U.S.-Mexico border state. These car bombs show an evolution in the tactics being used by the drug cartels and bear a strong resemblance to those employed by Hezbollah, raising questions as to who trained the cartels.

COMMENT:  It would not take much, given the growing presence of Hezbollah along our southern border, to slip weapons, including WMD, into the United States.  Biological weapons, in tiny canisters, would be the most logical choice.  Even if 75% of the weapons couriers were caught, 25% would still get through.  And they'd be in our backyard.

For some reason, the growing influence of Iranian-backed groups in Latin America has gotten little attention.  It deserves much more.

September 1, 2010      Permalink

HOW THE DEMS DID IT...TO THEMSELVES – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  Gallup reported this week that the GOP holds an unprecedented 10-point lead in the generic congressional ballot.  Byron York goes inside the details behind that number and shows the extent of the Democratic fall.  From the Washington Examiner:

The most striking example is in health care. Back in October 2006, just before Democrats won control of Congress, Gallup asked the traditional question, "Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job dealing with [the following issue]…"  At that time, Democrats held a 64 percent to 25 percent lead on health care -- a 39 percentage-point advantage. Now, after Democrats passed their long-dreamed-of national health care bill, the result is 44 percent for Democrats versus 43 percent for Republicans -- a virtual tie. That is an enormous advantage to have thrown away during four years in power.

The news is just as bad for Democrats on the economy. In October 2006, Democrats held a 53 to 37 lead over Republicans on the issue. Now, after Democrats passed an $862 billion stimulus bill and touted 2010 as the "summer of recovery," Republicans hold a 49 to 38 lead. Democrats have gone from having a 16 point lead to being 11 points behind.

It took real talent and effort for the Democrats to accomplish this.  Give 'em a hand.

Back in 2006, things had gotten so bad for Republicans that Democrats took the lead even in a traditionally Republican area: protecting the country against terrorism. Just before the '06 elections, Democrats held a 47 to 42 lead on protecting against terrorism. Now, after Ft. Hood, Detroit, and the Times Square bombing attempt, Republicans hold a 55 to 31 lead.

The only issue on which Democrats hold the lead today is the environment.

COMMENT:  When you show contempt for public opinion, and don't take the people into your confidence, that's what happens.

It's a warning to both parties.

September 1, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:

IRVINE, Calif., Aug. 31 (UPI) -- A California recreational vehicle dealer says he wants to resolve the lawsuit actor Taylor Lautner filed against him with a push-up contest instead of a trial.

Brent McMahon, 47, owner of McMahon's RV in Irvine, said he wants to settle the lawsuit brought against him by the "Twilight" film series star, who claims the dealership failed to deliver a $300,000 customized RV on time and up to his specifications, with a contest of muscles instead of legal wrangling, KTLA-TV, Los Angeles, reported Tuesday.

Like a lot of actors I've known, Lautner probably believes he's the person he portrays on screen, and might be dumb enough to accept this.  Go for the cash, Taylor.

September 1, 2010       Permalink

HE IS UNMOSQUED – AT 8:54 A.M. ET:  The Ground Zero mosque controvery isn't going away.  The imam in charge is returning to the U.S. soon from his State Department-sponsored jaunt around the Mideast, and has promised to explain himself.  It will take quite a bit of explaining, as this report from CBS News demonstrates:

As the Ground Zero mosque controversy continues to simmer, questions continue about the background of the man who wants to build the $100 million Islamic cultural and religious center.

Mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal has often been reluctant to answer questions.

We wonder why.  Could it have something to do with his rap sheet?

His most recent arrest was in 2005 for assault on a man he met while working as a waiter at Serafina Restaurant, who sublet an apartment from his brother. He reportedly punched the man, breaking his nose and cheekbone and spit on him.

El-Gamal first said he didn’t hit the man, but arrest documents obtained by CBS 2 showed he later conceded “his face could have run into my hand.”

Records showed El-Gamal also had trouble coming up with the $15,000 settlement reached in 2008, and had to pay interest. El-Gamal also has a number of other arrests on his record:

-In 1990, he was arrested in Nassau County and pled guilty to disorderly conduct.
-In 1992, he pled guilty in Nassau to DWI and paid a $350 fine.
-In 1993, he pled guilty in Nassau to attempted petit larceny and paid a $100 fine.
-In 1994, arrested for disorderly conduct in Manhattan.
-In 1998, there was another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.
-In 1999, yet another Manhattan disorderly conduct arrest.

A potential problem for the mosque developer is a deposition he gave in the assault case in October 2007. When asked if he was ever convicted or pled guilty to a crime, El-Gamal replied “no.”

And...

El-Gamal also owes over $227,000 in unpaid real estate taxes and a spokesman for the Department of Finance said interest will be added for each and every day its unpaid.

COMMENT:  So, just your average builder of a house of worship.  And yet, we're told we must not ask questions lest we run afoul of First Amendment freedoms.  Sorry, we don't buy.  Can you imagine the uproar if someone with that rap sheet were behind a church, a cathedral, a synagogue? 

Of course, the trendy left considerers convicted felons to be mere victims of an oppressive society, so we won't get any help from that quarter.  But the mosque controversy will continue, with overwhelming numbers of Americans, including New Yorkers, opposed to its placement so close to a national shrine.  I'm betting the thing never gets built.

September 1, 2010     Permalink

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  The president delivered a passionless speech last night that struck many pundits as odd and distant.  He clearly doesn't feel comfortable as commander-in-chief.

The president marked the end of American combat operations in Iraq, itself a strange occasion on which to make a speech.  After all, some 50,000 American troops remain, and they are at risk.

Before the speech, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line wrote this:

...there are complications for Obama, the most important of which is that he opposed the policy that turned the situation in Iraq around, namely the surge. How to deal with this inconvenient truth?

It actually shouldn't be very difficult. Obama could simply give credit to President Bush for launching the surge. A gracious word about his predecessor would improve Obama's image. After all, he won office in part by promising to transcend partisan finger-pointing. And by exhibiting a little grace for a change, Obama would make it seem churlish for anyone to point the finger at him over his misguided thinking about the surge.

Perhaps Obama will rise above his perpetual pettiness and turn his speech into a bi-partisan feel-good event. Obama reportedly called former president Bush this morning. That might be a good sign.

It wasn't a good sign, and, unfortunately, Paul's advice wasn't followed.  While Mr. Obama mentioned Mr. Bush, he limited his remarks to noting his predecessor's patriotism and devotion to the troops, as if these things were ever in doubt.  He gave Bush no credit.  As John McCain said after the speech, praising Bush just isn't the kind of thing that's in Obama's DNA.

Again, no class.  And that pretty much sums up this presidency and another forgettable speech.

September 1, 2010      Permalink

ANOTHER INCUMBENT GONE – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has now conceded defeat in her primary contest against tea partier Joe Miller, who had the endorsement of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

She is one of a number of Republican incumbents to be defeated by more conservative candidates for the party's nomination.  From The New York Times: 

ANCHORAGE — Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska conceded late Tuesday in her Republican primary race against Joe Miller, a lawyer from Fairbanks who was backed by Tea Party activists, Sarah Palin and other conservatives.

Mr. Miller shocked the political establishment here and in Washington last week when he emerged with a narrow lead, 1,668 votes, after the primary vote, on Aug. 24. His victory makes him the presumed favorite to win the Senate seat from this heavily Republican state.

Mr. Miller, who has proposed drastic cuts in federal spending, had trailed badly in local polls in the weeks before the election but benefited from a last-minute flood of advertisements, mailings and automated calls casting Ms. Murkowski as a Democrat in disguise. An abortion-related ballot measure also brought conservatives to the polls.

COMMENT:  Is this good for the GOP?  Bad?  You have to go case by case.  But a word of caution:  The Republicans won a huge congressional victory in the midterms of 1994, but then overreached in their administration of the House.  Eventually, they lost the presidency in 1996 when Bill Clinton was strongly reelected. 

If the GOP, which is moving to the right as a party, gains control of one or both houses of Congress this year, it must govern intelligently, creatively, and show real benefits to the American people.  Otherwise, control may prove to be just as great a liability in 2012 as it did in 1996.  Winning in politics isn't everything.  It's only the beginning of something.

September 1, 2010     Permalink