Urgent Agenda publishes 365 days a year.  However, we do modify our schedule on weekends and holidays.  On Christmas day we will publish starting about 10 a.m.  Our agenda will be limited, but we stay in touch with the world should some significant event suddenly erupt.

Because of the holiday, the Angel's Corner will be sent tomorrow morning.

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 25,  2009

FURTHER TERROR UPDATE - AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Both Fox and CNN are now live with continuous coverage of the attempt to blow up a Delta/Northwest (now the same company) airliner.  This is what we know:

1.  The alleged perpetrator was from Nigeria.

2.  He has told interrogators that he was under Al Queda control.  Terror expert Steve Emerson says the man was on a watch list. 

3. The device he tried to set off was sophisticated, and used a kind of detonator we haven't seen in terror incidents before.   Passengers and cabin crew subdued the perpetrator.

4. The device is reported to be from Yemen.  Yemen has emerged as a major center for Al Qaeda activity.  There was a U.S. air strike in Yemen earlier in the week that presumably killed the imam who was in touch with Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter.

5. The attempt to bring down the plane, according to a passenger on board, occurred on the approach to Detroit.  The flight originated in Amsterdam.

6. There are no reports of other attempts on airliners today, but airport and airline security is being beefed up.

Stand by.

UPDATE:  Fox has now gone back to regular programming - repeats of "The O'Reilly Factor," whereas CNN is continuing live coverage of the terror incident.  I don't get that news call from Fox.  It's not like them.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

TERROR UPDATE - AT 7:04 P.M. ET:   A White House official is quoted by Fox as saying the incident aboard the Delta flight today (see below) was an attempted act of terrorism, and that the president is monitoring the situation closely.

Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is saying that the Nigerian perpetrator suffered third-degree burns, and that the device he attempted to set off was "fairly sophisticated."  He also is saying that the detonator was different from what we've encountered before.

Stand by.

December 25,  2009   Permalink

FURTHER BULLETIN - AT 5:37 P.M. ET:  Here is the NBC News report on the airliner incident that we're following, related to the two stories just below:

A 23-year-old Nigerian man tried to light a powdery substance aboard a Northwest Airlines flight before landing in Detroit on Friday, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official told NBC News.

Two people noticed the attempt and a third person jumped on the man and subdued him, an airline official told NBC News.

The man is being treated at the burn unit of the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, officials said.

COMMENT:  The issue, of course, is whether this man acted alone, is the only one to plan such an act today, or whether there are more.  You can be sure that this is what counterterrorism people are focusing on right now.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - AT 5:24 P.M. ET:  Relating to the story just below, the incident aboard the Delta airliner may - repeat may - have been more serious than originally thought.  Fox reports:

A male passenger reportedly linked to terrorist organization al-Qaeda ignited a powdery substance prior to landing on a Delta Airlines flight to Detroit Friday. The suspect is believed to be Nigerian, Fox News reported.

Several people were hurt and one person was admitted to the University of Michigan Medical Center at Ann Arbor, hospital spokeswoman Tracy Justice said. An emergency was declared aboard the flight, operated as Northwest flight 253, according to a Federal Aviation Administration spokesperson.

The suspect, who suffered second-degree burns, told federal investigators he was directed by al-Qaeda, though authorities are questioning the veracity of that statement, ABC reported. A federal situational awareness bulletin noted that the explosive was acquired in Yemen with instructions as to when it should be used, ABC said.

COMMENT:  We will follow this very closely.  It may well be that the guy was just engaging in bravado when he mentioned al-Qaeda.  HOWEVER, we have seen incident after incident where the "authorities" deny at first that an event is terror-related, the better to be politically correct, and then later have to crawl under a rock when the truth comes out.  Witness Fort Hood.

The fact that a bulletin has been put out noting that the explosive was acquired in Yemen should alert us all.  Blowing up an airliner on Christmas day is what al-Qaeda is about.   This story may grow.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO DETROIT - AT 3:43 A.M. ET:  Another example of the sheer quality and skill of our dauntless airline security:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Delta Airlines official says a passenger aboard a plane at Detroit Metropolitan Airport set off firecrackers aboard the plane, causing a commotion and some minor injuries.

Delta spokeswoman Susan Elliott says Delta Flight 253, an Airbus 330 carrying 278 passengers, was arriving in Detroit from Amsterdam when the incident took place Friday afternoon.

Elliott says the passenger was immediately subdued. She had no details on injuries.

COMMENT:  Look, it's Detroit, so it was only normal background noise.  But the fact is that a passenger got on board with explosives.  Had it been C4, the plane could have been blown to bits over the Atlantic, and sunk in the ocean.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

TAKE THAT, PAGANS - AT 11:57 A.M. ET:  Via my friend Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, from Britain's Telegraph:

Pagan worshippers, who braved freezing dawn temperatures to celebrate the winter solstice at Stonehenge, were dismayed to discover they had turned up on the wrong day.

A crowd of around 300 people, wearing traditional costume, met at the mystical stone circle on Monday morning to mark the rising of the sun on the shortest day of the year.

But unfortunately their calculations were slightly out meaning they had in fact arrived 24 hours prematurely.

Well, look, it's pagan math.  It's all relative.  Everyone has his own narrative.  Who are we to question?

However hundreds of enthusiastic revellers, who arrived at Stonehenge before dawn yesterday, decided to celebrate anyway.

Now that's the pagan spirit.  Happy Winter Solstice, Day Before!

Pagan leader Arthur Pendragon said: "It is the most important day of the year for us because it welcomes in the new sun. There were hundreds of people there. If we'd celebrated on the 21st it would have been the right day but the wrong sun – when the whole point of the occasion is about welcoming in the new sun.

Yeah well, sure, of course.  Everyone knows that.

"I did about three handfasting ceremonies, which are pagan marriages, and we've said prayers for world peace. It's a new beginning."

I wonder what they call a pagan divorce?  A handslapping?  A back of the hand?

Oh, never mind.  Merry Christmas.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

IRAN ON DECK - AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Even as we celebrate the holidays, plans are being made for the next great foreign-policy challenge, the confrontation with Iran.  And the question is being asked:  Will Obama fold?  From The Hill:

Iran's refusal to accept a nuclear deal by the end of the year is setting up a major foreign policy test for both President Barack Obama and Congress.

Just after passing the historic healthcare reform legislation that has consumed the Senate's attention, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stressed Thursday that he wants to bring sanctions legislation to a vote when lawmakers return from the Christmas and New Year's break in January.

Well, Harry and Urgent Agenda found something to agree on.

There has been no indication that the administration would use force against Iran's nuclear facilities as the White House has clearly favored the diplomatic route from Day One. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen reiterated that this week when he said military action would be of limited use in stopping Iran's "determined pursuit of nuclear weapons."

And that is the problem.  When you appear to take your strongest option off the table, you flash weakness, and your enemy has little incentive to make concessions.  The Iranians know that it's unlikely we can muster the needed support from China and Russia for painful sanctions.

Israel, however, has hinted at preemptive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a last resort, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the Iranian threat a priority in his talks with Washington.

But will Israel strike without our approval?  Highly unlikely.  The Israelis are suspicious enough about this administration, and might fear that they, not the Iranian machine, might be made to look like the villains after an attack.  Also, Israel's ability to carry out the kind of sustained attack needed to do real damage in Iran is limited. 

A Rasmussen Reports survey released Wednesday found 67 percent of respondents saying that the U.N. has not been aggressive enough in response to Iran's nuclear program, with half of all those polled saying the U.S. should help Israel if it decides to attack Iran.

There is frustration on the Republican side with the pace of things:

As in the House, the Senate sanctions are likely to have heavy bipartisan support, even as Republicans have expressed frustration with what they view as too-light pressure by the administration on the Islamic Republic.

"We've wasted a year," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Sanctions have to be tried before we explore the last option. The worst option is a military action."

COMMENT:  Unless something surprising intervenes, Iran will be the biggest foreign-policy story in 2010, even bigger than the surge in Afghanistan. 

One of the worst outcomes is the one most likely - some kind of fig-leaf deal with Iran that the president can wave before us, Neville-like, but which would do little to slow down the Iranian nuclear program.  Already there are those in Washington speaking confidently of our ability to "deter" a nuclear-armed Iran.  I don't share their confidence.  Deterring the current Iranian regime is like deterring Japanese kamikazes.  Those sworn to madness usually carry it out.

The best outcome is regime change, and we should do all we can to encourage that by clandestine assistance to the democracy forces in Iran, something Michael Ledeen has been advocating for years.

December 25, 2009   Permalink

HO HO HO - AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  Merry Christmas to all.  (Will I be arrested for saying that?)  Several Christmas gifts have already arrived:

1. The US Senate has done its pale Santa Claus imitation and brought gifts aplenty in the guise of health-care "reform."  Oh, wait.  To be on this santa's list you must be a resident of certain states represented by senators whose last-minute votes were needed to pass the "reform" measure.  Okay, okay.  It isn't exactly the spirit of Christmas, but it's the best the Senate can do.

2.  Senator John Kerry has gifted us all by announcing that, contrary to an earlier report, he is not going to Tehran.  In an ecumenical spirit, this is also a gift to Tehran as well.

3.  The Copenhagen hot-air, or, er, climate-change conference, has given us a major Christmas gift by failing.  This gang of leftists, who reserved their greatest cheers for Hugo Chavez, use climate change as a cover for their socialist agenda.  Like most socialists, they couldn't get anything serious done, a gift to us all.

4.  The president has given us a temporary gift by jetting off to Hawaii and getting himself out of microphone range for a few days.  For at least a brief period we won't have to hear the word "unprecedented" used by the orator-in-chief.

5.  And, finally, the Pentagon has given a huge Christmas gift to those wanting to destroy military morale.  As CNN reports:

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military has dropped a controversial rule that called for punishing soldiers in northern Iraq for becoming pregnant or impregnating another soldier.

The updated policy "does not include a pregnancy provision," said Maj. Joe Scrocca, spokesman for U.S. Forces-Iraq.

The rule was entirely sensible, and not very controversial, except for a few radical feminists on the down-with-America fringe left, and their allies in the Senate.  And that's all that was needed.  The officer who wrote the rule, Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, commander of our forces in northern Iraq, might as well retire.  His career is over.  Mature adult Mona Charen comments on the respected military ethos that guided Gen. Cucolo's order:

That ethos -- and forgetful senators can look it up -- includes the following creed: "I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values. I will always place the mission first."

Our enemies must be laughing their heads off.  A general treats women and men under his command as responsible adults, and the P.C. crowd demands they be treated like children...and wins.  Merry Christmas, kids.

And so there were gifts this Christmas.  The political class always provides them.  But that class always provides us another great gift...the gift of laughter.  Enjoy it while we can.

I'm sure the gifts in your homes were a lot more thoughtful.

December 25,  2009   Permalink

 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 24,  2009

REAPPORTIONMENT PROJECTION - AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  This is fascinating.  To our knowledge, it is the first informed projection of how the 2010 census will affect the makeup of Congress...assuming we get an honest count.  But, given the fact that, from small ACORNs mighty corruption grows, that is a major assumption.  From The Politico:

Texas stands to be the big winner after next year’s decennial reapportionment, with two political analysis firms projecting that the Lone Star State will gain at least three new congressional seats for the 2012 elections.

The big loser from the analysis is Ohio, which looks likely to lose two House seats in 2012 — the only state with that dubious distinction.

The analysis, from the political firms Polidata and Election Data Services, predicts eight states will gain an additional House seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

The states that would lose House seats are: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio (2) and Pennsylvania.

Looks good to us:

The projections offer some long-term encouragement for Republicans. President Barack Obama won nine of the 10 states slated to lose seats, and Democrats hold congressional delegation majorities in all but one (Louisiana).

"Based upon the results of the 2008 election for president but with the electoral vote for the 2012 election, the Republicans would see a slight gain under the projected apportionment of 7 votes," Polidata's Clark Bensen told POLITICO on Thursday. "Twelve of the 18 states with shifts voted for Obama in 2008 while 6 voted for McCain. Nine of the 12 Obama states would lose seats, while five of the six McCain states would gain."

COMMENT:  Great.  Let's get those moving vans going. 

December 24, 2009   Permalink

YEAH, THE CAPTAIN OF THE TITANIC SAID THE SAME THING - AT 6:04 P.M. ET:  The liberal Dems are beyond Disney World in some of their thinking, and, especially, in their assessment of the American voter.  From The Politico:

Democrats today have repeatedly expressed a confidence that they won't face a backlash for their votes when they return home for the holidays, which would stand in marked contrast to the August recess.

Just ignore that iceberg ahead.

"This is a happy day. (Senate Republican Leader) Mitch McConnell said on the floor that we're going to go home and hear our constituents rail against this bill. I don't believe that. I believe that the negativity that Leader McConnell and others have continually displayed on the floor has peaked, and now when people learn what's actually in the bill—and all the good it does—it is going to become more and more popular because it is good for America, good for the American people, and a true symbol of what we can do if we all pull together," said Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer.

We're already making plans to dock in New York.

On the floor before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We're going to hear an earful, but it's going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for for a long time."

What was that noise?  What's all that water?

December 24, 2009   Permalink

WARNING TO DEMOCRATS - AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  When the Daley family talks, Democrats listen, or at least they should.  William Daley, of Chicago, who was Bill Clinton's secretary of commerce, gives a firm warning to his party, a good part of which is out of control.  From the Washington Post:

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.

Spot on.  Daley makes the point that Dem gains in 2006 and 2008 came mostly by attracting independents and even some Republicans, and by electing "moderate" Democrats to Congress, or at least those who were less to the left.

But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.

True.  The Dem decline among independents has been dramatic, and that can sink them.

Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.

That is the best expression of the Democratic dilemma that I've seen.

All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

The problem, of course, is that the left wing of the Democratic Party is fanatical.  (And we have our share of nut cases as well.)  Fanatics see nothing.  They have more contempt for their party's moderates than they do for the opposition.

The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.

COMMENT:  That is excellent advice for either party.  American politics is played between the 40-yard lines, and no one understood that better than Ronald Reagan.  A devoted conservative, he understood that governing had to be practical, not ideological.  He was the author of the Republican Party's "11th Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican."

Today there are attempts in both parties to purge the impure.  They are wrong.  It is true that a party cannot be an infinite tent.  It must have basic principles.  But those principles must be general, and presented in such a way as to avoid alienating the great center, where elections are won.

Daley's column is a great lesson in American politics.

December 24, 2009    Permalink

THE BATTLE GOES ON - AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  This isn't exactly in the Christmas spirit, but must be reported. 

SANAA (Reuters) – A radical Muslim preacher linked by U.S. intelligence to a gunman who killed 13 people at a U.S. Army base is believed to have died in a Yemen airstrike on al Qaeda militants, a security official said on Thursday.

"Anwar al Awlaki is suspected to be dead (in the air raid)," said the Yemeni official, who asked not to be identified. Yemen said 30 militants were killed in the strike in the eastern province of Shabwa.

The gunman in the November 5 shooting at the Fort Hood, Texas army base, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had contacts with Awlaki late last year, U.S. authorities believe.

COMMENT:  If Obama ordered the attack, we back him.  We are at war with Al Qaeda, and must chase them all over the world.  The president's left wing will be appalled, and will have fainting spells, but we must commit these American fringe elements to the dustbin of history, where they have long belonged.

December 24, 2009   Permalink

A LARGELY UNTOLD CHRISTMAS STORY - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  The politically correct media usually screens out stories like this, but the truth is coming through:  Christians are leaving Bethlehem, not because of "Israeli oppression made possible by the imperialist, capitalist Cheneyites in Washington," but because Muslims don't want them there.  From outstanding reporter Benny Avni, in the New York Post:

Christians are fleeing the town of Christ's birth, and the much-reported hardship that Israel inflicts on residents of the West Bank town has little to do with it. It's the same reality across the Arab world: rising Islamism pushes non-Muslims away.

Islamists frown on real-estate ownership by non-Muslims -- Christian, Jew or anything else. And though the secular Palestinian Authority still controls the West Bank, the clout of groups like Hamas is growing: Even in Bethlehem, where followers of history's most famous baby once thrived, Christians are ceding the land.

And...

Fifty years ago, Christians made up 70 percent of Bethlehem's population; today, about 15 percent...

...But, again, the story's the same in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast. Practically the only place in the region where the Christian population is growing is in Israel.

Church groups appear to be silent on the matter:

Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wrote recently that, before Pope Benedict visited the Holy Land in May, a Christian merchant told him jokingly, "The next time a pope comes to visit . . . he will have to bring his own priest with him [to] pray in a church because most Christians would have left by then."

A researcher of Arab and Muslim affairs, Jonathan Dahoah Halevy, says Islamists think that "soft" Christians around the world wouldn't intervene on behalf of their brethren in places like Bethlehem. Benedict's visit seems to bear that out: He criticized Israeli policies while ignoring the crucial role Islamists play in chasing Christians out of town.

Finally:

So there may or may not be room at the inn when you arrive at the little town of Bethlehem, but the innkeeper is unlikely to be a Christian.

COMMENT:  Why did I have to read about this in the New York Post?  Nothing about it in The Times, or on CNN.  I guess Christiane Amanpour didn't notice. 

And, of course, the National Council of Churches, which always does the job for whatever left-wing cause is around, has nothing to say.  That "council" is to religion what Hugo Chavez is to democracy.

So keep the Christians of Bethlehem in mind this season.  Our silence isn't helping them.

December 24, 2009   Permalink 

GUESS WHO'S COMING FOR DINNER? - AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Our friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, guiding light of Planet Iran, alerts us to a possible pilgrimage by that prince of peacemaking, Mr. Excitement himself, John Kerry.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry has suggested becoming the first high-level U.S. emissary to make a public visit to Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution, a move White House officials say they won't oppose.

Why would this White House oppose begging?

The offer comes as mass protests against Iran's regime are resurfacing and a U.S.-imposed deadline nears to broach international sanctions against Iran.

Oh, the inconvenience of all those democracy types. 

"This sounds like the kind of travel a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would -- and should -- undertake," said a White House official, adding it would be at Sen. Kerry's own behest.

Translated into the people's English:  Get your butt over there, John.  We'll give you something to offer them.  Get us out of this!

Many opponents of Tehran's regime oppose such a visit, fearing it would lend legitimacy to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a time when his government is under continuing pressure from protests and opposition figures. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets again this week to voice their opposition to the government following the death of a reformist cleric.

Amen.  Anything that needs to be said can be said in negotiations already underway.  And those negotiations are stalemated.

"The wrong message would be sent to the Iranian people by such a high-level visit: The U.S. loves dictatorial regimes," said Hossein Askari, a professor at George Washington University and former adviser to Iranian governments.

And...

Mr. Obama has given Iran until year-end to respond to international calls for direct negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program before facing new economic sanctions. Many U.S. and European officials believe the window for diplomacy with Iran is rapidly closing, as Tehran has largely balked.

COMMENT:  A Kerry trip would look like an act of desperation.  Not a good idea.  Tough sanctions are a good idea, although it's unlikely we'll get them.

The president will probably not be able to avoid a serious confrontation with Iran in 2010.  How he handles it, with or without John Kerry, will have a profound effect on the future of his presidency.

December 24, 2009   Permalink

DON'T YOU FEEL BETTER ALREADY? - AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  The United States Senate, sometimes called the world's greatest deliberative body, has passed the health "reform" bill, 60-39, with not a single Republican voting for it.  The bill now must be reconciled with the House version.  From The New York Times:

If the bill becomes law, it would be a milestone in social policy, comparable to the creation of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. But unlike those programs, the new initiative lacks bipartisan support. Only one Republican voted for the House bill last month, and no Republicans voted for the Senate version.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican who has spent years working with Democrats on health care and other issues, expressed despair.

“I was extremely disappointed,” Ms. Snowe said. After Senate Democrats locked up 60 votes within their caucus, she said, “there was zero opportunity to amend the bill or modify it, and Democrats had no incentive to reach across the aisle.”

David Broder, in the Washington Post, is pleased to see something passed, given the struggle, for decades, to introduce reforms into the health-care system.  But he notes, in sorrow:

But Lord, what a load of embarrassment accompanies this sense of satisfaction! What should have been a moment of proud accomplishment for the Senate, right up there with the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills, was instead a travesty of low-grade political theater -- angry rhetoric and backroom deals.

And...

The taint has rubbed off on the bill. This week's Quinnipiac University poll found a majority of Americans disapproving of the legislation by 53 to 36 percent and an overwhelming number -- 73 to 18 percent -- saying they do not believe it will, as promised, reduce future budget deficits. It now becomes President Obama's responsibility to strengthen the bill's cost-saving features and present them in a better way...

...It would help a lot if he reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it. And it would help even more if he shamed the Democrats into rescinding some of the crasser bargains they made to buy votes along the way.

The country would welcome even a few signs that this legislation has bipartisan support.

Then we could applaud its final passage and take our thumbs from our noses.

COMMENT:  Broder is giving good advice.  Because the public doesn't like the bill doesn't mean that Americans are cheering the GOP for opposing it.  They want to see creative suggestions from the Republicans to improve the health-care system, even if those ideas are defeated by the majority.  There is still time for the GOP to prove that it isn't just the "party of no."

Remember, if this gets to the president's signature, the Dems will launch a major sales campaign to sell it to the American people, and it can be effective.  Opposition may weaken among the citizenry.  There will be a natural tendency for many Americans to want to "give the thing a chance."

Never assume we're out of the woods.  We're never out of the woods.

December 24,  2009   Permalink