January 6, 2010
Jan 06 01:09 Sens. Dorgan, Dodd, Gov. Ritter Retire Jan 06 08:58 Is EMILY'S List's Endorsement Tarryl's Kiss Of Death? Jan 06 10:55 BREAKING NEWS: PAUL RYAN ENDORSES RUBIO!!! Jan 06 12:50 BREAKING NEWS: HOEVEN TO RUN FOR DORGAN'S SEAT Jan 06 15:45 Cause & Effect? Jan 06 23:39 Palin to Obama: It's a War, Not a Crime Spree
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sens. Dorgan, Dodd, Gov. Ritter Retire
In a stunning single day development, Sen. Byron Dorgan, Sen. Christopher Dodd and Gov. Bill Ritter announced that they won't be seeking re-election. First, Chris Dodd's retirement isn't surprising because he'd been written off months ago:
Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.Sen. Dodd didn't stand a chance of defeating Rob Simmmons. His expected replacement, does. That's Sen. Dodd's retirement in a nutshell. Next is Sen. Dorgan's retirement stunner :
Dodd's retirement comes after months of speculation about his political future, and amid faltering polling numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term.
Dorgan is the first Democratic senator to announce his retirement this cycle, with his decision coming one month after several House Democrats representing conservative-minded districts decided not to run for re-election.I'll be stunned if Charlie Cook doesn't rate this seat as Leans Republican the next time his report is published. The Democrats don't have a chance of keeping this seat, especially if Gov. Hoeven runs.
Democratic Senate campaign officials only found out about Dorgan's decision within the last 24 hours. Dorgan began calling Senate leaders on Tuesday afternoon to inform them of his decision to retire, according to Senate insiders.
He had previously given no sign that he wasn't going to run for re-election or was even considering retirement and had been raising money for his 2010 campaign.
"It caught us totally by surprise," said an aide to one top Senate Democrat. "We had no idea this was coming. Total stunner."
Gov. Ritter's unexpected retirement completes the Democrats' trifecta of trouble:
Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to announce Wednesday that he will withdraw from the race for governor, numerous sources close to Ritter confirmed Tuesday night.It isn't likely that the Democrats will retain this seat. Again, I'll be surprised if Charlie Cook doesn't rate this Leans Republican the next time his report is published.
Ritter began making calls to other prominent Colorado Democrats around 6 p.m. notifying them of his decision. Sources said his office contacted key legislators asking them to be available for an 11 a.m. press conference where Ritter will make his announcement.
There's a common thread running through these retirements, especially in the Mid- and Mountain-West, namely that moderate Democrats don't exist anymore. Nebraska voters now know that Ben Nelson is just as corrupt and just as liberal as Chris Dodd. Louisiana voters now know that Mary Landrieu is just as liberal as Bernie Sanders.
This is only part of a trend. It's something that Dick Morris is picking up on in this Hill article :
The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It overreached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to even the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Obama, Pelosi or Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system.This development will make it difficult for Tim Walz, John Spratt and Heath Schuler to run as moderates. Rep. Walz is particularly vulnerable after voting for the stimulus, cap and trade and Pelosicare. In fact, Rep. Walz put himself in additional trouble by recently telling the Minnesota teachers union, EdMinn, that voting for Pelosicare "was the easiest vote of my lifetime." Even in liberal Minnesota, that's how you spell H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.
Rep. Chris van Hollen said recently that this wouldn't be like 1994 because they're more prepared than 1994. He noted that there were alot of retirements in 1994 and that there wouldn't be nearly the same amount of retirements this year. I didn't buy into van Hollen's theory or van Hollen's premise. First, I'm not so certain that more Democrats don't retire over the next month. Second, the reason why alot of Democrats retired in 1994 was because they knew they'd be defeated. Rather than tasting defeat, alot of Democrats retired in 1994 rather than being remembered as having lost their final election.
Democrat 'moderates' have repeatedly and quickly caved when their votes were needed to pass President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda. The Democrats captured a majority in 2006 because Rahm Emanuel recruited enough moderate-sounding candidates for swing districts. Since then, these politicians have accumulated voting records that they have to defend this cycle.
The Republicans that are left in the House are strong conservatives in strong conservative districts. In a year that's already favoring Republicans, that makes the Democrats' opportunities for picking off a couple Republicans difficult at best.
The best way I know how to summarize this is to say that the Democrats' rough year just got worse.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 06-Jan-10 10:15 AM
Do you suppose that Dorgan and Dodd will transition into Daschle's lobbying firm? They delivered for his health industry clients. I wonder whether they are retireing to collect payment due. It would not be a big surprise. Brought to you in living 3D? That's Dorgan, Dodd and Daschle, right?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-10 10:34 AM
Eric, The early scuttlebutt I'm hearing says that Dorgan will be absorbed into the Obama administration.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 06-Jan-10 02:20 PM
One Hill insider said that Dodd was told if he resigned he would get a position in the Administration, but that the Administration was making no bones about the fact that they were not happy about the thought of Dodd continuing on and losing the seat. At least this way the race in CT is competitive once again.
LL
Is EMILY'S List's Endorsement Tarryl's Kiss Of Death?
Tuesday, EMILY's List, an organization that advocates for abortion on demand and other 'choice' issues, endorsed Tarryl Clark. Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton issued this statement on Tarryl's latest endorsement:
Today's endorsement of Tarryl Clark by the far-left group EMILY's List is yet another indication that Clark is out-of-touch with the families of the sixth congressional district. EMILY's List only supports candidates who support the 'right' to partial-birth-abortions and oppose parental notification for minors. If Clark thinks her blatant disregard for human life will help her succeed on Election Day, she is greatly mistaken.Normally, I cringe a little bit when I read the term out of touch because it frequently is used when more vivid descriptions can be used. This time, I wholeheartedly agree that Tarryl's views on abortion are totally out-of-step with CD-6. In 2006, a writer for MSNBC called CD-6 "the Bible Belt of the North." That's an accurate description.
When President Bush campaigned in St. Cloud in 2004, he noted in his speech that Central Minnesota had a high Catholic population, which meant that this is a strong pro-life district. Just to give you an idea of just how pro-life Central Minnesota is, in 2004, Bush-Cheney defeated Kedwards by a 76,951-56534 margin in Benton, Stearns and Sherburne counties. That's a 58 percent clip for Bush-Cheney '04.
Here are the things you must espouse to get endorsed by EMILY's List:
In Order To Receive An Endorsement From EMILY's List, A Candidate Must Support The Right To A Partial Birth Abortion. "A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY[']s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or 'partial birth') abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman." (Thomas B. Edsall, "EMILY's List Makes A Name For Itself," The Washington Post, April 21, 2002)The notion that this district will be voting for a staunchly pro-choice candidate isn't realistic. In this district, EMILY'S List's endorsement probably hurts Tarryl more than it helps.
I visited EMILY'S List's candidate page . What it shows is that there are alot of female politicians who couldn't find the mainstream of American politics if they had a GPS and an unlimited supply of gas for their car. I'm not certain that Barbara Boxer and Barb Mikulski have ever seen the mainstream of American politics, much less been part of it. Kirsten Gillibrand, Mary Jo Kilroy, Betsy Markey and Patty Murray are less liberal than Sens. Boxer and Mikulski but only marginally.
Ellen Malcolm's recent post about the abortion fight in the health care bill tells us alot about EMILY'S List's priorities:
If there ever was a case study for why we need more pro-choice Democratic women in Congress, it is the fiasco around abortion coverage in health care reform. Our elected women are the ones who fought long and hard to defeat the Stupak-Nelson forces in Congress. Sen. Ben Nelson made attempt after attempt to add versions of the Stupak provisions to the Senate bill, which would take away health care coverage of abortion for millions of women. A compromise ultimately was forged to preserve health care reform, but it is deeply flawed and the choice groups are working hard to improve it. Meanwhile Stupak and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell continue to try and undo even this compromise and put in the Stupak language. It's a sorry tale.On abortion rights issues, Tarryl would represent EMILY'S List's priorities, not Central Minnesota's priorities. A respectable case could at least be made that Tarryl would represent Central Minnesota when the various unions endorsed her. It wouldn't be a strong argument but reasonable people could make a reasonable argument.
How infuriating that women are the political pawns for those who oppose health care reform and those who have their own religious agenda! Though my disgust with this process beckons me to drop away from politics, my anger rears up.
There's absolutely no way this would have happened if half the members of the House and Senate were women.
As Joe Kennedy famously said, "Don't get mad. Get even."
Getting even at EMILY's List means electing so many pro-choice Democratic women that it will be impossible to use women as political pawns; that there will be no doubt that health care policies will include full reproductive coverage; and that consensus building will replace grandstanding, posturing, and political temper tantrums.
That isn't the case with EMILY'S List. EMILY'S List's agenda would attract marginal support in this district at best. This endorsement alone is all the justification church-going Catholic women will need to vote against Tarryl. The intensity over this issue is that strong in this district.
That's why EMILY'S List's endorsement might just be Tarryl's kiss of death.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 8:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 06-Jan-10 09:57 AM
Sutton's kissing the Pope's ring these days? Your opening quote suggests it. The Roman Church has its fingerprints on the Stupak situation too, with the Catholic Bishops' letter and all.
How can a finite planet subsist when the population climbs via unplanned high birth rates in the developing world? How can that irresponsibility be curbed so that real, living, people can attain a fuller, better life.
The resources are limited. Some folks need to wake up and get smart.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-10 10:33 AM
Eric, I don't accept the premise that resources are limited. In fact, I'd argue that technology keeps expanding resources. In the 1970s, people said that we had a limited amount of recoverable oil. In the 1980s, a technological breakthrough was made that allowed deep sea drilling to be done at depths that no one though possible. With that single discovery, the world's oil reserves more than doubled.
People indeed need to get smart. Those people are the ones that say that (fill in the blank) can't be done.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 06-Jan-10 09:59 AM
I think you gave the wrong candidate's page. You gave the general one. The page there, on Clark, is this link:
http://emilyslist.org/profiles/clark/
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 06-Jan-10 01:54 PM
Eric - We are not talking about abortion in developing countries (nice straw man by the way)...we are talking about Abortion in America where over 90% of the abortions performed are done FOR CONVENIENCE!
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
LL
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 06-Jan-10 10:10 PM
Eric:
We have laws that say a girl has to be sixteen to drive a car.
We have laws that say a girl has to be eighteen to vote for a person like Clark.
We have laws that say a girl has to be twenty-one to legally drink liquor.
So how on Earth can you or Clark or Emily's list not want to endorse a law that says a fifteen year old girl can get an abortion without their parents being told.
Even if the parent approves the girl by having sex has risked getting aids for example?
Or are you saying it's okay for a fifteen year old girl to have sex to get aids?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Lee at 07-Jan-10 12:54 PM
LL is right, convenience seems to come up in all the abortion coverage. It will ruin my career plans. But I'm going to school. I don't want a baby with that guy. I'm too young. I didn't know I could get pregnant. We were just messing around.
If you don't want a baby don't have sex. If you get pregnant you had sex. If you are pregnant raise the baby and learn from your inconvenience.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 07-Jan-10 09:00 PM
Lee lets not forget the choice of giving the child up for adoption. It's a sure bet the adopting parents wants to raise and love that child.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
BREAKING NEWS: PAUL RYAN ENDORSES RUBIO!!!
I suspect that this will be the big political news of the day. This morning, I got an e-letter update from the Rubio for Senate campaign announcing Rep. Paul Ryan has endorsed Marco Rubio's campaign for the U.S. Senate:
Miami, FL ; U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio today announced that he has earned the endorsement of Congressman Paul Ryan (WI-01).This isn't a run-of-the-mill, milquetoast endorsement. When Congressman Ryan says that Rubio is "exactly the type of consistent, principled conservative the Republican Party needs to ensure the relationship between the federal government and the individual is one that maximizes freedom and prosperity", he's telling Florida's GOP activists that Marco Rubio is the opposite of Charlie Crist's go-along-to-get-along brand of politics.
Making today's announcement, Congressman Ryan said, "In the coming years, America faces critical decisions on government spending, taxes and entitlements that will require idea-driven leaders. Marco Rubio has proven he is exactly the type of consistent, principled conservative the Republican Party needs to ensure the relationship between the federal government and the individual is one that maximizes freedom and prosperity .
"Marco's record of conservative leadership offers convincing evidence that he will hold Washington accountable, prevent government from wasting our tax dollars and lead a new generation of Republicans offering bold, innovative solutions to the challenges our nation faces in the years ahead."
Welcoming Ryan's endorsement, Rubio commented, "Paul Ryan has become one of the Republican Party's brightest stars because of his willingness to tackle today's policy challenges with innovative and compelling conservative ideas. Paul Ryan's willingness to stand up for his principles and offer real solutions to our nation's challenges has made him one of the GOP's intellectual giants and a leader taxpayers can depend on to look after them and their hard-earned dollars. I look forward to working with Paul in Washington to promote freedom, protect taxpayers and show why Republicans are the party of ideas."
This is another setback for Crist that he can't afford. He's clearly lost momentum. His campaign is stagnating and atrophying seemingly daily. Conversely, Marco Rubio's campaign is gaining momentum and credibility. The trajectories of the two campaigns couldn't be more different.
Paul Ryan is one of the conservative movement's rising stars. His participation in the TEA Party Movement, coupled with his policymaking abilities, make him a man of gravitas. Don't be surprised if he's someday part of a presidential ticket.
Ryan's endorsement of Marco Rubio sends this message to fiscal conservatives: Marco's one of us. He's a man to be taken seriously.
If Marco can keep adding endorsements like this, his fundraising will get easier, his name recognition will grow rapidly and he'll open up an outside-the-margin-of-error lead over Gov. Crist. If that happens, it wouldn't surprise me if Gov. Crist quits the race.
That's why I'm moving this primary into the Leans Rubio category.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Jan-10 10:06 PM
Gary:
As far as I'm concerned the endorsement that has killed Crist was Jeb Bush endorsing Rubio.
Look at the damage this did:
* People believed if Jeb had run he would've won quite easily. Thus the candidate he endorses earns lots of respect.
* Governors in theory have respect for governors. Here Jeb refused to endorse the man who replaced him. And the only reason why Crist had the opprotunity to run was because Bush couldn't run again.
That's the killer endorsement! This is just icing being added to cake.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-10 11:48 PM
Walter, I'm not sure you realize this but the Jeb Bush that endorsed Rubio is Gov. Jeb Bush's son.
BREAKING NEWS: HOEVEN TO RUN FOR DORGAN'S SEAT
I just posted something about Paul Ryan's endorsment of Marco Rubio . I said that it was likely the biggest news item of the day. There's no arguing now that that's just one of the big stories breaking today. This news report is bigger:
North Dakota Republican party chairman Gary Emineth told POLITICO that he spoke with Hoeven's senior staff soon after learning of Dorgan's retirement, and they informed him that Hoeven is preparing to jump in the Senate race once he deals with family issues back home.Coupling Gov. Hoeven's apparent announcement with Sen. Dorgan's surprise retirement announcement and what you're looking at is a GOP pickup.
"I expect Gov. Hoeven to get in, and he's going to work through personal issues relating to his family, but I would be shocked if he's not in the Senate race soon," Emineth said. "He's been showing signs of running and getting things cued up in preparation for a decision. It's inevitable, and the decision by Dorgan showed he was expecting Governor Hoeven to get into the race."
It's impossible for me to think that Sen. Dorgan didn't know that Gov. Hoeven was getting in. Once Sen. Dorgan reached that conclusion, it didn't take him long to figure out he'd get drubbed by Gov. Hoeven.
Count North Dakota as a GOP pickup. It's just that simple.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:54 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 06-Jan-10 01:05 PM
And NRO is reporting that "Fast" Eddie Shulz (of MSNBC) has been approached by no less than the Chair of the ND Democrat Party to run for the seat as a Democrat!
Pass the popcorn!
LL
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-10 01:09 PM
Check back later for another post on a related subject. This is getting bigger by the minute.
Cause & Effect?
This Washington Times article tells me that this is shaping up to be a wave election. Candidate recruitment for House seats is going well:
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who heads the recruitment effort at the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he doesn't have to go looking for candidates anymore. He just has to answer the phone.Unless I'm totally misreading this information, activists are getting excited. People don't step forward if they think that they'll be part of a bloodbath. I know from experience, albeit a limited amount of experience, that candidate recruitment in other years was hard work. Answering your phone isn't hard work.
"We've got people calling from all over the country, saying, 'I want to run.' People are concerned about the direction of the country," he said. "We've got doctors, farmers, business people, people from all walks of life."
Scott Rasmussen's polling tells us why candidate recruitment is going well:
Republican candidates start the year by opening a nine-point lead over Democrats, the GOP's biggest in several years, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.Speaker Pelosi and the DNC can tell Democrats that the TEA Parties are astroturfed angry mobs all they want but they aren't fooling anyone. These incumbents know that they're staring at an uphill fight against motivated conservatives. They know better than to listen to this quote:
Democratic officials say the Republican talk of recruiting prowess is false bravado to mask the party's persistent problems rebuilding credibility after what they describe as the excesses of President George W. Bush's tenure. Republicans, they say, have not raised enough funds for campaigns to recapture Congress and are competing with the conservative "tea party" movement that doesn't necessarily back the party's candidates.Mr. Smoot's quote is spin. PERIOD. There's great enthusiasm on the GOP/TEA Party side of the aisle. If the GOP's and TEA Party's enthusiasm could be converted into air pressure, there'd be enough psi to spit nails through a brick wall from 50 paces.
"It's more quantity over quality," said Democratic political consultant Brian Smoot. " There still doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for the Republican brand ."
This quote is spin, too:
"For all the Republican hype, it is completely at odds with reality," said Ryan Rudominor, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They are throwing mud against the wall and seeing what sticks."Mr. Rudominor is lying. You don't have senators like Byron Dorgan unexpectedly announcing their retirement if things are going well. You don't see Democrats getting a drubbing of a lifetime in the geneneric ballot polling if everything's going well. You don't see supposedly popular Blue Dog Democrats retiring if things are going well.
I'm thinking that it's likely that President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda, highlighted by Obamacare/Pelosicare, is turning people off in droves. I'm thinking that that's why candidate recruitment is going well for the GOP. I'm thinking that that's why their lead on the generic ballot question is well outside the margin of error.
Call it cause and effect. Call it whatever you like. On Election Day, I'll call it a big day for the GOP.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 09:00 AM
If you know, is Lynn Westmoreland any relation to Vietnam era General Westmoreland?
You allege the Tea Party faction is energized. But are there people coming forward from that who would be fit as candidates, and more importantly, as leaders?
Is it a bunch of Palin clones, all in one voice cut from the same bolt of cloth, or is there diversity and depth?
Is there a showing of heads above grassroot levels that looks promising, to you, Gary?
If yes, nationwide, or mainly regional, and if regional, which regions seem most promising to you?
Do you see it at the legislative levels, in Minnesota? Name names, if you care to but I am curious more about general impressions.
You seem involved.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 09:08 AM
Another quick - if you have an opinion question - Olberman last night said that the Tea Party thing will have a backlash. That the level of activity will awaken progressive activism on the Dem side and it will dwarf the Tea Party as more organized. I have doubts about that analysis, as more wish than fact on his part. Agree or disagree, and any detail of why. My view is that Obama being so much a continuation of Bush in so many ways, troop surge and all, has lost progressive support and credibility with progressives. I don't see them energized in reaction to Tea effort. I see them as disheartened by the promised change being abandoned. Any thoughts. Olberman's thesis is also that in off year elections it is the party regulars and the dedicated that show up to vote. I can see some of that but with the Governor race, and politics being local, I expect the 2010 turnout will be substantial. Do you agree, and if so, would that favor one party or the other? I expect Sutton and Brodkorb are wanting a big turnout, but will it materialize?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-10 10:14 AM
Eric, KO's opinion isn't fact-based. Despite last fall's elections, this nation is still a center-right nation. Last year's elections were a message to Republicans to stop spending like maniacs. It wasn't a great conversion to big government liberalism.
I agree that progressives are getting upset with President Obama. In fact, I won't be surprised to see a Howard Dean challenge him in a primary in 2012.
You've seen the Lady Logician's comments on here from time to time. She's dealing with 2 progressives at her workplace that are upset with President Obama AND Rep. Matheson.
KO is right in saying that most midterm elections are about turning a party's base out. I think 2010 will be the exception to that rule. The Democrats' agenda has frightened people to such an extent that independents are jumping ship in droves. I expect independents to vote for GOP candidates just like they did in Virginia & New Jersey in 2009. That's why I see 2010 being a bloody year for Democrats.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-10 09:16 AM
1. I'm heavily invested in the TEA Party Movement. I worked with Leo from Psycmeistr's to put together a 9/12 TEA Party event here in St. Cloud.
2. Nationwide, there've been about half a dozen TEA Party activists who've announced their candidacies for the House. There's more than that who are running for the state legislature.
I don't know of any TEA Party activists locally who are running.
3. Many Party activists think highly of Gov. Palin but it'd be wrong to think of them as monolithic. TEA Party activists are solutions-driven thinkers.
One of the impressive things about the TEA Party movement is that there are alot of people who've been experts in their fields (think lawyers, businessmen & women & health care professionals) who are stepping forward to lend their expertise to the discussions of today's events.
Finally, this movement isn't going away anytime soon.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 07-Jan-10 03:03 PM
Eric and Gary - you are both partially right....Eric is right when he says that there will be a progressive backlash - but it is unlikely that it will be against the Tea Party as much as it will be against President Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Senate for their apparent abandoning of their progressive "principles". Take a look at Jack Cafferty's absolute MELTDOWN on CNN earlier. Gary is correct - I work with a few progressives out here in Utah and they are LIVID at the President and at Congress for wasting so much time and effort on worthless crap while letting important (to them ) legislation languish in committee. Then to "cave" on universal coverage.....
Gary is right that turn out will be higher than most mid-terms, but I don't think it is going to be as high as Gary hopes. I am still a tiny bit skeptical about how high the Tea Party movement is going to boost it. Much to Gary's chagrin, I am not as convinced as he is that this has THAT kind of staying power. Conservatives tend not to be the demonstrative bunch. They tend to make their point and as soon as they think the point has been taken they go back to more important things (work, family etc). I don't think we can ever do that again, but then again I am but 1 of many.....
LL
Comment 5 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 04:19 PM
Very interesting.
Howard Dean should do it.
There will be a ton of commentary, a lot of it mainstream press, critical of it if he does.
But someone has to speak up.
It's as I said in a comment to an earlier post. The GOP malcontents are speaking up. The progressives are sitting and stewing and saying, "Where's the change," like the woman in the Mondale ads, "Where's the beef."
Dean could energize where the Dems need it. I expect the GOP would prefer to not see that, since it would energize down ticket too.
But I agree with you guys. 2010 is the year on the horizon, and the Dems have not had good leadership - nothing that a progressive would say is determined. It has been indifferent and appeasing. If a few Blue Dog seats ARE lost, it should make the remainder more cautious in all their barking.
Palin to Obama: It's a War, Not a Crime Spree
Sarah Palin is at it again, using her FB page to excoriate President Obama again, this time on national security :
President Obama's meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation's security. That's what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an "overseas contingency operation." Acts of terrorism are just that, not "man caused disasters." The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege, radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an "isolated extremist" who traveled to a land of "crushing poverty." He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.President Obama and his staff have repeatedly said that "the system failed." That's rubbish. What failed was that President Obama took his eye off the ball. Instead of paying the proper amount of attention to defeating the jihadists, President Obama focused on health care, pork, taking over banks, more pork, taking over GM and Chrysler and more pork.
What failed is that President Obama's, and Atty. Gen. Holder's, policies are predicated on closing Gitmo rather than on preventing future terrorist attacks.
It's time that this toy president pulled his head out of his posterior and got serious about protecting the United States.
John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed "there are no downsides or upsides" to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their "right" to remain silent and stop talking.When I first heard Brennan's answer, I had to hit rewind, twice, to be sure I'd heard what I thought I'd heard. Unfortunately, I heard the same thing three straight times.
Several important points need to be made about this. Here are the most important of my suggestions:
- President Obama's starting premise is wrong and it needs to change ASAP.
- Janet Napolitano is vastly underqualified. She needs to be fired ASAP.
- John Brennan needs to stop being President Obama's yes man. If he insists on playing the role of President Obama's yes man, then he needs to be fired ASAP.
The Obama administration isn't the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They're the gang that won't use all the weapons in their arsenal. Yes, they've effectively used drones to kill terrorists. That's nice but there's more to winning the war against the jihadists than introducing them to their 72 virgins.
What intel have they gained in interrogating terrorists? Has President Obama made interrogating would-be terrorists a high priority? Based on Attorney General Holder's decisions, I can't say for certain that that's a priority. In fact, this administration's decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab tells me that they haven't put a high priority on interrogating terrorists.
If I was forced to give this administration grades on fighting jihadists, I'd give them a B for killing terrorists and an F- for interrogating terrorists. For an overall grade, I'd put that at a D- because getting information that'd prevent future terrorist attacks is more important than killing the jihadists.
Once again, Sarah Palin has exposed the "fatal flaws" in President Obama's policies. That's pretty good for a woman that the elites think of as a joke and a backwoods hick.
Posted Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:46 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 08:53 AM
Do you see a Palin - DeMint ticket as possible in 2012?
Palin - Rubio?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-10 09:03 AM
Good question. I could see her picking DeMint. I could see her picking Pawlenty or Tom Coburn or Mike Pence or Thad McCotter, too.
Pence & McCotter would be great picks because they're extremely smart, energetic & eloqent.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 07-Jan-10 03:04 PM
PLEASE...not another Senator! Have we not learned our lessons?????
LL
