When you're on the same side of the field as Steve Benan, you know you're not a conservative:

Brooks went on to say that the conservatives who dominate the GOP “do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities,” “have no sense of moral decency,” and “have no economic theory worthy of the name.”

This is pretty tough language for a conservative columnist. Indeed, it’s the kind of language that can help change the conventional wisdom about the nature of the talks themselves.

Benen is, of course, responding to this column by David Brooks in today's New York Times.

And the fisking by Stacy McCain begins in 3...2...1....

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

If this Harvard study is accurate, I certainly hope we're all planning Fourth of July parades this year:

A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

Who knew that's all it took?

Do you think the Republican field is "a vacuum"?  The New York Times does.  They LOVE Huntsman.  Are you surprised?

Here's a lengthy profile of Obama's (former) man in China from the upcoming NYT magazine.

And how about that subtitle, eh?  "Someone has to win the nomination...".

In his column yesterday, Jay Nordlinger noted Obama's habitual "peevishness" which got me wondering, why in the world, then, do Obama's popularity numbers remain so high?  I'm always hearing in the media that, well, Obama is polling low on certain issues, "but his popularity remains high!"  Why is that?  I realize it sounds partisan, but honestly, what's to like about this man?

He is indeed peevish and snippy.  Add partisan to that.  Nordlinger points to Obama's recent interview with Brad Watson in which Obama, now famously, said "Let me finish my answers next time we do an interview, all right?" (The story is here.)

When Paul Ryan put forth his budget proposal, Obama made one of the most partisan and divisive speeches in recent memory in response.   Mark Steyn:

There’s something sad about a man so carelessly revealing himself as entirely inadequate to the moment. Government spending is an existential threat to the United States. Whether or not anyone at the White House knows this, the viziers decided to shove the sultan out on stage with a pitifully unserious speech retreating to all his lamest tropes — the usual whiny, petty, and unpresidential partisan snippiness, and the ponderous demolition of straw men even he barely bothered to pretend he believed in:

So when it comes to "popularity" numbers, what is that, exactly?  Personal popularity as opposed to policy popularity, I guess?  How do we measure one's popularity?  When you think about people you actually know, what makes you like them?  Don't we look at that person's character?  His personality and personal demeanor?

Is Obama someone you would be friends with in the real world?

Not me.  He's decietful, peevish, boorish (his speeches on an iPod for the Queen?  C'mon!), and arrogant.

I don't like for my friends to lie.  Obama lies.  He purposely misrepresents issues for personal profit and my mama always taught me that was lying.  Example?  One (of many) that comes to mind is when he said over and over and over and over, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!"  A lie.  And he knew it.  You might still have your doctor right now, but don't count on it for long.

Another example?  When he said he never heard Reverend Wright spew his hate filled rhetoric in the twenty years he attended Trinity United Church of Christ, either in church or in personal conversations.  I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that.

I don't like my friends to fail to assume responsibility for their actions.  Obama has blamed George W. Bush for everything from the economy to the fact that the world hates us because of GITMO.  Even the BP oil spill was Bush's fault.  At this point, Obama totally owns the economy and the economic mess we're in.  His unrestrained spending and massive government and entitlement spending have done little to ease what he says is Bush's fault.  Own it.

Another trait I find unattractive in my friends is, as Nordlinger suggests, peevishness, or snippy, childish, thin-skinned responses.  Who can forget the drove it into a ditch metaphor:

“After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No!  You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”

Or the "get a mop" one:

“I don’t mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made, that’s what I signed up to do," Obama said. “But while I’m there mopping the floor I don’t want someone saying ‘You’re not mopping fast enough or you’re not holding the mop the right way.’ Grab a mop! Why don’t you help clean up?”

Or even when he told critics to quit talking and get out of the way:

"We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."

Should I go on?   I think not.

So why has this deceiving, petty, thin-skinned guy still got high popularity ratings as we hear from the media?  Or does he?

If you look at this poll from Gallup, Obama's personal popularity is in a freefall.  He's plummeted from an all time favorability high of 79 (in January '09) to a low equivalent of his standing in the fall of '07 at 52%. His unfavorability rating is at an all time high of 41%.

Polls on his job approval rating (rather than personal popularity) are equally low and falling.

So why does the media keep insisting he's so popular?  That's a rhetorical question.  You don't have to answer that one.

Of course, things can change on a dime in this 24/7 connected news cycle.  All it takes is one thing to turn it all around and the 2012 election is a long time away.  But, if Obama continues to campaign with his petty peevishness, I have to agree with Mr. Nordlinger that this quality makes him infinitely more beatable than the galvanizing uniter who campaigned for 2008.

Let's just "shoot from the hip" here and point out that this increasing paranoia of gun metaphors is getting ridiculous.  The "double barrel" effort of the left to paint every phrase and nuance as a cue to some nut job extremist or as a sign that Republicans are crazed gun toters is turning our discourse into a "tinderbox" of perceived missteps and inflammatory rhetoric where it just doesn't exist.

The Hill points out that Mike Pence wants to repeal Obamacare "lock, stock, and barrel."  Writer Mike Lillis suggests that this is Pence's refusal to restrain his aggression.  (To be fair, Lillis also points to Rep. Steve Cohen's comparison of Republicans to Nazis.)

While the left wants to depict the right as the only ones who use gun metaphors, we've seen that's simply not the case.  So, keep your powder dry, people.  Get off the hair trigger and keep your objective in sight by first remembering that some of these expressions are now just common American vernacular and your new perception of them doesn't change that reality. 

Get a grip.

Is there anyone more clueless than Katrina vanden Heuvel about Tuesday's election?

Now look - I don't think Republican's ought to be gloating about this victory.  It's wonderful, thrilling, and historic, but (and I hate this expression...) let's be clear about what it is.  It was a referendum against Obama's far left socialist type agenda.  Americans across the country made that clear in their Tea Party protests, their town hall meetings, and their various marches on Washington. 
Yet here is vanden Heuvel:

This was an unearned win for the Republican Party. The election was fundamentally about one thing—the rotten economy—and Democrats paid the price as voters expressed their discontent. Conservatives in both parties who claim the vote represented an ideological shift to the right are plain wrong.

She's missing the fact that, in truth, America is a center-right nation.  The far left agenda of this administration is simply overreach.   There was no shift - she's right about that.  Just a return to the norm.

No, according to vanden Heuvel, the opposite is true:  the Democrats lost because they weren't liberal enough:

The quickly congealing conventional wisdom is that President Obama tried to do too much and was too liberal. The opposite is true: Voters were alienated because they didn't believe his team had fought aggressively enough for the interests of working- and middle-class citizens. 

A frightening thought, to be sure. She says the Stimulus was inadequate.  It should have been more and it's the darn Republicans fault that it wasn't. To vanden Heuvel and other Democrats I've heard since Tuesday, it's still all about the economy.  This is a message they'd do well to rethink unless they want to lose control of the Senate as well; Americans are indeed concerned about jobs and the economy.  That's what we wanted Obama to focus on rather than a massive health care takeover and government power grab.

And I'm not sure which Obama she's been listening to when she claims the president "remains committed to a politics of 'civility and common ground'."  I don't think he ever looked for much common ground ("I won!")  and I haven't seen any civility lately.  I recall him calling me an "enemy" just last week and telling me to "sit in the back" of the bus he's trying to drive over the cliff.

No, vanden Heuvel demands he fight for government that benefits the "majority of Americans" but the majority spoke Tuesday night, and they're tired of his helping them.  He's NOT helping them.  Obama's policies are about to further cripple the economy, job growth and raise taxes come January.

I don't need that kind of help and clearly that's what Americans were rejecting Tuesday.

Added:  Oh wait...in answer to my own question, I see there IS someone more clueless, or at least as clueless.   Looks like Paul Krugman and vanden Heuvel got the same talking points this week:

Mr. Obama’s problem wasn’t lack of focus; it was lack of audacity. At the start of his administration he settled for an economic plan that was far too weak. 

Not liberal enough.

I'm not always the brightest color in the box, so someone might ought to explain this one to me:

And when Mr. Obama took office, America had just suffered its worst financial crisis since the 1930s. What the nation needed, given this grim prospect, was a really ambitious recovery plan. Could Mr. Obama actually have offered such a plan? He might not have been able to get a big plan through Congress, or at least not without using extraordinary political tactics

With a Democratic majority at the time, why couldn't he have gotten it through Congress?  He showed no aversion to "extraordinary political tactics" when it came to ramming ObamaCare down our throats.

Krugman and vanden Heuvel's advice to Obama to dig in and "take a stand" is likely what he will do, and that's fine, too.  2012 is just around the corner.

What a great day to be an American!

I participated in Professor Jacobson's live blog event last night as a panelist so this blog was quiet for the most part. The good Professor reports that over 2500 participants took part in that event and I can attest that it was good fun. It was fun watching the returns with a bunch of other giddy people!  You never know what kind of things you'll learn etither; I learned that it's Paul Revere and not Sam Adams on the label of my beer bottle. 

Anyway, like the Professor, I'll have some thoughts through they day about last night, but for now, there's not enough caffeine in the house.  I do have a couple of loose thoughts I want to record, however:

1.  The biggest thrill of the night had to be Marco Rubio's victory.  It was not a surprise as in the final days Rubio was really pulling away in the polls.  But what a wonderful speech Rubio delivered and what a bright future he has!  Thank you Florida!  Thank you for voting for Marco Rubio.

2.  John Boehner's speech:  I've never seen such an emotional Boehner although reports are that he is quite an emotional guy and does that often.  I liked the response by Fuzzy Slippers in the Live Blog stream in Boehner's defense:  he's worked hard his entire life and has never been given a pass.  This really means something to him.  He knows its importance.

3.  I was following a lot of the House races in the southern region (where I live) and was caught by a couple that flipped back and forth all night and stayed very, very close.  Neither was decided when I finally went to bed last night.  One was the AL-02 race with Bobby Bright (D) and Martha Roby (R).  Roby finally prevailed in that race with 51.1% of the vote.  By most accounts, the Democrat, Bright, is as conservative a Democrat as you're likely to find.  He voted against the stimulus, against Cap and Trade, against the health care bill.  He had raised a lot more money than Roby, yet she prevailed.  The district is primarily Republican but has a tendency to vote Democrat at state and local levels, so it could be considered an upset that Roby won.

The other race I had my eye on that was very close was the TX-27 race where the incumbent Solomon Ortiz (D) was defeated by Republican Blake Farenthold by a final vote of 47.9% to 47.1%.  This race is a real testament to the notion that every vote counts.  Don't ever think your vote doesn't matter.  It does.

4.  The Nevada race was a disappointment.  I was so sorry that Reid won, but in looking for the bright side I suppose it will keep Republicans on their toes and will keep the Tea Party energized.  In his speech last night Reid said, "Americans have chosen the politics of hope over the politics of fear!"  That sea of red on the maps now sure looks like hope to me!

5.  The Florida Governor's election is has not yet been decided.  Hmmmm.

My brain needs caffeine.  I'll be back.  Here are some thoughts from others in the meantime:

Michelle Malkin has her post-election column.
Professor Jacobson has some random thoughts.
Stacy McCain & Smitty were live-blogging and have some insight.
Michael Barone has some post-election analysis.

And, as always, Memeorandum has exploding, ongoing threads on the aftermath of last night's wave.

Update:  Scratch No. 5 above, Dem. Alex Sink just gave a concession speech.

Update #2:  Good grief, I just noticed that CA re-elected Pete Stark 71.5% to 28.5% over Forest Baker.  Incredible.  Good Lord almighty I just don't have the words.  Good luck out there, folks.

Update #3:  The caffeine is helping.  But now I have a headache:  TX-18 went to Sheila Jackson Lee. Good grief.  Lunacy.  Like the Stark race in CA, it wasn't even close.  70.2% to 27.3%.  Oh well, at least she's never dull (I mean, boring.)

Update #4:  Arizona 07 and 08, both southern border counties, both went, or are leaning, Democrat.  You can draw all kinds of conclusions from that.  This handy-dandy map is great.  In the Senate, three races are still too close to call.

Update #5:  The Republican Leadership press conference:  Mitch McConnell and Boehner both declare themselves ready to "listen to the American people" and are ready to "turn the ship around" on the Obama agenda.  McConnell:  "Ignoring the voters and their wishes...produces predictable results." McConnell said, "Choosing the president over your constituents is not a good strategy."

To Democrats, McConnell suggests they listen to the voters and work with Republicans.

Haley Barbour is there also to comment on the governor's races which he says is a referendum on Obama's policies.  "The voters yesterday voted against excessive spending, piling on of deficits...huge tax increases coming in January and a takeover of the health care system." 

Boehner says Pelosi called him this morning and left him "a very nice voicemail" and he expects a smooth transition.

He also says "continuing all the current tax rates for all Americans is the right policy at this time."

One thing Boehner says is very true:  there are more people engaged in American government right now than ever.  People are finally paying attention.  McConnell points out that this is just a "first step" in changing direction for Washington.  Further change can happen in 2012; he also points out there will still have to be bi-partisan agreement to get things done.

Update #6:  Althouse had a fun live-blog last night.

I'm not really liking my choices here:

Romney's in first place with 22% followed by Mike Huckabee at 21%, Newt Gingrich at 18%, Sarah Palin at 17%, and Ron Paul at 6%.

...How about you?

The party fallout over Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware continues to dominate the blogs and Memeorandum.  Charles Krauthammer, for example, in his column today reaffirms his statements from earlier in the week that her election is a win for the Democrats and the the Palin and DeMint endorsements were reckless and irresponsible

Can O'Donnell win in the general election?  This article in the CSMonitor suggests that she has become a more mature candidate over time, which seems to indicate that should she run a smart campaign, she could indeed win. Linda Feldman, author of the piece quotes political scientist Joseph Pika who says:

“Democrats could be overconfident,” he continues. “Democrats could be overaggressive – she could quickly become a more sympathetic candidate if everyone seems to pile on. If Democrats seem to practice politics as usual – be seen as committing character assassination, for example – they could confirm the basic appeal she has of challenging the establishment and ‘politics as usual.’ ”

What is important to remember, Tea Party or not, is that the Senator from Delaware must represent the interests of Delaware, not the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party got Christine O'Donnell to the general election, she will still need to convince Delaware voters that she will represent their interests.  She may have to, at times, cast an unpopular vote if it's in the best interest of her state as Scott Brown has had to do for his state.  However, Delaware voters cast their ballots for her so there is apparently some longing for a more conservative track.

Maybe is it just all an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment backlash.  Either way, O'Donnell can still carry the day in November.

Peggy Noonan today explains that Tea Party candidates are being elected partially because voters want them to go to Washington and temper the out of control spending.  Noonan constructs an elaborate yardstick and clock analogy, but she makes a valid point when she says:

"So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a Tea Party-backed candidate".

The left is already throwing everything they can at Christine O'Donnell, who incidentally has hit the money bomb since Tuesday.  TPMDC, in particular, is dredging up every word and utterance O'Donnell has made in the past twenty years, and O'Donnell is, so far, handling this gracefully.   In a candidate forum yesterday she said

“I was in my twenties and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured and when I go to Washington, D.C. it’ll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs,” she explained Thursday to cheers.
 

She is definitely a candidate that can win; she's proven that now.  It the end it is important to remember that the Republicans dug the hole they're in themselves and did it a long time ago.  To place the peril of a potential Senate majority in the lap of Christine O'Donnell just isn't fair.  And at this point, I'm not sure if the Republican establishment just may be doing her a favor by railing against her.  While one would hope that the Republican party could unite and come together for the good of the party, it appears that the time for some pruning may be in order.

Christine seems to be doing just fine without them.

(AP Photo)

The Delaware Senate race is getting all kinds of buzz today because of the latest PPP poll putting Christine O'Donnell ahead of Mike Castle.  This race has garnered the attention of nearly every pundit from one end of the country to the other, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. 

In this particular race the lines are sharply drawn and people feel strongly about their position.  Mark Levin is convinced that O'Donnell is the right candidate while Charles Krauthammer just told Brett Baier that a vote of O'Donnell is simply self-indulgent as she cannot win.  Krauthammer believes that Republican control of the Senate could rest on this one race.  He's not alone in that position, either; Ed Morrissey at Hot Air writes:

If control of the Senate comes down to this race, and it very well might, would it be better to have a Republican squish holding the seat and give the GOP control of the Senate floor and all the committees, or to hand it to either Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer for the next two-year period in which we’ll see at least one Supreme Court retirement and Obama still attempting to push through his radical agenda? 

Rush Limbaugh takes the opposite stance.  On his program today he drew parallels between O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Sharron Angle, suggesting that they threaten the ruling class because these women are "not like them."  Limbaugh points out that O'Donnell, for example, isn't being attacked because of her stance on any issues.  She's been attacked for numerous personal grievances, as Palin was, but not on the issues.   Nobody is digging into Mike Castle's personal life; just O'Donnell's. 

By the way, Rush also quoted from Professor Jacobson's blog today, too.  Big Time!  He referenced this post (which wins the Great Title Award of the Day) by the good Professor in which he said,

The "nuts and sluts" defense is a common employment law tactic whenever a female employee brings a claim.  It doesn't matter what the claim is, the defense -- after the usual legal mumbo jumbo -- will be something like this:

"She's nuts.  And by the way, pssst, she may be a slut."

That is the mode of attack Democrats use against conservative women.  Sarah Palin is the prime example, as she routinely is called crazy and is sexualized by the left (to the silence of liberal feminist groups).

The nuts part of the attack is being used against Christine O'Donnell in Delaware by the local Republican establishment, and also by two leading conservative magazines, The Weekly Standard and National Review. 

Rush said, "A Senate full of Mike Castles isn't going to get us anywhere...if that's our majority with a bunch of Mike Castles in there, we're in trouble."

So where do you go with that?  If you're a Delaware Republican, do you vote for the RINO just because he's supposedly electable?  Charles Krauthammer insisted Castle will win the general election:  "They'll call off the fight in the first round," he said.  O'Donnell, he said, doesn't stand a chance.

Does it really come down to how badly one wants the majority?  Can O'Donnell win the general election should she win the primary?  She's collected a number of big endorsements, including the NRA, Sarah Palin, Tea Party Express, and Senator James DeMint, yet FreedomWorks won't sign on.
Daniel Foster at The Corner suggests that O'Donnelll could actually win if she ran a smart campaign in the general election.

Michelle Malkin lays out the case for O'Donnell here.

It's a huge gamble, isn't it!  So much at stake.

Either way, the debate will be moot this time tomorrow.  We'll know how Delaware feels about it all soon enough.

Local radio personality Moon Griffon is predicting that Governor Bobby Jindal will replace Michael Steele as head of the RNC next January.  This suggestion stunned me, because it's so obviously the wrong move, but in politics I guess you never know.

Others have suggested that it would be a better plan for Jindal to run for Mary Landrieu's Senate seat when she comes up for re-election in 2014.  This would put Jindal in position for a VP slot or even a presidential bid in 2016.  He's already served in the U.S. House before becoming Governor of Louisiana.

Part of the political machinations at work involve the Louisiana Lt. Governor's race which will be determined in a special election on October 2.  The position had belonged to Mitch Landrieu who recently was elected Mayor of New Orleans.  Candidates running in the special election include Sammy Kershaw (R), Secretary of State Jay Dardenne (R), St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis (R), political newcomer Melanie McKnight (R) of Baton Rouge and state GOP Chairman Roger Villere.  There are three Democratic candidates but none have much name recognition; the most likely of those would be State Senator Butch Gautreaux from Morgan City.

The Hayride has done an excellent analysis of the Lt. Governor's race here and is predicting a Dardenne win.  The problem most conservatives will have with that is that while listed as a Republican, Dardenne is not very conservative and has a record from his time in the State Senate as a big spender; in addition he voted for tax-payer funded abortions. It is predicted that Roger Villere will get "the Tea Party vote."

The candidates will have to run again in 2011 for a new four year term.  The kink in the line is that this position is first in line to assume governorship should the current governor step down.

If Jindal stepped down to say, take over the RNC, or to run for president, or whatever other whim suits him, the Lt. Governor would take his spot.  Currently, Jindal is up for re-election as governor in 2011 and he still insists that is the only job he wants.  If Dardenne wins as Lt. Governor, and Jindal does in fact move on, Jindal would essentially be leaving the state in the hands of a liberal RINO.

Hotline on Call has done a round-up of who they see as potential RNC leaders come January.  Jindal is nowhere on it.

Griffon and pundits like C.B. Forgotston suggest that Jindal will "bail" before he has to deal with the state's financial woes.  That may be.  But as head of RNC?  I just don't see that as the right direction for him.  I can't see him doing it. 

I'm probably wrong.

And so it begins.  The fallout of the Jim Greer arrest is about to rain down all over Charlie Crist.

Via The St. Petersburg Times:

Gov. Charlie Crist personally signed off on his former Republican Party chairman's confidential fundraising role with the state party, according to Jim Greer's attorney, whose allegation contradicts the governor's statement that he "didn't know anything" about the deal now part of a criminal investigation.

State investigators say Greer and the party's former executive director, Delmar W. Johnson III, secretly set up a shell company called Victory Strategies to divert party money and enrich themselves. Greer was charged Wednesday with fraud and money laundering.

Crist says the entire Greer incident is "surprising" and "unfortunate"  He says he didn't even know about the shell corporation Greer was using to funnel cash into his own pocket "until after Greer resigned in January."  Crist's explanation for not knowing the specifics?  He's too busy running the state.  He can't be bothered with the little stuff.

When did ignorance become an excuse?

Actually, ever the opportunist, Crist attempts to take credit for Greer's current legal troubles by explaining "I'm the one actually who empanelled the state-wide grand jury that came down with this decision."

Greer's attorney contradicts Crist's ignorance excuse, explaining that Crist signed off on the diversion of GOP funds:

Chase said Greer and Crist discussed the fundraising deal at least three times last year: at the golf tournament in February, over the summer; and in the fall at the Fisher Island home of the governor's wife.

"The governor knew about Victory Strategies from the very beginning," Chase said. "They all worked on it together. … They saw it as a way to save money."

Jennifer Rubin points out that Crist is certain to find out that he's the wrong candidate at the wrong time:

In an election year in which inside deals are under scrutiny (with the Sestak and Romanoff scandals swirling) and establishment candidates face a hostile electorate, Crist may find there is little patience for this sort of thing. And it’s a good reminder that the GOP inside the beltway political gurus (who backed Crist) often get it very, very wrong.

Some of us suggested a long time ago that Crist was the wrong guy.  It was the NRSC who thought he was the right guy.  They were wrong.

And so it begins.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)
(Cross posted at Not One Red Cent)

Mark Steyn at The Corner points to this headline from The Miami Herald:

Unified By Hatred Of Obama, GOP Still Searches For Challenger

Against my better judgment and concern for my blood pressure, I clicked on over.

Can I just address the fact that first of all "hatred of Obama" misstates the point, and I'm not speaking for the GOP because I'm not empowered to do that, but I'm speaking only for myself.  We had this argument way back when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama's policies to fail.  Oh, I know; he said "I hope he fails," but anyone with a grain of sense can read the context and know he meant Obama's radical policies.  We've been there and done that.

This headline only takes us back there.  It's the same argument.

Let me be clear.  I don't hate Obama.  I hate Obama's policies.  Period.

Now.  As to the rest of the article which addresses potential GOP challengers to Obama in 2012, let me suggest that Steven Thomma, author of the piece, missed the point or major theme of the SRLC in that the next battle the GOP is anticipating is 2010.  We're looking at the fall.  As Haley Barbour said, 2012 will take care of itself after that.

I'll go on record right now and say that I don't believe any of the current leaders on the Des Moines Register GOP Caucus poll will be the actual nominee in 2012.  But, I'm not worried about that right now.

(Cross-posted at Potluck)

Phillip Klein at American Spectator takes a look at the potential GOP field for 2012 and sees...not much:

Though Mitt Romney is considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination right now, a lot of people still don't like him, both within the party and among the general population. Just as he was trying to get over his reputation as a flip-flopper from his first presidential run, he's now engaging in even more verbal gymnastics by trying to argue that Romneycare differs substantially from Obamacare (even though the plans are extremely similar).

Klein also considers Tim Pawlenty and finds him dull.

The comments are interesting and the normal suspects are offered there, Palin among them. Klein expects Obama to be vulnerable in 2012, but the GOP has to put someone viable up against him.

I'm waiting for Paul Ryan to be ready.

I wish I could be at CPAC today to hear Marco Rubio! Heck, I wish I could be at CPAC anyway, but Rubio would be a bonus. When I first put my donation button on my sidebar last year, its original caption was "Send me to CPAC!" but nobody took me up on the offer. Now that it says "Buy me a beer!" I do a little better.

Many of my blogging buddies are headed to CPAC and I look forward to their reports; I know Stacy McCain will be there with Da Tech Guy...what could go wrong? Keep an eye on their blogs for updates.

Politico has a report on Rubio today and his appearance at CPAC noting that this will be a sort of national introduction of Rubio to many conservatives outside of Florida. Rubio has come from behind to lead Crist in the polls now in their Florida Senate race and I don't think Rubio is satisfied with his lead. I think before the election arrives Rubio will leave Crist far behind, especially if the only bang in Crist's bag is this tactic:

Crist’s campaign, which has derided Rubio as a shallow former pol who ducks discussions about the less flattering aspects of his record, isn’t shying away from attacking Rubio during his moment in the national conservative spotlight.

On Wednesday, the Crist campaign released a mock draft of Rubio’s speech.

“Since my campaign began, I’ve had the privilege of becoming the latest cover boy,” reads the fake speech. “I’m thrilled many of you don’t know me or what I’ve done during my 8 years in Tallahassee. My record is irrelevant in this campaign. My previous statements and actions serve no purpose in this campaign.”

Marco Rubio, a rising star in conservative Republican circles, said he sees the exploding "tea party" movement as a political energy source to be tapped, not a political party to be led. Mr. Rubio's underdog race for the Senate against Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida's Republican primary has become a rallying point for conservatives nationwide.

He has been called the potential first "tea party senator," but he's quick to note that the anti-big-government movement is a symbol of mounting voter frustration with the records of both major parties in Washington.

I really wish I could be at CPAC to hear his speech! Is it streaming anywhere today? If you know, leave me a comment.

So it seems Bobby Jindal has a book coming out this summer which prompts Marc Ambinder to wonder if he's running for President. He cites Huckabee, Romney and Palin as precedent, and supposedly one could also include Obama in that list:

Writing a book seems to be the mark of presidential ambitions--Romney, Palin, and Mike Huckabee have all published and toured to promote books in the last year--and it will be interesting to see just how much policy is included in this book, and whether or not his publicity rollout constitutes an aggressive move back onto the national political scene.

I think the logic reaches a little far. Lots of people have published books that aren't running for President.

Jindal's book is already up at Amazon even though it isn't coming out until July 2010. The blurb says:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not only a rising star in the GOP but has been touted as the future face of the Republican Party. In his new book, Jindal tells his own inspiring story and reveals his plan for putting conservatives and America back on solid ground. Blending his personal story, including his conversion to Christianity and his unprecedented political career, with an account of his local and national governmental successes, Jindal offers a bold vision for renewing the GOP and our nation. From health care and national debt to how we can fundamentally transform Washington, Jindal tackles controversial issues and offers fresh solutions. Insightful and inspiring, On Solid Ground provides the leadership voice Republicans seek and the guidance America needs.

You'll find lots of people in Louisiana who are not sold on Bobby Jindal. Moon Griffon, who hosts a radio program broadcast throughout the state, refers to Jindal as "Campaign Bobby" because he's perpetually campaigning and off raising funds somewhere. Griffon takes issue with Jindal as well because Jindal won't appear on Moon's program anymore to answer questions.

Louisiana pundit C.B. Forgotston isn't a fan either.

I could be dead wrong, but I don't see Jindal running in 2012.

And you know what? I'm not really interested in reading his book, either.

(H/T: The Dead Pelican)

The Washington Post article this morning about Obama inserting himself into the debate over where the KSM trial should be held (finally) quoted a statistic that has been puzzling me. It seemed off the wall to me when I read it this morning but I didn't question it too much at the time because I was more focused on the bigger issue, it seemed to me, which was that Obama is now paying attention to matters of national security.

The Post said this morning that Obama is more trusted on matters of national security than Republicans, which is so very odd to me (emphasis mine):

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 55 percent of voters say military tribunals should be used to try suspected terrorists, compared with 39 percent who say the civilian court system should be used. In November, there was an even split on this question. Still, Obama has an advantage on national security, with a majority of Americans continuing to approve of the way he is handling the threat of terrorism -- his highest-rated issue -- and 47 percent saying they mainly trust Obama on the issue compared with 42 percent who trust the GOP.

Yet according to Rasmussen on February 10:

On national security, Republicans are trusted more by a 49% to 40% margin after leading by 17 points in January. This marks the first poll to show Republicans earning less than 50% of voters’ trust on the issue since August of last year.

And in the War on Terror (still Rasmussen):

Recent polling shows that voter confidence in U.S. efforts in the War on Terror is near its lowest level in recent years. Only 36% of voters say the United States is safer today than it was before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, marking the lowest level of confidence since Rasmussen polling first asked the question in 2002.

So where does the Washington Post come up with these numbers?

The closest I can get is this Washington Post - ABC News poll dated Jan. 12-15, 2010 in which Obama does have more favorable numbers.

When asked if respondents approved or disapproved of the way Obama is handling terrorism, the results were:

b. The threat of terrorism

      -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No
      NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
1/15/10    55       31         23      42       14         28         4
11/15/09   53       31         22      41       14         27         6
9/12/09    55       31         24      34       12         23        11
6/21/09    57       NA         NA      36       NA         NA         7
4/21/09*   57       NA         NA      26       NA         NA        17
*Pew

It's interesting. Curious, but interesting. The number of those who disapprove has climbed from 26 to 42 yet those who approve has stayed pretty much the same - from 57 to 55.

The sampling for the latest poll is supposedly:

          Democrat  Republican  Independent  Other  No op.  Dem.  Rep.  Lean
1/15/10       32         23           38        7      *      17    20     9

When asked how much confidence one has in (item) to make the right decisions for the country's future, 47% trusted Obama to 24% who trusted Republicans in Congress and 32% trusted Democrats in Congress.

And on preventing another terrorist attack in the U.S.:

a. Preventing further terrorist attacks in the United States

      -Excellent/Good -   -Not so good/Poor -     No
      NET   Exc.   Good   NET   Not so   Poor   opinion
1/15/10   58      8     50    41      30      11       1
9/7/06    66      9     57    33      24       8       1
1/18/04   74     14     61    25      19       6       1
9/7/03    80     19     61    19      16       3       1
9/8/02    75     13     62    23      21       3       2

Obviously that number has changed since Obama took office.

At any rate, I can't find the numbers WaPo refers to in their article today and they don't link to the poll. This January poll is the closest I can find.

I just don't believe more people trust Obama with national security than they trust Republicans, although I guess it could depend to which Republicans one refers. The Democrats, after all, is the party who just charged a man with explosives in his undies on an airplane in Detroit with nearly 300 people as a common criminal rather than an Al Qaeda trained enemy combatant.

I'm not trusting them. No way.

I'm holding my breath waiting to see if the Republicans fall into the trap of becoming Obama's next "human stage props" as Michelle Malkin called the proposed bi-partisan health care summit.

After inviting doctors to the White House lawn and providing them lab coats for a photo op, what will he provide the Republicans for props? Legal pads? Pencils? Scalpels?

Hopefully Republicans will see this for what it is. This stunt smacks of Rahm Emanuel because if the Republicans attend, they'll lose, and if they don't, they'll lose. If they reject the meeting then all Obama has to do is say, "Hey! We tried! They refused our offer for bi-partisan talks! Party of NO!" Then he'll feel free to go ahead with reconciliation.

If they do attend, the television cameras will show Republicans rejecting one lame, job killing, deficit raising Democratic idea after another - "See! Party of NO! Reconciliation coming up!"

Republicans have already sent a letter in response with multiple pointed questions. I'd have bypassed that step. Those questions all seem rhetorical, to me.

Instead, they should make clear that they have put plans forth, provide those plans once again, and refuse to take part in discussions where the bills have already been written and the back room deals already set. The problem here is not Republicans - they can pass the bill without Republicans. It's Democrats who don't like it.

Besides, I thought we were focusing on JOBS JOBS JOBS now...

(More at Memeorandum)

Oh my. Frank Rich takes off on Palin today. I've avoided writing about Palinophobia and the Palinopalooza currently raging in the blogosphere right now because others are doing such a great job. And, well, Andrew Sullivan. Enough said.

But Frank Rich is pushing me over the edge.

He admits to having read the book, which is something. I've got the book but I haven't read it yet; I'm still into this Ayn Rand biography and I don't want to start another book until I finish it.

After Rich criticizes Liz Cheney and Ana Marie Cox for not reading the entire tome, yet daring to pronounce judgment on it, he then takes apart "little noticed" elements of the book. She was star-struck, he says, by Bono, John Voight, and Gary Sinise, among others. I'm not sure this so so surprising, much less revealing, about Palin, but Rich thinks so.

He also finds it "equally revealing" that she doesn't mention Levi Johnston. Gosh dang, Frank, Levi has trashed her family from here to yon, embarrassed her daughter, threatened Palin, stripped naked, and basically revealed himself to be the trash that he is, so why would she waste any ink on him? Rich says Johnston is "persona non grata now that he’s taking off his campaign wardrobe." There's a little more to it than that, but Rich doesn't really care.

Rich says of Palin, "Even by the standard of politicians, this is a woman with an outsized ego." He makes this pronouncement after a passage in which he tells of her coming to terms with the birth of her Down's syndrome baby. Refresh my memory...when was the last column Rich wrote on Obama's "outsized ego"? Did I miss it? Because surely there is one. Isn't there?

No, this is what really bugs Rich, and the left, about Palin. He says "She is the pit bull in the china shop of American politics, and she can do what she wants, on her own timeline, all the while raking in the big bucks she couldn’t as a sitting governor. No one, least of all her own political party, can control her."

She does what she wants. She says what she wants. She does it however and whenever she wants to. And makes the big bucks. They don't know what to make of her. She's honest.

Then comes the race card. It's always there. Rich writes of Palin's fan base:

That demographic is white and non-urban: Just look at the stops and the faces on her carefully calibrated book tour. The affect is emotional — the angry air of grievance that emerged first at her campaign rallies in 2008, with their shrieked threats to Obama, and that has since resurfaced in the Hitler-fixated “tea party” movement (which she endorses in her book). It’s a politics of victimization and sloganeering with no policy solutions required beyond the conservative mantra of No Taxes.

"Hitler-fixated" tea party movement? Rich has tumbled head over teacup into Palin Derangement Syndrome.

He can't decide if she's running in 2012, if she should run, if she could win. She quotes Dick Cheney (because "dithering" is such an exclusive word it must have come only from Cheney.) "The discredited neocon hacks" who support Palin sure have a lot of work to do, he says. Rich even manages to take a shot at Lynn Vincent, which has turned into popular sport lately. So, anyone who likes Palin is probably "Hitler-fixated" and a discredited neocon hack. Got it.

Rich's muddles through whether or not Palin should run in 2012 by concluding that"no matter how much Palin tries to pass for 'center-right,' she’s unlikely to fool that vast pool of voters left, right and center who have already written her off as unqualified for the White House. The G.O.P. establishment knows this, and is frightened."

I haven't noticed Palin shooting for "center-right" but I suppose she could try if she wanted to. The GOP isn't afraid of Palin. No, I think the only one frightened of Palin is Frank Rich. And Andrew Sullivan.

Dede Scozzafava is upset because Republicans were "vicious" to her. Could someone get right on the organization of that pity-party, please?

Dear Dede. Let me assure you that if what you endured during the short course of this campaign made you feel maligned or offended your sensibilities, please take solace in the fact that you aren't Sarah Palin and you didn't have to endure what she went through for MONTHS longer than your supposed abuse.

And it could be, Dede, that had you properly represented yourself as a liberal from the get-go, as they say, this could all have been avoided. If there had ever been any doubt about your liberal leanings, your endorsement of the Democrat in that race simply proved the point that you are a liberal. Period.

Maybe someone could order a copy of Palin's book and ship it to Dede? She could learn what real conservatives stand for as well as take comfort in the fact that nobody made rape jokes about anyone in her family, nobody attacked her wardrobe, nobody filed ethics charges on her, nobody descended on her hometown en masse and interviewed everyone she'd every known from her first breath to present day, nobody accused her of using her family for props, and nobody accused her of faking a pregnancy, just to name a few.