TUESDAY,  JANUARY 12,  2010

AND STILL MORE DEFIANCE – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  We have had some real gutsiness in the last 24 hours – Conan O'Brien, Scott Brown – and here's another example.

We have a real political drama underway in New York State.  Our junior senator, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to fill out Hillary Clinton's term in the Senate, is up for election on her own.  The state is less than thrilled with her.  She is ripe for a primary challenge.  But the White House has been moving Heaven and Earth to block anyone from taking her on.

Enter Harold Ford Jr., who moved to New York three years ago.  Former congressman from Tennessee, scion of one of the few black political dynasties in America, head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, and a very determined guy.  He is defying Barack Obama, and seems intent on entering the Democratic Senate primary.  That could be a career-ending move if it doesn't work, a career-making move if it does.  Today, in a column in the New York Post, he throws down his challenge to the White House machine: 

It's true: I am strongly considering running for the United States Senate.

I do so because our best as a nation has always come when we test our ideas and ourselves, and when we trust competition to refine the steel of our convictions and the truth of our arguments.

Some have already questioned whether I should be running.

Others are falsifying my record in public life.

New Yorkers deserve a free election.

A free election?  In the People's Republic of New York?  This man is walking on land mines.

I know New York is unique. No other state is so engaged in the great issues facing our nation.

Defeating terror isn't a talking point in New York, it's a way of life.

Rebuilding an economy isn't an item on an issue checklist, it is what New York does -- and must do.

In my three years here, I've learned that New York does not go along to get along. New York does not follow. New York is where the nation learned to lead, build and grow.

In the spirit of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once held this Senate seat, I hope we all will welcome a debate about who's best to work for New York.

COMMENT:  Harold Ford Jr. has always been feisty, and is very ambitious.  He's heading into the meatgrinder, but this should be quite a show.  In a primary, I think he has a good shot at winning.  He's African-American, a terrific speaker, and gutsy.  But the establishment will do everything to bring him down because of his defiance.

Oh, by the way, notice that he identified the Senate seat as once held by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  It was also Hillary's, but he didn't mention her.  Hmm.

January 12, 2010    Permalink

MORE DEFIANCE – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  The Massachusetts Senate race continues to be all the rage.  Last night Scott Brown, the steely GOP challenger, had what is being described as a Reaganesque moment in a debate with Dem-anointed Martha Coakley.  From the Washington Examiner:

...supporters of Republican candidate Scott Brown have been zeroing in on two key comments from last night's debate with Democrat Martha Coakley. One is this exchange with omnipresent Washington wag David Gergen, who was moderating the debate:

GERGEN: If this bill fails, it could well be another 15 years before we see another health care reform in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say 'I'm going to be the person. I'm I'm going to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat, and I'm going to be the person who's going to block it for another fifteen years?

BROWN: Well, with all due respect it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat -- it's the people's seat. And they have a chance to send someone down there who's going to be an independent voter and an independent thinker and to look out for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts.

Great reply.  Win or lose next week, Scott Brown is becoming a GOP star.  And the Massachusetts governorship is open this year.  Election in November.  We'd prefer Senator Brown, election next week, but the other title sounds fine as well.

One of the problems the GOP has had in recent years is developing great candidates.  Scott Brown is showing how that's done.

January 12, 2010   Permalink

IF THIS BE TREASON – AT 6:38 P.M. ET:  I love acts of defiance, especially when they're directed at people who deserve it. 

Readers may know that I was on the staff of The Tonight Show back in the better days of Johnny Carson.  I take a family interest in what happens to the show.  In recent days, the news has been bizarre.  NBC, to boost ratings, is attempting to bring Jay Leno back to the 11:35 p.m. time slot, but only for a half hour, as an intro to a new Tonight Show, with Conan O'Brien, to start at 12:05 a.m.  It's a clear humiliation for Conan.  Today he gave his answer.  The answer, to his enormous credit, is no.  O'Brien is a bright man, and his statement is eloquent:

I sincerely believe that delaying the “Tonight Show” into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The “Tonight Show” at 12:05 simply isn’t the “Tonight Show.”...

...My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard, and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of “The Tonight Show.” But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet, a time slot doesn’t matter. But with the “Tonight Show,” I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

COMMENT:  Wonderful, wonderful.  We often quote comedians here, but they're usually not comedians intentionally.  O'Brien is an intentional comedian.  And, like most comedians, he's a very serious guy. His statement was perfect, and struck a perfect tone, a defense of the show itself.

What the people running NBC this week don't seem to realize is that The Tonight Show is an institution, and should be treated as an institution.  Part of that status is its start time.  For almost two generations, Americans have tuned in at the same time.  As a nation, not as a set of demographics, we have tuned in primarily for the monologue, to get the host's take on the day's events.  The 11:35 start time is perfect.  After midnight, and it's not the Tonight Show any longer.  Most of America simply can't stay up that late. 

I recall many days when Johnny would interrupt a meeting in mid-afternoon and say, "I've got to do the monologue."  He knew it was the show's signature.  It had universal appeal, across all viewer age groups.  And he knew it would be quoted in offices throughout America the next morning.

NBC created two great franchises, "Today" and "Tonight."  Now "Tonight" is in danger of being cannibalized by a network that has just been sold to Comcast, and which apparently doesn't care.

The viewers care.  If NBC pushes this change, I suspect Conan will leave, receive the cheers of the public, and succeed somewhere else.  You can be sure the phone lines are already burning.

January 12, 2010   Permalink

MYSTERY IN TEHRAN – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  There has been a mysterious murder in Tehran, as The New York Times reports:

PARIS — A remote-controlled bomb attached to a motorcycle killed an Iranian professor of nuclear physics outside his home in northern Tehran on Tuesday, state media reported, blaming the United States and Israel.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. One state broadcaster, IRIB, quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying that “in the initial investigation, signs of the triangle of wickedness by the Zionist regime, America and their hired agents are visible in the terrorist act,” Reuters reported.

The authorities called the killing of the scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, an assassination carried out by terrorists but did not say who was believed to be responsible. The professor taught neutron physics at Tehran University, the English-language Press TV said, but it was not clear whether he was part of Iran’s contentious nuclear enrichment program.

The motive for the attack is shrouded in mystery.  On the one hand, government radio labeled the professor a "staunch support of the Islamic revolution."  On the other hand, news reports say he was a support of the main opposition (reform) candidate in the recent presidential "election."

There is some speculation that the regime murdered the professor but will blame the opposition movement, giving Tehran an excuse to crack down even more.

Stand by.  There'll be more on this.

January 12, 2010   Permalink

WE'RE QUOTING MAUREEN DOWD? – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  Yes, you read it right.  We have stooped to this level.  But she wrote an absolute gem of an op-ed piece about Obama, and when Maureen is good, she's very good indeed.  The title of the piece is:

                      Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool

Now you see why I'm quoting her.  She proceeds:

Our president came down from the mountaintop.

He had applied the freshness of his independent thought to the critical matters at hand. He had convened his seminar, reviewed the reviews, analyzed the intelligence every which way, thought anew about everything, and lo and behold, he finally emerged to tell us some stuff we already knew.

We are under attack.

There is evil in the world.

Yemen is a dangerous place that breeds people who want to kill us...

...The sun rises in the east.

Two plus two equals four.

“We must do better,” Captain Obvious said Thursday at the White House, “in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.”

And a lot of other stuff we already knew.

No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it’s in a debate or after a debacle. But it’s not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared.

Dowd gets in some required barbs against President Bush and the Republicans, but then applies the paddle once more to our student-government president:

He’s so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.

He’s more like the aloof father who’s turned the Situation Room into a Seminar Room.

Ouch, and more ouch.

And is is from a liberal columnist at The New York Times.  May she stay employed.

January 12, 2010   Permalink 

POLL PROBLEMS FOR OBAMA – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  A new CBS poll out this morning reports the worst numbers President Obama has registered in that poll:

President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.

That rating is Mr. Obama's lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance as president.

In last month's CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans approved of how the president was handling his job, while thirty-nine percent disapproved.

The source of the trouble:

Mr. Obama still receives strong support from Democrats (eight in ten approve of his performance), but his approval rating among Republicans is only 13 percent. More importantly, Mr. Obama's approval rating among independents has declined 10 points in recent months – and it now stands at just 42 percent.

It's the independents who are deserting the ship. 

The poll, though, doesn't have particulary good news for Republicans either.  Republicans in Congress remain even less popular than their Dem counterparts.  The unpopularity of the Republican Party is a major drag going into this year's elections.

January 12, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS – AT 7:46 A.M. ET:  Massachusetts votes a week from today to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Edward M. Kennedy. 

Suddenly there's enormous focus on the race, primarily because one poll, and only one, has the spirited Republican challenger, Scott Brown, a point ahead of the Democratic "shoo-in," state Attorney General Martha Coakley.  Dreams are floating through the conservative blogosphere.

Look, no one wants an upset more than I do, but let's be careful here.  Dream, yes.  Plan, no.  Virtually all pollsters agree that it's an uphill battle for Brown.  The betting is still on Martha Coakley, a cookie-cutter Massachusetts liberal who's never had a dissenting thought in her head.  She thinks it's just ducky to try terrorists in civilian courts, and said just last night that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan.  You get the picture.

Massachusetts is a bright blue state.  It glows blue.  This is a special election, not a November election, so the campaign is short.  Coakley is well known.  Brown is an unknown state senator, and the shortness of the race makes it tough for him to get name recognition.  Coakley has a lot of money, although Brown is now raking it in.  Coakley has the Kennedy family, Massachusetts royalty, in her corner.  She has to work to lose this election, although she seems at times to be working very hard.

That one poll showing Brown ahead, and another showing Coakley with only a nine-point lead, has energized the Dems, who are starting to pour firepower into the contest.  Their latest gimmick is to try to tie Brown to Sarah Palin.

As Scott Rasmussen wrote yesterday, the problem with polling in a special election is that it's very difficult to predict turnout, which is the key to victory.  The race is volatile.  There are no new poll results that we know of.  I suspect there'll be two or three later this week.

So, dream well, but don't be crushed if Brown only gets close.  This is a huge mountain, and he's climbing it.  But there's so little time.

January 12,  2010   Permalink 

MONDAY,  JANUARY 11,  2010

MORE DOTS THAT WEREN'T CONNECTED – AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  In our recent focus on the Christmas-day bomber, we diverted our eyes from the Fort Hood case, in which a terrorist attack actually succeeded.  Some 13 Americans died, and there would have been more had it not been for the heroism of security people. 

Now we learn that there were ample warnings about Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter and budding jihadist:

WASHINGTON – In late December 2004, one of the officers overseeing Army Maj. Nidal Hasan's medical training praised him in an official evaluation as a qualified and caring doctor who would be an asset in any post.

But less than a week later, a committee at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center that oversees student performance met behind closed doors to discuss serious concerns about Hasan's questionable behavior, poor judgment and lack of drive.

Disconnects such this were a familiar pattern throughout Hasan's lengthy medical education in the Washington area, according to information gathered during an internal Pentagon review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, and obtained by The Associated Press.

The review has not been publicly released, but the emerging picture is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to the information.

And...

As Hasan's training progressed, his strident views on Islam became more pronounced as did worries about his competence as a medical professional. Yet his superiors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks and led to his eventual assignment at Fort Hood...

...What remains unclear is why Hasan would be advanced in spite of all the shortcomings. That is likely to be the subject of a more detailed accounting by the Defense Department.

COMMENT:  We should not accept any report, or any so-called "accounting," unless the subject of political correctness is dealt with forthrightly and completely.

The key question:  Were Army promotion boards so intimidated by the atmosphere of political correctness that's been imposed on the armed forces that they were afraid to flag Hasan and even recommend that he be detached from the service?

Any decent report will answer that question.

January 11, 2010   Permalink 

IS HEALTH CARE IN TROUBLE? – AT 5:49 P.M. ET:  Retiring Senator Chris Dodd, maybe now feeling the freedom to tell the truth, thinks so.  From NBC:

Health care reform is "hanging on by a thread," and one or two votes could determine the outcome of the heavily-debated bill, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd told CNBC Monday.

"Everyone feels, I guess, to some degree who have been for this, that they would have liked something different, and that's not uncommon when you're considering an issue of this magnitude," Dodd said.

Some progressives, for example, are disappointed that the Senate bill, unlike the House version, does not include a public option, he said. Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are two people who voted for the bill in its original form and are now carefully watching what changes are being made.

COMMENT:  Is suspect there's also another factor.  Politicians read polls, and the polls show the American people increasingly against the health "reform" bill currently being finalized in Congress.  There may well be many Democrats who wish they'd never tackled this, or had tackled this more competently.  They see the iceberg ahead, and wonder if it's too late to turn the ship.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

SARAH GETTING FOXY – AT 5:37 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin is joining Fox News.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's "Top of the Ticket":

One-time TV journalist Sarah Palin, who dabbled successfully in politics for a while, has decided to return to her media roots.

Fox News confirms this afternoon that the 45-year-old former mayor, city council member, state oil and gas regulator, unsuccessful lieutenant government candidate, Alaska reform governor, unsuccessful Republican vice presidential nominee and most recently successful book author, has signed a contract with the top-rated cable news channel, Fox News, as a commentator across a number of programs.

The mother of five, including a special needs infant, will also host a show on inspiring American stories. While other networks struggle over the unfunny scheduling of late-night comics, it's another commercial coup for Roger Ailes, who's turned the youngish network the Democratic White House loves to hate into a real moneymaker.

COMMENT:  This will be fascinating.  As Andrew Malcolm says, she will have to demonstrate intellectual heft and a knowledge of a number of issues.

I would not be shocked if she not only does well, but also devotes some of her time to interviewing, hauling in the big "gets," who would be delighted to share her audience.  Also, don't be surprised if she does some of her commentary from other countries, giving her a kind of instant international image and appeal.

But remember, she will also be a huge target.  Look for the first stories about disgruntled staff members, off-camera gaffes and Sarah, true or not, acting like a diva.  They're inevitable. 

I can't wait to see her ratings as compared with, say, those of Chris Matthews.  Well, maybe that's too easy.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

TERMINALLY WEIRD – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  This is pretty revolting, so brace yourself.  But it's about Hollywood, so maybe it won't be that shocking:

TCA -- Director Oliver Stone's upcoming Showtime documentary miniseries "Secret History of America" promises to put mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler "in context."

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," Stone told reporters at the Television Critics Association's semi-annual press tour in Pasadena.

Look, I'm not making this up.  Oliver Stone, one of the most irresponsible directors around, a man who has misinformed a generation of kids who go to movies, is doing a miniseries on the "history" of America.  And I'm so looking forward to Hitler in context.

Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII ... I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them.

Make sure you turn on the child blocking system on your TV.

Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated." 

Ollie, it's true, but this is very old stuff.  Is there any informed American who doesn't know that some Americans colluded with Hitler?  And they included the head of the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

Subjects in "History" include President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the origins of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

I think all of us can predict exactly where this is going.

And here comes the real nutso part:

Stone also warned that the same military industrial complex forces that he's explored in movies such as "JFK" and in "Secret History," are now corrupting Barack Obama.

Oh yeah, right.  Obama is in bed with Lockheed Martin.  Everyone knows that. 

"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," Stone said."Obama is very much trapped, we believe, in that system. And so that's what we're going to try and show you -- the way it works." 

I'm sure you're an expert, Ollie.  You learn a great deal about the industrial-military complex going to Hollywood parties. 

I'm sure the three viewers of this series will cheer.

January 11,  2010   Permalink

SUPERB CRITIQUE OF OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky of American Thinker alerts us to one of the best critiques recently written on Obama's faltering foreign policy.  It's by Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, published in The Wall Street Journal:

If the first year of President Barack Obama's foreign policy were a law firm in Charles Dickens's London, it would have a name like Bumble, Stumble and Skid.

This won't be posted on the White House bulletin board.

It began with apologies to the Muslim world that went nowhere, a doomed attempt to beat Israel into line, utopian pleas to abolish nuclear weapons, unreciprocated concessions to Russia, and a curt note to the British to take back the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office. It continued with principled offers of serious negotiation to an Iranian regime too busy torturing, raping and killing demonstrators, and building new underground nuclear facilities, to take them up. Subsequently Beijing smothered domestic coverage of a presidential visit but did give the world the spectacle of the American commander in chief getting a talking-to about fiscal responsibility from a Communist chieftain.

Even a good decision was botched:

The decision to reinforce our military in Afghanistan came after an excruciating dither that undermined the confidence of our allies. Mr. Obama's loose talk of withdrawal beginning in 18 months then undid much of the good in his decision to send troops.

And...

One hopes that his advisers, and the president himself, recognize the weight of the query reportedly posed last April by the most formidable contemporary leader of a free country, Nicolas Sarkozy: "Est-il faible?" (Is he weak?). If a year from now world leaders think the answer is "yes," the U.S. will be in deep trouble.

And the answer, so far, is "yes."

In at least one way, Mr. Obama resembles his predecessor: He has enormous self-confidence. But where George W. Bush's certainty stemmed from moral conviction, Mr. Obama's arises from a sense of intellectual superiority.

Yeah, and people are starting to notice.

Part of un-Bushism as foreign policy has been a self-inflicted muteness by this most articulate of politicians on the topic of democracy, freedom and human rights. American foreign policy has always been a long and difficult dialogue between realpolitik and our values, our pursuit of our own interests, and our deliberate efforts to spread freedom abroad. Saying that the U.S. will "bear witness" to abuses and brutality around the world is, in effect, to say that we will send flowers to funerals. Mr. Obama needs to say something considerably more serious.

Very well said.  The remarkable fact is that George W. Bush was more idealistic, and more in tune with American values, than is Obama, the "idealistic" candidate.

It's a large agenda, but then, Mr. Obama likes to give speeches. And it still leaves plenty—articulating the need for and meaning of American primacy, for example—for 2011.

COMMENT:  Very well said, without rancor or insult.  Obama apparently believed that a few well chosen words from him could change the world.  But the world hasn't bought.  Words can have impact, but they have to be special words, like "We hold these truths to be self evident..."  This president hasn't come close to that magic.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

OH PLEASE – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Leave it to Dick Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to make mush of almost anything, and to define traditional, lax, go-along Republicanism.  It's hard to believe this one:

Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called President Barack Obama’s handling of recent terrorism threats “strong,” disputing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism.

“It’s unfair,” Lugar said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “I think the president is focused.”

Cheney, who frequently has led Republican attacks on the Democratic president since leaving office a year ago, told Politico on Dec. 29 that Obama “is trying to pretend we are not at war” with a “low-key response” to the Dec. 25 attempt to ignite a bomb aboard a flight to Detroit.

To the contrary, Obama has demonstrated “firmness” and “decisiveness,” Lugar, who represents Indiana, said. “That’s been the antidote to the criticism.”

Lugar, a perfectly honorable guy in other respects, is one of those senators who wants to appear the statesman, the international figure, the man above the masses.  But Cheney is right, and Lugar is wrong, and Lugar has diminished himself. 

Another one who's right is John McCain, who continues to distinguish himself on national-security issues, and has shown what the term "loyal opposition" is all about.  McCain nails Obama on terrorism, and does the truth-telling that Lugar refuses to do:

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that President Obama's tougher talk about fighting terrorism after the attempted Christmas airline bombing does not match his decision to try the bomber in civilian court.

"That person should be tried as an enemy combatant, he's a terrorist," Mr. McCain said. "And if we are at war, then we certainly should not be trying that individual in a court other than a military trial."

He said Mr. Obama should not allow terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, to get "lawyered up" for his day in court instead of handing him to intelligence officials to extract vital information.

"To have a person be able to get lawyered up when we need that information very badly, I think betrays or contradicts the president's view that we are at war," Mr. McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union."

And that is why John McCain should have been president.  Many of us were ridiculed for favoring McCain over the demigod Obama.  Considering Obama's record so far, we have nothing to be ashamed about.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

SCIENCE NEWS – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  We are a public service site, and wanted to alert you to this headline from London's Telegraph:

Earth 'to be wiped out' by supernova explosion

Please tell your friends.  And, by the way, there are good seats available through Ticketmaster.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

ROMNEY?  ROMNEY? – AT 7:42 A.M. ET:  I've been intrigued by the boomlet for Mitt Romney currently underway in the Republican Party.  It hasn't gotten much media attention, which may tell you more about the candidate than he'd like you to know.  But it's there.

A poll of Republican activists placed Romney right at the top for 2012 – the man most likely to get the GOP nomination for president.  Now, what does that say?  It says that Republicans are acting like Republicans again, with many of them perfectly prepared to nominate "the next guy in line."  In 1996, Bob Dole, one of the worst candidates in the history of democracy, stretching back to Athens, got the nod because he was next in line.  We forget that Ronald Reagan's candidacy in 1980 actually upset many establishment Republicans because he hadn't taken a ticket and wasn't standing in line.

So now Romney is the man of the hour, or minute.  Make that "second."  Now, I think Romney is a fine guy.  Decent record.  Nice family.  No apparent scandals.  In fact, he probably would make a perfectly acceptable president, and a substantial improvement over the student government head we have now.  The problem is getting there, and for Mitt Romney that's a huge problem.  He ran before.  His campaign excited two people, and he was one of them. 

The issue with Romney harks back to Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican standard bearer in 1944 and 1948.  In 1948 the Dewey campaign was dogged by a single line.  Dewey was a stiff-necked fellow with a thin mustache.  Observing this, one pundit called him "the man on the wedding cake."  He never lived it down.  When you look at Romney you feel he's a man who can be devastated by one line.  He is, first of all, too pretty to be president.  After a while he begins to look like a model from the Brooks Brothers sale catalogue.  If you bend him, he breaks.  I don't know what he can do to change that image, but maybe appearing in public with a hair out of place would help.  However, you just wait for that one "man on the wedding cake" line to define him, and you know that someone will come up with it, and that it will hurt...very badly.

The late broadcaster, David Brinkley, told the story of applying for a job to Arthur Krock, the distinguished columnist for The New York Times.  Krock's reply was that the writing sample that Brinkley had included with his application was good enough to keep the job, but not good enough to get it.  That is the barrier facing Mitt Romney.  He's good enough to be president, but not good enough to run for president.  And that is why Republicans should be careful, unless Romney improves dramatically, about once again picking the next guy in line.

January 11,  2010   Permalink