MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 21,  2009

ANOTHER BAD SIGNAL TO SEND - AT 9:26 P.M. ET:  As the president gets ready to go the UN and reach out and touch someone, there is news of still one more change in our national defense that could prove worrisome.  This is from the Guardian of Britain, a leftist paper, but the story seems credible:

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

All these points are cause for concern, but the third is particularly troubling.  We are the only nuclear power that has not modernized its arsenal.  Our nuclear warheads are from a past generation. 

The US nuclear posture review is aimed at clearing the path for a new round of deep US-Russian cuts to follow almost immediately after that treaty is ratified, to set lower limits not just on deployed missiles but also on the thousands of warheads both have in their stockpiles.

The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, in the hope that states without nuclear weapons will not side with Iran, as they did at the last review in 2005, but endorse stronger legal barriers to nuclear proliferation, and forego nuclear weapons programmes themselves.

COMMENT:  Look, every sane person worries about nuclear weapons.  Ronald Reagan was deeply concerned about the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.  But the idea of abolishing all weapons by treaty is absurd.  As long as the knowledge to build weapons exists, someone can cheat.  Are you really willing to trust the Russians to go down to zero?  The Chinese?  The Pakistanis?  The Iranians?

We can probably reduce the number of warheads safely, as long as we maintain a modern, strategic deterrent and strategic force.  But the president, while playing to the disarmament crowd, might want to play a bit to the national defense community and approve what our military experts have been urging for years - the building of a new, reliable generation of warheads to insure our security.  So far he hasn't, and that endangers America and tempts enemies.

Nonsense like "exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads" begs the point.  That has probably been done, without success.  Why not do what every other nuclear power has done, and modernize our arsenal? 

Once again we get the leftist approach to national defense, and I won't sleep easier tonight knowing that.

September 21, 2009   Permalink

DELICIOUS - AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  We mention Jimmah Carter here a great deal, but only because we have to.  The man is a genuine threat to civilization, although he does well by peanuts. 

Here is a message we recently received from an excellent source who, for reasons you will understand, wishes to remain anonymous.  Let's just say he had intimate familiarity with the Carter White House.  Enjoy:

Sometime during 1980 I was in NYC staying at the Sheraton Center.  Carter was making an appearance of some sort there, but I don't remember the occasion.  

One of the mess stewards told me that Carter and Rosalynn were having lunch when Chip (the son) showed up with his kids.  The kids were totally ignored and left out in a separate room.  The stewards pooled some cash and went to a deli for sandwiches for the children as Carter refused to let them in to join them for dinner.  
 
On a visit to London in 1978 or 79 the staff emptied out all the alcohol from the ambassador's residence where the president always stays.  Carter sent the military aide back to Air Force One to get a bottle of whisky, but didn't want anyone to know about it.  He was a drinker, but tried to hide it.  Everyone knew he drank, but it didn't fit the Sunday school teacher persona.  
 
His senior staff set the bar for being jerks.  Some of the traveling staff were good people, but they were in the minority.  Luckily I was only there for just over a year under the Carter administration.

COMMENT:  There's more where this comes from.  I guarantee it. 

September 21, 2009    Permalink

AN ADMISSION - AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  It isn't often that the mainstream liberal press admits a mistake, so we acknowledge an excellent critique by Washington Post ombudsman (or is it ombudsperson, or ombudshuman), as reported by NewsMax:

Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander acknowledges that his newspaper doesn’t give enough credit to conservative media.

“Fox News, joined by right-leaning talk radio and bloggers, often hypes stories to apocalyptic proportions while casting competitors as too liberal or too lazy to report the truth,” he wrote in the paper Sunday.

“But they're also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN and, before it, the Fox-fueled controversy that led to the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.”

Alexander points out that “Jones had issued two public apologies before The Post finally wrote about him. … Conservatives had attacked Jones for more than a week before the first Post story appeared Sept. 5. He resigned the next day.”

The Post also was slow on the ACRON scandal, Alexander admits. “The Post wrote about it two days after the first of several explosive hidden-camera videos were aired showing the group's employees giving tax advice to young conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp.

“Three days passed before The Post ran a short Associated Press story about the Senate halting Housing and Urban Development grants to ACORN. … But by that time, the Census Bureau had severed ties with ACORN. State and city investigations had been launched. It wasn't until late in the week that The Post weighed in with two solid pieces.”

COMMENT:  The Post has been, in recent years, one of the more thoughtful liberal papers, and its editorial page is fiercely independent.  Unlike The New York Times, which follows the liberal line wherever it leads, the Post will sometimes differ.  More power to the editors.

Will critiques like this improve things?  At the Post, a guarded maybe.  Elsewhere?  I don't think so.  The ideological problems in journalism may well be generational, requiring a new generation of writers who are not stuck in the culture wars of the 1960s.  Success is not guaranteed.

September 21,  2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 5:18 A.M. ET:  From British columnist Michele Hanson, on why Vera Lynn, singing sweetheart of the British forces in World War II, is topping the charts again at age 92:

“Lovely tunes have been out of favor for some time,” the columnist Michele Hanson wrote in The Guardian. “It’s been all screeching, thumping, rapping, crashing rage and multi-decibels, but not much melody and modulation, so perhaps we need a bit of a change.”

COMMENT:  I've been writing about the decline of popular culture at our Angel's Corner.  Michele Hanson is right.  It's time for a change - back to quality.

The exciting prospect here is that kids will hear those wonderful, beautifully written songs, with real melodies and well-crafted lyrics, and love them.  If their minds haven't been toasted already, they will.  And maybe enough of them will demand more of the same. 

September 21, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER MISUNDERSTOOD CLERIC, NO DOUBT - AT 5:14 P.M. ET:  From AP:

A New York City imam accused of lying to officials investigating a terrorism plot has been ordered held without bail.

Ahmad Afzali smiled and waved at relatives as deputy marshals led him out of federal court Monday in Brooklyn.

They always smile and wave.  It's their way of saying, "We didn't get you this time, but wait." 

His attorney, Ron Kuby, says he’ll seek bail for the 37-year-old Afzali on Thursday.

Oh, sigh.  I thought Ron had outgrown this kind of thing.  He is a former law partner of the late Marxist lawyer William Kuntsler.  (Amazing how the reds are drawn to Islamic fundamentalists.)  He recently has done TV, and a lot of radio for the local ABC station.  Apparently, with no air work, he's back on the radical-lawyer beat.

Afzali is an imam at a mosque in Queens. He was arrested Saturday in New York and charged with making false statements to the government.

The former NYPD informant was accused of lying to authorities about tipping off Najibullah Zazi about a terrorism investigation. Permalink

Sounds like a heck of a guy.  I'd want him in my neighborhood.  Wouldn't you?

COMMENT:  This is turning into an extensive investigation, focused in New York and Colorado.  Police have reportedly found backpacks and chemicals, consistent with a "Madrid-type" terror plot. 

We await - and it surely will come - some liberal pundit's explanation of the "root cause" of this plot - resentment toward America, the Bill of Rights, Ben Franklin and Don Rickles.

September 21, 2009   Permalink 

THE REAL ANGER - AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  Frank Luntz, whom you've seen with his focus groups on Fox News, strikes back against those who say the anger with Obama is based on racism, a charge made by marginal former President Jimmy Carter.  From the New York Daily News:

Obama's popularity hasn't tumbled because he's black. It's tumbled because he has come to represent Washington instead of those who sent him there...

...The real reason why 72% of the people I interviewed say that they're "mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore" has nothing to do with racism. No, their rage is about a lack of accountability, a lack of respect, and a lack of progress in the nation's capital.

And...

It's not racial hatred you're hearing. It's political and economic outrage.

There's a reason why, according to the book survey, only 33% of Americans think their kids will have a better quality of life than they have. The country is demanding economic progress, yet all it sees is political paralysis and a government mired in sloth, avarice and bureaucratic meddling.

But Carter did unintentionally raise a point that deserves a full and candid discussion. When will it be possible in America to criticize Barack Obama and not be accused of racism? We cannot pat ourselves on the back for electing an African-American leader so enthusiastically and then simultaneously vilify his detractors by blaming their opposition to his policies on racial bias.

Finally...

Our political leaders in Washington are still that - leaders. Ever more in the era of TMZ and Twitter, we the people seek in our elected representatives role models of conduct and of rhetoric. But more than that, we should jealously protect our American right to disagree, to criticize, and even to condemn.

At least for me, that's what democracy is all about. President Carter says he hears too many white southerners condemning Obama because of his race. Maybe he should get his hearing checked.

COMMENT:  Luntz makes good sense.  Look, there is some racism out there.  But there's also sectionalism, sexism, and all the other isms that you find wrapped up neatly in the standard college orientation lecture.  However, what we've seen in recent months isn't racism.  It's outrage, as Luntz says.  There's a feeling that the change we're getting isn't the change we wanted, and that Obama deceived us by running as a centrist, when in fact he governs from the left.

The only one who can quell the outrage is Barack Obama.  So far, he seems willing to live with it in order to push his outsized agenda.  He may turn out to be a one-term president, although I doubt if he thinks that's possible.

September 21, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER OBAMA INTERNATIONAL VICTORY, NOT - AT 8:54 A.M. ET:  Oh dear, oh dear, the impossible Ruskies are not following the script.

When President Obama cancelled the missile shield President Bush had promised to Poland and the Czech Republic, it was expected that there would be a "gesture" from Russia, showing appreciation, as Russia had vehemently opposed the shield. 

And there was.  A Russian official grandly announced that it would not deploy Iskander offensive missiles near Poland, which it had threatened to do, because of the American decision. 

Not so fast, Ivan.

Now Russia's highest ranking military officer is hedging.  Who's afraid of the big bad Obama?  From the Jerusalem Post:

Russia's top general said Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland have not been shelved, contradicting a comment made by a government official last week after the United States's announcement that it was scrapping a plan to place missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

US President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a land-based missile defense system was received positively by Russia, which is sensitive to US moves it sees as upsetting the post-Cold War balance of power, especially in countries formerly belonging to the Soviet bloc. Moscow even threatened to place Iskander short-range offensive missiles in Poland if the US would have proceeded with its plan.

On Saturday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said in an interview that "naturally we will scrap the measures that Russia planned to take" in response to the US shield, specifically mentioning the deployment of Iskanders as one of the measures Russia was planning.

The chief of Russia's general staff, Nikolai Makarov, has other ideas:

"They (the Americans) have not given up the anti-missile shield; they have replaced it with a sea-based component," Makarov told reporters on a plane from Moscow to Zurich.

COMMENT:  Obama certainly gets results, doesn't he?  What is remarkable is the offhand manner in which the United States has been treated since he took office.  It is critical for the leader of a great power to be both respected and feared.  We get the feeling that Obama doesn't make it in either category.  Look at the casual manner with which Russia regards a decision in which the United States has more than a passing interest.

Obama has not produced progress in foreign policy.  There may be cheers around the world for his style, but nations will not change their objectives simply because their teenagers wear Obama t-shirts.

The president does the UN this week.  Excited?

September 21, 2009   Permalink

A REVOLT BREWING? - AT 8:28 A.M. ET: There have been a number of revolts by military officers in American history - but never, never a coup. 

Officers have sometimes revolted against their own service, as Billy Mitchell did in the 1920s, resulting in his court-martial.  But more often the revolt is against decisions made at the civilian level.  There was the "revolt of the admirals" in the late 1940s, directed at Pentagon officials who wanted to emasculate the Navy and, especially, its carrier forces.  And, of course, there was the famous, or infamous, revolt by Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, in which he became insubordinate, and was shown the barracks door by President Harry S. Truman.  The public initially cheered Mac, but eventually sided with Harry.

Now there's this - the strategic leak of a memo, described in this morning's Washington Post by reporter-deity Bob Woodward:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

"Obtained"?  That's a mild word for a major leak.  This comes one day after Chief Strategic Thinker Barack Obama announced that he had doubts that more troops would do the job in Afghanistan.  This is the military reply, reported by Washington's most famous investigative journalist.  Oh, this is juicy.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

COMMENT:  You may be absolutely sure that White House bigs are livid over this.  They may well start to turn the Pentagon upside down trying to find out who leaked the document.  I wouldn't be shocked if it were someone at or near the top, and that it's a challenge to Obama himself, to his indecisive leadership.

This story is developing.  Read all of Woodward's report. 

The president goes to the UN this week.  This report will be read there.  The eyes are on Obama, and what appears to be a budding confrontation with Gen. McChrystal.

September 21, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA'S STRANGE POLITICAL STEW - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  The White House has intervened in elections in two states.  It is probably a coincidence, but both have African-American governors.

In Massachusetts, the president has spoken with his friend, Gov. Deval Patrick, about changing the law so Patrick can appoint an interim senator to replace Ted Kennedy, assuring Obama of a needed Senate vote on the health-care issue. 

And here in New York, Obama's emissaries have not-very-gently suggested to Gov. David Paterson, an African-American, that he not run for a full term, citing his profound unpopularity.  Paterson succeeded resigned Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who got outed while honoring, with substantial dollars, the world's oldest profession.  Paterson can do nothing right. 

Now Paterson is showing his defiance. 

Gov. David A. Paterson insisted on Sunday that he would continue his campaign for governor, despite urgings from the White House that he step aside for the good of the Democratic Party.

At a parade in Harlem, the governor refused to discuss his conversations with President Obama’s political team, which has made clear to Mr. Paterson in recent days that it has lost confidence in him and does not believe he can be elected next fall.

Paterson is taking a cue from foreign leaders, who realize that Obama is all hat and no cattle.  Defy him, and he sends you a birthday card.  Oh, Paterson's birthday is May 20th, so there's time.

If Paterson defies Obama, without consequence, it will just reinforce Obama's reputation for weakness.

What's odd is that one state where Obama has refused to intervene is his own home state of Illinois - well, his home state after Kansas, Hawaii, Indonesia, and maybe some other places.  When it came time to fill the Senate seat he vacated when he became president, Obama said nothing, allowing the seat to go the renowned Roland Burris, who has not yet been labeled Roland the Great.  I guess Obama knew he'd be ignored.  It's an axiom in Illinois politics that presidents don't count.  County clerks count. 

We wait for Obama's next foray into state electoral matters.  Maybe he could drop a hint to Barbara Boxer that she could have an exciting future as a school crossing guard.  Wonderful benefits.  The kids bring cookies.

September 21,  2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 20,  2009

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? - AT 10:39 P.M. ET:  It's perfectly fine for a president to look at any advice with skepticism, even military advice, but I get an uneasy feeling when I read this, from The Politico:

President Barack Obama is warning U.S. commanders that he’s “skeptical” about whether more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, saying he’ll approve an upcoming request only if the forces fit into a strategy to beat back al-Qaida and protect the United States.

“Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there — beyond what we already have,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way – you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration.”

U.S. generals are preparing to seek as many as tens of thousands additional troops for the increasingly unpopular conflict, but in several of his five Sunday talk show interviews, Obama made clear that he’s far from convinced about the need for a massive infusion of troops and won’t be rushed on the decision.

COMMENT:  I wish the president had been as skeptical about ACORN, or hiring Van Jones, or sending hundreds of billions in stimulus money down the drain, or...

And since we're at war in Afghanistan, don't you think, Mr. President, that you should have addressed our strategy as the first item of business, not something looked at eight full months later?  Is this a priority, or not?

This looks like another sop to the hard left of the Democratic Party, which opposes sending any more troops to Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter.  There may well be fully legitimate reasons to question troop numbers.  But why do I think the president's statement is political, rather than military? 

Is he about to pull the plug on Afghanistan, and blame BUSH (!!)?  He's gotten away with abusing Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras, South Korea, Israel, Britain, even Canada.  Maybe he thinks he's on a roll that even Neville Chamberlain would envy.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

WHAA? - AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  As they say, you cannot make this up.  From The Hill:

The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

COMMENT:  You'd think someone would have enough common sense to whisper in the president's ear, "Uh, sir, maybe it's not a good idea for the government to bail out news organizations that cover the government.  You know, looks funny."

Except to this administration.  Hey, own a car company, own a newspaper.  What's the difference? 

It's understandable that the two Maryland senators would sponsor the "Newspaper Revitalization Act."  A good chunk of the Washington press corps lives in the Maryland suburbs around the capital.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

DISGRACEFUL - AT 6:59 P.M. ET:  Will Jimmy Carter ever shut up?  The man has no self-respect, no dignity, and no understanding of the office he held.  Here is his latest stroking of his own ego, as reported by AFP: 

The United States knew about an abortive coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002, and may even have taken part, former US president Jimmy Carter has told a Colombian newspaper.

"I think there is no doubt that in 2002, the United States had at the very least full knowledge about the coup, and could even have been directly involved," Carter said in an interview with El Tiempo published Sunday.

The former US leader said it is understandable that Chavez continues to blame the United States for the failed overthrow attempt.

The Venezuelan president, considered a bulwark of leftism in Latin America, was overthrown by a civilian-military junta for about 48 hours in April 2002, before returning to power.

Then-president George W. Bush denied any US involvement in the abortive coup and called on Chavez, a fierce US critic, to "learn a lesson" from the attempted overthrow.

COMMENT:  I have no idea whether the U.S. knew about the coup, but it is completely improper for a former president to speculate about it.  It does damage to the country that he may or may not consider his own, and aids the growing power of left-wing thugs in Latin America.

I have never seen or known of a president who is so in love with America's enemies.  I'm not a psychiatrist and make no claim to expertise in mental health, but I suspect there's something seriously wrong with this man.

By the way, reader Tom Wharton refers us to an excellent, devasting piece on Jimmy Carter, by Christopher Hitchens, published at Slate in 2007.  It's here.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

THE TERROR PROBE - AT 11:37 A.M. ET:  There is an ongoing terror probe that is turning out to be more serious than originally believed:

AURORA, Colorado (CNN) -- Federal agents have charged a 24-year-old Colorado resident, his father and another man with making false statements during an extensive terror investigation that stretches to Pakistan.

Najibullah Zazi is accused of making false statements to officials about an alleged bomb plot in the United States.

The Justice Department said Sunday it is investigating several other people in connection with the plot to detonate bombs in the United States.

Najibullah Zazi and his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi -- both originally from Afghanistan -- were arrested Saturday night. They were handcuffed without incident after authorities raided Zazi's home in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

An acquaintance of the two men, Ahmad Wais Afzali, of Queens, New York, was also arrested. Afzali is a legal permanent resident from Afghanistan, as is Najibullah Zazi. Mohammed Wali Zazi is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

COMMENT:  The Bush administration would have made much more of this, stressing the urgency of terror investigations.  Law enforcement may well have prevented a major attack here, one that apparently was aimed at targets in New York, including the fashion industry.

It appears from news reports that the terror group involved had only conventional weapons.  The nightmare, of course, involves the possibility that groups in the future will have weapons of mass destruction, or at least "dirty" nuclear devices capable of irradiating blocks of a large city.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

VULGAR - AT 10:31 A.M. ET:  The great philosopher and intellectual leader, Jerry Lewis, once said it best:  "Bad looks you can change, stupid is forever."

To demonstrate the truth of Prof. Lewis's observation, we have one Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, which should have gotte3n him banned from public life, and rumored adviser to some in the Obama camp.  From The Weekly Standard:

In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don't read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites -- the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:

DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.

So conjure the image -- the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran's airspace and it's nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America's closest allies.

COMMENT:  The tragedy, as Weekly Standard points out, is that this scenario might have some support on the left and among self-proclaimed "realists."  And, given Obama's treatment of allies like Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic and Honduras since taking office, the scenario might not be far-fetched.

How far down we seem to be going.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

NO BAMA BOUNCE - AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  Poll results continue to show that the bounce President Obama got after his health-care speech to Congress has flattened out.  Today's Rasmussen presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve of the president and those who strongly disapprove, stands at minus nine, 31%-40%, the worst performance for the president we've seen since September 8th.

The president's overall approval still hovers at the halfway mark, standing today at 49%, but that's a weak figure as it includes those who only marginally approve.  Another blow to this president can put him in serious political danger, just as we enter the 2010 midterms, the results of which will be critical to his presidency.

September 20, 2009   Permalink

THE ROMNEY ATTACK - AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Having Barack Obama in the White House seems to have brought Mitt Romney alive.  He gives every sign that he'll run in 2012, and his performance at the Values Voter Summit yesterday was strong:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reflects conservatives' growing confidence when he taunts Democrats, saying "I'll bet you never dreamed you'd look back at Jimmy Carter as the good old days."

Republicans at the Values Voter Summit Saturday talked of a growing political rebellion in the country, even as they acknowledged Democrats currently have the upper hand.

Romney recalled the euphoria among Democrats at the time President Barack Obama was elected.

"A year ago, there were quite a few people who were ready to write off this movement. They were enthralled by Barack Obama's promise of near-Biblical transformations," Romney said in comments prepared for Saturday's meeting. "Well, he can still spin a speech, but he can't spin his record."

COMMENT:  That's just fine, but, as we've said here before, Republicans must come up with an attractive alternative.  Never underestimate the political abilities of this White House and this president. 

September 20,  2009   Permalink