Saturday, May 16, 2009

It never ends...

I swear, if a Democrat isn't lying (and no, it's not Pelosi this time), he's being dispicable.

h/t BigDog

I really really hope nothing ever happens to Obama

The Vice President no longer has a "undisclosed" secure location. Biden, genius that he is, was making fun of it at a dinner recently and spilled the beans.

Just as well, if something awful happens, we just go to the next in line of succession, which would be........oh God, nevermind.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Big problems

You can forget about Social Security or Medicare.

The National Debt Road Trip. (Everyone should watch this) via NRO

God help us all.

President Palin's first 100 days

Oh, you know it would be JUST like this too.

We will never be silent

This weekend is the big weekend where Pres. Obama is the commencement speaker at Notre Dame and receives an honorary degree.

It is a disgrace on Notre Dame, of course. Obama's total disregard of the sanctity of human life at it's earliest stages and beyond and his promotion and votes that advocate the destruction of unborn children should be shunned, not honored at any Catholic institution.

But the sad truth is that so many Catholics only call themselves themselves Catholic. They don't adhere to, or even really believe (or in many cases, even know) the teachings of our faith.
So, to be honest, I didn't expect ANY controversy over Pres. Obama speaking at Notre Dame. I think Obama charmed those 'in name only' Catholics during the election and they justify their vote and their support of him and ignore their faith while doing it.

So when there actually was controversy, I was shocked and pleased. The notion that many graduates are skipping their own graduation to make it clear that they do not approve of a pro-abortion President being honored, makes me feel that there still are young people who care about their faith. When 68 American Bishops oppose publicly Obama speaking at Notre Dame, it fills my heart with hope. There was at time when I didn't have much faith in American Bishops to ever say or do the right thing, so now that they are, I have great hope for my Church in the United States. More than 353,000 people have signed a petition against Obama speaking and being honored.

But the most telling and brave sign of protest is Mary Ann Glendon, The most accomplished Catholic laywoman in America, declining the Laetare Medal and not speaking at the graduation. Glendon is the former the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and now a Harvard professor.
She wrote to the Pres. of Notre Dame of her decision after she realized that he was using her in his"talking points" saying that she would be speaking as well, as to counteract that a pro-abortionist President would be speaking. She wrote in part about Pres. Obama's invitation:

"This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The Bishops made it quite clear that no honors should be given to those who act "in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." Pres. Obama has acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principal that all life, including the unborn, is sacred and should be treated as such. One can agree or disagree with that, but that was the Bishops statement and request, and the President of Notre Dame clearly ignored it.

Make no mistake about it, Pres. Obama will speak this weekend. I knew that any one who had so little respect for Catholic teaching that he would invite Pres. Obama to begin with, would never rescind the invitation. But the fact that so many devout Catholics, including the students and these Bishops, have stood up for our faith and stood their ground, fills me with hope for the future.
People like Father Jenkins may be a sell out, we devout Catholics are used to them by now, but there are still brave Bishops and women like Mary Ann Glendon, willing to take a stand for the most vulnerable of our society, the ones who cannot speak for themselves....... the unborn.
It's a good day when that happens, no matter when or where Pres. Obama speaks. No matter what a smooth talker someone may be, or how much they charm us, we know now that there will never be silence in the face of the horror that is abortion. We will never be still.

Every once in a while, you get some good news

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Read about the poll (with graphs) here.

It's a big mountain we climb, but one day, we will get there. One day we will respect each and every human life.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

What a shock....

The Weekly Standard:

The Obama administration has turned down former Vice President Dick Cheney’s request for the declassification of two CIA reports on the effectiveness of the Agency’s detainee program, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. A letter dated May 7, 2009, from the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, Delores M. Nelson, rejected Cheney’s request because the documents he has requested are involved in a Freedom of Information Act court battle.

I don't know about you, but I am just loving this whole "transparency" thing with this administration.

Heaven forbid that the American public see memos that prove American lives were saved by enhanced interrogation techniques. All they need to know is that these techniques were used. Now move along please.

According to this piece, Obama does indeed have the power to release them.

On April 23rd:

Holder said he had not seen the documents. But added: “It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek or not to release certain things in a way that is not consistent with other things. It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to hide things from the American people.”

But you see, he hadn't seen them yet.

More transparency:

In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues sent to explain the release of the OLC memos, Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, wrote: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” But when Blair’s office released parts of his letter as a public statement on the subject, that sentence was cut. Blair also noted that members of Congress had been briefed on the methods, but that section was also cut from the public statement.

Cut? Really? You have got to be kidding me.

Remember my friends, it's a shell game.

Growing Up

Over at First Read:

Should the Obama administration release photos showing detainee abuse? The earlier answer was yes, but the White House yesterday reversed course, arguing that the photos could “inflame anti-American opinion.” The decision angered liberals and human-rights groups, while it pleased Republicans and conservatives.

Today’s Wall Street Journal writes. “The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” More from the paper: “The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.”

It is the same with the wireless wiretapping that the left bashed Pres. Bush so much about. Yet Obama defended it and kept it.

Pres. Obama reminds me of the young son who thinks his father is an idiot. Then the son becomes a father himself, and realizes how wise his father had been.

Pres. Obama finds himself President. Not running for President, but actually being the President. What he is discovering is that Pres. Bush was right in this fight, and he himself had been naive.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

"Pakistan seeks 'ownership' of U.S. Drones"

Say what?

"Democracy doesn't believe in half measures. We've asked for the ownership of the drones," he said, when asked about reports that the US has agreed to pass control of drone aircraft to Islamabad.

Speaking in London after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr Zardari said Islamabad was "negotiating terms" with the US over the drones, which have long been a source of tension between Washington and Islamabad.

Stewart ACTUALLY calls out Pelosi

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Waffle House
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisPolitical Humor

Pretty funny. When he does a mish/mash like this on Obama, call me. Unfortunately, the kids I was watching this with turn to me and ask, "Is she is Democrat or a Republican?" Yeah. That's the world we live in. The youth get their news from Jon Stewart.

The Con Game

When Pres. Obama joked that everyone in the room at the Correspondent's dinner had voted for him, we all know it wasn't really a joke. They knew it and he knew it.

What we are seeing with the press now is the complete and polar opposite of the press with Pres. Bush. Bush couldn't make one decision that wasn't excoriated by the press. We on the right had plenty of problems with Bush, but the relentless bashing and smearing that this President endured was beyond the pale, and many of us didn't want to add to it. We expressed our anger when Bush spent too much. We expressed our anger at expanding govt programs. But all of that was swept away in the molten hate of the press on a day to day basis.

Now, the opposite is true. This President has quadrupled the national debt to numbers that are literally not describable to the public. $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 and the public can't comprehend the number, so the press ignores it. Budget Director Peter Orszag said this year’s deficit will be $1.841 trillion — $89 billion more than previously estimated. *Yawn* says the press. But when Obama proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, the press went wild with it. On and on. All the public heard was "budget cuts." Now, we know that his budget director says that the deficit will actually go up by $89 billion. So much for "cuts." *Yawn* again with the press. Add this to the fact that we shed another 539,000 jobs in April, after already losing 2 million jobs since Obama took office, and the unemployment rate going up to 8.9 percent, the highest in 26 years, and you have a pretty bleak picture. Yet, the wildly out of control spending of this President continues. But the press loves him. They hope with the hope of a child, that he will come through for them, and be the liberal of their dreams.

This is like the con man on the corner in Manhattan with the shell game. The public will never win this one. The con man is too slick, to charming, too good at the con. We will lose our money ever single time. The problem is the "police" are on his side here. No one will tell him to take his little con game and go home. The game will continue until we have lost every penny we have.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Making America Look Bad

Liz Cheney (Dick Cheney's daughter) wonders why this administration only seems to want to release things that puts America in a bad light. I wonder as well:

"I have heard from families of sevicemembers, from families of 9/11 victims, this question about, you know, 'When did it become so fashionable for us to side, really, with the terrorists?'" Ms. Cheney said on Fox News Channel. "You know, for us to put information out that hurts American soldiers?"Cheney said Obama administration officials "seem only to be interested in releasing things that really paint America in a negative light, and don't give the American people a full picture of what went on."Last month, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

"I think that it is really appalling that the administration is taking this step," Liz Cheney said today. "Clearly, you know, they're releasing images that really show American military men and women in a very negative light. And President Obama has a lot of sort of rhetoric about support for our military families and support for our men and women who are fighting overseas but, you know, if he really cares about them he wouldn't be making such an effort to release photos that show them in a negative light."White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was today asked about a letter from Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Ind., and Lindsey Graham, R-SC, asking him to reverse the decision, saying the "release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now been clearly prohibited can serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform."

Releasing the photos serve no purpose. Americans are fully aware of when we have failed. We have punished those responsible. It really boggles the mind why Obama seems determined to constantly degrade America and apologize for us.

Thank God the Cheney's are willing to take this admininstration to task.

*Update! Well, well. We have to give credit where credit is due. Obama is reversing himself and trying to keep the photos from being released, believing "that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court." Fox News reported that commanders on the ground in Iraq had been meeting with Iraqi officials trying soften the damage that would have occurred with the release of the photos. Given that, and meeting with Commander General Ray Odierno probably convinced Obama to do the right thing. Don't think the blunt words from Liz Cheney didn't have an effect either.

Miss. California

Carrie Prejean smacked down her critics really well today in the press conference with Donald Trump. No matter how you feel about pageants or bathing suit pictures or racy pictures, it is clear that Carrie was targeted for attack because of her conservative views on marriage. This was always about a free speech issue. The "tolerant" left is never tolerant about views they disagree with.

Anyway, I haven't blogged on it because everything that could be said was being said. But one interview you might not hear otherwise, is the one she had with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on The Family radio. There she gives her "faith" answer to all that went on. It's very interesting. Her experience with how God answers our prayers is very similar to things that have happened to me and, if you are a believer, to you too. Carrie isn't perfect, wasn't perfect. We are all flawed. But free speech should never be denied because of people's past or their beliefs now. No matter what we have done, God meets us where we are.

Go here. Click under "Most Popular" on "Carrie Prejean Standing Strong" Part 1 and 2.

Iowahawk is hilarious

Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked
beauty pageant winner denies implantsBreaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked
beauty pageant winner denies implants

Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked

Outspoken beauty pageant winner denies implants
If you aren't reading iowahawk, you should be.

Cheney's Warning

Richard Cohen has an article in the WaPo titled "What if Cheney's Right?" It is mainly focused on whether Cheney (which Cohen is NOT a fan of) is right that enhanced interrogations or "torture" worked and saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of American lives. I suppose we won't know for sure until the Obama administration releases the memos that Cheney wishes them too, and they show no indication that they will do that. Which pretty much says to me that the memos DO say American lives were saved.

But Cohen's article got me to thinking about other things that Cheney may be right about and that the media seem to be glossing over.

This man was our Vice President and according to the media, he wielded a great deal of power. Yet when he goes on national TV saying that Pres. Obama has made the country more vulnerable, no one blinks an eye. Remember, this man is never going to run for President. He has no political reason for sounding an alarm. Critics have said he is hurting the GOP image, but what if keeping the American people safe is more important than "image" to him?

"If I don't speak out, then where do we find ourselves? ... Then the critics have free run, and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth," Cheney said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Agree or disagree with how Bush handled keeping our country safe after 9-11, but you can't argue against the fact that he did indeed keep us safe.

Cheney told CNN's John King how:

I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11," Cheney insisted. "I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.""President Obama campaigned against it all across the country." Cheney continued. "And now he is making some choices that in my mind will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

One can dismiss Cheney all they wish, but what if he is right? If we are attacked again Cheney will always be able to say that he warned us. That he warned the Obama administration.

Monday, May 11, 2009

"The rich are not human, they are animals in human form."

via boing boing

In this video clip, which is making the viral rounds in the Spanish-speaking online world, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez says "The rich are not human, they are animals in human form." A Boing Boing reader who lives in Venezuela says,

"I decided to leave Venezuela soon, if I can, when I saw this. Dehumanizing a group of people is certainly in the manual to start genocide and living in a country where officially a portion of the population are not human by decree is against my ideals. I can live with crime, bad public health and even scarcity, but to live with this crap is not acceptable, even with all the basic needs covered. Yes, I might be too sensitive, but I cannot forget all those other times and places where dehumanizing has brought woes."

Just a lil reminder:


Bob Beckel gets something right.

Most of the time I can barely stand to listen or look at Bob Beckel, the Fox News Democrat pundit and Obama cheerleader. He reminds me of the creepy Uncle everyone avoids at Thanksgiving. But I just heard him on the Sean Hannity radio show slamming comedian Wanda Sykes for her remarks over Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. You have probably heard about her calling Limbaugh the 20th hijacker, but he missed his flight because of his Oxycontin addiction. The White House has done the usual back tracking on her remarks, although Obama clearly thought it hilarious.

But Beckel was disgusted with it. I was pleasantly surprised. It's always nice when a Democratic pundit shows a glimpse of integrity.

Beckel is a recovering alcoholic . He blasted Wanda and all the liberals who constantly make fun of Rush's addiction to a prescription medicine. He said there are 15 million Americans struggling with addiction every day in this country and this is a slap in the face of all of them. He said Rush should be admired for overcoming his addiction and staying clean. Beckel says every day is difficult for an addicted person recovering and we should be praising them instead of smearing them.

For once, Beckel was right on target.

Sen Arlen Specter

ah.. I see the Democrats are enjoying him as much as we did. Which is to say, he makes them want to puke as well:

Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), himself a two-time cancer survivor, put up a fundraising web site, Specter for the Cure. Admirable, right? Is it really?

'Specter For The Cure' Cancer Website, Really Political Fundraising Tool

By Brian Beutler - May 8, 2009, 9:12AM

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)--two time survivor of Hodgkins disease--is no stranger to cancer, cancer awareness, and cancer research funding. But he's using his hard earned credibility as a national spokesperson on the issue to fight the disease in a roundabout way.

He's touting--and raising money from--a website called, which he describes as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.

The web site has since been changed to clarify the fact that any money you give through it goes to the Specter campaign, not to cancer research. The modification was made in the last few days, after its purely political purpose was revealed. In my opinion, that gesture is too little, too late, and does not absolve Specter in the least of the original sleazy trick.

Get this man out of the Democratic Party. We do not need the likes of him. Primary his ass out of there before the 2010 elections.

Nah. You can keep him. We never wanted him to begin with. He fits better with Democrats obviously. All that 'say one thing, do another' stuff. Misrepresenting himself. He's perfect for you guys.

9-11 Families were "had" by Obama

The article is written by Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.

With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

Read the whole thing.

The way Obama handled these families illustrates exactly how he handles the American people in general. He says the right things, he comes across as caring and helpful. But in the end, he does as he wishes with no respect to his words, and we all suffer.

Ms. Burlingame says it clearly:

Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

Americans should be ashamed that so many of us are all falling for this snake oil salesman.

"Dear Wingnut, why are Republicans afraid of science?"

Another ridiculous question brought to you by liberals. has this new column called "Dear Wingnut" that answers real questions by liberals. The author is a "former Bush official who chooses to remain anonymous." He does a great job answering the questions. Especially this one:

To me, the question is almost laughable on its face. Conservatives are pro-science and, as a general rule, pro-cost-benefit analysis and pro-thinking. It is conservatives who believed, as we now know to be true, that you can "shoot down a bullet with a bullet" and who believed a workable defense against ballistic missile attack was possible. And who utilized science and engineering and underwrote billions in research and development to prove it could be done and put in place a system that, while not perfect, is a significant improvement over the "throw up our hands because there is nothing we can do" approach it replaced.

As president, George W. Bush put a scientist in charge of the Energy Department and created the position of U.S. undersecretary of science; proposed an Advanced Energy Initiative that called for a quantum increase in funding available for research into and development of new, cutting-edge technologies to lead America to more abundant and stable energy supplies; and proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative to, in the words of former Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, "fortify America's leadership in science through additional research funding in the physical sciences and by strengthening math and science education."

House Republicans, under Speaker Newt Gingrich, proposed doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health and dramatically increased federal financial support for the fight against diabetes. And it was Bush who tried to put a risk-averse NASA back into the business of space exploration by proposing a return to the moon and manned flight to Mars.


To set the record straight, George W. Bush was the first president to propose federal funding for stem cell research. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said in August of 2004, "President Bush provided -- for the first time -- federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The president's unprecedented decision allows for federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines that were derived before Aug. 9, 2001, with no limits on private funding of research."

Not exactly an anti-science position, is it?

To the extent that limitations were placed on federal funding, it was because of the ethics involved, not the science. Acting on the recommendation of a blue-ribbon commission that looked at the issue for some time, the president decided it would be unethical -- in the moral sense, not the legal one -- to act as those who believe embryonic stem cell research holds the cure to everything that ails us would have had him do.

I noticed this particular question because I have actually been asked or had similar comments made by liberals over at my Houston Chron blog. I don't think a day goes by that I am not amazed at the ridiculous assumptions liberals have about conservatives.

Sunday, May 10, 2009


A mishmash of important articles with no particular theme.

Welfare mom complains of being denied entry into Canada.

I LOL'd. Got news for you, lady. Canada is a foreign nation and they don't have to let anyone in. And yes, they can be arbitrary about it.

I watched John Stossell's 20/20 special friday. While I agreed with his conclusions in most of his segments, the one that I think should be uncontroversial is that of 'irradiated food'. Like so many issues from Global Warming to nuclear power to vaccination, there is a segment of the population who are irrational about irradiated food. 5000 people a year die of food poisoning and many millions get sick. Its not funny that a few nuts imagine non-existant problems with perfectly safe tech and prevent progress.

Meanwhile I am going to order some Omaha Steaks, because they irratdiate their food and its really good stuff.

What Progressives Want

"Progressives divide the world into victims and exploiters, and see themselves as saviors of the underdogs who are incapable of fending for themselves. And that requires greater government power in their hands, to vanquish the exploiters. This perspective explains much of what President Obama is doing with the vast powers at his disposal.

This administration has big business in its sights. While there are a couple of corporations like G.E. who are court favorites because they do the Progressives' bidding...the current government's attitude toward commerce is that they exploit the masses as labor or consumer, are run by fat-cats who don't pay their "fair share", and should be regulated by the government which is working in "the best interests of the People".

Only one thing matters to the Progressives-in the Oval Office and in Congress-and that is growing the central government and its power.


Progressives offer all sorts of explanations for their bizarre, inefficient, ineffective, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and demonstrably failed theories and policies. But that's just their puppet show; their circuses for public consumption.

There is one goal, and one goal only for Progressives...Government growth and its intrusion into every aspect of our lives. When you understand that, all their apparently idiotic policies make perfect sense

The CIA's Fight with Obama

There may have been a simpler motive. The novelist Charles McCarry was a deep cover CIA operative for ten years. "I never met a stupid person in the agency," he said in a 2004 interview. "Or an assassin. Or a Republican."

The CIA's war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it's personal.

Many are furious about his disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.

Simpler motives are usually right.

Show Some Backbone

I seldom agree with Fred Barnes on an issue 100%, but this is one of those times.

Many Republicans recoil from being combative adversaries of a popular president. They shouldn't. Opposing Obama across-the-board on his sweeping domestic initiatives makes sense on substance and politics. His policies--on spending, taxes, health care, energy, intervention in the economy, etc.--would change the country in ways most Americans don't believe in. That's the substance. And a year or 18 months from now, after those policies have been picked apart and exposed and possibly defeated, the political momentum is likely to have shifted away from Obama and Democrats.

This scenario has occurred time and again. Why do you think Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006 and bolstered their majorities in 2008? It wasn't because they were more thoughtful, offered compelling alternatives, or had improved their brand. They won because they opposed unpopular policies of President Bush and exploited Republican scandals in Congress. They were highly partisan and not very nice about it.

If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.

Emphasis mine. Barnes is exactly right. Democrats won by contrasting themselves with their opponents, not by being a Me Too! party. Democrats found a way to excoriate a popular President and bringing down his numbers. Republicans need to get ahold of themselves, stop being tentitive and offer a bold, principled alternative. If they can't bring themselves to be combative, then they are in the wrong line of work and should stop wasting our time.

Stand Alone

CBS News has this touching segment.


Excuse me there is something in my eye...

Edit: I tried to embed the video, but the only code that worked was one that started the vid automatically, which is annoying, so this is the url to the vid.