Zogby’s latest poll has his overall approval/disapproval numbers at 42%/48%. The crosstabs available to the the general public are telling:

August 31 [July 24] {deltas}

Democrats:

75%/13% [88%/10%] {-13%/+3%}

Liberals:

86%/4%  [95%/4%] {-9%/0%}

African-Americans:

74%/21% [83%/17%] {-9%/+4%}

Ages 18-29:

41%/41% [59%/38%] {-18%/+3%}

Obama claims not to look at polls. Even if he doesn’t (yeah, right), I can guarantee his fellow Democrats in Congress do, especially the “Blue Dogs”. So do the Republicans.

Zogby, like Rasmussen polls likely voters.

Rasmussen Survey on Climate Change Bill

From what you know about the climate change bill that passed the House, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it?

• Strongly favor 10% (12%)
• Somewhat favor 25% (25%)
• Somewhat oppose 14% (16%)
• Strongly oppose 26% (25%)

Will the climate change bill that passed the House of Representatives help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

• Help 15% (19%)
• Hurt 35% (42%)
• No impact 21% (15%)
• Not sure 29% (24%)

What is more important, taking steps to stop global warming or creating jobs?

• Taking steps to stop global warming 22% (22%)
• Creating jobs 65% (63%)

To generate cleaner energy and fight global warming, it might cost Americans more money each year in taxes and utility costs. How much are you willing to pay each year in higher taxes and utility costs?

• Nothing 56% (56%)
• $100 22% (21%)
• $300 4% (7%)
• $500 2% (4%)
• $1,000 2% (2%)
• More than $1,000 2% (1%)

Is Global Warming caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends?

• Human activity 36% (42%)
• Long term planetary trends 47% (40%)

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted August 28-29. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from polls conducted June 13-14, 28-29 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats support the climate control bill, while the identical number (58%) of Republicans and the plurality (47%) of adults not affiliated with either party oppose it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Republicans strongly oppose, while 20% of Democrats strongly favor the bill. Women favor the bill more strongly than men. Older voters are more likely to oppose it.

Among investors, 19% say it will help the economy, 37% that it will hurt, and 17% predict no impact.

Rangel should resign

Second brush with financial scandal should end his time in Congress

Charlie Rangel always has been an entertaining congressman. And not to damn him with faint praise, an effective one, too. But the New York City representative, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is having a problem with his numbers as they relate to the truth. He now can be neither entertaining nor effective. He needs to go. If he won’t, Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to push him.

It’s the same old story for Rangel, who last year reluctantly acknowledged what he described as an inadvertent failure to report $75,000 in rental income for a beachfront property in the Dominican Republic. Then, many critics—including this page—called on him to step down from his chairmanship, at least until his professed innocence could be established. He didn’t.

Now, it gets worse. Newly-filed disclosures show that Rangel failed to report at least half a million dollars in assets in 2007. They also show that his net worth is between $1 million and $2.5 million, or about twice what he claimed in 2008.

This would be cause for uproar over any elected official, but when that official heads Congress’ finance—and tax— committee, it is intolerable. Once could be a mistake; an unlikely one, to be sure, but it is possible. The odds of simple error fall to near zero when it happens twice, and when both times are in your financial favor. We’d feel better about it if he accidentally paid taxes on more than he is worth, rather than less.

This is no longer just a problem for Rangel. It’s a problem for Pelosi and all House Democrats, including Brian Higgins of Buffalo and Louise Slaughter of Fairport. It’s a management problem now because Rangel’s shortcomings can— and will—be used to undermine the Democratic majority’s claim to power. And why not? If Democrats are willing to put up with this kind of behavior from one of the chamber’s most powerful members, they will have asked for an Election Day spanking.

This is Pelosi’s sternest test. She should give Rangel a week to do the right thing and then, if he doesn’t, she must.

The Buffalo News editorial board is not conservative.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

The AP reports that former Gov. Palin will venture to Hong Kong to deliver a speech to the CLSA Investors Forum, “a well-known annual conference of global investment managers”:

Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan have spoken at the event, hosted by brokerage and investment group CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.

“Our keynote speakers are notable luminaries who often address topics that go beyond traditional finance such as geopolitics,” company spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said in a statement.

Hopefully, this address will help burnish Palin’s international credentials, an area commonly perceived as a weakness of hers.

Albert R. Hunt has provided a nice commentary of Gov. Pawlenty on Bloomberg.  The entire article merits a read, but here are some highlights:

The Democrats ended their presidential hiatus in 1992 and 2008 with a similar formula: Nominate a candidate not associated with Washington’s wars, who doesn’t belong to the party’s ideological base though is acceptable to it, and who can attract independent voters.

It is a formula Republicans would do well to replicate next time. If so, there is an aspirant who may fit the bill: Tim Pawlenty. Tim Pawlenty? For the uninformed, he is the two- term Republican governor of Minnesota.

He doesn’t excite Republican passions like Sarah Palin, or bring the intellectual range of Newt Gingrich, the down-home humor of Mike Huckabee or the resources of Mitt Romney. He also brings none of their baggage, has a consistently conservative record, presents his views in a less-confrontational and more measured way, and has succeeded in a Democratic state.

…He brings an almost Jack Kemp-like fervor to cutting marginal tax rates; an important predicate for any presidential run may be how Pawlenty handles a recommendation from a task force he appointed that the state replace some corporate and individual taxes with consumption levies.

His emphasis on taxes rankles many Minnesota Democrats. “There is a long line of progressive Republican governors in Minnesota who are big supporters of education,” says Walter Mondale, the former vice president and U.S. senator. “He is much more interested in tax-cutting and has broken with that tradition.”

…As the Pawlenty camp looks at the political landscape for 2012, they see Huckabee and possibly Palin vying for the vote of the movement right in the Republican Party. If Pawlenty catches on, he would then compete with Romney for more mainstream party members.

The Governor has to like seeing that “He brings an almost Jack Kemp-like fervor to cutting marginal tax rates…” line.

Finally, Nate Silver has completed another insightful analysis regarding the effect of President Obama’s Gallup approval ratings on Congressional mid-terms and his re-election chances.  Among his conclusions:

• “The relationship between Presidential approval and his party’s fate at the midterm elections is quite linear. An approval rating of 50 percent [where Obama stood with Gallup yesterday] would typically be associated with a loss of about 26 seats“.
• “The Democrats, however, currently have a 78-seat advantage in the House, meaning that it would take a 39-seat loss for them to lose control of the chamber. The over-under for how unpopular Obama would have to be in order to be more likely than not to cost his party those seats is not 50 percent — it’s probably more like 42 percent.“
• “Against Sarah Palin, frankly, Obama could conceivably win re-election with an approval rating well into the 40′s and possibly even into the 30′s. He’ll have less margin of error, potentially, if the GOP nominates someone like Mitt Romney (although if I were a Republican strategist, I’d still be holding out hope for none-of-the-above).“
• “A quick-and-dirty probit analysis, based on the dataset you see above and placing slightly more weight on recent elections, puts the breakeven number at 44 percent, and suggests that a President at 50 percent approval is as much as a 90 percent bet to win a second term“.

Silver also included this informative graph:

The media coverage devoted to Ted Kennedy’s legacy is getting a little out of hand.  Kennedy had less of an impact on  this country then the likes of Robert McNamara and Jesse Helms, yet his legacy coverage not only trumps that of the aforementioned men, but rivals that of Reagan, Nixon and Johnson.         

What has pushed me over the edge, was watching the President of the Red Sox (who had little more than a casual electronic relationship with the former Senator) interviewed on CNN, reflecting on Ted Kennedy’s legacy.  The CEO of the Red Sox added nothing to the memorial coverage, other then to quote a couple of email he had received from the late Senator.  As an example of my desperation for generic news coverage, I actually watched Geraldo’s coverage of the Jaycee Lee Dugard’s rescue, which is depressing enough to send the most balanced individual on a heavy dose of Prozac.

Ted Kennedy’s legacy can be summed up in one simple sentence;  Not one other Senator had served so long, while accomplishing so little.   For most of Ted Kennedy’s five decades in the Senate, he was surrounded by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, including 19 of those years with a Democratic President, yet none of his major policy goals were achieved.  His first crusade, saving the American Inuit (Eskimo), failed miserably.   It was to be Ted Kennedy’s civil rights fight, but the American public and government failed to react to Kennedy’s cries of injustice. 

The two most cited examples by the media of Ted Kennedy’s leadership legacy, are the ADA of 1990 and the No Child Left Behind act of 2001. What you are not being told by the mainstream media is that Kennedy had little or no role in developing the legislation or negotiating their passing through Congress.  Both pieces of legislation were developed and spearheaded by Republican Presidents, who recruited Kennedy to appear in photo ops to gain positive public opinion from the left.  The two largest and most noted accomplishments by the ‘lion of the Senate’, was to offer his name in support of moderate Republican legislation.  Kennedy failed to prevent the wars his country fought, failed to pass single payer health care legislation, failed to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980 and failed to save the impoverished American Inuit.    

Do not get me wrong, I morn the loss of any public servant and Army veteran.  What I will not accept, is a false narrative concocted by the media to sell advertising space and the liberal brand of activism.  Ted’s older brother Jack, was the only Kennedy brother who can claim major liberal legislative successes.  President Kennedy used the power of the government to enforce civil rights, directed federal tax dollars to State education programs, supported American satellite States against the Soviet threat and reformed immigration laws. 

What Ted had hoped to become and what he actually accomplished are two completely different chapters in his public biography.  For the media, who continue to write and broadcast this heroic fiction, all I can say is, I watched Teddy, I read his speeches and legislation, but he is no Jack Kennedy. 

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the gov’t wasting our tax dollars.  I’m tired of them putting our nation’s future in jeopardy.  It’s time to stand up and let our voices be heard.  Governor Huckabee has put together a petition (Balance, Cut, Save) directed to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the Democrat Congress asking them to work on balancing the budget, to start cutting taxes so that families are able to save more, and to stop wasteful spending which is harming our nation’s future.  Please join me in signing this petition so that your voice is heard. Please sign the petition at http://www.balancecutsave.com.  Be sure to spread this petition around to your online friends and family via email and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc.  We need 100,000 signatures and are just over a quarter of the way to our goal!  Will you help us get there?

Brett and Amy Passmore
Lee and Amanda Butts

President Obama now sports a -7 approval rating among likely voters according to Rasmussen’s Daily Tracking poll:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11 (see trends).

Twenty-nine percent (29%) are confident that Congress knows what it’s doing when it comes to the economy. If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove. See other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Las Vegas Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick lets Harry Reid know that they will not be intimidated into silence in an open letter published in Sunday’s edition:

Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We’ve seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn’t stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We’re still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber’s board members for a meet-’n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal’s director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: “I hope you go out of business.”

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid’s remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid’s remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was — a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he’s shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state’s largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don’t have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can’t let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he’ll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he’s tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won’t allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That’s a promise, not a threat.

And it’s a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Hat-tip: Grandma T

I rarely read political books.  I prefer history and the way it can, if we’re attentive, bring out it’s own lessons about our political trials.  Still less do I like immediate political history, without the distance that makes real historical narrative so valuable.  So I’m not sure exactly why I picked up The Battle for America 2008, but I’m glad I did.  In many ways it’s typical of its genre,  filled with cliche conventional wisdom and airy speculation.  But, it also captured something about John McCain I’d nearly forgotten; his essential decency.

We’re reminded of his discomfort courting the establishment Republicans who’d spurned him in 00′ and his difficulty making nice with those he didn’t respect; his lack of pretension and his uncomfortable honesty- uncomfortable because he couldn’t always keep to it, and when he didn’t, he couldn’t blithely shrug it off.  He wore everything on his sleeve; scars: calculations and re-calculations: shame and insufferable pride.

We’re reminded of the surge he fought for and defended- though he suspected it might not be enough- because he was the only one with the stature and respect to make the sale.  It’s hard to read of the shrunken townhalls, and the fleeing moderates, without feeling worn out; without wondering if the whole thing wore him out.  He spent a half decade of political capital, and kept many wobbly Republicans in line, for a war that ceased to matter.

We’re reminded, in fact, that just about everything McCain had ever done ceased to matter by November 08.  He’d unconvincingly courted the right- unconvincingly because his heart wasn’t in it, and he never had the knack for head politics- but it took a Palin selection to bring them aboard.  He’d spent decades fighting waste, abuse, and corruption, but it was downright silly to pretend any of that mattered.  He’d cultivated a Maverick image and a bi-partisan record, only to be trumped by a guy who, through no exertion of his own, seemed the very embodiment of a “new politican”.

There was something tragic about John McCain,  for all his flaws,  something that looked a little like valor.  The book doesn’t touch on all of this; you have to been there, to remember how it was, to put the pieces together.  Even then it’s incomplete and inconsistent.  Why couldn’t he support a surge without defending Bush?  Where was that fighting spirit when confronted with Obama himself?  How could a man who’d so fearlessly confronted his own party, wilt so magnificently against an ideological foe?  But, the raw outline’s there and it’s enough.

We shouldn’t be surprised that John McCain lost.  But, we should be surprised that it doesn’t  bother us more; that we so easily let go a man who was a remarkable and rare creature. It’s startling how a man who’d written a half dozen books about character and destiny, should run so rough onto the latter’s shoals and find so heavy the former’s tolls.  At the last, a flawed man of valor,  a navy man rough and ready, put ashore without even a murmur of applause.  Those of us who have a bent for history will, when we’re past these temporary ideological struggles, marvel at the sweep of the thing and how it came to be.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Not a good beginning for the Hutchison campaign in Texas and the bad media coverage of the bad beginning to the campaign is serving as great fodder for Governor Perry.

DeVine Law ends two week writing Sabbatical with return to Georgia after three years in the Carolinas

The prospects for the U.S. economy and deterrence of America’s foreign enemies look no greater from atop the Stone Mountain of Georgia than they did from Charlotte’s Hornet Nest. But the death of the public health insurance option in Washington is visible from Peachtree Plaza and the sound of a real Blue Dawg Democrat taking on Speaker Pelosi is audible from Turner Field.

During these past two weeks of attentiveness to packing, lifting and litigating, we noted the following dawns announced by other roosters. Now we break our silence.

1) ExpostfactObamalism reared its ugly head again with the announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder of the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Was it a coincidence that this announcement was made just as the scrutiny of ObamaCare seemed to put it on life support? We are also told that President Obama really wants to look forward and that the obviously rushed, vague and unthought out new FBI interrogation unit proves that the move is only to “appease his left base.”

This reminds of the times when the press would accuse President George W. Bush of advocating policies to appease his “religious right base.” But Dubya was a member of that base, and he favored the policies he advocated. President Obama is the leader of his far left base. His foreign apology tours echo the Hate America sermons he listened to from Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And his move against the CIA and those that kept America safe after 911 are quite consistent with his own words and actions as a State Senator, U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate after 911.

The President’s actions this past week (and in releasing admittedly dangerous Gitmo terrorists in weeks past) have made America much less safe as they have paralyzed the CIA and emboldened our enemies.

President Obama’s actions against the CIA and Justice Department lawyers smack of those of Third World dictators in post-coup recriminations. It is of a piece with the Democratic Party’s criminalization of politics and also remind of Obama’s Rahm Emmanuel Chicago Way “pitchfork” lawlessness.

Hugh Hewitt has recently insisted that there be no comparisons of ObamaCare to the health care takeover under the National Socialist’s (NAZIS) in Germany (despite 40 years of slander against the GOP as fascists by liberals and that the tactics of Obama are more like that of “McCarthyism.” This despite that fact that Sen. Joe McCarthy’s sins have been overblown and his name attached to an era that would more accurately be named for the discrediting of the Adlai Stevenson egg heads that lost Eastern Europe and China, but I digress.

The fact is that the federal government was infiltrated by paid Soviet spies and that McCarthy exposed many.

No, Hugh Hewitt, Obama is more like Al Capone than Joe McCarthy.

2) There is a ceiling on the market rebound and economic recovery

Brian Wesbury and other optimists are wrong. Robert Reich is right. The worst of the recession is not behind us. Too much wealth was taken out of consumers’ hands with the fall in housing prices and with high unemployment. The recent “stabilization” of the market and GDP is solely due to trillions  in loose Fed money and housing profit taking sales.

But the fact is that we got a very small bang for the Fed Big Bucks that are even now being restrained for fear of inflation. The Stimulus, as designed was only government growthulus, and is crowding out private investment as ObamaDem high business and investor tax and regulation policies since 2007 and the massive debt driven by their budgets have investors on strike.

Unlike 1981-2, there are zero policies in place to spur small business formation and Big Business is content to cost cut labor for profit while in bed with Obama to maintain market share. Moreover, ObamaDem policies have continued to artificially prop up housing prices thus preventing the needed “bottoming out” of the housing market that is necessary for an eventual stabilization and sustained comeback.

We are looking at a double-dip recession with any recovery being jobless and otherwise unworthy of the name “recovery.”

3) We have found the real Blue Dog Democrat in Northern Alabama. Parker Griffith has announced that he would not vote for Speaker Pelosi again. I can think of no other time that a member of Congress made such a declaration, as it is tantamount to quitting the party. After all, the definition of party membership is the vote for Speaker, hence my impatience with any conservative that would even consider being a democrat since by voting for Speaker one empowers the left.

Bravo for Rep. Griffith. He also announced his opposition to the public option and co-ops and his support for interstate competition for health insurance. Sounds like my kind of conservative no matter what party label he wears.

4) MSNBC’s Morning Joe Scarborough suggested that Sarah Palin needed to “read more books” so upset was the network’s token “conservative” at her “death panel” attack against ObamaCare. Maybe Joe needs to read the bills Congress writes. Palin nailed the Achilles heel of the House bill in a politically brilliant way just before the revelation about the “Death Book” that Obama’s Veteran’s Administration revived.

Joe looks silly jumping on the Palin is a dolt canard, but so does Charles Krauthammer who also regularly joins in the Palin needs to “bone up” on issues bandwagon.

Poppycock!

Krauthammer recently wrote a column that denounces Palin on “death panels” in the first few paragraphs and then affirms the construction in the bulk of the column.

Charles and Joe are more concerned with being liked by the DC cocktail circuit than the whole truth at times. maybe they need to bone up on character and the availability of cocktails outside Georgetown and read more books on travel in flyover country.

Palin seems to have gotten most all issues right with the education she received in Idaho and Alaska via matriculation and life. I think before Palin needs to “bone up” and read more books, maybe all the liberals, democrats and beltway Republicans should catch up to her.

5) The passing of Ted Kennedy

I did not agree with the Senior Senator from Massachusetts on much of anything even when I was a Democrat and he challenged President Carter for the right to lose to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Whether it was his creation and later denunciation of HMOs; destructive revisions of immigration law in the late 60s that set the stage for the anchor baby and extended family policies divorced from our national interests; abandonment of the Hmong and South Vietnamese in 1975; and slanders against Judges Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas in the 80s and 90s, DeVine Law opposed him. Moreover, his then secret communications with Gorbachev’s KGB in the 1980s opposing President Reagan’s policies for missile defense were borderline treasonous.

I admire Ted Kennedy’s older brothers. I consider myself to be, essentially a JFK Democrat in my 2000-shod clothes of a conservative Republican. RFK took on the Mob, a corrupt FBI and was justified in opposing LBJ’s handling of the Vietnam War. And so I can sympathize with a younger brother trying to follow in those footsteps.

Ted Kennedy obviously believed in his liberal principles and believed he was doing the right thing, no matter how history has shown how misguided many of his policies to be. I do salute him for his support of President Bush on NCLB and Medicare Rx Drug policy.

Despite the problems with federal government involvement in such a basic state function, it is better that accountability strings be attached to the money. And I would argue that a modern Medicare program should cover modern medicine, and that the market policies of the Rx plan have kept costs lower than expected, which is rather unique for a government program.

I am one that pines for the days of the citizen legislator and not for the career legislative careers that too often out an emphasis on “doing something”, i.e. passing laws in response to most any event so as to win reelection for supposedly solving the problems exposed by events.

But there can be no doubt that Ted Kennedy is a giant in the history of Congress with his record of actually passing legislation. He showed real skill in this area that does set him apart from his brothers in a unique way. Dick Morris and Bill O’Reilly engaged in a very enlightened and complete review of Kennedy’s career this past week that is summarized here.

We also are hopeful that Kennedy’s friend Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is right about Teddy’s renewal of his faith some years ago and wish him and his family Godspeed.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

I do not think that it is hyperbole to say that August 30, 2009 marks the biggest sea-change in Japanese politics since the end of World War II. After what happened today – Japan will never be the same.

The conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has governed Japan for the last 50 years – the only interruption being 11 months in the early 1990s,  when an unwieldy coalition of small opposition parties won a majority in Parliament.  However, as of now, the LDP holds only 108 seats in the 480-seat lower house of Parliament (which elects the Prime Minister) – a loss of almost 200 seats . Meanwhile, the socialist Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which previously held only 110 seats, is now in control of over 300 seats. So, I think it is safe to say that the era of LDP dominance is over for good.

Now, obviously we need to congratulate the DPJ on consolidating the opposition into a single party. And furthermore, we should welcome the DPJ’s new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama.

However, as conservatives,  our Japanese allies are in the LDP, and we should pray that the party can quickly reorganize itself into a a modern and competitive conservative party.  Hatoyama, like Obama, is likely to steer his country off a left-wing cliff – and there will be an opening to get rid of him in a few years. However, the LDP must reject old-school crony politics quickly if it wants to bring itself back from the brink of oblivion.

My suggestion for the LDP is to use the coming leadership election to begin the re-branding (as Prime Minister Taro Aso has already resigned the party leadership). If they continue their pattern of electing whoever is next in line, regardless of the ramifications, they will implode. Japan is no longer a one-party system, and the LDP no longer has the luxury of knowing that even the worst choice can lead them to victory. However. there is already a template that the LDP can use to transform itself from a bureaucratic oligarchy into a modern political force.

Koizumi as Reagan

Just a few years ago, the LDP was at it’s high point under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi - a renegade who was to Japan what Reagan was to America. However, when he stepped aside in 2006, the LDP decided not to continue the Koizumi legacy – instead returning to politics as usual and going through three different unpopular Prime Ministers since 2006.

In order to be competitive today, the LDP must pick up Koizumi’s mantle once again and move forward with him as a figurehead – the same way Republicans today look at Ronald Reagan. In their last leadership change, the LDP rejected Koizumi by electing Taro Aso (an aging establishment candidate). However, Koizumi himself endorsed third place candidate Yuriko Koike – who would have become the first female Prime Minister had she  won.

The Case for Koike

Personally, I think Madam Koike must be the leader of the party moving forward.  She has little connection to the bureaucracy of the LDP, she seems to be a principled conservative, and she represents a dramatic move toward reform in a country where gender barriers remain far more solid than they are in the West. She would also mark a pronounced return to the vision of Koizumi. It’s possible that there are better candidates that I do not know of – but I have a hard time imagining anyone being able to re-brand the LDP better than Koike could.

If They Insist…

In fact, should the LDP turn once again to business as usual, I think that it would be a good idea for Koike and Koizumi to launch a new party. If the LDP cannot be truly representative of conservative values in Japan, than somebody must pick up the torch. If the formerly dominant forces are hell-bent on marginalizing themselves, then so be it - but there is no reason for the real conservative reformers to go down with the ship.

Here’s hoping that the Japanese right can get its house in order before Hatoyama and the DPJ can do too much damage.

FOOTNOTE: It now appears that Yuriko Koike has lost her seat in Parliament (along with many other LDP bigwigs). This in no way changes my advice. Two thirds of the LDP caucus is gone in this rout, and I’m guessing that only the most solid LDP seats remained with the party. The LDP was subjected to a massive wave of public discontent, and I don’t think the party’s losses should reflect on individual candidates who lost seats. Koike should still stand for leader of the LDP.

In a sad day for the nation of Israel, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was indicted today on multiple corruption charges. This man was a disgrace, and I am very glad that the nation tossed him in favor of Bibi Netanyahu, and that his own party tossed him in favor of Tzipi Livni.

I just couldn’t resist posting this – created by Seth Adam Smith at Conservatives4Palin.com.

Also – wanted to offer some quick thoughts on a few recent discussion topics here:

1) Gen. Russell Honore – I am extremely pleased to hear that the General is considering a run. He is a credible candidate with the stature to take on Vitter and get rid of one of the biggest black marks on the GOP’s reputation. Hopefully, Honore will turn out to be articulate and conservative – but considering I was really close to endorsing Stormy Daniels just to get rid of the guy, I have a pretty low ceiling for acceptability in this race. He has the persona, he has the gravitas, now lets just hope he has the cajones to get in.

2) George LeMieux - Senator LeMieux seems like a nice guy, and I am going to withhold judgement on him personally. However, I will say that appointing him was a tremendously stupid political move by Charlie Crist. LeMieux was the one guy on the shortlist who had the potential to become a major campaingn issue, because he is so close to Crist. I can congratulate the new senator, but tthe governor now looks like a first-class cronyist. Marco Rubio is probably bouncing off the walls with glee.

A nice Boston Globe profile of Romney’s post-presidential-run actions. 

Just before Thanksgiving last year, a group of former aides to Mitt Romney convened at his salmon-colored Belmont home, many of them gathering for the first time since Romney had disbanded his presidential campaign some nine months before. Romney had invited them for a post-mortem of the election weeks earlier, the type of dispassionate assessment that the Harvard Business School alumnus so enjoyed. But over cookies, they found few of the metrics for success that Romney prized — Republicans had been decisively thumped at all levels — and his attention shifted from 2008 to the future.

“He was not bringing people together to second-guess,” says Alex Gage, a former campaign strategist who continues to informally advise Romney. “It was not a lot of retrospectives or recriminations or mistakes. I think in his mind he’s thought it through.”

Romney was encouraged by the contents of a fat three-ring binder he brandished for his guests. He leafed through the pages to show dozens of thank you notes and photos — from Republican candidates for whom Romney had campaigned and raised money around the country — and passed the binder around his living room so that each of his advisers could linger over it. “He just talked about all the friends he made and people he met along the way,” recalls Kevin Madden, who had been Romney’s campaign spokesman. “The idea was: It’s not for nothing. We were actually helping people. Take a look at how thankful they were.”

During his long presidential campaign, Romney — the reformed Massachusetts moderate with the salesman’s too-perfect touch — had struggled to earn a welcome into a conservative movement whose members were often suspicious of his motives. The plastic sleeves in the binder held the good news to emerge from his experience trying to win them over: typed or handwritten confirmation that hard work and collegiality meant something in politics.

People who asked Romney what he would do once his presidential campaign was over say the former businessman and one-term Massachusetts governor did not flinch: He wanted to keep his hand in politics. For more than a year, Romney has done so with the same competitiveness and discipline that has marked nearly every challenge he has taken on in his life, from his foreign assignment as a Mormon missionary and career as a management consultant and founder of Bain Capital to his stewardship of the Salt Lake City Olympics and campaigns for senator, governor, and president.

Read the whole thing.  H/t heath.

A recent Department of Education study reached some interesting conclusions:

• “Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.“
• “Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.“
• “The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types.“
• “Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes.“

These findings provide ammunition for individuals, such as Gov. Pawlenty, who advocate online learning.  They also merit inclusion in the broader discussion on education, as online courses, which typically cost less than face-to-face instruction, could help to alleviate some of the crippling cost inflation students have seen in recent years.

An appropriate takeoff on Willy Wonka.

How many years does this Congresswoman have until she has to face a death panel?

 _________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Politico claims that former General Russel Honore is seriously considering a primary challenge to Louisiana Senator David Vitter.

“The Louisiana Weekly and Bayoubuzz.com have learned that the hero of Hurricane recovery, General Russell Honore is seriously considering entering the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate seat against incumbent David Vitter. Honore, a Republican since the Reagan Administration and a registered Louisiana voter from his Zachary home, has spoken to friends and supporters in the last two weeks signaling that he is, according to one, “more than 50% sure that he will run.”

He’s best known for his response to the Hurricane Katrina storm.

I’d be happy to see Vitter go, but the seat has drawn a strong Democratic opponent in Blue Dog Charlie Melancon.  Not to impugn Louisianans, but I wonder how a black Republican would fare against a Blue Dog, white, good ole boy Democrat.  At any rate, I’m willing to give Honore a serious look if he enters.  I think the Republican establishment should do the same thing.  A Vitter/Honore primary could leave the Republican elites in the untenable position of stopping two prominent minority candidates in their Senate bids (Rubio and Honore), while keeping the Republican caucus lily white.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

I figure, since I was so late in posting last weekend, I’d go ahead and post a little early this weekend to balance things out.  Random thoughts from the week:

• Ahmadinejad feels secure enough in the ruthless suppression he and the ayatollahs used on the people of Iran to call for prosecution of the opposition leaders.  Why do I keep posting thoughts on Iran, when nobody else seems to care what’s happening?  Very simply because the ME is the largest festering sore within which terrorism grows today, and if the evil and corrupting influence of the Iranian mullahs can be exposed and removed by the Iranians, a great deal more progress can be made towards cleansing the ME and bringing it into the civilized world.  The people want it, in fact, but the gov’t doesn’t.
• Sen Kennedy’s passing isn’t the magic bullet Pres Obama needs to pass healthcare.  Sen Kennedy was a very polarizing figure, and shamelessly using his death to try and pass this plan will fail.  In fact, overplaying it may cost the Dems votes.
• Speaking of MA, I predict that Gov Patrick will not be making an interim appointment, even if they self-servingly manage to get the law changed back.  The appointment would likely be held up longer in the courts than it would take for a new election to be held, and you don’t take a popularity hit for doing so.  Had they moved on this two months ago, this likely wouldn’t be the case.  Oh, and the right Rep candidate running an anti-Patrick campaign would have  a chance of winning this seat.  Maybe not a great chance, but a chance nonetheless.
• Do you realize that, had Sen Kennedy been under the type of government healthcare Pres Obama wants us to have, he’d likely have not had the brain surgery that prolonged his life?  He would have been too old, the surgery would have been too costly (not to mention risky), and the benefits would have been too little to justify allowing it.  He’s lucky he wasn’t.
• More and more, ’10 is shaping up to be a good electoral year for Reps when the deck should be stacked against them (at least in the Senate).  It’s ironic that the Dems may lose their Senate leader in ’10, as they lost their leader (Sen Daschle) in ’04.  Makes you think there’s something wrong with their agenda if the face of Dem policy in the Senate loses each time he’s up for election…

I think there was more, but that’s enough to start.  Please, don’t feel constrained to the topics above.  If there’s something you’ve been thinking about all week, but no thread came up, use this to start a discussion.

UPDATE:

Now that I’ve woken up, how could I forget the FBI investigation of the CIA?  In one of the most self-defeating maneuvers imaginable, the Administration is going to attack our very ability to gather necessary information by interrogating interrogators, likely prosecuting someone for not offering the captured terrorist a cookie to go with his afternoon tea.  Don’t give me the “Torture doesn’t work,” “Al-Qaeda will use it as a recruiting tool,” and other such mindless, nonsensical noise.  Here’s a news flash for you: They’ll lie to people and claim we’re doing it anyway in order to recruit.  In fact, if they think we’ll actually DO these things, it will give them pause to mess with us.  We are facing EVIL, NOT hapless villagers who are just like us, just seeking to be left alone.  They will NOT leave us alone if we aren’t there.  They do NOT respect us when we back down, bow to them, and beg forgiveness for the Crusades (which, despite everything you’ve heard, was a defensive war, starting with driving the Moors from Spain (how’d they get to the furthest western parts of Europe, do you think?)).

The 2009 Values Voters Summit will be held September 18th through the 20th. They have quite the impressive speakers list. They include such people as:

• Roy Blunt

• John Boehner
• Eric Cantor
• Mike Huckabee
• Tim Pawlenty
• Mike Pence
• Mitt Romney
• Phyllis Schlafly

…and many, many more.

In addition to these, there are a number of people invited, but who have not yet accepted. Sarah Palin, Mark Steyn, and Bobby Jindal are among this group.

It should be good. I wish I could attend, but I shall have to content myself with video clips and transcripts.

I don’t watch an awful lot of Glenn Beck- I don’t have the stomach for that much drama very often- but it’s hard not to notice that something very odd and powerful has been going on with him over the last 8 months.  Lately, as I’ve watched clips of his show, I’ve been struck with a pretty clear thought: this guy looks an awful lot like he’s planning to run for something as a third party candidate.  His show has become nearly uninterrupted, wild, populistic speecifying.  And take a gander at the content of these speeches.  In his most recent segment, he bemoaned the power of “money-changers” that special class of people attacked by two very famous men: Jesus of Nazareth and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Jesus cast them out of the temple.  FDR recalled this insisting, in his first innaugural, that “The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization”.  Partisan Republicans don’t echo FDR even if FDR was echoing Jesus.  I’m not even sure why a non-partisan Republican would echo FDR, unless he was after something else.

Or take a look at this new “In or Out” five pledges thing.  They’re clearly conservative, but they seem to allow room for those who might not identify as conservatives to sneak in.  His “no tax increases” pledge specifically limits itself to “difficult economic times”.  His anti-illegal immigration pledge includes a rider alluding to a supposed North American Union and attempts to end American sovereignty, thus possibly conflating the two issues in the public’s mind (i.e, in order to preserve American sovereignty, you MUST support an end to illegal immigration).  And the final pledge, about the constitution, is so unobjectionable that it somehow makes you feel as though you ought to have supported the previous 4 pledges; after all, if preserving the constitution is all he’s after, then there can’t be anything too worrying in the remainder.  It reads like an incredibly political document.  Maybe unconsciously so, but then Beck’s more of a Beale- a prophet- then I suspected.  At any rate, it seems to be something.

There’s something very zany about Beck’s appeal, but it’s become increasingly broad, and increasingly unwilling to constrain itself to traditional conservative viewers.  Glenn Beck seems to be trying to incite people who don’t have the least sympathy for the current Republican Party.  And if his ever-increasing ratings are any sign, he’s having some success.  Now where does he go and what does it mean for us?  For my money, I think Glenn Beck’s running for something.  I can’t fix my mind on what exactly, but I’m wondering if it might not be a very big something indeed- the biggest something.  And I’m inclined to think he’s planning to do it on his own unique platform and ticket bolstered, somehow or another, by an eclectic grassroots driven and funded group that might put Ron Paul to shame.

As it is, I think the conservative movement desperately needs people like Beck- people who can pull conservatish types, who’d been disillusioned by politics with the Republican betrayals, back into things.  When a movement breaks apart, it needs halfway houses where the disillusioned can rest until it comes back together.  And it may be that Beck will sign up people who aren’t yet ready to be Republicans, but who will become Republicans when he fades from the scene, and when a traditional and conventional Republican picks up fragments of Beck’s message.  For all the historical attacks he’s received- rightly in a many ways- George Wallace wasn’t just someone that racist whites voted for to avoid Humphrey and Nixon.  He was, for many voters, someone who was echoing their real concerns about Law and Order, but who wasn’t a hated Republican.  They weren’t ready to vote for Nixon yet; they would be by 72′.

If men like Beck and women like Palin accomplish this, and if the Republican Party nominates someone able  to come to grips with the passions they’ve  ignited, then it will be all for the good.  If not, and if Beck makes some sort of run of his own, and if establishment Republicans remain strangely inert to the threat, then at best the party will drift into opposite directions, and at worst it will utterly shatter.  I hope Beck- if I’m reading his increasingly political signals correctly- starts smaller.  But, even if he does, the Republican Party will need to figure out to assauge the Beckites- who, I suspect you’ll find, include a lot of eclectic voters the GOP simply MUST have in 2012- while avoiding some of the more alarming aspects of the Beck presentation.  I’m not easy about the prospect.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

ABC News/Washington Post Survey on Energy Policy

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling energy policy?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 30%

Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy being developed by Congress and the Obama administration?

• Support 57%
• Oppose 29%

Do you think the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy would add jobs in your state, take away jobs or won’t make much of a difference?

• Add jobs 36%
• Take away jobs 15%
• No difference 42%

Do you think the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy would increase your energy costs, decrease them or won’t make much of a difference?

• Increase 41%
• Decrease 16%
• No difference 36%

Do you think the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy would or would not help address the global warming issue?

• Would 52%
• Would not 34%

There’s a proposed system called “cap and trade.” The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?

• Support 52% (52%)
• Oppose 43% (42%)

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 58% (56%)
• Oppose 40% (42%)

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 39% (44%)
• Oppose 59% (54%)

To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to build more nuclear power plants?

• Support 52% (46%)
• Oppose 46% (51%)

(IF SUPPORT BUILDING MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS) Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?

• Support 66%
• Oppose 33%

Among All Respondents

• Support 35%
• Oppose 63%

To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to develop more solar and wind power?

• Support 91% (90%)
• Oppose 8% (8%)

To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to increase oil and gas drilling?

• Support 64% (67%)
• Oppose 33% (29%)

To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to increase coal mining?

• Support 52% (54%)
• Oppose 45% (39%)

(more…)

You’re not the worst run PAC of the Big-3 according to at least one metric.

Aron posted an Anchorage Daily News article on another thread. It seems that SarahPAC’s first FEC filing had garnered it a Request For Additional Information from the FEC. The ADN was trying to make a big deal out of it.

Such RFAIs are fairly routine with PACs. PACs file hundreds of pages of detailed information that must comply with a bazillion Federal regulations, some of which are contradictory and confusing. It is no surprise that nearly all PACs get them filed against them on a fairly regular basis.

That got me curious. How does this compare to other PACs? So I got out the filings for the Big-3 PACs and downloaded all the RFAIs filed against them. I then went through each RFAI to determine how many items of concern are in each of them. I then totaled all the pages of filings, the total number of RFAI items, and determined the rate of filing pages per RFAI item for each PAC. Here are my results:

Total # Pages / Total # RFAI items / # pages per item
FnSAPAC: 1768 / 21 / 84.2
HuckPAC: 668 / 12 / 55.7
SarahPAC: 265 / 7 / 33.9

So HuckPAC — which heretofore has been the best at being the worst-run PAC of the big three — comes in second this time, and SarahPAC comes in dead last. They were more than twice as bad as Romney’s FnSAPAC.

One other interesting factoid gleaned from the RFAIs. The worst FnSAPAC ever got cited for was three items in one RFAI. The worse RFAI for HuckPAC cited four items. SarahPAC got cited for seven in one RFAI. Ouch!

What does this all mean? Not much. As I said, RFAIs are par for the course for PACs. Remember, SarahPAC was likely set up with a minimum budget and an inexperienced staff. It should not come as a surprise if they made a few mistakes, especially considering the overwhelming response they got. So don’t make a big deal out of this. It is an interesting observation, no more.

All the same, it is only fair to relieve HuckPAC of the Howard/Howard/Fine award for Excellence in PAC Management and pass it on to the new holder. So this is for you, SarahPAC. Wear it in good health.

Oh, and don’t get too smug, FnSAPAC. Another month or two of deficit spending and this can be yours.

Rasmussen Survey on Tax Cuts vs. Government Spending

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement… it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?

• Agree 62% (53%)
• Disagree 20% (24%)

In terms of economic policy, is a dollar of tax cuts always better than a dollar of public spending?

• Yes 50% (41%)
• No 25% (33%)

When it comes to economic policy and creating jobs, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts?

• Agree 25% (31%)
• Disagree 50% (42%)

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted August 20-21. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 26-27 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Women are more likely than men to prefer government spending over tax cuts. Investors favor cutting taxes more than non-investors.

Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to think that taxpayers are the best judges of how to spend their own money. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of adults not affiliated with either party agree.

While two-thirds (67%) of Republicans and the plurality (49%) of unaffiliateds say a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending, Democrats are evenly divided on the question.

People in the N-Jay do not want Gadhafi pitching a tent in their community, especially in light of the fact that so many of the Americans murdered, came from the Garden State.

NEWARK, N.J. – A northern New Jersey mayor said he’s going to court Friday to stop renovation work at the mansion where Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi wants to stay next month when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly.

“If the U.S. State Department won’t shut this down, we will,” Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes said. “New Jersey’s governor, its two U.S. senators and its U.S. congressmen are all on board on this.”

Libyan intelligence is widely believed to have orchestrated the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 aboard — including 38 people from New Jersey. Gadhafi, who has worked to try to rehabilitate his image in recent years, provoked a backlash last week by helping secure the release of the only man arrested in the bombing from a Scottish prison. Television cameras captured Gadhafi giving Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted bomber, a warm greeting as a cheering crowd welcomed him back to Libya.

Already, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, U.S. senators and representatives from New York and New Jersey have protested Gadhafi’s plan to stay at the sprawling estate in the upscale community 12 miles from Manhattan when he addresses the UN next month. Gadhafi is expected to pitch a ceremonial Bedouin-style tent on the grounds, after a request to erect it in Manhattan’s Central Park was rejected, according to officials.

“I support what Mayor Wildes is trying to do,” said Kara Weipz, of Mount Laurel, N.J., whose 20-year-old brother Richard Monetti was on board Pan Am Flight 103. “The one thing we do not want is Gadhafi in New Jersey.”

The Libyan government, which bought the Englewood estate in 1982, is renovating the property extensively. Wildes said mansion workers have violated numerous city ordinances by tearing down trees and part of a neighboring fence and expanding the mansion’s pool without proper permits. He said they may also have violated state environmental rules by encroaching upon a stream that runs through the 5-acre property.

The city previously sought to slow the renovation via a stop work order, which allowed the imposition of fines. The Libyans have ignored the order. The injunction will allow Wildes to send Englewood police onto the property to halt work.

The city plans to request an injunction Friday at 3 p.m. from Bergen County Superior Court Judge Robert Contillo. Wildes said he expects a decision from Contillo in the next few days.

“The governor supports the mayor’s efforts and has repeatedly said that Gadhafi is not welcome in New Jersey,” said Robert Corrales, a spokesman for Corzine.

U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman, whose district includes Englewood, has promised there will be “hell to pay” if the U.S. State Department lets Gadhafi stay in Englewood.

The four U.S. senators from New York and New Jersey, all Democrats, said they will introduce a resolution condemning Al-Megrahi’s release and his welcome home to Libya.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey described the welcome as “sick.”

“To see such a celebration for a murderer was a shocking insult to decency,” Lautenberg said.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said the Libyan government should apologize. Fifty-nine New Yorkers died in the 1988 bombing.

“The victims’ families have had no peace since the day this evil act occurred and now their wounds have been reopened,” Schumer said.

Ahmed Gebreel, a spokesman for the Libyan Mission to the United Nations, was unavailable for comment. Nicole DiCocco, spokeswoman for the Libyan Embassy in Washington, D.C., declined to comment.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

A pretty solid pick, with the purpose of filling a short-term role.

More about George.

George LeMieux is a native Floridian, who grew up in Broward County, Florida. He attended public schools in Coral Springs, Florida, along with his wife Meike. George graduated magna cum laude and phi beta kappa from Emory University with a degree in political science. He received his law school education at Georgetown University where he also graduated with honors.

Upon graduating law school, he returned to Fort Lauderdale where he began his practice of law at the Gunster, Yoakley law firm specializing in business litigation. In 2000, George was elected Chairman of the Broward County Republican Party. In 2003, he was asked by then Attorney General Charlie Crist to serve as Florida’s Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the Attorney General’s Office where he supervised more than 400 lawyers and 1300 total staff. As Deputy Attorney General he appeared on behalf of the State of Florida in the United States Supreme Court where he argued for and won a unanimous decision in a death penalty case. In 2006, Charlie Crist asked LeMieux to run his campaign for Governor where he supervised the campaign’s strategic, media and grassroots operations. Crist credited LeMieux as being a large part of the campaign’s success stating: “some campaigns have an architect, this campaign had a Maestro”.

For his efforts LeMieux received the prestigious “Pollie” award from the American Association of Political Consultants as the nation’s “MVP” in a Republican campaign for 2006. LeMieux served as the Executive Director of the Crist/Kottkamp transition team, and went to lead the Executive Office of the Governor as the Governor’s Chief of Staff in 2007. In 2008, LeMieux rejoined the Gunster, Yoakley firm where he now concentrates his practice on corporate counseling and litigation. In March of 2008, George was selected to lead Gunster, Yoakley as Chairman of the Firm. George lives in Tallahassee with his wife Meike and their three sons Max, Taylor and Chase.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

George LeMieux, Charlie Crist’s former aide and campaign manager in his 2006 gubernatorial bid, has been chosen by Charlie Crist to fill the vacany left by retiring senator Mel Martinez.

Cronyism, anyone? Anyone who says that Marco Rubio has no chance of beating Crist hasn’t got a clue. As my colleague Matthew E. Miller has pointed out to me in private conversation: 2010 is not going to be a good year to be an establishment, go-along-get-along politician. And Crist is doing himself no favors by playing the role to a T.

Perhaps he would rather take this hit here than risk someone deciding that they might like to run for the seat themselves.

The media has it all wrong about the real controversy in Tom Ridge’s new book, “TheTest of Our Times.’ Many of them, and other assorted talking heads in The Beltway, are preoccupied with one sentence in the former (and first) secretary of homeland security’s account of the birth of the new cabinet rank department created in 2003.

That sentence states Ridge’s belief that the effort to raise the terrorist alert level just before the 2004 election was politically motivated. Although he names no one in that sentence, its proximity to the discussion which led Ridge to the conclusion suggests it includes then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and some prominent members of the Bush administration inner circle (but not the president himself). Since I don’t believe that Ridge intended to point the figure to individuals, but rather intended to comment on the political culture that existed at the time, The sentence may have been poorly placed, but in no way does it
deserve so much media attention.

Critics of the Bush years in the White House of course leaped into the fray claiming it was further proof of Bush villainy in the Iraq war effort, and Bush loyalists came out swinging, charging Ridge with disloyalty for the sake of promoting his book.

The mistakes and mis-characterizations these two opposing, yet equally venomous groups, are many. Most important of all, the book contains many serious suggestions about how to fix and enhance the current state of American homeland security, and that is being lost in the current media-manufactured controversy.

First, some full disclosure. I am from Tom Ridge’s hometown of Erie, PA, and have known him for almost 30 years. My blurb praising the book is on the back dust cover. (The latter also means that I am one of the few persons who has actually read the whole book, which has a publication date of September 1).

This is not meant to be a review of the book, but rather to serve as a corrective to the current bombast of ego and political territory possession that has only just begun, and will probably play out for days and weeks in the hyper-media cauldron of the nation’s capital and its political class.

In August, 2004, Ridge was asked to, and did, include a line praising President Bush’s efforts for homeland security in his remarks. Ridge considers that a mistake on his part, and says so. As election day approached, Ridge became more determined to keep politics out of his department’s work, and when it was suggested to him by some to raise the alert after a Bin Laden video was released just days before the election, he felt it would be inappropriate, as did, he points out, everyone in his department, as well as others in the national security loop, including FBI chief Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, and a some others, disagreed. Meetings were held, and the decision was made NOT to raise the alert. Flacks for the Bush administration have made the legalistic argument that no one
explicitly said they had political reasons during these discussions, which of course was probably true since the way Washington works is that political motivations are almost always disguised behind deceptive rhetoric.

At no point in the book does Ridge directly criticize George W. Bush, on this or any other issue. Unlike the pathetic Scott McLellan, the former Bush press secretary, or former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Ridge waited until after Bush left office to write his book, and does not use his book to wreak revenge. In fact, one of my few criticisms of the book is that Ridge’s loyalty to his friend who became president prevents us from knowing what he thinks the president’s role was on security issues other than his successes.

If anyone should be upset with this book, it should be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Ridge has been most critical, in print and on the air, of the current Congress for not closing the critical security problem of regulating our knowledge of non-American citizens leaving the country. Since
2003 (put into place under Ridge’s watch), we have detailed information of visitors coming into the country, but we do not apply the same rigor to when (or if) they leave. Readers may remember that the September 11 terrorists legally entered the U.S., but that we did not keep proper watch on whether they had departed in the proper time.

Washington is filled with hypersensitive egos whose importance are almost always exaggerated in their own minds, and with those who, for a time, hold public office, elected or appointed, and consider it their “property.” Many media spectacles in The Beltway are overwrought skirmishes over the public perception of this sensationalism, most of which quickly devolves into farce.

In this instance, I am suggesting, the distraction could mean the loss of the important discussion that Tom Ridge has attempted to engender with his book, to wit, what is the true state of homeland security in the nation today, and what can we do to improve it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Copyright (c) 2009 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved. Mr. Casselman a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard, Politico, and The Washington Examiner. His work is syndicated through the Preludium News Service.

Here is an interesting article from the National Journal. It ranks the six most dysfunctional states in the Union. They are:

1. New York Their follies in the state Senate pushed them over the top.

2. Nevada Our Governor is such a joke that one wag has suggested (only half in jest) that we trade him in for Mark Sanford. The people in the immediate line of succession are little better. Our travails have not been National News, but we well deserve #2 on this list.
3. Illinois One word: Blagojevich. There is more, but he heads the list.
4. Alaska Sarah Palin’s VP nomination didn’t help much.
5. South Carolina Mark Sanford gave America a new euphemism — “hiking the Appalachian Trail”.
6. California The fact that nobody is likely to get arrested is the only thing keeping this state from being rated higher.