Specter Should Bow Out of PA Senate Primary

Rasmussen’s survey:

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

Toomey, who served in the House from 1999 to 2005, earns positive reviews from 66% and negative comments from just 19%.

Its time to read the writing on the wall, Senator: the GOP is rejecting you.

I bear no ill will towards Senator Specter and, to be honest, I often find myself admiring the man. But while I view Specter as an ally on some issues, I don’t view him as someone appropriate for the GOP Senate caucus. Even if Specter would be the 51st Senator to provide the GOP with a majority, I’d rather we didn’t have that – I don’t want any future GOP Senate majority dependent upon the good will of a man who consistently undercuts conservatism in the Senate. Better to be a strong minority than a weak majority, as far as the Senate goes. Specter now has his choice to make: run as a GOPer and likely get beaten in the primary, or run as an Independent and have a shot at winning in his own right and thus be able to ally himself with the GOP or the Democrats as his inclinations dictate and, in the end, as he’s done throughout his Senate career.

Will we win with Toomey? I’m not sure – he seems a bit conservative for Pennsylvania, but so did Santorum, and he managed to win and only got beaten in an anti-GOP “wave” year. Pennsylvania has a lot of liberal proclivities, especially in the Philly area, but it also has a lot of conservatism, especially on the matter of Life Issues. Toomey, running against a Democrat and an Independent might be able to squeak in on the center/right votes while the other two divvy up the center/left votes.

Can the GOP Catch a Wave?

Stuart Rothenberg rates the GOP chances of securing a House majority next year at zero – and he’s not kidding; he’s dead certain that there is absolutely no chance that the GOP will secure the 40+ seat net gain necessary for a majority. Why? Because Rothenberg, wise political observer that he is, notes that for such a massive change in seats, you need a “wave”. Meaning that you need some groundswell of popular disapproval of the incumbent party to carry otherwise no-chance/low-chance challengers over the finish line. This is true, by the way. But is there no wave in the making? Lets take a look at how the Democrat governor of very liberal (Obama by 26 points) Massachusetts is doing:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, embroiled in a budget crisis like many state chief executives these days, may need to be thinking about another line of work.

Just 33% of Massachusetts voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic incumbent if he seeks reelection in 2010.

Nineteen percent (19%) say they’re not very likely to do so, and 38% say they aren’t likely at all to vote for Patrick, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Bay State voters.

One-third of the state’s voters (34%) now approve of the job Patrick is doing as governor, including only eight percent (8%) who Strongly Approve.

To say that Governor Patrick is “vulnerable” is to understate things quite a bit – unless things turn around massively for him, then the GOP will have no one but themselves to blame if they don’t find a candidate to win the governorship next year. There does seem to be the raw material in Massachusetts for a GOP wave in that State…and if the GOP ends up doing well in Massachusetts, can the GOP then end up doing less well in, say, Ohio, Virginia and Missouri? I suppose its possible, but it doesn’t seem probable.

Part of Rothenberg’s confidence is that Obama’s approval ratings run from 55% to 65% – what Rothenberg doesn’t mention is that the 63, 64 and 65% approval numbers in the most recent Real Clear Politics average are polls of “adults”. The 55% approval rating is from the one poll in the mix of “likely voters”. Now, any President is delighted to have 55% approval ratings from likely voters – such a President, in an election year, is likely coasting to re-election. But 2010 isn’t an election year for Obama, and the stark fact is that Rasmussen – the source of the 55% approval rating – has Obama’s “strongly approve” number dropping from about 45% on January 20th to 37% most recently, while the “strongly disapprove” number has climbed from about 15% to 31%. In other words, its not all rosy for Obama. While the American people are still cutting him some slack as the new guy and giving him his chance, if there’s no general improvement in American economic life (and/or if there is a serious military/national security setback) by the middle of 2010, then Obama’s popularity simply won’t be able to sustain its current levels. Obama boosts Democrats in 2009, but he might not do so in 2010, even if he’s not dragging them down.

So, what have we got? We’ve got Democrats in trouble in normally safe areas (Patrick in Massachuetts, Reid in Nevada, Dodd in Connecticut, eg), we’ve got a still-popular Obama suffering continual erosion of his support and, as it turns out, the “generic ballot” question has been pretty much tied up between Republicans and Democrats for a couple months now. Political junkies will instantly realize that this is a serious event, in and of itself: usually, the “generic ballot” favors the Democrats by a significant margin. Right around election day, the “generic ballot” gave the Democrats a 47% to 41% advantage…now its 39% for both sides (meaning, of course, that the GOP isn’t ragingly popular, either). Cobble together a weakening Obama, weakened incumbent Democrats and a general dismay with Congress and you have all the tools necessary for a wave. The question: Can the GOP capitalize on this?

The answer? Beats heck out of me. What it will take, first and foremost, is leadership. Back in 1994 – love him or hate him – the GOP had the superb leadership of Newt Gingrich. The GOP managed to distill the national issues down to a few quick points and then ran a very effective, anti-DC campaign against a corrupt and out-of-touch Democrat Congress. The Democrat Congress heading in to 2010 is just as corrupt and out of touch as the 1994 Democrat Congress and there are plenty of excellent issues for the GOP to run on (government spending, taxes, waste, corruption, etc, etc, etc), but there is, as yet, no clear GOP leadership. There is no one to lead the charge.

Given the current lack of leadership for the GOP, I rate our chances at a House majority at no better than 10%, with a Senate majority out of the question. On the other hand, even with weak GOP leadership, I figure we’re in for 20 House seats and three or four Senate seats. How to turn 20 in to 40 is the question the GOP must ask itself, and find the answer. We’ve got a few more months left to shake things out and think things over…but come Christmas, if we’re not ready to come out political guns blazing from January on, then we’ll be passing up what could be a great opportunity.

Subversive Phrase of the Day

Man, what a screwball rightwinger he was:

The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests. – Andrew Jackson

Obama Urged to Prevent a Second Holocaust

In the grand scheme of things, its a few weeks before Kristallnacht. There are grave threats to the Jews, but their hour has not yet struck. It could have been prevented in the 1930′s, and it can be prevented now – if Obama will listen:

President Barack Obama’s visit to Capitol Hill for the Holocaust Day of Remembrance ceremony turned into more than just a solemn memorial event Thursday morning. As the president sat waiting for his turn at the podium, a series of speakers admonished him, in terms both veiled and direct, to confront Iran’s government as a threat to Jews and to Israel.

“Honoring the dead must not be the sole purpose of remembrance. It must help us shape a better future,” said Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor. “When a regime is again … terrorizing its neighbors, threatening to destroy the Jewish people, how will we meet this challenge before it’s too late?”

Meridor kept his message implicit, but the subtext was clear: The world must stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Joel Geiderman, the vice chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, was more blunt, drawing a comparison between the Nazis in Germany and the present-day government in Tehran.

“At least one whole nation has been targeted for destruction with the threat to wipe it off the map,” Geiderman said, alluding to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belligerent remarks toward Israel. “History should have taught us that democracies that let such pledges stand do so at their own peril.”

Will Obama listen? Does he even realize what is at stake? Israel’s fate may turn on whether or not Obama understands the Iranian threat. More than half a century ago, as we opened up the Nazi death camps, we said “never again” – we pledged ourselves to never, ever allow a people to be targeted for destruction. Our promise made is now to be redeemed – or to be dishonorably ignored.

58% of Americans Smarter Than President Obama

Per Rasmussen:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.

And, of course, that 28% are those who manage to be dumber than Obama

Red Scare

Iowahawk strikes again.

"Dammit Janet" Napolitano Should Resign

After some amateur hour moments by Janet Napolitano, a number of Republicans are calling for her to step down.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down. 

The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing “extremists,” and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment. 

Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans — but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas. 

“I don’t know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she’s caused,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. “I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let’s move on.” 

Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor. 

“Mr. President, fire that woman,” said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano’s comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. “To go on television and say your apology to be, ‘I’m sorry you were offended by this report,’ that’s no apology.” 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano’s resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing. 

Such incompetence ought not be tolerated, and I agree, Napolitano has got to go. She’s making a ridiculous administration look even more ridiculous, and when we’re talking about the Homeland Security Secretary, her incompetence will make us less safe.

Dominican Republic Stands for Life

A bright spot in a darkening world:

The Dominican Republic has voted to approve language in its new constitution protecting the right to life from the moment of conception.

Article 11 of the new constitution, which was approved by a large majority of 167-32, states that “the right to life is inviolable from conception until death. The death penalty cannot be established, pronounced, nor applied, in any case.”

The approval of the article came in the wake of a series of massive campaigns by the Catholic bishops of the Dominican Republic, led by Cardinal Archbishop Nicolas de Jesus Lopez of Santo Domingo.

The Cardinal has organized marches, has given a speech on national television, and has staged large-scale protests outside of government buildings and in other places over the past two years.

On Easter Sunday, a little more than a week before the vote, the Cardinal and other priests gave sermons on the importance of protecting the right to life.

The nation’s Evangelical Protestant churches have also had a major influence on the outcome. Organized by such leaders as Dr. Gene Antonio, they have succeeded in playing video of abortions on national television and have distributed tens of thousands of flyers to Dominicans.

“We are thrilled that the protection of human life from the moment of conception is now established into the constitution in spite of fierce international pressure to legalize abortion,” stated Antonio. “This overwhelming victory serves as an example to the other Latin countries fighting to protect life, that we can win and we must win because the lives of little people are at stake.”

This makes the Dominican Republic into Enemy Number One for the pro-abortion zealots in the world. Basking in their victory in Obama’s turning over of US tax dollars to the international abortion industry, they won’t take this action by the Dominicans lying down. Immense pressure will be brought to bear to get Dominica to change its ways.

I believe they will with stand the storm – and also provide an example to us all to never give up and never give in. The cause of life is the cause of hope.

Note to Hillary: Put Up or Shut Up

Andy McCarthy at NRO’s The Corner neatly turns Hillary’s comments about Vice President Cheney against her:

If the Secretary of State really doesn’t think Vice President Cheney is a reliable source, she is smart enough to know the obvious thing to do: declassify and disclose the intelligence reports he’s talking about so all the world can see exactly how unreliable he is. Here’s her big chance to put her money where her mouth is and truly embarrass the guy she so effortlessly trashed in a public hearing today.

McCarthy goes on to note that she probably won’t do it – because everyone who knows about these things is confirming Vice President Cheney. All Hillary was doing was following the Obama Administration game plan – keep running against the Bush Administration and hope that no one notices that Bush isn’t in office anymore (I didn’t say it was a smart plan – though it will be eaten up by leftists here in the United States who, also, want to keep going after President Bush).

I don’t recall from Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II the level of condemnation of the previous Administration that we’re getting from Obama and his Administration. Certainly, each of these previous Presidents talked himself up and allude to the presumptively worse times under the other guy, but this relentless campaign of slander against people who hold no office is startling – and disturbing. The kindest face we can put on it is that Obama and Co are just floundering around and don’t know what to do so they are in default attack-mode. The more worrisome prospect is that they are attempting to demonize the Bush Administration in order to set them up for kangaroo courts preliminary to a general legal offensive against all right-of-center opinion.

When Bill Clinton left office, forgiveness from me was almost as automatic as breathing. I was glad to see him go, but I felt no continuing rancor towards him – even after the accounting scandal and 9/11 exposed the miserable incompetence of his Administration. There was no point in indulging in hatred or attempting to witch-hunt him or his subordinates. It was over – whatever he did, for good or ill, was in the history books and all we could do is the best we could with what we had day by day. To attempt to rehash the past helps no one (this is why I was opposed to the 9/11 Commission – I just wasn’t interested in a post-mortem except as much as we could learn from mistakes). Love Bush or hate Bush, there is nothing he can do – all he can do has been done. One might like or hate the results, but liked or hated, the results have to be dealt with as they are…putting him in the dock won’t change our predicament. In fact, it would make it worse as it would drive massive wedges of disunity into the American body politic.

You people on the left really need to let go – and get Obama and Co to let go, too. Your long, national nightmare (if that is how you choose to view it) is over. You can breath again. So, lay off. Unless, that is, you’re just consumed with hatred…then what you need is the grace and mercy of God.

Subversive Phrase of the Day

This will get the kook left going bonkers for a bit, given that freedom is stirring in the Tea Party movement:

Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear. – George W. Bush