Preview Obama's Iraq Address: The always Sunny Sunni Awakening

In other words, there will be no credit given to Bush nor will there be an admission the surge worked:

In his interview with CNN, Gibbs suggested the improved conditions in Iraq were the result of more than the decision to add more troops in 2007.

"We knew that adding those men and women in there would improve the security situation, but the reason we are where we are today is because of an improved political situation," Gibbs said on CNN's American Morning.

"We know that the Sunni awakening, Sunni tribes in the western part of Iraq began not to fight with but to fight against al Qaeda. And all of those circumstances led to a point in which we're at today," he continued. "I will say this, john - I think many people believe that when the president made a commitment to end our combat mission in Iraq by August 31st, 2010, I am not sure many people believed that he could pull it off."

As Ed Morrissey notes, what exactly did Obama pull off:

 Obama will call George W. Bush today? I hadn’t heard that part of the clip while doing the show this morning. How will that conversation go, anyway? “Thanks, Mr. President, for leaving me a turnkey policy for Iraq that I managed not to screw up, and I’ll be sure to talk nice about you after the election is over.”

We all know that Obama lacks the political courage to admit he was wrong about the surge let alone admit that Bush deserves the credit.  Instead he will call Bush privately just before he goes on the air to take credit for ending the war in Iraq or something.  This is utterly and completely shameless.  At this point, however, should we really have expected anything else?

To add insult to injury, Obama is expected to subtly point out he would never have gone to Iraq period:

A large chunk of the speech will be taken up by the president's careful description of the sacrifices that a million U.S. soldiers and diplomats have made by their service in Iraq, and how 4,400 Americans did not come home.

Then, a pivot point: the Iraq drawdown has allowed the president to refocus attention on the threat from Al Qaeda worldwide, and he will mention that the terrorist network is degraded, albeit still capable of waging terrorist attacks and intending to do so.
He will note that the government will be able to reap a bit of a post-Iraq transition dividend, allowing the administration to invest more in job creation, health care, and education here at home. (Subtly, the point: Obama wouldn't have gone into Iraq, so we wouldn't have had to spend as much as we did.) It's time, he will say, to build our own nation.

Shall we continue building the nation in the style we've become accustomed to in the 19 months we have endured during the Obama administration? Please spare us.  Heaven knows what Obama might have done had he been dealt the same cards Bush was dealt early in his presidency.   Americans seem to have experienced their own Sunny Awakening since the heady days they bought into the Obama myth.  Only those who still see him capable of turning back the tide and healing the planet can imagine he would have spared the country from war while building a path to prosperity.  We've seen his health care and job creation; thanks but no thanks Mr. President.

Related:

Busted! Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush Tonight

 Troops yet to give Obama full salute Via Michelle Malkin


More on Memeorandum

Glee Opening in 2010 Emmy Awards

I missed this last night but saw it this morning on Facebook and couldn't resist posting it. For those who haven't seen it yet Betty White makes a cameo as do several famous TV celebs. Enjoy!

Looks as though I missed another Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy chapter meeting

Darn, sounds as though assignments were given out too:

“I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead,” quipped Obama, who took a deep breath to gather his thoughts when asked if the poll reflected his inability to communicate with voters.

“The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign — there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” said a visibly annoyed Obama, referring to “birthers,” who have waged a guerrilla campaign questioning either the existence or the validity of his Hawaiian birth certificate.

“I will always put my money on the American people, and I’m not going to be worried too much about what rumors are floating around there.”

Actually he is right on that last part, there is no need to worry about the rumors floating around when the facts are downright dismal.  Nevertheless, Obama can never quite bring himself to put the whole "birther" issue to rest can he?  Nobody ever asked him to walk around with his birth certificate plastered to his forehead but he could release the darn thing and end this line of inquiry forever.  Of course he will never do that because it gives him the opportunity to portray those who oppose him as a fringe group of crazies.

The "birther" issue also serves as a perfect deflection from the larger question why Americans feel as though they don't really know who he is.  Obama was asked, in an interview with Brian Williams, about a poll  showing nearly half of Americans have no idea what religion Obama follows.  The same poll showed that 18% believed he was a Muslim while 34% identified him as a Christian.  Obama dismissed the results of the poll and focused instead on a network of conservatives churning out misinformation he is a Muslim who wan't born in the United States.  Way to dodge the question Barack.

Peggy Noonan addressed the question the other day in The Wall Street Journal:

Liberals and the left are indignant about this, and angry. For a week all you heard from cable anchors was "PEOPLE think OBAMA is a MUSLIM. It's in the POLLS. How do you EXPLAIN it?" Every time I heard it, I'd think: Maybe it's because you keep screaming it.

Some of the reason for the relatively high number of people who believe he holds to one faith when in fact he has always said he holds to another, is the steady drumbeat of the voices arrayed against Mr. Obama, that are arrayed against any modern president, and will be against the next one too. But surely some of it is that a lot of people are just trying to figure him out. In that atmosphere they'll consider everything.

When the American people have looked at the presidents of the past few decades they could always sort of say, "I know that guy." Bill Clinton: Southern governor. Good ol' boy, drawlin', flirtin', got himself a Rhodes Scholarship. "I know that guy." George W. Bush: Texan, little rough around the edges, good family, youthful high jinks, stopped drinking, got serious. "I know that guy." Ronald Reagan was harder to peg, but you still knew him: small-town Midwesterner, moved on and up, serious about politics, humorous, patriotic. "I know that guy." Barack Obama? Sleek, cerebral, detached, an academic from Chicago by way of Hawaii and Indonesia. "You know what? I don't know that guy!"

He doesn't fit any categories. He won in 2008 by 9.5 million votes anyway because he was a break with Mr. Bush, and people assumed they'd get to know him. But his more unusual political decisions, and the sometimes contradictory and confusing nature of his leadership, haven't ameliorated or done away with his unusualness. They've heightened it.

Noonan believes that Americans may yet discover they know Obama; they'll see him as the moderate when the newly-elected Republican-controlled Congress devolves into a freak show.  I find it difficult to imagine any freak show out-freaking the current freak show.  Sure there are plenty who are still worried Republicans haven't learned their lesson but I imagine we will at least be spared the Christmas Eve votes for ObamaCare at a minimum.  We may even get someone who can help Obama with his Mary Poppins problem.  Say, I wonder if that fence was a plot conceived at a VRWC chapter meeting.

Fitzpatrick leads Patrick Murphy PA08 by 7 points

Via Fitzpatrick for Congress on Facebook

I have been waiting for polling data from PA-08 and the results from this Public Opinion Strategies poll appears to have been worth the wait.  Mike Fitzpatrick leads Patrick Murphy by 7 points 48% - 41% in a poll of 400 likely voters conducted August 22-23, 2010.  Here are the key results:

KEY DATA

• 1. Fitzpatrick opens the fall campaign with a seven-point lead over Patrick Murphy. Former Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick starts the final push to November 2nd with a 48%-41% lead over Patrick Murphy. Fitzpatrick has an even wider lead in intensity of support, with 36% of voters saying they’re definitely voting for him versus 24% who say they’re definitely voting for Patrick Murphy.
• 2. Fitzpatrick also has a significant image advantage over Murphy.  Fitzpatrick’s image in the district is 55% favorable/16% favorable, compared to Murphy’s 51% favorable/31% unfavorable image. And, Mike also has a significant edge among Independents, with a 59%-15% favorable/unfavorable image compared to 48%- 29% for Murphy.
• 3. The political environment here has a strong GOP tilt.  Not only is Obama’s job approval here inverted (43%-53%, with 41% strongly disapproving), but the GOP candidate leads the “generic” ballot by 50%-34%, Speaker Pelosi has a very negative image (34% favorable/57% unfavorable), and both GOP statewide candidates lead here (Corbett by eleven and Toomey by eight).

I fully expect Patrick Murphy to discount the results as nothing more than an internal poll from a Republican pollster.  Still, the results seem consistent with other statewide polls such as this Franklin and Marshall poll showing Toomey with a 9 point lead among likely voters and Tom Corbett leading Democrat Dan Onorato by 11 points.  Franklin and Marshall notes:

The 2006 election year was the most recent with races for both US senate and governor in Pennsylvania. In the 2006 election, Democrats retained the governor’s office, defeated an incumbent Republican US senator, and picked up four US house seats held by Republicans. Polling in the 2006 campaign showed positive electoral indicators for Democrats that helped them to those victories.

Pennsylvania politicians are facing a distinctly different political environment than they did during the 2006 election cycle. Pessimism about the direction of the state is greater, job performance ratings for the incumbent governor are much lower, the incumbent president is unpopular, and Democrats’ advantage over Republicans in party identification and particularly voter interest has shrunk (see Table 1). While open state-wide races are often competitive in Pennsylvania, these indicators create a context where incumbent office holders will also need to be wary, particularly Democrats.

This underscores the "bottom line" emphasized in the Public Opinion Strategies memo:

Patrick Murphy’s electoral victories in this district came during the two best election years for Democrats in decades. Now that the political winds have shifted, Murphy is seeing this recently friendly district slip away. Voters have soured on President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and they’re looking for a Republican to provide a check and balance in Congress.

With an enduring favorable image in the district and the political winds at his back, Mike Fitzpatrick is well-positioned to retake his former seat on November 2nd.

Mike Fitzpatrick appears  to have momentum as he seeks to win the seat he lost to Murphy by a mere 1500 votes in 2006.  Charlie Cook cited Murphy's narrow margin of victory in 2006 as well as the shifting political winds when he recently downgraded PA08 to "toss up" status on August 17, 2010.  Time for Patrick Murphy to start packing his carpet bag.

As predicted:

Murphy's campaign manager, Tim Persico, brushed off the numbers: "Former Congressman Fitzpatrick's poll, done by Republican consultants, is as misguided as his job-killing agenda. Recent polling shows Patrick Murphy with a solid lead, which makes sense since the voters have already rejected Congressman Fitzpatrick once after he voted for all of Bush’s failed economic policies - like tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

As I noted above, Cook recently moved this race to "toss up" although Cook reported there was limited polling data available at the time. This was a week ago. Cook cited the close margin of the votes in 2006 and the current anti-Dem mood as justification for the change. Presumably he had seen some polling as "limited polling" is quite different than no polling, in my opinion anyway. I think it safe to assume Cook hadn't seen anything to keep Murphy in the "Lean Democrat" category. I search for polling info on the district every day. If Congressman Murphy has polling data showing Murphy with a solid lead let's see it. I am assuming when Cook and other prognosticators see Murphy's solid lead they'll switch the race rating in Murphy's favor. Until then I take anything coming from the Murphy camp with the same grain of salt I give his newfound ability to break with his party.

There were a few interesting reactions to this poll on Twitter as well. It looks as though only Murphy's spokesman is discounting the poll:

Dems Feasting on a bit of Fear and Loathing

Via Memeorandum

While you're enjoying your morning coffee, consider the poor suffering Democrats who suddenly find themselves feasting on a bit of fear and loathing as they consider their prospects for the forthcoming election:

They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover – or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe – such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 – are in real trouble.

In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data shows the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.

Of course this is all off the record so they can speak candidly, don't ya know? Democrats are only brave when they are taking a long walk on a short plank for Obama's health care agenda. Now they are gnashing teeth because the "Recovery Summer" they hoped would assuage the voters they infuriated vote after vote has turned out to be as big a bust as their stimulus plan. Too bad they weren't able to pull off a little economic hocus pocus to keep us all blissfully at bay.  Styrofoam columns and soaring speeches can not dress up failed economic policy.

While they're feasting on fear and loathing, many Democrats are shedding their Democratic identities as they run for cover in the Independent Witness Protection Program:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called them her “majority makers” – the moderate to conservative Democrats in right-leaning districts whose election in 2006 made her Speaker.

And now many of them – and other Democrats in competitive districts -- are fighting for their political lives in a harsh environment and have found it necessary to distance themselves from their leaders and Democratic policies.

Jake Tapper has a whole slew of Democratic incumbents' ads denying the Obama/Pelosi/ Reid triumvirate with passion:

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Penn., is up on the air in Western Pennsylvania heralding his opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform bill and the Wall Street bailout.

“ I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president,” a man in the commercial says.

“And Nancy Pelosi,” adds a woman.

That is quite a different picture of Altmire than the one we saw in March when Politico featured his membership in the Drama Queen Caucus:

There was a picture of Altmire talking on the phone in his office splashed across the front page of The Washington Post on Thursday, above a story that began by recounting how many times this month he had been personally wooed by Obama (two meetings and one phone call from Air Force One).

Cracked a reporter from the freshman’s hometown Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “The photo shows him on the phone in his office — tossup whether it’s with President Obama or yet another reporter.”

Anyone paying attention to the never-ending drama that unfolded as we waited for supposed "Blue Dogs" to reveal their vote on ObamaCare, knows there was no standing up to Pelosi, Obama or Reid.  It was all about waiting for dispensation to vote no while Pelosi made certain their vote wasn't needed.  A vote for any of these supposed independent thinkers - Pelosi's "majority makers" as it were - is a vote to put the gavel back in her hands.

“Yep, he’ll have plenty of time for vacations when his one term is up”

Quote of the day via Newsbusters

When you've lost Letterman as they say:

Chuck Hagel endorses Sestak because he cares about his career just like Sestak

Former Senator Chuck Hagel (NE- RINO) is expected to endorse Congressman Joe Sestak today in Pennsylvania.  The endorsement necessitated the creation of an entirely new category in the Fix Endorsement Hierarchy.  "The "Me for Me" Endorsement," is aptly named as the endorsement is of dubious value to Sestak but it will do wonders for Hagel as he auditions for a job with the Obama administration.  Needless to say the endorsement offers Pennsylvania voters absolutely nothing:

The simple fact is that Sestak won't gain anything of significant substance from the endorsement; he may get some residual benefit from the perception that Hagel, like Bloomberg, is independent-minded or the expectation-turning that a Republican not backing former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) creates.

On the other hand, there could be genuine benefit for Hagel -- albeit symbolic. Hagel is rightly understood as trying out for a Cabinet job and the more he can show a willingness to put party aside to do what he believes is the right thing, the more attractive he will be to President Obama and his inner circle.

Actually, Hagel is far more independent than Sestak who seems only able to stand against his party when it suits his career.  Hagel voted with his party 78 percent of the time.  Sestak, however, has trouble spotting a liberal like Nancy Pelosi despite the fact he voted with her 97% of the time.  Since we know that "Sestak is actually Slovak for job offer," I wonder who put the bug in Chuck Hagel's ear that a Sestak endorsement might be appreciated - Bill Clinton maybe?  No really, I am sure Hagel thought this up on his own with little concern for his own credibility.  Heck, Hagel and Sestak are just two wild and crazy independent guys who care about Pennsylvania.  PA2010 adds the Arlen Specteresque "no room at the Republican Inn" spin:

The Nebraska Republican is the type of moderate who has found there is increasingly little room for his kind in Washington, and chose not to seek reelection in 2008. He’ll formally back Sestak during events in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, just a week after the Democratic nominee was endorsed by New York’s independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Somehow I think the phrase "birds of a feather" seems appropriate here.

PA2010 offered a bit of news from the Toomey campaign as well:

Meanwhile, Democrats in Pennsylvania were reacting with glee over the weekend to an Associated Press story reporting that Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul got money from the operator of a pornographic Web site. The reason it matters here? Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey also got $4,800 from the site’s owner. Naturally, Democratic operatives were e-mailing the story around like candy.

Imagine that - the same porn site operator donates to Toomey and Rand Paul and AP writes a story about it. I  can't remember, were the press very concerned about campaign contributions when Obama ran for office? Let's be honest here, if Democrats are "reacting with glee" because they found a porn site operator donating to Rand Paul and Pat Toomey they are in really desperate shape.

Imam Rauf: "The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda"

In light of my last post, Pamela Gellar's exclusive audio of Imam Rauf (embedded below) serves to underscore my point that Obama's failure of leadership has escalated this dubious project into a national controversy unwisely and unnecessarily.  Among other points made in the audio the Imam is heard saying the following:

‘The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.’

This is a moderate Imam interested only in building bridges?  As Jim Geraghty noted, "everyone who lectured us about how moderate and sensible Imam Rauf is is invited to eat their words with the sauce of their choice."

As I write this, Chris Matthews is in full meltdown mode seething at the bigotry of those who oppose building the mosque.  I suspect Matthews, Obama and most of the Professional Left media believes American foreign policy contributed to the 9/11 attacks just as they believe Imam Rauf's mosque must be built.  The rest of the country seems to disagree.  No one in possession of even a modicum of leadership skills stirs a pot this destructive and heads to the beach or the golf course.  While Matthews and his ilk spew hatred at those who have concerns over this project at one extreme, some at the other end of the spectrum plan to burn copies of the Quran in protest.  Let me take this opportunity to note that whether such protest is Constitutionally protected is beside the point, it does not make it wise.

Obama now owns whatever controversial sentiments Imam Rauf has ever expressed, no matter how factually inaccurate they may be.   Gellar's exclusive may represent the tip of the iceberg of the 13 hours of audio uncovered by Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism; time will surely tell.  It would have been nice, however, had the president had the good sense to investigate the Imam and the project he supports before Obama went out and made this project the center of a public maelstrom.  Unfortunately he did not and Obama will forever be linked with this Imam and all the baggage he brings to the debate.  What flavor sauce would you like with those words Mr. President?

Content warning applies:  Rauf uses the "N" word in the last segment as does Imam Feisal (Rauf's Imam) according to other material gathered at Atlas Shrugs:


More at Memeorandum

MSNBC: Mark Halperin criticizes Obama for stirring the pot on Ground Zero mosque then taking a vacation

Via Breitbart

I am sure that Mark Halperin, co-author of Game Change and Senior MSNBC Political Analyst would have preferred Obama skip his vacation in order to convince the country the mosque must be built.  His criticism here, however, strikes at the heart of the problem with the festering mosque controversy.  President Obama went out and took what was widely perceived as a bold stance on the building of a mosque near Ground Zero only to walk back his "bold stance" the next day.

That this mosque/educational center seems a long way from being funded or being built seemed to be of little consequence to a president who has been known to jump in with both feet on issues he knew little about in the past.  Despite the fact there was no clear consensus among his advisors as to a position on this mosque Obama went off and stirred a cauldron of controversy based on the advice of a few of the usual suspects - namely Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.    When Democrats facing an already explosive electorate reacted the next day, Obama backed off and headed for vacation.  Now cheerleaders like Halperin are forced to face what has been obvious to most of us all along, leadership matters and Obama is no leader:



The Anchoress points to the same sentiments behind the realization "we miss Bush:"

One of my husband’s friends–hated Bush, loved Obama and defended him vociferously for the first year, less passionately the second–told him over lunch this week that he’s done with Obama and “I never thought I’d say this but I miss Bush. We knew that he said what he meant, even if we didn’t want to hear it. We knew who he was, even if we didn’t like him. And we never had to wonder whether he liked us. He always did.”

And that is it, in a nutshell. Bush is missable, because we miss having a president whose affection for his country and its people–even the ones who hated him–was never in doubt.

We miss Bush because he never lectured us or harangued us, and when people disagreed with him, they were not immediately called names in an attempt to simply shut up debate.

Read the rest as The Anchoress is spot on in her assessment.  I must, however, quote her conclusion as  to what Bush would and would not do if faced with a similar predicament:

I am absolutely certain however that in the face of angry, hurt opposition President Bush would not have permitted or encouraged his party to charge 60% of the nation with bigotry and xenophobia, because Bush never hated his opponents, and he never believed the worst of his countrymen; he believed the best.

Believing the worst of his countrymen sometimes seems to be President Obama’s default mode.

State of the 2010 House Races

Patrick Ishmael of Hot Air's Green Room has been tracking the most vulnerable House seats currently held by Democrats. Today he updated the list to include 35 downgrades meaning 35 Dem seats ranked more vulnerable while 3 were ranked less vulnerable. This is somewhat a fluid process as polling information is not abundant at this point in the race but it gives a good picture of the state of the House race so far this year.

Ishmael uses a score he calls the Partisan Voting Index Multiplier Electoral Risk (PVIMER)which he explains at length here.  This is a good summary of the scoring:

I’ve aggregated what I believe are the latest predictions from The Cook Report, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Congressional Quarterly, and the Swing State Project.   I’ve assigned numbers to each of the races they’ve rated and added an enthusiasm multiplier, which I’ll explain later. The scale is straightforward: Toss-ups are rated “0″, Leans rated “1″, Likelies rated “2″, and Solids rated “3.” Negative numbers mean, based on these four sources, a likely GOP seat takeover; positive numbers suggest better prospects for Democrats.

There are 32 seats that are currently scored with a negative number meaning a likely GOP takeover while there are a total of 66 seats rated less than 1.  This gives a pretty clear idea why the professional prognosticators  are starting to say with more certainty the GOP will retake the House.  Of course none of this happens unless we all go out and make it happen; this merely means we are more likely to be successful if we do the work.   Here is the list of vulnerable seats in order of their likelihood of becoming a GOP pickup:

1 LA-3 OPEN (Melancon) -2.2
2 TN-6 OPEN (Gordon) -2.2
3 NY-29 OPEN -1.6
4 AR-2 OPEN (Snyder) -1.4
5 MD-1 Frank Kratovil -1
6 MS-1 Travis Childers -1
7 IN-8 OPEN (Ellsworth)-0.8
8 KS-3 OPEN (Moore) -0.8
9 ND-AL Earl Pomeroy -0.8
10 NM-2 Harry Teague -0.8
11 TN-8 OPEN (Tanner) -0.8
12 TX-17 Chet Edwards -0.8
13 AL-2 Bobby Bright -0.6
14 CO-4 Betsy Markey -0.6
15 SD-AL Stephanie Herseth Sandlin-0.6
16 AR-1 OPEN (Berry) -0.4
17 IN-9 Baron Hill -0.4
18 NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter-0.4
19 NH-2 OPEN (Hodes) -0.4
20 OH-1 Steve Driehaus -0.4
21 OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy -0.4
22 VA-5 Tom Perriello -0.4
23 WV-1 Alan B. Mollohan-0.4
24 FL-24 Suzanne Kosmas -0.2
25 MI-7 Mark Schauer -0.2
26 NV-3 Dina Titus -0.2
27 OH-16 John Boccieri -0.2
28 PA-7 OPEN (Sestak) -0.2
29 SC-5 John Spratt -0.2
30 VA-2 Glenn Nye -0.2
31 WA-3 OPEN (Baird) -0.2
32 WI-7 OPEN (Obey) -0.2
33 FL-2 Allen Boyd 0
34 FL-8 Alan Grayson 0
35 ID-1 Walter Minnick 0
36 IL-11 Debbie Halvorson0
37 IL-14 Bill Foster 0
38 MI-1 OPEN (Stupak) 0
39 NC-8 Larry Kissell 0
40 NY-24 Michael Arcuri 0
41 PA-11 Paul Kanjorski 0
42 VA-9 Rick Boucher 0
43 AZ-1 Ann Kirkpatrick 0.2
44 AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords0.2
45 MO-4 Ike Skelton 0.2
46 OH-18 Zack Space 0.2
47 PA-10 Chris Carney 0.2
48 PA-3 Kathy Dahlkemper0.2
49 PA-8 Patrick Murphy 0.2
50 AZ-5 Harry Mitchell 0.4
51 GA-8 Jim Marshall 0.4
52 CA-11 Jerry McNerney 0.6
53 IA-3 Leonard Boswell 0.6
54 KY-6 Ben Chandler 0.6
55 NY-20 Scott Murphy 0.6
56 NY-23 Bill Owens 0.6
57 PA-12 Critz 0.6
58 TN-4 Lincoln Davis 0.6
59 CO-3 John Salazar 0.8
60 IN-2 Joe Donnelly 0.8
61 MA-10 OPEN (Delahunt) 0.8
62 NJ-3 John Adler 0.8
63 NY-1 Tim Bishop 0.8
64 NY-13 Mike McMahon 0.8
65 NY-19 John Hall 0.8
66 VA-11 Gerald Connolly 0.8
67 FL-22 Ron Klein 1
68 NC-11 Heath Shuler 1
69 NM-1 Martin Heinrich 1
70 OH-13 Betty Sutton 1
71 OR-5 Kurt Schrader 1
72 PA-17 Tim Holden 1
73 PA-4 Jason Altmire 1
74 TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez 1
75 WI-8 Steve Kagen 1
76 WV-3 Nick Rahall 1
77 MI-9 Gary Peters 1.2
78 NY-25 Dan Maffei 1.4
79 UT-2 Matheson 1.4
80 AR-4 Mike Ross 1.6
81 CT-5 Christopher Murphy 1.6
82 IL-8 Melissa Bean 1.6
83 MN-1 Tim Walz 1.6
84 MS-4 Taylor 1.6
85 NC-2 Etheridge 1.6
86 NC-7 Mike McIntyre 1.6
87 OK-2 Boren 1.6
88 WI-3 Ron Kind 1.6
89 CA-18 Dennis Cardoza 1.8
90 CA-47 Loretta Sánchez 1.8
91 CT-4 Jim Himes 1.8
92 GA-2 Sanford Bishop, Jr. 1.8
93 KY-3 John Yarmuth 1.8
94 WA-2 Rick Larsen 1.8
95 CO-7 Ed Perlmutter 2
96 GA-12 John Barrow 2
97 IL-17 Hare 2
98 NJ-12 Rush Holt 2
99 OH-6 Charlie Wilson 2
100 CA-20 Jim Costa 2.2
101 IA-2 Loebsack 2.2
102 OR-1 David Wu 2.2
103 TX-27 Ortiz 2.2
104 IA-1 Bruce Braley 2.4
105 MO-3 Russ Carnahan 2.4
106 RI-1 Kennedy 2.4
107 WA-9 Smith 2.4
108 MA-6 Tierney 2.6
109 ME-1 Pingree 2.6
110 NM-3 Lujan 2.6
111 NJ-6 Pallone 2.8
112 CA-39 Sanchez 3

Be sure to read Ishmael's posts in greater depth  here and here and here and here and here

Frau Harman: Ahmadinejad was . . . my . . . boyfriend!!!

This is probably the best political ad I have ever seen. Click the image to watch at The Other McCain:

Jennifer Granholm/David Gregory tag team Dick Armey - guess who wins?

Via Hot Air

This is a nice segment of today's "Meet the Press" featuring David Gregory and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm tag-teaming Dick Armey with a variation on the "we may be incompetent but your candidates are crazy" argument. Their focus here is on Tea Party candidates and the role of government. Naturally Gregory and Granholm drag Paul Ryan's Roadmap through the mire hoping to scare seniors with the old tried and true boogeyman "Republicans will cut your social security." This is particularly rich considering Granholm, after 2 terms as a Democratic Governor, literally ran the state of Michigan into the ground. It is her specific type of government that makes a "roadmap" necessary so there is a social security program left for seniors.  Armey handles the Gregory/Granholm tag-team with relative ease and makes a nice defense for Paul Ryan's plan in the process.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Desperate Measures: The return of the "dangerous tea-party extremists" meme?

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for Post of the day status and welcome to his readers!


President not playing well in Peoria? Signs of Democratic Doom are popping up nearly everywhere while no one seems to be buying the notion the world will not survive if the mosque formerly known as Ground Zero Mosque  doesn't get built.  What is a "cackle of rads"  to do?  Desperate times call for desperate measures folks.

It's time to dust off the "dangerous tea-party extremists" meme" and give it another whirl:

A Politico story today makes me think that someday in the not-too-distant future we’ll look back on this moment and find it almost quaint that we thought the tea party movement was the be-all and end-all of GOP-affiliated right-wing extremism. The story suggests that there are some areas of extremism where many teabaggers don’t want to go — but there are plenty of other people willing to do what the ‘baggers won’t:

Yes, a Politico article that goes to lengths to portray the mosque debacle as a bigger problem for Republicans and tea-partiers than it is for Democrats certainly seems a good place to start the world wondering whether dangerous tea-partiers can resist the urge to descend into dangerous religious extremism doesn't it?

Politico  keeps the ball rolling today with a shock headline, "Shot fired at Al Franken's condo."  Politico relies on the report from a spokesperson for that paragon of credibility and self-restraint Senator Al Franken:

“Right now it’s under investigation by the Minneapolis Police and the Capitol Hill Police,” Franken spokesman Marc Kimball told POLITICO.

Kimball said that “there was some damage to one of the window panes” in a double-paned window.  Kimball added that “nothing like this” has ever happened to the senator’s residence.

Minneapolis police have not said whether they have a suspect or if they believe Sen. Franken was specifically being targeted.

Notice there is absolutely nothing in Kimball's statement to support Politico's breathless headline.  It seems we have heard such dubious threats before.  CNN offers the "just-the-facts ma'am" version of events:

Sgt. Bill Palmer of the Minneapolis Police Department told CNN that members of the Franken family recently reported finding a hole in a window of their Minneapolis condominium that appeared to be made by either a BB gun or small rock.

The hole damaged a double-paned window, but did not penetrate the second pane, Palmer also said.

The object in question was not found and it remains unclear exactly when the damage occurred. Palmer said that it is unlikely the possible BB shot was directed at the Minnesota Democrat.

"I find it unlikely people actually even know where the senator lives," Palmer said.

Nothing to see here folks as even the liberal blog Wonkette is forced to admit.  Wonkette laughs off the Politico headline as a rather desperate attempt to make "instant August news."   There is really no doubt, however, it was Franken who hit the panic button right before he felt he felt the overwhelming compulsion to feed Politico a dramatic blow-by-blow of a story that seems to lack minor things - like substance.  

To be sure, the rantings of two left-wing loons does not a meme make.  Caveats notwithstanding, Democrats have pulled the dangerous card from the bottom of the deck before; these items had all the hallmarks of the same dirty tricks.  It isn't as though they tend to learn their lesson.  Does a day go by when they don't play the race and/or bigotry card?  When the going gets tough, it is the Dems and the Professional left who get a tad - dare I say it - dangerous.


Thanks to Theo Spark for linking!

Sign of the Times: Hot-selling t-shirt on Martha's Vineyard this year is ...

Remember last year's visit to Martha's Vineyard with the gushing coverage and giddy anticipation of the Obama arrival to an island that barely blinks an eye when mere mortal celebrities visit?  Local restaurants created the "Barack-O-Taco," the "Obamarita" and a new ice cream treat was christened "Barack My World."  T-shirts bearing the slogans "Summer White House ’09,”  “Barackin’ the Vineyard Summer ’09," and "I vacationed with Obama" filled the shops and sold like hot cakes.

My how times have changed.  Gone are the goose bumps that greeted the Obama family last year.  Sure the "Obamarita" is back as are the "I vacationed with Obama" t-shirts.  Nothing says  they're "just not that into you" anymore Mr. President like the number one selling t-shirt on the Vineyard this year:

One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.

But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.

“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’

Who knew a year later Troglopundit's clever creation would be "Ba-rocking the Vineyard" in Summer '10?   Certainly the Democratic strategists and consultants didn't see this one coming:

The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in "Frontline" districts -- seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.

It looks as though Obama will be as welcome as snow in July on the campaign trail this year which should free him up for plenty of vacations this fall.  He even has his passport handy.  At this point an unexpected vacation or two seems preferable to his staying in Washington to do more damage to the country.  Maybe he and Rahm can open a t-shirt stand together.

Cook Political shifts 10 House races to the right including #PA08

Via Jim Geraghty
Cook Political Report notes a big ole shift to the right in 10 House races:

With today’s ratings changes in 10 House districts, The Cook Political Report is now raising its House forecast from a Republican net gain of between 32 and 42 seats to a gain of between 35 and 45 seats, with the odds of an outcome larger than that range greater than the odds of a lesser outcome. A turnover of 39 seats would tip majority status into Republican hands.

Here are the races moved a step to the right today:
TENNESSEE | District 4: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (8/17/10)
SOUTH DAKOTA | District AL: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
PENNSYLVANIA | District 10: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (8/17/10)
PENNSYLVANIA | District 8: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
OHIO | District 16: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
ILLINOIS | District 11: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
IOWA | District 3: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
GEORGIA | District 8: Likely Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
FLORIDA | District 2: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (8/17/10)
CALIFORNIA | District 47: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (8/17/10)

Incoherent and incompetent one-term president

Via Memeorandum
Rounding up the latest commentary on the state of the Obama presidency during the doldrums of the August news cycle we find a very different portrait of the messiah president Barack Obama. Once the articulate and charismatic messiah we were assured would slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planets, Barack Obama is now incoherent according to CNN critics:

The danger here is an incoherent presidency," said David Morey, vice chairman of the Core Strategy Group, who provided communications advice to Obama's 2008 campaign. "Simpler is better, and rising above these issues and leading by controlling the dialogue is what the presidency is all about. So I think that's the job they have to do more effectively as they have in the past [in the campaign]."

Obama has faced a torrent of criticism for what was called mixed messages on the controversial plan. On Friday, Obama said Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country ... That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

The following day, Obama told Ed Henry, CNN's senior White House correspondent, that he was "not commenting on the wisdom" of the project, just the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion. Then a White House spokesman clarified those comments.

"There is no question they are having messaging problems at the White House," Morey said. "They've lost control of the dialogue, and they've gotten pulled down by the extremes on the left and right. They've just not had a coherent set of themes."

As Jennifer Rubin points out they go on to twist the knife a bit by pointing to the superior communication style of . . . guess who?

While many poked fun at former President George W. Bush for mispronouncing words and stumbling through sentences, observers note that he rarely had to backtrack on his answers because he employed a simple and direct messaging approach.

My how times have changed.

Obama's incoherent messaging has left one group feeling a bit chilly these days:

Democrats complain they were blindsided when President Obama weighed in on the Ground Zero mosque and handed the GOP a new club to beat them with.

Capitol Hill Democrats, including those facing tough races, were not told in advance before Obama's Friday night speech defending Muslims' rights to build a mosque in lower Manhattan.

While Mayor Bloomberg knew ahead of time what Obama intended to say at the Ramadan dinner at the White House, New York Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand were kept in the dark, sources said.

That Bloomberg was given advance notice of Obama's ill-fated speech on Friday while the members of his party were left out in the cold to fend for themselves speaks of incompetence at a minimum.  How many planks did these Democrats walk for him after all?  Rahm Emmanuel was left to do damage control as he fielded the angry phone calls of Democrats who felt blindsided by Obama's remarks.  According to the NY Daily News report, Obama proceeded to make his remarks at the Ramadan dinner though no consensus had been reached among his advisors as to what his position should be.  Emmanuel was reported to have been skeptical.  Gee I wonder who leaked this story?

Not every rat is leaving this sinking ship.  He still has a few apologists willing to pretend he hasn't tried to walk back his big brave support for freedom of religion in the United States in favor of a more precisely-phrased support for freedom of religion in the United States.  We all know he intended to signal that the mosque must be built even though he refuses to admit he was commenting on the "wisdom" of building the mosque.  This is the profile in courage we call Barack Obama.

Still, Roger Simon suggests that Obama may end up a "one-term president" because he boldly refused to listen to the polls and weighed in on the mosque controversy.  You see, he has taken seriously all that hope and change talk and maintained the idealism of a candidate:

The problem for Obama is that he appears to have taken seriously all the “change” stuff he promised during his campaign. And he has been unable to make the transition from candidate to president.

A candidate says, as Bobby Kennedy did, “Some men look at things the way they are and ask why? I dream of things that are not and ask why not?”

A president says: “What do the polls say?”

This puts Obama in the company of such fine leaders as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln:

You can go back to the mid-1800s and find a lot of legislators saying that Abraham Lincoln should stop lecturing people about ending slavery and listen to them about keeping it.

And there were plenty of lawmakers who said President Dwight D. Eisenhower was “disconnected from the mainstream of America” when he ordered the 101st Airborne Division to go down to Little Rock, Ark., to make sure some black kids could go to school with white kids.

Ok, my head is spinning.  Did I miss the part when Eisenhower refused to comment on the wisdom of making sure some black kids could go to school with white kids?  Nevertheless, Simon suggests Obama will pay dearly for his bravery; the price will be a second term in office.  Well if that is what it takes I am all aboard that train.  History will sort out the legacy of this incoherent and incompetent one-term president.  The sooner that starts the better.

Melissa Bean brings a bouncer to control town hall meeting

Now we know why Melissa Bean needed to charge a $25 admission fee for Chicago-style town hall meetings; she needed to pay the bouncer:



Perhaps Congresswoman Bean is unable to return tainted Charlie Rangel donations in order to pay the bouncer and the man who leans in the face of anyone asking uncomfortable questions. Dan Riehl reports these men were members of the library security team:

After a closed-door, pre-event meeting between Rep Melissa Bean (D) Il-8 and staff of the Round Lake Area Public Library, a man alleged to be the hulking head of library security repeatedly took an intimidating stance, standing over questioners who raised controversial issues. Other library management attempted to dissuade an attendee from video taping what was purportedly a public townhall event. Rather than stop the intimidation, Bean appeared rather pleased with it based upon her smiling acknowledgment.

Is that bouncer thug a Round Lake Public Library employee?  That must be one tough library.

Bean is likely one of the few Dems holding any type of town hall meeting these days.  Her R+1 Illinois district is currently listed as likely Democratic though it is considered in play.   Bean has a  huge war chest to fend off a challenge from Joe Walsh.  I guess she feels as though she can get away with intimidating anyone who dares challenge and videotape her town hall meeting.  We'll just see about that in November, unless of course Melissa Bean plans to bring her bouncers to the polls.  

UPDATE: I remembered hearing Congresswoman Bean's reasoning for shutting off recording of the event somewhere else. Back in May Patrick Murphy suggested it was necessary to meet with every constituent individually rather than hold a town hall event citing their need to discuss private matters. Notice that Congresswoman Bean brings a presentation on credit cards then demands videotaping be stopped so individuals can discuss private credit card concerns. Additionally she uses this presentation to avoid taking direct questions from the crowd during the balance of the town hall event. These Democrats will do anything to avoid taking questions from their constituents en masse. Murphy, incidentally, has not scheduled any town hall events since the challenge back in May he do so.

Uh Oh- Dem Senate Candidate Indicted

Via Memeorandum
A perfect Friday the 13th ending to an already lousy week for Democrats:

Longshot Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene was indicted Friday on two charges, including a felony charge of showing pornography to a teenage student in a South Carolina college computer lab.

Greene surprised the party establishment with his primary victory in June. His arrest in November was first reported by The Associated Press the day after he won the nomination.

Authorities said he approached a student in a University of South Carolina computer lab, showed her obscene photos online, then talked about going to her dorm room.

If convicted Greene could face up to 3 years for a misdemeanor or up to 5 for a felony conviction.  This is rough timing for Greene who is ramping up his campaign against Senator Jim DeMint.  I will bet DeMint was really starting to worry too.


Be sure to read my Guest Post  at Pundit & Pundette, "Going Galt at the Tot Lot"

Obama and Crist Joined at the hip

Charlie Crist seems to be joined at the hip with Barack Obama. As in most other battleground states this is not where the would-be-moderate-mavericky type wants to be these days:

For the first time in his nearly four years in office, Crist's popularity slid below the important 50-percent benchmark according to a Mason-Dixon poll released today. That's down from 51 percent in the same poll in May.

The survey suggests that Crist's gamble in April to flee the Republican Party in the face of a strong primary challenge from former House Speaker Marco Rubio isn't paying off, said Mason-Dixon managing director Brad Coker.

It also shows that the moderate Crist continues to pay the price for embracing President Obama's budget-busting economic stimulus recovery plan, which voters rate as a failure, Coker said. Obama's popularity in Florida, 44 percent, mirrors Crist's.

"It's almost like they're joined at the hip," Coker said. "I don't see how Crist recovers from this."

David Freddoso points to the only bright spot in the news for Crist:

 The good news: He might only need 40 percent of the vote to win.

The three party race serves only the Democrats which is why left-leaning pollster have developed a fondness for a Ron Paul third party run in 2012.  This recent development seems to reflect a sudden lack of faith in their  fading all-star candidate.   My how times have changed.

Bad News for Ma'am: Seismic shift in the Boxer Fiorina Race

Bad news for Barbara "Don't call me Ma'am Boxer:

The CBS 5 poll, conducted by the research firm SurveyUSA, showed Fiorina edging Boxer 47 percent to 42 percent, compared to a CBS 5 poll one month ago showing Fiorina over Boxer 47 to 45 percent.

The poll results indicated Fiorina's support was essentially unchanged among men and women, young and old, white and Hispanic while Boxer had lost small ground among men, younger voters, and independents.

The poll also showed Fiorina tripling her lead in the Central Valley, from seven points one month ago to 21 points in this latest poll.

Meanwhile, the CBS 5 poll has gubernatorial candidates Whitman and Brown at 44 and 43 percent, respectively, effectively even within the poll's 4.1 percent error margin. Compared to a CBS 5 poll one month ago, Whitman is down two percent, while, Brown is up four percent.

Allahpundit wonders whether this is a tremor or The Big One. It certainly will cause some fear and loathing among those convinced Democrats will take a few minor losses this year. The poll is the first to show Fiorina with a lead in the race. In order to confirm a trend the results will need to be replicated in subsequent polling. Still there is little evidence at this point that the poll should be discounted, the sample seems on target with a 44D, 34R, and 23I split on party identification.

A few more seismic shifts in the Senate race ratings today. Maybe the Senate really is in play

When Leadership was Selfless

Here's a story that will make you reach for your Troglopundit "Miss me Yet" automotivator and a handkerchief as we are given a glimpse into the bygone days when Presidents and First Ladies made us proud.  Former President George W. Bush and Laura Bush made a surprise visit troops arriving home from Afghanistan and Iraq at the USO in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport yesterday.   President Bush chatted and mingled with each of the returning soldiers as he thanked them for their service to the country.  

Photos capturing the surprise and delight of the returning soldiers have been posted on Facebook so be sure to see them all there.  There is a growing list of comments on each of the photos as well as the album itself that are wonderful too.  Here are just a few:

Constance Pagan I have always liked that Man!!!!! And YES I MISS HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Kerri Houston Toloczko God bless him - he still cares loves the troops far more than he cares about the cameras. His love and appreciation for our heroes shows all over his face.

Robert Rowe

There is a warmth and generosity about President George and First Lady Laura Bush which ALWAYS comes through in all circumstances. I will NEVER forget the day he borrowed the bullhorn from the fireman to LEAD AMERICA as long as I live. Even in retirement, President Bush and First Lady Laura give us examples of what LEADERSHIP is ... selfLESSness and Gratitude are it's hallmarks.

From the bottom of my heart I thank President and Mrs Bush ... our nation's men and women at arms and the USO for your continuing service to our country.

 Oh and the pictures are pretty great too:

See the rest on Facebook
More on Memeorandum

“Sestak is actually Slovak for ‘job offer"

Ed Morrissey has an interesting wrinkle in the Joe Sestak job offer brouhaha. It seems Bill Clinton has denied any involvement in the whole sordid job offer controversy:

WBRE-TV has reported that former President Bill Clinton, who until yesterday has not spoken publicly on the controversy, denied any involvement in trying to maneuver Sestak out of the race:

“Clinton denied it to EyeWitness news, saying he never tried to get Sestak out of the race and has never been accused of it.” (WBRE-TV, 8/10/10)

Sestak told a different story on May 28th:

“Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives.”

Sestak is wedded to this version of events having used it as proof he is able to stand against the party he votes with a mere 97% of the time. Moreover, Sestak used it as fodder for a comedy skit at at Stu Bykofsky’s 20th annual Candidates Comedy Night last night.  Sestak's routine, a riff off of Letterman's top ten list, counted down a list of jobs he was offered in order to drop from his Democratic primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter.  Sestak was said to have quipped, “Sestak is actually Slovak for ‘job offer.’ During his routine Sestak suggests he was offered the position of Rahm Emmanuel's etiquette coach.  While this is clearly a joke, Sestak mentions that he said "Mr. President sometimes the party clearly does ask too much."



Clinton's denial leaves him some wiggle room. While he denies specifically being involved in attempting to persuade Sestak to drop from the race, he doesn't flatly deny relaying a job offer. His claim he has never been accused of it either is perfectly true as well; the controversy always centered on White House involvement. This does, however, put the whole issue back in the race. Toomey may or may not find this helpful as Sestak seems to believe this incident proves his independence from his party. His comedy skit last evening seemed intent on putting some distance between himself and Rahm Emmanuel as well as other unpopular Democrats in Pennsylvania - namely Ed Rendell.  As I have said before the only time Joe Sestak stands against his party is when it suits his career plans. If I were Pat Toomey I would repeat that point until every Pennsylvania voter knows it by heart.

Side note:  Toomey's comedy skit was actually very well received according to PA2010.  The site awarded the skit, Best Policy-Focused Routine:

Ever the conservative wonk, the GOP Senate nominee continued to riff on bailouts, stimulus spending and health care. Chevrolet’s new hybrid sedan, he said, “runs on a combination of gasoline and bailout funds.” But his best joked hinged on the idea that a lame-duck Congress will take up Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell, immigration reform and marijuana legalization: “If you’re a gay Mexican drug dealer looking to sneak across the border to join the Navy, then this is your year.”

Video available at the link for anyone interested.

Paul Ryan - Democrats in Panic Mode

Oh and they're beginning to become a little unhinged.   Just a little Paul?

“The Left sees their agenda being rebuked by the voters this fall,” Ryan tells us. As their electoral worries mount, he says, Democrats are scurrying to “nullify any notion that there is an alternative path for America. They want to delegitimize an alternative plan and win the argument by default, making the case that there is no other path for America than what progressives have mapped out for the country, and that any other talk, of any other idea, is just fanciful.”

“That’s what’s troubling,” Ryan says. “They are trying to deny the debate that must happen if we are going to get out of the mess that we’re in.”

Ryan is an expert on liberal efforts to deligitimize, he is target number one these days.  This, of course, makes all the more troubling Ryan's repeated denials he has any intention to run for president in 2012.  Ryan mentions Mitch Daniels as one potential candidate for 2012 though he emphasized he expects other candidates to materialize.  Read the rest especially his prediction on the question du jour will Obama cut to the center or triangulate when faced with a new Congress filled with fresh new Republican faces.  Hint:  he doesn't think so - neither do I.

Speaking of unhinged Democrats, Harry Reid dished up a big ole serving of the race card Tuesday when he wondered:

 "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK," Reid said, speaking to Latino supporters whose votes he needs to win re-election in November. "Do I need to say more?"

Evidently he did find the need to say more when he "doubled down" with a side dish of stupid sauce:

“Sen. Reid’s contention was simply that he doesn't understand how anyone, Hispanic or otherwise, would vote for Republican candidates because they oppose saving teachers’ jobs, oppose job-creating tax incentives for small businesses, oppose investments in job-creating clean energy projects, and oppose the help for struggling, unemployed Nevadans to put food on the table and stay in their homes,” read the statement.

Looks as though he forgot the part where we kick kittens and all that.   Still we are expected to believe he really didn't mean Hispanics particularly - he meant how could anyone support a Republican.  Nice try Harry. Perhaps all the unemployed and underemployed in the State of Nevada are wondering why they should have a Democrat by the name of Harry Reid represent them.

Or any Democrat named Reid for that matter:

Harry Reid’s remarks and the subsequent reactions and commentary are of national interest, of course, but it is worth noting that his son, Rory, is presently getting his clock cleaned by Republican Hispanic Brian Sandvoal in Nevada’s gubernatorial race.

Reid's statement concludes with a vow to "fight every day for the interests of Hispanic Nevadans," except of course the Republican one cleaning his son's clock I presume.  I can only guess he hopes Hispanic Nevadans forget his vote was key in killing immigration reform back in 2007.  

More on Memeorandum

American Crossroads Poll: Battleground study reveals Senate could be in play

Those who listened to Karl Rove's debut as radio host yesterday on Rush were likely to have heard him mention the results of this Public Opinion Strategies poll conducted for American Crossroads. The poll was conducted using a similar structure and methodology as the June Public Opinion Strategies poll conducted for NPR radio.  Much like the June poll, this study lets the air out of the tires of the Hope and Change Express.  Moreover, voters appears to be poised to take the keys from Democrats in both the House and the Senate. Key findings of the study conducted in 13 battleground states including; Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington:

• Independents are voting Republican by 47%-25% across the Battleground states.
• In the four states John McCain won in 2008, the GOPer leads 46%-36%. In the nine states Barack Obama won, the GOPer still leads 47%-40%, including 50%-38% in the five states Obama won with less than 55%, and 43%-42% in the four Obama 55%+ states.
• There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while womensplit 42% GOP/44% Dem.
• As seen nearly everywhere else, the Democratic candidates face a wide enthusiasm gap. The GOPer leads 52%-36% among high interest voters (rating their interest as 8-10 on a 1-10 scale, which is 74% of the sample).

Testing potential messages likely to be argued by each party, the study shows voters unlikely to buy the Blame Bush strategy Democrats have adopted since taking control of all three branches of government:

53% President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to
end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses.

...or...

43% President Obama’s economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis, and are laying
the foundation for our eventual economic recovery.

Although when given a choice to assign blame for the economy likely voters will choose to blame Bush by a 19 point margin, voters are still more likely to reject the Democratic argument that Obama's economic policies  are steering the economy out of the ditch.  In short, voters are not all that impressed with Obama's driving skills to say the least.

Politico summarizes the big picture that may include voters mad enough to take the keys away from the Democratic House and Senate:

To American Crossroads, however, the point of the poll is the big picture: the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of the Senate campaign are mad as hell, and seem unlikely to take it anymore.

“There’s a sense that while the Democratic House might be in danger, a Democratic Senate is somehow safe – but the findings here really contradict that conventional wisdom,” American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio said. “Each of the last seven times the House changed power since 1932, the Senate fell in the same year, and there’s abundant evidence here that history will continue to repeat itself.”

That’s a possibility MSNBC’s Chuck Todd floated in late July. Asked for his prediction for the fall campaign, Todd said he’s inclined to believe “Republicans win them both or they don't win either. They win both the house and the Senate, this thing goes to 45, 50 seats and 10 in the Senate, or neither one happen.”

Dick Morris has been predicting Democrats lose the Senate for some time now based on the size of the wave of anger voters feel towards Democratic leadership.  While this may be true historically, there is still good reason to believe that this election may be an exception.  For one, there are fewer Senate seats on the ballot and Republicans would need to run the table to take the Senate.  The potential is there though as Politico points out:

In eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington – Republican candidates average an edge of seven points over their Democratic opponents, leading 47 percent to 40 percent.

In five Republican-held seats – Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio – GOP candidates hold an average lead of eight points, 45 percent to 37 percent.

The pollster Glen Bolger elaborates:

“Individual races may turn out okay, but the overall wave is as strong against [Democrats] as it is against Democrats in the House.”

“You’ve got independents voting Republican, two to one, just like McDonnell, Brown and Christie had,” Bolger said, referring to the 2009 victories of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and the 2010 special election win of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. “You have the high-interest voters much more supportive of Republicans than the overall electorate, even.”

The latest Gallup poll has Republicans leading Democrats in the Congressional Ballot by 6 points which seems to support the notion there is big wave brewing against Democrats.  As noted however, individual elections could save a Democratic seat in the Senate but that would buck the tide riding against Democrats in general.  There is much work to be done and a political lifetime between now and November.  Conditions could change in ways we can't predict.  For now, it appears voters want the keys out of the hands of Democrats.  "I'm just saying that is not a coincidence."