Over 90,000 Americans were killed in the Pacific during World War II defending the United States and the world from Japanese aggression.  Thank God many of the survivors passed on before they had to witness the President of the United States bowing low to the Emperor of Japan.

To those veterans of the Pacific still living today, I say thank you.  And I apologize on behalf of my generation for producing a president so bent on dishonoring your service and your buddies’ sacrifices.

Mr. Obama, you are an embarrassment.

Sixty-four Democrats voted with Republicans in passing Stupak.  The argument says that had Republicans voted “present” or “no” on the amendment, it would have failed.  The theory is that those sixty-four Democrats would have abandoned the final bill without the prohibition included, effectively killing the overall effort to socialize the nation’s health care system.

But that thinking represents the triumph of hope over experience.  It supposes that Nancy Pelosi, who has shown herself to be nothing if not a cold-blooded and ruthless political operative, would not take any other necessary steps to find the votes necessary to pass the bill.  The only reason Stupak was allowed to come to a vote in the first place was because Pelosi was willing to shiv two-thirds of her caucus to get the bill passed.  Pelosi, and Obama, would have moved any obstacle, made any promise, and broken any number of arms to get the White House a “victory” on health care, however hollow that victory may ultimately turn out to be.

The Stupak Amendment is not likely to survive the House-Senate conference and make it into the final bill.  This point was dramatically brought out by Minority Leader John Boehner on the house floor when three successive Democratic chairmen refused to guarantee that the amendment would be included in the eventual conference report.  Indeed, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said today that she is very confident that the language will not be included.

Some have argued that forcing a vote on the health care bill without Stupak would have shown Democrats’ true nature:  unconcerned about abortion but hell bent on expanding the federal government’s power.  Although such a vote will eventually happen when the conference report, when it does it will not be a true test of the Shadegg strategy.

Presumably, the bill that comes out of conference will be minus Stupak and some list of other provisions in the current House bill.  Any of those missing provisions could move votes.  Supposing the conference report is minus Stupak and a “robust” public option. It would then lose Liberals and pro-lifers, and we wouldn’t know for sure how a bill minus Stupak alone would have fared.

In addditon, voting on final passage of a conference report is a whole different ballgame than voting on a bill that one expects to go through some changes in conference.  Even without Stupak, pro-life Democrats can be counted on to swallow hard and vote for the bill so as not to be seen as standing in the way of History.

In the face of that outcome, the only sensible thing to do on Stupak was to vote in favor.  Shadegg’s strategy, though well intentioned, would have resulted in giving cover to vulnerable Blue Dog Democrats in 2010.  In the those races, when Republicans are hammering them on voting to allow federal funding of abortions, the Blue Dogs won’t be able to hide behind the 40 or so Republicans that voted “against” Stupak by voting present.

The sad fact is that Republicans are in their minority position because they abandoned their principles.  The way back to the majority certainly is not more of the same, however much strategy may be involved.  The American people want leaders that stand for something, and Republicans are showing them that they do.  There are no magic bullet votes or grand strategies that will return Republicans to the majority in Congress.  It’s going to take old-fashioned hard work, patient explanation, and dogged adherence to principle.  Stupak was a good start.

And New Jersey is winnable.  Independent candidate Chris Daggett appears to be fading, as voters who were considering him begin to get cold feet.  The majority of Daggett’s voters say Christie is their second choice, and he stands to gain three to five percent in the polls just from Daggett’s support.

Enthusiasm for incumbent Governor Jon Corzine remains non-existent, no matter how many times President Barack Obama visits the Garden State on his behalf.  New Jerseyans are not happy with Corzine’s performance as governor, and they know that Obama is not on the ballot.  None but the most die-hard Democrat is coming out to vote for Corzine.  Christie is winning among independents by double-digits.

With victory so close, it’s time for conservatives nationwide to step in and help push Christie over the top.  Christie is getting close to 90% of New Jersey Republican support, but he will need every available Republican voter to come out.  RS’ers in New Jersey, contact the Christie campaign and volunteer to help get out the vote.  If you are not in New Jersey but know someone who lives there, you can help too.  Call your friends or relatives - especially if they are Republican or independents - and urge them to go vote for Christie.

The media is already trying to insulate President Obama from the consequences of a Republican sweep on Election Day, despite the fact that he has campaigned hard for Corzine and Deeds.  We can make this Tuesday a nightmare for Democrats and the Obama Administration by pushing Christie over the top in New Jersey.

If you are in New Jersey, vote early.  Then go to your local Christie campaign office and volunteer to get more Republicans to the polls.  If you are not, take fifteen minutes and call that Republican uncle, or cousin, or independent friend and get them to go out and support Christie.  Conservatives across the country coalesced around Doug Hoffman’s campaign in NY-23.  We can do the same for Chris Christie in New Jersey.  The time is now.

The result caused a minor stir on the Internet. A very minor stir, as even a cursory examination of the internals of this poll shows that it is deeply flawed, internally contradictory, and not at all reflective of the state of the race in the Garden State.

All polls produce outliers, and polling outfits occasionally get a bad sample. But a result this bad this late should never have been released, if Suffolk University wanted to maintain any semblance of credibility. The fact that it was released leads one to believe that the purpose of the survey was not to predict the outcome in the governor’s race, but to influence it.

Let’s start with the sample.  Suffolk surveyed 400 New Jersey residents, 360 of whom said they were likely to vote in the governor’s race.  The small sample size leads to a relatively high margin of error of 5.5 percentage points.  Worse, however, is the make-up of the sample.  Just 83 total respondents out of 400 (21%) identified themselves as Republicans versus 135 respondents (34%) that said they were Democrats.  Critically, as we’ll see later, independents made up the lion’s share of the respondents with 46 percent.

There are more independents in New Jersey’s electorate than affiliates of the two major parties.  But the 13-point split between Democrats and Republicans is far of the mark.  Democrats outnumber Republicans by a few hundred thousand.  But the split in New Jersey is much closer to 32-28-40 than this poll’s massively skewed result.  It’s no wonder, then, that an overly-Democratic sample would produce an overly-Democratic result.  But digging further into the cross tabs reveals a sample that should be full of Christie voters.

Two-thirds say that the state is off on the wrong track, and 32 percent list either taxes in general or property taxes specifically as their most important issue.  Another 26 percent list jobs or the economy as the number one issue.  Still another 15 percent list either corruption or the budget as their biggest concern.  All of these are themes that the Christie campaign has been using to hammer away at Corzine for almost two full months.  Taken together, just under three-fourths (74%) of respondents say that they are voting on the basis of one of Chrisite’s issues, yet the poll directors think this jibes with a Corzine win.

How can this be?  This sample is very confused about what it is going to do next Tuesday.  Seventy-two percent say their mind is made up about how they will vote, versus 24 percent who say they could change their mind.  But 55 percent say that they don’t know how they would vote if the election were held today.  Sixty-two percent have a favorable view of President Obama, but a third say that Obama’s endorsement of Corzine makes them less likely to vote for him.  Among the independents, Christie is winning by 5 points, while 55 percent remain undecided.  There may be a story in these results, but it is certainly not one that gives any high degree of confidence that Corzine is winning this race, let alone blowing Christie away.

That begs the question, why would Suffolk release this poll with all of its obvious problems?  It’s difficult to imagine that the polling director looked at these scatter shot results and thought this was an accurate appraisal of the state of the race.  A polling director concerned about the reputation of his center might have thought twice about releasing this data this close to an election, when there is a high degree that people will remember just how wrong it is likely to be.

On the ground in New Jersey, Daggett’s poor performance in the final two debates has stopped his campaign dead in the water.  Republicans are quietly encouraged that his campaign peaked too soon, and they expect a good percentage of his voters to come over to Christie, or stay home.

Meanwhile, Corzine’s “momentum” – which was always really a result of Daggett’s rise, not a Corzine comeback – has been completely stopped by the corruption conviction of former Bergen County Democratic Party chair Joseph Ferrirero.  Bergen is the wealthiest and most populous county in the state, and Christie has been hitting it hard, trying to reclaim the once Republican stronghold.  Ferriero’s conviction plays right into the Christie campaign’s hands.

Make no mistake, next week’s election will be close.  Statewide Republicans don’t win very often in New Jersey, and it is something of a surprise that Christie is this close this late.  But there are no moral victories.  Having been in the lead most of the summer, Republicans want a win in New Jersey to go along with an expected victory in Virginia’s governor’s race.

To get it, Republicans will need a high turnout among their base, a lower-than-normal turnout among Democrats, and late-deciders and independents to break Christie’s way.  All of this is well within reach, and much of it is likely given Corzine’s position in reputable polls.  Suffolk latest effort scratches it off that list.

There was another recent candidate for governor in the Garden State who rode the message of lower taxes to victory in November:  Jon Corzine.  Back in 2005, Corzine promised property tax relief for New Jersey’s over-burdened citizens.  Things have not exactly worked out according to plan.

With a little help from the Wayback Machine, Jon Corzine’s 2005 tax promises have been recovered.  And his betrayal of New Jersey taxpayers exposed.

During his election campaign four years ago, Corzine made some pretty specific promises about taxes and spending.  He dubbed his plan the REAL plan, which stood for Responsible, Effective, Affordable, and Lasting tax relief.

• Responsible. Corzine has a plan to grow state revenues from a growing economy, and make specific spending cuts. This is the only responsible way to make more state funds available for direct property tax relief without raising other taxes.
• Effective. Corzine’s plan gives direct rebates to homeowners and renters who need them; rebates are guaranteed to grow 10% per year – or 40% over 4 years.
• Accountable. Corzine will hold local governments and school districts accountable for their spending. He will push for a new, elected State Comptroller with jurisdiction over local government, and he will expand incentive programs for smart management and reduced spending by local governments. Corzine will also work to eliminate unfunded mandates. And he will end the “corruption tax” at all levels of government, to make sure taxpayers are not paying for sweetheart contracts and corruption.
• Lasting. Corzine will ensure lasting relief by hard-wiring rebates into the state budget, and by keeping NJ’s economy competitive to keep revenues growing. Also, Corzine strongly advocates for a Citizens’ Convention on property taxes to bring long-term structural relief and permanently reduce the property tax burden.

Who Corzine’s REAL plan helps: Corzine’s plan helps all those earning less than $200,000 per year. That means his plan will provide relief to over 90% of New Jersey taxpayers; that’s 2.4 million taxpaying households.

Looks like a good plan on paper.  Too bad that’s exactly what it turned out to be, a paper plan.

Property taxes in New Jersey have instead gone up by 17% since Corzine was elected on the promise to cut taxes.  New Jersey families have been saddled with an additional $1,000 a year on their property tax bills as a result.  In a twist of the tax knife, Corzine eliminated state property tax rebates for millions of New Jersey households.

New Jersey property taxes are the highest in the nation.  And they keep going up.  Corzine’s fiscal 2010 budget, just passed by the state legislature, will result in another 3-4 percent increase in property taxes.

Christie has been barnstorming the state talking to overtaxed residents about his plan to cut income, corporate, and small business taxes, as well as slash state spending.  But the press has taken to claiming that Christie has no specific plans to deal with the state’s budgetary problems.  But the press doesn’t really care about specifics.  If it did, it would be tearing at Corzine to explain where the 40% property tax cut he promised New Jerseyans went.

The truth is, of course, Corzine never intended to cut property taxes.  That was just campaign rhetoric.  Now, struggling to get more than 40% of the vote in his reelection bid, Corzine is the one who has gotten vague.  He promises only to work with President Barack Obama and be his “partner” in turning the state’s beleaguered economy around.  The two make a perfect couple, too.  Obama knows all about promising tax and spending cuts, only to yank the football away after the election.  Corzine and Obama: perfect together.

But the bigger story the MSNBC missed with its focus on the Wilson flap is found in the second bullet point sent out by the White House last night.  The Obama Administration inadvertently confirmed that the president’s plan will begin a slow take over of the health care system by the federal government.  How else could this be interpreted?

“Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.”

In other words, as the federal exchange takes hold, plans not complying with the federal government’s standards will start to disappear.  Eventually, it won’t make any sense for any company to offer health insurance as the federal requirements will make the business of providing health insurance far too expensive, and the premiums far too expensive for the insured.

The result will be that everyone will wind up with no other “choice” than the so-called public option, just as the Administration has planned all along.  It took Wilson “calling out” the president’s “misinformation” and “lies” to finally get the Administration to admit it.

But sit tight, that’s just for a while.  Patrick Rufini had it right on Twitter last night.

Tmrw’s speech will be widely praised for resetting the debate on #hcr. And then everything will go back to exactly how it was within 96 hrs

Exactly.  What Patrick realizes, that the MSM does not, is that short term gain is all the president’s speech is intended to do.  If the speech was to be anything like what the media is previewing, the White House would not be making it known that Obama does not plan to offer any real specifics, and plans to be “non-committal” on the central question of the whole debate, the so-called “public option.”

No, the speech is nothing more than an “operational pause,” to borrow a military term of art.  The aftermath is meant to be the calm before the storm.  Next week, the real advance begins.

So as you read the headlines tomorrow, and watch the tingling commentators tonight, remember that it’s all just part of the plan.  And steel yourself for the coming fight.

Both margins are essentially unchanged from previous surveys by the respective polls, but there have been minor shifts in the numbers. In the July Quinnipiac poll, Christie garnered 53 percent of respondents, six points better than his showing in today’s poll. Similarly, Corzine found his support shrinking by four points from the last Quinnipiac survey. In the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, both candidates increased their share of respondents over June’s result.

Christie’s negatives have been driven up by Corzine’s slashing attacks against Christie’s ethics and smears of his service as U.S. Attorney for Newark. For most of the past month, Christie has been beset by attacks on everything from phone calls with the White House, to his personal finances, to a four-year old traffic ticket.  But while Corzine’s relentless attacks have raised doubts about Christie, they have not managed to convince many more voters that Corzine deserves a second term.

Fairleigh Dickinson reports in its poll that Christie enjoys the support of nearly one-in-five Democratic likely voters. Corzine’s attacks have been aimed at luring those wayward Democrats back to the fold. In that regard, the attacks have been a spectacular failure.

The Christie campaign released a statement on news of the polls.  Campaign manager Bill Stepien was truimphant.

“Governor Corzine has gotten used to throwing his Wall Street millions behind baseless and slanderous attack ads.  This year with the highest property taxes in the country, 9.3% unemployment and 200,000 lost jobs last year alone, the people of New Jersey are saying enough is enough.  Chris is leading this race because he offers solutions to struggling New Jerseyans while Jon Corzine has tried to mask his miserable record with even more of his angry, partisan rhetoric.

The stakes are too high when hard working families can barely make ends meet and Jon Corzine’s campaign has belittled and insulted the challenges so many in our state are facing.  Today’s polls make clear that voters want change and they’re going to start by changing governors.”

By listing property taxes first in its indictment of Corzine, and leaving any mention of corruption out of its official reaction, the Christie campaign is showing that the real campaign is beginning, and Christie intends to press his advantage over Corzine in the very area it will hurt Corzine the most, his own record.

Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today:  community rating, which forbids insurance companies from charging premiums based on an individual consumer’s health status; the practice of defensive medicine, under which doctors order numerous costly and often unnecessary tests to cover themselves against the possibility of malpractice lawsuits; and employer-based coverage.  Each of these problems, which together contribute most to the “mess” in health care delivery, were all either brought into existence, or are perpetuated by Democrats.

Employer-based coverage came about during World War II as a consequence of the National War Labor Board’s decision to institute wage and price freezes in an attempt to prevent production shortages due to labor unrest or inflation.  The NWLB exempted fringe benefits like pension plans and health insurance from the freeze, meaning employers could compete for the dwindling pool of skilled workers by offering ever-increasing health insurance coverage.  Workers grew accustomed to receiving health benefits as a condition of their employment, and the system of employer-provided health benefits became an American institution.

Although the NWLB decision may have sprung from the best of intentions at a time of war, it grew from the progressive tendency toward control.  The consequence for today’s health care debate is that generations of Americans were separated from the cost of the medical care they received.  As costs grew, and businesses were forced to cut back on benefits while increasing the employee’s cost share, workers began to feel the increase in costs for the first time.  Two of the main drivers of those cost increases have been the practice of defensive medicine, and community rating.

Doctors know that every test they fail to order could be the one that leads to an expensive malpractice lawsuit.  So they order test after test after test, providing themselves cover from the trial lawyers, and ratcheting up the cost of routine care.  According to a study by the American Medical Association (.pdf), which has now signed on to President Obama’s efforts to take over the system, the federal Department of Health and Human Services put the cost of defensive medicine at between $70 and $126 billion in 2003.  That number is almost certainly higher today.

Now consider that former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, one of the strongest proponents of nationalized health care, appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday trumpeting Congressional Budget Office numbers putting the cost of the current House bill at $60 billion per year.  Simply getting a handle on defensive medicine by controlling the trial lawyers could save better than two times the cost of the Democrats’ “reform.”  If Democrats were serious about getting costs under control, they would jump on curbing malpractice lawsuits.

But Republican attempts to reign in the trial lawyers have been resisted for years by Democrats in Congress and the White House.  Trial lawyers are a huge source of campaign cash for Democratic politicians, and they are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.  Patients, the uninsured, and true health care reform will just have to wait while Democrats continue milking their cash cow.  When it comes to finding the mess-makers in health care, President Obama need look no further than Democrats and their trial lawyer friends.

Where Democrats have tried their hand at regulation, they have only managed to make the health care mess bigger.  Community rating is a system dreamed up by state regulators that was designed to fix perceived inequities in the health insurance industry.  Democrats at the state level didn’t like the fact that health insurance plans were priced according to risk.  Sicker people who were more likely to use insurance were charged more for comparable coverage than healthier ones.

In a misguided attempt to level the playing field, community rating regulations forbade insurance companies from charging rates based on risk.  Now, smokers pay the same rate as non-smokers.  Exercisers pay the same as non-exercisers.  This is despite the demonstrable fact that smokers and the overweight tend to have worse health outcomes, and so require more health care services.  Insurance companies must make up the relative loss they take on these policies, with the result that everyone’s rates go up.

With the exception of New Hampshire and perhaps Pennsylvania, the list of states that mandate some form of community rating on health insurers reads like a list of the bluest of the blue states:  Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.  These states, long controlled by liberal Democrats, were present at the creation of skyrocketing health insurance rates.

And since Democrats at the federal level forbid a true nationwide market in health care coverage by limiting the pool of available plans by the state the consumer lives in, consumers must buy plans that meet their state’s minimum standards, no matter whether they need or intend to ever use the covered services.  This increases costs and limits choice.  That seems to be just the way Democrats want it, as they have beaten back every Republican effort to open up the health care market to allow consumers to purchase plans from other states based on need rather than minimums.  Maybe the president should have addressed these Democrats when he spoke of silencing those who have created the health care “mess.”

Congress now plans to bring community rating to the federal level, at President Obama’s urging.    At his recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama alluded to this component of his plan when he told the audience, “Under the reform we’re proposing, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.  Period.”   That means that insurance rates could not be based on a consumer’s health status.  The Wall Street Journal says this proposal, “blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all.”

President Obama wants to silence the critics of his health care nationalization because he is losing the debate, fair and square.  Americans have empowered themselves with information and questions for the president and their representatives.  So far, the proponents of change have been unable to provide satisfactory answers.  Rather than try to cast blame, and ignore the clear history of the health care problems he claims to want to solve, the president should pull back his health care plans and listen to Americans’ concerns.

If he did so, his poll numbers would instantly improve and he would be able to design a health care reform that addresses actual, not perceived problems.  But if the President is more interested in assigning responsibility for the current situation, he should convene a meeting of his fellow Democrats and tell them to stop using health care insurance and delivery as a laboratory to test out their misguided social experiments.  Or else, he should tell them to clean up their own mess.

Cross posted at Acticons.

Asked about Christie during a July 7 appearance before the committee, Rove said he never spoke with Christie about his investigations or other actions as the state’s top federal prosecutor. They did discuss the possibility Christie might run for governor, Rove testified.

“I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House, but not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for governor, and he asked me questions about who — who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to,” Rove said in the testimony.

In an act that stinks of political desperation, the Corzine campaign is attempting to use Rove’s testimony as a basis for calling Christie’s entire extremely successful seven-year stint as U.S. Attorney for Newark into question.

Corzine’s theory is that the phone calls with Rove prove that Christie’s actions as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor were politically motivated.

“I’m under the impression that U.S. attorneys are supposed to be free of politics.  If politics comes into play, then the whole basis of justice is called into question.  Are the actions taken dependent on the fair administration of justice, or were there political issues? People have to have faith that the judgments that are taken by our courts, by our prosecutorial system, are such that everyone is treated equally before the law.”

There is no actual evidence, of course, that Christie was even seriously considering a campaign for elective office while he was U.S. Attorney, let alone making prosecutorial decisions on the basis of his future political aspirations.  Rove confirms this in is testimony, telling the committee, “My recollection was he was very tentative about it.  He was a long way away from the practical politics of it.”

But that doesn’t matter to Corzine, or the Newark Star-Ledger, which dutifully reported the baseless accusations.  Corzine continues to trail Christie by double-digits in the RCP Average, and his campaign is effectively dead in the water.  Not even a visit by President Barack Obama was able to lift Corzine’s flagging position in the polls, actually doing him more harm than good.

The essential problem for Corzine is that New Jersey voters don’t trust him, and they don’t trust the Democratic Party.  By a margin of 50-15 percent, they associate Democrats with political corruption over Republicans and 58 percent disapprove of Corzine’s performance as governor.  Faced with those facts, and unable to defend his party or himself, Corzine has no choice but to try and smear Christie with any and every possible allegation.  It’s evidence of a political camapign in its death throes, and the harbinger of good electoral news for Republicans not just in New Jersey, but in next year’s congressional elections as well.

The Bush administration treated America’s enemies as dangerous threats bent on destroying the country and used every resource at its disposal to defeat them while respecting American citizens’ right to disagree with its policies.

The Obama Administration tries to appease America’s enemies and uses every possible opportunity to cower to them while treating American citizens that disagree with its policies as dangerous threats bent on destroying the country, using every thuggish tactic at its disposal to silence them.

It is with that thought in mind that we take a look at President Barack Obama’s now infamous determination from afar that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “acted stupidly,” in arresting Harvard Professor, and Obama friend, Henry Louis Gates.  The president has since re-calibrated that remark, offering in his pre-eminent law enforcement opinion that Gates should not have been arrested for verbally assaulting Sgt. James Crowley and causing a public scene in front of his home in protest of the police coming to protect him and his property from potential vandals.

But the “acting stupidly” comment still hangs over the incident and over the White House like a dark cloud.  Obama put it there with his inability to restrain himself from commenting on the Gates affair at last week’s White House press conference.  And in so eagerly labeling the Cambridge Police, Obama has unwittingly provided the lens through which to view his first six months as president.  For the Obama Administration has been acting stupidly almost since the very first day of his presidency.

President Obama came into office with perhaps more political capital than any president in recent history.  Following an administration and a president that had become widely – if unfairly – unpopular, Obama took the office after a campaign based on broad themes of hope and change. Americans of all ideologies earnestly hoped that the country would thrive under his leadership, even if like Rush Limbaugh they wished his more liberal policy initiatives to fail.  Supported by a press corps heavily invested in his election and his Administration’s success, and coupled with enlarged Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican minority looking for areas in which to cooperate with the popular new president, the young Administration had everything going for it.

Until it was time to govern.

The trouble began even before the inauguration with a series embarrassing tax problems for Administration nominees.  Nominee after nominee was withdrawn for their failure to fully and completely pay their fair share, some might say their patriotic share, of income taxes.  The most famous of these is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.  Others, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, survived their tax woes, with the support of the president.  The entire episode, however, would have been avoidable were it not for a stupid oversight of the vetting committee.  Just days after the inauguration, Obama was forced to admit, “I screwed up.”

On policy, the Obama Administration has acted no less stupidly than it did on personnel.  President Obama’s guiding principle of his first 100 days in office can be summed up in this:  If George W. Bush did it, it must be bad.  Therefore I must undo it.  There doesn’t seem to be much more to it than that.  From reversing the ban on funding of family planning groups that counsel and conduct abortions overseas to ordering the closing of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the first weeks of the Administration were characterized by a reflexive rejection of any and every policy instituted by the Bush administration.

Particularly in the case of Guantanamo Bay, the Administration has come to regret those heady days of its youth, when all Obama had to do was be the anti-Bush to win plaudits from his sycophantic press corps.  Guantanamo has turned out to be thorny issue, on which Obama has had to eat his words.  Not long after declaring that the prison would close within a year, Obama has had to admit that some of the detainees would have to remain incarcerated indefinitely, without charge or trial.  It was unquestionably stupid of Obama to issue a definitive proclamation on the fate of the prison without considering the real world consequences of that decision, and he has been burned for it.

Legislatively, Obama has not fared much better, either.  On his signature program to date, the economic stimulus bill, President Obama allowed the appropriators in Congress to write the bill with little guidance from the White House.  The predictable result was a bill so laden with such obviously wasteful spending items, that Republicans were able to coalesce almost unanimously against it.  But the real stupidity on the part of the Administration came when Obama invited Congressional Republicans to the White House for negotiations on the package.  Instead of paying lip service to Republican concerns and perhaps throwing them a bone or two, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Obama stupidly and arrogantly dismissed Republicans with a curt “I won.”

The insult galvanized opposition to the bill and resulted in not one single Republican member of the House voting for it.  Similarly, only three liberal Senate Republicans sided with the Administration on passage of the measure, and one of those is now a Democrat.  Now that the stimulus bill is not working as advertised and the economy has gotten worse not better, there are only Democrats and the Administration to blame.  Republicans have been so emboldened by their successful opposition that some are openly speculating that the GOP can take back the House in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Now comes the health care debate, and President Obama is displaying the hallmark of truly stupid behavior:  the refusal to learn from one’s mistakes.  Obama has once again allowed Congress to write the legislation with little guidance and the resulting bills have been disasters.  Republicans are once again united in opposition while Democrats are fractured along ideological lines.  As with the stimulus, the Administration has rejected all Republican initiatives on health care reform, to the point of claiming that Republicans have not offered a plan of their own.

As public support for the plan has cratered, the Obama Administration has panicked, insisting on an August recess deadline for passage of a plan and exposing the legislation’s Achilles Heel.  Republicans have been successful at forcing Democrats to miss that deadline, and are on the precipice of killing the plan outright.

Meanwhile, Obama has only made things worse, holding his disastrous prime-time press conference at which he stupidly decided to weigh in on a minor law enforcement matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Incredibly, unable to admit his mistake, Obama first doubled down on his remarks, then had Crowley and Gates to the White House for a beer, thereby guaranteeing another week of bad press from the incident.

There are more examples - the much-hyped lobbyist ban that the White House broke the very next day after the president signed it comes to mind – but the point is clear.  Any of these stumbles on their own might be chalked up to the growing pains that accompany a transition of power.  But all of them taken together, and in such a relatively short time, could be said to constitute stupidity in governance.  The next time President Obama is tempted to label a public servant’s actions as stupid, he would do better to look a little closer to home.

Cross posted at Mark on the Right.

At one point, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), a former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, expressed outrage that conservatives would insist on significant cuts and a weakening of the public option, arguing that many of the Blue Dogs were letting down their black constituents, who make up 25 percent to 40 percent of their voters, in some instances.”

Yeah, that’s right. Opposing the public options on cost grounds betrays blacks. Because, you know, all blacks are destined to be on the public dole, right Congresswoman?

But rather than make a bold choice that would have signaled a new direction for the campaign, Corzine went with the safe choice, selecting veteran State Senator Loretta Weinberg.  Weinberg is qualified, but at 74 years old she hardly brings energy to the ticket.  And her 17 years in elected state government brings “Trenton insider” baggage to the campaign, exactly the image that is dogging Corzine.  The Christie campaign wasted no time in driving home these points, releasing a mock Corzine-Weinberg movie trailer titled, “You can’t change Trenton from the inside.”

In the weeks leading up to the deadline for choosing a running mate, Corzine was rumored to be considering a former contestant from “The Apprentice” for the second spot on the ticket.  Randall Pinkett was the winner of the popular reality TV show in its 2005, and is by all accounts a very accomplished person in his own right.  Pinkett holds five degrees, was a Rhodes Scholar, and is a self-made millionaire with a successful consulting company based in Newark.  But perhaps his greatest strength was his political inexperience.  Pinkett has never held elective office, a qualificaiton that may have looked good to the voters in the wake of the latest New Jersey Democratic corruption scandal.

Ironically, it was likely that coruption scandal that forced Corzine into his biggest mistake of the campaign since he decided to seek re-election.  Weinberg has a reputation in New Jersey as something of an ethics champion.  She engaged in a very public spat with the former head of the Bergen County Democratic Party, Joseph Ferriero, which Corzine helped to smooth over.  Ferriero, being a Democrat, later found himself indicted on corruption charges.

Facing a new statewide corruption scandal that is likely to bear heavily on his campaign, Corzine panicked and picked Weinberg for her reformer credentials.  Given an opportunity to shake things up, Corzine went with the powerful Trenton insider over bringing fresh ideas to state government.  This is exactly the point that the Christie campaign has been hammering Corzine on for months.  And the pounding won’t stop.

Corzine may get a bump in the polls following the Weinberg pick, but it is likely to be very short-lived.  Christie is sitting in a dominant position heading into the traditionally quiet month of August.  Over that time, perceptions of the candidates will solidify, and when the campaign reemerges in September, Corzine will find himself even further behind.  There will be no help from Washington either, as the Obama White House will be loathe to send the president anywhere near a losing incumbent govenror in his first year in office.  It isn’t over yet - far from it - but Corzine’s selection of Weinberg has made Chris Christie’s election in November as close to a sure bet as anything in recent New Jersey political history.

Corzine has been reacting to the arrests as well.  He held a press conference with Attorney General Anne Milgram immediately after the indictments were announced to condemn the corruption unequivocally.  He also sought and obtained the resignation of the Director of the Department of Community Affairs, a member of his cabinet, and called upon the two Assemblymen arrested, L. Harvey Smith (D-Jersey City) and Daniel M. Van Pelt (R-Ocean County).  For Corzine, the objective is to try and avoid being caught in the crossfire of voter anger and disgust at those accused of wrongdoing in the corruption ring.

But the arrests will undoubtedly hamper Corzine’s efforts to climb back into the race against Christie, who leads by as much as 15 points in recent polling. His commercials charging Christie with ethical lapses seem a little out of place now after the exposure of the widespread corruption among mostly Democratic officials. His main avenue of attack effectively blocked, Corzine will have to find another way to shake up the race.

A two-year corruption and international money-laundering investigation stretching from the Jersey Shore to Brooklyn to Israel and Switzerland culminated in charges against 44 people on Thursday, including three New Jersey mayors, two state assemblymen and five rabbis, the authorities said. [...]

Weysan Dun, the special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Newark office…emphasized that the case was motivated by neither religion nor politics — an important point given that the New Jersey governor’s race pits a former United States attorney, Christopher J. Christie, under whom the investigation began, against the Democratic incumbent, Jon S. Corzine, whose administration was not spared in the arrests Thursday.

Agents also raided the home of Joseph V. Doria Jr., commissioner of the state’s Department of Community Affairs and a former mayor of Bayonne.

Corzine called a hasty press conference to denounce the corruption.  “Any corruption is unacceptable — anywhere, anytime, by anybody,” he said.  But if Corzine was hoping to insulate himself from and fallout from the arrests, it may already be too late.

Most of the arrested are Democrats, although there are two Republicans, and it’s a good bet that the non-politician defendants are well-connected in Democratic Party circles.  As governor, Corzine is the head of the New Jersey Democratic Party and will naturally be suspected of having had some knowledge of or contact with the defendants’ scheming.  New Jersey voters are long past giving any politician the benefit of the doubt.

The arrests also take away Corzine’s main avenue of attack against Christie, the weak charge that Christie himself is ethically challenged.  When voters see Corzine’s commercials alleging corruption against Chrsitie, the corruption-fighting former U.S. Attorney who made his name putting Democratic politicians in jail, they won’t have to look very far to find a real corruption scandal that touches very close to Corzine.

By contrast, the arrests fit right in to a major campaign theme of Christie’s.  Christie has been playing up his corruption fighter image on the campaign trail, picking nationally regarded Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno as his running-mate.  The events of today will only help Christie make his case that the time has come to sweep the powers that be out of Trenton.

Republican challenger Christopher Christie is pulling away from Democratic incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine and now holds a 53 - 41 percent lead among likely voters in the New Jersey Governor’s race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 50 - 40 percent lead for the former federal prosecutor in a June 10 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In a three-way matchup among likely voters, Christie leads Gov. Corzine 47 - 38 percent, with 8 percent for independent candidate Christopher Daggett.

Christie has increased his lead despite a month-long negative ad blitz by Corzine that is seeking to paint Christie as ethically challenged and tied to former president George W. Bush.  The charges are not sticking.  The poll found that only 10% of likely voters say that Corzine’s attacks on Christie’s association with Bush, who appointed him as U.S. Attorney for Newark, are fair.  By contrast, 77% say that Corzine should focus on state issues.

But Corzine can’t do that, as the poll results demonstrate.

By a 39 - 20 percent margin, New Jersey likely voters have a favorable opinion of Christie, while 40 percent say they don’t know enough about him to form an opinion. Corzine gets a negative 34 - 58 percent favorability.

New Jersey registered voters disapprove 60 - 33 percent of the job Corzine is doing, his lowest rating ever and down from a 56 - 36 percent disapproval June 10. Independent voters disapprove 69 - 24 percent. Likely voters also disapprove 60 - 33 percent.

Likely voters say 50 - 36 percent that Christie would do a better job handling the state budget and 54 - 30 percent that the Republican would do a better job cleaning up corruption.

President Obama makes a highly anticipated trip to New Jersey this Thursday to raise money and stump for Corzine.  If Corzine cannot turn around his dismal poll  numbers by early fall, and make the race competitive, it may be the president’s last trip to the Garden State.

A win for Republicans in New Jersey, coupled with an expected win in the Virginia governor’s race, will set the national Republican Party up well for the 2010 midterm elections.  Christie is keeping up his end of the bargain.Christie now needs to avoid and major mistakes and seal the deal with voters, who still need to be convinced that he has the skills to govern.  But poll results like these buold their own momentum, and Christie is close to the point where his campaign will begin to roll downhill to November.

This is the part I cannot abide:

“Here’s why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.

Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.

The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican Party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.”

Just how are the Democrats meeting these standards, Ms. Noonan? How is the boy-wonder president that you were so infatuated with not so long ago doing on that score? Not so great, eh?

Ms, Noonan, if you are so concerned all these catastrophe coming to be, try concentrating fire on those in power right now who are acting to bring them about as a matter of policy.

Surprisingly less criticized has been Sotomayor’s defense of her membership in an exclusive women’s club, The Belizean Grove.  A little over two weeks ago, Sotomayor responded to questions from Senators about the group with an answer that made even her champions at the New York Times blush.  Sotomayor said that her membership in the all-female group was appropriate because the group did not “invidiously discriminate” against men.

“I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors.  The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.”

The Times pointed out that the group’s own website does not agree with Sotomayor’s characterization, describing the group as a, “constellation of influential women,” and seemingly containing no mention of any roles for men.  Like her explanation of her racial comments, Sotomayor’s defense of her membership raises more questions than answers.

Those questions could be fertile ground for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to plow at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, which begin next Monday.  According to the group, The Belizean Grove’s members strive to form “mutually-beneficial relationships.” Republicans should pursue the notion that a sitting federal judge has no business belonging to such a group.

Senators might ask the nominee just how, if at all, members of the group could have expected to benefit from her membership.  Did Sotomayor perform any favors for her sister members in her professional capacity as a supposedly impartial judge?  Did she hear cases in which members of the group, their businesses, or their employers had an interest?  Did she recuse herself from any case in which a member of the group had an interest?  Why or why not?

Sotomayor’s membership in the group, even if it resulted in no tangible benefit to her fellow members, is a shocking case of poor professional judgment.  The fact that, her interpretation notwithstanding, the group clearly discriminates on the basis of sex is bad enough.  But for a federal judge to give the appearance that she is seeking to benefit from her position should be disqualifying.  To paraphrase a famous alleged federal office broker, it is as if Judge Sotomayor believed that a federal judgeship is a valuable thing, and she was determined to make the most of it.

The Sotomayor nomination has largely fallen off the radar screen for the mainstream press.  Even the Supreme Court’s reversal of her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week received only passing mentions and not very much detailed analysis of her original decision.  The lull in coverage has served Sotomayor’s interest, as the public has not been exposed to a daily drumbeat of criticism of her nomination.  It will be up to Republicans then to give her a thorough examination at her conformation hearings.  Sotomayor’s Belizean Grove membership, her inability to recognize the discriminatory nature of the group’s membership policy, and the potential for conflict between her membership and her professional duties should all be explored in detail.

The poll is a catalog of bad news for Corzine.  Here are the lowlights:

• Just one in five voters (21%) say New Jersey is on the right track.
• Among all voters, 54% say their view of Corzine is unfavorable, while 31% say their view is favorable.
• Only two-thirds of Democratic voters (66%) support Corzine, while one in five (20%) say they prefer Christie.
• In contrast to Obama’s 61%-29% approval rating, Corzine’s approval stands at 36%-49%.
• Asked which candidate is better described as “honest, trustworthy,” Christie comes out ahead by 33%-24%.
• Asked which candidate better “understands the concerns of the average person,” Christie wins 40%-28%.

All of this bad news for Corzine comes in a poll in which Christie has his worst showing since April.

It also comes after Corzine has been relentlessly attacking Christie on his strength, his integrity, by alleging Christie engaged in unethical practices as U.S Attorney for Newark.  Those attacks have not moved Christie’s numbers very much, and they have failed to bring Corzine anywhere near comfortable territory for an incumbent.

His high negatives, low polling numbers, and voters’ lack of confidence in his leadership all point to a difficult summer for Corzine as he tries to hold on to his office.  If Christie can avoid being labeled as an acolyte of former President George W. Bush, who appointed him as U.S. Attorney, and demonstrate to voters that he has the ability to govern, Christie will likely be sitting behind the governor’s desk come next January.