Out of Touch And Soon To Be Out Of Office?

A little fun at the expense of blondes. (See 1 below.)

Yes, it is a long time before November but Obama and Democrat poll results continue to head south.

Obama seems to have finally begun to wake up and smell the petunias. However, I do not believe his metamorphosis will be taken seriously. Why? Because he is doing so out of political expediency. Having painted himself into such a Far Left corner I do not think he will be taken seriously at attempting to become a Centrist.

Former Gov. Wilder shakes up Obama with a call to shake up his administration. (See
1a below.)

And another. (See 1b below.)

Furthermore, Robert Gibb's poking fun at Sarah Palin does more to indicate how paranoid and spineless the White House is than to reveal anything significant about her. People are futilely seeking jobs and Gibbs's joke at Palin's expense is a dog that no longer hunts. Maybe Palin was fair game when she ran with McCain but attacking her now is seen for what it is - an attempt by the Administration, the news and media folk to deflect attention from their own failures by piling on Palin.
See 1c below.)

When Obama ran against McCain the voters had mostly their respective campaigns to compare and chose inexperience over their distaste for GW. Now the Administration has a record of non-accomplishment and that becomes the basis for comparison and though Palin may not have answers she is having fun, poking fun. In doing, so she keeps reminding the angry, and their numbers grow daily, that they are being under served by a president who has flubbed and flubbed badly. (See 1d below.)

What these many articles I cite below reveal is that the Democrats are 'hurtin' because the economy is 'hurtin' and attacking GW and then embracing what GW did is making Obama look more and more foolish. The most recent example is the terrorist trial venue and the Miranda Rights egg that Attorney General Holder laid on the Oval Office Rug.(See various articles cited in 2 and 2a below.)


Government spending can generally be categorized as waste not investment. (See 3 and 3a below.)

Hamas does not believe Israel has a right to exist and therefore its judicial system, such as it is, decides rocketing its neighbor is legal. (See 4 below.)

Are painful and difficult decisions being foisted upon Israel? (See 5 and 5a below.)

Climate cheaters fess up to fudging.

In Pittsburgh the EPA forbids dumping snow removal into the city's three rivers. Consequently Pittsburgh is choked with snow, two lanes have become one lane roads and the entire city is shut down as major arteries become impassable.

This is the Federal government at work for you and the consequences of bureaucrats who cannot think consequences of their rules and red tape. DUH!!!!(See 6 below.)



Dick



1) Did you hear about the Blonde who lost a breast stroke swimming competition.....She learned later, other swimmers cheated, they used their arms!!!

Or the Blonde who baked a turkey for 4 1/2 days ... Instructions said 1 hour per pound and she weighed 108!!

And finally the Blondie who hated M & M's.....Because they were so hard to peel.

1a)Wilder: Obama needs to fire DNC Chairman Kaine, W.H. advisers
By: L. Douglas Wilder


During the 2008 campaign, I strongly endorsed Barack Obama for president. I did so early, when many Democratic leaders — including many prominent African-American politicians — believed the safe bet was to back then-front-runner Hillary Clinton.

I backed Obama not because of skin color but because he convincingly made the case that he stood for “change” that this country needs. Now, across many fronts — in public policy and politics alike — people have rightly been questioning whether the change has been for the better. Unfortunately, the answer so far is clear: not yet.

I still believe Obama can stand for positive change. But first he must make some hard changes of his own.

The need is becoming more obvious by the day: He must overhaul his own team, replacing the admittedly brilliant advisers who helped elect him with others more capable of helping him govern. Getting elected and getting things done for the people are two different jobs.

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Some are even questioning whether Obama has forgotten how he got elected and the promises he made to the people who elected him.

Don't take my word for any of this. Look at the clear message the American people have been sending at the polls these past few months.

In my native Virginia, voters went to the polls and turned the Democrats out of the Executive Mansion with more votes and by a higher percentage than had ever happened since we ended one-party government rule 50 years ago. I told the president that this could very well happen and did not support his candidate.


Indeed, even before Bob McDonnell’s resounding victory, the canary had been dead on the floor for months. In Virginia's most Democratic-friendly regions, the Democrats had been narrowly winning — or outright losing — special elections that should have been taken easily.

The same trends that are evident in Virginia are obvious elsewhere — even in states that historically are much more Democratic. New Jersey voters, given a chance to reelect a Democratic governor who promised to be the president's partner in the state capital and for whom Obama vigorously campaigned, instead chose a Republican prosecutor who had been appointed to his job by George W. Bush.

After both these debacles, people at the DNC and the White House insisted these were local results with no deeper meaning.

Then came Massachusetts. When Scott Brown promised voters he would be the 41st vote in the U.S. Senate to halt the Obama agenda, generally, and the health care plan, in particular, his rise in the polls was meteoric.

It's not rocket science where the American public wants the president to concentrate his energies. In all the above elections I cited, voters were practically screaming one word with four simple letters: Jobs.

People will rightly hold Obama accountable. Obama must in turn hold the people on his own team accountable.

Tim Kaine is a friend whom I respect. I personally pushed for his consideration by Obama for the vice presidency because he was the first governor outside of Obama's home state to endorse him, and it was a bold step away from our state's past history.

Though I discussed with Tim what I was doing relative to the vice presidency, he and I never had any discussions as to whether he should be the national party chairman. There are several reasons why I felt then, and do now, that it is not a good fit for Tim, the party or Obama.

Positioning Democrats as "tax and spend" has been a favorite pastime of Republicans. Another has been "soft on crime."


Republicans are surely going to remind voters, nationwide, that Chairman Kaine tried to balance his budget in his last days as governor by proposing a $1 billion-plus personal income tax increase. This measure was "shot down" in the first week of the legislative session with not a single person, including Democrats, voting for it (0-97). Even the patron of the bill abstained.

Kaine's recommendation to the Justice Department to transfer one of Virginia's inmates to a federal jurisdiction, and ultimately to Germany, for possible parole in two years was almost immediately withdrawn by the incoming Republican governor and Republican attorney general. Because of the serious nature of these heinous murders and the clearest evidence of guilt, many are still asking why.

Is that who this president wants to be arm in arm with as we enter a pivotal election year? For his sake, it shouldn't be. The president has enough to worry about and defend without this detracting sideshow as to feckless party leadership.

The president was the one elected to lead, not the people around him. He was elected to be in front, to take charge. Leadership is a tautology; it defines itself.

Obama's job approval ratings are sliding, but we Democrats are told not to worry. We are told that he remains personally popular with the American people.

It would be a grave mistake for the president and those around him to misread the current polls and analyses. They suggest that 1) the American people do not like the direction in which the country is heading; 2) they do not believe that either Democrats or Republicans are showing that they get the message and are doing the business of the people; 3) they hold Congress in very low regard; but 4) they really like the president. Yet, they keep going to the polls to rebuke him resoundingly every chance it is presented.

Unless changes are made at the top, by the top, when the time comes for voters to show how they really feel about Obama, his policies and the messages he sends directly or through the people around him, the president will discover that Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were not just temporary aberrations but, rather, timely expressions of voters who always show that they are ahead of the politicians.

The president should keep uppermost in his mind the biblical admonition as to what happens to those trees that do not bear "good fruit": The ax is already at the tree.

L. Douglas Wilder was the nation’s first African-American to be elected governor. He served as governor of Virginia from 1990 to 1994.

1b) The one personnel change Obama most urgently needs
Posted By David Rothkopf


It's starting to be that time of administration again. We're into the second year of the term. The campaign high has worn off. The honeymoon has been over for months and months. The "blame it on my predecessor" free pass has expired. The "learning curve" excuses are wearing thin.

It's time to be president, to own your government and to take responsibility for whatever happens on your watch.

Which means it's officially time to start figuring out who to can.

As it happens, round about the middle of the second year, early appointees who managed to get confirmed by the Senate start to go. Some are burned out. Some are starting to realize that most government jobs are not remotely as glamorous as they seem from the outside. Most bureaucracies are dull, grey and full of lifers who fall into two categories: the few, inspiring dedicated public servants upon whose shoulders the weight of governing a great nation sits ... and a bunch of hopeless drones who have lucked into jobs from which they can never be fired. (You know who you are. You're the ones reaching for the keyboard and getting ready to post an indignant comment about how the Constitution requires us to hire people who couldn't be an assistant manager in a 7/11 and give them some modicum of responsibility for the welfare of millions.)

Then, starting now as a whispers and insider buzz and then building to a crescendo in the weeks after this coming November's elections, we'll hear the names of those who need to move on for political reasons, to help the president regain his footing. You know, the scapegoats.

A few folks have already come and gone, of course. White House Counsel Greg Craig is one, victim of a stealthy court assassination worthy of the Borgias. White House green jobs czar Van Jones was Glenn Becked into submission.


Other names are already emerging as favorites for 2010 exits. National Security Advisor Jim Jones has been producing "he's got to go" buzz even from his colleagues in the White House almost since he arrived. It ebbed for a while, but it's back. This is due in part because of the one-two punch provided by two of his deputies. One, Denis McDonough, never actually acted as though he reported to Jones, remaining in his campaign role as a close personal aide to the president...a fatal structural error the President has imprudently allowed to fester. (And he's not the first to suffer this problem.) The other, Tom Donilon, has been so exceptionally effective that he gets the credit when the national security process runs well rather than having it accrue to his boss ... and, as a consequence, he too is now seen as closer to the President than Jones.

Currently producing the kind of should-he-stay-or-should-he-go-now chorus that would make any fan of The Clash proud is a man who has made clashes his stock-in-trade, Rahm Emanuel. Some say he is thinking of running for Mayor of Chicago -- although the foul-mouthed and intemperate Rahm seems far too refined and "clean" a politician to make it in Illinois Democratic politics. (To soak in the full sludge, read up on the recent flame out of the just-selected Illinois democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, Scott Cohen. After winning the primary for his party's nomination, he was pressured by his running mate to drop out because Cohen, who made his millions a pawn broker, was a roid-using, deadbeat Dad accused of beating his ex-wife and a hooker ex-girlfriend he got to know at a massage parlor. And this is the guy who won the race...)

Others who get mentioned frequently are Tim Geithner, whose fate will turn on whether unemployment starts to fall and whether the U.S. can, as he has promised, hang on to its AAA rating and keep the dollar from truly tanking, USTR Ron Kirk who may go down in history despite his earnest best efforts as the least productive occupant ever in that job (which is saying something), any number of the czars who arrived with much ballyhoo but who are having a rough time delivering, and maybe Bob Gates, which would be a shame, given the great job he has been doing. Others you have never heard of will also go...in some cases, because you have never heard of them.

This happens in every administration. And by "this" I mean the speculation and ultimately the departures. It is not a sign of calamity at the top. It's a sign of life in Washington. That said, the critiques implied by recent stories (if you can read only one, go back to the great piece by Ed Luce in the FT last week on the four members of Obama's inner circle) that argue that it is now time for the president to move from "campaign mode to governing mode" and to relax the tight grip his inner circle have on governing, are absolutely dead-on and need to be heeded. If Obama knew the people who were the sources of the many stories that are appearing in the press on this point, he would take them much more seriously.

But I would like to offer a contrarian view. I would like to suggest that while some churn is inevitable, it is premature to be calling out the White House, Rahm Emanuel, or anyone on the time for failures at governance. Could Rahm & Co. be more strategic, less tactical, less deferential to the Hill, less reactive? Of course. But consider this: If the Senate had passed every bill the House has already passed and the President had signed into law major healthcare reform and major climate and energy legislation (to pick just two items caught in the Senate logjam), Obama and his team would be hailed for the best opening year since Roosevelt.

In other words, the one place most in need of a personnel change is not in the White House or even in the executive branch, it is in the Senate Democratic Leadership. Harry Reid had a 10 vote majority and he couldn't get anything done. The one switcheroo Obama should be focusing on is right there in the Majority Leader's office. Harry Reid, who is facing a tough re-election challenge, may be a great guy with an inspiring personal story but the proof is in the pudding and in his case, the pudding is really a stale dog's breakfast of excuses, back-peddling, and inability to control his own party.

Two things will be required to fix this. First, Reid must be replaced. And while the likely next-in-line Dick Durbin is a favorite throughout the party (despite also hailing from the swamp of Illinois politics), this is not a job that needs another nice guy. Searching for the kind of strong leadership Obama knows he needs, it may be time to satisfy the exceptional ambition of Durbin's DC roommate, Chuck Schumer. He's the only one with a shot at becoming a Lyndon Johnson-like, master of the Senate. But, he will only be able to do that -- and remember he's likely to have much less majority than Reid has to play with -- with the active, risk-taking, leaderly support of the president himself. That's a one-two punch that might get something done ... and it really is the one personnel issue that should be getting the most attention in DC circles these days.

1c)There's Something About Sarah
By Aaron Goldstein

It has been nearly a year and a half since Sarah Palin became a household name in America and the world over. Despite the fact she was on the bottom half of a losing ticket and hasn't held public office in more than half a year three cable networks provided live coverage of her address to the Tea Party Convention last Saturday night in Nashville. Is there any other private American citizen who could command that sort of undivided attention?

The answer is nobody else could and liberals know it all to well. How else can one explain their sudden obsession with Palin's left hand? The best liberals could do was to say that she had cheated by writing a few words on her hand. So let's see if I get this straight. Sarah Palin has all of six words on her palm and liberals conclude "she needs a cheat-sheet." (1) Yet liberals don't seem to mind that President Obama needs a teleprompter to read a nearly 2,000 word speech during the National Prayer Breakfast last week and still mispronounced the word "corpsman" not once but twice. (2) Talk about hand wringing.

But Palin is well aware life is unfair and that this is par for the course. She responded as perhaps only she could. During a rally for Texas Governor Rick Perry the following day, she wrote on her palm for all to see, "Hi Mom!" Now that's telling liberals to talk to the hand.

Yet for all their disdain for the former Alaska governor, liberals still can't quite put their finger on her. Much in the same way they couldn't understand Ronald Reagan. I don't know if the Tea Party Convention organizers did this by design, but Palin's speech fell on what would have been President Reagan's 99th birthday. Indeed, she paid homage to the Gipper when she began her speech. Palin, like Reagan, has an uncanny ability to read the public pulse and tend to it with a common touch.

During Reagan's lifetime he was at various times called an "amiable dunce," derided for describing ketchup as a vegetable (even though he never actually did), and chided for reading from cue cards. Yet it is worth remembering what former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw said in conversation with Wolf Blitzer and others following Reagan's funeral:

SHAW: Can I say something that touches on a very sensitive issue?

BLITZER: Of course.

SHAW: The news media and how we failed to thoroughly cover and communicate the very essences we're talking about possessed by Ronald Reagan. What I've been reading and what I've been hearing I did not get during his two terms in office, or did I miss something?

BLITZER: I think you're on to something, Bernie.

SHAW: I think we failed our viewers, listeners, and readers to an appreciable extent. I can't quantify it, but I'll put it there. Because I certainly missed a lot.

Now there are those amongst conservatives who scoff at the notion that Palin is a Reagan in the making. Yet when reading Shaw's poignant observations one cannot help but think that the liberal media are failing their viewers, listeners, and readers to a considerable extent with Palin as they did with Reagan more than a generation ago. Should Palin run for and be elected to the White House, there is every reason to believe the liberal media will do much the same with her and miss a lot. These sentiments would be especially pronounced should she dethrone Obama. One would hate to think it would take Palin's passing for the liberal media to utter a kind word about her, but that is probably what it would take.

Yet then again I am sure Palin would just as soon not to live long enough to see the day when MSNBC sings her praises. During her address before the 2008 Republican National Convention she said, "Now here's a little news flash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country." (5)

Of course, there are those who will always believe that Palin will need someone to hold her hand. But she does not stand alone. To paraphrase that great gospel song penned by the late Gene MacLellan, she has "put her hand in the hand of the man who stilled the water/put her hand in the hand of the man who calmed the sea." Just so we are clear the man with that hand is not the "charismatic guy with a teleprompter." Yet so long as Sarah Palin keeps a firm grip on that hand she will be able to reach out and be received. Meanwhile, liberals will be left to grasp at straws.

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.



1d)Paranoia Strikes Deep in Obama's America
By Robin of Berkeley

I usually don't go anywhere near my leftist hubby's reading material. While he subscribes to Mother Jones and Newsweek, I buy National Review. His emails are from moveon.org; mine from Newt Gingrich.


However, after being home for three days with a bad cold, I was desperate to read something new. So I reluctantly picked up one of his Harpers.


I was pleasantly surprised that the magazine carried an article, The Mendacity of Hope, critiquing Obama's first year. The author, Roger D. Hodge, even confronts Obama on the hypocrisy of eliminating water boarding yet supporting torture in the form of overseas renditions.


But Hodge still maintains that Obama is heads above Bush, McCain, and Palin. And he goes into attack mode with this sentence about Obama:


"Nor is it surprising that the broken remnants of the old White Supremacy coalition hate and fear the man. . ."


Now, this got me thinking: who exactly comprises this White Supremacy coalition? Even though I've immersed myself in conservatism for the last two years, I haven't seen hide nor hair of it.


So I dug deeper: Is Sen. Strom Thurmond up to his old tricks? (No, he's dead.) Is Sen. Robert Byrd reviving the old Ku Klux Klan? (Impossible; Byrd is a saintly Democrat.)


Is the Republican Party at the forefront of this white conspiracy? (Couldn't be; it's headed by a black man, Michael Steele.)


There's a word for people like Hodge who believe something that just isn't so: paranoid. And from where I sit, liberals are getting more paranoid by the minute.


To get technical for a moment, there are several kinds of paranoia. The most extreme form is a schizophrenic with bizarre delusions and hallucinations.


Another type is a paranoid personality. They're not psychotic, but they are suspicious, hypersensitive grudge holders who are quick to anger and slow to forgive.


Lastly, there's delusional disorder: a person has fixed beliefs that are not bizarre. In other words, the events could be happening, like a cheating spouse, but they are not.


To illustrate, if you know an edgy, mistrustful guy named Dave who has a persecution complex, that's a paranoid personality. But if Dave says that aliens are torturing him, he may be a schizophrenic.


Now, if Dave is a decent enough guy, but turns into a rabid beast upon hearing the words "tea party" or "Sarah Palin," he's got a fixed delusion.


One of the greatest threats we're facing is this: there are a lot of paranoid/delusional people running the show. Pelosi tars health care opponents as Nazis. Charles Schumer calls average Americans "tea baggers." Obama insinuates that a white police sergeant is a stupid racist. With each vicious utterance, Democrats foster a paranoid atmosphere.


Branding opponents as Nazis and racists is disgraceful, beyond the pale. It's also a dangerous practice since mass hysteria can prove deadly.


In 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, for instance, hysterical, deluded villagers burned "witches." Or take a more recent example: American tourists have been beaten and killed in Guatemala after rumors spread that foreigners were stealing babies and selling their organs.


Whether it's Salem or Guatemala or Germany circa l930, stoking paranoia is like pouring gasoline on a fire. The Left-infested Democrats know this; they're throwing around the R word (racist) because an agitated, divided, and paranoid citizenry is as pliable as putty.


But the problem goes deeper than simply politics. There are many at the helm who believe the hate they're spewing. Because the Left is by its very nature a paranoid movement. What binds people together is a collective rage against certain groups of people.


Little Barry grew up imbibing the progressive, paranoid Kool-Aid of his Communist leaning family. The grown-up Barack now lives in a black and white world, inhabited by good guys (the left) and bad (any and all opposition).


In Obama's brain, his father's womanizing and boozing wasn't due to low moral standards; white supremacy was to blame. His grandmother was "a typical white person," not someone who had personal failings.


Obama married Michelle, a woman who sees everything through the lens of race. Rather than feeling honored to attend Princeton, she regarded the place as a hotbed of racism. Some of her speeches, pre-First Lady, reek of loathing for America.


Obama chose as his pastor the delusional Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who accused the government of creating the AIDS virus. And Obama best buds? Terrorists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Shady men behind the curtain -- Soros, the strange Czars; the creepy bosses at Media Matters, Tides Foundation, and Acorn.
The mainstream media promulgates the hysteria. A recent cover of the Atlantic bellows that Christians caused the 2008 stock market crash. Newsweek implicates every white baby as a potential racist. And Harpers hallucinates some sort of White Supremacy coalition.


It's no wonder, then, that average liberals have become deluded, given that they're fed lies over and over. The MSM portrays Obama as a really nice, brainy guy, simply doing his best.


Liberals identify with him; they root for him. Deprived of the truth about why conservatives actually fear and dislike Obama, liberals scream, "Racists!"


Curiously, racism has now been elevated to the greatest evil known to humankind. (While racism is abhorrent, aren't there any other actions that should be widely condemned, like looting the economy, "wilding" conservative women, and "queering" youth?) Thus, when liberals spot an evildoer, they, like our Salem forefathers, respond with blind rage.


Ironically, Obama promised a colorblind, post-racial era. But has there ever been an administration so obsessed with race -- and so paranoid?


This government makes Richard Nixon look as trusting as Mary Poppins. While Tricky Dick had his enemies list, it didn't comprise most of the American people.


So what's the solution? Is there a way to snap liberals out of their mass delusion?


I'm afraid not. Delusions are notoriously resistant to treatment without the full arsenal of psychiatric drugs.


The next best thing: Vote, attend tea parties, and stay connected and informed. Elect as many conservatives as possible.


And, one more thing: watch your back. Because, as the unmarried women of Salem learned hundreds of years ago, paranoia stoked by the powerful can be a dangerous thing.


A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and recovering liberal in Berkeley.

2)RCP Poll Averages

President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 47.9 Disapprove 46.9Spread +1.0

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 22.4 Disapprove 70.2 Spread -47.8

Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Republicans 44.5 Democrats 41.5 Republicans +3.0

Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction 35.3 Wrong Track58.2 Spread -22.9

All Commentary & News Stories

- Republicans Recruit Political Newcomers - Wall Street Journal

- Dems Should Fight, Not Fret Over the Midterms - Bob Shrum, The Week

- Biden Taps Into Hidden Issue of 2010 - E.J. Dionne, The New Republic

- Can the GOP Win Control of Congress? - Liz Sidoti, Associated Press

- Illinois Senate: Corruption is the Hangover - John Kass, Chicago Tribune

- Pa. Turns Against Lurch to the Left - Abby Wisse Schachter, New York Post

- Obama's Agenda is Dragging Down Democrats - Peter Wehner, Politics Daily

- Anti-Incumbent Or Anti-Incompetent? - Amy Walter, National Journal

- Shifting Terrain: Feingold Beatable? - Patrick McIlheran, Milwaukee JS

- Possible Epic Party Disaster for Democrats - Michael Barone, DC Examiner

- WH Not Easing Concerns of Nervous Dems - Amy Walter, National Journal

- And Now, More Democratic Panic - Mike Madden, Salon

- Bayh in Danger; A Look at the Numbers - Michael Barone, DC Examiner

- Damage Control for Democrats - Paul Waldman, American Prospect

- Can David Plouffe Rescue Democrats' Agenda? - Ed Hornick, CNN

- Is the Senate Also in Play? - Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics

- 1994 Nightmare: Dems Look Out of Touch - Rich Lowry, New York Post

- The Lady and the Arlen - Gail Collins, New York Times

- Senate 2010: More Shocks on the Way? - Larry Sabato, Center for Politics

- Massachusetts Results Could Spell Trouble for Boxer - SD Union-Tribune

- The House Is Very Much In Play - Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics

- Democrats Urgently Need to Stop and Think - Clive Crook, The Atlantic

- Massachusetts Warning: The Backlash is Coming - Jon Keller, WSJ

- A Revolt in Camelot - Jonah Goldberg, New York Post

- Seriously, There Are No Permanent Majorities - Jay Cost, RealClearPolitics

- How Will Democrats Fare in the 2010 Elections? - Thomas Schaller, Salon

- Axelrod Scrambling for Excuses - Peter Wehner, Commentary

- The Scott Brown Surge - James Antle, The American Spectator

- Unpopular Policies Lead to Midterm Losses - Thomas Del Beccaro, Big Gov't

- Bay State Race a Surprising Dead Heat - Amy Walter, National Journal

- 2010 Could Be an Unhappy Year for Dems - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

- The Ma. Polls and the November Election - John Podhoretz, Commentary

- Axelrod Lays Out Dems' Midterm Push - Ron Brownstein, National Journal

- 10 Tips for the GOP in 2010 - Clark Judge, Wall Street Journal

- Unhappy New Year... for Democrats - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

- Why the Jobs Report is Bad News for Dems - James Pethokoukis, Reuters

- The Risk of Catastrophic Victory - Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

- Reps. Van Hollen & McCarthy on the 2010 Elections - Hardball

- Dorgan's Thunderclap - E.J. Dionne, Washington Post

- Democrats Get Out Before Voters Ride Them Out - Chicago Tribune

- Fleeing Politicians Skirt Angry Electorate - Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg

- Dems Start Mich. Campaign in Total Disarray - Nolan Finley, Detroit News

- Election Focus Should Be on Massachusetts - Chuck Raasch, USA Today

- The First Senator From the Tea Party? - Mark Leibovich, NYT Magazine

- What a Difference a Year Makes - Thomma & Lightman, McClatchy

- Dems Face Tough 2010, But Aren't Dead Yet - Mike Madden, Salon

- Could the GOP Win Back the Senate in 2010? - Toby Harnden, Telegraph

- Top Democrats Head for the Exits - Manu Raju & Josh Kraushaar, Politico

- GOP Recruits Cite 'Obama-Pelosi Agenda' - S.A. Miller, Washington Times

- A Shifting & Perilous Political Environment - Nagourney & Zeleny, NYT

- Democrats Still in Better Shape Than 1994 - Adam Howard, The Nation

- Dems' Only Hope: Make It About The Other Guy - Tom Edsall, Huff Post

- Democratic Exodus Roils 2010 Landscape - Rick Klein, ABC News

- Swing States May Be on the Move - Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times

- Dems Should Stay Cool About 2010 - Froma Harrop, Providence Journal

- The Tea Party Teens - David Brooks, New York Times

- A Winning GOP Agenda for 2010 - Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

- Disappointment on Left May Hurt Dems in Nov - David Corn, Politics Daily

- Dems Know Make-or-Break Year Turns on Jobs - Al Hunt, Bloomberg

- Setting the Stage for a Midterm Showdown - Dick Polman, Philly Inquirer

- GOP Poised for Comeback in Midterms - Mark Barabak, Los Angeles Times

- Back to GOP Basics - Brendan Miniter, Wall Street Journal

- Why Democrats Will Lose the House in 2010 - James Pethokoukis, Reuters

- The Political Forecast for 2010 - Dan Gerstein, Forbes

- Too Many Democrats in Washington - Peter Ferrara, American Spectator

- Griffith Party Switch: Will Other Dems Follow Suit? - Patrik Jonsson, CSM

- Can The GOP Finally Use Pelosi? - Reid Wilson, Hotline

- 2010: Return of the Former Governors? - Lou Cannon, Politics Daily

- Smalltown Rage a Force to be Reckoned With - Gary Younge, Guardian

- Democrats Pin 2010 Hopes on Bill - Jonathan Weisman, Wall Street Journal

- Harry Reid's Election Challenge in Nevada - Katie Connolly, Newsweek

- Democrats Worried About a Backlash - Nolan Finley, Detroit News

- Reid, Thune Tell Tale of 2009 - Chuck Raasch, USA Today

- Retirements Becoming Headache for Dems - Amy Walter, National Journal

- Dems Face Tough Task Defending Swing Seats - Kathy Kiely, USA Today

- The 2010 Senate Outlook - Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call

- Dems Point Fingers At WH, Timid Incumbents - Reid Wilson, Hotline

- Democrats Whistling Past Graveyard - Mona Charen, National Review

- Are Dems Trying to Follow GOP Off the Cliff? - Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call

- Obama Showing a New Vulnerability - Ron Brownstein, National Journal

- How Democrats Can Rebound - A.B. Stoddard, The Hill

- GOP Facing More Bitter Battles - Paul Steinhauser, CNN

- Can the GOP Retake the Senate in 2010? - Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal

- GOP Has Erased Party Popularity Gap in Congress - Paul Steinhauser, CNN

- Dems' Dreams of Blue West Begin to Turn Red - Byron York

2a)Tea Party Heroine: Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan hinted that she would be running for Congress in Mississippi
By JOHN FUND

Judging from the loud cheers she generated, one of the highlights of last weekend's Tea Party Convention in Nashville was the appearance of Angela McGlowan, a Fox News contributor and former GOP congressional staffer. She electrified the crowd when she hinted she would be announcing her candidacy for Congress from neighboring Mississippi in a few days. If elected, Ms. McGlowan would become only the third African American elected as a Republican to the U.S. House in the past 75 years. "Conservatives advocate policies that recognize the innate value of all humans, as opposed to liberal policies that demean the poor and disadvantaged by encouraging victimhood," she told the enthusiastic crowd.

Ms. McGlowan kicked off her candidacy yesterday by beginning a five-city bus tour of her sprawling northern Mississippi district, which is now represented by Democrat Travis Childers, who recaptured the formerly Republican seat in a 2008 special election at the nadir of the Bush presidency's popularity.

Her candidacy puts the House GOP campaign committee in a bit of a jam. Republicans had previously identified State Senator Alan Nunnelee, chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee, as a top challenger in the race. He already has $292,000 in cash in his campaign account and was touted by the GOP committee as "one of the best candidates for us this cycle." The committee now insists it will stay out of the race and let primary voters decide who will run against the Democrat Mr. Childers.

The feisty Ms. McGlowan is a force of nature, and a direct challenge to the GOP good ol' boy network. While not conversant with the details of all issues, she is a fast learner and clearly would have national fundraising ability. She also has a good chance of winning the GOP primary. There is a third candidate in the race, former Eupora mayor Henry Ross, and if the contest goes to a runoff she would have the advantage of nationwide attention in that faceoff.

When it comes to the general election, Mr. Childers is well-funded and has been careful to oppose unpopular Democratic measures on health care and cap-and-trade. But in an anti-government year, any Democrat can expect to struggle to win re-election in a district that John McCain carried with 62% of the vote. Were Ms. McGlowan the GOP nominee, she would perhaps lose some votes on the basis of her race. But she would also gain some, especially from the 27% of the district's population that is African-American, much of which is socially conservative.

This is not to say that Ms. McGlowan doesn't have challenges. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister and fellow Fox News contributor, is headlining a fundraiser for Mr. Nunnelee next week, an indication that Ms. McGlowan will have some competition in nailing down the votes of religiously-oriented conservatives.


3)Multiplier Effect Defect
By Jeffrey Folks

Liberals are fond of referring to government spending as "investment." From Barack Obama on down, Democrats speak of investing in job creation, education, alternative fuels, high-speed rail, and every other pet project for which they can expect to receive lobbyist donations. As recently as February 3, the president announced yet another "investment" guaranteed to enhance "American energy independence" while creating "millions of jobs." No, this is not the initiative from April 22, May 5, or October 27 promising more or less the same thing. This is another initiative, with another enormous price tag.


Defending this dubious form of investment, liberal economists such as Alan Blinder fall back on the Keynesian theory of the "multiplier effect," according to which each dollar of government spending generates additional wealth as the increased monetary supply circulates throughout the economy. It is a lot like planting a handful of magic seeds and hoping to see a beanstalk shoot up to the sky.


The problem is that it costs the government a lot to plant those magic seeds, and too often government plants them in the wrong places. It costs a lot to collect taxes and even more for businesses and individuals to comply with federal tax laws. As David R. Burton and Dan R. Mastromarco write in a Cato Institute policy analysis report, a major advantage of eliminating the IRS "would likely be a windfall produced by liberating capital unproductively spent on the cost of complying with the current complex tax system." The Cato Institute elsewhere estimates a cost of 25% attributable to the collection of revenues. A study published by the Tax Foundation estimates that in 2005, the cost of compliance with federal income taxes was $265.1 billion, or 22% of tax collected. That figure of 20% to 25% has remained constant for decades, but the amount in absolute terms has skyrocketed along with rising federal tax receipts.


In addition, there is the cost of administering government programs and the cost of fraud and abuse. Washington is loath to report the cost of program administration, and when it does, the reported cost is nearly always accompanied by a windy disquisition on the effectiveness of the program at hand. This is the case with Job Corps, which was defended in a series of questionable Labor Department reports in the 1990s and 2000s, just as it continues to be defended today. In fact, the actual cost of Job Corps approaches $200,000 per graduate, and this for a program that has not "consistently raised incomes" of its young participants.


Even "mainstream" programs involve large administrative costs, especially considering the economies of scale that ought to operate. The most recent data show that the cost of administrating Social Security benefits averages 1.425%. How is it that Vanguard can administer its Total Stock and Bond exchange traded funds -- conservative investments that in contrast with the nearly empty Social Security Trust Fund have yielded a significant return to investors -- at an average cost of 0.115%, or less than one-twelfth the administrative cost of Social Security?


Now comes another decrement: government's sheer inefficiency and lack of competitiveness (along with a sizeable sum for outright graft and corruption, estimated by the CBO, for example, at 5% on the $787-billion stimulus package). While difficult to quantify, inefficiency and lack of competitiveness reduce the already negative return on government spending a great deal more. So now, for every dollar collected in taxes, one can expect a return of perhaps sixty cents in "services," which in most cases are services that one does not want enough to be willing to pay for them voluntarily.


The Obama administration's enormous "investment" in alternative energy is precisely this sort of sixty-cent return. It is no accident that T. Boone Pickens, an investor who has risked his own wealth and not merely that of the taxpayer, has apparently changed his mind about wind power generation. In mid-January, it was reported that Pickens had dramatically cut his $2-billion order of wind turbines. Private-sector investment in biofuels has declined even more, and it would decline further were it not for continuing government grants and subsidies. For the foreseeable future, natural gas appears a more efficient choice -- a fact that has not yet sunk in on the president, who continues to announce more spending on wind, solar, and biofuels while raising taxes on those fuels that are known to be more efficient. If Spain's experience with large-scale solar installations is any guide, the cost of alternative over conventional fuels will be as much as 75% higher. As the example of Spain's current economic situation also illustrates, the cost to the overall economy in lost private-sector productivity can be very great. Spain today stands in danger of default as a result of excessive government spending.


Waste, graft, and inefficiency are bad enough, but as Milton Friedman suggested long ago, the greatest loss of wealth resulting from faith in the multiplier effect comes from the reduction of the private-sector capital base, and from the "rational expectations" of the public, who eventually are led to curtail spending and savings in the face of rising government deficits. Lost investment in the private sector, where the multiplier effect actually does operate, will necessarily reduce future GDP growth. Unlike government, which scatters its seeds in fields controlled by lobbyists and contributors, the private sector tends to plant in fertile fields, where it can expect to earn a return on investment.


Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, seems at least half-sensible on the issue of multipiers. She recognizes that job-creation depends on growth of investment in the private sector. No amount of stimulus spending or hiring credits will take the place of growth in the private sector, and the best way to spur such growth is through permanent tax cuts and with stable, predictable tax and regulation policies. Unfortunately, Romer is the odd woman out in this administration.


Liberals like Barack Obama never seem to consider the effect of their colossal spending on the real economy. They believe that they can plant magic seeds that will sprout a beanstalk leading up to the sky, and that in the sky there exists a golden goose which will fund one grand welfare initiative after another. In reality, all we will possess after running up a $14-trillion debt is a hill of beans.


Dr. Jeffrey Folks taught for thirty years in universities in Europe, America, and Japan. He has published many books and articles on American culture and politics.

3a)2010 Elections: Republicans are in the Hunt: Ahead of Midterms, Doubts About Obama, Economic Discontent Lead to GOP Rise
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGER



The Republican Party has grown dramatically more competitive in public trust to handle the country's most pressing issues, capitalizing on seething economic discontent and doubt about President Obama's performance to challenge the Democrats in midterm election preferences.

Among registered voters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, 48 percent say they'd support the Republican candidate in their congressional district if the midterm elections were today, 45 percent the Democrat. That's a rare level of GOP support in nearly three decades of polls.

Other measures also have tightened sharply since fall. Among all Americans, the Democrats' lead in trust to handle the country's main problems has dwindled to a slim 6 points, 43-37 percent, down from 33 points a record in a generation of polls after Barack Obama's election.

Disapproval of Congress, at 71 percent, matches its highest since 1994, when the GOP swept to control in a midterm rout of the Democrats. Americans by a 20-point margin say they're inclined to look around for someone new to support for Congress. And by a 13-point margin, 48 to 35 percent, Americans call themselves anti-incumbent rather than pro-incumbent not quite the levels in 1994 or 2006 (when the Democrats regained control) but broad nonetheless.


Economy Drives Anti-Incumbent Sentiment
A main mover in these sentiments is the public's longstanding economic discontent. Eighty-eight percent say the recession is not over. More than half don't think the economy's even begun to recover, and most of them don't think it'll start improving for more than a year. Among those who do say a recovery has begun, three-quarters say it's a weak one.
Negative economic views are closely associated with anti-incumbency and a preference for Republican candidates alike. With 9.7 percent unemployment, Obama and the Democrats are rediscovering the maxim that in politics, absent an unpopular war, there's nothing as bad for the party in power as a bad economy.

OBAMA The president himself is down to scant 5-point leads over the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the economy, health care reform and the threat of terrorism down, respectively, from 37-, 28- and 21-point advantages on these issues in the spring and summer. His lead on the economy, now near naught, had been a record in ABC/Post polls since 1991.

The president and the opposition party score about evenly, 45-43 percent, in trust to handle the deficit, an especially weak issue for Obama. He does slightly better, but hardly well, in trust to create jobs, an issue he's newly (critics would say belatedly) stressed a 7-point advantage over the Republicans, but below majority preference, 48 to 41 percent.

Obama's Job Approval Rating Marked By Shift Among Independents
Obama's job approval rating overall is just 51 percent, essentially flat since December; 46 percent disapprove. Among independents, the keystone of national politics, 46 percent approve of Obama's work overall and 49 percent disapprove. The shift among independents shows as well in their trust to handle top issues away from Obama, and toward the Republicans in Congress.
The president's rated negatively for his handling of four out of five individual issues tested in this poll: the deficit (56 percent disapprove), health care and the economy (53 percent apiece) and creating jobs (51 percent). His only positive is for handling terrorism.

His opponents, moreover, are fired up. On health care 43 percent "strongly" disapprove of his performance, while far fewer, 24 percent, strongly approve. On the economy strong disapprovers outnumber strong approvers by 16 points, 38 percent to 22percent. And on the deficit it's a 23-point margin; 40 percent strongly disapprove while just 17 percent approve strongly.

On top of all this, Obama faces growing second-guessing about trials of accused terrorists. In a shift from November, 55 percent of Americans now say such trials should be held in special military tribunals rather than in the existing federal court system. With handling terrorism one of Obama's last redoubts, that disagreement with his policy poses a threat.

POWER and PARTISANSHIP In another slap at the party in power, 57 percent of Americans say it's a good thing the Republicans have broken the Democratic supermajority in the Senate, because it'll force the Democrats to cooperate more with GOP leaders to get things done.

But therein lies a challenge for the Republicans the risk of being seen as obstructionist. They're far more likely than Obama to be seen as not doing enough to compromise on important issues; 58 percent say the Republicans are doing too little to compromise, vs. 44 percent who say that about Obama. (See Feb. 9 analysis.) And more than two-thirds, 68 percent, say the GOP should use its newly regained power to block legislation in the Senate only infrequently.

Indeed, while the GOP is well-positioned to compete this fall, its task in the months ahead is to focus and channel the public's frustration to work in its favor. The risk otherwise is that anti-incumbency could work against Republican incumbents as well as against Democratic ones.

Currently, 48 percent of Americans describe themselves as anti-incumbent, vs. 35 percent pro-incumbent, the 13-point margin noted above. While that presents plenty of raw material for challengers, it compares a bit meekly to the 24-point margin, 53-29 percent, for anti-incumbency in summer 2006, and an almost identical 54-29 percent in 1994.

Public Divided on Health Care Reform Bill
HEALTH Health care may be a test case. Views on the overall plan as it currently stands are at a near-even division 46 percent in favor, 49 percent opposed. Equally important, though, is that the public does not want to see the issue abandoned. Americans by a broad 63-34 percent say lawmakers in Washington should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan, rather than giving up on it.
That doesn't mean they think it'll happen: The public divides evenly, 48-46 percent, on whether comprehensive reform has a chance of becoming law this year, or is dead.

An evaluation of the charms vs. the flaws in reform, from the public's perspective, is instructive. Several main elements remain broadly popular: Eighty percent of Americans support banning limits on pre-existing conditions. Seventy-two percent favor an employer mandate, requiring employers to offer health insurance to their full-time employees. And fewer but still 56 percent support a personal mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance, either from work or another source, with assistance to help low-income people foot the bill.

But those attractions are balanced by unpopular aspects of reform. Sixty percent of Americans say the proposed changes to the health care system are too complicated; just 35 percent say it has to be this complex to accomplish the desired goals. And the division is about the same on costs: Fifty-nine percent say the plan as it stands simply is too expensive.

Another barrier to reform is ongoing satisfaction with existing insurers. Whatever their concerns about future costs, coverage and the health system overall, among Americans who have private health insurance, a substantial majority, 74 percent, say they trust their insurance company to handle their claims fairly. And people who trust their insurer are much more likely to oppose the reform plan as it now stands.

PROFILE and PARTY ID The Democrats, then, have potential pushback against the GOP both in broad support for some sort of comprehensive health care reform, and in its related effort to tag the Republicans with the obstructionist label. The Democrats also have two other resources: A somewhat better general public profile, and a slight advantage in partisan affiliation. Both, though, have thinned considerably.

On the latter, 32 percent of Americans in this poll identify themselves as Democrats, 26 percent as Republicans, 39 percent as independents. While that produces a 6-point Democratic edge in affiliation, it compares with an 11-point Democratic margin on average in 2009. Moreover, asking independents which party they lean toward produces a close 49-45 percent Democratic-Republican division overall, compared with a 2009 average of 52-39 percent.

The edge in favorability basic popularity tells a similar story. Fifty percent of Americans see the Democratic Party favorably, 46 percent unfavorably. The Republican Party's ratings are weaker 44 percent favorable, 52 percent unfavorable. But just since June, unfavorable ratings of the Democrats have gained 6 points and favorable views of the GOP have gained 8.


Elections 2010: Republicans Hold Advantage in Midterm Preferences
NOVEMBER It should be noted that vote preferences today don't predict those in November, and generic congressional preferences, in particular, don't reflect the idiosyncrasies of individual races across the country. That said, the current 48-45 percent split toward Republican candidates among registered voters, while not a statistically significant advantage, is unusual. Republicans have held a numerical advantage just six times in scores of ABC/Post polls since 1981.
The economy clearly hurts the in-party. Among Americans who see no sign of recovery yet, 55 percent describe themselves as generally anti-incumbent, 63 percent are disinclined to re-elect their own representative and, among those who are registered to vote, Republican candidates hold a 58-33 percent advantage in midterm election preferences.

Chilling for the Democrats, too, is the position of often swing-voting independents. They prefer the Republican over the Democrat in their congressional district by 51-35 percent (again, among those who are registered to vote). Sixty-seven percent of independents say they're inclined to look around for someone else rather than voting for the incumbent; it's nearly as high among Republicans, 60 percent, vs. just 41 percent among Democrats.

Similarly, 56 percent of independents call themselves anti-incumbent, about the same as its level among Republicans (55 percent), vs. just 34 percent of Democrats. And it cuts to vote: Anti-incumbents who are registered to vote favor the Republican over the Democrat in their congressional district by 58-33 percent. Pro-incumbents favor the Democrats by a similar margin. But there are fewer of them.

METHODOLOGY This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 4-8, 2010, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin. Click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.





4)Hamas's judicial system brings up claims legitimizing the rocket attacks at Israel and rejecting the legitimacy of the State of Israel


As part of the response to the Goldstone Report that defines the rocket
attacks as a "crime of war", Hamas's judicial system brings up claims
legitimizing the rocket attacks at Israel and rejecting the legitimacy of
the State of Israel


Overview

1. Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, the justice minister of the Hamas administration
in the Gaza Strip, recently announced that Hamas would "very soon" submit
its response to the Goldstone Report, a 52-page document containing the
findings of a "committee of experts" established by Hamas for that purpose.
At the same time, the Palestinian Authority submitted its preliminary
response to the Goldstone Report through Riyad Mansour, its representative
in the UN.

2. Diya al-Din al-Madhoun, a judge in the Hamas administration who heads
Hamas's documentation committee (Al-Tawthiq), presented Hamas's main line of
argumentation several days ago. The main arguments are as follows (see
Appendix for details):

a. Hamas targeted the military targets of the "occupation", rather than
concentrations of civilian population. The rockets of the "resistance" are
not accurate, and may slightly miss their target "in spite of the effort to
avoid causing harm to civilians". The few civilian casualties of the rocket
attacks prove that civilians were not the target.

b. Most of the areas hit by rockets are not part of the State of Israel to
begin with, and it was the "enemy state" (i.e., Israel) that perpetrated a
crime of war by relocating civilians to combat zones and settling them in
territory that did not belong to them.

c. The Goldstone Report condemned the "Zionist occupation" and absolved
the "resistance" of the claims of using civilians as human shields. The
Goldstone Report's claims that the "resistance" perpetrated a crime of war
by targeting civilians are baseless. Those claims will be refuted by the
principles of international law, which grant occupied peoples a legitimate
right to resist an occupying enemy.

3. Those claims are incorrect. The vast majority of the rockets were quite
clearly fired at large territorial targets, such as cities and other
population centers, to kill, scare, and demoralize the population, making no
distinction between military and civilian targets. Even the Goldstone Report
acknowledges that the attacks were indiscriminate and aimed against
civilians to cause panic and interrupt their daily routines.

4. Following are some major characteristics of the rocket attacks during
Operation Cast Lead:

a. About 650 rockets were fired on Israel during the operation, of which
about 570 landed in Israeli territory. Furthermore, 205 mortar shells were
fired as well. The artillery used in the attacks included 132 improved
122-mm rockets for ranges of up to 40 km, which put nearly one million
Israeli civilians within the rockets' range (including in such large
municipal centers in southern Israel, such as Beersheba, Ashdod, Kiryat Gat,
and Gedera).

b. The rockets were fired on large Israeli population centers with the
intention of hitting as much civilians as possible. For example, Israel had
intelligence information on plans to fire on schools in Ashdod to disrupt
studies, even though the rockets used by Hamas are imprecise and are
difficult to aim specifically at schools. In a speech given during Operation
Cast Lead, senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahar praised the Izz al-Din
al-Qassam Brigades and said that following the IDF's ground assault Hamas
was within its right to target hospitals, ambulances, synagogues, and to
kill both women and men (Al-Aqsa TV, January 5, 2009). Other spokesmen and
media of Hamas (and other terrorist organizations) have said on several
occasions that the rocket attacks were aimed at Israeli population centers.

c. The Goldstone Report did note the relatively small number of casualties
(three civilians and one soldier) suffered by Israel as a result of the
rocket and mortar attacks into its territory. The relatively small number of
fatalities and the fact that no mass casualties were inflicted on school
students were the result of several factors: the technical limitations of
the rockets, the terrorists' difficulties in firing them, and advance
warning measures which allowed the civilian population in Israel to take
cover well in advance. Furthermore, on one hand Hamas used civilians as
human shields, which increased civilian casualties. On the other hand,
Israel prepared its home front well in advance, which led to a small number
of civilian casualties (for example, no studies were held in southern
Israel, mass events were cancelled, and people were asked to stay indoors).
If it was not for such preparations, there is no doubt that the number of
casualties would have been much higher, considering that rockets hit or
landed near schools, kindergartens, residential buildings, and public
facilities in Sderot, Beersheba, Ashdod, and Ashkelon.

d. During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas boasted of its ability to increase
the rockets' range to Tel-Aviv. Al-Aqsa TV showed a clip with the names of
Israeli population centers hit by rockets, implying that the next target of
the rocket launchers was going to be Tel-Aviv. The name of Tel-Aviv appears
near a large crosshair, with text on the bottom of the screen that reads:
"All of our options are open" (Al-Aqsa TV, January 10). That video clip
reflects Hamas's attempt, with Iran's assistance, to obtain rockets whose
range would cover more Israeli cities, mainly Tel-Aviv.

5. The head of the Hamas documentation committee claims once again that the
Goldstone Report exonerates Hamas of the charge of using civilians as human
shields. That is in fact one of the Achilles' heels of the Report, and is
being thoroughly exploited by the Hamas propaganda. A great deal of hard
evidence held by Israel proves that Hamas has formulated a combat strategy
based on the use of civilians as human shields, which includes various
tactics implemented in Operation Cast Lead: forcing civilians to stay in
neighborhoods where IDF forces are operating; plain-clothed terrorists
blending into civilian residential areas; using groups of children to escape
from combat zones; making extensive use of residential buildings and public
facilities (such as hospitals, schools, and mosques) for military purposes;
firing rockets from the vicinity of residential buildings and public
institutions, and so forth.

6. A major part of the Palestinians' response to the Goldstone Report is the
battle for the legitimacy of Palestinian representation being waged between
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, a battle which has come to include the
Goldstone Report as well. Ever since the Palestinians started dealing with
the Goldstone Report, Hamas is the one that has been taking the initiative,
making varied use of the Goldstone Report, presenting a façade of holding
its own "independent" investigation by a "committee of experts". There are
several reasons for that, as far as Hamas is concerned: its interest in
denouncing Israel and putting its leaders and commanders to trial by means
of the report; its desire to break through the barrier of its international
isolation (mainly on the part of Western countries); and its striving to
establish itself as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians and
undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority.

7. The Palestinian Authority, on its part, which seeks to emphasize the fact
that it (rather than Hamas) is the representative of the Palestinians,
follows the lead of Hamas and has recently (after a considerable delay)
established its own committee to investigate the Goldstone Report
recommendations. According to an AFP report from Ramallah, on January 25 Abu
Mazen issued an order to establish a special committee to implement the
recommendations imposed by the Goldstone Report on the Palestinian Authority
with regard to rocket attacks on Israel during Operation Cast Lead. The
committee consists of five members, including jurists and academics, and it
is headed by Issa Abu Sharar.

Appendix

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statements made by senior officials in the Hamas judicial
system regarding the Goldstone Report

Interview granted by Diya al-Din al-Madhoun

1. Diya al-Din al-Madhoun, a Hamas administration judge and chair of Hamas's
documentation committee (Al-Tawthiq),1 has recently granted an interview in
which he spoke about Hamas's position regarding the Goldstone Report.
Following are excerpts from answers he gave to [obviously scripted]
questions asked by the interviewer, which appeared on the Izz al-Din
al-Qassam Brigades website (alqassam.ps, January 27, 2010).

2. [Q:] How would you describe the juridical status of the resistance based
on international law?
[A:] First I would like to note that the Palestinian people still labor
under the burden of the occupation. International law stipulates the right
of occupied peoples for self-defense, and stipulates their right to resist
occupation in order to liberate their land from occupying forces. The acts
of resistance carried out by the Palestinian resistance factions include
rocket and mortar attacks on the occupying Zionist forces. All military
activities performed [by those factions] are within the legitimate means,
according to international law, for defending our people and liberating our
occupied land in order to achieve self-determination..."

3. [Q:] If resistance is a legitimate right, why does the West refer to it
as terrorism?

a. [A:] International law, which empowers occupied peoples to resist the
occupation, also sets principles for foiling acts of war. In international
law, each side has to avoid hitting civilians and civilian facilities. The
Zionist occupation managed to use [those] legal principles for its benefit
in the past. It misrepresented and still misrepresents [those facts] to
global and particularly Western public opinion. [It claims] that the
Palestinian resistance is a criminal element which strives to hit civilians
and murder Jews in a racist fashion, and that the Palestinian resistance is
made up of criminal groups which strive to destabilize the security and
stability of the region. The fact that we are an occupied people who
exercise their legitimate right to resist the occupation and to self-defense
has been blurred.

b. That resulted from our weakness on the media and from the continuing
weakness [of the way we are seen] by the West. The West believed the Israeli
narrative and did not agree to hear our message at the time. I can say that
[thanks] to the era of satellite and free media in which we currently live,
many have started to show a desire to understand the message of resistance
of the Palestinian people, and the world and international public opinion,
particularly Western public opinion, started to understand which one is the
victim and which one is the hangman. We live [in a reality of] multiple
views, and the Palestinian narrative keeps penetrating [more and more] into
the international position, which is reflected in the [penetration of]
truths which confirm that the Palestinians are an occupied, robbed, and hurt
people, expelled from their land and exercising their legitimate right to
resist the occupation in accordance with international law.

4. [Q:] Regarding the [Israeli] aggression against the Gaza Strip, according
to your monitoring, did the [Palestinian] factions of resistance comply with
[international] law, even though they are not a regular army?

a. [A:] The Palestinian resistance has confirmed on more than one occasion
that it is committed to international law and that its rocket and mortar
attacks are aimed at the military targets of the occupation. For example,
concentrations of tanks which fire on the houses of [peaceful] civilians in
the Gaza Strip. [It also] targets the military airfields from which the
occupation fighters are launched, that did not leave the skies of the Gaza
Strip during the entire war [i.e., Operation Cast Lead]. Likewise, [the
resistance] targets outposts where occupation forces congregate while
preparing for an invasion into the Gaza Strip.

b. The resistance has managed to internalize the meaning of its commitment
to international law. Two answers can be given to the claims of the
[Israeli] occupation, according to which three civilians were killed as a
result of the rocket [attacks] of the resistance:

1. The rockets of the resistance - despite the efforts not to harm
civilians - are imprecise, and may slightly miss their targets. That is what
happens in all armed conflicts. The killing of three civilians [by rocket
attacks] in 22 days, in which hundreds of rockets were fired [on Israel],
proves that civilians were not the target of the rocket attacks, since
dozens of them would have been killed otherwise.

2. The occupation authorities claim that the areas where the resistance
rockets landed are part of the State of Israel; however, international law
has a different opinion, since the signing of the Oslo Accords between the
Palestinian Authority and the [Zionist] entity is not considered to be a
final solution or final agreement on the delineation of the borders. As long
as there is no final agreement, the matter of delineating the borders rests
with the international resolutions, i.e., the [1947] Partition Resolution,
on which the International Court [the Hague] relies in its decisions
regarding the [separation] fence. Even though we have reservations regarding
the [Partition] Plan, most of the population centers in which the rockets of
the resistance landed are inside the Arab international borders as specified
in the Partition Plan. We therefore learn that it is the enemy state [i.e.,
Israel] which perpetrated a crime by relocating civilians to combat zones
and settling them in land which did not belong to them, which contradicts
international authorities. Likewise, [it] put civilians in a site which is
the focal point of the military and political struggle, thus violating their
rights. We therefore learn that the Palestinian resistance exercised its
legitimate right by adhering to the principles of international humanitarian
law, and that it was the occupation forces which violated the law and
inflicted suffering and horror on the civilians.

5. [Q:] Does Justice Goldstone's report jeopardize the resistance.?

a. A:] The report of the international mission headed by Justice Goldstone
is considered one of the most powerful reports which convicted the Zionist
occupation of crimes of war and what may even amount to crimes against
humanity. The report corroborated the allegations through testimonies and
evidence stretching over more than 500 pages; at the same time, [the report]
exonerated the resistance of the claims of using civilians as human shields.
Moreover, the report even confirmed that the civilian police, who were
targeted in the first day of the aggression [i.e., Operation Cast Lead], are
civilians, and that firing on them constitutes a blatant violation of
humanitarian and international law and is a crime of war.

b. What further strengthens the report is the fact that it was approved by
the Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly, which
confirmed its recommendations. In addition, the report included
recommendations and [legal] means for trying international war criminals.
That does not suggest that I should not express my reservations about the
last ten pages [of the report], in which it points the blame at the
resistance and claims that it may have perpetrated crimes of war by
targeting civilians. Those accusations, however, had no proof or legal
basis, and will be refuted in light of the principles of international law,
which grant occupied peoples a legitimate right to resist the occupying
enemy...

c. I would like to stress that the Palestinian government received the
complete text of the Goldstone Report, and will address all aspects of it.
The Palestinian government already does so by taking serious measures to
implement the recommendations of the report, and it established independent
committees to investigate the claims brought up in it and to discover the
truthfulness of the accusations that appear in it. However, I can say that
all the claims that appear in the report will be refuted because they bring
up accusations in violation of international law, and it will become clear,
through the independent inquiry committees, that what I say is true.

6. [Q:] Seeing as we expect new acts of aggression [by Israel] against the
Gaza Strip, does that mean that the Zionists will have no qualms about
perpetrating crimes of war in such acts of aggression?

a. [A:] We are still early in the process of filing lawsuits against the
commanders and soldiers of the Zionist occupation. As we begin, we
understand the difficulties and obstacles we are facing, reflected in double
standards and lack of balance between international forces, which until now
have favored the occupation. We believe that time will work to our benefit,
since the issue of filing lawsuits builds up gradually. The world must
realize that if the criminal occupier feels itself above questioning and
accountability, it will be encouraged to perpetrate [further] atrocities and
crimes. Putting a limit on the policy of avoiding punishment will enhance
the authority of international law, ensure the spread of international
justice, reaffirm [the existence of] justice towards the victims of the
[Israeli] aggression, and deter anyone who might be tempted to perpetrate
international crimes. I believe we are taking a first step [forward], which
I believe is a successful step, and I think that this step [even] realized
some of our goals. We will exert further efforts to deter the occupier and
his criminals from committing any more atrocities and crimes against our
people. Moreover, we will make efforts to do justice with our victims of the
[Israeli] aggression and guarantee their right for compensation.

Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul's press conference

7. Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, the justice minister in the Hamas
administration, held a press conference in Gaza City (January 27) which was
shown on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV. During the press conference, he described the
measures taken by the Hamas administration with regard to the Goldstone
Report, even though he claimed that the recommendations of the Security
Council did not require the Palestinian side to conduct any investigation.
According to Al-Ghoul, Hamas established an "internal inquiry committee" to
investigate deliberate violations of international law and expert committees
to monitor the recommendations of the Goldstone Report. He claimed that
those committees did professional work in accordance with international
standards. Their response includes 52 pages and will be submitted to the
director of the [Human Rights] Commissioner's office in the Gaza Strip
within the specified time period, which will be very soon.

8. According to Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, [the Ministry of Justice] is now
investigating other Israeli "crimes of war", including stealing organs from
shaheeds (martyrs). According to Al-Ghoul, the general prosecution of Hamas
is going to file lawsuits against Israel about those issues and conduct a
special workshop regarding it (note: on January 27, 2010, Hamas's daily
Felesteen published an announcement by the Ministry of Justice in the Hamas
administration, announcing the start of preparations for assembling all the
information and documents "proving" that Israel had indeed stolen organs
from shaheeds. The purpose is to build a "complete case that would cover all
legal aspects" and be used as a basis for lawsuits against the Israeli
government in international courts. Gaza Strip residents who have relevant
information were asked to send it to the Ministry of Justice so that it can
be included in the case being put together against Israel)

5)Iran decision now: Israeli strike on Iran may be crucial to our future despite its painful price
By Yoaz Hendel

Human history has given rise to countless “fateful decisions” where a limited number of people – that is, leaders – changed their fate of nations and along with it the fate of the whole world.

Some decisions were taken rashly, out of stupidity or foolish boldness, while other difficult decisions were taken after many sleepless nights, based on concern and sound judgment. One way or another, none of the leaders involved predicted the expected results.


The State of Israel has been facing a complex strategic problem for more than a decade now: The Iranian nuclear project. The “decision time” that started somewhere in the late 1990s has been stretched endlessly, along with the unstable nerves of Israeli news consumers.

Every year, the public is being told that the prime minister is about to make a decision on the matter, because the Iranians are about to reach the point of no return. Yet then we see the year end, and the fateful decision moves on to the next year.

Yet as every historical saga has a beginning and an end, we can assume that in respect to the Iranian story as well there will come a day where everything will end – either we’ll get Iran as a nuclear power, or Iran that is distancing from acquiring nuclear capabilities.

Generally speaking, world leaders had and still have various ways for taking decisions – starting with the will of the nation, and ranging from the will of allies to personal benefit. The most prominent leaders made their decisions via historical lenses, while looking into the distant future.

Strategic big bang

After long years of futile attempts to influence Iran economically, Israel’s leadership too can look into the future in a clearer and bipolar manner. On the one hand we have the continuation of the current policy, until the story ends and is stuffed into history’s drawers; on the other hand we have the option of a military strike.


The end product of the first possibility can be created tomorrow morning, in a year, or in three years. The timing doesn’t matter, as the implications are identical. The day Iran possesses offensive nuclear capabilities will prompt a strategic big bang – a regional arms race, regional terror groups with growing confidence, and mostly existential danger for the State of Israel.


We can debate the meaning of the term “existential” and the scope of the danger, and we can also discuss Israel’s defense capabilities and an Iranian logic that would not allow it to launch a nuclear strike against a state that maintains (based on foreign reports) developed nuclear capabilities of its own.

However, we cannot ignore the assumption that there is a chance (even if a slim one) that the State of Israel will be facing an existential threat the kind of which it has not faced since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The immense difficulty here, beyond the risk inherent in a strike, is that any Israeli decision to strike in Iran will certainly lead to war. Israeli citizens, just like any citizen in the modern Western world, are (justifiably) repulsed by wars, fatalities, and mostly the loss of one’s sense of security. The days where war was perceived as the “father of all,” to quote Heraclitus, and a period of human elation have ended.


A war with Iran and its allies would cause Israeli fatalities; hundreds of soldiers and citizens may be killed and the pain will be immense. Yet despite this, such war will not jeopardize the future and will not put the State of Israel’s existence to the test. The continuation of the current policy indeed produces a safe present for us citizens, yet it blurs the existence of such future.

5a)Gentle diplomacy with Iran will not work
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist February 10, 2010

ON SUNDAY, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered his country’s nuclear agency to begin enriching uranium to a purity of 20 percent, well beyond the level needed to fuel a nuclear power plant. The following day, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that Tehran was going to “punch’’ Western nations “in a way that will leave them stunned.’’

Welcome to Year Two of Barack Obama’s “engagement’’ with Iran.

The president’s outreach to the brutal theocracy in Tehran began in the first moments of his presidency.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent,’’ he said in his inaugural address, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’’ Tehran responded by calling Obama “the hand of Satan in a new sleeve.’’ A spokesman for Khamenei sneered: “The Great Satan now has a black face.’’

That initial exchange set the pattern for the year that followed.

Over and over, Obama has sought to “extend a hand’’ to Iran’s rulers - taping a message of goodwill for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year; remaining silent after the rigged Iranian election in June; insisting that “dialogue between our two countries’’ would go on despite the government’s bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters - and each time the regime has pointedly declined to unclench its fist. Khamenei’s reply to Obama’s New Year greeting was to accuse the president of having “insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day.’’ He spurned Obama’s private overtures with public contempt; to negotiate with the United States, he said in November, would be “naïve and perverted.’’

Tehran has been equally contemptuous of the deadlines set by the administration for Iran to respond to international concerns about its nuclear program. Washington can announce “as many deadlines as they want, we don’t care,’’ Ahmadinejad told supporters in December. And why would they care, when each deadline has come and gone with Iran’s refusal to cooperate triggering no credible response?

For a year, the Obama administration bent over backward to show that the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran could be defused through patient engagement. Iran’s despots spent that year enlarging their uranium-enrichment capabilities, flouting international law, perfecting a new ballistic missile, pouring weapons and money into terrorist groups abroad, and arresting, torturing, and hanging dissidents at home.

Tehran’s apocalyptic rulers have not unclenched their fists, and no amount of goodwill is going to persuade them to do so. Perhaps that wasn’t clear to Obama a year ago. Now it is clear to almost everyone.

The closer Iran’s regime gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the more critical it becomes to ostracize and change that regime. It isn’t only hawkish right-wingers who think so. In a recent New York Times essay, Alan J. Kuperman, director of Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas - as well as a former aide to such congressional liberals as Charles Schumer and Thomas Foley - called for American air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes, urging Obama to order such strikes before it is too late, notes that a majority of Americans, as measured in recent polls, favors using force to keep Iran from going nuclear.

In recent weeks, both houses of Congress passed bills imposing stiff sanctions on Iran, particularly by cutting off its access to the gasoline imports on which it heavily depends. The legislation passed unanimously in the Senate, and by a 412-to-12 vote in the House. Not much in Washington these days commands such overwhelming and bipartisan support.

It may still be possible to neutralize the threat of a nuclear armed Iran without military force, but we will never find out unless the president jettisons his fantasy of engagement. Millions of Iranian dissidents yearn for a decent government. The unabashed support of the Obama administration, backed up by very tough sanctions, would powerfully aid their cause.

The mullahs will never willingly unclench their fists. Most Americans acknowledge that reality. It’s time the president did too.

6)Climate Group Admits Mistakes: Some IPCC Officials Say the U.N.-Sponsored Group Must Improve Procedures for Reviewing Reports
By JEFFREY BALL And KEITH JOHNSON

Some top officials of a Nobel Prize-winning climate-science organization are acknowledging the panel made some mistakes amid a string of recent revelations questioning the accuracy of some of the information in its influential reports.

Officials of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-sponsored network of scientists whose reports strongly influence global policy on greenhouse-gas emissions, initially played down some of the allegations and criticized those who called them important. Increasingly, however, they are acknowledging the panel's mistakes and saying it needs to tighten its procedures.

"This has not increased the credibility of the IPCC," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who is co-chairing one of the main sections of the IPCC's next big climate-change report, due out in 2013 and 2014. "There is some room for improvement."

Scientists and other experts involved in the IPCC say most of the information assembled and reported by the organization is valid. They say the revelations don't impugn the IPCC's main conclusions: that climate change is largely due to man-made greenhouse-gas emissions and that it could have dangerous consequences. But though they say each revelation itself is small, they worry that the continuing string of them is damaging the IPCC's credibility—not just with experts who question the premise of human-induced climate change, but with the public at large.

.In citing climate change as an important issue, a U.N. conference in December in Copenhagen didn't rely "on the precise date of the demise of Himalayan glaciers, or African agriculture" to tackle global warming, says Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC and a professor at the Institut d'Astronomie et de Géophysique Georges Lemaître at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, mentioning subjects that have generated criticism of the IPCC. "It's the body of evidence" in the whole report that makes the case for action to curb emissions, he says.

Officials say they don't know of additional mistakes in the IPCC's seminal 2007 report, but they say that, given that the report runs more than 3,000 pages, additional mistakes may come to light. "I do not expect serious mistakes," Mr. Edenhofer said. "But I'm quite sure that if people read the 3,000 pages, there will be some more mistakes."

A number of climate-change skeptics and public officials, including U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, have said the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, should resign. IPCC officials said Mr. Pachauri was traveling and unavailable to comment Tuesday.

A U.N. spokesman said IPCC rules don't appear to give the U.N. secretary-general authority to dismiss the IPCC chairman, and noted that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hasn't called for Mr. Pachauri's departure. Under IPCC rules, the panel's members—national-government officials—choose the IPCC chairman.

That officials with the IPCC are on the defensive is a big turnabout from 2007, when the then-obscure U.N. organization shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. The IPCC got the prize for its 2007 report concluding that climate change is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by man. The report motivated countries around the world, including the U.S., to push for limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

But recent revelations have undercut the Geneva-based organization. Among them: Emails were released on the Internet in which leading scientists at an influential U.K. climate-science institute seemed to squelch dissent from researchers who disagreed with them; the 2007 report incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could disappear as soon as 2035; and it was revealed that scientists hadn't peer-reviewed a claim in the 2007 report that climate change would halve African agricultural yields by 2020.

Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer their time with the IPCC to issue joint pronouncements every five or six years about one of the most complex scientific fields. The group, established by the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, is administered by a paid staff of only a few dozen people and doesn't do any scientific research itself; its job is to assess work done by others, providing information for policy makers.

Experts involved in writing IPCC reports say the 2007 document's errors point up gaps in the organization's checks and balances. "They are not big mistakes," said Mr. Edenhofer, who is deputy director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in Germany. But, he added, "We have to think about the procedures again." In particular, he, said, IPCC reports have to be more careful about noting the uncertainties surrounding information that hasn't been subjected to peer reviewamong scientists.

The most glaring mistake in the 2007 report is the claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, several IPCC authors say. That claim wasn't based on any peer-reviewed scientific paper, but on a decade-old interview given by an Indian glacier expert. Some within the IPCC suggest the mistake may be a typo traced back to a 1996 U.N.-sponsored study—which also wasn't peer-reviewed—that said the glaciers would disappear by 2350.

Chris Field, co-chair of another section of the IPCC's next big report and director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Palo Alto, Calif., said he thinks the IPCC would have caught the error had the team of scientists writing the report chapter on the Himalayas included a glacier expert. It didn't.

"The issue with the Himalayan glaciers really represents something where the procedures fell through," Mr. Field said. He added: "The challenge is the whole enterprise is working on volunteer labor."

Last year, before the disclosure of the Himalayan mistake, IPCC officials decided on a procedural change that might make it more likely that such a mistake would be detected in the future, Mr. Edenhofer said. Each big report consists of three parts, and the IPCC will allow more time between the publication of each of part, so the authors of one part will be likelier to read the others and flag errors.

Some people involved with the IPCC said they saw no reason why Mr. Pachauri should go. "He's dedicated an amazing amount of time and commitment and intellectual energy to the IPCC," said Mr. Field.

U.S. officials said they don't believe revelations of mistakes in IPCC reports undermine cause for concern about global warming. "It's not useful when mistakes are made, but the overwhelming body of evidence [on climate change] is not disturbed by those events," Todd Stern, the Obama administration's top international negotiator on climate-change policy, told an audience Tuesday at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think tank. "It's nothing short of crazy for us to put our heads in the sand and do nothing" about climate change.

Governments, including the U.S.'s, are now soliciting applicants to help write the IPCC's next climate-change report. Robert Marlay, deputy director of the U.S. Department of Energy's office of climate change policy and technology, who is involved in the solicitation process, says that more people are expressing interest than in prior years. The recent revelations "do not change any of the core conclusions from prior IPCC reports," he said in an email Tuesday, "but they do underscore the importance of getting strong, science-based researchers involved in the process, keeping an open but critically challenging mind, and grounding conclusions in peer-reviewed literature."

—Guy Chazan and Ian Talley contributed to this article.