40th Anniversary! Enough Cavities!

Today is our 40th anniversary and since we take each day one at a time and marriage one year at a time we have re-enlisted for another one.

I could not have chosen a better mate and if opposites attract, except for our values, our marriage proves that saying.
---
I have read a great deal, mostly con, about Obama's speech to AIPAC, after which I have given a good bit of renewed thought. Observing through D'Souza's prism my initial view remains. It was basically empty, full of past repeated platitudes and in the end said nothing but only what the audience wanted to hear. When set against past Obama's actions and policy initiatives I still believe it rings hollow.

Granted, Obama is between a rock and a hard place but much of it because of his own doing. For instance, regarding Mubarak, Obama like Carter, pulled the rug out from under a friendly dictator whom the governed hated. In the ARAB/MUSLIM Middle East, however, until such time as the people are educated, have experimented with democracy and rid themselves of extreme factions of thuggish radical Islamists bent on terrorism, dictators often play a stabilizing role.

Obama, after becoming president, began a series of trips and made a series of talks, which D'Souza correctly points out, were right out of 'Dreams of My Father." They proved naive and mistaken because they did not gain us any lasting and meaningful new friendships and in fact gave comfort to radicals who saw in them weakness.

Secondly, in projecting weakness, Obama left our 'supposed' Arab/Muslim allies querulous as to whether they could depend upon him. Mubarak in jail is not a comforting picture and neither must be the rioting in the streets of Cairo and the wanton killings in Syria and our feckless do nothing response and/or even passive support.

Third, by attacking Israel and imposing unrealistic conditions on our sole democratic ally in the region and then his back-tracking speech of Sunday, Obama must now be seen by Arabs and Muslims as two faced regarding their interests and demands.

Fourth, Obama seems utterly conflicted and thus, cannot bring himself to a clean and clear cut stance.

On the one hand, Obama's loyalty to his father's dreams and anti-colonial attitudes come through but when faced with espousing and executing policies American voters, whom he needs, can relate to and after  having placed himself way out in left field he simply melts into a series of speechifying babble.

Finally, D'Souza reminds us that in order to win, Obama had to appear to white voters as an acceptable black man. Not a frightening one as with Jackson and Sharpton. Consequently, Obama adopted mannerisms, a pattern of speech deliverance and other characteristics that helped him garner the benefits of white guilt. As I watched Obama yesterday his staccato stylized cadenced method of speaking, even the tilt of his head and the jutting position of his chin brought back memories of FDR.

And while at it, do not overlook that toothy self serving, self congratulating haughty smile.

Nice try Obama and I am sure some beyond redemption liberal Jews will buy your words and verbal commitments and eat the candy you threw them. I have enough cavities from listening to you so I will continue to wash my mouth out with reasoned judgement and deep suspicion dentifrice. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)

More comments from a friend and fellow memo reader attending the AIPAC Conference: "I too am at AIPAC. Best speech thus far by Eric Cantor. Best line 'the world needs America to be a compass not a weather vane' in regards to Iran and America's relationship to Israel."
---
Now that Obama has a record of achievements (health, deficits,etc.)and failures (foreign policy etc.) I continue to maintain he can be beaten with his own words. Obviously, Newt is more gifted at accomplishing the turn it back on yourself approach than Romney but, in his own less invigorating way, Romney and his staff are also capable of returning Obama's words in the form of zinger arrows.

The press and media continue to focus on the contentious slug fest Republicans are engaged in but eventually a candidate will emerge and the Republican nominee and running mate's focus will be exclusively on Obama. Then we will see. (See 2 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama Stresses Loyalty to Israel, Patience on Iran
By Alexis Simendinger

President Obama, during an important White House meeting and lunch Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is expected to assert that the United States “will not hesitate” to use military force to defend America and its interests, including Israel.

But he will also tell Netanyahu that when it comes to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the United States supports peace and wants to give diplomacy and economic sanctions a chance to influence Iran before contemplating military strikes intended to hobble that country’s strides to develop a nuclear weapon.


In an address Sunday to more than 13,000 people gathered in Washington for the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference, the president at times sounded frustrated that his commitment to Israel has been cast as weak or unreliable by some of his critics, including Republican presidential candidates. (Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are scheduled to address the conference Tuesday by remote hook-up.)

“Over the last three years as president of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel,” Obama said. “At every crucial juncture -- at every fork in the road -- we have been there for Israel, every single time.”

The president told the influential AIPAC attendees, who will hear from Netanyahu on Monday evening, that the U.S. posture toward Iran is focused on diplomacy, international isolation and economic sanctions as the smartest policies to compel that country to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The applause was boisterous for the sections of Obama’s speech that affirmed America’s commitment to deploy military force in defense of its strongest ally in the Middle East. “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the president said. “And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

The audience was noticeably more subdued when the president said, “I make no apologies for pursuing peace.”

Obama, who captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008 against John McCain, pointedly affirmed America’s commitment to stand with Israel -- even as he said the United States will seek to dissuade Israel from trying to strike Iran before other options have run their course. Netanyahu is eager to discuss with Obama specific threat thresholds that could conceivably trigger military strikes against Iran.

Israel wants Iran to commit to suspend all enrichment of uranium, verifiable by United Nations inspectors, as a condition of resuming negotiations between Iran and Western allies about Tehran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration has rejected this idea, arguing that Iran would reject it outright, which would undercut any hope of negotiations.

The Israeli prime minister, who has butted heads with Obama in the past, has openly expressed more urgency about Iran’s nuclear intentions, and shows less patience with the notion that economic sanctions can force concessions out of Tehran. The president believes discussion of war with Iran is sparking unintended consequences -- rising gasoline prices is one such example -- harmful to Israel and the United States. The administration believes there is no conclusive evidence that Iran is close to producing a nuclear device.

The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency reported last month that Iran has revved up its uranium enrichment program. “Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities,” the 11-page report stated. But U.S. intelligence analysts insist there is no certainty that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

“I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world,” the president said Sunday. “Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built.”

Obama wove plenty of domestic politics into what was billed as a foreign policy address to this country’s most important Jewish lobby organization. In advance of his AIPAC speech, the president described the policies of Israel and the United States as “in sync” during a 45-minute interview published by The Atlantic.

But Americans across party lines think sanctions against Iran will be ineffective -- even if a war-weary public is also uncomfortable about using military force against Tehran. Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (56 percent) and independents (67 percent) believe that tough economic sanctions will not succeed, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. Americans continue to be strongly pro-Israel compared with their views about Iran and the Palestinian Authority, according to a Gallup poll released last week. Republicans hold the most favorable view of Israel, followed by independents and Democrats, Gallup reported.

Anticipating that his GOP rivals will take their shots at him later this week, the president encouraged his audience Sunday to put Republican criticisms of his policies in perspective.

“If during this political season you hear some questions regarding my administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts,” he said. “And remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important.”

The AIPAC audience stood and applauded when the president said America’s support for Israel “is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay.”

After his remarks, Obama spent about 35 minutes backstage speaking privately with Israel President Shimon Peres, to whom Obama will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom later this spring. Peres, who addressed the policy conference just moments before the president, assured those gathered that they “have a friend in the White House.”

1a and 1b)Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama

Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.

By DAN SENOR
'I try not to pat myself too much on the back," President Barack Obama immodestly told a group of Jewish donors last October, "but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration."

Mr. Obama struck a similar tone at the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in Washington Sunday, assuring the group that "I have Israel's back." And it's little wonder why. Monday he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid growing concern that a military strike will be necessary to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. He also knows that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote when he publicly pressured Israel to commence negotiations with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders with land swaps. With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.

It is true that there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense programs, the bulk of which comes from Mr. Obama maintaining a 10-year commitment made by President George W. Bush to Israel's government in 2007.

But a key element of Israel's security is deterrence. That deterrence rests on many parts, including the perception among its adversaries that Israel will defend itself, and that if Israel must take action America will stand by Israel. Now consider how Israel's adversaries must view this deterrence capability in recent months:

October 2011: Speaking to reporters traveling with him to Israel, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta raised provocative questions about Israel. "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?"

This characterization of self-created isolation surprised Israeli officials. After all, for almost three years President Obama had pressured Israel to make unilateral concessions in the peace process. And his administration had publicly confronted Israel's leaders, making unprecedented demands for a complete settlement freeze—which Israel met in 2010.

The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity. Thus, having helped foment an image of Israeli obstinacy, the Obama administration was now using this image of isolation against Israel's government. Mr. Panetta's criticism was promptly endorsed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a harsh critic of Israel, who said Mr. Panetta was "correct in his assumptions." Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.

November 2011: In advance of meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mr. Panetta publicly previewed his message. He would warn Mr. Barak against a military strike on Iran's nuclear program: "There are going to be economic consequences . . . that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy." Even if the administration felt compelled to deliver this message privately, why undercut the perception of U.S.-Israel unity on the military option?
That same month, an open microphone caught part of a private conversation between Mr. Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Sarkozy said of Israel's premier, "I can't stand Netanyahu. He's a liar." Rather than defend Israel's back, Mr. Obama piled on: "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day."

December 2011: Again undercutting the credibility of the Israeli military option, Mr. Panetta used a high-profile speech to challenge the idea that an Israeli strike could eliminate or substantially delay Iran's nuclear program, and he warned that "the United States would obviously be blamed."

Mr. Panetta also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by lecturing Israel to "just get to the damn table." This, despite the fact that Israel had been actively pursuing direct negotiations with the Palestinians, only to watch the Palestinian president abandon talks and unilaterally pursue statehood at the U.N. The Obama team thought the problem was with Israel?
January 2012: In an interview, Mr. Obama referred to Prime Minister Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he has developed "bonds of trust." According to Mr. Obama, these bonds have "allowed us to execute effective diplomacy." The Turkish government had earlier sanctioned a six-ship flotilla to penetrate Israel's naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Mr. Erdogan had said that Israel's defensive response was "cause for war."

February 2012: At a conference in Tunis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Mr. Obama pandering to "Zionist lobbies." She acknowledged that it was "a fair question" and went on to explain that during an election season "there are comments made that certainly don't reflect our foreign policy."

In an interview last week with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama dismissed domestic critics of his Israel policy as "a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge . . . between Barack Obama and the Jewish American vote." But what's glaring is how many of these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.

Last December, New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez lambasted administration officials at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He had proposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and the administration was hurling a range of objections. "Published reports say we have about a year," said Mr. Menendez. "So I find it pretty outrageous that when the clock is ticking . . . you come here and say what you say."

Also last year, a number of leading Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer, felt compelled to speak out in response to Mr. Obama's proposal for Israel to return to its indefensible pre-1967 borders. Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN that "for the president to emphasize that . . . was a very big mistake."

In April 2010, 38 Democratic senators signed a critical letter to Secretary Clinton following the administration's public (and private) dressing down of the Israeli government.
Sen. Charles Schumer used even stronger language in 2010 when he responded to "something I have never heard before," from the Obama State Department, "which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is a dagger."
Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, said of Mr. Obama last year, "I think he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has encouraged Israel's enemies, and really unsettled the Israelis."

Election-year politics may bring some short-term improvements in the U.S. relationship with Israel. But there's concern that a re-elected President Obama, with no more votes or donors to court, would be even more aggressive in his one-sided approach toward Israel.

If Mr. Obama wants a pat on the back, he should make it clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that he will stand by Israel if it must act. He came one step closer to that stance on Sunday when he told Aipac, "Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs." Let's hope this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.

Mr. Senor, co-author with Saul Singer of "Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle" (Twelve, 2011), served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003-04, and is currently an adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.


What's Missing From Obama's AIPAC Speech?
Red Lines on Iran and Palestinians
By Jonathan S. Tobin

President Obama’s charm offensive with Jewish voters was again in evidence today during his speech to the AIPAC conference. The president’s bragging of his “deeds” left little doubt that his desire to be seen as Israel’s best friend ever in the White House is due to fears of a decline in support from Jewish voters this year. Obama’s doubling down on his tough rhetoric on Iran — he specifically disavowed any thought of “containing” Tehran — and the complete absence in the speech of any of any interest in pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians– (a hallmark of his administration’s policies during his first three years in office) was a signal defeat for Jewish leftists like the J Street lobby that once hoped to wean the Democrats from AIPAC.

But even more significant was the fact that despite his repeated vows to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there was little indication that Obama is prepared to make the leap from talking about the danger to actually doing something. His call for continued efforts towards negotiations on the issue undermined all the hard line rhetoric intended to appease wavering Jewish Democrats. Though his campaign will spin this speech as more proof that Obama has “Israel’s back,” Iran’s leaders may read it very differently and assume they are free to go on building their weapon with little fear the U.S. really is contemplating the use of force.

The first conclusion to be drawn from the speech is that Obama’s all-out effort to create more distance between the U.S. and Israel and to hound the Israelis to make concessions on borders, Jerusalem and settlements is dead for the moment. A re-elected Obama may take up this dead-end argument with Israel again this year, but for now, all that is forgotten. This is a crushing blow to J Street, who wrongly interpreted the 2008 election as signaling the end of the pro-Israel consensus in this country. Obama’s focus on Iran shows not only is he aware of the potential for a significant loss in his percentage of the Jewish vote this year, but that he must ignore those left-wingers calling for a less tough stand on Iran if he is to maintain the Democrats’ Jewish advantage.

But this renewed charm offensive should not be mistaken for a coherent strategy on Iran. The ayatollahs have been listening to Obama’s tough talk about them for years. But unlike those who may take the president’s claims about all his administration has done on the issue at face value, they have not forgotten years of Obama’s effort to “engage” them as well as a feckless diplomatic campaign that has not scared them much. The president’s Jewish admirers may believe his assertion that Russia and China have joined his coalition to isolate Iran, but the ayatollahs know that both countries are opposed to any further sanctions and that China stands ready to buy the oil the U.S. and Europe might boycott later this year.

Moreover, their ears must have lit up when in the course of a speech aimed at proving how little daylight exists between the administration and Israel, they heard the president continuing to argue in favor of further diplomacy. The Iranians regard any further negotiations as merely another opportunity to run out the diplomatic clock as they get closer to realizing their nuclear ambitions. The assumption that reliance on sanctions or more talking can get the Iranians to back down is without substance.

They also noticed what Obama’s Democratic cheerleaders will diligently try to ignore: the absence in the speech of any indication that the United States is willing to lay down “red lines” that mark the limit of how far Iran may go without obligating Washington to take action. Though the president deprecated the “loose talk” about war that has been heard lately, the only way to avoid such a conflict is to demonstrate to Iran that if it continues, as it has, to increase its efforts toward nuclear capability, it will bring down upon itself the wrath of the West.

Obama rightly restated the proposition that an Iranian nuclear weapon posed a threat to the United States and the West as much as it does to Israel. The logic of Obama’s rhetoric about the folly of containment — a point many in his administration don’t seem to accept — ought to point him toward abandoning his faith in a diplomatic effort that was doomed even before he began repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration on Iran.

Despite all the happy talk about Obama emanating from Israeli sources at AIPAC, Prime Minister Netanyahu understands that a policy of waiting for the U.S. to take action on Iran is tantamount to a decision to sit back and wait for Tehran to announce it has a bomb. Though there is no telling yet what Netanyahu’s decision on striking Iran may turn out to be, Israel’s friends can take little comfort from the president’s speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)It's Absurd to Think Obama Has Already Won
By David Paul Kuhn



Of course Republicans can still win the presidency.

Conservative opinion maker George Will compares the GOP’s presidential fate to Barry Goldwater’s flop. Many key Republicans reportedly believe they are indeed "consigned to defeat." Conservative blogger Erick Erickson promises that defeat if the GOP nominates Mitt Romney. Liberal analyst Ruy Teixeira predicts that Obama will retain the White House as decisively as he attained it four years ago.

Veteran columnist Robert Samuelson nicely summarized the jelling consensus. “If you believe the conventional wisdom, the presidential election is virtually finished,” he wrote, adding, “I'm inclined to accept it.”

Samuelson should not. And neither should you. Presume Romney is that GOP nominee. Obama is the slight favorite. But only slight. The 2012 general election will likely be what it was always going to be: a close fight on the conventional red-blue battleground.

Obama currently leads Romney in head-to-head matchups, 49 to 44 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. But these early surveys do not historically predict the future. Eight years ago, in early March 2004, John Kerry was ahead of George W. Bush in the Gallop poll, 52 percent to 44 percent among likely voters. Kerry led nearly every poll in July of that year. And we know how that went.

The economy consumes today’s American mind. And there is reason to be sanguine. But the electoral question is not whether the American economy is improving. The strategic question is: Whose economy is improving?

Pundits focus too much on the wrong numbers. There is no predictive economic tea leaf for who wins the White House. But it certainly is not how your stock portfolio is doing. This is a bullish period in the market. Dow 13,000! Yet two-thirds of Americans believe the United States is now in a recession, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. As I’ve written before, gas prices correlate far more than the stock market or the unemployment rate to how the public views a president. Put another way: A president would rather have gas prices down $2 a gallon than the Dow Jones average up another thousand points.

The national average for a gallon of regular gas rose 30 cents in the past month to about $3.75. Yet gas need not rise to $5 a gallon for Republicans to win the White House. The economy need not plummet.

Obama is not a strong incumbent by historic measure. His job approval rating is relatively steady in the Gallup poll. It averaged 45 percent over January and February. Jimmy Carter’s approval rating averaged 55 percent over those same two months in 1980. And, again, we know how that went.

Samuelson hesitated to make the bald prediction that Obama will have a second term because there is not yet a “collapse in Republican support.” But the GOP house will not collapse.

The modern presidential electorate has secure floors. It fortified Obama’s approval rating during his hardest times. It kept Bush above 40 percent until August 2005.

This is not LBJ's era. Lyndon Johnson had an approval rating of about 70 percent when he routed Goldwater. That’s 25 percentage points above Obama’s! Johnson had the legacy of JFK at his back. More than a third of the nation identified as liberal then. Only a fifth does today.

Goldwater also ran in a time before the two parties were hyper-polarized. Almost half of all Republicans approved of Johnson around Election Day 1964. By comparison, only about one in 10 Democrats approved of Bush on Election Day 2004. The same share of Republicans currently approve of Obama, according to Gallup.

Thus we will not see a sequel to Goldwater. Obama would likely defeat Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich with relative ease. But even those Republicans would win Texas and most of middle America. Goldwater did not.


George Will posits that the GOP should focus on congressional elections. But challenging an incumbent can reduce his coattails. Modern presidential races can rarely be divorced from Senate contests. Since FDR, no incumbent has also won re-election while losing more than two Senate seats. Republicans need four seats to win back the upper chamber. Republicans will make a race of 2012 because they must.

We cannot yet know how much of Obama’s 2008 coalition will return to him in this race. His historic gains in 2008 came after the market crash. Those gains were gone as the 2010 midterm election neared. Obama suffered historic losses among whites and independents. He's gained some ground since. It’s still a long way back.

The demographics of head-to-head polls offer no answers, until roughly autumn, for the same reason we can’t see the future in these early surveys. But Republicans should hardly feel "consigned to defeat." Obama won 52 percent of independents in 2008. Only 42 percent of them currently approve of him, according to Gallup.

Yet elections are choices. Obama has hit his stride. He’s lofty, confident and optimistic of late. “I placed my bet on the American worker,” Obama told union members this past week. “I believed in you.”

Obama’s stride stands out against the unusually flawed opposition. Even Bob Dole had an American tale to tell. He survived on the true battlefield and came up the “hard way.” Dole was the small town boy gone big.

Romney’s story is privileged boy gone very big. And it’s high finance big. That "big," like big government, is the wrong sort of big today. Romney’s own words have only made his story harder to pitch. Yet none of Romney’s weaknesses are electorally fatal. The alternative will assure that the conservative base backs him.

Pundits often talk of Romney’s sullied image. The public’s perception of him -- thanks to his gaffes -- didn’t have to be that bad. Americans’ unfavorable view of Romney rose to 47 percent in the mid-February Gallup poll, along with other surveys. But his image remains malleable. Bill Clinton had an unfavorable rating of 49 percent in April and June 1992. Negative views of Clinton lessened as Election Day neared. Meanwhile, the share of Americans with a favorable view of him shifted from 41 percent in June to 54 percent in early November 1992.

Republicans will now try Clinton’s role. They will seek to pin the recession’s costs on the incumbent. Democrats take heart in an improving public outlook. The share of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track has decreased about 10 points in multiple polls. But about six in 10 Americans still say they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. That’s the same share as one year ago. So these numbers can improve. But they can also worsen even without a dramatic event.

Political scientist James Campbell, an expert on election forecasting, calculates that the weakest third-year economic growth (change in GDP adjusted for inflation) since 1952 for winning incumbents has been 2.5 percent (Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004). The economy grew 1.7 percent in Obama’s third year.

As Campbell put it: “Despite their protracted and bitter nomination contest in the Republican Party, the overall outlook on the 2012 election at this time indicates a very tight election with only a slight edge to President Obama.”

Most election experts would agree. Incumbent presidents have won nearly three-quarters of their re-election campaigns since the Civil War. The economy is trending in the right direction, providing gas prices level off. The electoral map favors Democrats. Obama has a route around losing Florida and Ohio, however difficult that would prove. Republicans cannot lose either state and win.

Romney is the least flawed option for Republicans. But his flaws are significant enough to matter. They did for Kerry. Yet he still made a race of it. Shift 60,000 votes in Ohio and it would have been President Kerry.

George Will once said with typical wit, “The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.” His latest column may betray the pessimist in him. It would be foolish for Republicans to depend on that pleasant surprise. But it’s also foolish to think the GOP has already lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------