Polls Say Democrats Are Gambling By Taking on Rush Limbaugh

First, just a word before the following is dismissed by Democratic readers as partisan, or as being from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. My polling firm, InsiderAdvantage, is non-partisan. It polled the 2008 presidential race for the red-hot political site Politico, and was in a recent speech at Fordham University named by a guru who even D.C. liberals praise as one of the three most accurate national pollsters for the presidential contest.

This column isn't about partisanship. It's about strategy. I've only met Rush Limbaugh once. It was back when I was politically active, running Newt Gingrich's campaign. One time in particular I had occasion to sit and casually chat with Limbaugh. It was enlightening. He was the complete opposite of his persona. He was soft-spoken, extraordinarily polite and clearly not taking himself too seriously. My friends who know him well tell me he is still that way today.

Now for a second big personality, Democratic strategist James Carville. He was revealed just this week by media to have reportedly once said he hoped President Bush would fail -- just as Rush Limbaugh has recently been assailed for hoping the same about President Obama.

To be fair, Carville is much like Limbaugh. Sorry, conservatives, but while James can be nasty and shrill on TV -- and, as I write in my book, a tough political opponent -- he also is in private very polite and unassuming, not to mention kind and funny, too.

I would never make James Carville my target if I were trying to tear down the Democratic Party. Likewise, I would be wary of targeting Rush Limbaugh if I were an Obama strategist.

I can understand why some might suggest otherwise. A recent McClatchy newspaper poll reports that Limbaugh has only a 30 percent approval rating, and a 46 percent disapproval rating.

But that poll needs to be placed into perspective. It's likely that most of the 46 percent who say they view Limbaugh unfavorably have never heard his show. And reports of the survey's details suggest that Limbaugh suffers from weakness with independent voters.

Those two facts could prove dangerous for the Democrats in the future. Here's how:

Independents are the swing voters who place either Democrats or Republicans in the White House and in control of the House or Senate. When times are good, most independents will stick with the party for which they last voted. But let an unpopular policy start to get legs -- such as Hillary Clinton's health care proposal years ago -- or let the nation appear to be headed the wrong way while one political party is in charge, and look out!

Independents are open-minded. They will also turn on a dime. Here's a good example: How does anyone think that the Republicans managed to capture the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after decades of solid Democratic control and with Bill Clinton in the White House? The answer was "Hillary Care," combined with a general feeling that things in general weren't going so great under Democratic rule.

That's where this Limbaugh strategy seems flawed to me. By taking on Rush, the Democrats are calling attention to his show. That adds listeners. If President Obama were to continue sinking in the polls, and should some of his major early initiatives start to become unpopular, it is highly likely that the curious might just tune in Limbaugh to see what "the other side" has to say.

Limbaugh has two things already going for him. First, he has nearly a third of the nation that views him favorably. Second, anyone who listens to his show knows that Limbaugh plays the role of pompous ringmaster, but in jest. After five minutes it is clear that he is not a hatemonger. And he articulates a message that disaffected independent voters might readily embrace. There is, after all, a reason why he is the No. 1 talk show host in America.

In public opinion polling we keep in mind something that often is not obvious. If just 5 percent of those who say they have an unfavorable opinion of someone shift to favorable, it can be huge. For example, if 7 percent of those who view Limbaugh unfavorably switch to a favorable view, that makes the numbers 37 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable. A statistical tie. Curious independent voters could make that a reality.

The Democrats need to hope that things go well and Limbaugh doesn't keep adding listeners as a result of this attack strategy. Otherwise, two years from now it may be Rush who is in the 50 percent-plus favorable column. That would be quite a feat for a talk show host, and a true threat to the Democrats.

Finally, a correction. Last week I suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi flies in private airplanes. Instead, the planes are military ones, and were also provided to high government officials under the Bush administration. Even so, after the revelations of the last few days, I figure the public has heard plenty enough about Pelosi and planes.

Obama Takes a Dive on Earmarks

President Obama has vowed to curb the number of earmarks, also known as pork, in future spending bills. A commendable promise, had his number been zero. Unfortunately, the president wants to deal with an unsavory dish by cutting the portion size. Earmarks are pet projects that lawmakers stuff into spending bills. There are 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill about which Obama gave his pork talk on Wednesday.

Democratic leaders are right that "this is last year's business." And it's true that earmarks made up less than 2 percent of the $410 billion spending bill. But earmark spending is not only about money. It is about enabling fundamentally corrupt practices in the budgeting process. Too often the following happens:

Member of Congress obtains pork for a group or business. The recipient returns some of it in the form of campaign cash or, in at least one case, antiques for the home. Former Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, was famously brought down by a bribe-for-earmark scandal including Persian rugs.

The FBI is now investigating PMA Group on suspicions of making phony campaign donations to select representatives. Rep. John Murtha has received generous contributions from the employees of PMA, a lobbying firm whose clients have enjoyed earmarks, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likes the status quo on pork. Waving the flag of American security, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat recently told The Washington Post that defense-related earmarks "improve critical national defense programs."

No, they don't. Every defense-related earmark goes to something the Defense Department didn't ask for -- and is usually directed to some contractor back in the district. That money could have gone to actually enhancing national security.

Obama's call for still greater transparency on earmarking is a useless gesture. Most lawmakers are darn proud of them. They list the bacon they've bagged for their constituents right on their Websites.

Some portray earmarks as a beautiful exercise in democracy and ask, "Why should unelected officials make decisions?" Frankly, I'd rather have an unelected general in the Pentagon allocate defense dollars than a politician raking in campaign cash from a local defense contractor.

"Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose," Obama said. That is true, and many do. But the worthy ones can be part of a rational budgeting process.

A regrettable offshoot of the debate is that good ideas get ridiculed because they are earmarks. Great fun has been made of the earmark for swine odor and manure management in Iowa. Actually, those are very serious concerns in a state that has nearly seven hogs for every human.

We had a good laugh over the earmark for studying catfish genetics in Alabama. But Alabama has 250 commercial fish farmers for whom catfish is by far the dominant species.

And there was a big har-har-har about the earmark for grape genetics research in New York state. New York happens to be home to a large winemaking industry. ("Quick, peel me a grape," twittered Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a longtime foe of earmarks.)

Why are earmarks getting so much attention now? Three reasons: (1) They are easy to understand. (2) The public links the current economic fiasco to a "bought government" for which earmarks are one form of currency. (3) With trillions now going out the door for bailouts and economic stimuli, Americans feel they have an enormous stake in clean budgeting.

If Washington can't end a tawdry system that involves relatively small amounts of money, what hope is there for reforming the big stuff? Cutting the number of earmarks to zero shouldn't be that hard -- and should be this year's business.

A Dash of Science: Now That's Change

President Barack Obama did a lot more than lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday. He came to the startling conclusion that scientific research should be based on science. This will be a change. George W. Bush spent the past eight years making sure scientific research was based on conservative ideology, political manipulation and whim.

Global warming? Buncha baloney. We've got millions of years left. Saw a polar bear the other day in a zoo. Looked fine. And if scientists disagree with that, we can always find new scientists.

Using embryonic stem cells to try to cure diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes or to repair spinal cord injuries? Hold your horses on that one. Some religious conservatives don't like that one.

Some centuries ago, they didn't like Galileo saying the Earth revolved around the sun, and they got him to recant (and spend the rest of his life under house arrest). That wasn't good for science, but it was just fine for the Inquisition.

Monday, Obama said, in effect, modern inquisitions were over. He said scientists must be "free from manipulation and coercion."

And he said he is going to make sure "that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

This was more than some could take. House Republican leader John A. Boehner quickly issued a statement saying, "This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans."

And, I guess, if you are an American who believes scientists should be manipulated and coerced and have their results distorted by politics and ideology, you are very disappointed today.

Which is not to say all conservatives are disappointed by Obama's decision. Nancy Reagan quickly endorsed it, saying that "time is short, and life is precious."

And during his presidential campaign, John McCain said, "I've prayed a lot about it, but I've come down on the side of support for embryonic stem cell research."

According to Gallup, "A solid majority of Americans (typically 60 percent) agree with using stem cells derived from human embryos for medical research, 61 percent considering such research morally acceptable."

Which is why some Republicans don't really want to talk about it that much. Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday: "Let's take care of business first. People are out of jobs."

They are. And putting people back to work is Job 1 for the Obama administration. But this president seems determined to prove that government can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Speaking of the need for painstaking and costly research, Obama said, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed."

He went on by saying: "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

So science will go forward. But wait. There is a potential problem with this. Scientists can become mad. We know this from watching many, many movies. You give mad scientists money and leave them alone in a laboratory, and you know what they will do?

Eric Cantor does. He says Obama's decision on stem cell research could lead to "human cloning."

Which Cantor is against. Though I don't know why. Human cloning might be the best way Republicans have to create more Republicans.

Coming Next Year: Obama's Inflation

By Dick Morris

Mar 6, 2009

In the last five months, according to the Federal Reserve Board, the money supply in the United States has increased by 271 percent. It has almost tripled. Have car sales tripled? Home purchases? Consumer spending? Corporate investment? Not only have they not tripled, they have all declined more sharply than they have since at least the recession of 1981-2 and perhaps since the Great Depression.

So where is the money? If it isn't being spent, where is it? It is being parked, squirreled away. Consumers are using it to pay down their credit card balances, pay off their mortgages, reduce their student loans, make the payments on the car sitting in their driveway -- not the one in the dealer's lot. Businesspeople are buying T bills, investing the money and saving it. They aren't spending, either.

But one day this recession -- despite Obama's best efforts -- will end, and things will begin to look up again. Then, we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce. All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.

Since the spending and borrowing splurge is not confined to Washington, but is being mimicked all over the world, the inflation will not strike just one country but will be global in scope. The first global inflation in our history (except, perhaps, right after World Wars I and II). It will confront our policymakers with yet another unprecedented challenge and send them back, once more, to their economics texts. There, they will find that the only remedy for global inflation is global recession, a la Paul Volker. Having just emerged from a ruinous depression, nobody will be in the mood for more unemployment, but that is just what will have to happen to cool off the inflation and break the inflationary psychology that is likely to set in.

The point of this gloom and doom is that all this pain is entirely preventable. It will be caused by Obama's excessive spending and trillion dollar-plus deficits. This spending, of questionable utility in overcoming the current recession-depression, is so far out of line with what the economy can handle that it will do more harm than good when the inflation hits.

Recessions and Depressions: What Causes the Crisis of Confidence?

By Dick Morris

Mar 3, 2009

Ultimately, all recessions and depressions resolve themselves into crises of confidence. The instant, global, 24-7 communications of today make them ever more so. President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.

Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.

There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth. It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake.

Previous panics have been global in impact, but local in focus. The world panicked because of developments in Mexico or Argentina or Thailand or South Korea. Now, with Collateralized Debt Obligations spreading the poison of a bunch of bad loans all over the world, infecting every portfolio, the panic is not only global in impact but in focus as well. Modern communications have hastened the spread of the virus of panic throughout the global bloodstream.

In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world -- showing the way back to confidence.

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn't seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain't Iowa.

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

The Heat Is On True Believers

By Debra Saunders
Mar 3, 2009

A Sunday New York Times story described an expected sea change in international global warming policy. The story noted that President George W. Bush, "pressed by the Senate, rejected" the Kyoto global warming protocol in 2001, but now President Obama is eager to negotiate a robust international global warming treaty to be signed in Copenhagen in December.

Prominently missing from the 1,584-word story was any mention of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. That's a surprising omission considering that Gore negotiated the treaty for Clinton in 1997, and that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, which mandated that the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Then again, Clinton knew that the Senate would not ratify the pact. Before Gore flew to Kyoto, the Senate had voted 95-0 in favor of a resolution that declared that Washington should not be a signatory to any protocol that exempted developing nations, like India and China.

Wrongly, Gore nonetheless agreed to a pact that set no limits on nations like China and India. And all those geniuses in the -- all bow -- international community agreed to a pact that the U.S. Senate had opposed unanimously. They were so dazzled by their good intentions that they botched their entire mission.

After Bush officially disassociated with Kyoto, Our Betters in Europe dedicated themselves to complaining that the Bush administration would not be part of the pact, and that ruined things. Indeed, some leaders were so busy pointing fingers at America that they failed to find the time to make their own countries meet their Kyoto goals.

During the Bush years, politicians found that they could demonstrate their environmental bona fides simply by saying they supported Kyoto. Even if they were Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., John McCain, R-Ariz., or any of the other 91 senators who voted for Resolution 98. The same applied to European leaders as well, as the Times reported on their quest for tougher laws, but barely their failure to meet Kyoto.

Not Enough Retreat on Iraq by President Obama

By Steve Chapman

Mar 2, 2009

A sound, if cynical, policy for elections is to never vote for a candidate whose policies match your own. Since politicians often renege on their promises, you are better off voting for a candidate who says he'll do the opposite of what you want -- and trusting that he's a liar. George H.W. Bush, after all, gave an emphatic promise not to raise taxes and then raised taxes. Bill Clinton vowed to crack down on China's human rights abuses and didn't. George W. Bush championed a humble foreign policy.

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the outset, promised to bring our troops home in short order and criticized John McCain for his "stubborn refusal to end this misguided war." Without his stance against the war, he would not have won the Democratic nomination and he would not have won the election. But the meaning of his speech Friday at Camp Lejeune is that we shouldn't have believed him.

During the campaign, Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.

Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.

The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

What we can deduce from the new timetable is that for now, we are staying put. As for what happens next year -- well, why cross that bridge before we come to it?

Assuming the president adheres to this backloaded schedule, a large U.S. force will remain for some time. After August 2010, the administration plans to keep as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. That's 16,000 more than we currently have to fight the war in Afghanistan. We'll also be spending $50 billion on the effort in 2011.

Barack Obama: We Have Seen the Enemy, and It Is Us

By Roger Simon

Mar 2, 2009

It was a night of reckoning. It was a night to face up to the mistakes of the past, the calamity of the present and the hopes of the future. It was a night when Barack Obama showed why he had been elected president. "As we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in all nations are once again upon us," he said in his address to Congress Tuesday night, "watching to see what we do with this moment, waiting for us to lead."

It was, he said, "a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege -- one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans." It was not a night of sugar plum fairies dangled before us or sweet nothings whispered into our ears. We have had plenty of those over the years.

President Obama used the word "crisis" repeatedly, because what, after all, could you call the current state of our economy? He spoke of Americans facing "sleepless nights," with their dreams "hanging by a thread." He spoke of "a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession."

And he also spoke of who was to blame: us.Us and the people we have, term after term, elected to represent us. "And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before," he said.

The "critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day," he said. "Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."

At moments, his speech had almost Churchillian rhythms to it. At a time of great peril to his nation, June 4, 1940, Winston Churchill said: "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. ... We shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender."

Another Blind Eye to Human Rights

By Michael Barone

Mar 1, 2009

On the last day of her trip to East Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke briefly of the place of human rights in American policy toward China. "Our pressing on those issues" -- issues she didn't identify any more fully -- "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."

Cries of dismay quickly came forth from Amnesty International USA, New Students for a Free Tibet and Freedom House. Has the United States given up on championing human rights and democracy altogether?

Now it can be said in defense of Clinton's remarks that previous administrations of both parties, from the time of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, have given human rights at best a subordinate place in their dealings with China. And that our past calls for China to observe human rights have been met for the most part with stony silence and acts of defiance. And that the stricken American economy at this point is in need of continued Chinese purchases of Treasury bonds.

Still, for anyone with knowledge of American foreign policy over the last four decades, Clinton's remarks were jarring. It is one thing not to press a tyranny very hard on human rights; it is another thing to come out and say you're not going to raise the issue at all. It is a kind of unilateral moral disarmament. One arrow in the quiver of American foreign policy has been our pressing -- sometimes sotto voce (as in the Helsinki Accords), sometimes in opera buffa ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") -- tyrannical regimes to honor human rights. Hillary Clinton has put that arrow over her knee, broken it in two and thrown it away.

Former Cartel Leader Extradited From Mexico

By Jim Kouri

Mar 1, 2009

Miguel Caro Quintero, the alleged former leader of the now-defunct Sonora Cartel, was extradited by the government of Mexico to the United States on Feb. 25, 2009, the Justice Department announced Friday in a report to the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Miguel Caro Quintero arrived in the United States on Thursday and was transferred to the District of Colorado to face charges including racketeering and narcotics trafficking. Miguel Caro Quintero made his initial appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Charges are also pending against Miguel Caro Quintero in the District of Arizona. Prior to his extradition, Miguel Caro Quintero was serving a prison sentence in Mexico for drug-related crimes.

The Sonora Cartel, a former drug trafficking organization based in Mexico, was responsible for exporting to the United States and distributing multi-ton quantities of marijuana during the 1980s and 1990s.

Caro Quintero and his older brother, Rafael Caro Quintero, were identified as significant foreign narcotics traffickers under The Kingpin Act in June 2000, subjecting them and their associates to economic sanctions. Rafael Caro Quintero was accused of being the mastermind behind the kidnapping and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena in 1985 and was prosecuted by the government of Mexico.

"The extradition of former kingpin Miguel Caro Quintero who reigned with impunity for too long is a victory for citizens of both the United States and Mexico," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart.

"After serving time in a Mexican prison, Caro Quintero will now answer for his crimes with the one consequence kingpins fear most: extradition to the United States. DEA will continue to work with our courageous Mexican counterparts in our relentless pursuit to bring the highest level drug traffickers to justice."

The District of Colorado case is being prosecuted by attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Colorado. The charges in the District of Arizona are being prosecuted by attorneys from the Criminal Division's Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section. The Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs provided significant assistance in the extradition of Miguel Caro Quintero.

Dem Attacks Obama Power Grab, Ty'Sheoma Bethea Big Night

By Tim Morgan

Feb 25, 2009

Ty'Sheoma Bethea had a really big night on Tuesday. The young girl was invited by President Obama to sit beside the first lady during his speech to Congress in prime time for big ratings numbers on Tuesday night. The speech was the usual Obama fare but so far on Wednesday the market seems unimpressed. Another that seems to have some serious reservations in Robert Byrd, the senior US Senator from West Virginia and according to a report from Politico, Byrd claims Obama is in power grab.

U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday as investors found little new in a major speech by U.S. President Barack Obama on how he planned to stabilize the economy, while gloomy home sales data weighed on the market.

Are They Really Dead: All My Children's Greenlee, Guiding Light's Coop

By Lynda Hirsch

Feb 28, 2009

Last week on "All My Children," Greenlee (Rebecca Budig) died. Or did she? It was the famous "she's dead, but we have no body" soap opera ploy. I like Greenlee. I think Budig is a great actress. However, I want the character dead. I am tired of mourning characters that pop back like the Energizer Bunny. AMC, often my favorite soap (OK, I admit it), has you mourn and then pulls the mourning rug out from under you by bringing the character back from the dead.

Dixie dies not once but twice and returned; although, we think her last death, caused by poisoned pancakes, may really have her dead. Tad died; he's back and we're glad because the character and actor, Michael E. Knight, are favorites of mine and the fans. Paul Rauch, presently executive producing "Young and Restless," once said, "When an actor leaves or a character is painted into a corner, I like to put that character into the bank. That means the character can return. No body, no death. So when I want to bring the character back I go to the soap opera bank and withdraw the frozen assets." Yes, it's a good idea sometimes but not every time. The only way you can be certain a character is dead is if it's a minor character. When it's a major one there's always that possibility that they really haven't breathed their last breath.