Interesting if not critical morning headlines and news clips:

Obama tops Bush at ducking reporters; No formal press conference in 215 days...
Shouldn't "transparency" include questions from the press? Of course it should.

Oil above $80...
Obama has done nothing to prevent crude oil from rising to the $140 per barrel price of days gone by. Obama does not seem to understand that rising oil prices hold the potential of defeating any economic gains that may occur during the meantime, a failure (should it happen) for which he and his administration will bear the blame come November, 2010.

SWALLOW: White House Warns Republicans: We'll Pass Health Reform with 51 VOTES...

The Dems argue that this procedure has been used before and is perfectly acceptable. Our question is this: if what the Dems say is true, why have they not used the process before? They have certainly threatened to do so several times over the course of the past 12 months. Correct answer? Because they know that the procedure allowing for 51 votes is reserved for financial amendments added to existing law, that they will catch all kinds of heat if they pull this high level trick, that many of their own Party members dislike this bill. In other words, the reason why they will misuse the 51 vote rule is because they cannot get enough members of their own party to come on board. We need health care reform. We do not need back room deals that have totaled more than a billion dollars to date. We do not need pertinent health care legislation hidden in other bills such as the Stimulus bill.


.
.

What was really at the heart of the 2008 electoral debacle ? CPAC events give us a clue.

We wake up this morning to the words of Bill Bennett and his article found on National Review Online (text found here ). Bennett is a little upset with Glenn Beck's CPAC keynote speech closing out a great weekend for that gathering. Record crowds attended the event. Beck was there, of course, but so were folks like Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Ann Coulter.

Understand that Midknight Review sees Bill Bennett as a modern day American hero. He is more the father of the grassroots Tea Party movement than any other single individual. And while his criticisms are a lttle heavy, they are not entirely off base.

His overriding concern seems to be the notion that the Dems and the Republicans are not much different. And while that observation is without debate historically, there is the opinion that the GOP has seen "Jesus" on the issue of spending and big government.

Spending RINOs (RINO = Republican In Name Only) still roam the proverbial meadows, politicians such as John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and President George Bush. But the leadership of the GOP is changing hands.

Conservatives have a far greater voice in things political than just one year ago. Republican leaders who have been a part of this conservative renaissance include, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Mike Pence. Not enough can be said for the likes of the conservative radio world - without such giants as Limbaugh, the very partisan Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, and Glenn Beck [to name a few], the conservative rebellion would not be where it is today.

The battle for the heart and soul of the GOP is far from over. The RINO delegation is not about to go away. There is the increasing opinion that significant differences do exist between the Dems and the GOP. If one listens to Beck, he will understand that Beck acknowledges those differences. The two parties are far from being similar -- spending sins not withstanding.

What the Grand Old Party needs is new leadership. When a firm or a sports team develops a history of failure, the leadership is replaced. That is exactly what Midknight Review sees as necessary in this case. We do not regard all of the recent leadership as "evil" or "Marxist," but the failures of the 2004 2,006 and 2008 elections cannot be ignored. The leadership team needs to move out of the way -- and this includes the likes of Newt and Jebb Bush.

The central issue, here, is the abject failure of the current leadership to prevent the disaster of 2008. McCain was extremely unpopular as a GOP candidate. In 2002, the GOP reported elected gains in Congress. Since that time, party leadership has ignored a growing discontent within the conservative base. Contrary to popular belief, the conservative rebellion actually came to the surface during the 2006 election. Their collective voice was summarily dismissed. In 2008, many of these same conservatives made this statement: "if you want to ignore our concerns, try winning an election without us." Make no mistake , THAT is exactly why the GOP lost the most recent election. If significant changes are not made this time around, they will stay away, once again.

Of course, it does appear that this extreme action will not be necessary. Conservative opinion is winning elections and that seems to be the primary concern for some within the GOP --- winning, that is.

Understand that "winning" cannot be the controlling motivation in a party that claims conservative values and Constitutional principles as its cental focus. We as a Party cannot fear offering a choice to the American voter. In recent times, choice has been seen as something to be avoided. Acquiescence to liberal values and Marxist concerns has been the result. That time has passed. --- jds
. .

Like we keep saying: Obama has fallen and he can't get up !!

,

Obama's Rasmussen numbers as of Sunday, the 21st, had Obama
back down to a 45% approval rating with his approval index
at a -19, a near record low .

The approval index measures the enthrusiasm of those who
like and dislike Mr. Obama.

Four days ago, he was at a -10 and with even 50%
approving rating
.
.

Ron Paul wins straw poll at CPAC. Is he the next GOP Presidential candidate ??

Ron Paul, a pacifist Libertarian, has won the CPAC straw poll with a 31% vote, Romney with 22% and Palin (coming in third) with 8%/

So, is Ron Paul the GOP Presidential candidate?

Of course not. Only 25% of those attending CPAC voted in the straw poll and half them were young Republicans 25 years old and younger.

Midknight Review thinks highly of Ron Paul in spite of his criticism on the war issue, but doubts that he can win a Prsidential election.

Palin did not attend the function - too commercialized; a meat market for the Presidentially Challenged. Huckabee did not attend for much of the same reason. But good things happened at CPAC over the weekend and Glenn Beck's closing keynote speech was well worth the price of admission.

Romney won the straw poll in February of 2008 - he was not the GOP candidate that year. If he had run, Obama would have had to ascend the throne in a far away land. Instead, an estimated 4 to 6 million conservatives stayed away from the polls. Obama won that election by 6.5% of the popular vote. In round numbers, 60 million Americans voted against Novice. Midknight Review believes that as many as 72 million could cast that same "no" vote in 2012.
.
.

The far Left is quietly leaving Obama in the dust of broken promises and hope unfulfilled.

"I'm not an idealogue, I'm really not." So says Barack Obama.

Let's talk "definitions" and political motivations.

The word "idealogue" is given this definition:
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Midknight Review would argue that if you are "blindly partisan," you are an idealogue at some level.

With that consideration in mind, there is an aspect of Obama that can only be described as "idealogue." We believe that on a personal level, this is true for the Novice world leader. Midknight Review, however, does not believe that he is an idealogue to the same degree as a Jeremiah Wright, a Louis Farrakhan or a Bill Ayers. While Obama grew up in the shadows of these men, he did not inherit their sense of uncompromising allegiance ------------------------ to much of anything.

What may seem to be a huge negative for Obama in this regard, turns out to be a qualification of sorts for his run as president. Neither Wright, Farrakhan nor Ayers are willing to compromise the tenants of their "faith." They are idealogues in the strictest sense of the word. As a result, they remain self proclaimed "revolutionaries, " their ideologies not permitting them to be anything else.

Obama began his campaign for President as an idealogue after the order of the three men named above. He was quite the revolutionary in 2007. But during the heated Democrat primary, it became clear that he was short on experience and to the Left of Hillary. The chorus of criticism began to rise in a concert of opposition, and Obama did what all Leftist do, he moved to the middle of the idealogical spectrum. In so doing, he began a process of forsaking his friends and the world of the revolutionary.

Understand that from a conservative point of view, he remains "one of them." But, from their point of view, the far Left sees him as fully compromised. His inability to get things down is a disappointment. That military gay thing???? - he was going to reverse a long standing policy on that issue. Didn't happen. Midknight Review believes that he will reverse "don't ask, don't tell" but that will not happen until the Spring of 2012 -- he will need the gay vote, what is left of it by then.

He was going to close GITMO last January 22. Didn't happen. The prison housed 225 prisoners when he took office. It now holds 195. There is no more talk from the Obama camp as to when this promise will be kept.

He was going to heal the Muslim divide beginning with his speech at the University of Cairo. Now, nearly a year after that event, the words of his speech have been forgotten and whatever hope the Muslim world had in Obama is gone.

Israel believes he is anti-Semitic.

Hamas and the Palestinians, after receiving nearly a billion dollars in aid, have no clue as to what he is about with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good intentions and respect were going to span the divide between the U.S. and Russia; between the U.S. and Iran; between the U.S. and China; between the U.S. and N. Korea; between the U.S. Cuba; between the U.S. and Hugo Chavez. Again, nothing of the kind has happened.

Obama had "inherited a mess" caused by George Bush's undisciplined spending; Obama's solution? Triple down on the Bush spending agenda and borrow this great nation back into economic health. Moronic.

We were going to be done with both wars, Iraq and Afghanistan by 2011. Instead, he has increased the war effort in Afghanistan and has made it clear that 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq for sometime to come.

And his ideological Marxist buds are leaving him in droves. Seriously.

Remember Bill Ayers? The man who help Obama launch his campaign?

My !! What a difference a year makes. Michael Moore has denounced the man. Lots of negatives coming from the radicals at MSNBC. The New York Times has printed articles by Leftist commentators bearing the theme "clueless" as disappointment is expressed by these columnists. And now, Bill Ayers has left the reservation. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


.
.

From the Times On Line - [finally] a critical review of Obama, a man "in over his head" in our White House.

February 21, 2010

Obama’s ‘Chicago mafia’ blamed for paralysis at the top

Editor's prefatorial: what follows is a critical review of a young couple aspiring to a job they cannot complete; a review worded by one who, no doubt, voted for their ascension but now sees the couple as being in over their heads. We could not have worded this chronicle better. The text is wholly that of Christina Lamb. We have only highlighted in red those comments of interest to this editor ---- jds

Christina Lamb in Washington

WHEN President Barack Obama’s secret service codename was revealed as Renegade and his wife Michelle’s as Renaissance, the names seemed perfect for a first couple who had come to Washington to shake things up.

More than a year into the Obama administration, with healthcare yet to be reformed, Wall Street banks continuing to pay huge bonuses and Guantanamo Bay prison still open, that mood of hope has turned to disillusion. Obama’s policy of engagement has yielded no progress in the Middle East or Iran; the war in Afghanistan continues to exact a big toll in lives and dollars; while the heaviest snow in Washington for 90 years seems to have stymied any hope of climate change legislation.

The president and his team now find themselves under fire for mishandling Congress from everyone from senior Democrats to social columnists. Critics say that by failing to move on from the “us versus them” feeling of the Obama election campaign, they have united an opposition that was in disarray. The result is legislative paralysis despite the biggest Democratic majority in 30 years.

Last week a prominent Democratic senator resigned after criticising both government and Congress. Evan Bayh from Indiana, who had never lost a race and was expected to be re-elected in November, complained that the party’s recent loss of the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy should have been seen as a wake-up call.

“Moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” he said.

“They don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems.”

Even society writers are disenchanted. “The Obama White House has closed ranks. They were completely overwhelmed by the new office,” said Karen Sommer Shalett, editor-in-chief of DC magazine. “I haven’t heard of them going to any house parties or Georgetown row houses to be entertained.

“That’s important because if you’re social with someone over canapés and you know their wife and you know their children, you talk business in a friendlier way.”

When the Obamas do go to someone’s house for dinner, almost invariably it is to the home of Valerie Jarrett, their old friend from Chicago who serves as a political adviser.

The Wednesday evening White House cocktail parties which were launched with great fanfare as a way to reach out to Republicans, fizzled out last spring. The two parties seem more hostile than ever.

“This administration has managed to divide its friends and unite its enemies,” said Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation.

He and others lay the blame on the Chicago team, advisers from Obama’s adopted city. “Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on early during his presidential campaign,” complained Doug Wilder, who in 1990s Virginia was America’s first elected black governor and was an early backer of Obama. “One problem is 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.”

Obama relies on five people, four of whom are Chicagoans. They are Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, David Axelrod and Jarrett, his political advisers, and Michelle, while the fifth kitchen cabinet member is Robert Gibbs, his chief spokesman, who comes from Alabama.

The president consults them on everything. Military commanders were astounded when they participated in Afghanistan war councils and referred to them as the “Chicago mafia”. It was this group that inserted into Obama’s Afghan surge speech the deadline of July 2011 as a date to start withdrawing.

With Democrats fearing big losses in the mid-term elections in November, the knives are out for Emanuel, whose abrasive manner and use of profanities have won him few friends. Although his job is to deflect criticism from his boss, Rahmbo, as he is known, seems to have gone over the top.

The Wall Street Journal reported him losing his temper at a strategy session in August and referring to liberals as “f***ing retarded”. He is said to have sent dead fish to a pollster whose numbers he did not like.

Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, called on Obama to remove Emanuel, arguing that he needs someone who knows how to navigate Washington or will end up being no more than a speechmaker.

“No one I’ve talked to believes he [Emanuel] has the management skills and discipline to run the White House,” he wrote in The Daily Beast.

Among those touted as possible replacements are David Gergen, a political consultant brought in by President Bill Clinton, or John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff who now heads the Center for American Progress, a left-wing pressure group.

Emanuel would be unlikely to go without a fight. “Obama needs Emanuel at the top,” argued Dana Milbank in yesterday’s Washington Post, writing that the chief of staff was being unfairly blamed for the healthcare debacle.

“Where the president is airy and idealistic, Rahm is earthy and calculating. One thinks big; the other, a former House Democratic caucus chair, understands the congressional mind, in which small stuff counts for more than broad strokes.”

In Milbank’s view, Obama’s real problem is his other confidants, Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod, whom he describes as “part of the cult of Obama”, believing he is “a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics”.

While Obama may have campaigned on a slogan of change, he has shown himself reluctant to sack people.

The problem may go deeper. Douglas Schoen, former pollster for Bill Clinton, believes the Obama team misinterpreted victory as an endorsement of his liberal agenda when it was really a reaction against George W Bush and the credit crisis. “They need to recognise there is only one fundamental issue in America: jobs,” he said.

What no one disputes is that Obama is extremely clever. Were it not for losing the Kennedy seat and with it the Democrats’ 60-seat super-majority in the Senate, Obama would probably have signed healthcare into law by now.

The president has not given up on the reform. He is expected to publish a revised bill today or Monday, just before a televised White House summit on Thursday with congressional Republicans. But they are calling on Democrats to start all over again with a far less sweeping proposal.

The biggest hurdle may be Obama’s own ambition combined with lack of experience. A leading Democratic supporter described his administration as “unfocused”, adding that he had counted 137 items on Obama’s agenda.

“He needs to realise [sic] that he’s running a huge operation and has to sequence priorities,” said Clemons. “He’s not thinking like the chief executive of a complex organisation [sic].”

.

Waterboarding versus killing as many terrorists as possible - which is really the more humane practice ?

As you may know, Obama has increased the "drone war" effort and with some success. That is a good thing, of course. Anytime the bad guys are killed, a victory of sorts is registered.

Our questions is this: why is flat out killing the terrorists a more humane consideration than waterboarding them in the presence of a staff of doctors -- an interrogation technique that leaves the "suspect" both alive and physically unharmed? (who is the idiot, here?)

Bush was evil for harsh interrogation practices while Obama is a good guy for deciding to kill as many terrorists as he can and killing them with "anonymously guided drones" that depersonalize the combatant and kills civilian population (contrary to popular belief).

But with all this talk of anti-harsh interrogation and killing poeple as an option, we remind our readers that when high value terrorists are captured, they are sent out under the Bush policy of rendition to countries such as Pakistan. The recent capture of a Taliban leader in Pakistan is being pursued with Pakistanis interrogation techniques. The US military field manual is nowhere in sight. While Obama pretends to be on the high road, he allows for critical captures to be interrogated as before - so his interrogation policy is not all bad -- it is some Bush !!

Just askin' ---- jds
.

Rules of engagement - at the center of the new rules is the decision to put our troops at increased risk

Obama has decided "to hell with our troops' safety" as he seeks to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people.

Here are some of the new rules of engagement in the
Afghan War.

1. We have a "catch and release" policy that finds our soldiers being ordered to release battlefield captures unless they are [almost] immediately turned over to Afghan authorities. They have 96 hours to make the transfer or release the captive back into the civilian population.

2. Air support is not allowed if there is risk to the surrounding civilian population - putting our soldiers in great danger, at times.

3. Terrorist cannot be targeted unless and until it can be proven that they actually shot at our troops. For example, if there is a gun battle involving a house full of terrorists, if they lay down their guns inside the home and walk out, our soldiers have to let them go on their way !!

4. In many cases, Miranda rights are being read on the battlefield, ending any opportunity for interrogation.

5. When a terrorist house is identified and surrounded, our troops must wait 72 hours before firing on that house.

6. US troops are not allowed to pursue enemy combatants if they flee into a civil occupied area.

7. Harsh treatment of captives is disallowed. This includes harsh language used against them !!

source: FoxNews over a period of time.
.

CAIR is concerned about "fair play" when it comes to "terrorist attacks." Midknight Review is unimpressed.

Siraj Wahhaj is pictured left - and we do mean left. Since few have any clue as to how to pronounce his name, Wahhaj floats around the American version of the Universe unnoticed . . . . . . except here at Midknight Review. We know him as an unindicted co-conspirator in a mid-1990's New York terror plot, and, most importantly, a member of the board of supervisors for CAIR. You should know that CAIR took time to officially deny the involvement of Osama bin Laden in the bombing of the Twin Towers, a denial that was offered after Osama had issued a declaration admitting responsibility for the attack. The FBI has broken of relations with this Muslim group.

Now, CAIR wants a broader version of "terrorist act" in the face of the suicide plane attack on the IRS building this past week.

“Whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political statement, that is an act of terror,” said Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the faith, race or ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victims,” said Awad, adding in a statement that “if a Muslim had carried out the IRS attack, it would have surely been labeled an act of terrorism.”

CAIR's motivations are both transparent and self-serving. It is as radical a Muslim group as exists within the borders of the United States. Interestingly enough, when Homeland Security issued its infamous terrorist warning of early 2009, CAIR was omitted. Attorney General Eric Holder was a recent featured speaker at one of its functions despite the FBI's decision to break off all contact with the organization in 2007.

As time goes by, you will hear more and more of this radical Muslim front organization. That the Obama Administration has decided to stand against the FBI's decision to refuse contact with CAIR is something Midknight Review will keep in mind. The message of the Administration regarding radicalized Islam continues to be a troublesome consideration. Its refusal to key on Muslim radicals within the military is an outgrowth of our concern. The Fort Hood Muslim attack was something the Administration was slow to admit. The revelations of the Fort Jackson incident, 5 Muslim members of our Armed Forces attempting to poison Base water supplies, remains an investigation without mention from the White House.
.

Obama has decided to resurrect health care the Marxist way, keep on spending and continue his take over of America.

Here is a troublesome headline and news clip taken from Roll Call.

Reid Warm to Bringing Back Public Option

By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff

Feb. 19, 2010, 5:52 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled late Friday his intention to reintroduce the public insurance option as a part of comprehensive health care reform should Democrats use reconciliation rules to pass a final bill.

**********

Editor's notes: Reid has signaled the use of reconciliation three times over the course of last year and nothing happened. Obama has indicated that he supports this decision.

Our question is this: what in the world is the February 25 health care summit all about? If Obama and Reid are prepared to cram health care through the Senate with a vote of 51 rather than the required 60, it means three things: 1) Obama and Reid do not care about the dissenting opinions of their own Party, 2) they most definitely have no concerns for public opinion and 3) they are not serious about a bipartisan compromise. The negotiations leading to their decision concerning reconciliation is in progress as we write. That decision will have been made before the 25th.

It is doubtful that the radical Democrat leadership has overcome the deep divisions within the Democrat Party despite the recent declarations to the contrary. In every case in the past, this claim for resolution has proven to be a lie. Although they are thinking of changing the rules, there is little reason to believe that health care will be resurrected. If it is, the campaign cry for the 2010 mid-terms will be the reform/repeal of this idiotic piece of legislation. Suffice it to say that Obama is NOT a president for all the people --- 63% do not want this particular health care bill (Rasmussen) and 52% (Gallup) do not believe that Obama deserves re-election.

Update: 2/20/10 Reid's latest estimate for a successful health care law passed in Congress? Within 60 days !! This latest revelation somewhat confirms our prediction of "It ain't going to happen." Look, the word is out that Obama is coming to the Summit with a wholly reconciled bill in mind. But it will not be one that has been agreed to by either house of Congress although press releases will indicate otherwise. Hocus pocus.