People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

This Could Be Interesting

I doubt that she's ready, but her policy positions are in the right place:
Bachmann Now Likely to Run for President
By Carl Cameron, Fox News

Senior insiders to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann say the Republican founder of the House Tea Party caucus is now very likely to run for president.

In the wake of both Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump opting out of the 2012 race, calls to Bachmann's offices "have been burning up our lines" according to a Bachmann confidant who marveled, "one guy called her our Margaret Thatcher!"

Bachmann has said before that she will likely make a decision by June. She unveiled a new website design Monday that highlights Team Bachmann rather than Congresswoman Bachmann.

In addition to encouragement by phone and email, supporters are also pledging money, according to the insider. [link]
My fear is, with Newt Gingrich now out along with Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump, that the GOP will do what it is best known for doing - going with "the most electable candidate" (can you say Bob Dole and John McCain?) - and lose the election by nominating Mitt Romney.

Michele Bachmann can win.  But when she announces, she will be given a baptism of fire by a hostile press.  They'll make every effort to "Sarah Palin" her - perhaps even by trotting out that washed-up worm, Katie Couric, to do their bidding.  We'll quickly see if Bachmann has the right stuff to endure their slings and arrows.

If she does, she'll have my wholehearted support.  While Obama and his ilk choose to ignore America's soaring problems, Michelle Bachmann truly wants to save this once-great country of ours.

Here's to Michele!  You go, girl.

Blame Hillary

Though her name doesn't appear - which is odd since she heads up our foreign policy team - her signature is - and should be - all over this colossal failure in foreign policy:
White House Down in Middle East
By Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest

The news that George Mitchell is resigning as US special envoy closes a chapter in the greatest international failure of the Obama administration to date. The President’s foreign policy team has some real successes under its belt — the reset with Russia, a marked reduction in global levels of anti-Americanism, steady progress in Iraq, and of course the spectacular Abbottabad raid to name a few — but there is no way to disguise the harsh truth: the White House flopped big time on the Israel-Palestine process.

Administration apologists want to shift the blame for the Middle East failure to Israeli intransigence and Palestinian fecklessness, and while those factors are, as usual, part of the problem, the failure of its peace initiative is one mess the White House owns.

Brimming with self-confidence, the incoming team was sure it could get the job done back in 2009. President Clinton, they argued, had the right idea, but he left it too late. Bush also left it too late, they said, and was both too close to Israel and too diplomatically inept. The Obamans would show us how the job should be done. They would start early with a full court press and, unlike President Obama’s supposedly incompetent predecessors, they wouldn’t be “Israel’s lawyer.” Getting tough on Israel would score points in the Muslim world and bring the peace negotiations to a rapid conclusion.

Arrogance mixes poorly with inexperience; the US position in the peace process has been on the skids from the new administration’s earliest days, and the unraveling of American diplomacy in the Middle East has significantly damaged both the perception and the reality of American strength in the region.

Let us hope that things change, but the bitter truth is that so far President Obama has the worst Middle East peace policy since US presidents first took a direct interest in the peace process back in the Nixon Administration. No one has tried harder and accomplished less than President Obama. After two years of high profile White House activism neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians think that this President can help them; neither side feels much need to work with Washington at this point. [link]
I think if truth be known, this whole effort was schemed by Hillary Clinton. Much like her liberal friends and allies, she's never been on the side of Israel, seeing it as an oppressor of poor, defenseless Palestinians. Her actions as soon as she became Secretary of State reinforce that notion.

This was a mess of her creation. She deserves all the credit for it.

How Devastating a Few Words Can Be

The Wall Street Journal weighs in:
Gingrich to House GOP: Drop Dead
Wall Street Journal

The Republican Presidential campaign is off to a slow start, but judging by the last week not slow enough. First Mitt Romney defends his ObamaCare prototype in Massachusetts, and now Newt Gingrich has decided to run against House Republicans on Medicare. They must be loving this at the White House.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday about Paul Ryan's reform plan, Mr. Gingrich chose to throw his former allies in the GOP House not so much under the bus as off the Grand Canyon rim.

The Ryan program "is too big a jump," he said. "I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options. Not one where you suddenly impose upon you—I don't want to—I—I'm against ObamaCare, which is imposing radical change. And I would be against a conservative imposing radical change."

At least Mr. Romney praised Mr. Ryan for his political courage even if he didn't embrace the House Budget Chairman's specific Medicare proposal. By using the word "radical," Mr. Gingrich deliberately chose to echo the liberal critics who want to write the Ryan plan out of respectable political debate. Mr. Gingrich knows that all but four House Republicans voted for a budget outline that includes Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan, so his remarks had the political effect of undermining his former comrades in the middle of their budget showdown with President Obama. [link]
The Journal then goes on the attack:
Our guess is that a politician as experienced as Mr. Gingrich knew exactly what he was doing and that as he runs for President, he wants to appear to be more moderate than he has sounded over the last, oh, 20 years, by suddenly triangulating against the GOP House he once led.

The irony is that Mr. Gingrich's own history of political failure on health care has made Mr. Ryan's proposals all the more necessary. In 1995, Mr. Gingrich pushed a "Medicare Plus" reform through Congress that shared many of the same features as Mr. Ryan's. It would have cut $270 billion from Medicare over seven years, while giving seniors a premium-support choice to join HMOs. President Clinton vetoed it, which along with Mr. Gingrich's refusal to compromise helped precipitate the government shutdown.

In 1997, he agreed to a balanced budget deal that planted the seeds for future spending increases by creating a new entitlement for children's health insurance but offering no fundamental Medicare changes. A formula was created for phony cuts in physician payments, hiding the program's true costs. And the difficult choices were deferred to a bipartisan commission, which in 1999 recommended—yes, premium support, like Mr. Ryan.

Yet now he is trashing Mr. Ryan for thinking far more deeply about health care, and in a far more principled fashion, than Mr. Gingrich ever has. The episode reveals the Georgian's weakness as a candidate, and especially as a potential President—to wit, his odd combination of partisan, divisive rhetoric and poll-driven policy timidity.
That, by the way, was the only explanation I could come up with for Newt's strategy.  He thought he could pull a Clinton and "triangulate."  Well, he certainly triangulated his way out of the Republican nomination for president.

I think it's fair to say we can stick a fork in him. He's done.
Charles Krauthammer blisters Newt for his wayward ways:

Oh. My.

You Read It Here First

I'm not alone in scratching my head in wonder.  This seems to be THE topic of conversation all of a sudden:
WaPo Editorial Writer: 'Newt Established Great Future for Himself as Democratic Candidate'
By Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters

After his performance on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is taking hits from media members on both sides of the aisle.

A few minutes after conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer declared the former House Speaker's campaign "over," one of the Washington Post's editorial writers told "Special Report's" Bret Baier, "I think Newt established a great future for himself perhaps as a Democratic candidate."

CHARLES LANE, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL WRITER: Totally. I think Newt established a great future for himself perhaps as a Democratic candidate going forward because he did such a good job of articulating, repeating all the arguments the President’s been making for the individual mandate. But he blew himself up not just as a candidate but in a real sense as a Republican. [link]
What in God's name were Newt and his handlers thinking?