Seven Obama narratives that may be taking hold in the public mind, all of which would be very politically difficult for the President to overcome. I think if only one or two become hardened into the public consciousness, the Democrats will suffer at the polls (and I think that is already happening).

Niall Ferguson writes about the dangers of debt and how it has led to the fall of empires in the past. I've met Ferguson and read his work. He seems a thoughtful, intelligent, and very well educated man when it comes to the history of finance, money, and how that influences political and military history.

Ferguson excoriates Paul Krugman and his fellow Keynesians, but Krugman still presses on with his ideas on how to spend more Federal money. While spending more tax money is, I think, very bad for the long term picture (I agree with Ferguson on that point), as a political matter Krugman is right about jobs. Unless more jobs are created, and fast, it will mean political doom for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.

Robert J. Samuelson fears congressional efforts to 'reform' the Federal Reserve.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write about how the Medicare provisions in the health reform bill would hot most states very hard in their budgets.

President Obama intends to lay out a timeline for our involvement in Afghanistan.

The President of Iran says his country will build ten plants to enrich uranium. That sounds like bluster, but they have shown no interest in slowing down or stopping their nuclear program, and I am beginning to wonder if they are deliberately trying to provoke an Israeli attack.

Is the climate change controversy the worst scientific scandal of our generation?

Some amazing aerial photographs from World War II.

Some perspective on the coming financial collapse of Dubai.

Tiger Woods has some 'splainin' to to do, whether he likes it or not.

Peggy Noonan wonders if the bow to the Emperor of Japan is emblematic of the Obama Presidency.

Will the climate e-mail scandal be the tipping point in public perception of the theory of human caused climate change?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Here is Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863 which established the Thanksgiving holiday as we know it today.

President Obama will commit the U.S. to emissions reductions. Politically, that is an easy thing for him to do. It makes him look good to the environmentalists and to the Europeans, and since Congress is unlikely to pass the bill that would give the commitment teeth, he can claim credit for trying without accepting the negative consequences that would ensue were the targets to be met.

President Obama is also looking for more troops from our European allies to aid in the fight in Afghanistan. He will probably not get them.

Here is an article that agrees with my analysis about why the NFL sacked the guys who ran their committee on concussions.

George Will examines the disaster of Christmas giving.

Someone needed to say it...John Bolton was right about Iran, after all.

The Democrats find themselves way behind on the generic ballot among Independents. The tsunami is coming.

President Obama has decided on a strategy in Afghanistan, which he will announce next week. This story indicates he may add 30,000 troops.

Gloria Borger says the Afghanistan decision may be the political tipping point for the Obama Presidency.

Jeff Jacoby hopes Massachusetts voters will choose one of the non-politicians when they elect Ted Kennedy's replacement. Having grown up in the Bay State, I predict they will send one of the career pols.

You may have heard the story about the Belgian man who has been in a coma for 23 years, and has now emerged and is communicating, saying that he could see and hear everything going on through all that time. There is now some skepticism about the claims.

NBC's The Biggest Loser (my wife and daughters never miss it) gets some skeptical treatment in this article in The New York Times.

The official charged with closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay has resigned. The President's policy regarding these terrorists continues to disintegrate as his campaign rhetoric collides with reality.

Speaking of collisions, the doctors who have been in charge of the NFL's committee that studies concussions have quit. It seems their efforts to minimize the link between playing football and the debilitating effects of head injuries later in life has finally become a political liability with the NFL as it seeks a new collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.

Some Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals find common ground on the issue of the criminalization of just about everything. I have long been concerned with the expansion of government power, and this is just another aspect of the phenomenon. I'm heartened by the fact that more and more people across the political spectrum are recognizing the danger.

The Iranian despots have realized that their people are in need of "reeducation" in order to stifle further protests and a potential revolt. Clearly, the beatings, imprisonments, and executions have not been sufficient (although I expect this new program to run in tandem with the old, tried and true methods.

On the other end of the spectrum, our politically correct leaders still do not understand that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

Anne Applebaum says that President Obama is learning that his effort to share global responsibility with other nations is doomed to failure, since no one else wants the position of global superpower.

More happy news from the debt and deficit front as Treasury officials are warning about the wave of debt payments that are coming due, and the probability of an increase in interest rates that will make financing our debt even more difficult.

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman is disappointed that the President is not proposing even more in Federal stimulus money.

The health reform bill passed the first test in a procedural vote on Saturday night, but there is a lot of evidence that it will not survive the process.

We can only hope it fails, because if it succeeds we will simply be transferring even more wealth from the young to the old, at least according to Robert J. Samuelson.

At last we are getting somewhere on the issue of climate change. It seems some scientists, looking at real data, are puzzled that the global warming trend has come to a screeching halt in the last ten years. But wait...there's more! It seems the global warming proponents have been exchanging e-mails for years that prove they have been colluding to enhance evidence that fits their story and suppress evidence that does not. Gee, could it be that this is all really about ideology (environmentalism) and politics (world socialism)?

Despite the fact that carbon dating has shown it to be a Medieval forgery, a scientist now says the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.

At least some people are worried about the coming deficit disaster.

Charles Krauthammer writes about the perverse logic put forward by the Attorney General as a justification for trying KSM in a civilian court, but trying other terrorists in front of military tribunals. I pity anyone who has to serve on the jury for this trial.

Despite the fact that polling data shows a majority of Americans are against the health care reform bill (at least to the extent that they understand it), Majority Leader Reid has scheduled an initial vote on the bill for tomorrow night. I stand by my initial prediction that nothing of substance will pass (and it still has a long way to go, as there will be more than one vote in the Senate, there is the possibility of a filibuster that could stall action indefinitely, and even if they can get something that will get 60 votes, they then have to reconcile it with the House). If something does pass I expect the negative aspects of the new law will be more visible and more quickly discerned than anything positive, which will drive even more people to vote against the Democrats in 2010. Jay Cost highlights one of the most important negative aspects of the bill, which is the fact that Medicare spending will be cut substantially. Cost believes, as a political matter, the Democratic leaders have gone mad.

Even though I disagree with Paul Krugman on many issues, check out this column. Krugman asserts that the way in which the Feds bailed out Wall Street to avert a complete financial meltdown was such a sweetheart deal for the bankers that the average voter no longer trusts government (if they ever did) to solve the problem. I think his political analysis on this question is exactly correct.

Here is a plea for Moon colonization, now that NASA scientists have discovered water in sufficient quantities on the Moon's surface. I agree entirely. If our species is to survive, we must not keep all our eggs in one basket.

Ralph Peters is unhappy with the generals, who he says are not giving the President all of the options for Afghanistan.

Tony Blankley says if we are not in it to win it, we should bring the troops home.

Nicholas Kristof says the Republicans are on the wrong side of history when they oppose universal health care.

George Will is intrigued by the possibility of the states passing constitutional prohibitions that would short circuit any big Federal health reform plan.

Some Democrats are finally getting the message about Independents, who are moving in droves away from them.

Victor Davis Hanson says the sharks are circling as they smell American blood.

A new poll shows the only way Americans want to pay for health care reforms is to tax the wealthy. "We won't tax you, we won't tax me, we'll tax the man behind that tree".

Speaking of taxes, John Stossel says the out-of-control spending is worse than the taxes.

Economist Nouriel Roubini believes unemployment is getting worse, and expects it to reach at least 11%.

Vermont's Socialist Senator, Bernard Sanders, wants to cap the interest rates on credit cards, but he is being opposed, not only by Republicans, but by Democrats. Meanwhile, President Obama is talking tough on the issue (as usual) but doing very little.

Major Hasan wanted some of his patients tried for war crimes based on the stories they told him during their therapy sessions.

It is never too early to start speculating about the 2012 race. Here are the GOP dark horses.

Jay Cost takes a deeper look at President Obama's job approval ratings.

Meanwhile, a new poll shows the President's job approval below 50% for the first time, and it show support for the war in Afghanistan dropping below 50% as well.

Liberals continue to obsess about female Conservative firebrands. I hope this continues, because the more energy they spend examining these women and their more provocative comments and political positions, the less energy they will have to recognize the real danger they face, which is the tsunami of Independents which will sweep the Democrats out of office next year. These Independents are not concerned about the sometimes radical positions taken by these women, or any other GOP office holder, or even the 'Tea Party' organizers, most of whom are not Republicans. They are concerned about unemployment, which is heading for double digits. They are concerned about the weakness of the dollar, the huge government deficits that will lead to spending cuts and tax increases, the inability of President Obama to show strength to our enemies, real and potential, the increase in government intervention in all areas of our lives, with the usual foul-ups that follow (H1N1 vaccine, anyone?). These are the things that will drive Independents to the polls, and into the arms of the GOP (unless there are viable alternatives on the ballot, which in most cases will not exist). I say that as a warning to Republicans. These Independents are not all of a sudden embracing the GOP and its positions, they are rejecting the Liberal extremism of the Democrats in Congress, and the incompetence and weakness of the President.

Pat Buchanan makes the most cogent argument I have read yet against bringing KSM and other terrorists to trial in a civilian U.S. courtroom. It all boils down to the question of whether or not we are at war with Al Qaeda and their allies, or are they simply a band of criminals, however deadly.

Governor David Patterson of New York, no doubt concerned about poll numbers which show him on the political chopping block, announced yesterday his opposition to trying terrorists in his state.

Here is a shocker...international inspectors strongly suspect that the Iranian government is hiding more nuclear facilities. Only fools, Europeans (except President Sarkozy of France) and President Obama can believe that the Iranians are doing anything other than playing for time to finish their nuclear weapons program.

Dear Coach Belichick...the Greeks called it Hubris. I wish I had gone to bed at halftime.

Why Chimerica was a Chimera, and how it could make the world economic situation even worse. I expect the Chinese to continue on their 'beggar thy neighbor' course, and I expect the Obama Administration to keep playing right into their hands.

Robert J. Samuelson continues to bang the drum about the lies, falsehoods and half-truths that mark the so-called 'health reform' debate. In the end, our political leaders gain more in the short run with their lies and obfuscations than they would by telling us the unvarnished truth, which we do not want to hear.

In a dramatic example of the major philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives on the issue of Islamist terrorism the Attorney General of the United States has announced that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and some other Al Qaeda types who planned the 9/11 attacks will be tried in a Federal courtroom in New York. President Obama and his people believe that terrorism is a criminal justice matter, not an act of war, as George W. Bush and his people believed. Therefore, this decision makes perfect sense. Like so many of his other decisions, this one will be judged by the American people, who will render their initial verdict in November, 2010. I am pleased that we are seeing some real differences on this crucial issue, as well as on government spending and intervention, taxes, health care, and the like. I hope the leaders of the GOP will present candidates who represent a real choice for the electorate.

Some new evidence indicates that the mini-Ice Age that hit Europe 12,000 years ago happened within a year, not over decades, as previously thought.

The Lcross mission, which sent a satellite plunging into the surface of the Moon, discovered a significant amount of water just under the surface. Now we know that we can put a colony on the Moon without having to lug all our water and fuel with us. If only we had the political will to spend the money to achieve that goal (I would argue that it would be a tremendous stimulus program, far more productive and economical than the pork-laden stimulus plans we have seen recently).

North Korea continues to do what it does best...issue threats.

Michael Barone looks at more bad poll numbers for the Democrats.

Check out this video re-creation of the dramatic flight of a civilian aircraft into the Hudson River following a bird strike. They use the real audio from the flight as part of the presentation, and I am amazed by how calm Captain Sullenberger remained throughout the flight. He is one of those guys they refer to when they use the phrase, "the right stuff".

The Boston Globe editorial staff is happy to see Lou Dobbs out at CNN. They also praise the decision by the folks at CNN to emphasize 'straight news'. I'm tempted to laugh at that one, but the real problem is that CNN will continue to fall in the ratings if they continue that approach.

It seems that the President is growing more concerned about the debt and deficits, according to this story. I suspect this is more about politics than anything else, and besides, it's too late. He has already cast his image as an out-of-control spender, and stories like this one just emphasize the point. Politically, the President is not helped by his allies in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is looking at raising taxes.

There are more bad signs for the economy out there, like this one about dwindling reserves as the Federal Housing Administration.

Charles Krauthammer joins the chorus of those who, correctly in my estimation, are warning about our inability to call the Fort Hood massacre by its proper name, a terrorist attack unleashed by an Islamist fanatic who just happened to be a Major in the U.S. Army (and I am bitterly disappointed in the people who run the Army for their inability to shake off the shackles of political correctness, even when lives are at stake).

Jonah Goldberg examines the political ramifications of the Fort Hood shootings.

James Pethokoukis believes, based on work done by some notable economists, that unemployment may well reach 12 or 13 percent. If it does, the Democrats can kiss their majorities in Congress goodbye.

Of course, if an asteroid hits us, as one almost did on Friday, it may all be academic (the one that missed us, though, was too small to do any damage).

Lou Dobbs, one of the original anchors on CNN, resigned last night. Let the speculation begin.

Did the female police officer really shoot down Major Hasan in a stand-up gunfight? New evidence seems to indicate that she was shot down before getting off any rounds, and Hasan was gunned down by her male partner. This does not, in my estimation, take anything away from her courageous dedication to duty, after all, she took one for the company, but it does say something about the dubious nature of initial reports.

Hillary in 2012?

George F. Will believes policymakers should start defending the dollar.

According to a new Gallup poll Republicans have now moved ahead of Democrats in the generic Congressional ballot. The only good news for the Democrats is that they have 12 months to reverse the trend before people go to the real polls and cast real ballots.

David Brooks is dismayed by the reaction to the Fort Hood shootings.

Is China headed for economic collapse? If so, it will have dire economic consequences here and across the globe, and could cause political instability and violence inside China.

Today, of course, is Veterans Day. As a veteran (non-combat, peacetime Army), I appreciate the thanks directed our way, and I extend my own thanks to the combat veterans among us. But I also believe we should pause and remember the original intention of this holiday. It was originally called Armistice Day, and it commemorates November 11, 1918 when , on the eleventh hour of that day, the guns went silent on the Western Front. It marked the end of what was, at that time, the most horrible and deadly war the world had ever seen. Few at the time could have possibly believed that only 21 years later another global war would start which would, by the time it ended six years later, exceed the Great War in scope, and in cost in blood and treasure. Still, it is a date to remember, if for nothing else, then to honor those who suffered during that horrible conflict.

Ralph Peters doubts we will hear the words "terrorism" or "Islam" when President Obama visits Fort Hood.

The FBI and the military knew that Major Hasan was in communication with a U.S.-born, radical Islamist cleric now living in Yemen. They ignored it.

We just, as a society (at least the elites), do not want to admit that Major Hasan was, in all likelihood, motivated by his radical, Islamist beliefs.

Even Democrats are now looking at the health bill with alarm, as they do not see mechanisms that would really control costs. Of course, we may look back on the passage of that bill in the House the way the Confederates looked back on Gettysburg.

Jay Cost examines the steps necessary to divide a majority party.

Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal see China playing the great power game, and the U.S. in retreat.

As investigators look into Major Nidal's past, including the fact that he worshipped at the same Washington-area mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers, and may have known a radical imam at that mosque who preaches jihad against the West, Mark Steyn examines the fatal flaw at the center of our strategy in the so-called "War on Terror" (if it is even called that, anymore).

President Obama's bloodless reaction to events, including the Fort Hood shootings, makes some people pine for George W. Bush.

Robert J. Samuelson ponders Nouriel Roubini's warning of another financial bubble.

Fred Hiatt thinks America needs universal healthcare, but is worried about bankruptcy, as well he should be.

Liberal opinion makers are just where we want them. Unable to see the truth, which is that Independents are swinging to the GOP (driven by high unemployment and a fear of Democrats going too far left) and are poised to swamp the Democrats next year in a repeat of 1994, they are looking back at 1964, as in this piece, or staring at NY-23, or just making a big deal out of the supposed 'new' radicalism of the conservative movement within the GOP. They will continue to chatter on about this stuff, oblivious to what is happening in the country, and will be just as lost when the GOP takes back Congress next year as they were in 1994.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KILLS

As the Army continues to investigate the Fort Hood shooting spree, and they refuse (properly) to rule out a conspiracy, and new details emerge about the courageous woman police officer who brought Major Nidal down in an exchange of gunfire, Ralph Peter hits the nail on the head...

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim Army officer shouting 'Alahu akbar' (God is great) committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

Read the whole thing. The most important thing Peters points out, and as a fellow Army veteran I am as appalled as he is by it, is that the Army failed to deal with this officer even as he clearly, through his words, his deeds, as well as his poor performance, gave them every opportunity to subject him to disciplinary action or discharge. I cannot imagine the scene, and I suspect eventually we will get these details, of American combat veterans, returned from the horrors they saw in Iraq or Afghanistan, being argued with by their psychiatrist, supposedly employed to TREAT them, who is clearly a radical Islamist and, thus, in sympathy with their enemies. It is a DISGRACE.

There will be a great deal of speculation about why a career Army doctor who had risen to the rank of Major would take a pair of handguns and blast away at his fellow soldiers, killing a dozen and wounding over 30 others. Was it because he was a Muslim, and he opposed our policies? Did he fear deployment into Iraq or Afghanistan? Was he being harassed due to his faith? Or, like so many other lone gunman from so many other instances in the past, was it a combination of factors that led him to lose his mental bearings? Let the speculation begin. The one thing we won't hear much about, though, in the mainstream media, is the possibility that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent. That will only come to fore if this attack is followed by others in the near future (I do not suspect that will happen, like most, I find myself buying into the view that he is a lone nut, like the others, but I do not dismiss out of hand the other possibility).

More thoughts about the election results....

Paul Krugman thinks the President is facing his Anzio, a battle from WWII where American soldiers landed behind the German lines in Italy, had a chance with bold action to seize the initiative and turn the German lines but, instead, hunkered down and were trapped in a small pocket by German forces. Krugman thinks Obama could have succeeded with bolder moves, including a much larger stimulus, but has bogged down and may now be politically trapped. Not a bad analogy unless you believe, as I do, that a bigger stimulus would not have made any difference, and would have exacerbated our already immense debt and deficit problem.

Charles Krauthammer says the election results disprove the myth of a great realignment which sprang from the election of '08.

David Brooks tries to explain the behavior of the Independents. I think he is not quite on track, because he expects to see some rationality and consistency. Independents are, I think, the way they are because they are non-ideological in their political thinking, which makes that thinking inconsistent and, oftentimes, irrational. Their behavior is based on events and the perception of events. They were unhappy with Bush, the wars, the GOP Congress and, finally, the financial crisis, so they swung to the handsome, charismatic young man from Chicago and his rhetoric of hope and change. Now they are unhappy with unemployment, the wars, the Democratic Congress, the bailouts, and the exploding debt and deficits. So they are turning against that man and his people, and are looking for another man on a white horse to save them. It is not rational, but it is very human. Daniel Henninger describes that political volatility and its consequences.

Kim Strassel sees a tipping point for Obama and the Democrats.

Jay Cost is laughing at the spin which gives more credence to GOP divisions by looking at NY-23, than the much bigger divisions in the Democratic Party when one looks at Virginia, New Jersey, and the debate over the health reform bill which Nancy Pelosi has set for a vote in the House tomorrow.

MORE ELECTION FALLOUT

Here are some links to articles about the election results...

Their poor performance in the suburbs is a very bad sign for Democrats. I agree.

The "Permanent Democratic Majority" seems to be unravelling. I never believed in the 'permanent' majority, anyway. Of course, I never believed it when Republicans were touting their own version of that story. There are no 'permanent' political majorities in American politics. There have been some long lasting trends, like the Democratic Congressional majorities during the FDR/New Deal era (which lasted roughly from 1932 to 1994), but these trends are never 'permanent', because the religious/ethnic composition of our population changes, the great, defining issues change, and the parties themselves change.

Peter Wehner says Democrats have reason to be afraid, to be very afraid. His analysis is detailed, and mirrors my own thinking on the subject.

Markos Moulitsas hangs his hat on the turnout aspect of the equation. He believes if his Progressive fellow travellers were more enthusiastic about Obama and the Democrats, they would turn out and work harder for them. There is some truth in this, but I think he does not give proper weight to the shift in the Independent vote.

Castellanos celebrates the GOP resurgence while Teixeira tells Democrats not to worry.

David Broder, on the other hand, thinks Democrats should worry.

ABOUT LAST NIGHT...

One can expect quite a lot of ink and hot air to be expended over the coming weeks as highly paid political pundits and analysts (as well as a few slobs like me) pore over the results of last night's major political contests and try to determine what, if any, trends can be discerned that could carry over into the much more significant mid-term elections coming up one year from now.

Most importantly, Democrats are whistling as they pass the graveyard if they dismiss out of hand the smashing victory won by the Republicans in Virginia, and the narrow victory of Christie over Corzine in New Jersey. As I watched the coverage on CNN last night (while switching over from time-to-time to Fox and then to the Celtics as they smashed the Sixers much the way the Republicans were smashing the Democrats in Virginia) I had to laugh at some of the commentary from their panel of experts, all but one of whom is clearly a political liberal, as they tried to distance these results from President Obama's job performance. At times I wanted to scream at them as they miss the obvious, or deliberately refuse to discuss it. So, since they won't do it, I guess I while.

Here are the lessons about last night, as I see them, and they apply to all elections.

1. American elections are won and lost by the people in the middle, who do not hold strong ideological opinions, are not extremely well educated about political issues (although they may be extremely well educated in other aspects of life), and do not vote reliably Republican or Democrat. They are sometimes called "Independents", because many of these people now elect to register without a Republican or Democrat party affiliation, or they are called "swing voters", because they can swing back and forth between the parties as circumstances change. The rest of the electorate is made up of hard-core voters who will vote for a person based on the party label almost without fail. There are fewer of these voters than once was the case, but they still make up a significant portion of the voting public.

2. American elections are won and lost based on who actually comes out to vote. This is called "turnout". This is oftentimes influenced by the enthusiasm generated by a political candidate, a particular issue, or a particular set of economic or political circumstances (war, economic dislocation, etc.).

3. American elections are won and lost based on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Americans have, in general, a poor appreciation of history, and very short term ways of thinking. This is true in all walks of our socio-economic lives, as anyone who has been in a sales meeting or board meeting of any company of any size can attest.

Therefore, keeping those three bedrock facts in mind, we can properly analyze last night's results. Republicans won, and won big, in Virginia because, unlike last year, Independents swung heavily toward the GOP candidate, while the most monolithic Democratic voting block, African-Americans, did not turn out as heavily as they did for Barack Obama one year ago. Last year those Independents swung toward Obama just enough, aided by high African-American participation, to give Obama the edge. Why did Independents swing to the GOP candidates? Because, RIGHT NOW, the economy still looks to be in a shambles, with unemployment high and getting higher, and the President's prescriptions seem either irresponsible or ineffective to a high percentage of these folks. So, combine that with the local issues, the relative performance of the candidates in the race, and you get a swing to the GOP.

Republicans won the governor's office in New Jersey for the same reasons, but because New Jersey is a more heavily Democratic state, the margin was much smaller. Again, lower African-American turnout (and, perhaps, "progressive" voters disenchanted with Corzine or even with the President and the Democrats generally) plus a swing of Independents to the GOP helped turn the tide.

In the NY-23 congressional race the Democrat won after the Republican dropped out and endorsed him over his Conservative Party opponent. It was still close and, if you add the GOP candidate's votes to the Conservative's votes, the Conservative would have narrowly won. Some of those folks who went out to vote in that district yesterday just were unable to pull the lever for someone without that "R" next to their name.

So, what can we project going forward?

First, health reform in it's present form is dead. Harry Reid is already hinting that he will delay it until next year. I can see no reason why the Blue Dog Democrats in the House are going to risk their political careers to sign on to this massive, incomprehensible government boondoggle. They have enough trouble without handing that albatross around their necks.

Second, the GOP will now see a huge surge in fundraising as Wall Street and the big business community at-large sees the winds shifting, and individual donations from conservatives around the country will increase.

Third, the GOP will gain serious traction in recruiting attractive candidates for Congress all across the country, especially in conservative districts now represented by Democrats. These men and women will see an opportunity to win, and the national GOP will have the cash and the expertise to try and help them do just that.

All of these things, plus the historic pattern of the party out of power gaining seats in mid-term elections, bodes well for the GOP, despite the fact that polling data shows a public that still does no trust them much (the polling shows a "Conservative" country, not a "Republican" one). If, when voters go to the polls in November 2010, the economic climate RIGHT THEN is as bleak or bleaker than it is RIGHT NOW, it could, and should, be a political tsunami like we saw in 1994.

It is election day in many places, like a congressional district in upstate New York that could elect a Conservative to Congress. The results in NY-23 could say something about the national electorate, especially the conservative and Republican part of the electorate.

It seems that some liberals, looking at the NY-23 race, see a bogey woman manipulating the process, by the name of Sarah Palin.

The hand wringing and hair pulling by liberals and their friends in the media may be more about what they see happening in the country at-large, rather than the machinations of GOP big shots, as the mainstream of America more and more resembles mainstream conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism.

In Virginia, political expert Larry Sabato says Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell will win in a landslide, carrying a number of Republicans with him in that state's House of Delegates.

Still, New Jersey is the place to watch. If Christie beats Corzine, and that is still a big "if", as polls show a very close race, then the GOP will really have something to crow about, and Democrats will have something to worry about.

Some real interesting polling data as we approach the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. In Virginia, it seems McDonnell (the Republican) is well ahead. In New Jersey, which should be a good state for the Democrats, the race is neck-and-neck. Meanwhile, in the special election for NY-23 the Republican dropped out, which leaves it between the Conservative Party candidate and the Democrat.

Robert J. Samuelson, watching our deficits and debt explode, ponders the possibility of America going broke and defaulting on the debt.

Nouriel Roubini, who was right about the financial collapse, warns of another bubble bursting.