The U.S. economy was on the rise in the 4th quarter last year. But the experts gathered at Davos believe the upturn will be temporary.

This story perfectly illustrates the main issue with health care reform, even though on the surface it does not seem to be a story about health reform. Since the earthquake, dozens of severely injured Haitians have been airlifted to U.S. hospitals, mostly in Florida. Now, those flights are on hold. Why? Because no one is paying the bills. That's right, in the end, health care is a service provided by people to other people. The people providing the service must be paid somehow, by someone. There it is. Now, can we please craft a health reform package with that as the central assumption?

This story perfectly illustrates why government efforts to control climate change (if, in fact, such change is happening and if, in fact, humans are the cause) are doomed to fail. The government of China insists that any carbon emission goals be strictly voluntary on their part. They will not accept mandatory standards. The fact of the matter is perfectly clear and simple. No government, whether elected freely by the people or imposed on the people, will voluntarily take actions that will impede their economic growth in any substantial way.

The Justice Department will look into the unfairness of the college Bowl Championship Series to see if any laws are being broken by the process. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah made the request as his Utah Utes, despite a perfect record in 2008, were denied a chance at the national championship. Boise State and Texas Christian were undefeated this year, and also shut out, because they are not in the top tier of conferences that are the bread-and-butter of the BCS. It is an unfair system in my estimation, but I don't know if it is deserving of Federal intervention.

President Obama is trying to split the GOP from the Tea Party folks. It may be the best political option he can take, although if unemployment remains high, it probably won't do any good.

Brian McGrory is impressed with Scott Brown's early steps as the new Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. I agree. It appears Senator Brown understands that he was elected by Independents, and that he has only two years before he must defend the seat. This means making every effort to work with everybody, potential friend and foe alike. This means being non-ideological as often as possible. Of course, it will also help enormously if President Obama in 2012 looks at least as bad as he does now.

J.D. Salinger has died. Here is the obituary in The New York Times. Salinger was 91 when he died in Cornish, New Hampshire, where he had lived for many years. A veteran of World War II, Salinger landed on Utah Beach on June 6, 1944 as a member of the 4th Infantry Division. I never did like Catcher in the Rye much, but perhaps that is because we were required to read it. I wonder if we will see some new material now that he has passed away? I'm sure I am not the only one pondering that possibility.

Rich Lowry says Justice Alito's mouthing of the words, "not true" during the State of the Union speech pretty much sums it all up.

Obama on the retreat as his people consider moving the KSM trial to someplace other than Manhattan.

Charles Krauthammer examines the scandal surrounding the treatment of the Christmas Day bomber. Clearly, the problem really centers on the fact that Obama and his people believe terrorism is a criminal justice problem, rather than a national security problem.

Paul Krugman ridicules the President's plan to reduce the deficit.

Michael Barone says the Democrats are falling as fast as Republicans did in 1974 when they were discredited by Nixon and Watergate. He even believes things could be worse for Democrats this November than they were in 1994.

STATE OF THE UNION

There is, of course, a great deal of commentary about the State of the Union speech delivered last night by President Obama all over the web. RealClearPolitics and Instapundit have lots of links, and Drudge Report links to most of the MSM. Conservative commentary can be found in abundance at The Weekly Standard and The National Review. Here are my thoughts...

He still is a smooth, even impressive, orator. In that sense, he is similar to Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. But unlike those men, Barack Obama just does not seem, to me at least, to connect with working class white voters, and I don't think racism is the major factor in that equation. I think it is elitism. Bill Clinton was a good old boy from Arkansas, even though he was a Yale and Oxford man. Ronald Reagan was from a Midwestern working-class family, even though he spent many years among the rich and famous in Hollywood. They gave the impression that they were one of us (yes, I am also from a white, working class family and background). Barack Obama does not give that impression, not so much because he is of mixed race, but because his background is decidedly crunchy granola, Ivy League, law professor, community organizer, anointed candidate of the Chicago political machine. It simply does not jibe with the white, working class experience. This is why Hillary, once she got herself on track, wiped Obama out among those voters during the primaries, too late, of course, to save her. McCain and the Republicans were somewhat discredited going into the Fall 2008 campaign, but were given a death blow by the financial meltdown. Now, those white, working class voters are swinging hard against Obama and the Democrats, and the speech, despite the platitudes, did no good on that score, in my estimation.

Obama keeps talking, but the people he needs to win over are not listening. Unless the unemployment numbers start to come down significantly or the President makes a national security decision that proves to be tough and smart, they are not going to start listening anytime soon.

More tension on the Korean border as the two sides exchange fire. I guess the North Koreans are getting a little more desperate, and hope to get some more bribe money.

Democratic consultant Dan Payne says polling data shows Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown because "it's the economy, stupid."

Well, it's going to get worse for Democrats if Pete Dupont and Arthur Laffer are right about what happens next. Dupont writes an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that makes sobering reading. In essence, Dupont and Laffer believe that automatic tax increases scheduled to begin in 2011 (as the temporary Bush tax cuts expire and are not renewed by Obama and the Democratic Congress) will cause people to cram their economic activity into 2010, causing a false upturn, and then retrench in 2011, causing a more severe downturn.

Meanwhile, as lawmakers express skepticism about the President's proposed freeze on some discretionary spending, the CBO continues to sound the alarm about TRILLION dollar deficits. The CBO estimates the 2010 deficit at $1.35 trillion, hard on the heels of the 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion. This madness cannot go on forever.

Here are some charts and graphs showing how economic activity has fallen over the last three years.

Robert Kagan says regime change is the only way to deal with Iran.

Three months after they started charging for online access, Newsday has 35 new subscribers. There are some mitigating factors, but it does not bode well for any general news outlet wishing to charge for their online services.

If you think Haiti is an economic basket case, just wait until we see Cuba collapse.

Once again, Ralph Peters says, our military and civilian leaders fail to understand what motivates our enemies, just as we did in Vietnam.

New Hampshire's record 231-mph wind gust is no longer the highest wind gust ever recorded on the surface of the Earth.

Here in New Hampshire, small business owners are upset about an expansion of a tax that hits them squarely in the wallet. Perhaps they will be more energetic about backing GOP candidates for the legislature this Fall.

Meanwhile, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, who represents my district here in the Granite State, is taking some shots for a video which shows her telling folks that if only the men in Congress would go home the women, both Republicans and Democrats, would get health reform passed quickly. Shea-Porter says she bases this belief (and it may or may not have been a tongue-in-cheek remark) on conversations she has had with Republican members. Of course, the female Republican members have now issued a statement saying they cannot recall any such conversation with Shea-Porter.

President Obama proposes a freeze on spending, but it is such a narrow freeze it really amounts to small potatoes so far as the overall budget deficit is concerned.

Robert Reich believes the President is panicking, and this spending freeze will make the jobs situation even worse.

More college graduates are joining the Army. A Great Recession will do that, but I also have detected over the years a basic, fundamental patriotism inside most young Americans. We lost it for a while (from the late 60s through the 70s) but it came back and it has stayed with us even through difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jennifer Rubin says the members of the media knew about Obama's faults during the campaign, but did not want to let us in on it.

Victor Davis Hanson says Obama is in free fall.

Fred Barnes says the President is on the brink of a crackup.

Bob Herbert says the President is facing a credibility gap.

Bret Stephens thinks the President has 'Copenhagen Syndrome', which is essentially a Messianic complex, as President Obama is so convinced his eloquence and charm will always work on everyone everywhere, he is at a loss when it does not.

Michael Tanner thinks the President and fellow Democrats are dreaming if they think they can chop up ObamaCare into pieces and get it passed.

David Brooks writes about populism and elitism.

Arthur Herman writes about the looming threat from China.

Beau Biden won't run for the U.S. Senate in Delaware. For Democrats, the hits just keep on coming.

Rich Lowry says the Democrats are right to fear a repeat of 1994 this November.

Frank Rich is disgusted with the performance of President Obama, but he, like most Liberals, refuses to believe it is due to a growing anti-government sentiment.

A former small-business owner regrets voting for Obama. I think her experience is typical of Independent voters who, despite some misgivings, went with Obama's sales pitch of hope and change (and were turned off by McCain, or Palin, or both), and are now thoroughly disillusioned. This is a big reason why Independents are now voting Republican when they get the chance. If Obama fails to understand the message, which Sherman Frederick, among others, thinks is the case, and if the Democratic leaders in Congress do not reverse course, they will be swept away in November.

Mickey Kaus thinks the health care debacle is Obama's fault.

Jackson Diehl writes about the collapse of the Hugo Chavez revolution.

Robert J. Samuelson writes about the predatory economic policy of the "Butchers of Beijing".

Mark Steyn points out what is becoming increasingly obvious to those Americans who are paying attention to the happenings in Washington...President Obama is completely out-of-touch with what is happening in the country. Why? I think it is a combination of factors, including his unusual childhood (unusual in the sense that it was so different from most Americans, Black or White), his Ivy League education, his limited work experience (a law professor, a community organizer, a state senator, a U.S. Senator, all of them relatively brief experiences) and his narcissism. Now, a lot of men who rise to great heights are, in one way or another, narcissists (Winston Churchill is the best historical example of the type). But Obama's almost Messianic vision of himself, combined with his limited experience (Churchill, after all, was educated as an Army officer at Sandhurst, served as a combat soldier/journalist in three wars, all before finally running for Parliament) leaves him at the mercy of events. Unlike politicians like Bill Clinton, Obama fundamentally does not understand the people of the country and is, therefore, incapable of making decisions that are in step with the thoughts and feelings of the majority. If he keeps going on like this, he will be remembered as the worst President since Jimmy Carter.

Of course, most Liberals in general are completely flabbergasted by what is going on. Charles Blow believes the President is failing because he does not understand that the American people are like the Roman "mob", in need of bread and circuses. On the same New York Times editorial page, Bob Herbert believes the President does not understand that "it's the economy, stupid", not health care or global warming or cap-and-trade. Neither man, I suspect, buys into the belief that the people are worried about too much government power, and too much government spending.

Larry Sabato thinks more shocks for the Democrats are on the way with his analysis of the state of the U.S. Senate.

Liberals in Massachusetts lament the fact that so many people in the Bay State voted for Scott Brown. They just don't get it...and they never will.

Nancy Pelosi says she lacks the votes to pass the Senate version of health reform through the House without changes. If that is so, and I believe it is, then Obama's health reform is dead.

Paul Krugman continues to beat them drum, urging House Democrats to set aside their re-election prospects and pass the Senate bill directly to the President. Of course, it is always easy for a man who does not need to face the fire to urge others to charge into the cannon's mouths.

Democrats now understand that, with the evidence of the Brown election, as well as the Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, "every state is in play."

Why are the Democrats in this difficult position? Hubris.

Frank Luntz says polling, as well as election results, reveal and electorate suffering from buyer's remorse.

Charles Krauthammer examines the meaning of the Brown victory.

Michael Gerson examines President Obama's options following the debacle for the Democrats in Massachusetts.

Pat Buchanan examines the results of the elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia from the racial angle.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, eliminates the ban on corporate and union spending on political campaigns. At least five justices understand that free speech means free speech, and that corporations and unions are gatherings of individuals who have the right, collectively, to pay for political speech to be distributed over the airwaves, on paper, on the Internet, or wherever it can be distributed.

As Mr. Brown prepares to go to Washington, the MSM is still wondering about the Tea Party movement.

Beginning in 2011, The New York Times will begin charging non-subscribers for access to their website. I go to their site to read the print edition every day. Once they begin charging for it, I will stop going. Why? Because there are so many news websites out there that do not charge for access that I can find plenty to read without having to pay a penny (beyond what I already pay for Internet access). I lived for many years without reading the Times, I think I can survive without it in the future.

Lanny Davis says the Left is to blame for the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts. Actually, the fault lies squarely at the feet of President Obama, who ran as a Centrist, but who is actually a Leftist. He made promises he knew he would not keep. He thought his oratorical gifts would keep not only his enemies, but his friends, at bay. Wrong. As Truman said, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

John DiStaso says many folks in New Hampshire are paying close attention to what happened in Massachusetts. It has some serious ramifications for us in the Granite State. My Congresswoman, for instance, Carol Shea-Porter, is a Nancy Pelosi Democrat. She is going to have to do some serious persuading to get Independents in this district to send her back in November.

House Democrats, frightened by the Brown victory, are now more skeptical than ever of simply passing the Senate version of health reform straight to the President. As well they should be.

George Will says health reform has put the Democrats on the precipice.

HISTORY IS MADE IN MASSACHUSETTS

This is not the first time the people of Massachusetts have made history, of course. The Tea Party movement of today gets its name from the original tea party held in Boston Harbor in 1773. That original tea party was an anti-tax protest, but it was also a protest against the arrogance of an out-of-touch government. That perfectly defines the Tea Party movement of today. Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, becoming the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from the Bay State since 1972 (and taking the seat held by the Kennedy family since 1954) is just another manifestation of the growing anger in the country. President Obama and the Democrats are busy trying to convince themselves that something other than a repudiation of their policies is happening. If they continue on that course, the tsunami will wash over them, and wash many of them away, in November.

It was a vote against Obamacare, but it was more than that. It was also a vote against the national security posture of the Obama Administration.

Victor Davis Hanson has these thoughts on the growing backlash.

Jeff Jacoby thinks the President might save himself if he learns the right lessons and pulls away from his left-wing course.

But the Liberals want him to double-down. I hope he follows their advice. If he does the tsunami will be even bigger in November (barring a miraculous economic recovery between now and then).

A DAY OF RECKONING IN THE BAY STATE

Finally. After all the hype (and all the TV ads...thank goodness those will be gone tomorrow), the special election for U.S. Senate is happening today in Massachusetts. Respected pollster Stu Rothenberg has switched the contest from Toss-Up to Lean Takeover, meaning he has Brown winning. His prediction, and that of other analysts, is based on the recent polling data which shows an unmistakable upward trend for Brown over the last few weeks which has put him in the lead. If Brown wins it will be a powerful message to all the Democrats in Congress, not just those that represent conservative districts. After all, Massachusetts is one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country. But, and here's the rub, party identification and loyalty continues to deteriorate everywhere in the U.S., meaning that more and more people now identify themselves as Independents, and do not have any ties of loyalty to a political party, nor do they feel any sense of gratitude to a party for giving them something. Once upon a time in America, political parties held power because so many individuals owed them their loyalty, because they got jobs, or perks, something...anything tangible that they could connect directly to local party leaders. This translated into votes on election day. With the exception of government workers, some union members, and some ethnic groups, this no longer is the case. Most people vote based on the feelings of the moment, and right now, in Massachusetts and everywhere else, the feeling is one of disappointment and fear, most of it directed at the party in power, which just happens to be the Democratic Party.

One Leftist blogger goes out on a limb and predicts a Coakley win. He makes the same mistake so many ideologues make, which is that they assume other people think the same way they do. Not so (and this is coming from another ideologue...me). Most people are not ideologues. When parties held power in the past, as I mentioned above, they got votes the old-fashioned way, they bought them, either through direct bribes like patronage jobs, or through indirect benefits like laws and programs to help one group or another. This still goes on, of course, but it is less pervasive and less effective today. That means we have an ever larger pool of voters who, while they never voted on ideological grounds, now do not vote based on party loyalty, but on the passions of the moment. This, of course, infuriates the ideologues, who always voted based on their political philosophy. For example, my late grandfather was a working-class man, a house painter who, during the 1930s, did odd jobs to survive until he finally landed a good job at a shipyard. A Roosevelt voter, right? Wrong. A rock-ribbed Republican, he hated Roosevelt and everything he stood for. He was an ideological voter (although he would not have characterized himself as such). Certain things, to him, were right, and other things were wrong. Roosevelt's programs, whether they benefited him personally or not, were wrong.

The President tried to swoop into Massachusetts yesterday to save Martha Coakley's campaign, but some folks, including Charles Hurt, think the President's outsider act is failing.

Only time will tell who is right. Tonight, we will know when the votes are counted.

The latest polls from Massachusetts show Brown in the lead, and the trend over the last few days shows a lot of momentum for the Republican State Senator. Still, no one knows how things will go as no one can predict who will show up for the special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant with the passing of Ted Kennedy.

This column from Mike Barnicle, who has been following politics in the Bay State for decades, reveals why Brown is doing so well and has a few tidbits that should chill Coakley and her supporters.

Could Coakley be the Democratic canary in the coal mine?

Michael Barone believes that if a U.S. Senate seat isn't safe for Democrats in Massachusetts, then not one of the Democrats' seats across the country is safe.

If the Democrats pull out a victory in Massachusetts and a victory on the health reform bill, it could be a Pyrrhic one.

Here are the most recent poll results for the Massachusetts Senate race. You will note that of the polls done in the last week, one poll has Scott Brown up big, another has Coakley up big, and two others have it very close. I think it will be close, but no one really knows as no one can predict what turnout will be like as it is a special election.

At this point, it almost does not matter who wins. I think a powerful political message is already being sent to elected Democrats across the country. The people are mad as Hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. This feeling leads to political tsunamis, and one is building for this November.

Jon Keller believes the message is clear. The backlash is coming!

Rich Lowry writes about the "revolt in Camelot".

The New York Times has this story about how the race in Massachusetts has unnerved Democrats about the health reform bill.

Charlie Cook says the Democrats have created this problem because of their colossal political miscalculation concerning health care reform.

Jonathan Chait explores the possible strategies Democrats in Congress could follow concerning health care if Coakley loses.

Charles Krauthammer says we are seeing the fall of Obama.

Andrew Bacevich says the American military has a poor record at winning wars since 1945. He has a point. I think the poor record reflects the fact that, first, when wars were fought during the Cold War it was impossible to go for a total victory without risking global thermonuclear war. For instance, in Korea the war was won by the end of 1950 with North Korean forces totally defeated. But Communist China intervened. At that point, any attempt to win in Korea would require total war against the Chinese, which was unthinkable. In Vietnam, the war could have been won with an invasion of the North, but that would have risked Chinese intervention again, or war with the Soviet Union. Again, unthinkable. Since the end of the Cold War the U.S. has engaged in interventions, some successful (Dominican Republic, 1965, Grenada, 1983, Panama, 1989), some not (Lebanon, 1983, Somalia, 1993). We ejected Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 and toppled the Taliban in 2001 and Saddam in 2003 but, of course, our troops are still in both Afghanistan and Iraq as those wars seem to have no end (although we may be close to getting out of Iraq). Bacevich's central point, I think, is that we should put the use of military force aside as a method of last resort. I agree. In my opinion, unless it is a very small scale intervention designed to safeguard American interests or lives, we should no longer employ the forces of war without a Congressional declaration of war. Let's follow the Constitution, for a change.

Ralph Peters blasts the Army report on the massacre at Fort Hood as a bunch of politically correct nonsense.

This is not unexpected...anarchy in Haiti. The country was already living on the edge, with a long history of political instability. With the government, the UN mission, and the police force as devastated as the rest of the city, it seems likely there will be increasing violence as the days wear on, unless U.S. and/or other forces step in to the power vacuum.

David Brooks writes about the underlying tragedy in Haiti, and it is not just a geologic fault.

America could be facing another financial meltdown. Pat Buchanan thinks a collapse may be inevitable.

A new poll puts Scott Brown in the lead in Massachusetts. If he wins it will be one of the most stunning upsets in American political history, and it will strike fear into the hearts of Democratic leaders all across the country. The new polling information has caused Stu Rothenberg to put the race into his toss-up category. Bill Kristol is happy about the new poll, and he hopes it is accurate.

Brian McGrory describes one reason why Brown is doing so well, which is that Coakley is campaigning so poorly.

The New York Times describes the Tea Party people as a bunch of fanatics now trying to infiltrate the GOP in order to take it over. Maybe they are just a bunch of 'mad as hell' conservatives who want the GOP to stand up for its own principles.

Ralph Peters praises the geeks at Google for taking on the bandits of Beijing.

Rich Lowry describes how another smelly deal is being made in an effort to pass the health reform monstrosity.

Paul Krugman blasts the bankers as clueless.

Remember Scott Ritter? He was the U.N. weapon's inspector who was among the few to loudly proclaim that he believed the Iraqi's were hiding a weapons program, only to mysteriously change his mind and become a leading critic of President Bush and the invasion of Iraq, thus becoming the darling of the left. A lot of us suspected something was up, and at the time some folks made accusations concerning Ritter's sexual proclivities. He was nabbed in a sex sting back in '01 and now, he turns up charged in Pennsylvania with, according to this New York Times article, "engaging in online sexual exchanges with a minor".

Port-au-Prince lies in ruins as an untold number of people remain trapped in collapsed buildings all across the city. Could it be another manifestation of Haiti's angry God? Only if you believe in such things, as many Haitians do.

Howie Carr writes about the Coakley-Brown race.

Florida is still hurting in the aftermath of a historic cold snap.

A new poll shows Republican Kelly Ayotte beating Democrat Paul Hodes in the New Hampshire U.S. Senate race. Both are the front runners for their respective primaries. Ayotte (like Coakley in Massachusetts) was the state's Attorney General, and Hodes is the Congressman for the 2nd District.

More about New Hampshire politics from John DiStaso of The Union Leader, including the entry into the race for the 2nd District seat of Katrina Swett, whose husband once represented that district and whose father was Tom Lantos, the late, long-time Congressman from California.

Was the latest attack on Google in China the result of a coordinated espionage campaign by Chinese agents?

George Will says true conservatives should hope that an activist Supreme Court will strike down that part of the health reform law which would require individuals buy health insurance.

Pity the poor people of Haiti. They already live in one of the poorest countries on Earth, plagued by poverty, poor infrastructure, and an unstable political system, and now they are hammered by Mother Nature with a massive earthquake. I expect the death toll will be extreme, not only because so many died immediately when the old, poorly constructed buildings collapsed on them, but also those who will die because they will not be rescued from underneath the rubble.

The polls show the Massachusetts Senate race continues to get tighter as we get closer to election day.

If "Ted Kennedy's seat" isn't safe, what Democratic seat is?

Mark McGwire's mea culpa does not satisfy all the critics. A son of Roger Maris appreciates the McGwire apology, but believes his dad is the real home run king.

A mystery object will pass close to Earth this week. Scientists say it won't hit us, and it is too small to do any damage if it did.

Conan O'Brien gives his reasons for refusing to go along with moving The Tonight Show to 12:05 AM. Check out the David Letterman video at the end of the piece.

Thomas Friedman, who is a fan of how they do things in The People's Republic of China, doesn't believe they are the new Enron. Of course, as a consequence of their one-child policy and the selective abortion of female children, China faces a shortage of females. It will be quite interesting to see how this particular experiment in social engineering turns out as the century progresses.

Lawrence J. Korb doesn't think very highly of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Harold Meyerson worries that an imperfect health reform bill will come back to bite the Democrats in the Fall. He should worry, because it will.

Jim Geraghty at the National Review analyzes the Coakley-Brown Senate race in Massachusetts.

Jeff Jacoby, in commentary written after watching the Massachusetts Senate debate last night, was struck by the fact that, in Brown's words, "it's the people's seat", and it is up for grabs.

John Podhoretz has some thoughts on how Brown is doing and what it means for the Democrats later this year.

It seems the police in Massachusetts don't like being recorded on video when they are making arrests, and will arrest you if you try.

Mark McGwire finally admits what we knew all along. Don't hold your breath waiting for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens to join him.

President Obama's approval ratings continue to drop.

David Brooks writes about the Tel Aviv cluster, as that Israeli city becomes a center for high-tech entrepreneurs.

Responding to an earlier Brooks column, here is a defense of the Tea Parties by Tunku Varadarajan.

National Democrats are worried about Martha Coakley. They should worry, but I still think she will win.

Tucker Carlson has a new online newspaper called The Daily Caller.

Some climate scientists now say that we may be at the beginning of a cool period. I think the folks down in Florida would agree with that one.

Conan O'Brien may be out the door at NBC according to this story in The New York Post.

Benny Avni asks the question I have been asking about the President and his characterization of our "war" with Al Qaeda...will he start taking actions as if we were at war? Mark Steyn says we can't prosecute a war if we won't even say who we are at war with.

Charlie Gasparino says the policies of this President are preventing an economic recovery.

George Will says Liberalism is killing California.

Those of us who work in the media are well aware of how the Internet and other new technologies are changing our business, even threatening to kill off the print newspaper industry. But I thought one business that would find the Internet a fertile playground was the pornography industry. Apparently, that is not the case, as porn-for-profit is on the decline.

Robert J. Samuelson looks at America by the numbers.

Charlie Cook now says the Democrats may lose the House this November.

If we keep getting poor jobs numbers like the ones just released today, the Democrats will be toast.

In Massachusetts, it seems there is more trouble for Martha Coakley, which is why she is now actively campaigning and running television ads. The fact that recent polling numbers indicate there are fewer 'solid' Democrats backing Coakley should really frighten Democrats who represent districts in Red States, and maybe a few Senators, too.

Even The New York Times is noticing the anxiety now surrounding the Massachusetts Senate race.

Peggy Noonan believes that a health care victory for the Democrats would be politically catastrophic.

WE ARE AT WAR

"We are at war", President Obama said while announcing a series of steps taken in the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day bombing of an airliner over Detroit. Glad to hear it, Mr. President, but I wonder if you really believe it now, or are just saying it to provide yourself some political cover. During the election campaign in 2008 the question of whether or not we are at war with Al Qaeda was one of the main issues for me, and I think for many other Americans, but we were swamped by those who were frightened (justifiably) by the financial collapse and mesmerized (understandably) by Obama's charms. It is a crucial question. If Al Qaeda and its people are international criminals, then they should be hunted down by policemen, arrested when found, and tried before judges. If convicted, they should receive the appropriate sentence for their crimes, and incarcerated or put to death. This is the Leftist view, and I think it was Obama's view from 2001 to 2009. It may still be his view. If not, it would not be the first time a new President had an epiphany about an issue after facing it from the Oval Office. Only his actions will tell the tale going forward. If he really believes we are at war, he should cancel the KSM trial in New York. You don't try enemy prisoners while we are still at war. If he really believes we are at war he should end the practice of releasing prisoners, and set aside plans to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay. If we are at war he should back up our CIA officers when international do-gooders try to bring them to trial for doing there job (war is a dirty business, after all).

In war, we kill the enemy without trial. In fact, we kill him and his wife (or wives) and children, if they happen to be in the way (the men in the B-29s dropping incendiaries on Japanese cities knew that those fire starting bombs would not discriminate, but would burn them all, the innocent and guilty alike).

In war, we do whatever it takes to win (even when we pretend to follow rules).

If President Obama starts to do those things, then I'll believe him, but not before.

My old college classmate Brian McGrory, who has been a columnist and editor at The Boston Globe for many years, takes some well justified shots at Martha Coakley for her campaign strategy, which is to avoid campaigning. I saw a Coakley ad on TV this morning, the first one I have seen since the primary. Perhaps her people are beginning to worry a bit about the poll numbers which show Massachusetts residents just as steamed about the way things are going in the country as everybody else, which might cause them to pause before pulling the lever for a Democrat this time around.

Blogger Jules Crittenden also comments on the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts and the seeming hostility shown by the normally Liberal Globe against Coakley.

Here is another story about Democrats in fear of losing Congress this November.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann liken the burst of Democratic retirements to the flu. It's contagious.

Morris, writing solo this time, also believes that the era of the 'moderate' Democrat is coming to an end, as voters will recognize their 'moderation' simply leads to more power for Liberals like Reid and Pelosi, which will cause those voters to turn the 'moderate' Democrats out in favor of Republicans.

The Democratic Governor of Colorado joins the exodus.

Ralph Peters writes about a scathing new report concerning our failed intelligence gathering apparatus in Afghanistan, and Peters says the report does not get to the real problem.

Another new report says one in five released Gitmo detainees go back to terrorism.

Victor Davis Hanson, who is a Classical Historian, says the year 2010 may join years like 1939 as a year of decision.

Here is something that I cannot ever remember doing...urging you to read a column by Al Sharpton. He is taking to task all those African-American athletes and celebrities who, by their words and actions, are providing young African-Americans exactly the wrong kind of role model. I was even more heartened by the fact that he admitted his own role in letting this trend go on for so long.

Jeff Jacoby writes that the President, who has lavished praise on the Mayo Clinic, should take heed at what the people who run the Mayo Clinic have decided to do, which is to no longer accept Medicare patients at one of their facilities. Why? Because the reimbursement rates for those patients are economically unsustainable. Doctors and other health care professionals should also closely watch this story. One possible scenario...more and more providers follow the Mayo Clinic's lead and drop Medicare patients. More and more of the elderly complain to Congress. Eventually, Congress passes a law requiring providers to take Medicare patients (just as they have passed a law that, among other things, requires insurance companies to write policies for people despite preexisting conditions, and requires people to buy health insurance whether they want to or not). Because Congress does not, and never will, fully fund Medicare, providers continue to shift costs to their privately insured patients. Those costs continue to skyrocket, so everyone complains to Congress, which passes a law outlawing private insurance, and making everyone get covered by a Super Medicare (universal, one party payer, health insurance). Providers now take whatever the government gives them, or they get out of the health care business. I leave it to you to guess what happens next.

Could Republican State Senator Scott Brown actually win Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts? I still find it hard to believe, but recent polling shows Brown within shouting distance of his opponent, Democratic State Attorney General Martha Coakley. The only explanation I can come up with, besides the general discontent with Democrats that seems to be everywhere these days, is that Brown is actually campaigning, while Coakley had been, so far at least, invisible. Like a lot of other residents of Southern New Hampshire, I watch a lot of Boston TV stations. I have yet to see a Coakley add since she won the Democratic primary, but I have seen Brown ads (a really good one starts with an old film of President Kennedy announcing his tax cut plans, morphing into Brown advocating the same). I still think Coakley will win, but it is a special election, so turnout is key.

Things look bad for Democrats across the country, of course, and some Democrats are throwing in the towel. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has announced that he will not seek the re-election. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut is expected to announce the same today. While a Republican pick up in Connecticut does not seem terribly likely, it may be quite possible in North Dakota.

Michael Barone writes about the political opening that the current situation creates for the GOP, unless they play their hand badly by going too negative.

Betsy McCaughey says the Obama Health Care plan is unconstitutional on a number of levels.

Michael Goodwin says Obama's initial handling of the Christmas Day attempted bomb plot was a disaster.

David Brooks has some controversial thoughts about the Tea Party movement. I believe that the Tea Party movement is similar to the Reform Party movement of the early 1990s in the sense that it taps into the frustration of average Americans over the direction of the country, especially concerning the economy and the level of government spending and taxation. Unlike the Reform Party movement, this time there is no established leader, as was the case with Ross Perot leading and, in fact, creating the Reform Party. This has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that the movement will not collapse when the leader does. The disadvantage is that, without a leader, there is no coherent platform or leadership to build the movement into a political party that can actually take power away from the Republicans and the Democrats. There is still a possibility that the Tea Party movement could siphon away Republicans, causing the GOP to wither and die, just as the Republicans did to the Whig Party in the 1850s. I do not expect that will happen. Instead, the GOP will embrace most of the Tea Party ideas, causing the Tea Party movement to eventually dissolve.

Speaking of movements, Harold Meyerson laments the fact that Progressives do not have enough grass roots energy to propel their agenda in Washington. What he fails to understand, or perhaps refuses to believe, is that the Progressive agenda, which was once a grass roots agenda from about 1930 to about 1970, is no longer. Instead, the Progressive ideology and agenda is primarily an elite agenda of people with high educations and incomes, like Meyerson. Oh, there are still vestiges of the old coalition, especially with working class union members and African-American voters, but most Progressive energy is now found within the high education and high income folks, living on both coasts, atheistic or agnostic in religious beliefs, working in offices, that kind of thing. The Progressives just do not have the men willing to fight in the streets anymore, as they did in the 30s. (They also do not have Soviet agents and paymasters stoking the flames of discontent on the streets, either).

While some people believe the Iranian government is well positioned to withstand any effort to overthrow them from within, the Iranian government continues to dig deep into their mountains to make sure no one can destroy their nuclear weapons program from without.

Andrew C. McCarthy on the constitutional crisis and the security crisis as Federal judges interfere in the ability of the Executive and Legislative branches to defend the country against our terrorist enemies. I suspect, after a few more near misses, and especially after a hit, the American voting electorate will be reminded that the Republicans are the guys who should be in charge when it comes to fighting our enemies. High unemployment will kill the Democratic majority in Congress in November, but it is the national security situation which will doom Obama in 2012.

Some good stuff in The New York Post today....Ralph Peters says we are letting the terrorists out think us, primarily because they want to win, and we're not sure what we want to do. Benny Avni says Obama continues to blunder when it comes to dealing with the tyrants who rule Iran. Finally, could 2010 really be the last year of the Obama Administration?

Paul Krugman continues to bang the drum for more Federal stimulus money to revive the economy, this time evoking the memory of 1937. If he is right, and we do see a second plunge in the economy later this year, it will only mean more losses for the Democrats, and less likelihood that any of Krugman's ideas will ever be implemented. He probably knows this, which must drive him to distraction.

More evidence that the political situation for the Democrats continues to grow more difficult as we enter 2010.

Robert J. Samuelson writes about the aftermath of the Great Recession.

Just another program designed to help people...that does not, and actually makes things worse. There is a reason why the old phrase, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', came into common use, because there have been so many examples over the years of people doing things with the best of intentions, yet those actions causing far more harm than good.

Fouad Ajami says President Obama and the Liberal Democrats who support him are the new Isolationists, and every despot in the world is glad that they now hold power in Washington. At least the bad guys were afraid of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I can't say that about Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

A lot of people are excited by the possibility that a Republican might win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Here is an analysis that explains the reasons why some are thinking it possible. Having grown up in Massachusetts, and lived there for many years before moving to New Hampshire, let me add my two cents. The Democrat (Martha Coakley) will win...easily.

New research finds that there has been no increase in the fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last 150 years.