I am with you on the whole idea of dropping the boycott of Cuba. Imagine what would happen if thousands of Cuban Americans went to Cuba to see their relatives left behind and brought pictures of life in America. They would see firsthand what they missed out on over all these years, the bounty of America would be evident in hundreds of thousands of personal photographs of what life is like in Florida. I believe that would do more to destroy the Castro regime than any embargo could ever do.It would be like the movie Moscow on the Hudson starring Robin Williams. Especially the scene where Robin Williams enters an American grocery store and tries to find a simple pound of coffee. He is so overwhelmed by the plethora of choices available he almost collapses from overstimulation.I think the anger and resentment that the Cuban people would feel for their government would be similar. It is time to stop the embargo against Cuba.

I believe the Bill of Rights to be necessary for the simple fact that without them people wouldn't know that they indeed possess them.

What typical American citizen is going to spend time researching countless court decisions, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and read the text of the constitution to discern the Government's limits? Not many.

Without the text of the Bill of Rights, I believe many of our individual rights would have eroded long ago. After all, much of the Bill of Rights has to do with protecting the individual's ability to subvert. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and possibly the 7th amendments have at their root, resistance to government intrusion and tyranny. By having these written down, the common people are reminded in a concise way that governments can and do go bad (even democracies) and when they do, they need to be fought. The founders (two thirds of the House and Senate concurring) were wise to insist on the constant remainder afforded by the mere existence of the Bill of Rights.

I remember years ago a coworker of mine who worked as some sort of staffer in the Reagan Whitehouse and was involved somehow in the Whitehouse's role in Charlie Wilson's War, told me that both Moynihan and Ted Kennedy were famous for being inebriated at committee hearings as early as 10:00 am.  Perhaps that is why he threw punches at people and voted against his writings? Just a thought.

A look at Gallup's historical poll results show you that they can be off by up to 3 percentage points in modern elections.  The Bush Kerry 49-49 tie in 2004 ended up being a 50.7-48.3 Bush win. The Reagan-Carter Gallup went into election day 47-44 and ended up being 50.8-41. This year is more like 1980 than 2004 and the GOTV weighs in favor of the Republicans.

I doubt Gallup at least will rethink anything.

Nice analysis. Thanks for the hope!

This jibes pretty well with classical numbers for Democrats over many presidential elections. Mostly they can rely on getting a solid 43% of the vote in any election. A look at Bill Clinton's numbers in 1992 show that nationally he only received 43% of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, Bush would have won and Clinton lost miserably.

Dukakis got 46% of the vote in 1988. In 1996, Clinton only received 49.6% never breaking 50%. Had Perot not been in that one Dole may have won.

Overall your analysis seems spot on from a historical perspective on the percentage of Democrats who always vote for their candidate. Consider another thing: Carter only got 41% of the vote in 1980.

Precisely why a writer from Slate, a definitively liberal outfit, is questioning the whole enterprise. Anything to call into question the definition of and importance of family. It's been going on for almost as long as I've been alive, five decades and counting, and it is unlikely to stop any time soon.

That is what I like to read Paul! Enough of the hand wringing because some guy named Sean at RCP thinks Paul Ryan's budget plan will turn off blue collar whites. Ryan's district is made up of blue collar whites and he wins them consistently with 60%+ of the vote.

Ryan's message is common sense, something blue collar whites have a lot of. The message generally is you don't spend more than you take in and we can get out of this mess by stopping runaway spending and growing the economy. That message appeals to people with common sense. Not taxing the rich out of existence like Obama wants to do only to find out we are all going to get poorer as a result.

I was with you in 2010 too, I too thought that 2010 would be like 1994 early on, only to be completely vindicated in the results. I am thinking like you that this is going to be another 1980 type election.

Meet John Doe is another Capra classic. I've always liked How Green Was My Valley, Citizen Kane (Rosebud), Stagecoach, Bridge on the River Kwai, A Streetcar Named Desire (STELLA!!! STELLA!!!) The Caine Mutiny, The Ten Commandments (Moses, Moses) to name just a few.

Frum is completely wrong in his analysis. First of all, those senior citizens that Frum says are going to erupt, already did so in the summer of 2009 against the ACA. Now they are going to do the same to keep it?

The ACA cuts medicare already as part of its CBO scoring sleight of hand. Seniors are going to storm Republican townhalls, why exactly? To stop Congress from stopping a law that cuts that Medicare drastically?

His analysis makes no sense in light of recent history and current public opinion polls. This is a definite leg up for Romney. I'd be surprised if Romney doesn't move up in the polls after this.

I agree with you completely.

We as conservatives/libertarians were hoping to accomplish things by how the Left does it: by relying on the Supreme Court to do our bidding for us.

We once applauded John Roberts during his confirmation when he indicated that he stood for judicial restraint and by letting the people, through their representatives, decide the big questions for themselves. Now, because he didn't vote to overturn and invalidate the eventual result of bad decision-making by the people (i.e., the 2008 election) we shake our heads in dismay.

The best thing though is now those same voters who thought they were helping make history by electing Obama, are going to see that history making in a whole new light.

Chief Roberts maybe, potentially, saw it this way as well in his own convuluted way. Maybe he actually stands for what he said he stands for: letting the people decide.

How will Obama reconcile the Supreme Court's contention that he signed a bill to raise taxes on the middle class? Obama can't say his perfect law must be fixed. Romney now has a good hand to play he just needs to play it.

Education reformers need to make sure Idaho gets on the national radar screen to get the funds necessary to help thwart the recall effort there.

After Wisconsin and the union shenanigans there, teachers unions are on the ropes. The good ones who truly care about their profession will do like they did in Wisconsin and abandon the union mentality (i.e., not pay dues).

It really wouldn't hurt if our presidential candidate made a stop in Idaho and one other place: Washington DC. In DC he could point out how the President tried to kill the voucher program there, but for the efforts of John Boehner. After all, if the school is good enough for Obama's daughters, why isn't it good enough for poor children? This could be a Solyndra like event that would shake the Democrats to the core, since it would point out a major hypocrisy on their part as the supposed champions of the poor.

Why does that image bring to mind Bill Clinton?

That was up to you to figure out implementation. I'm just an idea guy! Telephoto lens maybe?

I just wonder what would happen if one were to take photos of offensive posteriors, along with enough identifying information to make it obvious to the owner whose it was, but without positive ID (faces) and post them on a web site. And on said web site post some real biting criticism about the quality of the posterior. Think that maybe some good old fashioned shame might do the trick instead of the police enforcing an ordinance?

Romney should take advantage of any rumblings like this and stage a Solyndra-like moment at any of the private schools in Washington DC where poor black students were almost denied tuition because the President tried to kill it in favor of teachers unions.  One need only to watch "Waiting for Superman" once to understand the level of desperation black and Hispanic parents feel toward their children's education. A Candidate Romney championing school choice and pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of President Obama with regard to his own daughters' education would at least make people stop and think. Maybe then he could break the 90% black vote barrier.

Dr. Rahe,

I thoroughly enjoy your posts and I find you to be an accomplished author and expert on history; however, it seems you dismiss people as being unqualified for the presidency based on their apparent education, per your comments about Mrs. Palin above and Romney.  Others have expressed their like of Mrs. Palin's common sense appeal, which as history has shown can count for much more than an elite education, which you seem to believe trumps common sense and basic political sense. A case in point is Harry Truman versus FDR. To the elite educated FDR, Joseph Stalin was "Uncle Joe" a nice cuddly paternal figure that could be trusted in negotiations. To Harry Truman, a high school educated politician, Stalin turned out to be untrustworthy and Truman figured this out as early as Potsdam. Despite being a Democrat, Truman showed that he had what it took to be effective on the world stage.

Education is only a small part of the deal in my opinion. Would any of us really want a president educated in any of our elite schools if we could get one educated in a state school? I know who I would vote for.