Via the New York Times…

1. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”
2. “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”
3. Probably, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”

… not that it’s been much of a secret. Sunday night, “Romanoff for Colorado” sent out the following email:

ROMANOFF TO LAUNCH BID FOR US SENATE

DENVER, CO – Former Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff will launch his bid to represent Colorado in the United States Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 2009. The formal announcement will take place in Pueblo, Colorado. The day will continue with two additional stops in Colorado Springs and Denver.

WHAT: OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
WHERE: LAKE ELIZABETH PAVILION AT THE HISTORIC ARKANSAS RIVERWALK OF PUEBLO (Intersection of Greenwood and Victoria)
PUEBLO, CO
WHEN: 10:00 AM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
WHAT: COMMUNITY CONVERSATION

WHERE: PENROSE LIBRARY – CARNEGIE ROOM
20 NORTH CASCADE AVENUE
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
WHEN: 1:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

WHAT: CAMPAIGN LAUNCH CELEBRATIONWHERE: VOLUNTEERS FOR OUTDOOR COLORADO HEADQUARTERS
WASHINGTON PARK
600 SOUTH MARION PARKWAY
DENVER, CO
WHEN: 5:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

###

Paid for by Romanoff for Colorado. Patricia Barela Rivera, Treasurer

Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton filed the requisite paperwork today to form an “exploratory committee” for a possible run for U.S. Senate in 2010. Many Republicans feel she could be the “game changer” in the crowded GOP primary field. Here’s the release, sent out by Cinamon Watson, longtime Republican activist. She helped run the Pete Coors Senate campaign in 2004 with Sean Tonner of PhaseLine.

Jane Norton Files Committee for U.S. Senate Bid
Jane Norton for Colorado Committee officially filed
Denver, CO – Today, Jane Norton officially filed the Jane Norton for Colorado campaign committee. The committee will allow Norton the opportunity to explore a bid for the United States Senate in 2010.
A native Coloradan, Jane Norton is currently Executive Director of the Denver Police Foundation. She was elected Lt. Governor in 2002 on a ticket with former Governor Bill Owens. Prior to her election, Norton served in the Governor’s cabinet as Director of the Department of Public Health and Environment. Norton was born in Grand Junction, raised on the Western Slope and currently resides in Arapahoe County.
After talking to supporters around the state, Norton expects to make an official announcement next week.

More serious and reasonable potential GOP 2012 candidates are now generating energy, the POLITICO reports today.

Earlier this week I argued Republicans, who have for months seemed leaderless and fixated on candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, were blowing the opportunity they’ve been given by eroding poll figures for Barack Obama and his party in general.

But now we see names like Gen. David Petraeus and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough are attracting attention among party heavyweights.

“Several GOP candidates are coming to the view that the way to run against Obama is not to out-Obama Obama with flash or sizzle,” Dan Senor, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Bush administration veteran, told POLITICO. “They want to go in the opposite direction: smart, back-to-basics, competence.”

Who would’ve thought the GOP would have energy and enthusiasm this early?

As the POLITICO story puts it: “The common denominator is that Republican operatives no longer assume — as they did in the opening months of Obama’s presidency — that 2012 will be a fruitless cycle for their party. The comparisons to 1964, a nadir for the GOP, are now being reassessed.

“Liz Cheney, a State Department official in the Bush administration, said it is ‘absolutely’ possible for a Republican to win the presidency in 2012.”

Anyway, whether they do have a real shot in 2012 remains a huge question. But for those of us who like a strong two-party system, it’s nice to see conservatives looking beyond Palin and talking about folks with more substance.

A truly frightening scenario exists regarding our nation’s future involvement with Afghanistan.

It’s a nightmare scenario that I hope is a complete figment of my imagination.

On the campaign trail, the then relatively unknown Barack Obama called for withdrawing from Iraq.

Let’s give Obama the full benefit of the doubt and assume that the young senator truly believed that invading Iraq was a bad idea from the first place – he was on the record early as opposed – and that getting out continued to animate him as the best policy.

But let’s also realize that, politically, Obama’s was the correct call for a Democratic primary challenger. Democrats and progressives passionately favored that view. And that view further allowed Obama to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton, as Clinton voted to give Bush the power to invade.

Obama also scored points by arguing our interest ought to be with searching for Osama bin Laden and eradicating al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, or wherever the terrorists were hiding.

Again, let’s agree that Obama truly believed that was the best course of action (which, after all, shouldn’t be much of a stretch). But let’s also realize that politically the argument also had the benefit of appealing to Independents and those Republicans who had become disillusioned with George W. Bush.

It allowed the Democrat a way to appear strong in the war on terror, a critical credential for the general election.

But then-candidate Obama had no access to the kinds of military briefings that he has now as president. And today, a couple of years after he announced his bid for the presidency, the situation in Afghanistan is much different.

“Deteriorating,” says the top commander in the field. And though we now have more troops there than at any point during the last eight years, the last two months have produced the highest level of troop casualties so far.

Meanwhile, all indications are that military commanders have laid the necessary framework to suggest to Obama that many thousands of more troops, and perhaps many more months or years are needed to stabilize the country.

Republican leadership is reminding Obama of his pledge to remain strong and involved in Afghanistan. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they think going all in in Afghanistan is truly the correct course of action, it also is true that, politically, Republicans can likely score points against Obama should he reverse himself and call for a different approach.

Conservative columnist George Will is getting a lot of attention this week with his call for ending our attempt to stabilize the country. Will would rather we keep a smaller force focused on patrolling for al-Qaeda along the border with Pakistan and leave the nation-building to the Afghans.

Despite the outcry against Will’s suggestion, the columnist’s position seems far more in keeping with the argument candidate Obama made initially, before the situation evolved and before intelligence he received as president was available to him.

When it comes to matters of war, presidents ought to act apolitically and political parties ought to acknowledge that.

You should never send troops into battle unless it is truly necessary.

Obama shouldn’t let himself be pressured by political considerations for one second in his decision-making concerning our military involvement in Afghanistan.

We should let Obama know we don’t care anymore what he said about Afghanistan while running for president; that things change, and we expect him to adapt to those changes.

Now that Obama is commander in chief, we need to trust that he has accepted the duty without the slightest regard for the petty back-and-forth of politics.

With word out today that Barack Obama will jettison the public option from his health care reform agenda, Republicans will continue to gloat, and understandably so.

Not so long ago, after all, conservatives seemed so past it.

But the groundswell of grassroots anger – and sure, the high-dollar opposition – that we’ve been watching this summer became a game changer.

Democrats have themselves to blame for their handling of the situation, and Obama shares a good chunk of that blame.

But while conservatives giddily hand out high-fives, they ought to think about the future, because with folks like Palin and Huckabee continuing to be the ones cast about as rumored 2012 frontrunners, the party’s in trouble.

The big question right now for Democrats, and Republicans, is whether the anger and disillusionment that so lowered Obama’s approval ratings and the ratings of Congressional Democrats this summer – especially among Independents – is irreversible.

Will Obama be able to sweep aside the damage, the profound sense of ill-will toward out-of-control government spending and meddling, or did he allow things to swing too far left?

Because if Obama did let the pendulum swing too far, the GOP should be able to make significant gains, and way before anyone thought it possible.

Yes, there are a couple of Republican bills regarding health care reform, but is anyone even aware of what they say?

Conservatives don’t yet have a message that changes the conversation.

They’re doing a great job punching holes in the Democrats’ ideas. (And of course that’s what they need to do to regain the floor.) But if Independents don’t start hearing some sensible solutions from conservatives, they’ll rethink their loss of faith.

Jane Norton is mulling a possible entry into the Republican Party’s Senate primary race. Ken Buck jumps back in the race today after an intense outpouring of support via “hundreds”(!) of emails and phone calls. (Who knew hundreds of emails would be enough to sweet-talk a person into a statewide political race? Editorial page editor Dan Haley probably has at least 50 emails begging him to get into politics — keep tuned for an announcement on the exploratory committee).

Now, it turns out that former Colorado Senator Tom Wiens — who has been eyeing a run for a while – is getting serious, as well.

“Why, you are probably asking, would I think about running for the U. S. Senate?” Wiens asks in an email titled “U.S. Senate 2010.” Well, Wiens may embark on this candidacy because he “loves his country.”

As any sensible American already knows, the greatest calling of the American patriot is to stay out of politics and ply an honest trade.

Then again, remember, it only take a few hundred emails to make this Republican race more interesting. “Is,” as Wiens asks, “the future of our kids and grandkids and the future of the greatest country in history worth it?”

I think so.

Entire hyper-populist email below.

Just a few days ago I filed the papers for the Tom Wiens for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee, Inc. I’m emailing you because I want to know if I can count on you to help me bring Washington back in line with Main Street Colorado. As a small businessman/rancher and former Colorado State Senator, I have the experience to take on Washington insiders and deliver results, not excuses. I am asking you to right now, go to www.tomwiens2010.com and give me your thoughts and show your support by making a contribution.

Why, you are probably asking, would I think about running for the U. S. Senate?

I’ll tell you exactly why: I love my country and Colorado and I am fed up with the direction the politicians in Washington are taking our nation.

I’ve been having conversations with people all over the state and I am hearing the same issues surfacing over and over again:

Coloradans are angry, and they have a right to be. They are working twice as hard for half the opportunity, and are worried more than ever about losing their jobs.

People across American, and especially in Colorado, feel like the politicians in Washington aren’t listening anymore. Many feel the politicians actually know what the average person wants, and they simply do not care. Right now there is a monopoly of power in Washington and they are going to do what they want and forget about the rest of us.

While families are suffering, Washington seems to only be interested in bailing out those at the top, especially if you are from Washington, Wall Street or a Big Union, and the rest of us just get stuck with the bill!

It’s as if Washington has completely forgotten all of us who are out here playing by the rules and working hard tying to keep our businesses going, trying to keep our jobs, and keeping our families going.

To Washington, the vast majority of us have become the FORGOTTEN AMERICANS!

It’s bad enough that you and I have become the Forgotten Americans but if we don’t change things soon, the ones who will be paying the bill for all this wasteful Washington spending will be our kids and grandkids, and they will become the next generation of Forgotten Americans.
I for one refuse to stand by and wait to watch our kids and grandkids foot the bill, I want to do something about it!

In order to take on something this big I need to know that friends like you are willing to stand up for our future. These are incredible times and like it or not, we are all in this together and we will overcome these challenging times together. Would you please join with me by going to my webpage – www.TomWiens2010.com to make a comment and a contribution?

Diana, our children, and I are considering making the biggest sacrifice of our lives by taking on the Washington power structure. We know it will be tough – and it will be ugly. Why are we willing to do this?

Because America’s future is worth it!

Will you make a sacrifice along with us? No kidding. Right now! Will you go to www.TomWiens2010.com and make a contribution toward a cause that I believe can have a tremendous impact on the future of Colorado.

Is the future of our kids and grandkids and the future of the greatest country in history worth it?

No matter how out of touch Washington is, I still believe that the United States can continue to be the greatest country in the world. Will you help me make sure that the next generation inherits an America that is a place where if you have a dream and you work hard and you play by the rules, you still have the opportunity to make that dream come true?

With my deepest respect and appreciation,

The Obama Mystique was The Obama Mistake.

Future politicians should take note, and Obama himself should change.

The nation needs leadership based on realistic principles.

Years ago, when Barack Obama was developing that tone of his, when he was polishing his lustrous image, some wise political mentor should have sat him down and warned him to switch strategies. (And if that did happen, Obama should have listened.)

This wise mentor should have made it clear to the promising young star that the realities of governing would ultimately tarnish an image built on promises no one can possibly keep.

Unless you truly can cast miracles, promising to change the world will always catch up with you.

If John McCain ever landed a glove on Obama during the campaign, it was when he launched “The One” video that lampooned Obama’s European exploits.

The video’s mocking portrayal of Obama as a savior figure was viciously effective.

Prior to that, Hillary Clinton’s best knock on Obama was that though you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. She also mocked the savior image and rightly asked where was there any evidence that Obama had the chops to govern?

During the Republican National Convention, speakers thrilled the party faithful by mocking Obama’s many “present” votes during his time in the Illinois statehouse.

The complaint against Clinton and McCain was that they were divisive figures. The argument for the less-experienced Obama was that his inexperience wouldn’t matter; the quality of his mind would allow him to transcend.

The reality is that either of Obama’s rivals would’ve been able to govern without falling into the trap that Obama’s in now.

Because it turns out that the nation under Obama is as divisive as ever and Obama has shone little interest in cooling the outrage with attempts to build consensus.

The problem for Obama now is that he is doing exactly what he ought to be doing and in doing it he is destroying the image of himself he so carefully crafted on the campaign trail.

His rushing through the so-called Stimulus Act, his trying to rush through cap-and-trade and health care reform, showed that he really wasn’t that motivated in uniting the populace.

Instead, we see a man bent on wielding power while he has it.

Which is what he should be doing. That’s governing.

He should use his prodigious political capital to pass legislation that most reflects his core principles.

But when he tried to do those things, he lost the middle that helped put him over the top on Election Day.

His polls numbers among Independent voters have cratered. They wonder where The Uniter went. They no longer believe in him.

Obama should change.

He ought to change his tone and talk more directly to us. He ought to present himself as someone engaged in governing and speak frankly about the difficulties of the give-and-take nature of creating transformational legislation.

He ought to drop the constant road-show approach of the eternal campaign; it’s eroding his stature and he’s risking Obama fatigue only seven months into his presidency.

Meanwhile, his “Organizing for America” movement is creating a strangely ominous atmosphere that fosters division instead of consensus. It’s increasingly an us-against-them gambit that’s hardly different than the rough-and-tumble days of the Bush administration.

Obama has some reasonable goals for a president. Finding ways to improve the environment and making health care more affordable and available are worthy things to be doing.

It’s hard to imagine Obama wouldn’t have also been effective on the campaign trail by sticking to those themes and leaving the larger world-shaking rhetoric in the journals he kept as a student practicing before the mirror.

Because The Obama Mistake means it’s going to be awfully tricky for the president going forward.

Correction.

And here’s the excerpt I should’ve used in the posting below:

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me; it’s about you.

(APPLAUSE)

It’s about you.

(APPLAUSE)

For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, “Enough,” to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.

You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

Change happens — change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

(And here the normal post resumes.)

A year ago tonight nearly 80,000 of us stood inside Invesco Field at Mile High and watched candidate Barack Obama accept his party’s nomination for president.

He promised a new kind of politics.

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord,” Obama said, sounding a central theme of his campaign.

“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics.

“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Such pretty words.

I didn’t believe him, and felt like a cad because of all the excitement and pageantry. I wanted to buy the shtick, because I support the notion of civil discourse in politics and all that.

Anyway, it’s a year later.

Still not buying it.

Update: For a more thoughtful explanation of what I was trying to get at here, please see The Obama Mistake.

Now that we know that Maurice Schwenkler is a transgender anarchist, commenters are rightly asking about the motivation behind the crime.

Since I weighed in on the mystery yesterday, I ought to try to respond to those comments.

Yesterday I listed several theories, tongue-in-cheek style, that could have motivated an anarchist to smash the windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters.

The bottom line for this whimsical list of possibilities:

“Cuz it’s fun to break stuff.”

But behind any joke (if it works) there is usually a bit of truth.

My take on the anarchists, after watching them and interviewing some during the Democratic and Republican national conventions last year, is that a small part of the movement truly is motivated by tearing stuff up.

This was especially true at the Republican convention.

But I give a fair amount of credence to the skeptics who believe that Ariel Attack, as Maurice goes by while playing anarchist, took a hammer to the windows hoping to discredit conservatives opposed to health care reform.

The anarchists were out in high style at the Democratic convention, it is true. But they wreaked a lot more havoc and destruction at St. Paul.

We can’t know why Ariel Attack did this deed with the information we have now. It is conceivable that the attack was motivated by anger at Obama. But I am willing to bet this is what motivated Ms. Attack:

It’s fun to break stuff.

But it’s even more fun to break stuff if your enemies take the blame.