LAT editorializes on California

California's Republicans were wiped out in the 2010 mid-term. All is lost for them unless they become more moderate, more like Democrats, according to the LAT in an editorial today.

But then they wouldn't be Republicans and Californians wouldn't have a two-party system. Democrats would control everything, kind of like how it is now.

The LAT says all that Republicans are good for is to say no, because that's all they ever do. Thank goodness someone does.

LAT: GOP lacks candidate

Writer James Oliphant argues in a piece on the LATs front page today that Republicans could beat Obama in 2012 if they had a candidate, but they don't. He goes on to badmouth all the potential candidates.

The Democrats had only one candidate for the 2008 race, Hilary Clinton. She supposedly was a sure thing but Obama came out of nowhere. The same thing could happen to Republicans. If it doesn't, several candidates could turn out to be good choices. Among them: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and others. Be careful about what you read in the LAT.

Lexington

Lexington, on November 20th, argues that Obama's policies, which Lexington accepts that voters rejected in the mid-term election, were not extreme. Obama's policies, Lexington explains, were too conservative, and that explains why the left is angry at him. Obama is more conservative than Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Lexington argues.

The garbage goes on and on. It makes sense to The Economist.

Lexington on Bush's book

Early in Lexington's review of Decision Points, George W. Bush's new book, he or she writes that the book "will not change the minds" of Bush's detractors. Being one, Lexington, goes on to prove that's true. In the end, Lexington claims that Bush "did not cover himself with glory," which is what you would expect from a Bush detractor.

LAT editorials

The inmates took over the institution at the LAT when today's editorials were written.

The first of three argues that Israel should cave to Palestinian demands to stop building settlements as a condition to starting peace negotiations. Wrong. Negotiations begin when the two sides sit down across the table from each other, not before. Let the parties negotiate.

The second editorial defends Pelosi's decision to run for minority leader, saying she did all the heavy lifting while Obama failed to sell Obamacare, etc. Right but wrong. Pelosi did the heavy lifting but she lifted the wrong stuff, stuff voters didn't want. She refused to listen, the same as Obama and the LAT didn't or don't listen. It ought to cost her her job.

Finally, the LAT takes Oklahoma voters to task for passing a state ballot measure that bans state judges from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases before them. Wrong. Oklahomans can do what they want without help from the LAT. Besides, why should the Oklahoma initiative present a problem for judges?

LAT reacts to election

In an editorial today, the LAT charges the new House Republican majority with helping to govern, "not just dissent." That depends on what the president proposes. If he does what he's been doing, Republicans have no choice. They must oppose him.

In a second editorial, the LAT says that Obama should immediately push for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell during the lame duck session. Makes a lot of sense. Obama just got his brains bashed in for doing stuff that voters oppose -- like stimulus and Obamacare. The LAT says Obama ought to take another bashing to advance the gay agenda.

It's sort of reminiscent of the LAT's reaction when the Democrats lost the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts to Senator Brown. Talking heads said that was because of Obamacare -- Democrats pushing something the public didn't want. The LAT recommended full speed ahead and a huge Republican election victory resulted.

It's maybe a good idea for Obama to do the opposite of what the LAT recommends.

The LAT on Palin

The LAT reports this morning that Sarah Palin "has a number of detractors within the Republican Party and is viewed more negatively than positively by most Americans." Since they cite no source for these "facts" nor any evidence at all, it appears the reporters who wrote that were expressing opinions instead of reporting news. Further, the opinions seem to be gratuitous since the reporters were, ostensibly, reporting on Palin's appearance on Fox News Sunday.