November 7, 2010
Thinking about Iran
I'm in New York staying at the hotel where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stayed when he was in town earlier this year. I understand Ahmadinejad asked for the Führer suite when he was here.
Last night we had the great good fortune of having National Review's Jay Nordlinger join my daughter, my friend Kirk Kolbo and me for dinner at Hearth, Kirk's favorite New York restaurant. During dinner Jay brought up the subject of Iran. He mentioned that one of the greatest frustrations he has experienced as a journalist was the inattention paid to John Negroponte's comments in an interview Jay reported on last year.
Jay describes Negroponte as the former director of national intelligence, former ambassador in Iraq, former a lot of things. "Let me tell you what he said about Iran and nukes -- sobering words, given what the man must know," Jay wrote. Jay asked Negroponte: "What about Iran and the bomb?
Negroponte responded: "I think that's what they want, I think that's what they're headed towards, I think that's what they're going to get."
Given the source, Jay thought that was a newsworthy quote. He reported it online in NRO's Corner, in National Review itself, and in a other accounts of the interview. Jay returned to the quote again earlier this year. "I wrote about it everywhere but in my concert reviews," he said. Jay thinks attention should be paid and something done about it, and I agree with him.
November 6, 2010
The fun begins early
Col. Allen West, the fiery African-American conservative Republican elected to Congress on Tuesday, says he will join the Congressional Black Caucus. As I stated on election night, it's going to be fun having West in Congress.
Power Line Bookshelf
On Delaware and lesser blunders
Hans Bader, in the Examiner, blames the Tea Party Express for costing Republicans three Senate pick-ups. He cites its support during the primaries of three losing Republican candidates - Christine O'Donnell in Delaware; Sharron Angle in Nevada; and Ken Buck in Colorado.
There's little doubt that O'Donnell's nomination cost the Republicans a pick-up. Since Mike Castle is a centrist, not a conservative, we should think of Delaware as a half seat lost for conservatives. But conservatives who are serious about stopping the Obama express should not be willing to squander even half of a Senate seat.
Nor is Bader's criticism a case of "twenty-twenty hindsight." When the Tea Party Express threw its support behind O'Donnell, it was clear that she had almost no chance of winning. Bader said so at the time, as I did, and we were right.
I'm less inclined to criticize those who supported Angle and Buck in their primaries. Angle did under-perform, as I argued here, and there was good reason to believe at the time of the primary that at least one of her Republican opponents (Sue Lowden) would run a stronger race. But Angle was never a no-hoper. Nor, given Reid's fairly convincing win, can I say with confidence that Lowden would have defeated Reid. To be sure, she was ahead of Reid in their head-to-head polls, but so was Angle at times.
The Colorado race was so close that it's easy to believe that even a marginally better candidate than Ken Buck would have won it for the Republicans. And Buck reportedly did not run a great campaign. But at the time of the Republican primary, he was doing about as well in the polls against the incumbent Democrat as his main opponent, Jane Norton. Moreover, there were Colorado Republican insiders who believed that, notwithstanding Buck's gaffe during the primary campaign, he was seasoned and attractive enough to run a solid campaign.
My point is not to disagree with Bader's analysis of these races, which I think is good. My point is that there's quite a bit of uncertainty in politics, and we shouldn't expect the Tea Party Express, or any other outfit or individual, to make flawless decisions about whom to support in primaries. Indeed, it seems almost inevitable that a party will be unable to nominate optimal candidates across-the-board.
We should, however, expect conservatives to avoid obvious blunders like the one in Delaware. Let's hope that, going forward, they do.
Egotism trumps pragmatism at the Obama White House
The postmortems offered by defeated candidates cannot always be taken at face value, especially if the candidate lost by a big margin. But Alex Sink, the defeated Democratic candidate for governor of Florida lost by a small margin (67,000 votes out of more than 5 million cast) and her analysis of that narrow defeat seems quite plausible.
Sink blamed her defeat on the "tone deafness" of the Obama White House. She told Politico that White House operatives "weren't interested in hearing my opinion on what was happening on the ground with the oil spill, and they never acknowledged that they had problems with the acceptance of health care reform." Health care reform was a particular problem for Democrats in Florida, where old voters are especially influential. Seniors are not amused, for example, by the slashing of Medicare funding.
President Obama should not necessarily be expected to tailor his national agenda to suit the needs of gubernatorial candidates or even members of Congress. For example, Obama viewed the passage of Obamacare type reform as morally imperative, and thus not properly the subject of raw political objections.
However, the administration should at least have been willing to allow candidates whose constituents aren't enamored with his left-liberalism to distance themselves from the president. According to Sink, , though, the White House fought her attempts to create such distance. Here's Politco:
Multiple Democratic sources familiar with Sink's campaign said administration officials were more concerned about the candidate's effort to separate herself from the White House than with helping her win. She needed some distance and the smart thing to do was allow her to have that distance," said a Democratic operative familiar with the race. "That would have served their long-term interest."
But when the candidate criticized the White House response to the oil spill and specifically a summer speech by Vice President Joe Biden in a Politico article, an angry administration official called her to demand she "walk back" her assessment, said two sources familiar with the situation. Sink didn't deny the exchange.
It seems clear enough that this administration's egotism trumps its alleged pragmatism.
UPDATE: Here's another amusing tidbit from the Politico story:
In the spring, when Sink's campaign was adrift and desperately in need of a shake-up, there was a meeting in Washington with a group of senior Democrats. Following the meeting, a mid-level White House political official sent out a one-page memo that operatives saw as so illustrative of the Obama team's cluelessness about the race that they had it laminated and regularly mocked it. The document, obtained by Politico, included such numbered headers as "Hire Key Staff" and "Develop and present a holistic campaign plan."
Rubio Tuesday
The new issue of the Weekly Standard puts Marco Rubio on the cover and features Andrew Ferguson on Rubio's election night speech as well as Stephen Hayes on Rubio's campaign.
By contrast with President Obama, Rubio has made a theme of American exceptionalism. Both Ferguson and Hayes quote Rubio on this topic. Today he touches on the theme at the outset of the weekly Republican address:
America is the single greatest nation on earth, a place without equal in the history of all mankind. A place built on free enterprise, where the employee can become the employer. Where small businesses are started every day in a spare bedroom and where someone like me, the son of a bartender and a maid, can become a United States Senator.
I know about the unique exceptionalism of our country. Not because I read about it in a book, I've seen it through my own eyes. You see, I was raised in a community of exiles, by people who lost their country, people who once had dreams like we do today, but had to come to a foreign shore to find them.
For some their dreams were answered here in America, but many others found a new dream. To leave their children with the kinds of opportunities they themselves never had. And that is what we must do as a nation. To fulfill our sacred obligation to leave the next generation of Americans a better America than the one we inherited. And that is what this election was about.
This doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter. America is exceptional because it is the only country in history founded on a proposition. America is founded on the assertion of the self-evident truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This can't be said often enough; everything important flows from it. Here is the video of Rubio's talk today.
Live to New York
I'm heading off to New York this morning with my attorney friend Kirk Kolbo. I'll be visiting my oldest daughter, checking in with the Randy Altschuler campaign about the proceedings in the tabulation of the vote in New York's First Congressional District, and attending the sold out Claremont Institute dinner featuring author/commentator Mark Helprin on Monday night. I hope to post a report or two live from New York but will be out of commission most of the day today.
November 5, 2010
President Obama's excellent asian adventure
President Obama is being ridiculed for the extravagance of his trip to Asia. A report from India that Obama's trip will cost $200 million a day for two days in India is implausible and baseless. However, the White House will not say what the actual price tag nor, to my knowledge, has it denied that he be will accompanied by an enormous entourage the accommodation of which will be hugely expensive.
Instead, the administration's talking point is that presidential trips abroad are always expensive. That's true. But Obama seems to be taking things to a new level. After his 2009 trip to Moscow, I wrote:
My sources [in Russia] were amused by the flotilla of Air Force jets that brought Obama and his entourage to Moscow. They were also taken with the fact that Obama and his crew took over the Ritz Carlton hotel, where rooms start at around $1,200 per night and the presidential suite goes for $13,000. The Marriott had been good enough for Presidents Clinton and Bush. Rooms there -- described as similar to Marriott rooms in the U.S. -- can be had for around $350.
But about the substance of the Asia trip? Obama is spinning it as a job creation vehicle, and that's understandable given the state of our economy and the criticism of the trip's cost. But I believe that the primary reason for the visit is, and should be, diplomacy.
And the apparent diplomatic calculus of this trip makes sense. As Fareed Zakaria explains, recent Chinese behavior, especially towards Japan, has hastened the inevitable desire of Asian states to see the U.S. serve as a counter-balance to China. Until now, however, Obama has been fixated on the U.S. relationship with the Chinese. He has held what the Washington Post calls a record number of meetings with China's leader, while essentially ignoring India, for example.
This visit kicks off in India, where Obama will spend three days. That's a signal that Obama is shifting considerable focus to India, in line with President Bush's approach. Reports that, in Indonesia, Obama plans to deliver a speech, one of whose themes will be democracy, also suggest a policy more in line with Bush's.
Obama's focus on India also has implications for U.S. relations with Pakistan. The president will spend three days in India, while bypassing Pakistan altogether. In recent years, by contrast, American presidents have typically coupled visits to India with at least a brief stop in Pakistan.
Pakistan's leaders reportedly are not amused. But given Pakistan's sorry performance in dealing with radical Islamic insurgents, you can make the case that the U.S. should not be trying to amuse its leaders right now. Perhaps the message should instead be that our patience has limits and that our friendship must be earned.
The question, though, is whether Obama has it in him to stand by the policy implications of the itinerary of this trip. If China shows its displeasure with Obama's seeming new direction, will Obama kow-tow? If Pakistan's leaders react with passive-aggression to Obama's new-found interest in closer relations with India, will Obama tilt back away from India?
In these sorts of matters, I often find it useful to ask what George W. Bush would do, and then assume Obama will do the opposite. For this reason, among others, I suspect that the answer to both questions in the previous paragraph is: yes.
Joke pundit suspended by joke network
The news of the day is that MSNBC has suspended Keith Olbermann without pay for his contributions to three Democratic candidates this election season. Olbermann is said to have violated the company policy prohibiting the talent from making political contributions. Such contributions give the appearance that the talent might have an interest that colors otherwise impartial reportage.
We all know that MSNBC -- featuring Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and the other paragons of journalism that fill its on-air ranks -- is full of left-wing operatives in the tank for the Obama administration. Earlier this year Mika Brzezinski confessed to "working with the White House" on talking points (regarding the Gulf oil spill). She even read the White House talking points on the air: Brzezinski made no bones about what she was doing, and no one was particularly shocked to learn that the talent was reading Democratic Party talking points on the air.
What is to be said? The Olbermann case features a joke pundit working for a joke network. It is impossible to take seriously.
The Altschuler surprise
Republican challenger Randy Altschuler appeared to have suffered a heartbreaking loss to incumbent Democratic incumbent Tim Bishop in New York's First Congressional District on Tuesday night by a margin of 3,400 votes. After a recanvass of voting machines that was completed today, however, Altschuler took the lead by 392 votes over Bishop. A similar scenario has taken place in the Twenty-Fifth Congressional District, where Republican challenger Ann Marie Buerkle is now leading incumbent Democratic Dan Maffei by 659 votes. We'll be updating this story as we can, but don't take your eye off New York yet.
A center-center country
Charles Krauthammer sees Tuesday's election results as a "return to the norm" in which "a center-right country restore[d] the normal congressional map." But I find it difficult to view this election as defining the normal map.
I say this mostly because the election occurred under abnormal (I hope) economic conditions. When the country votes in the shadow of almost 10 percent unemployment, the outcome is unlikely to tell us where things stand politically in normal times.
In addition, the party in power typically (though certainly not invariably) suffers losses at this stage of the cycle. And this president and his party demonstrated an extraordinary disregard for the will of the electorate, which had been communicated clearly through public opinion polls and the election of Scott Brown.
The last of these points convinces me that it did not require a "center-right" country to deal the Democrats the "shellacking" they received this week. A "center-center" country could be expected to produce Tuesday's results in response to the hard-left agenda pushed by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democrats.
I think our country is more "center-center" than center-right. The political "center" is a relational concept. No one feels compelled to locate it where it was 50, 20, or even 10 years ago. Rather, the center is supposed to be at the midpoint of present mainstream political thinking.
It's possible, of course, for the public's deep political sentiments to shift quickly enough for the conventional wisdom about the ideological midpoint to be seriously in error. It has happened before. But, for the reasons stated above, I don't see compelling evidence that it has happened now.
If the Dems had lost 60 plus House seats with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, I'd be more inclined to perceive a fundamental shift. But keep in mind that the Dems lost almost that many seats in 1994 during reasonably good economic times. This defeat prompted Bill Clinton to declare that the era of big government is over. Yet by the end of the decade, big government was polling pretty well.
Investigate this, Part Two
Thanks to the many readers who contributed ideas about which subjects the new House should investigate now that the Republicans are in control of that body. The leading issue so far is the auto industry bail out/takeover. One reader raised these questions:
Why did the government bailout GM and leave the underlying issues for their bankruptcy in place (ex - union pensions). Further, what were the criteria for the creation of the board of directors? What is the government's plan for the future? Would they ever be willing to divest their interest in the company if it does not return to profitability without public money once the IPO is out?
Immigration came in second. As in this email:
One thing I'd like to see investigated is ICE, specifically the non-enforcement of immigration law, the dismissal of deportation procedures, the leaked memo from staffers and the Obama administration's general backdoor amnesty approach. If there is one agency that demands congressional oversight it's ICE.
I think both of these subjects are strong candidates to be investigated.
Other subjects received mention, but the auto industry and immigration were cited most frequently.
The 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellowships
The Phillips Foundation is accepting applications for the 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Program. Print and online journalists with less than 10 years of professional experience (like me) are eligible. The program is for journalists who share the Foundation's mission to advance constitutional principles, a democratic society, and a vibrant free enterprise system.
The Phillips Foundation will award $50,000 full-time fellowships and $25,000 part-time fellowships to undertake and complete a one-year project of the applicant's choosing focusing on journalism supportive of American culture and free society. In addition there are separate fellowships on the environment, on the benefits of free-market competition, and on law enforcement.
Those interested in applying should visit the Phillips Foundation's website, or contact the Foundation at 1 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 620, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-250-3887; email: info@thephillipsfoundation.org.
Support Renee Ellmers
Renee Ellmers has prevailed by 1,600 votes against Democratic incumbent Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge in North Carolina's Second Congressional District. Etheridge has demanded a recount. Yesterday Ellmers posted an update regarding the recount.
In her update Ellmers notes that she is getting no financial help from the NRCC in connection with the recount, that she has retained 11 lawyers -- one for each of her district's 11 counties -- to represent her in the recount, and that she needs a minimum of $50,000 for legal assistance. The number sounds low to me, but there is no question that she needs help. Please consider supporting her with a contribution here.
In case you need help remembering who Etheridge is and why he should be retired, check out the video below. Etheridge was set off by the question asked on the street outside a Nancy Pelosi fundraiser: "Do you fully believe in the Obama agenda?" Now that may be a difficult question for a Democratic congressman from a swing district in North Carolina, but it didn't even necessarily call for a response. Rep. Etheridge could easily have ignored it and gone on his merry way. Instead Etheridge went ballistic. Perhaps the most obvious point demonstrated by the video is either that Etheridge is unfit for high office, or that he's a mean drunk, or both.
UPDATE: My old friend Lorie Byrd is working for the Ellmers campaign and provides this report in response to my request for information: "We asked the NRCC for help after the election and they said they did not have funds to provide to us for the recount. We have received no money from them. Thankfully, late yesterday afternoon Chairman Steele personally called the campaign and committed money from the RNC toward the recount. Also yesterday afternoon we received pledges of donations from many of the NC delegation of representatives including Congressman Walter Jones, who has been a big supporter of Renee from back even during the primary. We have now received pledges of support from other sitting members of Congress outside of NC as well. The response we have gotten from individuals online has been wonderful, thanks in great part to all the bloggers who have stepped up to inform their readers about the situation. We can use all the help we can get so any additional efforts to alert readers to the campaign's recount fund are very much appreciated."
Annals of the welfare state
Daniel Hannan reports on life on the dole in the United Kingdom:
Can you guess what they do for a living, the appalling protestors gathered outside the Old Bailey to support Roshonara Choudhry, who was given a life sentence for trying to murder an MP? That's right: they're living on benefits, one claiming to suffer from chronic fatigue disorder. (Although he was evidently not too fatigued to spend his day bellowing "British troops must die!")
I've blogged before, in the context of Gaza, about the way in which unconditional subventions help create an almost ideal terrorist habitat. I wonder whether the same thing might apply to our own country. A surprising number of radical preachers are supported by the state, and most of the second set of Tube bombers were living on handouts.
Perhaps, if that option had been closed, some of these alienated young men might have become successful entrepreneurs instead of working themselves into a rage against the hand that fed them.
Whether or not they would have become successful entrepreneurs, life on the dole should not be an option that is open to them.
The madness of King Barney
I'd rather celebrate the outstanding candidates who were elected to office on Tuesday than decry the miscreants who survived, but we must make an exception for the case of Barney Frank. In the video below, Frank gives a victory speech that is just about all affliction and misery, wormwood and gall.
Oh, the indignity of having to engage an opponent and seek the consent of the governed. I would say this has to be seen to be believed. Watching the video, I recalled one notable reaction to Richard Nixon's victory speech in 1972: "The bastard can't even be gracious in victory." It is in fact a comment more appropriate to Frank's speech than Nixon's.
Glenn Reynolds posted a link to the video at Hot Air with the following comment and updates:
BARNEY FRANK SURVIVED SEAN BIELAT'S CHALLENGE, but as this "train-wreck" victory speech demonstrates, it really got under his skin and he's lashing out in what looks more like an angry concession speech. I think Barney Frank is actually hurt that he had to take it, not just dish it out this time around. But the Tea Party movement has not yet begun to dish . . . .
But Frank's childish behavior provides a good lesson in how to deal with the political class. Mock them, and don't treat them with the respect they -- wrongly -- feel is their due. They're not used to being challenged. Keep it up, and odds are they'll either quit, or embarrass themselves fatally.
UPDATE: Reader Kevin Greene emails: "Remember, Glenn ... Barney Frank had to shell out $200,000 of his own money to fund his last-minute commercials since nobody wants to donate to him any more. That's gotta STING!"
ANOTHER UPDATE: Robert Ferrigno writes: "I think you're missing the real roots of Barney's rage. Yes he won, but now he's no longer the chairman of the house banking committee. He's just another backbencher. That's what he's angry at."
MORE: Reader Diane Allocco writes:
I think Barney is still cranky that he had to campaign without scorn and condescension toward his opponent. Frank's entire intellectual stance is that any opponent or interlocutor is an idiot. This tactic was denied him by the obvious intellectual seriousness and experiential heft (harvard, even) of Beilat. Sneering derision is the anchor of Frank's soul; it is the coherence principle of his personality. For the first time in his adult life, I'd bet, he couldn't deploy it -- not sure he will ever recover.
Well, that's just tragic.
Margery Eagan also took an especially good go at Frank's speech in "Sorry, Barney Frank, but you can't be trusted."
UPDATE: Reader Kevin O'Meara comments: "I also think we should establish Club Barney among conservatives, to make it clear to King Barney that he is going to face an energetic, well-financed opponent every election until he is defeated or retires. I sent Sean $50 this time - I'll send Barney's opponent more next time. 2010? Welcome to the rest of your life, Barney..."
November 4, 2010
Investigate this
At Ricochet, Emily Esfahani Smith has written a post called "Let the Investigations Begin." They can begin soon because Republicans will soon control the House and thus be able to use the subpoena power to investigate whatever they chose to.
This is a welcome power, in part because it serves as a potential deterrent to egregious future wrongdoing by the administration. But it's a power that should be used judiciously. In my opinion, the public elected a Republican Congress for the purpose of repealing Democratic legislative excesses, preventing new overreaching legislation, and bringing spending under control. It did not elect a Republican Congress to persecute the executive branch.
With this in mind, let's look at the five areas of possible investigation that Emily, per the Daily Beast, has listed. They are: the Joe Sestak deal, the new Black Panther Party, the BP spill, the "czars," and the removal of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
I would put the Sestak deal and the BP spill at the bottom of this list. To wallow in these matters strikes me as backward looking. Sestak lost and the spill response has already been investigated by a commission which issued a report critical of the White House.
The administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party case is worthy of an investigation as part of a broader inquiry into the willingness of the Obama Justice Department's enforce civil rights laws in a racially neutral manner. There is reason to believe that DOJ is not willing to enforce these laws in cases where the rights of non-minorities are violated. It needs to understand that Congress will not tolerate such a double standard.
The "czars" began as an annoying, but not terribly threatening, phenomenon. But now, Obama has placed czars in top positions at the commanding heights of our economy. Specifically, he has bypassed the Senate confirmation procedure by (1) installing Don Berwick, via recess appointment, as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and (2) making Elizabeth Warren a "special adviser" so she can create and oversee the new consumer financial protection bureau. This should prompt an investigation. It should also spur the House to take action to thwart the two agencies in question until President Obama submits to the normal confirmation procedure.
At first glance, the removal of, Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, may seem insufficiently consequential to justify a backward looking investigation. However, as Stanley Kurtz points out in Radical-in-Chief, Obama included $1.4 billion in the 2011 budget to create a force of government-funded community organizers. His aim is to boost his political program while creating an army of young adherents in the process. The firing of Walpin appears to have an attempt to clear the way for this form of abuse. In this context, it is worthy of investigation by the House.
If readers have additional subjects they think should be investigated, we'd be happy to hear about them.
Which way in alaska for the nrsc?
Marc Thiessen wants to know what the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is going to do for Joe Miller. Part of the "test," he says, is whether the NRSC is "sending teams of lawyers to Alaska to challenge. . .write-in ballots."
I can understand why the NRSC might want to have someone on the ground in Alaska to make sure Miller gets a fair shake as write-in ballots are challenged. Miller is, after all, the Republican nominee, and as such the NRSC should support him within reason.
But I hope Thiessen isn't suggesting that the NRSC try to disqualify the votes of those who, for example, wrote "Murkowsky" instead of "Murkowski." The people of Alaska have the right to select their own Senator. The NRSC should not be a party to the disenfranchisement of voters who chose Murkowski, but couldn't quite spell her name correctly.
There are also pragmatic reasons why the NRSC shouldn't be a party to a willy-nilly attack on Murkowski ballots. Even some of Miller's supporters admit that Murkowski is likely to prevail. If so, she will remain part of the Republican Senate caucus.
That's no reason why the NRSC shouldn't support Miller to the extent he has legitimate grievances with the vote counting. But a litigation assault that pays insufficient heed to the merits might alienate Murkowski, with whom Republican Senators will likely have to work in the next Congress.
Thiessen, a Bush administration speechwriter whose work I admire, warns that "the Tea Party activists are watching." But the right way for the NRSC to impress Tea Party activists is through the positions they take in Washington on matters of policy; not by attempting in Alaska to thwart the will of citizens who attempted to vote for a Republican candidate.
What happened in Nevada?
Looking at the vote in Nevada on a county-by-county basis, I am struck by how poorly Sharron Angle did. The Republican congressional candidates (there were three of them) ran ahead of Angle in all 17 Nevada counties, usually by a considerable margin.
Consider Washoe County, the state's second most populous. Republican Dean Heller trounced Democrat Nancy Price 80,055 to 51,571. Yet Angle lost the county to Reid, 70,263 to 63,216 (voter registration is divided evenly between the two parties). In Carson City, Heller defeated Price by margin of more than 2-1. Angle, though, could only edge Reid by a margin of 9,352 to 8,714.
Expecting Angle to match Heller, a popular Republican incumbent, vote-for-vote is unfair. But consider Clark County. The vast majority of voters there were represented by one of two Democratic incumbents - Dina Titus (who lost on Tuesday) and long-serving, popular Shelly Berkley. Reid outpolled Angle in Clark County by approximately 60,000 votes. The Democratic congressional candidates outpolled the Republican candidates by only about 39,000.
By my calculations, Angle could have just about won the race by matching the Republican congressional candidates in Clark County and reversing the Reid-Angle tally in Washoe County (which still would have left her 10,000 votes behind Heller's performance there). And that's without any changes in the other 15 counties where Angle underperformed (often substantially) in comparison to the congressional vote.
Most conservatives, including me, were overly optimistic about Republican chances in the Senate. This was due, I think, to our understanding that this was a wave election and our faith that the Senate vote would pretty fully reflect the wave.
It didn't in Nevada. The reason can be debated. The possibility that the Republicans nominated a much less than optimal candidate cannot be dismissed.
NOTE: This post has been modified slightly to clean up the math.
