A PROFILE IN COWARDICE: Sen. Harry Reid cancels speech at Mormon Church after protesters threaten to show up.

Maybe Reid deserves a “pass” on this one, since apparently the event was nonpublic. But still ... how many times has the left given conservatives a pass?

Link from Instapundit.

IMAGINE THAT: If the experience of this state’s two Democratic House members is any indication, the raw emotion and mistrust emanating from last summer’s congressional town halls never really went away.

And it’s unlikely that it will before November.

Link via Power Line.

SURPRISE: Violent white racist teabaggers come in black – and brown, and yellow, and red, and ...

DO “INFORMED” VOTERS MAKE BETTER CHOICES? The gist of this study is that Americans vote on their convictions, not policy details – and it’s not a bad thing.

OBAMACARE WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE UNICORNS AND RAINBOWS: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!

Please read it all, but here are two money quotes:

God knows there's plenty of evidence that Congress isn't a repository of rocket scientists.

Yes, and adding 30-40 IQ points would barely get them to the mean.

We're governed not just by people who do screw up constantly, but by people who can't help but screw up constantly.

And if that doesn’t make you skeptical of Big Government, nothing will.

AN ABUNDANCE OF CHOICE IN D.C. “An interesting and welcome development this year is the decision by the traditionally outmatched Republican Party to field a full slate of candidates for the ward seats in November's general election. It will be the first time in memory ... that the party has competed in four district-based seats in the same year....”

And it will be the first time in my memory if the Washington Post endorses even one of them.

THINGS ARE SO BAD IN AMERICAN MANUFACTURING that we cannot even make shoddy products anymore. We have to import them from China.

Read it all.

A WARNING FROM DAN QUAYLE: Don’t let the Tea Party go Perot. Here are some of Quayle’s (paraphrased) observations.

Uninvited by the liberal Democrat establishment and prompted only by their convictions, millions of Americans united against an unjustifiable expansion of federal power.

If real influence is the goal of the Tea Party movement, there's an example in the late 1970s tax revolt movement that began in California and exerted enormous influence on races across the country, helping elect Ronald Reagan in 1980.

The Tea Partiers are concerned, above all, with fiscal matters and national security; they are not focused on the social issues. If the Tea Party remains an independent political force in 2012, with no partisan ties, so much the better. It will force both political parties to speak to its issues, compete for its votes and heed its example of a confident and unapologetic challenge to a liberal president and Congress

Since the very first Tea Party gatherings, the progressive Left and national news media [yes, it’s redundant] has covered this movement in the only way it knows how -- as something grubby, impertinent and possibly dangerous. To them, the most "unhealthy" aspect of the Tea Party is that candidates with its support are winning, and many more are likely to win this fall.

The movement has enlisted Americans of every background in political activism, some for the first time, and it appeals to citizens on the strength of ideas rather than party affiliation.

Quayle was writing primarily to Republicans, which is why I paraphrased his message. America is a center-right country, with the emphasis on center. Tea Partiers must make it clear to all candidates, Democrat and Republican, that they will vote their convictions for liberty and a smaller Constitutional government over political party.

FIVE MYTHS about your taxes.

NEWSROOM DIVERSITY: Falling short could be fatal.

The Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander, writing on “diversity” in the newsroom, appears to believe that news is color and gender based. Reader Meredith Ellsworth takes exception:

I was appalled at ombudsman Andrew Alexander's column "Newsroom diversity: Falling short could be fatal" [Sunday Opinion, March 26], in which Alexander defines "diversity" largely by color. He and the people he quoted appeared to assume that black people are interested only in "black" news, whatever that is.

Consultant Bobbi Bowman's contention that "You can't cover your community unless you look like your community" is insulting to serious reporters as well as to the "community" and could be construed as racism.

A little more balance and some shoe-leather journalism in the news section might rebuild your readership more than trying to conform coverage to your idea of what minorities want to hear. It's just possible that African Americans, Latinos, Italians and Afghans might all be interested in the same news.

Alexander did get one thing right: if the Washington Post is going to remain competitive, the “key will be whether The Post can deliver content that's relevant and credible.” It’s a pity he doesn’t understand what he wrote. If he had a truly “diverse” newsroom, he might.

Goodbye, Washington Post. Will the last newsroom employee please turn out the environmentally correct, ecologically friendly flourescent light?