Democratic Party activist Susan McCann (Your Views, Feb. 10) took issue with my analysis in ScissorTales last week that President Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” message falls flat in Oklahoma. Of course the evidence for this is overwhelming: Obama didn’t win in even the most heavily-Democratic counties in a state in which Democrats held a significant registration advantage over Republicans. I have little reason to believe Obama will do any better the second time around. But the rope of hope is always available for the grasping. McCann said it’s only a matter of time before “progressives” will outnumber conservatives in Oklahoma City. We heard something similar in 2010 from supporters of 5th Congressional District Democratic nominee Billy Coyle, who said a Democrat could indeed win the central Oklahoma seat that hasn’t been held by a Democrat since 1974. That seat was open in 2010, and Coyle was an excellent nominee. But he got less than 35 percent of the vote  —  and Obama wasn’t on the same ballot. Perhaps it’s only a matter of time before a Democrat will represent Oklahoma City in Congress. It would help if the state would grow enough to restore the sixth congressional seat it lost after the 2000 Census. Were that to happen, redistricting could center the district more in the urban core and less in the fringes. As things now stand, though, Republicans would be in charge of the redistricting. Still, Democrats should hope that the state GOP’s pro-growth policies will lead to a population change that will result in adding a sixth seat. Right now the Republicans are headed by a governor who took 57.5 percent of the vote in the county that McCann says is steadily marching toward a “progressive” majority. The governor’s predecessor, moderate Democrat Brad Henry (a frequent target of scorn from “progressive” Dems) won the county with 63 percent. Yet the moderate Democrat nominated for governor in 2010 got 42.5 percent. Is this really a matter of time? Or is it a matter of values?

Photo by Nate Billings, The Oklahoman

Although the Obama administration may be slow learners, we give them credit for listening to protests about proposed changes in laws for child farm laborers. The U.S. Department of Labor backtracked on a set of rules that would make many farming chores illegal for children younger than 16. The changes would have had a negative impact on America’s family farms and ranches. “The department’s proposals, though well intentioned, were far too encompassing and limiting to farming youth,” said Ed Luttrell, president of the National Grange, a rural advocacy group. Where common sense is called for, federal regulators usually offer dust in the wind. Thankfully these proposed farm rules were blown away by protests from farm groups.

Photo by Paul B. Southerland, The Oklahoman

AP Photo

OK, stop the groaning. Delay is a classic how-the-mighty-have-fallen story. At his apex he was one of the most powerful men in Washington, leading the Republicans in the House and raising millions of dollars for GOP candidates with a style that earned him that descriptive nickname.

Delay claims he was railroaded in Travis County, one of the most Democratic counties in otherwise mostly Republican Texas. But a jury was convinced he maneuvered to illegally channel corporate donations to state House candidates in 2002. “Everything I did was covered by accountants and lawyers telling me what I had to do to stay within the law,” said Delay, who served in Congress from 1984 to 2006. “I can’t be remorseful for something I don’t think I did.” Remorseful or not, Delay appears headed for another house, the Big House. He is appealing.

A couple of points. As mentioned, there must be a number of unhappy campers in the Democratic cloakroom because Pelosi is still leading their parade — even more than were willing to oppose her publicly. (On the flip side, it’s amazing that a guy like Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly, who eked out an 800-vote victory in November over an opponent he beat by 12 percentage points in 2008, still voted for Pelosi.)

As for Boren and others who defied her, wow! The old adage says you don’t take on the king (or queen, as it were) unless you’re sure you can knock ‘em off the throne. Pelosi’s still there. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle those awkward situations in the House elevators. Seriously, keep an eye on Boren and the others to see if Pelosi follows through with another old saying: Don’t get mad, get even.

Now comes a report from Tacoma, Wash., that the father of a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan was told Obama doesn’t regularly phone individual families of war dead. Ouch. Here’s how it looks: The commander-in-chief can chit-chat with an NFL owner about resuscitating Michael Vick’s football career but can’t find the time to talk to the grieving parents of a dead soldier. “That burns,” said Patrick Collins, father of U.S. Army Sgt. Sean Collins, who was laid to rest recently.  “Any soldier that gets killed in action, you’d think the president would be calling someone in the family,” Collins told the Tacoma News Tribune.  “There’s no politics in it. His predecessor did it.” Double ouch.

Unfortunately, the newspaper reports, the Collins family suffered another slight when a sympathy letter arrived from the office of  U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. Good intentions, poor execution: The News Tribune reports the last paragraph of the letter misidentified the fallen soldier.

That was then, this is now: Obama’s the “comeback kid” after Democrat majorities in the lame-duck Congress passed some items on his wish list — just before the dreaded Republicans take over the House and bulk up in the Senate. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed, the New START arms control treaty was ratified and a new health care package for 9/11 first responders was created. Obama called it proof Democrats and Republicans can work together — under his leadership, of course — and scooted off to Hawaii for a luau. Stories appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times and on Web sites marveling at Obama’s resurgence. Amazing, right? Uh, no.

Lest we forget, Obama also absorbed a tax deal with Republicans that has ‘em rioting over at Moveon.org, and he and his Hill allies retreated on a gargantuan spending bill. DREAM Act legislation creating a citizenship path for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as children, coveted by Obama, fizzled. As for Obama’s victories, the DADT repeal and New START both had significant Republican support all along. It’s not like Obama rose up and decreed their passage. Besides, as Jennifer Rubin writes on her Washington Post blog, Republicans wouldn’t trade victories on taxes, spending and the DREAM Act for wins on DADT and the treaty — “not in a million years.”

So has Obama got the “mojo” back? Unclear. Passing stuff with the help of a bunch of Democrats who won’t be back next month is hardly an objective test. Let’s see how things go when the 112th Congress comes to town before we start laying it on about comebacks.

Things get a little harrier when there’s an issue that attracts attention beyond the Beltway, such as legislation creating a health care package for 9/11 first responders. Coburn was opposed mostly because the spending wasn’t offset and because it bore the aroma of a new entitlement. Supporters easily morphed that position into attacks that Coburn didn’t care about first responders. Eventually, a compromise was worked out, but not before Coburn was portrayed as a heartless villain.

The issue illustrates one of Coburn’s main points about Washington: You can’t cut anything. Yes, we know the bill’s not paid for, it was said. But the first responders are sooo deserving. Guess what: The same can be said of just about every Washington program. Each has a deserving constituency. No one’s more consistent than Sen. Coburn in their opposition to that way of thinking. If it occasionally lands him in hot water from a PR standpoint, so be it. He doesn’t care much about PR, either.

Speaking to newspaper and wire service reporters, Amos said combat service requires such a focus that no distractions can be permitted. He said repealing the policy would harm unit cohesion. A Defense Department survey of armed services personnel found 58 percent of Marine combat unit members said repealing DADT would be a negative (compared to 48 percent in Army combat units). “The Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” Amos said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital … Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.” Amos adds that if higher ups repeal the policy he’ll salute and move smartly to implement changes. But the odds are rising he won’t get that chance.

It’s hard to predict what will happen if the policy is changed. Most likely, some chaplains will welcome the change, others will adjust and still others will leave the service rather than do anything they would consider a faith compromise. “If there’s no protection for the chaplain to be able to speak according to his faith group, that might affect the number of chaplains we recruit or our ability to do our duty for the troops,” the Rev. Douglas Lee, a retired Presbyterian Air Force chaplain and brigadier general, told The Post.

As he’s explained many times, Inhofe believes the earmark moratorium is a lot of hot air over a relatively small amount of money (2 percent to 3 percent of total federal spending). And besides, he argues, the legislative branch is constitutionally empowered to appropriate funds. So, no, he’s not concerned about being a lone wolf on earmarks.

Nor on other stuff, either. He was an early opponent to the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill and his stalwart crusade against anti-global warming measures has earned plenty of bile from advocates. No matter. One of Inhofe’s favorite stories is about how he jetted to last year’s big climate change conference in Denmark, basically parachuting into Copenhagen for a couple of hours to be a one-man band in opposition — surrounded by a sea of people who didn’t agree with him. You need a tough hide to play the role of a voice crying out in the wilderness. Inhofe’s most certainly is.

According to Politico, former approps chairman Jerry Lewis of California wants another swing at the job. But that would require waiving the party’s term-limits rules. Lewis is known around Washington as the consummate appropriator — which is to say, the kind of insider who generally fared poorly in congressional elections earlier this month. Lots of Republicans and tea partiers want someone else to chair the committee, someone who will hold the line on earmarks and overall spending. After all, both were major themes in the just-concluded campaign.

But if not Lewis, who? Kentucky’s Harold Rogers would be next in line, but he, too, is a long-time committee member — whose commitment to spending restraint is automatically suspect. Politico reports Rogers is vowing allegiance to an earmarks ban and other reforms. And, big surprise, Rogers has been saying that waiving the term-limits rule would be a big mistake. It’ll be interesting to see how the leadership race pans out — Boehner will play a huge role — and whether fiscal hawks like Arizona’s Jeff Flake land spots on the committee. Certainly, both questions will be watched carefully by voters expecting change, not more of the same old, same old.

Republicans aren’t alone in seeing the political risks of Pelosi’s lingering leadership. Fox News reports a draft letter from defeated House Democrats, being circulated on Capitol Hill, urges her to step aside. “Many of us want the chance to run again and reclaim the seats that we lost on Tuesday,” the letter states. “With you as the leader of House Democrats, the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding.” There’s no indication who has or will sign the letter. But the fact such a missive is circulating suggests Pelosi might face significant push-back as the leadership vote approaches.