Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SATURDAY,  APRIL 17,  2010

COULD IT BE? – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  Dick Morris is possibly the most visible political analyst around.  He generally knows his stuff, and is making a very sweeping prediction about November:

HARRISBURG, Pa.—The man considered one of the premier sculptors of Bill’s Clinton’s re-election in 1996 predicted Friday night that Republicans would take control of the Senate and the House in mid-term elections this fall.

Noting that he keeps reading quotes from GOP leaders such as Republican National Chairman Michael Steele that they are “optimistic” about the elections this fall, Dick Morris told a packed dinner at the Pennsylvania Leadership Council: “I’ve got news—it’s not even going to be close, guys.”

And...

“Republicans will win the Senate with 52 or 53 seats,” Morris said without hesitation, “and the House will go Republican by 10 to 20 seats.”

COMMENT:  That's a tall order, and Morris's prediction places him as the most optimistic, from the GOP standpoint, of those risking predictions.

Morris's record is mixed.  After all, he wrote a book predicting that the 2008 presidential race would be between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton.  His argument this time is more persuasive, but I remain unconvinced that the GOP can do as well as he predicts.  He may be underestimating the power, diminished but still great, of the major media to twist events to Obama's favor, and the Democrats' own political machine.

Stuart Rothenberg, another respected analyst, will go so far as to say that major Republican gains in the house are "inevitable," but won't venture numbers beyond this:  "At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible."  It will take a gain of 39, as of now, to flip control of the House.

Tough.  But we can dream, can't we?  

April 17, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA SLIDES AGAIN – AT 6:59 P.M. ET:  After a brief spurt upward, President Obama's standing in the Rasmussen daily tracker is following his usual pattern...a slide downward:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

And...

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

This result confirms other polls.  The president's inability to sustain a bump upward appears to reflect an overall dissatisfaction with him, even a growing dislike of him, as opposed to opposition on any particular issue.  And there's this:

While some Democrats are seeking to brand Republicans as the “Party of No,” a narrow plurality of voters nationwide views that label as a good thing. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say it’s good to the Party of No in today’s political environment while 34% say it’s bad.

That is only one result on this question.  If it reflects a trend, then clearly the public is in a negative, rejectionist mood, just fine for our side in November...if the trend can be sustained.  Other polls also suggest that the American people are sending a signal to Washington to slow down.  Washington won't, since the forces that control the Democratic Party realize that they may only have from now until January, when the new Congress assembles, to push through their leftist agenda.

April 17, 2010     Permalink

THE TRAP – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  Republicans must be careful not to fall into a classic Democratic trap, in which the GOP is linked with big business, and against the "little guy."  That may be happening right now:

President Barack Obama took a swipe Saturday at top Senate Republicans for opposing a financial regulatory reform bill, accusing them of taking their cues from Wall Street special interests.

Obama suggested that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came out against the overhaul bill after meeting with two dozen top Wall Street executives – a charge that Republicans have denied.

“Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we’ve proposed. In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts – when he knows that it would do just the opposite.”

The meeting took place two weeks ago, and has become a Democratic talking point as the White House argues that lobbyists are mobilizing against the measure. Republicans have responded to the charge by pointing out numerous Democratic fundraisers hosted by Wall Street executives.

COMMENT:  Michael Barone and other conservatives have correctly urged the Republican Party to get on board with financial reform.  That doesn't mean endorsing the administration's bill, of course.  But it does mean being pro-active and coming up with a convincing series of measures to prevent what happened in September of 2008.

Too often the Republicans have been seen as automatic allies of the fat cats.  In fact, Wall Street gave more money to Democrats in 2008 than to Republicans, but the image persists.  Financial reform is needed, just as health care reform is needed.  Here's an opportunity for the GOP to show that it can come up with effective, imaginative solutions, rather than just being the "party of no."

The shenanigans on Wall Street often have nothing to do with the "free enterprise system," but are merely gimmicks designed to extract bonuses from the nation's economy.  The nation has paid a heavy price. 

Democrats will lay many traps for Republicans between now and election day.  Republicans have a history of falling into them.

April 17, 2010    Permalink

RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE, MR. PRESIDENT – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  We caught Bill Clinton yesterday trying to link the tea party movement to anti-government violence.  Clinton made a great show, when leaving office, of placing his new headquarters in Harlem, New York.  Well, if he's so concerned about violence, maybe he'd better take a look at what's happening under his nose:

A massive gang takedown in Queens uncovered a rare alliance between Bloods and Crips and a ruthless plot to assassinate cops, authorities said Friday.

The revelations came as law enforcement unveiled the chilling results of long-running "Operation Under Siege" - 104 suspects, dozens of guns, two slayings and piles of drugs and cash.

The sprawling case was built on wiretaps - including recordings of gang associate Keith Livingston, who blabbed about plans to protect his drug turf by killing cops on patrol.

"He intended to position himself on rooftops and shoot police officers who were compromising his business in Far Rockaway and South Jamaica," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

"Before his deadly plans could be carried out, detectives arrested him and seized a defaced 9-mm. Hi-Point rifle, among other weapons."

Livingston's plot was only one facet of an investigation that began two years ago when police and prosecutors began looking into a drugs-and-guns network in Far Rockaway.

By Friday, they had arrested 104 people, closed two murder cases, and exposed ties between Far Rockaway Crips and the Bloods in South Jamaica.

COMMENT:  Domestic terrorism by anti-government groups is a legitimate concern.  But it is minor compared to the crime that goes on in America's cities every day.  Don't hear too much anguish about that.

Oh, and speaking of domestic terrorism, the former president might have shown some interest last year when an Army recruiter was gunned down by a Muslim extremist in Little Rock, Clinton's former stomping ground.   And I didn't hear much pain from the left after Ford Hood.  It's only people who want to cut spending and taxes who are a dire threat.

April 17, 2010     Permalink 

NEW GUY IN TOWN? – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Haley Barbour has established a superb reputation as governor of Mississippi.  It was inevitable that there'd be presidential talk:

When asked about his presidential ambitions, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told reporters earlier this year that “If you see me losing 40 pounds that means I’m either running or have cancer."

It might be time to start watching Barbour’s waistline.

POLITICO has learned that Barbour is weighing the prospect of a 2012 White House bid and convened a private meeting April 8 with a group of some of his oldest and closest advisers, some of whom flew in from the East Coast to Jackson, Miss. The gathering stretched for six hours, during which time the topic of a presidential run was discussed.

One adviser familiar with the state capital sit-down said that Barbour concluded that he did not need to make a decision now and that the group should meet again after this fall’s election.

Barbour, who as chairman of the Republican Governors Association is directing the GOP’s efforts to win the 37 governors' races this year, told his team that he would remain focused intently on November but also made clear that he would stay open to the prospect of a presidential run.

COMMENT:  Barbour would probably make an excellent president.  The only problem is getting there.

Look, let's be direct:  It's unfair, but Mississippi doesn't have exactly the best image throughout the United States.  Now, this is not the state that it was 50 years ago, but impressions change slowly over time.  The picture of the governor of Mississippi running against the first black president would probably make many Americans uncomfortable, and would provide a field day for our foreign enemies, especially if Barbour won. 

Again, it's unfair, but those are just the political realities.  Barbour's Mississippi base would probably cost him at least seven or eight percent of the vote, and would, by definition, bring out a huge black vote for Obama.  I'm not sure Barbour could be competitive.  If not, America loses a fine prospect.

April 17, 2010     Permalink

LOOK, UP IN THE SKY, IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE, IT'S...GROVEL-GIRL – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton, who is really getting into the rhythm of the Obama administration, informs us that there is great wisdom on energy in places that we, in our ignorance and bigotry, never realized:

(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told officials from more than 32 Western Hemisphere nations on Thursday that the United States is looking to those nations to develop better energy policies and practices.

“For our part, we believe the United States has a lot to learn,” Clinton said at the Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas in Washington.

She said the U.S. has a “deep respect” for the way nations such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica are developing clean fuels and adopting sustainable technologies: “We know we have some catching up to do, and we’re committed to doing just that,” Clinton said.

Yes, I was thinking just yesterday what a deep respect I had for the energy policy of Mexico, which is so advanced that it ships its excess citizens across our border without documentation.  Deep respect, deep respect.  Who are we compared to them?

The two-day summit, hosted by the Obama administration, stems from an energy partnership announced a year ago in which nations of the Western Hemisphere collaborate on creating “clean” energy and combating global warming.

I guess it'll keep Hillary out of more trouble for a few days.

April 17, 2010    Permalink

FRIDAY,  APRIL 16,  2010

THERE HE GOES AGAIN – AT 9:27 P.M. ET:  Bill Clinton, who by now should know better, is off on another campaign to brand the tea partiers as dangerous people.  Shame, shame, shame:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying "the words we use really do matter."

This is really vile.  First, the tea partiers aren't anti-government.  They're anti wasteful government, dishonest government, and incompetent government.  Second, the "slippery slope" argument doesn't wash, and never has.  Third, how about some equal rhetoric directed at those who called President Bush a Nazi...or, who called Bill Clinton a racist during the Democratic primaries of 2008?

The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn't trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.

Almost any language can be taken the wrong way.  And the violent individual doesn't need incendiary language.  What incendiary language motivated Lee Harvey Oswald?

On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.

Wrong.  It wasn't an anti-government conspiracy.  It was directed specifically against the United States Government as these twisted souls saw it.

"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.

What strikes me about this Democratic crowd is how patronizing its members are.  And, of course, the most patronizing are the ones who went to the "right" schools.  At one time, it was Republicans who acted that way.  What a role reversal.

"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."

Yes, and it applies to all sides, Bill.  And maybe you ought to direct your attention to the jihadists and their sympathizers, who really do plan violence, and carry it out.  We didn't hear much from you, Mr. President, after Fort Hood.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

CAN'T WAIT TO OPEN IT – AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  The illustrious president of Iran has written a letter to President Obama:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, calling on him to cooperate with the Islamic Republic, CNN reported on Friday citing the Iranian Republic News Agency (IRNA).

No, that's the problem.  He has cooperated, far too much. 

"Obama has only one way to remain in power and be successful," Ahmadinejad reportedly said in a speech earlier this week. "This way is Iran."

Obama has been pushing fellow members of the UN Security Council, particularly Russia and China, to support enacting a tougher package of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Washington fears Iran's nuclear program will allow Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies any such intention and says it only wants to generate electricity.

Right.  You know, now with the iPad coming out, a country needs so much more juice. 

Ahmadinejad said that it is not Iran that faces isolation from the world but rather the U.S. that finds itself in that situation.

"Once [the U.S. was] at the height of glory," he said. "Now they are collapsing. They have many economic and cultural problems. They have security problems in the world and their influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is vanishing."

The sad fact is that this is the way many countries now see the United States.  Obama, with his outreach/appeasement policies, and his disgraceful behavior toward our closest allies, like Britain, has weakened America, and it's being noticed. 

You can criticize George W. Bush for many things, but the world knew that the gun in his holster was loaded.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

FLORIDA – COME ON DOWN, MITT – AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  There's more on the hot, and getting hotter, Florida Senate race.  Mitt Romney will apparently endorse Marco Rubio tomorrow:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will endorse Marco Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida's Republican Senate primary.

Romney plans to announce the endorsement Saturday, according to a Romney adviser who asked to remain anonymous because the official announcement has not been made.

Romney is the third major 2008 presidential candidate to endorse Rubio. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have also endorsed the former House speaker.

The adviser said Crist and Rubio both sought the endorsement, but Romney believes Rubio has a stronger conservative record and is an idea-driven leader.

Romney's PAC is contributing $5,000 to Rubio's campaign and the former governor plans to campaign with Rubio on Monday.

Do we yawn now, or do we yawn later?  Rubio is 23 points ahead of Crist.  He needs Romney's endorsement like the proverbial hole in the head.  This again underlines my uneasiness over Romney's political instincts.  Had he endorsed Rubio earlier, it might have been meaningful.  Now it's an afterthought.  No one cares. 

And more on the Florida race:  Republican Governor Charlie Crist, who had been denying any rogue thoughts, is now hinting that he may indeed run as an independent.  This follows a Quinnipiac poll reporting that Crist would win such a race, although only by a few points.

Nothing is certain in Florida just yet.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS – AT 10:57 A.M. ET:  The very well-heeled Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, a money machine in overdrive, is being brought down to Earth this morning by a serious government charge, as The New York Times reports:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

COMMENT:  There is, of course, a presumption of innocence.  But we've heard about stuff like this for years, here in New York.  This, of course, has nothing to do with "free enterprise."  It is, if true, deception and corruption.  Jail terms should be served.

This is also the kind of thing that outrages ordinary Americans, who don't get ten-million-dollar bonuses or have four homes. 

Let's see how this turns out.  Bernie Madoff may soon have company in his federal housing.  Lovely rooms, just lovely.  And those curtains!

April 16, 2010    Permalink

BRITAIN TO VOTE – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  Britain will vote on May 6th.  This is of major concern to Americans since most of us, with the possible exception of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., think of the United Kingdom as one of our closest allies.  I know that's middle-class and old-fashioned, but I just can't help it. 

The Brits just held a TV debate.  The third party, the Liberals, clearly won, and that isn't good news for us.  We don't want to encourage Obama with progress overseas by like-minded eccentrics:

Labour and the Tories turned their guns on Nick Clegg today, hoping to bring the Liberal Democrat leader straight back to earth after his outsider’s victory in last night’s first televised campaign debate.

Sixty-one per cent of viewers chose Mr Clegg as the winner after the 90-minute showdown, according to an immediate online poll conducted by Populus for The Times. That compared with 22 per cent for David Cameron, the Tory leader and just 17 per cent for Gordon Brown.

Mr Clegg was back on the campaign trail after celebrating his win with a cigarette and a single glass of wine - and the mood on the Liberal Democrat battlebus was one of barely suppressed excitement despite claims that he had always been expected to shine on the big stage.

Lib Dem officials were hailing their leader’s performance at the Granada studios in Manchester as a potential “game-changer” in a close election which already appears to have given the party its best chance of government for a generation.

The "game-changer" is actually the possibility of a hung Parliament, leading to negotiations to form a government.  That's a mess.

It's apparent from press reports in Britain that many Brits don't actually know what the Liberal Dems stand for.  Think well to the left of Jimmah Carter, and you're almost there.  The libs want to give up Britain's nuclear deterrent at sea, the Trident submarines, and give amnesty to illegal aliens.  Sound familiar?

The libs won't win the largest number of votes, so they won't have the prime ministership, but they may force their way into a coalition.  That's grim, as they don't exactly love America.  On the other hand, if they gain power, Obama may love them.  Birds of a feather.  Oh, wait.  That may be a vicious, unfeeling anti-bird comment.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

AND WHAT COULD THE MATTER BE? – MAYBE THIS – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  A big chunk of the real America isn't afraid to use the "s" ism when speaking about the president of the United States.  That is not adding to his popularity:

(CNSNews.com) – A New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think the policies of President Barack Obama are moving the United States toward socialism.

Of course, the intellectual elites believe the American people don't know what socialism is.  I think they have a pretty good idea, if not a theoretical knowledge.

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the tea party movement. It found that while tea party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the tea party movement – 92 percent – shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether the president’s policies “are moving the country more toward socialism.” Fifty-two percent answered “toward socialism” while only 38 percent answered “not toward socialism.”

The president was quoted yesterday as saying that Americans are opposing him because they're frightened of altering the status quo, even when the status quo isn't working for them.  There's some truth to that.  People generally are resistant to change.  However, the introduction of Social Security and Medicare did not frighten most Americans because they understood how the programs would work, and that they would be insurance plans, with payments paid in. 

The president's statement contained breathtaking arrogance:

"Change is never easy, I don't know if you've noticed that," he said. "People hold onto the status quo, even when the status quo is not working for them."

The president pointed out that most American workers received a tax cut under the 2009 stimulus plan and said he's "been amused in recent days by these people having rallies" -- a reference to Tea Party events across the country to protest taxes.

"I think they should be saying thank you," he said.

Well, excuse me!  Mr. President, we don't thank public officials for returning our own money to us.  It's like thanking Citibank for allowing us to make a withdrawal. 

Obama doesn't get the tea parties.  The tea partiers are worried about vast expansions in spending, deficits and the national debt.  They also worry about ballooning tax increases to come.  They aren't in a "thank you, dear leader" mood.

April 16, 2010    Permalink

MORE GRAY HAIR FOR THE DEMS – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog brings more worry to the Democratic Party, as he reports Stu Rothenberg's assessment of Dem prospects this November:

In a new report to be issued this morning, the respected nonpartisan political prognosticator Stuart Rothenberg will predict "inevitable" Republican gains of House seats this November, likely in excess of two dozen and possibly even above the 40 necessary to turn control of that body over to the GOP.

From his mouth to you know whose ears.

"Substantial Republican gains are inevitable," Rothenberg writes, "with net Democratic losses now looking to be at least two dozen. At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible."

Such a long list of losses would be far beyond the historical average of 16 turnovers in the first midterm election of a new president like Barack Obama. In the first midterm election of Bill Clinton's presidency in 1994, Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years and held them for 12 years, even through the first midterm elections of George W. Bush's presidency.

The 28 weeks until Nov. 2 is a very long time in American politics. But at the moment a decisive victory seems the Republicans' to lose.

COMMENT:  Not to throw a damper on the celebration, but I'll have a piece at The Angel's Corner tonight outlining the things that can go wrong with this scenario, and why we must work to prevent them.  It never hurts to be prepared, as the Boy Scouts know.

We hope for an enormous victory.  But the election isn't being held today, and the other side has no history of playing dead, which is a Republican specialty.

April 16, 2010     Permalink

A TALE OF TWO COUNTRIES – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  The Politico has an incisive, if a bit tardy piece this morning, reporting what many have already seen:  There is the nation of Washington, D.C., which may include territories like Manhattan, New York; Hollywood, California; and Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Then there's the nation called America. 

And they disagree on Obama.

The cover of The Atlantic this month shows a shirt-sleeved President Barack Obama and the headline, “WHY HE’S RIGHT.” It reflects the Washington conventional wisdom that Obama is on a roll, bolstered by his long-delayed victory on health reform.

Someone should tell the rest of the country.

While Washington talks about Obama’s new mojo, polls show voters outside the Beltway are sulking — soured on the president, his party and his program. The Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval rating at an ominous 49 percent, after hitting a record low of 47 percent last weekend. A new poll in Pennsylvania, a bellwether industrial state, shows his numbers sinking, as did recent polls in Ohio and Florida.

So there are two Obamas: Rising in D.C., struggling in the U.S.

And...

It’s yet another deficit for Obama to tackle: The Republican Party has closed its popularity gap with the Democrats, and people say they’d be at least as happy with the GOP in charge of Capitol Hill. Wall Street sees a recovery, but everyday Americans think their country is still on the wrong track. And health reform is even less popular now in some polls than it was before it passed.

“Everyone in the pressure cooker in Washington got all excited like the millennium had arrived [when health care reform passed], but I don’t think most reasonable people read it that way,” Democratic Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said. Bredesen said people are worried about the cost and “appalled at the process in the Congress that produced it.”

COMMENT:  Why the gap?  Because the one profession that can link Washington with the reality of America is either asleep at the switch, or pulling the switch for Obama.  There is very little serious reporting about what Americans think because so many "journalists" have contempt for the American people.  What do those peasants know?  Have they ever tasted the desserts at Princeton?

We recall the famous comment by the film critic, Pauline Kael, who, after the 1972 election, expressed amazement that Nixon had won because she didn't know anyone who'd voted for him. 

Washington is not America.  Today, it doesn't even like America.

April 16, 2010     Permalink