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.

DECEMBER 12,  2010

QUESTIONS FROM THE LEFT – AT 11:50 P.M. ET:  Although I disagree with them, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Howard Dean are raising some legitimate questions about part of the Obama tax plan negotiated with Republicans:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) are both raising doubts about an aspect of President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal that has not received much criticism: a one-year, two-percentage point cut in employees' share of the Social Security payroll tax. By contrast, a group which usually mounts staunch opposition to changes in the Social Security funding mechanism, AARP, has said it is not troubled by the proposed payroll tax holiday.

"That’s another thing that I really disagree with the president on...this two percent cut in the payroll tax that goes to the Social Security trust fund. The last thing that we need to do is invade the Social Security trust fund to provide for things right now for people’s living," Harkin said in little-noted comments Wednesday on C'-SPAN's "Washington Journal." "They’re going to make up that by it taking out of the general fund, in other words: debt. They’re going to put debt on our kids head to pay for that. That bothers me. That bothers me a great deal."...

...Dean, who doesn't get a vote on the package, took a similar tack on CBS's "Face The Nation" Sunday. "The 2 percent payroll tax sounds great, but in fact they take it out of the Social Security trust fund. Now, here we are complaining about the Social Security trust fund going broke and we take $120...billion of revenue out and use it for a payroll tax mitigation," Dean said.

COMMENT:  Well, fellas, welcome to the club.  It's nice to see liberal Democrats, who generally write hot checks without giving it a thought, showing some wisdom.

On balance, though,I'd go with the president's plan.  Yes, it sets a risky precedent in invading the Social Security fund, but it gives people a real cash break that will benefit the middle class most.  We hope that money gets spent in the economy, and helps us out of the doldrums.  But I wouldn't recommend doing this regularly. 

These two Dems actually made sense.  Maybe there's hope after all.

December 12, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA SINKING AGAIN IN POLLS – AT 11:12 A.M. ET:  We remind readers that a poll is a snapshot in time, and that counting Mr. Obama out for 2012 as a result of current polls would be foolishness defined.  Still, current polls will influence the attitudes of other political players, foreign and domestic, toward Obama, and so we report them.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he'd lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The biggest reason for Obama's fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November's midterm elections. At the same time, he's gained nothing among independents.

"He's having the worst of both worlds right now," said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the national survey.

"As he moves to the center, he's not picking up support among independents and he's having some fall-off among his base. If his strategy is to gain independents and keep the Democrats in tow, it isn't working so far."

And...

Overall, just 42 percent of registered voters approve of how he's doing his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Obama's standing among Democrats dropped from a month ago, with his approval rating falling to 74 percent from 83 percent, and his disapproval rating almost doubling, from 11 percent to 21 percent.

COMMENT:  I just love it.  Apparently, the Democrats think they can get a president even further to the left, if they protest enough.  President-elect Kucinich comes to mind. 

Remember that it's only been a month since the election.  If Obama moves to the center, convincingly, it will take time before the move shows up in polls of independents.  It showed up decisively with Bill Clinton.  Do not count Obama out.

December 12, 2010       Permalink

RUSSIA AND VENEZUELA ECHOING USSR AND CUBA – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:   There have been a numbe of worrisome reports about Russian arms transfers to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.  This one raises particular concern in terms of American lives.  From the Washington Post:

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA - Russia delivered at least 1,800 shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles to Venezuela in 2009, U.N. arms control data show, despite vigorous U.S. efforts to stop President Hugo Chavez's stridently anti-American government from acquiring the weapons.

The United States feared that the missiles could be funneled to Marxist guerrillas fighting Colombia's pro-American government or Mexican drug cartels, concerns expressed in U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and first reported in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

It had been unclear how many of the Russian SA-24 missiles were delivered to Venezuela, though the transfer itself was not secret. Chavez showed off a few dozen at a military parade in April 2009, saying they could "deter whatever aerial aggression against our country." A high-level Russian delegation told American officials in Washington in July of that year that 100 of the missiles had been delivered in the first quarter of 2009.

COMMENT:  One of the great worries of anti-terror officials is that a shoulder-launched missile system could be smuggled into the United States and used against an airliner taking off from an American airport.  The shoulder systems are small and obviously portable.  Getting one, or more, across the Mexican border shouldn't be too difficult, especially if the device was broken down into parts. 

The idea that 1,800 of these shoulder units are in Venezuela is truly chilling.  The missiles can bring down a plane flying as high as 19,000 feet.  And it would be impossible to trace a unit specifically to Chavez. 

If our enemies could get three units into this country, and use them on the same day...you do the casualty math.

We are facing a truly frightening threat, but I wonder how seriously it's being taken.

December 12, 2010      Permalink

DEMS SOFTEN ON TAX COMPROMISE – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  Despite all the chest thumping, congressional Democrats seem resigned to going along with President Obama's tax-cut compromise, negotiated with Republican leaders.  From The Politico:

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the incoming ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, admitted on Sunday that House Democrats won't hold up a deal to resolve the expiring Bush-era tax cuts.

Last week, frustrated lawmakers rejected a tax-cut extension package negotiated between President Barack Obama and Republicans. House Democrats said they were angry that they were left out of some of the deal-making, particularly the adjustment to the estate tax, which they consider to be a too generous.

“It was not central to the deal, so it’s a simple question," Van Hollen said on "Fox News Sunday," referring to the estate tax provision."We’re not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day, but we think this simple question should be put to the test."

And Van Hollen stressed, "There will be an opportunity for the House to work its will."

COMMENT:  Republicans must proceed with caution.  They have claimed that maintaining all the Bush-era tax cuts will help improve the economy.  The proof will be in the numbers.  If the numbers don't develop, the GOP will be on the defensive in the 2012 campaign, having championed "tax cuts for the rich."  That provision was highly unpopular with the public to begin with.  If the economy is still sour, or gets worse, it will become even more unpopular.

December 12, 2010     Permalink

DECEMBER 11, 2010

TERROR IN SWEDEN? – AT 9:33 P.M. ET:  There's been a small terror attack in Sweden, a country that has done handstands to appease the Muslim world.  From The New York Times:

STOCKHOLM — One man was killed and two other people were injured when two explosions hit the heart of Stockholm’s city-center shopping district on Saturday evening, the police in the Swedish capital said. The country’s foreign minister called the blasts a terrorist attack, and an e-mail to news organizations minutes before the blasts seemed to link them to anger over anti-Islamic cartoons and the war in Afghanistan.

The police said that a car parked near the busy shopping street of Drottninggatan exploded first, shortly before 5 p.m. Stockholm time, and that the wreckage of the vehicle included gas canisters. A second blast followed minutes later, and about 200 yards from the first. A man’s body, with blast injuries to his abdomen, was discovered after the second explosion...

...An editor at the Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra, Dan Skeppe, said the agency had received an e-mail minutes before the blasts; it was also addressed to Sweden’s security police, and included a sound recording addressed to “Sweden and the Swedish people.” Mr. Skeppe said the recording cited Swedish “silence” over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad drawn by the artist Lars Vilks, criticized Sweden’s 500-soldier military contingent in northern Afghanistan and threatened attacks on Swedes.

COMMENT:  Sweden has had an awful problem with Muslims who refuse to integrate into Swedish society.  There have been electoral signs in recent years that Swedish tolerance has begun to wane.  It will be instructive to see if this incident hurries the process, or whether the Swedish left comes out of the woodwork to try to find the "root cause" of the terror act – a code term for "blame America and Israel."

December 11, 2010       Permalink

HERE COME THE JOKES.  LAUGH NOW, PUNDITS – AT 10:38 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin may have some travel plans:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning a foreign trip sometime next year, providing an opportunity to boost her presidential prospects, POLITICO has confirmed.

Details of the trip, including the timing, have not yet been worked out. But Palin sources confirm that plans are being considered for foreign travel in the new year, with Israel and Britain at the top of the list.

The likelihood of such a trip was first reported by the Daily Beast.

Palin’s staff told POLITICO in June that she was hoping visit former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during a potential trip.

Potential presidential contenders frequently plan highly publicized foreign trips ahead of announcing runs as a forum to boost their foreign policy credentials.

The move could be an opportunity for the Republican former vice presidential nominee to bolster any perceived weaknesses as a candidate. She has little travel experience on her resume, and GOP insiders worry that she’s weak on issues outside of her comfort zone.

COMMENT:  The insiders have a point.  Sarah simply has to expand her horizons and publicly demonstrate mastery of issues.  A foreign trip, preceded by months of study and briefings, will be helpful, especially if she makes some good, strong speeches across the pond.  Remember that her acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican convention was a winner.  She can do it. 

It is perfectly clear that she's preparing for a run.  I have mixed feelings about that.  But if she jumps in, and does it well, I'll be cheering.  I suspect that much of America will be as well.

December 11, 2010      Permalink

THE PRESS CONFERENCE – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:   Have you heard about it?  Did you see it?  I saw it live on TV – what will go down as the most famous, and most bizarre press conference by a president since Bill Clinton announced that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

And again, Clinton was the star.  Although this time he wasn't the president.

It happened yesterday, just after Mr. Obama met with former President Clinton, soliciting Clinton's support for the tax compromise.  The two had a press conference, and Clinton quickly took over.  The contrast between the two men was stark:  Clinton the master, Obama the awkward disciple.  Clinton has the capacity to think on his feet, without a teleprompter.  He has the capacity to explain and convince, without turning into a dull philosopher.

And he gave his reasons for supporting the tax package.  At one point – this is what you've probably seen on TV – Obama announced that he'd kept the first lady waiting a half hour, and he just left.  It was weird.  He, not Clinton, is the president, and he left the entire job to Clinton.  Even if he was sincere in wanting to get to a White House Christmas party and join Ms. Obama, it looked as if he were yielding to the better man, and withdrawing.

Bill Clinton then continued the press conference for another half hour. 

What can one say?  The president of the United States has some serious problems.  At the same time, he is showing some signs of maturity and understanding in his tax compromise.  Is bringing in Clinton a sign that Mr. Obama is "triangulating," trying to be the center force between Democrats and Republicans?  That was, in fact, Clinton's strategy as he approached the 1996 president election, which he won handily against Bob Dole. 

We'll look for more evidence, especially in foreign policy, where Mr. Obama is increasingly being ignored by foreign nations.  If we see some strength and decisiveness by the United States, an embrace of our allies and a defiance of our enemies, we'll know some positive change is in the air.  We hope, for the country's sake, that it happens.  But Obama starts out much further to the left than Clinton was.  We ask to be convinced.

December 11, 2010      Permalink 

WASHINGTON ARTS NEWS – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  It's a pleasure to report that some of our senators have a healthy sense of humor.  From The Politico:

It was a bipartisan-ish affair on Thursday night at Woolly Mammoth Theatre. Twelve female senators (three Republicans, nine Democrats) came to see Chicago comedy troupe The Second City perform "A Girl’s Guide to Washington Politics," which includes a roasting of many female pols including Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi.

In attendance: Sens. Claire McCaskill, Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, Maria E. Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Debbie Stabenow, Jeanne Shaheen, Susan Collins, Kay Hagan, Amy Klobuchar and Lisa Murkowski.

COMMENT:  Good for the women.  Laughter never hurts, and I'm biased toward Second City, as it originally had a connection with the University of Chicago, which I attended. 

I note the absence from the list of one Barbara Boxer.  She's not much fun anyway.

December 11, 2010     Permalink