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.

SUBSCRIBERS ARE ESPECIALLY ALERTED TO TONIGHT'S EDITION OF THE ANGEL'S CORNER, WHERE WE'LL RUN A PIECE ABOUT POLITICS AND PETTINESS IN SCIENCE BY AN EMINENT PHYSICIST (AND URGENT AGENDA READER).

WEDNESDAY,  JULY 14,  2010

THE CONFIDENCE GAP – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  Well, we've had the generation gap, the missile gap, Gap stores, and other gaps.  Now we have the confidence gap.  That seems to be the term people are using to describe the dramatic loss of confidence in the ability of Barack Obama.  Financial Times has an excellent, devasting piece examining just how far that confidence has fallen:

“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

The direction of the data could hardly be worse. According to Democracy Corps, a group headed by Stanley Greenberg, a liberal pollster who is a close friend of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, a majority of US citizens see Mr Obama as “too liberal."

Astonishingly, 55 per cent of citizens think Mr Obama is a “socialist” against only 39 per cent who do not share that diagnosis.

The Obama crowd is probably shocked that those peasants out there know what a socialist is.  How dare they think for themselves.

The same poll shows 48 per cent support for Republicans against just 42 per cent for Democrats. The numbers are eerily similar to 2006, except that it was George W. Bush’s Republicans who were on the receiving end four years ago.

Ah, revenge is sweet.  But I want it sweeter.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama.

Another adviser says:

I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes,” says the adviser. “Instead of outsourcing decisions to Congress, he should spell out his bottom line. That is what leaders are for.”

COMMENT:  But tell that to the effete observers in the mainstream media, who think a leader is someone who uses words with more than two syllables. 

The last time I saw it this bad, Jimmah Carter was president.  But, and this is critical, we solved that problem because we had a Reagan.  Who've we got now?  That's my worry.

July 14, 2010      Permalink

A BOILING ANGER – AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  A number of readers have written to us about this.  As many of you may know, there is a proposal in New York for a 13-story mosque to be built right near Ground Zero, scene of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Inevitably, the proposal has become extremely controversial.  The mosque has an odd pedigree, and even reporters can't figure out exactly who is behind it.  The usual suspects have come out in favor of it, apparently seeing it as some kind of "healing" thing.  The local community board voted for it enthusiastically.  (Ground Zero is located in the midst of one of the most liberal districts in America.  It's represented in Congress by Jerrold Nadler, who often makes Lenin look like a Republican.)

A backlash is building, especially among 9-11 families and members of New York's protective services, fire and police.  My friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi sends this picture:

This is a subject that obviously must be approached with some care.  On the one hand, we don't want to reject a positive, moderate, Islamic approach.  On the other hand, we must respect the feelings of victims, something liberals don't do with any great ability.  (Look at their attitude toward victims of violent crime.)

My own sense is that those who want to build the mosque have provided too little information about sponsorship.  There are reports from solid sources that some of the key figures have a history of supporting terrorism, or at least the objectives of terrorism.

It may be unfair at times, but we must hold the Islamic community to a demanding standard.  Building a mosque at Ground Zero right now is like building a Japanese Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor in 1950.  In time, maybe.  But the mosque's sponsorship must be pristine, and the mosque must show a genuine rejection of terrorism in all its forms.

There's a time for religious groups to remain silence, or even back off.  There is also a time for reflection.  We think here that the reflection should precede the construction, or even replace it entirely.

July 14, 2010      Permalink

REPUBLICANS AND HISPANICS, IT AIN'T OVER – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  The conventional wisdom is that Republicans have lost Hispanics forever.  But former Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma, in an excellent op-ed piece in the Washington Times, says it just isn't so:

...before our friends on the left break out their vuvuzelas, they need to take a look at Puerto Rico.

On Jan. 2, 2009, the commonwealth installed Luis Fortuno as its governor. He was elected by the largest margin in 44 years, the same year that Barack Obama and other Democrats swept to victory. Though the island doesn't use the same party nomenclature as the 50 states, Mr. Fortuna is a Republican and the Republican National Committee member from Puerto Rico. The commonwealth's newly installed House speaker and Senate president are similarly from the right. The governor's inaugural message was unquenchably Ronald Reagan.

The owner of the government's checking account "is the working people, and the government must adjust its spending to match its revenues," the new Republican governor said, adding that the government "must be smaller to be more agile and effective." Borrowing the best from the Gipper, Mr. Fortuno concluded that "government is no longer the solution to all your problems, but rather has become a problem that we must all strive to fix."

And...

Hispanics are natural Republicans: They are pro-life and socially conservative. Puerto Rico, for example, is 60 percent Catholic and 30 percent evangelical Protestant. They are fiscally conservative: Homeownership in the commonwealth is an astonishing 73 percent, far greater than in the 50 states and other territories. Hispanics believe that a "dollar in the hands of the people will last longer than a dollar in the hands of government." They are anti-tax. Education is viewed as the oxygen for social mobility. Parents want choices in education, including charter schools. Welfare is described by the governor as "destructive of the family unit" — a unit, by the way, that expects such old-fashioned practices as enjoying meals together.

But what can Republicans do, consistent with their ideals, to avoid alienating Hispanic voters and, instead, bringing them into the fold:

How does the party of Lincoln get out of the ditch? Don't "dis" Hispanic voters. No more "Party of No."

"The Hispanic community feels rejected," Mr. Fortuno observes, and "the discourse has turned ugly." Republicans must "reach out to Latinos and stress our policies." The Hispanic community is now more monolithic and "if one community is rejected, all of us are rejected," Mr. Fortuna says.

While 95 percent of Hispanic parents encourage their children to speak English, it is still not advisable to "dis" Spanish, the governor warns: Don't act like "we don't want you."

Finally...

Mr. Fortuna concludes that moving these new Americans to the political right will not be difficult: They are already Republican. "We don't need to change our policies," the governor observes. "We need to underscore our policies." Pro-life, limited government, low-tax, pro-family, pro-work immigrants will never last long in the party of dependency and victimization. They are too independent and proud for that. Their legacy is that of Lincoln, not of Jefferson. All that is needed is a gentle and inclusive nudge. Hispanics will cross the river and never cross back.

COMMENT:  Well said, I think.  Republicans must concentrate on Hispanic Americans and welcoming them into the fold.  As the piece says, they are natural Republicans. 

Democrats have the welcome mat out.  But once Hispanics are inside the Democratic tent, they're treated only as votes to be had on election day.  I think our side can do better.

July 14, 2010      Permalink

AH, WHAT A FEW YEARS CAN DO – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Remember when Dick Cheney was the villain and Al Gore was the real president who was robbed in 2000 yet nobly continued a career of public service, culminating in the every-leftist-gets-one Nobel Prize?  It seems so long ago.

Now, as Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog notes, there's been a reversal of fortune:

Americans are already starting to think better of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

There's a distinct global chilling going on about former Vice President Al Gore (you know, the divorce/alleged groping/debunked climate stuff).

And, eh, about the same feelings over Barack Obama's voluble sidekick, Joe Biden, who copied his notorious effing line from its inventor, his GOP predecessor.

The new Gallup Poll, released overnight, shows that a near-majority of Americans now views almost-president Gore unfavorably (49%), while 44% are favorable, down 14 points since his Nobel Prize glory days of 2007.

As the most recent former White House No. 2, Cheney had the most to improve in favorable ratings. And, actually, he did improve the most in the opinion of surveyed Americans.

Cheney's robust unfavorable rating melted 11 points during the past 18 months of the Democrat duo of Obama-Biden to 52% now. While the Republican's favorables surged from their low point of 30% all the way up to an impressive 36% now.That's a stunning 20% improvement.

Maybe that's why the genial Cheney's smiling so broadly above. Or perhaps he has something cagey in mind for 2012.

COMMENT:  Gore is learning that when you leave Tipper for the zipper, this is what happens.  (Okay, okay, it's not very good, but I had to try.) 

And Dick Cheney, who served this country well, is slowly being vindicated, as the nation watches Field Marshal Obama flop around in military strategy. 

Fortunes change.  Harry Truman was loathed when he left the White House, and lived to see himself elevated to the ranks of great presidents.  As for others, they wait and wait and wait.  But Jimmah, it just ain't gonna happen.

July 14, 2010     Permalink

YOU MEAN, THEY MAY NOT GET CASH FROM THE COMPANY?  BUT THIS IS AMERICA! – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  Do you remember the Toyotas that took off by themselves?  Wait.  If you're a little older, do you remember the Audis that took off by themselves?

We get these stories periodically.  They lead to big-time TV coverage and woe-is-me interviews with drivers who insist that they were just sitting there thinking of ways to serve the world when they were sudden victims of "unintended acceleration."  Months ago there was a flood of stories of Toyotas doing just that.  But there are tens of millions of Toyotas on the road.  What happened in the months since those stories?  Did the cars magically improve themselves?

No.  Science happened, and some law firms might be disappointed.  Reader Michael Emerson alerts us to this report, from The Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. Department of Transportation has analyzed dozens of data recorders from Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles involved in accidents blamed on sudden acceleration and found that the throttles were wide open and the brakes weren't engaged at the time of the crash, people familiar with the findings said.

The early results suggest that some drivers who said their Toyotas and Lexuses surged out of control were mistakenly flooring the accelerator when they intended to jam on the brakes.

But the findings—part of a broad, ongoing federal investigation into Toyota's recalls—don't exonerate the car maker from two known issues blamed for sudden acceleration in its vehicles: "sticky" accelerator pedals that don't return to idle and floor mats that can trap accelerators to the floor.

The findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration involve a sample of the reports in which a driver of a Toyota vehicle said the brakes were depressed but failed to stop the car from accelerating and ultimately crashing.

We wrote here at the time of the initial stories that we were skeptical.  The Audi was accused of causing unintended acceleration, and its American market decimated for a time by a critical story on "Sixty Minutes."  It later turned out that the tales of horror could be traced to driver error, although a European-style placement of the foot pedals was a contributing factor.

The Toyota findings appear to support Toyota's position that sudden-acceleration reports involving its vehicles weren't caused by electronic glitches in computer-controlled throttle systems, as some safety advocates and plaintiffs' attorneys have alleged. More than 100 people have sued the car maker over crashes they claim were the result of faulty electronics.

The fact is that all modern cars have braking systems that can overcome even a roaring engine.  And it's remarkable that all those aggrieved people didn't understand that turning off the ignition would stop the car at any rate.

If Toyotas were inherently defective there would be many, many more stories of unintended acceleration, and they wouldn't be bunched in one time period.  Once again we had a rush to judgment.

Of course, those filing for court-ordered winnings aren't satisfied.  Get this gem from a woman claiming to be a "victim":

Ms. Marseille sticks by her story. "It makes me very angry when someone tells me, 'She probably hit the gas pedal instead,' because I think it's a sexist comment, an ageist comment," she said.

Yup.  Let's haul out sexism and ageism.  Those are the culprits!

A recognized transportation expert informs me that he knows of only one case of unintended acceleration – when a limo in the White House motor pool was loaded with powerful electronic equipment that interfered with the auto's computer system.  The problem was quickly solved by an adjustment.

July 14, 2010      Permalink

A CULTURAL INDICATOR? – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  France continually presents itself as a land of cultural tolerance.  But there may be limits even to French understanding and patience.  Consider:

France's lower house of parliament passed a ban on Islamic burka-veils Tuesday, a move that is popular among French voters despite strong opposition from human rights advocates and Muslim groups.

There were 336 votes for the bill and just one against at the National Assembly. Most members of the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, refused to participate in the vote.

Following Tuesday's vote, the ban on face-covering veils will go in September to the Senate, where it also is likely to pass. Its biggest hurdle will likely come after that, when France's constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it.

The main body representing French Muslims says face-covering veils are not required by Islam, and it worries that the law will stigmatize all Muslims.

France has Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated to be about 5 million of the country's 64 million people. While ordinary headscarves are common, only about 1,900 women in France are believed to wear face-covering veils. Champions of the bill say they oppress women.

COMMENT:  Surveys show Americans to be far more tolerant, and that the French measure would face greater opposition here.

But should it?

A country can be exceedingly tolerant and understanding, yet insist on reasonable limits.  In America, as in France, religious rituals and beliefs cannot trump the civil law.  The Muslim veil, which, as the story indicates, is not required by Islam, masks the face.  In America we take a very dim view of masking, and many, if not all, states bar it by law.  It prevents reasonable identification for legal purposes, and is associated with racist organizations.  Imagine a driver's license with a picture of a masked face.

I was once interviewing Dr. Milton Helpern, the late, legendary medical examiner of New York City.  During our talk he received a call from an orthodox rabbi protesting that one of his parishioners, who'd died without a physician present, was scheduled for an autopsy, a procedure forbidden by Jewish law.  Helpern, himself a Jew, patiently explained to the rabbi that the civil law required an autopsy because of the circumstances of death, and that he could not subvert the law.   The rabbi backed down.

The same standard should be applied to the masking produced by the Muslim veil.  Muslim leaders should be encouraged to ask that women in their congregations stop wearing the veil in public.  And it should be banned as a matter of consistent, wise public policy. 

The French parliament is correct. 

July 14, 2010     Permalink

TUESDAY,  JULY 13,  2010

APPALLING, ABSOLUTELY APPALLING – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  Now the left wants to politicize baseball, having politicized almost everything else.  From Fox:

The campaign to move the 2011 All-Star Game out of Phoenix to protest Arizona's immigration law heated up this week, with some of baseball's superstars threatening to sit it out and demonstrators trying to deliver thousands of petitions to Commissioner Bud Selig.

The increased pressure coincided with this year's All-Star Game, which was to be played Tuesday night in Anaheim.

Selig has given no indication that he plans to consent to demands to change the 2011 game's location. But with Arizona's law just weeks from going into effect, protesters are using this year's game as the prime venue for pressing their case.

Roberto Lovato, whose group Presente.org launched the MoveTheGame.org website, said activists were kicked out by security when they tried to deliver 110,000 petitions to Selig at the Anaheim Marriott on Monday.

COMMENT:  This is a moment for presidential leadership, which we will not get.  Mr. Obama, a sportrs fan, should make it clear that politics has no place in sports, just as racism has no place in sports. 

What's next?  Will World Series participants have to have the approval of ethnic groups?  Will someone count the number of left-handed Muslim pitchers of Indonesian origin on the Yankees before the team is permitted to go for another world championship?

Selig should stand firm, and threaten to fine any player who doesn't show up. 

July 13, 2010      Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE I COME – AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  Polls in California, as of the moment, give reason to believe that Ronald Reagan's state may come to its senses and return to the true faith.  From RealClearPolitics.

In the gubernatorial race, GOP candidate Meg Whitman leads former Governor (and almost every other office) Jerry Brown, 46-39%.

In the Senate race, Carly Fiorina leads incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 47-45%.

The polling was done by Survey USA.

A cautionary note:  California has become a generally reliable Democratic state.  While these numbers show a turnaround for Republicans, they can change dramatically by election day.  The California Democratic Party is fierce, radical, and vicious.  Watch for the race card, and for the most vulgar scare tactics to be used to frighten black and Hispanic voters to the polls. 

I think Whitman has a reasonable chance to win the governorship.  It will be more difficult for Fiorina in the Senate race, as Boxer has an effective organization and has been a strong vote getter.  Maybe her reputation as one of the dimmer bulbs, or burned-out bulbs, in the Senate is catching up with her.  But this will be a fight.  Nothing is in the bag here.

July 13, 2010      Permalink

I THOUGHT THIS MOVIE WAS OVER – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  The Obamans don't take no for an answer, even when it's a federal court that says it.  For them, "Drill baby drill" becomes "Cease and desist, equal person, cease and desist!"  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration issued a new moratorium Monday on deep-water offshore drilling that is no longer based on water depth and stresses new evidence of safety problems, hoping the revised ban will pass muster with the courts after the initial one was rejected.

"More than 80 days into the BP oil spill, a pause on deep-water drilling is essential and appropriate to protect communities, coasts, and wildlife from the risks that deep-water drilling currently pose," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in announcing the new moratorium. "I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deep-water to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely."

The new moratorium was panned by industry groups and supported by environmentalists.

Last week, a federal appeals court rejected the government's effort to restore its initial offshore deep-water drilling moratorium, which was issued after the catastrophic Gulf oil spill in April. The moratorium was blocked first last month by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman.

The Justice Department said Monday that it will file a motion with the U.S. District Court seeking a dismissal of that case, because the old moratorium is no longer operative, making the challenge moot. The department also will ask the appeals court to set aside Feldman's order of last month.

COMMENT:  There doesn't appear to be much science or engineering behind the administration's obsession with a ban.  The ban appears designed more to pacify a political constituency than to meet a need.  What else is new with this crowd? 

No one denies the horror of the Gulf oil spill, and BP will be paying big time.  But we need petroleum.  The administration has been trying to sell us on "new energy sources," and that's fine.  But those new sources won't be doing the job for decades, and many will probably never pan out. 

The drilling moratorium will make us even more dependent on foreign oil, a dependence the Obamans say they're trying to lessen.  Drilling policy should be determined by hard calculations and engineering studies, not by political favoritism and ideological zeal. 

Oh wait, this is the Obama administration, isn't it?

July 13, 2010      Permalink

WHAT $42,000 A YEAR BUYS YOU – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  I believe that the next great issue to surface in American life will be the condition, and behavior, of our colleges and universities.

The market does work.  And, increasingly, parents are starting to question what $42,000 a year or more buys them at institutions of "higher learning."  Higher, of course, if you're on the political left. 

Traditionally, colleges, with the help of mighty alumni associations, have been able to deflect many criticisms by screaming "academic freedom," invoking the always useful image of "McCarthyism," and declaring themselves sacred ground, lofty and above us mere humans.  Too important and pure to be answering questions.  That is changing.

Where does $42,000 go?  The New York Times provided some of the answers:

American colleges are spending a declining share of their budgets on instruction and more on administration and recreational facilities for students, according to a study of college costs released Friday...

....the trend toward increased spending on nonacademic areas prevailed across the higher education spectrum, with public and private, elite and community colleges increasing expenditures more for student services than for instruction, the report said.

The student services category can include spending on career counseling and financial aid offices, but also on intramural athletics and student centers.

Why should we be shocked?  Our young generations are increasingly adolescent.  In the 1930s, American kids danced to the music of George Gershwin, and loved it.  And today?  The music is basically just for kids.  Very young kids with very young tastes.

“This is the country-clubization of the American university,” said Richard K. Vedder, a professor at Ohio University who studies the economics of higher education. “A lot of it is for great athletic centers and spectacular student union buildings. In the zeal to get students, they are going after them on the basis of recreational amenities.”

Not really that new a story.  But this trend, combined with lower academic standards in many places and the turning of colleges into propaganda centers of the political left, may finally be raising the eyebrows of those who write the checks.

The next big blow can come if a Republican president, in the mold of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, made it clear, once and for all, that there is no right to a federal grant, and that the endless demands by colleges for federal money will be looked at more carefully, and with two eyes.  Colleges may actually have to defend the way they spend our dollars.  What a shock.

July 13, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA'S POLL DANCE – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  A new poll shows confidence in President Obama has sunk to its lowest level.  From WaPo:

Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.

Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers.

Overall, more than a third of voters polled -- 36 percent -- say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.

And...

Those most likely to vote in the midterms prefer the GOP over continued Democratic rule by a sizable margin of 56 percent to 41 percent.

COMMENT:  We can see little ahead to change the basic political equation.  Democratic governors are already warning the White House that the Justice Department's suit against Arizona is political poison, but the Obamans still forge ahead with the suit. 

However, the unexpected could still happen between now and November to rescue Mr. Obama.  The unexpected happened in 2008 – the financial meltdown.  So the election is anything but in the bag.  Right now, trends are going our way.

July 13, 2010     Permalink

THE INEVITABLE CARD – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  Maybe it was inevitable, but have you noticed the increasingly racialized tone to our politics recently?

Leading the way is Attorney General Eric Holder, who once famously said that America is a land of racial cowards.  Holder not only refused to prosecute an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation against the new Black Panthers, there is now testimony that the Justice Department will not prosecute any case brought against a minority.

And now Holder, already suing Arizona on Constitutional grounds, says that he's looking into the possibility of suing the state on racial profiling grounds, even though there hasn't been any.

Last week, when an Oakland police officer was convicted "only" of involuntary homicide in the killing of a young African-American in a confrontation, Justice immediately announced, before tempers had cooled, that it was looking into filing federal charges.  On what basis? 

Now the NAACP appears poised to declare the Tea Party at least partially a "racist" movement.  And Michelle Obama, appearing before the group, urges blacks to "increase" their "intensity."

There have been reports that the Democrats, desperate in the face of low poll numbers, are trying to excite their base and increase its turnout.  A major part of that base is black and Hispanic.  Making those groups angry and apprehensive, and making it clear that they will be strongly represented, may well be effective short-term politics.

In the long run, though, racial agendas can backfire loudly.  The last Democratic mayor of heavily Democratic New York City, David Dinkins, was also the city's first black mayor.  The dream was that he would be a mayor who happened to be black.  The reality was that Dinkins could not overcome pressures by his supporters, and became the "black" mayor, clearly favoring his own group.  He was dispatched by Rudy Giuliani, beginning a non-Democratic mayoralty that has lasted 17 years. 

I think there is a possibility of an even greater racial tone, especially if Obama runs again.  The nation will be told that it is "racist" to vote him out of office, sending an ugly message to other countries, especially those in Latin America and Africa.

What is happening may well have been inevitable, and that is the sadness.  The country will not benefit.

July 13, 2010     Permalink