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.

Late yesterday afternoon I appeared again on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent radio show, which comes out of Dallas.  If you're interested in listening, the link is here.

SATURDAY,  MAY 8,  2010

STAY HOME, YANKEE! – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi is in Afghanistan, and, strangely, there are no reports that she bought any rugs.  From The Politico: 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), along with a delegation of Congressional Democrats, is in Afghanistan Saturday, where they met with U.S. forces and were briefed by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and General Stanley McChrystal.

Joining the speaker on the trip are four Democratic women: Reps. Susan Davis (Calif.), Madeleine Bordallo (Guam), Niki Tsongas (Mass.) and Donna Edwards (Md.). No Republicans are in the delegation.

The group also met with President Hamid Karzai.

"We are grateful for the service of our brave men and women in Afghanistan, for their commitment to America's security, and their unwavering dedication to their mission," Pelosi said in a statement.

COMMENT:  I dunno.  I guess Pelosi, as speaker of the House, has the right to go to a battle area and waste the time of the commanders there.  But she, and members of her delegation like Donna Edwards, represent the far left of her party, which has never been friendly to the military or to our missions abroad.  What is their purpose in going?  What "report" or "concern" do they have in store for us?

Remember that Obama ran on the argument that Afghanistan is the "good" war, as opposed to the "bad" war in Iraq.  But his party's left never really bought that line, and has been growing impatient with even the Afghanistan operation.  Let's see what this little crowd of wrecking balls says when they get home.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

REPUBLICANS BAG ONE OF THEIR OWN – AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, a power among Senate Republicans, has failed to win his party's nomination for a fourth term.  From The New York Times:

Robert F. Bennett, an 18-year veteran Republican who had been seeking a fourth term this fall, was stripped of his party’s nomination on Saturday at the state convention, becoming one of the first Congressional victims of the surging ferment of discontent from the Tea Party-infused Republican right.

Mr. Bennett, 76, was outmatched in delegate votes by two relative newcomers despite an enthusiastic endorsement and convention speech from Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and local Utah hero, and a political pedigree of deep Mormon roots and public service.

COMMENT:  Bennett was apparently seen as too much an accommodationist, willing to work with moderates and liberals. 

I'm not so sure this is a wise move.  True, a fourth term is a stretch for any senator, and even the best of public servants wear out their welcome.  But Bennett always struck me as a solid guy, maybe not as conservative as some in Utah might have liked, but a respected Senate presence. 

We'll withhold final judgment until we learn who Bennett's replacement on the ticket will be, and examine his record.  The Republican nomination is tantamount to election, so there is little chance the seat will change party hands in November. 

Power must be wielded carefully.  The conservative movement within the Republican Party is going strong, but it risks making the party so narrow ideologically that it can turn into the Democratic Party of the last 30 years.  Not a good role model.  Be careful.

May 8, 2010      Permalink

DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU? – AT 10:11 A.M. ET:  This is the best brief analysis of what's happened to Britain that I've read recently.  If it has a familiar ring, it should.  It can happen here.  From London's Daily Mail:

It is clear after yesterday that a dangerous split runs through the heart of country. In place of unity, we are now two nations.

Vast swathes of Wales, the North of England and almost the whole of Scotland are rocksolid Labour territory, political fiefdoms where the Tory brand is regarded with a tribal hatred.

t is a remarkable fact that, as late as the 1950s, the Conservatives held the majority of seats in Scotland. But that sense of national balance has now disappeared from the electoral map. Today, there is a single Tory seat in Scotland, while there is not one in the northeastern region.

In direct contrast, most of England, particularly in the South and the Midlands, has turned blue.
There is just a sprinkling of red dots in London, Birmingham and a few other conurbations.

You could drive southwards the whole way from Lincolnshire to the Isle of Wight without leaving Conservative terrain.

And the reason for the divide:

This yawning division reflects the chasm that has developed between the two parts of our economy. The South and Midlands of England are the areas that generate the wealth on which our nation depends.

The majority of voters in these regions work in the private sector. Employment is high and welfare dependency low.

Little wonder then that these citizens, living in the real commercial world, should vote so decisively against a Labour government that has so badly mismanaged the economy, squandered their taxes and threatened their living standards.

The contrast with Labour's tribal lands could hardly be greater. Reliance on the state, be it through welfare benefits or public-sector jobs, is the central characteristic of the northern, Scottish, Welsh and inner-city constituencies that have remained firmly red.

The colors are reversed in Britain.  Red is for the leftist areas, which seems more logical than our terminology.

Throughout these areas, Labour is effectively using the wealth created in Middle England to subsidise a vast system of political patronage in its heartlands.

COMMENT:  Look at Britain, and contemplate the future of the United States under Obama and his ideological successors.

That doesn't mean that working people, laborers, don't have legitimate gripes.  They often do, both in Britain and America.  But the creation of a nanny state was never the answer.  Nor is blind worship of Wall Street.

Both Britain and America are in trouble.  It's going to take a more imaginative leadership than each country has now to get out of it.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

ALL WIND, NO THOUGHT – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  Speaking of technology, we're going to be hearing a great deal about "new forms of energy" in the next few months, as the oil-spill story gets full traction and some in Congress try to pass an an energy bill.  Unsolicited advice:  Listen with two ears, and watch with two eyes.  There's a lot of hype passing for "science and engineering" out there.

Consider a new project in Massachusetts, home, of course, of the country's smartest people, by their own declaration.  From the Boston Herald:

The controversial Cape Wind project will cost taxpayers and ratepayers more than $2 billion to build - three times its original estimate.

That colossal cost is the driving force behind the sky-high electric rates it plans to charge Massachusetts customers in coming years.

Cape Wind, which wants to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, and National Grid announced yesterday that they’ve reached an agreement to start charging customers 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2013 - more than double the current rate of electricity from conventional power plants and land-based wind farms.

But so what, darlings.  The better people can afford it, and do something for the Earth at the same time.  As for the peasants – and we do respect them – we can have subsidies from the government. 

“I’m glad it’s your electric bills and not mine,” said Robert McCullough, president of McCullough Research, an Oregon energy consulting firm, referring to Cape Wind’s prices.

He said Massachusetts would have been better off going with less costly land-based wind farms.

“Why are you spending billions (on offshore wind) when you can pay half that with traditional wind?” he asked.

Must we answer those silly questions?  We're Massachusetts, home of Harvard, MIT and Martha Coakley.  It's so unseemly to be talking about money, when there's a planet to save.  Oh, must run.  Going to my Boston-will-soon-be-underwater meeting.  Noam Chomsky promised to come.

Yuch.

May 8, 2010     Permalink

ANOTHER TERROR WARNING – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Terror is on our minds again, especially after the Christmas-day and Times Square attempts, even though we're regularly assured that the next attack could come from someone angry over his Obamacare deductible.

But are we prepared for something really catastrophic?  From The Telegraph:

The US must prepare itself for a full-scale cyber attack which could cause death and destruction across the country in less than 15 minutes, the former anti-terrorism Tsar to Bill Clinton and George W Bush has warned.

Richard Clarke claims that America's lack of preparation for the annexing of its computer system by terrorists could lead to an "electronic Pearl Harbor".

And this doesn't require anywhere near the effort needed to acquire nuclear weapons.

In his warning, Mr Clarke paints a doomsday scenario in which the problems start with the collapse of one of the Pentagon's computer networks.

Soon internet service providers are in meltdown. Reports come in of large refinery fires and explosions in Philadelphia and Houston. Chemical plants malfunction, releasing lethal clouds of chlorine.

Air traffic controllers report several mid-air collisions, while subway trains crash in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. More than 150 cities are suddenly blacked out. Tens of thousands of Americans die in an attack comparable to a nuclear bomb in its devastation.

Yet it would take no more than 15 minutes and involve not a single terrorist or soldier setting foot in the United States.

The scenario is contained the pages of his book, Cyber War: The Next National Security Threat, written with Robert Knake.

And Mr Clarke has been right before.

As anti-terrorism tsar under Mr Clinton and then Mr Bush, he issued dire warnings of the need for better defences against al-Qaeda, and wrote about his futile campaign in the 2004 book Against All Enemies.

COMMENT:  In fairness, this isn't the first warning we've received.  But Americans, being human, tend to concentrate on threats that have the immediate "bang" factor, like an explosion in Times Square.  And, being human, we prepare for the last war. 

In addition to a cyber attack, we must be prepared for an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack, in which a nuclear device would be exploded high over the United States, and the electronic shock from it would wipe out much of our elecronic infrastructure.

Welcome to tomorrow.  But remember – the real threat comes from tea parties.

May 8, 2010    Permalink

FIRST POST-PRIMARY POLLS – AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  We're starting to see the first general-election polls, reflecting the matchups that grew out of Tuesday's primaries. 

Scott Rasmussen reports the following:

Newly chosen Republican nominee Dan Coats earns 51% support while his Democratic rival Brad Ellsworth’s attracts 36% in the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Indiana Senate race following Tuesday’s GOP Primary.

Six percent (6%) of likely voters in the state favor some other candidate. Eight percent (8%) remain undecided.

Looks solid.  The winner will replace retiring Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.

Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher emerged as the victor from Tuesday’s Democratic Primary, and now he and Republican nominee Rob Portman are in a virtual tie as Ohio’s U.S. Senate race begins in earnest.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Ohio, taken on Wednesday, shows Fisher with 43% support and Portman with 42% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided.

The survey also found that most Ohio voters favor repeal of the recently passed health care law. Most also favor a law dealing with immigration similar to the recently passed law in Arizona.

Disappointing.  Portman is a fine leader.  The seat is currently held by Republican George Voinovich, who is retiring.  I'd hate to see it lost.

May 8, 2010    Permalink

FRIDAY,  MAY 7,  2010

THE MESS ON WALL STREET – AT 8:55 P.M. ET:  The standard line going around New York has been that, while the recession isn't over for the nation, it's over for Wall Street, and times are flying again.  Uh, not so fast, Jones.  From the Washington Post:

The carnage of the last two days of this week has wiped out all the gains of the year to date.

If Thursday's trading day was apocalyptic, Friday's was merely chaotic and unpredictable. Stocks opened up slightly, following a better-than-expected April jobs report, then fell immediately off the cliff, plunging to a 10:30 a.m. trough.

They spent the rest of mid-day trying to climb back up and the Dow briefly turned positive before the recovery rally ran out of steam and stocks eventually stabilize, albeit in negative territory.

The Dow closed down 1.3 percent at 10,379.60. Bye-bye, 11,000.

The broader S&P 500 closed down 1.5 percent at 1,110.86 and the tech-heavy Nadaq got hit the hardest, closing down 2.2 percent at 2,265.64.

All three major indexes have had their entire 2010 gains wiped out. Today, they stand almost exactly where they stood on January 1. So that's discouraging.

COMMENT:  Yeah, I'd say so.  But maybe it's healthy that the Wall Street economy and the real economy mesh a little. 

We're far from out of the woods, especially as the Obama administration seems determined to spend us into bankruptcy.  While jobs were added last month, more job seekers entered the force, pushing the unemployment rate up to just under 10 percent.  That's not a number the White House wants to take into the midterm elections.

May 7, 2010     Permalink

THIS DOESN'T CUT IT – AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  I admire General David Petraeus a great deal, but he's developed a case of foot-in-mouth disease that requires immediate treatment.  He's being talked about as a presidential candidate, although he adamantly denies that ambition.  If he continues to make verbal gaffes, denial will not be necessary.

Earlier this year, Petraeus, in testimony before Congress, made some statements about the Mideast that had to be "explained" and reinterpreted, by him.  Now he makes the oddest comment about the Times Square bomber:

Gen. David Petraeus says the Times Square bombing suspect is a "lone wolf" terrorist who did not work with others.

The general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tells The Associated Press that alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad was inspired by militants in Pakistan, but didn't have direct contact with them.

Authorities say Shahzad told investigators he went to a terror training camp in Pakistan, but they have yet to confirm that.

Petraeus's statement appears to be absurd.  How would he know, this early in the investigation?  Shahzad spent months in Pakistan.  The press is reporting that the FBI is looking for a financial courier who supplied him with funds to buy the bomb car, as Shahzad was not in a position to make a cash contribution to the cause. 

And Petraeus is telling us he was a lone wolf.  It doesn't compute.  Sounds like something said off the cuff, the kind of capital crime you can't commit as a presidential candidate.

We wait for the clarification. 

May 7, 2010    Permalink

PLANET IRAN – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  I was at a meeting today on behalf of Planet Iran, the dynamic and absolutely essential new site devoted to news coming out of Iran. It was a fundraiser, and Planet Iran is definitely worth a contribution.  It is, right now, our best source of information about what's actually happening in a critically important country.

Michael Ledeen, a superlative expert on Iran, and Jim Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence, spoke.  Both men seemed genuinely and substantially frustrated by the path the Obamans are taking in their "outreach" to or "engagement" with Iran.

Ledeen made the point that the last year and three months have been wasted by the illusion that we can negotiate with the regime now in power.  He asked a blunt question:  "What part of 'Death to America' does Washington not understand?"  He also recalled that the same lack of understanding about the nature of the regime that existed during the Carter administration, some 30 years ago, exists today. 

Both Ledeen and Woolsey likened the West's attitude toward Iran to the free nations' attitude toward Nazi Germany before World War II.  One accommodation after another.  Woolsey noted, to applause, that to get from Munich in 1938 to victory in 1945, we first had to get from Neville Chamberlain to Winston Churchill.  In other words, policy will be determined by the kind of people we put in power.  That was not a compliment toward this president. 

There wasn't much optimism in the room.  Ledeen and Woolsey believe that our only option, short of a military strike on Iran, is trying to do everything possible to foster regime change.  But both men noted that the West hasn't lifted a finger in that direction. 

The crowd around Obama includes retreads from the Carter days.  And they haven't altered their views a bit. 

Unless there's a dramatic change of direction, we'll have a nuclear Iran, with all that implies.  In the meantime, our stalwart administration is going along with international efforts to equate the Israeli nuclear program with the Iranian one, apparently to appease the Iranians further.  That is the worst kind of moral equivalence – the murderer is as good as his intended victim – but it's the mindset in the ultra-liberal, all cultures are equal, Obama administration.

May 7, 2010    Permalink

IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO? – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  President Obama is apparently ready to announce his Supreme Court choice.  But we must label this as informed speculation.  From The Politico:

Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isn’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it’s otherwise. Kagan’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, and could lure swing Justice Kennedy into some coalitions The West Wing may leak the pick to AP’s Ben Feller on the later side Sunday, then confirm it for others for morning editions. For now, aides say POTUS hasn’t decided, to their knowledge.

COMMENT:  Well, we'll see.  I think it would be a poor choice.  It would mean 1) that every member of the Court has an Ivy League background, 2) that the Court would have no Protestants, 3) that the president will have named the dean of the law school he attended, raising uncomfortable suggestions of old school ties and 4) Kagan's experience is mostly academic.

It's a delicate issue, but it must be noted, that Kagan is apparently gay, and the notion of a political payoff to the gay community will also be whispered if she's chosen.

By all accounts, Kagan is a fine, intelligent woman who was respected as dean at Harvard Law.  But she's part of the same old crowd. 

May 7, 2010     Permalink

THIS IS SHOCKING – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  You must read this becsause it is so entirely different from anything we could have expected.  I am joking.  From Fox:

Times Square bomb plot suspect Faisal Shahzad is a “fan and follower" of a radical American-born cleric linked to the Fort Hood attack in November and the attempted jet bombing on Christmas Day, sources tell Fox News.

Shahzad is a fan of Anwar al-Awlaki's CDs, which promote the cleric's extremist Muslim ideology, sources say, however, there is no known evidence yet that that Shahzad had direct contact with Awlaki, such as through e-mails.

Awlaki, who is under a kill-or-capture order by the U.S. government and believed to be hiding in Yemen, is now linked to the last three terrorist plots designed to kill Americans at home.

COMMENT:  You mean the Times Square guy wasn't a tea partier?  But I thought...

Compare what's coming out now with the absurd, early statements by government officials, including the allegedly smart mayor of New York.  They were rambling on about anti-government types, haters of Obamacare, disgruntled this and thats.  The words "Islamic extremism" found difficulty passing through their tight little lips.

We are fighting a war, and the people in charge can't seem to name the enemy.  Imagine if, during World War II, FDR referred to the Japanese as "militant Easterners" or to the Nazis as "disaffected cultural cousins." 

Our colleges have done quite a job in introducing our elites to disciplined thinking, haven't they?

May 7, 2010     Permalink

FAITH IN OBAMA WEAKENS – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  Britain isn't the only country where confidence in governmental institutions seems weak.  A new survey reported by the Hotline shows that Americans aren't sleeping that soundly either:

As trust in national institutions falls, so has Obama's approval rating. Just 48% approve of the job Obama is doing, while 46% disapprove, the poll shows. That's down from a 61% approval rating Obama sported in an Allstate/National Journal poll conducted in April '09.

Voters have lost faith in Obama to craft solutions to the country's economic challenges. Just 39% say they trust Obama more than GOPers in Congress, while 32% say they believe the GOP has the right ideas. That 7-point gap is down from a 29-point Obama advantage in the April '09 poll.

Only 39% of voters said they would vote to re-elect Pres. Obama if the election were held today, while 50% say they would vote for someone else. A quarter of voters would definitely vote to re-elect Obama, while 37% would definitely vote for someone else.

COMMENT:  Apparently, there isn't enough change we can believe in.  This is only after a year and three months in office.  And the economic crisis in the European Union hasn't even reached these shores, or our bank accounts, yet. 

Republicans have a great shot, if they can prove to Americans that they can govern.  With six months to the midterms, they still haven't come up with a coherent program.

May 7, 2010    Permalink

MOTHER SEEMS CONFUSED – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  The mother country voted yesterday, and the result, as polls suggested, is a hung Parliament. 

Conservatives well ahead, but without a majority; labor second; the liberal Dems, who hoped for a miracle; well behind, and deservedly so.

What happens now.  Well, according to some Parliament experts, the party in power, by tradition, not law, should get the first shot at assembling a coalition government.  But the conservatives are mounting a battle, saying "We're number one."  The Times of London:

David Cameron announced today that he intended to press ahead and form a government even though the Tories failed to secure a majority in yesterday's general election.

The Conservatives said that Mr Cameron would make a statement at 2.30pm spelling out how he will try to form an administration which is "strong and stable with broad support, that acts in the national interest".

The announcement follows the declaration by Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, that he believed the Mr Cameron had gained "first right" to attempt to form a government because his party had won both the most votes and the most seats.

Mr Cameron's decision to go public even before the full election results are in challenges the constitutional convention under which Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, has the right to try to form a government.

Sounds like a mess, and it is.  And it shows the problems with proportional representation.  Our two-party affair is more stable.

Some are suggesting that the only thing this can lead to is another election, sooner rather than later:

Any government formed in the next few days will not be able to command a stable or overall majority in the Commons. So the new Parliament is unlikely to last more than a year or so. A second general election is probable either later this year or in the spring of 2011.

Everything else is uncertain.

The only way out, a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, looks highly unlikely because of Tory opposition to electoral reform.

As politician after politician said overnight, the public has spoken, but it is not clear what they have said.

COMMENT:  Given the muddle that Barack Obama has made of British-American relations, our influence here seems decidedly limited.  The "special relationship" needs work, on both sides of the pond. 

It's a wait-and-see situation.  So we'll wait and see.  Things should be clearer in a few days.  The Queen waits for an answer.

May 7, 2010    Permalink